Ryzen 4000 IPC boost could be around 20%

[Helpful Tech Witch]

10 minutes ago, dizmo said:

10600k still smokes the 3600x in games.

There is more to computers than gaming. 

[dizmo]

20 minutes ago, 5x5 said:

Hyperbole.

 

Tuning memory and spending the time to optimize everything, a 3600(X) is within spitting distance (under 3%) of the 10600K even overclocked. Even a 10% IPC gain, half of what is actually coming, will be enough to push even the stock 4600 ahead.

See below.

Again, I doubt we'll see 20%. 15%, sure maybe. That's a far cry from 20%.

19 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

really 2-5% win in some while loosing in others is smoking it?

 

4000 chips will be faster than what intel has in the fall.

Not sure where you get your info, the Gamer's Nexus review shows a lot more than a 2 - 5% difference, none of which AMD won.

[Helpful Tech Witch]

3 minutes ago, dizmo said:

That's a far cry from 20%

Leaks said up to. The gains are predicted to be as high as 20%. We are gaurenteed a minnium of 12-15%, up to 20%. The silicon is inconsistent. Some could get that 20% others could be only 10%.

[GDRRiley]

7 minutes ago, dizmo said:

ot sure where you get your info, the Gamer's Nexus review shows a lot more than a 2 - 5% difference, none of which AMD won.

I was looking at anandtech with 720p benchmarks trying to push the difference

[dizmo]

2 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

I was looking at anandtech with 720p benchmarks trying to push the difference

So less real world. Got it.

[Helpful Tech Witch]

13 minutes ago, dizmo said:

So less real world. Got it.

Umm.... Lots of people still play at 720p

[cj09beira]

5 minutes ago, TheTechWizardThatNeedsHelp said:

Umm.... Lots of people still play at 720p

and not one of them use a 2080 ti or 2080 or 2070.

720p is not a valid resolution to benchmark right now

[dizmo]

10 minutes ago, TheTechWizardThatNeedsHelp said:

Umm.... Lots of people still play at 720p

Generally not those getting higher end, new CPUs.

 

[CoolMarquis97]

sheesh looks like my ryzen 3600 won't be lasting long. 

[dizmo]

2 minutes ago, comander said:

They're functionally tied. No one runs a 2080Ti at 1080p. WHY WOULD YOU DO THAT?

 

Hell, I've got a more expensive system than 99% of people on here and I'm bottlenecked by my lowly 2080... either that or not loading enough assets into memory, I'm increasingly trying to get faster asset loads (think primo cache and 40GB ARC for an optane boot drive) because that's often where stutter comes from these days. 


And the moment you test on a system with things like antivirus, the system with a handful  of dedicated INT pipelines will magically have a bit more reserve capacity (AV is mostly INT, games are mostly FP; intel uses hybrid pipelines, AMD has dedicated pipelines - each approach is well done but has different strengths/weaknesses, this is part of why AMD brags about streaming performance so much, streaming uses a different part of the CPU that otherwise goes idle). 

Lower cards can't max out 144hz across all titles max settings at 1080p. So there's an argument to be had there.

 

[dizmo]

8 minutes ago, comander said:

If you drop from 144 to 143, it's not like it's the end of the world...

So 240hz then.
There's lots of reasons to use a 2080Ti at 1080p.

[hollyh88]

On 7/17/2020 at 7:51 AM, dizmo said:

I'll believe it when I see it. AMD has a history of over-hyping their products.

Intel won't be crushed by this. AMD still has a very, very very long way to go.

 

But hating on Intel is the thing to do so everyone aboard the hate train! Yeahhh AMD! /s

Well who knows. The IPC increase is already very good of 3000 series. Matching intel or surpassing it when looking at cinebench both multi (of course) but even single core performance. Showing they are  better. The only thing thats keeping them from winning at gaming is the latency issues. Which I will really hope they will fix. I did read that they decreased the latency with like 10%+- right? Hope it will be good enough. Time will tell. 

[5x5]

8 hours ago, dizmo said:

So 240hz then.
There's lots of reasons to use a 2080Ti at 1080p.

240Hz and above accounts for 2% of the demographic. Out of those, only .3% can afford the 2080 To which costs as much as two 240Hz monitors.

 

For 99% of users, your. Argument is invalid. For the remaining .5%, they're playing with a Titan RTX at 1080p because they're dad is a congressman or some other rich lunatic.

[5x5]

1 hour ago, comander said:

To expound, the Steam survey backs you up. 

 

Basically no one has a 2080Ti or higher. 

 

Beyond that skimming build logs it looks like most people with 2080s and higher aren't using 1080p monitors or if they are they're also getting 2560x1440 monitors as well. 

 

https://pcpartpicker.com/builds/by_part/3G66Mp

I'm just going by the data from local PC building services. Nobody buys a 2080 Ti for 1080p - it's unheard of here. Anyone with that kind of card always has 1440p @ 144Hz or 4K

[leadeater]

8 minutes ago, 5x5 said:

I'm just going by the data from local PC building services. Nobody buys a 2080 Ti for 1080p - it's unheard of here. Anyone with that kind of card always has 1440p @ 144Hz or 4K

Not that I have a 2080 Ti but if I did, 2560x1600 gang 

[5x5]

Just now, leadeater said:

Not that I have a 2080 Ti but if I did, 2560x1600 gang 

Same. If I could afford a 2080 Ti (basically 3 salaries for me) - I'd be on 2560x1440 minimum

[leadeater]

2 minutes ago, 5x5 said:

Same. If I could afford a 2080 Ti (basically 3 salaries for me) - I'd be on 2560x1440 minimum

Right now my monitor is probably worth more than my GPUs, Dell U3014 powered by ancient 2x 290X. Damn GPU prices suck hard still. 

[mr moose]

I have to be honest, I have yet to see a resolution above 1080 on a game or movie that has made me actually want to upgrade monitors.  I think if I spent 2080 money on a GPU I'd probably still run at 1080 just with all the effects at full tilt (one of the reasons I haven't bothered upgrading my GPU). 

 

 

[D13H4RD]

I'm still on 1920x1080 on a 2070S.

 

I'll most likely be upgrading my monitor before the GPU. If DLSS 2.0 catches on in an accelerated manner, the performance dip should be relatively small in those games. 

[Vishera]

13 hours ago, TheTechWizardThatNeedsHelp said:

Umm.... Lots of people still play at 720p

1080p displays became really cheap around 2014~2015,so it doesn't make any sense to buy a 720p screen in 2020.

And most of the displays in the market are 1080p,so i wouldn't call that alot,720p displays is a niche market in gaming.

[porina]

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

I have to be honest, I have yet to see a resolution above 1080 on a game or movie that has made me actually want to upgrade monitors.  I think if I spent 2080 money on a GPU I'd probably still run at 1080 just with all the effects at full tilt (one of the reasons I haven't bothered upgrading my GPU). 

It depends on the game, but the extra pixel estate can help in games that scale for it. Also as you go to bigger displays, resolution starts to help more. 4k on my 55" TV looks great and adds something extra. 4k on a 28" monitor didn't have the same impact.

 

1 hour ago, Vishera said:

1080p displays became really cheap around 2014~2015,so it doesn't make any sense to buy a 720p screen in 2020.

And most of the displays in the market are 1080p,so i wouldn't call that alot,720p displays is a niche market in gaming.

We're not talking screen resolution so much as rendering resolution. Don't forget the iGPUs out there. 720p rendering might be about all they're good for regardless of what the display is.

[dizmo]

7 hours ago, hollyh88 said:

Well who knows. The IPC increase is already very good of 3000 series. Matching intel or surpassing it when looking at cinebench both multi (of course) but even single core performance. Showing they are  better. The only thing thats keeping them from winning at gaming is the latency issues. Which I will really hope they will fix. I did read that they decreased the latency with like 10%+- right? Hope it will be good enough. Time will tell. 

Wow, Cinebench. Cool. Not at all what I was talking about.

6 hours ago, 5x5 said:

240Hz and above accounts for 2% of the demographic. Out of those, only .3% can afford the 2080 To which costs as much as two 240Hz monitors.

 

For 99% of users, your. Argument is invalid. For the remaining .5%, they're playing with a Titan RTX at 1080p because they're dad is a congressman or some other rich lunatic.

Obviously it was an extreme use case. I was simply pointing out that saying no one uses it was incorrect.

[Doobeedoo]

That's very good for IPC alone. Clocks will be higher too, probably in expected improvements we've seen so far. The unified cache will be a big improvement too. 

[Gohardgrandpa]

Take my money amd 

[Loote]

5 hours ago, leadeater said:

 Damn GPU prices suck hard still. 

10 years ago I bought a basic 1080p 22' screen for a bit under $100, today for that money I could get the same. For a person who wants a bigger screen with higher resolution and doesn't need more than 60Hz the situation is really painful. I'd argue worse then GPU stuff, especially because there is nothing like new generation of monitors coming out which will make the old ones go down in price, on the contrary, we often get less for more.

 

The new CPUs are nice though.