Zen 3 announcement discussion

[Mister Woof]

9 minutes ago, Fatih19 said:

To be fair, the 3900X is already pushing the Wraith Spire to its limit and many buyers ended up getting aftermarket solutions so *shrugs*.

if they are saying the TDP isn't changing, then the 5800x should be fine on the prism?

[maizenblue]

Boost clocks were disappointing. No increase over the 3000xts? Had considered upgrading my 3700x after i get an rtx 3070, but almost certainly not worth it with the price increase. 

[Fatih19]

12 minutes ago, Mister Woof said:

if they are saying the TDP isn't changing, then the 5800x should be fine on the prism?

Well. TDP is a made up number so...

[Fatih19]

7 minutes ago, maizenblue said:

Boost clocks were disappointing. No increase over the 3000xts? Had considered upgrading my 3700x after i get an rtx 3070, but almost certainly not worth it with the price increase. 

I'd skip for AM5 and Zen 4. The 3700X is still very functional and its only over a year old.

[maizenblue]

8 minutes ago, Fatih19 said:

I'd skip for AM5 and Zen 4. The 3700X is still very functional and its only over a year old.

Well id have to get a new mobo when that comes out. Whereas if i coulda got a 5800x on sale for 300-330 down the road and sold my 3700x for 200-230 it mighta been worth if it saw big gains in gaming. But with no clock increase and a 50 dollar jack up in price probably not. 
 

Not a big deal, i like my 3700x and doubt itll bottleneck a 3070 much at 1440p. 

[xg32]

Slept on this one for a bit, zen 2 is still good for budget gaming, as for higher fps, it's quite a battle between the 5600x and the 10700, 5700x and 10850k, the intel chips will draw more power though. Still need to see how high zen 3 actually clocks though. The 5900x and 5950x is where amd has no competition at all. I'll probably be looking at a 5950x.

[Mister Woof]

1 hour ago, Fatih19 said:

Well. TDP is a made up number so...

granted, but they are stating (which of course must be taken with some skepticism) that their new process achieves better performance at the same power draw due to efficiency improvements.

 

If that's the case, why the shift away from the included coolers on the mid-range chips

 

perhaps the need for all 8 core chips to have a perfect single ccx is increasing the production cost enough where omitting the cooler was the only way

[DarkSmith2]

26 minutes ago, Mister Woof said:

granted, but they are stating (which of course must be taken with some skepticism) that their new process achieves better performance at the same power draw due to efficiency improvements.

 

If that's the case, why the shift away from the included coolers on the mid-range chips

 

perhaps the need for all 8 core chips to have a perfect single ccx is increasing the production cost enough where omitting the cooler was the only way

basically its simple physics, yes you can get some performance improvement through architecture, but mostly physics are pretty clear, for more performance you need more power. either performance can be increased via more transistors which need more power or higher clock speeds which needs more power. The only way to gain performance without increasing power is building parts (transistors) that need less power for the same performance as seen with process node shrinks etc.

 

What they did this time is just overhauling the cache design, which requires more power then previously and also therefore generates more heat... 

TDP is just the number of power that is required to assure the guaranteed BASECLOCK frequency. And has nothing to do with actual real power consumption nor amount  of cooling that is required.

 

Ofc nowdays there are bios versions out there that limit the powerdraw to that specific wattage or only allow a certain length of exceeding this power draw, but this also directly leeds to performance loss in every case.

[Mister Woof]

1 minute ago, DarkSmith2 said:

basically its simple physics, yes you can get some performance improvement through architecture, but mostly physics are pretty clear, for more performance you need more power. either performance can be increased via more transistors which need more power or higher clock speeds which needs more power. The only way to gain performance without increasing power is building parts (transistors) that need less power for the same performance as seen with process node shrinks etc.

 

What they did this time is just overhauling the cache design, which requires more power then previously and also therefore generates more heat... 

TDP is just the number of power that is required to assure the guaranteed BASECLOCK frequency. And has nothing to do with actual real power consumption nor amount  of cooling that is required.

 

Ofc nowdays there are bios versions out there that limit the powerdraw to that specific wattage or only allow a certain length of exceeding this power draw, but this also directly leeds to performance loss in every case.

I understand what tdp is, just going off their statement they are getting better performance at the same power due to efficiency improvements at face value.

 

We will know when the reviews fine out I suppose

[DarkSmith2]

1 minute ago, Mister Woof said:

I understand what tdp is, just going off their statement they are getting better performance at the same power due to efficiency improvements at face value.

 

We will know when the reviews fine out I suppose

well the whole thing was a marketing shitshow, like always. I highly doubt that this Ryzen gen will be faster than current overclocked, tweaked Intel systems in gaming. It might beat it stock with XMP profile... yea i can see that, for lazy people it might be an option.. But will it be the pinnacle? Against 5.2/5.3GHz DDR4-4000+ Intel system? i really doubt, but even if so, i cant see anyone switching plattforms for that little of an improvement... unless someone really really would want that multicore performance in addition.

[xg32]

7 minutes ago, DarkSmith2 said:

well the whole thing was a marketing shitshow, like always. I highly doubt that this Ryzen gen will be faster than current overclocked, tweaked Intel systems in gaming. It might beat it stock with XMP profile... yea i can see that, for lazy people it might be an option.. But will it be the pinnacle? Against 5.2/5.3GHz DDR4-4000+ Intel system? i really doubt, but even if so, i cant see anyone switching plattforms for that little of an improvement... unless someone really really would want that multicore performance in addition.

the scores im seeing beats the 10900k at 5.3ghz by a bit

[DarkSmith2]

9 minutes ago, xg32 said:

the scores im seeing beats the 10900k at 5.3ghz by a bit

what score do you mean? the cinebench thingy? well you have to take into consideration that i was assuming allcore frequency.. you can get 5.2 or 5.3 ghz running on all cores with intel, you cant with ryzen, the cinebench singlecore score is just boosting a single core (4.8/4.9GHz) to achieve that score, its impressive that a single core can be boosted much higher than all core with AMD, thats not the case with intel, but that wont help gaming performance that much.. i mean its really made that way to just boost that cinebench score, like it was on previous Ryzen generations.

 

If you would go by that last gen would had been already same as fast as the intel CPUs from the last generations in gaming. But it isnt, while more then 4cores have actively load on them it will probably come down to 4.4 or 4.5ghz boost clocks .. which wont be enough in games that utilize that many threads to beat intel on one of those allcore overclocked tweaked system with fast ram. 
 

i mean ofc, all of this is just speculation, but AMD themself mentioned only an average increase of gaming performance by 7% compared to a stock 10900k running with 3600mhz ram. So if you do your allcore overclock and match your bandwidth with your coreclock like DDR4-4000+ i dont think that this gen is quite enough to reach the pinnacle, theoretically. Well besides special usecases in games that cant utilize more than 1core f.e. in those AMD for sure wipes Intels ass.

[Mister Woof]

13 minutes ago, DarkSmith2 said:

what score do you mean? the cinebench thingy? well you have to take into consideration that i was assuming allcore frequency.. you can get 5.2 or 5.3 ghz running on all cores with intel, you cant with ryzen, the cinebench singlecore score is just boosting a single core (4.8/4.9GHz) to achieve that score, its impressive that a single core can be boosted much higher than all core with AMD, thats not the case with intel, but that wont help gaming performance that much.. i mean its really made that way to just boost that cinebench score, like it was on previous Ryzen generations.

 

If you would go by that last gen would had been already same as fast as the intel CPUs from the last generations in gaming. But it isnt, while more then 4cores have actively load on them it will probably come down to 4.4 or 4.5ghz boost clocks .. which wont be enough in games that utilize that many threads to beat intel on one of those allcore overclocked tweaked system with fast ram. 
 

i mean ofc, all of this is just speculation, but AMD themself mentioned only an average increase of gaming performance by 7% compared to a stock 10900k running with 3600mhz ram. So if you do your allcore overclock and match your bandwidth with your coreclock like DDR4-4000+ i dont think that this gen is quite enough to reach the pinnacle, theoretically. Well besides special usecases in games that cant utilize more than 1core f.e. in those AMD for sure wipes Intels ass.

And CB scores alone don't mean they game well.

 

Current Zen 2 can pull some pretty impressive CB single core scores, about even with moderately overclocked intel chips, but it doesn't necessarily translate into gaming performance as we see Ryzen falling behind despite the scores.

[DarkSmith2]

6 minutes ago, Mister Woof said:

And CB scores alone don't mean they game well.

 

Current Zen 2 can pull some pretty impressive CB single core scores, about even with moderately overclocked intel chips, but it doesn't necessarily translate into gaming performance as we see Ryzen falling behind despite the scores.

yea optimisations and stuff ofc also do play a role, its hard to make multithreading performance really count in games, there is just to little you can do with parallelization without blowing up the budget. 

And with faked scores like having extra options to boost the score in bios for cinebench for all plattforms btw, and also showing something off like AMD always did with ryzen, where really the strongest core gets ridiculously boosted for a limited amount of time it always seems to be a fake number for single core scores... you just cant take it for comparisons in gaming scenarios anymore... 

[Chiyawa]

Wow, those are... Interesting, but not quite enticing. Aside from a little better performance than Zen 2, Zen 3 looks almost the same as Zen 2.

 

Hoping their next line up, probably with DDR5, and with PCIe Gen 4 become the norm so 10Gbit PCIe Gen4 x1 Ethernet card exist, or even better, 10Gbit Ethernet + Wi-Fi AX + Bluetooth 5.0 in a PCIe Gen 4 x1 card!

[Vals89]

2 hours ago, Chiyawa said:

Wow, those are... Interesting, but not quite enticing. Aside from a little better performance than Zen 2, Zen 3 looks almost the same as Zen 2.

 

Hoping their next line up, probably with DDR5, and with PCIe Gen 4 become the norm so 10Gbit PCIe Gen4 x1 Ethernet card exist, or even better, 10Gbit Ethernet + Wi-Fi AX + Bluetooth 5.0 in a PCIe Gen 4 x1 card!

26% average FPS improvement in gaming compared to Zen 2 is not a little bit. Whether that's worth it to you is a different story. To me personally the performance increase compared to my 3600 doesn't matter, since I don't utilize my CPU completely and I am not a hardcore gamer, chasing every last bit of FPS. 

[BTGbullseye]

14 hours ago, SupaKomputa said:

Not once they mention "INTEL" hahaha.

compare that to intel presentation.

Intel did the same... They never mentioned Intel either. lol

7 hours ago, maizenblue said:

Boost clocks were disappointing. No increase over the 3000xts? Had considered upgrading my 3700x after i get an rtx 3070, but almost certainly not worth it with the price increase. 

With a 19% IPC improvement, having the same clock speed stil gives you a 19% performance improvement, which is not a small amount. If we were talking about GPUs, that'd be like getting a 2080TI for only $75 more than a 5700XT.

[BrownZeus]

I'm very confused about the new Mobo chipsets.

x570 will be supported through BIOS Update is the only thing I know for sure.

But what is the new chipset for Ryzen 5000?

 

Also it looks like I should've been paying attention to the tech sphere - literally JUST bought a 3600, x570 board and ddr4 ram to upgrade my rig from my outdated 4th gen i5. So now I'm wondering if I should return the mobo and 3600 and wait the extra 3 weeks to upgrade.

 

 

EDIT: All I can find is that the new chipset is being called simply as 500-series. The Ryzen 5000 site on amd doesn't even say what the new chipset is!

[Vals89]

8 minutes ago, BrownZeus said:

I'm very confused about the new Mobo chipsets.

x570 will be supported through BIOS Update is the only thing I know for sure.

But what is the new chipset for Ryzen 5000?

 

Also it looks like I should've been paying attention to the tech sphere - literally JUST bought a 3600, x570 board and ddr4 ram to upgrade my rig from my outdated 4th gen i5. So now I'm wondering if I should return the mobo and 3600 and wait the extra 3 weeks to upgrade.

 

 

EDIT: All I can find is that the new chipset is being called simply as 500-series. The Ryzen 5000 site on amd doesn't even say what the new chipset is!

Ryzen 5000 will be supported on x570 and b550 boards with BIOS version AGESA 1.0.8.0 and up. 1.0.8.0 is already available for a lot of boards, and it will allow the boards to POST with Ryzen 5000. On November 5 a fully functional BIOS will be released for the Ryzen 5000. 

So no need to return the board. If you want to upgrade to 5000 series, just update the BIOS (if 1.0.8.0 version is available for yours), so it's 5000 series ready and slide in the new CPU when you get it

[BrownZeus]

6 minutes ago, Vals89 said:

Ryzen 5000 will be supported on x570 and b550 boards with BIOS version AGESA 1.0.8.0 and up. 1.0.8.0 is already available for a lot of boards, and it will allow the boards to POST with Ryzen 5000. On November 5 a fully functional BIOS will be released for the Ryzen 5000. 

So no need to return the board. If you want to upgrade to 5000 series, just update the BIOS (if 1.0.8.0 version is available for yours), so it's 5000 series ready and slide in the new CPU when you get it

Yup I was reading the articles again and it clicked in my head that x570 is the chipset. For some reason my English comprehension went out the door for a whole *checks watch* 2 hours. And its my first freakin' language lol

 

Anyway I also did some additional research on the performance bumps between 3600 and 5600x, and I think I can live without spending the $100 extra for 5000 series. I think I'll make the leap to Zen 3 when Ryzen 6000 comes out (presuming x570 mobos would still be supported), or make the leap to 5000 when 6000 releases.

 

I think all in all I'm leaving $25 on the table in terms of cost at the time of this writing. Apparently 3600 cpus are selling for 175 but I can't find any retailers sellling at that price, and I already bought the chip a week ago at $200

[Vals89]

11 minutes ago, BrownZeus said:

Yup I was reading the articles again and it clicked in my head that x570 is the chipset. For some reason my English comprehension went out the door for a whole *checks watch* 2 hours. And its my first freakin' language lol

 

Anyway I also did some additional research on the performance bumps between 3600 and 5600x, and I think I can live without spending the $100 extra for 5000 series. I think I'll make the leap to Zen 3 when Ryzen 6000 comes out (presuming x570 mobos would still be supported), or make the leap to 5000 when 6000 releases.

 

I think all in all I'm leaving $25 on the table in terms of cost at the time of this writing. Apparently 3600 cpus are selling for 175 but I can't find any retailers sellling at that price, and I already bought the chip a week ago at $200

Going from 3000 to 5000 (same core count) is not worth it, unless you are chasing after high refresh rate gaming. Even if AMD releases a 5600 (non-x) at a reasonable price, it still wouldn't be worth it to switch your current 3600 for it.

[BTGbullseye]

Remember remember the 5th of November...

[lllKUNG_FUlll]

It seems odd to me the number of replies thinking only inside their own box that, "I will do this...", or "We should do that...", or "Such and such is not worth it to...".

 

Me, me, me it seems in some dictates what you, you, you must do. 

But that's not how life works unless you live in an authoritarian state.

 

There are corporations which invest tens of millions (and more) chasing 4% gains.

There are individuals who spend millions on a car just to gain 5 kph on a flat salt desert plain knowing they'll never drive that fast or even drive the car at all.

There are poor people like me who might be able to scrape up a thousand bucks in a year to purchase the components to build a PC.

And there are millions in between.

 

Billions on Earth and millions who may or may not buy a CPU for a computer or one with a CPU already inside (pun w/ Intel's old slogan).

 

The point of October 8th's announcement was not to address whether any one individual should or shouldn't buy anything or if anyone thinks it worth it (to them) to spend a dime.

 

The point of the announcement was to declare one thing - there's a new sheriff in town - and that bad boy is AMD.

As always, choose whichever hat you wish to wear.

If you want #1, that choice now is AMD.

 

The king is dead.

Long live the new king.

 

[BrownZeus]

1 minute ago, lllKUNG_FUlll said:

It seems odd to me the number of replies thinking only inside their own box that, "I will do this...", or "We should do that...", or "Such and such is not worth it to...".

 

Me, me, me it seems in some dictates what you, you, you must do. 

But that's not how life works unless you live in an authoritarian state.

 

There are corporations which invest tens of millions (and more) chasing 4% gains.

There are individuals who spend millions on a car just to gain 5 kph on a flat salt desert plain knowing they'll never drive that fast or even drive the car at all.

There are poor people like me who might be able to scrape up a thousand bucks in a year to purchase the components to build a PC.

And there are millions in between.

 

Billions on Earth and millions who may or may not buy a CPU for a computer or one with a CPU already inside (pun w/ Intel's old slogan).

 

The point of October 8th's announcement was not to address whether any one individual should or shouldn't buy anything or if anyone thinks it worth it (to them) to spend a dime.

 

The point of the announcement was to declare one thing - there's a new sheriff in town - and that bad boy is AMD.

As always, choose whichever hat you wish to wear.

If you want #1, that choice now is AMD.

 

The king is dead.

Long live the new king.

 

Your points, though valid, are 50% irrelveant. You're on a forum. We're here to discuss stuff that we as a collective are interested in. The other 50% on the dot, AMD's goal was to say "Look at me, I am the captain now"

[lllKUNG_FUlll]

10 minutes ago, BrownZeus said:

Your points, though valid, are 50% irrelveant. You're on a forum. We're here to discuss stuff that we as a collective are interested in. The other 50% on the dot, AMD's goal was to say "Look at me, I am the captain now"

Is that not nearly exactly what I just wrote? Perhaps you read only half. I'll quote myself,

"The point of the announcement was to declare one thing - there's a new sheriff in town - and that bad boy is AMD."

 

edited: no, I get your point. Obviously a public square is for discussion. But nothing I mentioned is irrelevant. What each individual chooses is (hopefully) best for them. My contention with that is I find it a bit odd when some will lay claim for the entire group what is best. That's a judgement call given so many unknown factors it renders that opinion irrelevant. 

 

What I choose is best for me (hopefully). What YOU choose is up to YOU, and hopefully best for YOU. 

 

If you can't agree with that I don't know what anyone can.