AMD Zen 3+ and Zen 4 - Rumors About a Massive 25%+ IPC

[Letgomyleghoe]

On 2/10/2021 at 4:12 AM, porina said:

Latencies have remained in the same ball park through through the generations.

My DDR2 5-5-5-15 begs to differ

[WhitetailAni]

On 2/10/2021 at 6:12 AM, porina said:

Latencies have remained in the same ball park through through the generations.

 

1 minute ago, Letgomyleghoe said:

My DDR2 5-5-5-15 begs to differ

And my DDR3 CL9 would like to have a word with you as well.

[porina]

8 minutes ago, Letgomyleghoe said:

My DDR2 5-5-5-15 begs to differ

 

6 minutes ago, ragnarok0273 said:

And my DDR3 CL9 would like to have a word with you as well.

What speed are they rated at?

 

The fastest standard DDR2 at CL5 was at 800, resulting in 12.5ns latency. That's the same latency as DDR4 3200 CL20, which is one of the industry standard timings and typical enthusiast (XMP) ones are even shorter. Fastest standard DDR3 at CL9 (1600) coming in at 11.25ns, so slightly faster, but still well within the scope of my statement that latencies haven't really changed much.

[WhitetailAni]

Just now, porina said:

 

What speed are they rated at?

 

The fastest standard DDR2 at CL5 was at 800, resulting in 12.5ns latency. That's the same latency as DDR4 3200 CL20, which is one of the industry standard timings and typical enthusiast (XMP) ones are even shorter. Fastest standard DDR3 at CL9 coming in at 11.25ns, so slightly faster, but still well within the scope of my statement that latencies haven't really changed much.

CL9 1600 MHz, 2GB.

I also have CL9 1333 MHz 4GB sticks in there for more VRAM for my MC server, but if I put the 4 identical sticks in, I can get 1600 MHz all day long.

 

[Letgomyleghoe]

7 minutes ago, porina said:

The fastest standard DDR2 at CL5 was at 800, resulting in 12.5ns latency. That's the same latency as DDR4 3200 CL20, which is one of the industry standard timings and typical enthusiast (XMP) ones are even shorter. Fastest standard DDR3 at CL9 (1600) coming in at 11.25ns, so slightly faster, but still well within the scope of my statement that latencies haven't really changed much.

1066, but If I remember correctly I got them up to 1200. 

some golden 2gb corsair dominator modules.

[porina]

10 minutes ago, ragnarok0273 said:

CL9 1600 MHz, 2GB.

I also have CL9 1333 MHz 4GB sticks in there for more VRAM for my MC server, but if I put the 4 identical sticks in, I can get 1600 MHz all day long.

I assumed 1600 for the timing earlier. There was a slightly faster standard grade at CL8. I think I used to have some of those but they only ran XMP.

 

5 minutes ago, Letgomyleghoe said:

1066, but If I remember correctly I got them up to 1200. 

some golden 2gb corsair dominator modules.

Ok, in my example earlier I was using standard timings to compare like for like. If I assume for now you got DDR2 to 1200 CL5, that's 8.3ns latency. Off the shelf low latency DDR4 3200 went down to CL14 from memory, which is 8.7ns. Manual overclockers can get to CL12 or lower, which is 7.5ns or lower.

 

So I go back to my original statement, latency (in time) has not really changed if you compare like for like through the generations. Latency (in cycles) has obviously changed to compensate.

[MadAnt250]

6 hours ago, spartaman64 said:

Why would there be any confusion it will be called ryzen 6000 or something. There wasn't any confusion when ryzen 1000 used the zen architecture and ryzen 2000 used zen+

Zen and Zen+ are both AM4, Zen 3+ is AM5 and Zen 3 is AM4, people tend to mix things up and make mistakes, just look though the forums and you can find people confusing things that do not work in other things because of some similarity in the spec or naming scheme.

[porina]

4 hours ago, MadAnt250 said:

Zen and Zen+ are both AM4, Zen 3+ is AM5 and Zen 3 is AM4, people tend to mix things up and make mistakes, just look though the forums and you can find people confusing things that do not work in other things because of some similarity in the spec or naming scheme.

Most buyers don't look at the architecture generation, only the marketing generation. Knowing what architecture it has is more for advanced users.

[Mling]

PS5 and the new xbox are going to age fast. I just built a new computer and I'm saving $20 a week to pay for a new mid range in three years. Its gonna be awesome.

[LAwLz]

15 minutes ago, Mling said:

PS5 and the new xbox are going to age fast. I just built a new computer and I'm saving $20 a week to pay for a new mid range in three years. Its gonna be awesome.

I am not so sure they will.

The PS4 and Xbone launched with Jaguar cores and they somehow managed to age decently. They were in a far worse situation than the current gen consoles are in.

[Mling]

4 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I am not so sure they will.

The PS4 and Xbone launched with Jaguar cores and they somehow managed to age decently. They were in a far worse situation than the current gen consoles are in.

yea but remember they had to bring out an upgrade when VR came out. 4k is going to become the new 1080p very soon and 8k is going to be the standard for TVs any day now.

[LAwLz]

9 minutes ago, Mling said:

yea but remember they had to bring out an upgrade when VR came out.

It was a very, VERY slight upgrade to the CPU. It was like from 1.6GHz to 1.7GHz or something if I recall correctly. 

Gaming in general doesn't require that high CPU performance. It's almost entirely GPU bottlenecked.

 

9 minutes ago, Mling said:

4k is going to become the new 1080p very soon and 8k is going to be the standard for TVs any day now.

Again, that will put more pressure on the GPU, not really a dramatic difference on the CPUs.

Besides, I think you are overestimating how quickly something becomes standard. How long ago did we start getting 1080p monitors at reasonable prices? 12 years ago? Only about 10% of people have a display with more than 1080p resolution. The rest are either at 1080p or lower.

According to the Steam hardware survey, only 2.34% of people have a 4K screen. I don't think 4K will be "the new 1080p" in at least 10 years. At least not for the masses. Maybe, just maybe, the high end enthusiasts.

[Mling]

1 minute ago, LAwLz said:

 

In 2011 I bought a 1080p 60Hz AOC 27" monitor for NZD$468. I remember at the time it was one of the cheapest 1080p monitors. I put that into an inflation calculator and it came back with $534. I'm looking at 4k monitors now and the cheapest is a samsung 28" 60Hz at $479. I think your prediction is out by 10 years.

[LAwLz]

1 hour ago, Mling said:

In 2011 I bought a 1080p 60Hz AOC 27" monitor for NZD$468. I remember at the time it was one of the cheapest 1080p monitors.

Either the new Zealand dollar was/is very weak, or you are misremembering. Or maybe you payed a hefty premium for a 27" monitors back in the day.

You could get 1080 monitors for around 120 US dollars around 2010.

 

The sites are a bit broken but you can still see some pricing info if you go on the way back machine and look at newegg.

2010 - 23" 1080 monitor for 140 dollars.

 

It's harder to find good pricing on TVs, but even in 2011 1080 was basically the standard for TVs. Just look at something like this:

Newegg 2011 - LCD TVs start page

16 of the 20 TVs listed on the front page were 1080 TVs. 

1080p was the standard for new TVs back in 2011.

[leadeater]

29 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

The sites are a bit broken but you can still see some pricing info if you go on the way back machine and look at newegg.

2010 - 23" 1080 monitor for 140 dollars.

That's only 23", 27" at the time had a little bit of a price jump. Monitor sizes have increased a fair amount in the last maybe 5-6 years as the panel cost for larger sizes dramatically decreased. Also I noticed that's a refurbished monitor, so isn't new, and the link actually goes to 2012 not 2010.

 

Cost wise computer parts aren't more expensive here compared to anywhere else, only a slight margin due to shipping but with the tax/GST always being on our prices if you convert back to USD with tax removed most of the time prices are very close. There have been cases where we are getting ripped off but that's the distributors doing that, ones like Ingram Micro putting large markups on which make it impossible for retailers to sell at more globally competitive prices. The higher the sales volume the closer it is to global pricing.

[LAwLz]

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

That's only 23", 27" at the time had a little bit of a price jump. Monitor sizes have increased a fair amount in the last maybe 5-6 years as the panel cost for larger sizes dramatically decreased. Also I noticed that's a refurbished monitor, so isn't new, and the link actually goes to 2012 not 2010.

Yeah I suspected that it was a size thing, as I had multiple 1080p screens (23" and 21.5") at the time and I certainly didn't spend more than ~120 dollars each for them.

 

Yeah, the link seems to have messed up. I saw it on the page of a cached 2010 version of Newegg, but it seems like when I clicked the actual link I was redirected to a 2012 cached version. Newegg probably doesn't have that product page cached any sooner than 2012, but it existed on the store at that price 2 years before.

In any case, it was just one of many examples.

 

Anyway, my point is that it takes a long, long time for higher resolutions to become the standard. I seriously doubt 4K will be the standard anytime soon. People keep monitors (and especially TVs) for a very long time, so even when a certain resolution becomes the standard on new monitor models, it still takes 5+ years before a significant portion of people have upgraded to these newer monitors.

[leadeater]

29 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Anyway, my point is that it takes a long, long time for higher resolutions to become the standard. I seriously doubt 4K will be the standard anytime soon. People keep monitors (and especially TVs) for a very long time, so even when a certain resolution becomes the standard on new monitor models, it still takes 5+ years before a significant portion of people have upgraded to these newer monitors.

Personally I only see a tangential relationship between available monitor resolution, the price of them and what people actually buy due to GPUs. Monitor purchasing, at least done correctly in my opinion, is based off the GPU you have so it doesn't actually change what people are likely to buy if 4K monitors are around the same pricing ranges as 1440p etc if they don't own a GPU that can support it performance wise.

 

So you have people like you said that keep monitors for a long time, like myself, and those that will only buy a lower resolution due to GPU performance limitations. Cost of 4K monitors to me is only a tertiary factor, there's more important factors that come first.

[AndreiArgeanu]

Great to see, but to be honest with the shortages at the moment I think APU's might be more important, I'm hoping for a Zen 2 APU from AMD or a Xe APU from Intel for desktops.

[MadAnt250]

17 hours ago, porina said:

Most buyers don't look at the architecture generation, only the marketing generation. Knowing what architecture it has is more for advanced users.

Perhaps I'm overthinking it a bit, but I assume at least some may make a mistake. 

[Kisai]

On 2/12/2021 at 6:45 AM, leadeater said:

Personally I only see a tangential relationship between available monitor resolution, the price of them and what people actually buy due to GPUs. Monitor purchasing, at least done correctly in my opinion, is based off the GPU you have so it doesn't actually change what people are likely to buy if 4K monitors are around the same pricing ranges as 1440p etc if they don't own a GPU that can support it performance wise.

Depends on what you're willing to spend. When I replaced the old 1080p monitor that had really started hurting with image retention (it only had one dvi input, no hdmi) with a 4K one, I still had a gtx 760 which could drive the monitor, but no game would work at a resolution above 720p. Even with the GTX 1080 now, it can drive many games at 4Kp60-ish but only those that are 5+ years old.

 

On 2/12/2021 at 6:45 AM, leadeater said:

So you have people like you said that keep monitors for a long time, like myself, and those that will only buy a lower resolution due to GPU performance limitations. Cost of 4K monitors to me is only a tertiary factor, there's more important factors that come first.

IMO, intermediate sizes between 1080p and 4K aren't good investments for long use, just like monitors that were just short of 1080p were. Only monitors that scale up are. so 1440p monitors only scale 720p correctly, 4K monitors scale both 720p and 1080p correctly. So the logical upgrade for both 720p and 1080p monitors is 4K. Any other resolution means you have to find a half-way point where software UI and game UI's scale appropriately. With HiDPI OS's anything that isn't run full screen becomes moot if the software is HiDPI aware (web browsers are not.)

 

Web browsers in particular, are scaled by the OS, nobody is browsing the web at native 4K, they're still browsing the web at 1080p even on a 4K monitor. If you turn off this scaling and try to use the web at 4K, assuming it doesn't give you a headache, you won't find any content using a 4K screen. Even if you go to youtube, chances are selecting a 4K feed is being down scaled to 1080p first and then upscaled back to 4K.

T

That was taken at full screen on the 4K monitor with the 4K feed selected.

 

Likely the only thing anyone has that uses 4K natively is the netflix app. Not in the browser, the app.

 

[leadeater]

16 minutes ago, Kisai said:

Depends on what you're willing to spend. When I replaced the old 1080p monitor that had really started hurting with image retention (it only had one dvi input, no hdmi) with a 4K one, I still had a gtx 760 which could drive the monitor, but no game would work at a resolution above 720p. Even with the GTX 1080 now, it can drive many games at 4Kp60-ish but only those that are 5+ years old.

Well that goes exactly to the point, in my opinion buying a 4K monitor for you wasn't the best choice. It does makes sense if not primary gaming use case but if you are a gamer then buy the resolution that suits your GPU not the other way round or buy something because it's the current trend. Unless your monitor is very large it is highly unlikely you actually benefit from the larger resolution and only suffer drawbacks from it.

 

Hell my current monitor is a professional grade Dell U3014 (2560x1600), if sub 4K was good enough for professional work it's good enough for gaming.

 

16 minutes ago, Kisai said:

IMO, intermediate sizes between 1080p and 4K aren't good investments for long use, just like monitors that were just short of 1080p were. Only monitors that scale up are. so 1440p monitors only scale 720p correctly, 4K monitors scale both 720p and 1080p correctly.

Well it's a good thing that doesn't matter now days. 1440p has been around for a very long time and will continue to be. Image scaling problems aren't really a problem anymore so there is none of this 1080p not displaying correctly on 1440p anymore.

 

Honestly all you did was put mathematical factors above actual evaluation hence ended up going with 4K for not a very good reason. 

[bcredeur97]

On 2/14/2021 at 6:02 AM, comander said:

If they hit those targets, the uplift in IPC from Zen 1 to Zen 4 will be similar to Pile driver to Zen 1. 

 

Think about that. 

 

Also Zen 1 only had 8 cores. I expect 16C and ~5GHz out of Zen 4 at a minimum. That's 2x single core and 4x multi core in ~5 years. Comparing Zen 1 vs Sandy bridge - similar time span, only 2x on MT, similar on ST. 

still rocking sandybridge-E over here (kinda waiting for all these shortages and pricing craziness to die down, plus with all the additional gains available over the next couple of years.. why not wait till they get stuck again for a few years?)

Best cpu generation ever. I keep my 3960X @ 4.6GHz and it's been rock solid stable for years and years, and i've had it stable up to 4.8 but kinda high voltage/temps. It really performs /fine/ still. Enough for most games. the 6 cores def helps over the quad core non-enthusiast models since that's sort of the direction everything went later on. It's the old feature set that kind of stinks really more than anything. 

[arnavvr]

 

5 hours ago, bcredeur97 said:

still rocking sandybridge-E over here (kinda waiting for all these shortages and pricing craziness to die down, plus with all the additional gains available over the next couple of years.. why not wait till they get stuck again for a few years?)

Best cpu generation ever. I keep my 3960X @ 4.6GHz and it's been rock solid stable for years and years, and i've had it stable up to 4.8 but kinda high voltage/temps. It really performs /fine/ still. Enough for most games. the 6 cores def helps over the quad core non-enthusiast models since that's sort of the direction everything went later on. It's the old feature set that kind of stinks really more than anything. 

Yep, I'm using an even older platform, an EVGA SR-2. Performance is fine, gaming is fine too, as I usually don't play at 1080p. The real bummer is the feature set.

 

Do you want USB-C?

 

PCI-E Expansion card.

 

More than 2 SATA 3 ports?

 

PCI-E Expansion card.

 

NVME SSDs?

 

PCI-E Expansion card.

 

I end up using all of my PCI-E slots on expansion cards, just to get features that are available on newer platforms.