This thread is proof that stupidity knows no bounds.
Also no real competition for the 12 core processor and combined with Intel's processor shortage.
No, what most users buy is 6c/12t and here AMD offers better IPC, better frequency and better efficiency. If you can't process that in AMD performance units, imagine AMD is selling you an ultra power efficient i7 8700 for $200, because that's what you end up in relative terms.
AMD have made a superior product, and they want to earn maximum profit from that product. They're a corporation, they're not your friend.
This thread is proof that stupidity knows no bounds.
I believe they might be keeping 16C part for next year (Ryzen 4000 series), after all they increased the core count on mainstream plafform by 4 cores now... another 4 cores might come next year. It is not like Intel is gonna to anwer that.
I am sort of happy they did not reveal it now, cause i would have itch to sell my 7940x and get that, LOL. So i will save money this way.
BTW, if they say 3900x has 3,8 base clock and 4,6 boost, does it mean 4,6GHz boost on all cores or not?
I agree first ryzen was much more groundbreaking and ryzen 2000 was even faster and cheaper.I think AMD gets greedy with ryzen 3000...
There are other changes like double L3 cache size and other improvements that will have to be tested how much they improve specific applications.
Is that another way of saying I projected too low?But it's not as expensive either. I do think there is a bit of sandbagging to get the 12c part more time in the sun as a top sku (and top ASP) while they stock pile 8c dies for a 16c part, TR, and Epyc. But honestly some people were projecting a lot more. What really happen is the floor didn't go down as much. People looking for a sub $300 8c part or $150 6c part are going to be disappointed. But a lot was gained anyways.
PCIE Gen 5.I dunno, parity or beating Intel's IPC, with fewer security issues is pretty nice. Higher clocks than the previous generation is very nice as well. Much better price per core. Much better performance per watt than Intel. But the icing on the cake is you will only be able to use these super fast NVMe PCIe 4 drives on AMD. Is PCIe 4 even on Intel's roadmap yet? That seems fairly disruptive to me. Perhaps not leaving your competition in a cloud of nuclear ashes, but disruptive enough. For now.
4.6 GHz is going to be single-core boost using a cooler that matches the TDP limit stated for the chip - 105W. You are going to somehow configure the chip to break the 105W barrier with better cooling and some kind of XFR2 or overclocking madness if you want that for your all-core speed.
The overclocking option is there. The headroom is not, and there's a huge power penalty for those who try.Actually here I figure intel has an advantage? Haven't played with either camps newest chips but the 9900k "factory OC" seems like an option ryzen should also have. AFAIK if you OCed a pinnacle ridge you lost all the power savings and other features?
An easy way to up all-core turbo at cost of exceeding tdp should be available hoepfully?
Looking at the materials from todays press release - those processors do not seem as disruptive as they were told to be, especially pricing is not very groundbreaking. And no 16 core processor as well. I must say I am slightly disappointed.
Why is this? Does AMD have shortage of chiplets - they need to make a lot of server CPUs and therefore they simply cannot sell too many desktop processors?
This thread is proof that stupidity knows no bounds.
I think its great as it is and you can see it both ways:
- it is not, because you could buy AMD´s own discounted 12C 1920x TR for about 400. Not to mention there was 32C TR at price of 18C CoreX last year already, or 8C first gen Ryzen at launch at half the price of 8C Broadwell 6900K. I mean, it is not any more disruptive than those were.
Ryzen 5/3 is just a number in the model name. What is more important is the value for money and Zen2 is not failing to deliver.Was led to believe by leaks and Adoredtv videos about 8C/16T for Ryzen 5 which did not come to pass. Yes IPC has increased by 15% which sounds great, and games don't require more than 12 threads but Zen 2 was made out to be some kind of revelation so that was exaggerated a bit. Overall a great product but the fact we're not moving beyond 6C/12T for ryzen 5(and 4C/8T for Ryzen 3) for atleast another year is slightly disappointing.
Is PCIe 4 even on Intel's roadmap yet?
Actually I remember Mrs. Su saying something like that at CES about Zen2. I do not remember if the expression was literally "disruptive" but it was something close to that.The real problem is not what AMD is doing.
It's Lying Jim making outrageous rumors, and now we have stupid threads like this.
Was led to believe by leaks and Adoredtv videos about 8C/16T for Ryzen 5 which did not come to pass. ...
Ryzen 5 doesn't clock that high though. Also not all Epyc chips use fully working chiplets (aside that for Eypc chiplets are more commonly binned for power efficency, not high frequency).This is an interesting release. The R9 3900X, to me, is just 2x R5's stuck together, minus the pci-e lanes. Since this is their release day flagship model, it is a little surprising to me that it is comprised of 2 mid-ranged chiplets. This makes me wonder why their R7 lineup is not 4+4, but is instead a 8+0 design. I would think if they are not (initially) releasing a 16 core AM4 chip as part of Zen2, then they want to keep as many of those 8 core chiplets reserved for higher tier products, like Epycs. (Unless these 8 core chiplets are somehow not Epyc-grade...)
As mentioned by Gamers Nexus there is an E3 event scheduled for June 10th. They will release the full lineup then. I'm expecting one more 12C model with higher base/boost and finally the 16C model (3.6 base/4.7Ghz boost @ 125W rating?).This is an interesting release. The R9 3900X, to me, is just 2x R5's stuck together, minus the pci-e lanes. Since this is their release day flagship model, it is a little surprising to me that it is comprised of 2 mid-ranged chiplets. This makes me wonder why their R7 lineup is not 4+4, but is instead a 8+0 design. I would think if they are not (initially) releasing a 16 core AM4 chip as part of Zen2, then they want to keep as many of those 8 core chiplets reserved for higher tier products, like Epycs. (Unless these 8 core chiplets are somehow not Epyc-grade...)
This makes me wonder why their R7 lineup is not 4+4, but is instead a 8+0 design
TSMC 7 nm wafers are stupid expensive. So if yields allow for using one chiplet instead of two, you do it.
Actually I remember Mrs. Su saying something like that at CES about Zen2. I do not remember if the expression was literally "disruptive" but it was something close to that.
It is possible that those leaks were actually correct but then the plans changed because of unexpected demand for server CPUs and shortage of chiplets.