AMD Ryzen 3000 - not so disruptive?

[Kocicak]

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?



Will possibly merge this with the original Ryzen 3000 thread.


esquared
Anandtech Forum Director

 

[BigDaveX]

Most likely they just don't want to cannibalize the Threadrippers that are still on the market, seeing how a 16-core Zen 2 will eliminate the current Threadripper's main weakness (the NUMA overhead), leaving the latter's only advantage as its extra memory channels and PCIe lanes.

 

[inf64]

I suspect this is not the full lineup. There is E3 event coming up in 2 weeks time. There IS 16C AM4 part and I believe there will be one more 12C part with higher clocks.

 

[Tryad]

I dont really understand?

Isnt the 3700x right there with a 9900 with the 12 core a step beyond it? Aren't we likely looking at parity after the IPC gains and with more cores/threads to boot? Possibly less heat as well?

I don't specifically know whats meant by disruptive, but seeing as Im building in August; to me it feels like for the first time in forever, I have to actually consider an AMD chip, when beforehand as a gamer, I didnt even need to consider AMD chips.


Edit: Im genuinely asking btw. You all know so much more than me on this subject. Im looking for feedback. I take my data from you guys before I build; I want to do this properly.

 

[Head1985]

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?

I agree first ryzen was much more groundbreaking and ryzen 2000 was even faster and cheaper.I think AMD gets greedy with ryzen 3000...

 

[inf64]

I dont really understand?

Isnt the 3700x right there with a 9900 with the 12 core a step beyond it? Aren't we likely looking at parity after the IPC gains and with more cores/threads to boot? Possibly less heat as well?

I don't specifically know whats meant by disruptive, but seeing as Im building in August; to me it feels like for the first time in forever, I have to actually consider an AMD chip, when beforehand as a gamer, I didnt even need to consider AMD chips.


Edit: Im genuinely asking btw. You all know so much more than me on this subject. Im looking for feedback. I take my data from you guys before I build; I want to do this properly.

It IS disruptive, the problem is it's not cheap like people wanted it to be. AMD is in the business of making money and they will price their product to have superior price/performance while not giving it away for cheap. I'm more worried about chipset power/thermals at this point, CPUs are great. I don't need an additional heater in my case

 

[Kocicak]

Well, the 6 and 8 core processors are priced the same as the previous generation. New generation of processors brings more performance and less power consumption - everybody expects that. I see nothing groundbreaking here.

The only thing really new here is an option to have 2 chiplets in one package and much more performace in a desktop processors - to be paid for accordingly.

 

[itsmydamnation]

Your ignoring both the IPC and the clock bump. We still have to see what OC headroom looks like as well

 

[ZippZ]

As an investor, I thought AMD should price their chips a bit higher since they have performance parity with Intel, special features like PCIE4, and a lot lower power consumption. Also no real competition for the 12 core processor and combined with Intel's processor shortage.

 

[Allio]

Well, the 6 and 8 core processors are priced the same as the previous generation. New generation of processors brings more performance and less power consumption - everybody expects that. I see nothing groundbreaking here.

The only thing really new here is an option to have 2 chiplets in one package and much more performace in a desktop processors - to be paid for accordingly.

AMD just overtook Intel in IPC and absolute single-thread performance for the first time since March 7 2006. 15% improvement in IPC is bigger than any single Intel generational improvement since Conroe and the biggest jump by anyone since first-generation Ryzen. Not to mention that performance is coming at close to half the power usage of Intel, and the launch of the first mainstream 12 core CPU.

3 years ago people were calling on AMD to give up trying to compete and go out of business. The fact that you can view this launch as somehow disappointing is insane.

 

[inf64]

AMD just overtook Intel in IPC and absolute single-thread performance for the first time since March 7 2006. 15% improvement in IPC is bigger than any single Intel generational improvement since Conroe and the biggest jump by anyone since first-generation Ryzen. Not to mention that performance is coming at close to half the power usage of Intel, and the launch of the first mainstream 12 core CPU.

3 years ago people were calling on AMD to give up trying to compete and go out of business. The fact that you can view this launch as somehow disappointing is insane.

What is also interesting is that this design has a lot of room left for further IPC jumps. Even a design as refined as Skylake has lots of room (ie. Sunny Cove), imagine how much room does Zen have . AMD invested heaviliy in design tools in the last 7 years, they have overlapping designs in the pipeline and Zen2 shows how you can have 2 year cycle to get ~15% IPC boost on a NEW node while providing almost 2x perf./watt improvement -without even owning a fab! Zen3/4 should be very exciting, I would like them to push for even wider core as intel won't be sitting still.

 

[Kocicak]

I understand that having an option to buy 12 and possibly 16 core processors for unprecedented level of performance in a desktop computer is in a way disrupting. These processors will be very expensive and not what a typical desktop user buys.

Typical desktop user gets processors for the same price as previous generation with improved performance and power consumption. And that is it. As I wrote, such improvements are to be expected.

 

[B-Riz]

They are also first to market with PCIE Gen 4, like, SRSLY, else you want?

 

[Allio]

You seem to have been wanting/expecting not only a huge jump forward in performance and power efficiency but a simultaneous slashing in price. Can you point to a time in the history of consumer CPUs where that has ever happened?

If you just wanted something cheaper, wait for the Ryzen 3 models I guess.

 

[dacostafilipe]

As I wrote, such improvements are to be expected.

Well, Intel certainly did not get the note.

The sheer number of X570 motherboards from multiple vendors should be enough to tell you how disruptive really is.

 

[B-Riz]

I understand that having an option to buy 12 and possibly 16 core processors for unprecedented level of performance in a desktop computer is in a way disrupting. These processors will be very expensive and not what a typical desktop user buys.

Typical desktop user gets processors for the same price as previous generation with improved performance and power consumption. And that is it. As I wrote, such improvements are to be expected.

I think you need to see how many people buy and build with the i9 9900k. https://old.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/

Selling something at the same price that has more cores and performance than the 9900k is not "very expensive".

 

[inf64]

My quick back-of-the-envelope math for 16C part: 3700X is 8C @3.6 base and 4.4Ghz boost. I expect that ~70-75% of rated power budget goes to the cores @ 7nm and 30% goes to IO die. That gives us 45W for 8C at those clocks. Let's say that doubling the cores inflates the IO die's power by another 10%. We have around 20-25W power budget for IO die and we're left with around 100-105W for 2 chiplets. 45W for 8C @ 3.6/4.4 could possibly mean we have 10-15W left which is ~16% power budget (best case scen.) so 2 chiplet design running at 3.6/4.7(?) Ghz is very much possible.

 

[Kocicak]

Seeing the price of 12C processor - 16c will be 799 or even more. They could even sell "a special 16C" for 999. That is not what most desktop users buy.

No 16C yet and the prices indicate to me that AMD simply do not have the stock of chiplets for any "explosive rise of sales", and with the right prices they certainly could do that.

 

[B-Riz]

This is not underwhelming considering they are still going to go into B350 / X370 boards.

I can see 16/32 65w AMD CPUs on AM5.

 

[B-Riz]

Seeing the price of 12C processor - 16c will be 799 or even more. They could even sell "a special 16C" for 999. That is not what most desktop users buy.

No 16C yet and the prices indicate to me that AMD simply do not have the stock of chiplets for any "explosive rise of sales", and with the right prices they certainly could do that.

The heck?

Have you heard of Threadripper?

Also, the i9 9900k seems to be selling pretty dang well for Intel, THAT IS $495 ON NEWEGG RIGHT NOW!

A 9920X competitor at half the price, again, what are you complaining about???

https://ark.intel.com/content/www/u...es-processor-19-25m-cache-up-to-4-50-ghz.html

$1200 https://www.newegg.com/core-i9-x-series-intel-core-i9-9920x/p/N82E16819117963

No PCIE Gen 4.

*corrected to 9920x

 

[coercitiv]

Seeing the price of 12C processor - 16c will be 799 or even more. They could even sell "a special 16C" for 999. That is not what most desktop users buy.

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.

No 16C yet and the prices indicate to me that AMD simply do not have the stock of chiplets for any "explosive rise of sales", and with the right prices they certainly could do that.

Prices indicate to me they're set to meet strong demand from the market while value price points bellow $200 will be generously met with Ryzen 2000 series CPUs with excellent price/perf ratio.

 

[NTMBK]

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.

 

[moinmoin]

For jaded consumers that just look at the prices this may be disappointing. But going by the specs it definitely isn't:

• more cores again at the price levels of Ryzen gen 1
• up to 15% more IPC
• up to double the FPU performance
• generally higher frequencies
• lower power consumption
• double the bandwidth with PCIe 4

There are other changes like double L3 cache size and other improvements that will have to be tested how much they improve specific applications.

If that's disappointing (what did they think of all the Intel years?) then one may want to wait for Zen 3.

 

[Topweasel]

It IS disruptive, the problem is it's not cheap like people wanted it to be. AMD is in the business of making money and they will price their product to have superior price/performance while not giving it away for cheap. I'm more worried about chipset power/thermals at this point, CPUs are great. I don't need an additional heater in my case

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.

 

[B-Riz]

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.

I think we all forgot that B550 needs released, and, prices can easily go down when Intel drops some new stuff.

I think a $50 drop a few months after launch will happen, and I am fine with that, still getting the sweet sweet Micro Center combo discount.

Back in the day, I would wait 6 - 12 months to pick up new stuff. Saved my bacon on the P67 recall fiasco, and, waiting a year saved me from wasting money on an Intel DDR4 platform, as the 4790k was great into the Zen launch and still seems pretty good even after the security mitigations.

Anyone disappointed about the prices, wait until Black Friday / Holiday time.

Us irrational day one buyers will work out build kinks for you while you wait.