8 cores that performed comparably to the original Zen? Yes, that'd be overpriced. 8 cores with superior IPC to anything that Intel has? Now we're talking!So i am only one that think 8cores are little bit overpriced vs ryzen 2000?Why they comparing 329USD 2700x vs 399USD 3800x?
I was hoping for top 8core cpu for same price as top 8core zen+(2700x)
This is basically more performance for more money just like TURING.
it should be:
3700x-299usd
3800x-329usd
This is basically more performance for more money just like TURING.
it should be:
3700x-299usd
3800x-329usd
3800x vs 3900x will be interesting because it would be 1 8-core chiplet vs 2 chiplets with 6 cores enabled, 3800x may end up being better for gaming purposes without potential hiccups.
3800x vs 3900x will be interesting because it would be 1 8-core chiplet vs 2 chiplets with 6 cores enabled, 3800x may end up being better for gaming purposes without potential hiccups.
We still dont know how XFR will work on that 65w TDP 3700x in games.2700x have 4.3Ghz XFR and if 3700x is TDP limited, then performance can be very close.Thats why they comparing 3800x to 2700x.That's just the premium they are charging for the peak frequency part.
It's better than Turing. You could get the 3700X, which means 10-15% better single threaded performance(which is a lot) for the same price. Turing was always more for more.
Also, yes they are sort of "inspired" by Turing. The market always follow the leader. Hence its important for the big guy to be less greedy otherwise everyone else just follow them.
you say on par, I say it is not only cheaper and comes with a cooler, but it is also crushingly good in Perf / W. Why and how should a 8 core CPU suddenly crush another 8 core CPU in raw performance, that was ahead until now? Dude..... can you think of anything else besides teasing us all morning? Yeah yeah we get it. You don't buy Zen 2.Really? This is a "tock" last Ryzen was a "tick".
I was hoping for more. I thought they would crush a 9900k. It looks to me like a $400 3800 is on par with a 10 month old $485 9900k.
Well to be fair we haven't seen game benchmarks yet.
If the 12 core part can get close to 5ghz , that seems like a great buy at @500$
as it stands now, EUV needs double patterning already - sadly enoughI wouldn't be surprised, but it won't go higher than that.
It's more than just changing materials. Intel has said in the 90s, they used a handful of materials to craft CPUs. Post-2010 they said that increased to using 1/3rd of the entire periodic table.
They are talking about how sometime in the 7nm to 5nm generation, even EUV will need double patterning, so it would have been used barely a generation. At some point, cost and difficulty raises to a point its just not worth doing it anymore. Just like how in areas where newer isn't always better, same thing will likely happen to computers.
Servethehome said internally, the HPC guys have plans to make chips that have 1KW TDP! They are doing that because the want for performance is insatiable but process and even design isn't giving them enough.
Look to increased specialization in the future. Consoles are one of them, where a stable unchanging platform allows developers to absolutely maximize what they can get out of the hardware.
If you removed 256bit workloads it was like 7%, so 15% on spec2k6+ 256bit simd units means zen2 has outright IPC lead.we don't know about that single threaded parity yet (cinebench is best case), but yeah if its not parity, it wont be that 20+% that was before
I wont count on that IPC- as I said before ryzen 2k vs cfl=tie in r20, so logically any IPC uplift done by AMD makes them stronger than CFL frequency wise8 cores that performed comparably to the original Zen? Yes, that'd be overpriced. 8 cores with superior IPC to anything that Intel has? Now we're talking!
(Well, more accurately, we're talking if AMD's claims as to the chip's IPC hold out, but we'll just have to wait and see on that)
well the 12C has 2x6C and the 8C has 1x8CShould that really matter when the I/O chip with the memory controller is on the separate die anyway?
What inteluser was referring to was that both SKUs have same path to memory. Having 2 chiplets Vs one makes no difference except when you need more cores. For gaming it will be the same performance in majority of cases.well the 12C has 2x6C and the 8C has 1x8C
IMO the 8C will be faster gaming wise
May well still matter for inter-CCX transfers. I'd expect AMD to have optimized the cache logic to avoid them, but 4+4 cores inherently make inter-CCX transfers less likely than 3+3+3+3 cores.Should that really matter when the I/O chip with the memory controller is on the separate die anyway?
I will believe it when I see it, as I said I am counting on parityIf you removed 256bit workloads it was like 7%, so 15% on spec2k6+ 256bit simd units means zen2 has outright IPC lead.
What remiains to be seen is gaming / memory latency performance. If 1/2 if clock option means high ddr4 with good timings then that should be great for gaming.
My bold predictions, based on AMD targeting Intel 10nm as the competition for their 7nm and Zen / Zen+ being the warm up chips as they knew what needed fixed and what could be improved with Zen2.
(If you think about it, Zen / Zen+ are pretty boss for being built on a process that was not really intended to compete with what Intel has done with 14+ / 14++)
AMD will match Intel on performance at every price point / core configuration.
They have something that matches the i9 9900K and will be cheaper.
They have something that beats the i9 9900K, but, it will cost the same or more.
Intel will lower prices to compete with AMD at Zen2 physically release.
It has taken longer to launch Zen2 because AMD does not want the motherboard fiasco repeated from the Zen launch.
I'm pretty sure this will happen, as AMD started the core war, and Dr. Su is just that dang good at her job.
thoughts #3
pricing is too low by AMD- it shows they know they are now competitive performance wise
from my POV AMD is cannibalizing between r7 2700X and r5 3600X and r7 3700X
since the new chips are banckwards compatible (looking at the reviews really) you can put a brand new r5 3600 (non X), OC it to 4.4GHz+ with b450 (550 maybe) board and give a smile to the 2700X....which is 300 EUR atm
2600,2600X,2700 and 2700X are made completely obsolete by AMD
IMO current winner- the new 3600 non X, oced to 4,4GHz+ for 199 = WIN
I will believe it when I see it, as I said I am counting on parity
yes that gaming....usually when AMD doesn't present numbers it is not that excellent but we will see...
I swear the IPC uplift was 15% during the keynote, yet the slides on videocardz say 13% Bit odd
Actually the 12 core part is the one I like best,if I was going to make a new system. I'll have to see if it overclocks wellyou say on par, I say it is not only cheaper and comes with a cooler, but it is also crushingly good in Perf / W. Why and how should a 8 core CPU suddenly crush another 8 core CPU in raw performance, that was ahead until now? Dude..... can you think of anything else besides teasing us all morning? Yeah yeah we get it. You don't buy Zen 2.
Edit: inb4 somebody comes up with the 9900K having lower TDP...