Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AMD Ryzen 5000 Series / Zen 3 Launch

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #81
    someone mentioned a comparison to TGL. The anandtech coverage by Dr. Cutress mentioned it. This was vs TGL-U, though.

    "Over Intel’s latest generation microarchitecture, Tiger Lake, this is a 6% performance increase at the same frequency."

    https://www.anandtech.com/show/16148...t-gaming-cpu/2

    Comment


    • #82
      Originally posted by benjiro View Post
      And do not mention Zen 2 because we know just like with previous generations, that Zen 2 is going to stop production and after a few months, supply will dry out. Its a bad sign when people tell you to buy the previous generation.
      No, I will mention Zen 2. They will continue to be made for a while as they are the last upgrade for many motherboards. What will probably happen is that the non-XT models will stop being produced, leaving at least 3900XT/3800XT/3600XT. Those are already discounted from launch prices.

      You can still find the Zen+ 2700X, 2600X and 2600 on Amazon (cheaper than Zen 2 counterparts).

      Comment


      • #83
        Originally posted by AdrianBc View Post
        There is a good chance for Intel to reach at least 5.3 GHz, maybe even 5.4 GHz, with Rocket Lake (even if the current engineering samples were clocked lower).
        10nm i7-1185G7 has a maximum clock of 4.8 GHz when running a single thread. It is therefore unlikely for 14nm Rocket Lake to be able to reach 4.8 GHz in single-threaded mode. Notebook CPUs (28W TDP) have approximately the same single-core boost frequency as desktop CPUs (about 100W TDP, but only when multiple cores are utilized). 14nm Rocket Lake (Willow Cove arch) will most likely have lower boost frequency than 14nm Comet Lake (Skylake arch) because the former is a more complex design than the latter.

        Comment


        • #84
          Originally posted by Anarchy View Post
          Looks very promising, but I'll wait for the more serious reviews. If it turns out good enough and asrock decides to support the 5900X on my b450 motherboard, I'm definitely getting one to replace the 2700X that's in my current computer. It's a bit unfortunate they didn't share more architecture data, I really want to know what's been changed from zen2.
          I have to agree that they are extremely thin on technical information. I can't say I was extremely disappointed by the show, but certainly was left wanting more. I'm also left with the impression they where underselling the processor. It will be interesting to see how this processor works for overclocking and other performance tweaks.

          Comment


          • #85
            Originally posted by rlkrlk View Post
            For those of us into throughput, I'm concerned about memory bandwidth...
            Well that will not change dramatically until AM5 supporting new RAM standards. You would be right and if you have a decent system right now I'd wait for DDR5 supporting AM5 socket to be released which I can imagine happening early in 2021. A faster RAM solution is really needed to move APU performance forward. That is likely why no APU's released this go around.

            Comment


            • #86
              Originally posted by Marc Driftmeyer View Post

              People drink more than $50 on their bar tab, in a single night. Either everyone here is completely broke or lead very sad lives.
              This "or lead very sad lives" is probably the truth.

              Comment


              • #87
                Originally posted by torsionbar28 View Post
                The fact is, there is no such thing as "you wouldn't even consider purchasing them regardless of the price", and claiming there is brings your credibility into question. It's all about price/performance ratio. Very few consumers actually buy the $1000 halo product, they buy something in the middle. Many more buy whatever costs the least. When a $259 AMD chip performs on par with a $329 intel chip, the AMD chip is a better buy, regardless of who wins the absolute performance crown at the top end of the market.
                Whatever works for you. Personally, until the last couple of years I wouldn't have picked up an AMD CPU for use cases that require good single core performance.

                Comment


                • #88
                  Originally posted by ms178 View Post
                  I also don't get that people are applauding AMD to become the new Intel. They have earned their place through hard work, sure, but 20% more IPC for a lot more in price is not progress in my eyes (just look at the insane 299 $ for the 5600X).
                  I don't think anyone loves the higher prices, but comparing them to Intel is where people object. 20% is a pretty massive gain for a CPU. Intel has been pushing out 5% gains for years, and they were also charging hundreds of dollars more than AMD is even after this $50 price hike.

                  For example, the "insane" 5600X is still $60 cheaper than the i7-8700k launched at 3 years ago and provides massive performance increases. The higher-end CPUs are just more and more extreme, as Intel used to sell 8 core cpus for over $1000.

                  So yes, they are starting to turn in that direction, but in terms of degree they are nowhere close.

                  I think if you want a cheaper option AMD will still keep selling Zen 2 chips for a while, and those are a pretty decent option too.
                  Last edited by smitty3268; 09 October 2020, 03:40 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #89
                    Originally posted by pmorph View Post
                    Whatever works for you. Personally, until the last couple of years I wouldn't have picked up an AMD CPU for use cases that require good single core performance.
                    One last thing people complaining about a $50 bump in pricing are completely nuts. First off I just returned from the grocery and spent $56 for two half filled paper bags. The reality is $50 means little these days. More importantly here is that the price is introductory, eventually the price will adjust to meet demand. So if you don't want to pay that extra $50 wait until initial demand dies and sales or specials, happen.

                    Beyond that this processor looks to be better than AMD implied in their reveal. I just find it odd that they seemingly ignored the technical or knowledgeable user and basically glossed over what these Zen 3 chips are.

                    Comment


                    • #90
                      Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post

                      I think if you want a cheaper option AMD will still keep selling Zen 2 chips for a while, and those are a pretty decent option too.
                      I agree with that part under the assumption that they get cheaper in the coming months, we are still not at Zen 1, Zen + pricing levels for these either.

                      The other part is a question of perspective: People don't seem to adjust for the time which has passed and only compare to past or current Intel product pricing but we expect progress over time. We don't want products which are slower that we already own nor buying the same performance for the same price. We expect to get more overall value over time. Price-to-Performance is in my view the most important metric to measure this, with current data points. Of course the pricing and product strategy of Intel during the past 10 years was absurd in terms of milking its customers - they had a monopoly in several markets. But that doesn't make AMD any better if they mimick that behavior - we saw what happened when only financial goals dominate their thinking.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X