Friday, May 3rd 2019

Possible Listings of AMD Ryzen 9 3800X, Ryzen 7 3700X, Ryzen 5 3600X Surface in Online Stores

Remember to bring your osmosis process to the table here, as a good deal of salt is detected present in this story's environment. Some online webstores from Vietnam and Turkey have started listing AMD's 3000 series CPUs based on the Zen 2 architecture. The present company stands at a Ryzen 9 3800X, Ryzen 7 3700X, and Ryzen 5 3600X, and the specs on these are... Incredible, to say the least.

The Ryzen 9 3800X is being listed with 32 threads, meaning a base 16-core processor. Clock speeds are being reported as 3.9 GHz base with up to 4.7 GHz Turbo on both a Turkish and Vietnamese etailer's webpages. The Turkish Store then stands alone in listing AMD's Ryzen 7 3700X CPU, which is reported as having 12 cores, 24 threads, and operating at an extremely impressive 4.2 GHz base and 5.0 GHz Boost clocks. Another listing by the same website, in the form of the Ryzen 5 3600X, details the processor as having 8 physical cores and running at 4.0 GHz base and 4.8 Boost clocks.
Sources: TPU Forums @Thread starter R0H1T, nguyencongpc.vn, ebrarbilgisayar.com
Add your own comment

242 Comments on Possible Listings of AMD Ryzen 9 3800X, Ryzen 7 3700X, Ryzen 5 3600X Surface in Online Stores

#126
EarthDog
ch3w2oy, post: 4041358, member: 187377"
but even at 5% behind Intel it would be stupid to buy a more expensive processor with less cores for a 5% boost in only gaming
When IPC and clockspeeds are there (very close on the first account, in the ballpark on the second), I agree 100% with your statement.

I'm really interested to see what this does to CPUs people can actually UTILIZE (not use - there is a difference). Since, someone buying a system today for example, can easily max out any game title with a 6c/12t CPU or 8c/8t CPU for the next few years, unless the cores are utilized or hell, even used, what is the point in more cores? Bragging rights used to be Megahertzzzzzzz and IPC.... but now its core count which few people can use more than what already exists on the mainstream... still waiting for software to catch up. :(

I really can't wait to see what Zen 2 brings to the table... I hope it beats Intel in IPC and I hope it reaches the the same clock speeds and still keeps pricing in the ball park. This should force intel's hand a bit to lower prices...
Posted on Reply
#127
Fatalfury
Curiosity kills the cat(Hype)[AMD Fans]
Posted on Reply
#128
R0H1T
mahoney, post: 4041278, member: 187374"
In synthetic benches they're very close but in real world like gaming at same clock speed intel is at least 15% better in some cases even more.


Just look at how the 2700x is dropping frames while the 9900k is almost consistent. Now add in the higher clocks of Intel and you get over 20% difference. It's also the reason why 2700x is bottlenecking the high end rtx cards

In real world as well they are pretty close. Now the numbers I have are over 2 years old & since then things have changed, Zen is handicapped by 2400MHz RAM but so is Intel ~ https://www.hardware.fr/articles/956-6/piledriver-zen-broadwell-e-3-ghz.html

The results vary wildly with different applications or games & in some cases, like Komodo & x264, AMD beats Intel. Keep in mind this is zen 1 vs BDW-E w/2400MHz RAM, pre smeltdown patched OS & older games. The 9900k today will come out tops in 9 out of 10 tests but I still believe the results will be in the region of ~10% on avg with certain outliers.

Sadly no major outlet does this test anymore ~ at fixed clocks we'd get better info about the actual (IPC) difference between various uarches.
Posted on Reply
#129
MT66
:lovetpu: Hopefully we can learn about Ryzen 3000 SKUs at Computex, I want to hear it from Lisa and see the big Graphics on the screen. Until then there is nothing major to be hyped about.
Posted on Reply
#131
robot zombie
EarthDog, post: 4041399, member: 79836"
I'm really interested to see what this does to CPUs people can actually UTILIZE (not use - there is a difference). Since, someone buying a system today for example, can easily max out any game title with a 6c/12t CPU or 8c/8t CPU for the next few years, unless the cores are utilized or hell, even used, what is the point in more cores? Bragging rights used to be Megahertzzzzzzz and IPC.... but now its core count which few people can use more than what already exists on the mainstream... still waiting for software to catch up. :(
For most people, I kinda get that. Like, if all you wanna do is play vidya games and faff on the net, it really is just for the sake of knowing you have a friggen McLaren... even if you only drive to work with it to show off. Plenty of people get nice cars they almost never even take out of the garage.

Personally I would never go that far, which is why for my build I stuck with the 2600, because it works great for my needs and nothing about its capabilities goes to waste between my gaming, wantonly disorganized multitasking, and music production (yes, it does come into play with some DAWs - some use every thread they can grab onto... handy when you've got a bunch of tracks with HQ emulation or synths/instrument sims with huge sample banks shuffling double-digit gigs of data around in memory simultaneously.) I was super happy to have a CPU geared for that at well under $200. Can't see myself needing more.

But I also get the appeal of more cores... or really any piece of hardware with extraneous capabilities. I like tech, in general. If it's intricate/complicated and possesses capabilities that I can tap into by exploring those nuances, I want one. I'll figure out what to do with it just as an excuse to have it and motivate myself to figure out how it works... just to see for myself what it can do. I will pick something up just to play around with it, even if I didn't know much/hadn't cared what it's meant for before it caught my interest. I'll adopt the relevant activities just to get another piece of technology in my hands. For instance, I've picked up photography out of an infatuation with DSLR's and optics. A lot of people are like that with tech, I think. Actually I think most people invested in anything tech-related are, even if a large number of them don't realize. We convince ourselves to find uses for kit that we find interesting just because it's interesting and we see possibilities to explore or learn about.

Some people are into people, and things to do with people. Other people are perhaps a bit more into things. Tech nerds tend to like things more than people. Maybe that's why we argue unproductively so much :p

All I know is that if you put in front of me (and probably a lot of people here) a CPU that's very fast and has an absurd amount of cores/threads at a price that I can swing, I am going to want to buy it in order to discover my own ways of putting it to use, even if I don't really *need* those capabilities. Basically I'll figure out what I 'need' it for to justify buying it - I will find something beyond just wanting some fancy new high technology in my life, simply through acquiring it and messing around with it. When you're an enthusiast, pragmatism isn't the be-all, end-all to getting the most out of your interests. So much of it is entwined in discovery. I am pragmatic when budgeting and constructing builds for other people, because to them, it's only a tool. So paying more than you need to in order to get the job done to your liking is indeed wasteful. I recognize that not everybody will appreciate the nuances of premium tech. Even within the circles of interests, one can't expect everyone to appreciate the same things in the same tech. We're nerds. Our interests are weirdly obsessive and almost arbitrarily specific.

For me, personally, it's about so much more than just how useful it is to me - so it's not a waste at all. Being able to do what I need is only the *minimum* requirement. Sometimes going over the top furthers your love for the stuff you seek better understanding of - brings you inherently closer to it by imparting personal meaning onto it. I am the sort of person to occasionally take my fancy technological wonders out just to inspect and marvel at them while I ponder their inner workings and dream-up scenarios. That makes me happier than a lot of things in life.

Going back to cars... a lot of people love fast cars with all of these crazy "bragging rights" features even though in their daily lives, they're really no more useful than a typical sedan - everything that makes it good on a track does you no good on a city roadway and actually is less optimal than a humble commuter in terms of maintenance and mileage. But then, when you do take the car out and really open it up, or even if you're just in the garage meticulously caring for, tuning, and modding it, you remember what it's all for - there's a simple wholesomeness to those moments. A man and his machine.


Now... sorry, I gotta rant a little. I'm super-excited about Ryzen 3, but stuff like this... honestly I don't know what to think. Speculating so passionately just seems like a waste of time. You can try to make it this or that and argue over it with people, but really... why bother? People are gonna see what they wanna see. You can pretend it's whatever you want. I'd rather be drooling over something that actually exists... something that I can actually get. The other sort of hype, to me, is about as unproductive as dismissing a figment over this or that assumption about what it actually is before anyone even knows. Personally I'm just excited to see what actually drops. I don't care whether it can do this or is better than that. I just want to see what those limits and abilities actually are... see whats new and then maybe decide if I want to delve further into it. I don't really care who or what and I really don't get the obsession there.

Why does it have to be so damned personal? Why does it have to come down to measuring a person by their interests and purchasing decisions? I'll never understand what gets people so invested in shutting other people down and hoping they wind up disappointed. How do you like it when something you're excited about lets you down? Why would anybody ever want that for someone they share interests with? In what way is it good if anything new sucks? Because it makes you right? Or maybe because it puts down someone you think is wrong...? Doesn't really matter what faction you belong to... if you even see yourself that way. Why can't people just like what they like and stick to that?

I mean, people bicker over this shit like there's real, life altering shit at stake for them. It kinda blows my mind... just the level people will take things to in order to either put something up on a pedestal or bury it in the ground. Everyone can and should form their own opinions, but attatching yourself to them so voraciously really does everyone a disservice, whether you're wary, optimistic, or both. The person you are attacking and putting down because they are more or less excited than you about a certain thing is EXACTLY like you. You are both in it for the same things. We all share a common goal in seeing, acquiring, and learning about the latest and greatest. It's petty to bring baggage and insecurities into the conversation. If you know that you are right, then you have nothing to prove about yourself. The truth will back you up. Let it be.

Besides... if you're wrong, who cares? A few scenarios... you think Ryzen 3 is gonna suck and it winds up being awesome. Just means it was better than expected - any rational person who cares about the technology as a whole ought to be happy about that. It's an advancement! It's like being wrong about a hurricane wiping out a town. Or maybe you think Ryzen 3 is your Moses and it's hot garbage. Oh well, for it to be considered shitty means there is something else that must be awesome, so you can just shift your focus to that - there is more for you to discover that you may have missed in your previous fixation.

When nobody knows the truth, all a lot of people can seem to do is go in circles, getting madder and madder at each other with each pass. Now instead of being happy to be personally involved and invested in the pursuit of all of the incredible technology in the world TODAY, people are getting upset and frustrated with trying to justify their enthusiasm (or lack thereof) for what may come TOMORROW. To me, it's just ego games. There's absolutely no excuse for it. It's not fun or useful. Nobody is really learning or appreciating anything - only growing bitter and building walls between their own brethren. And maybe missing out on stuff they might otherwise pick up and find some real merit and satisfaction in.

In reality, there is going to be truth in both sides of the speculation. In some way, everybody is probably going to be as right as they are wrong! So maybe don't sweat it and just be happy with what you have and the things that are available to us all, should we want them. Tech is so vast, nobody can be ahead of the curve for more than 5 minutes. Being the guy who's right about something before anyone else in these pockets of humanity is overrated. It's fun to speculate and all... some of it gets pretty interesting to think about. But it gets ridiculous when people get all black and white about it simply for the sake of going at each other.

I hope Ryzen 3 is as awesome as people hope it will be. Just like I hope Intel comes up with an equally or more awesome answer to it. Anything that's not awesome, I don't really bother to engage with. I leave that to people for whom it is awesome.
Posted on Reply
#132
Manu_PT
ch3w2oy, post: 4041358, member: 187377"
Okay, so possibly more chips can hit 5ghz than I originally thought.. If you take a look at Siliconlottery.com they tell you how likely each chip is to reach that speed.. They just updated it because the numbers were lower when I looked a while back..

I don't agree with that if you need high end performance you buy Intel and Nvidia. Maybe if you need "the best of the best." and even then, at 4k, Ryzen works just as good as Intel. I sold my entire 9700k @5.2 with a ftw3 2080 for a Ryzen build with a Radeon VII. I also went custom loop after I legit considered a 2080 ti.. I don't just game, though, and Zen WILL BE the better buy. 2% slower or not. Once I can get zen 2, it's a wrap. If you don't consider that high end then I just don't know what to tell you..

This isn't Bulldozer at 4.8ghz..

Not everyone is playing 1080p and need the most FPS they can get. Everyone knows the CPU matters less when going up in resolution.. The only GPU I would get at this point in time from Nvidia is a 2080 ti. AMD as of now just plain offers a better experience with their software and drivers.. On top of that they get better and better. And this is coming from someone who had a Vega 64, Radeon VII, 1080 ti, and 2080.. All of those being the highest of the highest end, unless you specifically need Intel for a certain task..

Zen 2 may not match Intels performance but if you really think it's not going to close the gap enough to not make a damn difference then you're just delusional. Also, even if AMD remains 5% behind Intel in preformance, guess what? The only thing Intel will be good for is gaming. That's it. Of course there's a few things/programs that benefits from each platform but even at 5% behind Intel it would be stupid to buy a more expensive processor with less cores for a 5% boost in only gaming
You sold a 9700k @ 5,2ghz + RTX 2080 and bought a Ryzen + VEGA VII? I have no words. Imagine paying money to downgrade, and on top of that use even more power from the hardware while having less performance. No comments.

And btw, 60hz, doesn´t matter if it´s 720p or 8k, is not high-end to me. If you want a CPU for 60hz you grab an i3 8100 or a Ryzen 1300x. High-End to me is 1080p 240hz and 1440p 165hz. Ryzen can´t eve sustain 130fps LOCKED on most engines. Fact.

With the money you spent with the downgrade process, you would have got an i9 9900k + RTX 2080ti, and it would obliterate Ryzen in every possible scenario, from gaming to productivity.
Posted on Reply
#133
Solaris17
Dainty Moderator
Lets try not to lash out. Please keep it civil so I don't need to dole more points. Thanks a bunch.
Posted on Reply
#134
Melvis
Still relevant I think lol

Posted on Reply
#135
InVasMani
NdMk2o1o, post: 4040958, member: 83825"
I guarantee there will be, what would be the point otherwise if they had the same base and boost as the 2*** series
To be fair that might not be untrue and with how precision boost works might not be a bad thing either. They don't need to run all clock at the highest frequency at all times to get the best performance. In applications that benifit more from higher single core performance boost perhaps precision boost will recognize and adjust accordingly. If that were the case down clocking the unneeded cores further to keep heat lower so a single core or fewer cores scaled higher might make more sense. Application adaptive core clock boost scaling like Radeon Chill.

Metroid, post: 4041389, member: 178915"
Pownage countdown here we go and this won't be pretty for Intel!!!

Just like core duo was the best thing to ever happen in 2006, Ryzen 3000 is the best thing to ever happen in 2019 for the pc comunity as a whole.
AMD 64 lead to Intels CPU's lineup ever C2D/C2Q. I can seen Ryzen doing the same especially 7nm and with their fumbling it should really light a fire under them which is great for consumers they'll bounce back with a vengeance or in a new competitive CPU war between them either way it's good to see and needed since CPU's became too stagnant for too long.
Posted on Reply
#136
R0H1T
Melvis, post: 4041496, member: 50520"
Still relevant I think lol


Can't be any worse than GoT season 8 , surely :shadedshu:

Absolutely butchered that Night King story line :nutkick:
Posted on Reply
#137
Caring1
Melvis, post: 4041496, member: 50520"
Still relevant I think lol


Look like Corsairs to me ;)
Posted on Reply
#138
Shatun_Bear
Gasaraki, post: 4041266, member: 168493"
LOL. I love it. i've been burned by the AMD hype train for the first gen Ryzen. I thought it was going to be the second coming of AMD.
I know you didn't mean this but Ryzen actually has been 'the second coming of AMD' as they went from 5-10% sales ratio and irrelevence to +50% compared to Intel in some markets. We dont need reminding how disaterous Bulldozer was for them.
Posted on Reply
#139
NdMk2o1o
Manu_PT, post: 4041485, member: 168799"
You sold a 9700k @ 5,2ghz + RTX 2080 and bought a Ryzen + VEGA VII? I have no words. Imagine paying money to downgrade, and on top of that use even more power from the hardware while having less performance. No comments.

And btw, 60hz, doesn´t matter if it´s 720p or 8k, is not high-end to me. If you want a CPU for 60hz you grab an i3 8100 or a Ryzen 1300x. High-End to me is 1080p 240hz and 1440p 165hz. Ryzen can´t eve sustain 130fps LOCKED on most engines. Fact.

With the money you spent with the downgrade process, you would have got an i9 9900k + RTX 2080ti, and it would obliterate Ryzen in every possible scenario, from gaming to productivity.
Go troll elsewhere. Here's a better idea why don't you go take a picture of your beautiful Intel rig and have some alone time with it in the privacy of your bathroom, though you probably already do by the sounds of you :clap:
Posted on Reply
#140
Vayra86
robot zombie, post: 4041453, member: 179396"
For most people, I kinda get that. Like, if all you wanna do is play vidya games and faff on the net, it really is just for the sake of knowing you have a friggen McLaren... even if you only drive to work with it to show off. Plenty of people get nice cars they almost never even take out of the garage.

Personally I would never go that far, which is why for my build I stuck with the 2600, because it works great for my needs and nothing about its capabilities goes to waste between my gaming, wantonly disorganized multitasking, and music production (yes, it does come into play with some DAWs - some use every thread they can grab onto... handy when you've got a bunch of tracks with HQ emulation or synths/instrument sims with huge sample banks shuffling double-digit gigs of data around in memory simultaneously.) I was super happy to have a CPU geared for that at well under $200. Can't see myself needing more.

But I also get the appeal of more cores... or really any piece of hardware with extraneous capabilities. I like tech, in general. If it's intricate/complicated and possesses capabilities that I can tap into by exploring those nuances, I want one. I'll figure out what to do with it just as an excuse to have it and motivate myself to figure out how it works... just to see for myself what it can do. I will pick something up just to play around with it, even if I didn't know much/hadn't cared what it's meant for before it caught my interest. I'll adopt the relevant activities just to get another piece of technology in my hands. For instance, I've picked up photography out of an infatuation with DSLR's and optics. A lot of people are like that with tech, I think. Actually I think most people invested in anything tech-related are, even if a large number of them don't realize. We convince ourselves to find uses for kit that we find interesting just because it's interesting and we see possibilities to explore or learn about.

Some people are into people, and things to do with people. Other people are perhaps a bit more into things. Tech nerds tend to like things more than people. Maybe that's why we argue unproductively so much :p

All I know is that if you put in front of me (and probably a lot of people here) a CPU that's very fast and has an absurd amount of cores/threads at a price that I can swing, I am going to want to buy it in order to discover my own ways of putting it to use, even if I don't really *need* those capabilities. Basically I'll figure out what I 'need' it for to justify buying it - I will find something beyond just wanting some fancy new high technology in my life, simply through acquiring it and messing around with it. When you're an enthusiast, pragmatism isn't the be-all, end-all to getting the most out of your interests. So much of it is entwined in discovery. I am pragmatic when budgeting and constructing builds for other people, because to them, it's only a tool. So paying more than you need to in order to get the job done to your liking is indeed wasteful. I recognize that not everybody will appreciate the nuances of premium tech. Even within the circles of interests, one can't expect everyone to appreciate the same things in the same tech. We're nerds. Our interests are weirdly obsessive and almost arbitrarily specific.

For me, personally, it's about so much more than just how useful it is to me - so it's not a waste at all. Being able to do what I need is only the *minimum* requirement. Sometimes going over the top furthers your love for the stuff you seek better understanding of - brings you inherently closer to it by imparting personal meaning onto it. I am the sort of person to occasionally take my fancy technological wonders out just to inspect and marvel at them while I ponder their inner workings and dream-up scenarios. That makes me happier than a lot of things in life.

Going back to cars... a lot of people love fast cars with all of these crazy "bragging rights" features even though in their daily lives, they're really no more useful than a typical sedan - everything that makes it good on a track does you no good on a city roadway and actually is less optimal than a humble commuter in terms of maintenance and mileage. But then, when you do take the car out and really open it up, or even if you're just in the garage meticulously caring for, tuning, and modding it, you remember what it's all for - there's a simple wholesomeness to those moments. A man and his machine.


Now... sorry, I gotta rant a little. I'm super-excited about Ryzen 3, but stuff like this... honestly I don't know what to think. Speculating so passionately just seems like a waste of time. You can try to make it this or that and argue over it with people, but really... why bother? People are gonna see what they wanna see. You can pretend it's whatever you want. I'd rather be drooling over something that actually exists... something that I can actually get. The other sort of hype, to me, is about as unproductive as dismissing a figment over this or that assumption about what it actually is before anyone even knows. Personally I'm just excited to see what actually drops. I don't care whether it can do this or is better than that. I just want to see what those limits and abilities actually are... see whats new and then maybe decide if I want to delve further into it. I don't really care who or what and I really don't get the obsession there.

Why does it have to be so damned personal? Why does it have to come down to measuring a person by their interests and purchasing decisions? I'll never understand what gets people so invested in shutting other people down and hoping they wind up disappointed. How do you like it when something you're excited about lets you down? Why would anybody ever want that for someone they share interests with? In what way is it good if anything new sucks? Because it makes you right? Or maybe because it puts down someone you think is wrong...? Doesn't really matter what faction you belong to... if you even see yourself that way. Why can't people just like what they like and stick to that?

I mean, people bicker over this shit like there's real, life altering shit at stake for them. It kinda blows my mind... just the level people will take things to in order to either put something up on a pedestal or bury it in the ground. Everyone can and should form their own opinions, but attatching yourself to them so voraciously really does everyone a disservice, whether you're wary, optimistic, or both. The person you are attacking and putting down because they are more or less excited than you about a certain thing is EXACTLY like you. You are both in it for the same things. We all share a common goal in seeing, acquiring, and learning about the latest and greatest. It's petty to bring baggage and insecurities into the conversation. If you know that you are right, then you have nothing to prove about yourself. The truth will back you up. Let it be.

Besides... if you're wrong, who cares? A few scenarios... you think Ryzen 3 is gonna suck and it winds up being awesome. Just means it was better than expected - any rational person who cares about the technology as a whole ought to be happy about that. It's an advancement! It's like being wrong about a hurricane wiping out a town. Or maybe you think Ryzen 3 is your Moses and it's hot garbage. Oh well, for it to be considered shitty means there is something else that must be awesome, so you can just shift your focus to that - there is more for you to discover that you may have missed in your previous fixation.

When nobody knows the truth, all a lot of people can seem to do is go in circles, getting madder and madder at each other with each pass. Now instead of being happy to be personally involved and invested in the pursuit of all of the incredible technology in the world TODAY, people are getting upset and frustrated with trying to justify their enthusiasm (or lack thereof) for what may come TOMORROW. To me, it's just ego games. There's absolutely no excuse for it. It's not fun or useful. Nobody is really learning or appreciating anything - only growing bitter and building walls between their own brethren. And maybe missing out on stuff they might otherwise pick up and find some real merit and satisfaction in.

In reality, there is going to be truth in both sides of the speculation. In some way, everybody is probably going to be as right as they are wrong! So maybe don't sweat it and just be happy with what you have and the things that are available to us all, should we want them. Tech is so vast, nobody can be ahead of the curve for more than 5 minutes. Being the guy who's right about something before anyone else in these pockets of humanity is overrated. It's fun to speculate and all... some of it gets pretty interesting to think about. But it gets ridiculous when people get all black and white about it simply for the sake of going at each other.

I hope Ryzen 3 is as awesome as people hope it will be. Just like I hope Intel comes up with an equally or more awesome answer to it. Anything that's not awesome, I don't really bother to engage with. I leave that to people for whom it is awesome.
Yep I read it all. This one stuck with me

"People are gonna see what they wanna see "

/thread :)
Posted on Reply
#141
Chomiq
I'm willing to bet that 16/32 part will be a threadripper, not an actual desktop cpu.
Posted on Reply
#142
Joss
ch3w2oy, post: 4041358, member: 187377"
Not everyone is playing 1080p and need the most FPS they can get. Everyone knows the CPU matters less when going up in resolution..
This.
I don't know the percentage of 60Hz monitors among gamers but I suspect it's well above 50%, and at that rate it doesn't matter a fart if the CPU has higher IPC or whatever.
Same when you go up in resolution, the GPU is so busy dealing with all those pixels that it can't produce much FPS, and again it doesn't matter a fart if the CPU has higher IPC or whatever.
The discussion about Intel vs AMD in meaningless to the majority of gamers and users in general.
Posted on Reply
#143
Anymal
Yes, true, Stock status: Sold out, ahahahaha
Posted on Reply
#144
Aquinus
Resident Wat-man
Chomiq, post: 4041562, member: 185703"
I'm willing to bet that 16/32 part will be a threadripper, not an actual desktop cpu.
Threadripper already has a 16c variant, the 2950X. Considering that AMD is doing the chiplet thing, I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility for this to be the higher end of the mainstream platform's lineup. The only thing I would be skeptical about dual channel memory being enough to feed 16 cores. We'll just have to wait and see. :ohwell:
Posted on Reply
#145
efikkan
While a 16-core AM4 part is certainly theoretically possible, a 16-core part with decent clocks will require the node to be extremely good. I'm afraid that a launch of such a product may end up as a "paper launch", if launched before the node is able to produce enough good chips. But at some point later, it can be quite possible.

But what would be the market for such a chip? As Aquinus touched upon, many users of heavily threaded workloads require good memory bandwidth to go along with it, like video encoding. And those heavy workloads that are not memory bound usually are synchronous workloads which scales better on fewer faster cores than more slower cores, so many real world usages would suffer if a 16-core AM4 part is not able to retain high enough clock speed.

But then again, marketing and hype is everything these days, so perhaps they'll do it just for that…
Posted on Reply
#146
metalkhor
although specs are the same as the previous leaks, but box images are extremely fake and unreal.
Posted on Reply
#147
Aquinus
Resident Wat-man
efikkan, post: 4041605, member: 150226"
While a 16-core AM4 part is certainly theoretically possible, a 16-core part with decent clocks will require the node to be extremely good.
I think maintaining clocks is less of a big deal if its two 8c chiplets. Yields for smaller dies tend to be better than bigger monolithic ones and we already know AMD is doing the chiplet thing with the separate I/O chip. I would expect the same kind of clocks as the rest of the lineup as they're really pretty consistent, even throughout threadripper. Everything else you said I completely agree with though.
Posted on Reply
#148
notb
Aquinus, post: 4041631, member: 102461"
I think maintaining clocks is less of a big deal if its two 8c chiplets. Yields for smaller dies tend to be better than bigger monolithic ones and we already know AMD is doing the chiplet thing with the separate I/O chip. I would expect the same kind of clocks as the rest of the lineup as they're really pretty consistent, even throughout threadripper. Everything else you said I completely agree with though.
Yes, there's no reason why a 16C CPU wouldn't be able to hit clocks as high as other models using the same dies (putting aside power draw and heat, obviously).
But should we really be amazed by this?

Intel does the exact same thing - with monolithic chips. More expensive CPUs have the same or higher clocks than cheaper ones. The idea behind Intel's lineup is that the more you spend, the faster the CPU should be - no matter what type of load it has to take care of.

As for the rumored specs. You've mentioned 2950X, thanks for that.
16 cores, 3.5/4.4GHz, 180W.
Assuming 7nm lower power draw by 1/3 (based on Radeon VII vs Vega64), we're getting pretty much to the 125W TDP. I think it's totally believable.
Where will they get these extra 10% clocks - I have no idea. But lets say they do.

2950X has been tested by multiple reviewers, in wide range of scenarios (from gaming and web browsing to rendering and scientific computing).
Everyone can open these tests and check if 2950X performance vs 2700X or 8700K is something that would change their lives.
Some 9900K reviews included a 2950X as well:
https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/intel_core_i9_9900k_processor_review,14.html

3800X may have a frequency advantage, but a lot of it will be consumed by dual channel RAM limitation.
Posted on Reply
#149
mahoney
Shatun_Bear, post: 4041548, member: 166032"
I know you didn't mean this but Ryzen actually has been 'the second coming of AMD' as they went from 5-10% sales ratio and irrelevence to +50% compared to Intel in some markets. We dont need reminding how disaterous Bulldozer was for them.
With all the hype most people were expecting an Athlon 64 - if you don't remember that cpu was destroying Intel in games and synthetic benches despite having 1ghz lower clocks. Though it didn't last long. While Ryzen sucks/is decentish at gaming and is ridicilusly good at productivity. That's why im hoping Ryzen 2 is the real deal.
Posted on Reply
#150
Aquinus
Resident Wat-man
notb, post: 4041648, member: 165619"
a lot of it will be consumed by dual channel RAM limitation.
I think that remains to be seen since it really depends on the workload(s) that would cause the CPU to run at full tilt because two different tasks can have very different demands on system memory and cache. Also, even if memory bandwidth does become more of a bottleneck, that also just means that memory speed matters. I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing... but that's all running under one big assumption: performance is the only thing that's important.

Consider for a moment that the speed of the CPU could be tuned for the amount of memory performance you're expecting to have, so even if the there isn't enough memory bandwidth to drive all the cores at max clocks, it would allow the CPU to distribute parallel load to more cores at lower clocks. That very well might be more efficient than using fewer cores at a higher frequency when it comes to power draw.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment