Friday, December 27th 2019

AMD Ryzen 4000 Rumored to Offer Around 17% Increased Performance

AMD's upcoming Ryzen 4000 series processors will be based on the company's Zen 3 design, which will feature a deeply revised architecture aiming to offer increased performance (surprising no-one). AMD themselves have already said that Zen 3 will offer performance increases in line with the release of new architectures - and we all remember the around 15% increase achieved with the release of Zen 2 Ryzen 3000 series, which surprised even AMD on its performance capabilities. Several sources around the web are quoting an around 17% increase in performance, taking into account increased operating frequencies of Zen 3 (100 to 200 MHz at least for the enterprise solutions, which could pave the way for even higher increases in consumer-geared products) and increased IPC of its core design. The utilization of EUV in the 7 nm process shouldn't have much to do with the increased frequencies of the CPUs, and will mostly be used to reduce the number of masks that are required for production of AMD's Zen 3 CPUs (which in turn will lead to increased yields).

Sources are claiming an increase of up to 50% in Zen 3's Floating Point Units (FPU) compared to Zen 2, while integer operations should make do with a 10-12% increase. Cores should remain stable across the board - and with that increase in performance, I'd say an upper limit of 16 physical and 32 logic cores in a consumer-geared CPU is more than enough. Increased IPCs and frequencies will definitely make AMD an even better proposition for all markets - gaming in particular, where Intel still has a (slightly virtual) hold in consumer's minds.
Sources: 3D Center, Red Gaming Tech, Reddit
Add your own comment

101 Comments on AMD Ryzen 4000 Rumored to Offer Around 17% Increased Performance

#76
ToxicTaZ
trparky
I couldn't give a rat's ass! If I have to pay more to get an extra five to ten percent more, it doesn't make much financial sense. Only a true fanboi would be willing to spend that much cash when there's a cheaper alternative that comes within a few percentage points.

Yes, because if I can get close to Intel performance for a fraction of the cost I'm going to do so.

Be prepared to get yourself a nuclear power station-style cooling tower to cool the sucker.
Like the one you would need if you tried running any 3000 series CPUs @5GHz+ lol ?
Posted on Reply
#77
trparky
Damn man, you just keep showing your true colors man. Stop with the fanboism man, you're making yourself look pathetic.
Posted on Reply
#78
Super XP
ToxicTaZ
The over priced 3950X couldn't outperform 9900KS PC Gaming Performance with new architecture and double the cores.

I guess AMD will need 20 cores to fight Intel 10 cores to keep tradition.
Overpriced? Far from it, and ZEN2 dominates in everything. And does more than well enough in PC gaming.
You really have no argument. If we were comparing AMD's Bulldozer, OK I understand your reasoning for buying this Dead End Intel Platform. But today ZEN2 is the King of CPU's regardless what you plan on doing with it.

ToxicTaZ
Like the one you would need if you tried running any 3000 series CPUs @5GHz+ lol ?
You do realize these Intel processors don't boost to 5GHz when gaming because they are throttled heavily due to heat issues. These processors suck a lot of power and generate a lot of heat.
Posted on Reply
#79
ToxicTaZ
Super XP
Overpriced? Far from it, and ZEN2 dominates in everything. And does more than well enough in PC gaming.
You really have no argument. If we were comparing AMD's Bulldozer, OK I understand your reasoning for buying this Dead End Intel Platform. But today ZEN2 is the King of CPU's regardless what you plan on doing with it.


You do realize these Intel processors don't boost to 5GHz when gaming because they are throttled heavily due to heat issues. These processors suck a lot of power and generate a lot of heat.
Want see heat? Run any R9 3900X or 3950X @5GHz+ ..... That's heat! Or is it even possible?? Lol

Maybe the 4000 series will have better luck.
Posted on Reply
#80
trparky
ToxicTaZ
Want see heat? Run any R9 3900X or 3950X @5GHz+ ..... That's heat! Or is it even possible?? Lol
:kookoo::rolleyes::roll:
Posted on Reply
#81
jigar2speed
ToxicTaZ
Want see heat? Run any R9 3900X or 3950X @5GHz+ ..... That's heat! Or is it even possible?? Lol

Maybe the 4000 series will have better luck.
I come here for this kind of stupidity. Amazing stuff he is smoking and no one is asking about.
Posted on Reply
#82
Old Ladies
Much fanboyism. 9900ks might be the best gaming cpu but AMD are very close and when you look at minimum frame rates that gap closes even more. Then you compare multi threading there is no competition and AMD wins hands down. I own an 8700k because at the time it was still much faster at gaming than the 1700x. Now they are not far apart.

Now factor in that AMD also is the only one with PCIE 4.0 and blazing fast m.2 SSDs it makes buying a z390 and 9900ks a bad deal. Not to mention Z390 is end of line while a X570 motherboard will have at least one more CPU that supports it and maybe two.

I can't see a good reason to buy Intel right now. Even at gaming if you look at higher resolutions you are gpu bottlenecked even with a 2080 ti.

Oh and you are living up to your user name being toxic.
Posted on Reply
#83
ToxicTaZ
Old Ladies
Much fanboyism. 9900ks might be the best gaming cpu but AMD are very close and when you look at minimum frame rates that gap closes even more. Then you compare multi threading there is no competition and AMD wins hands down. I own an 8700k because at the time it was still much faster at gaming than the 1700x. Now they are not far apart.

Now factor in that AMD also is the only one with PCIE 4.0 and blazing fast m.2 SSDs it makes buying a z390 and 9900ks a bad deal. Not to mention Z390 is end of line while a X570 motherboard will have at least one more CPU that supports it and maybe two.

I can't see a good reason to buy Intel right now. Even at gaming if you look at higher resolutions you are gpu bottlenecked even with a 2080 ti.

Oh and you are living up to your user name being toxic.
You should trade your 8700K for a 9900KS and have the fastest 8 cores CPU in the world. Resale on 8700K right now awesome, I got $300. On Ebay For my 8700K and only payed $450. Canadian two years ago. 9900KS was $600. Canadian On black Friday was a steal of a deal... So in the end $300. For 9900KS upgrade was fantastic.

If you shop smart you could have the best.

When is the AMD 4000 series coming out? Around July 2020?
Posted on Reply
#84
Valantar
ToxicTaZ
The over priced 3950X couldn't outperform 9900KS PC Gaming Performance with new architecture and double the cores.

I guess AMD will need 20 cores to fight Intel 10 cores to keep tradition.
Man, this is getting ridiculous. I get that at this point you're just desperately trying to either troll people or defend a multinational corporation you for some reason have an allegiance to, but let's dissect this a bit, shall we?

-There are two reasons for Intel's current gaming performance lead, both of which boil down to one point: games are still low-threaded applications. Intel thus wins (slightly) because they have higher max clocks and decent IPC. The other reason is that Intel Core has been the dominant x86 arch for almost a decade (2008-2017 or so), and a lot of game engines are still much better optimized for it. Intel also has higher multi-core turbo speeds, mostly due to ignoring power draw in recent chips.

-The reason the 12- and 16-core chips from AMD perform the best in games for their lineup isn't that they have more cores, but because they have the highest multi-core boost speeds. Games being low-threaded means that AMD's core advantage has little bearing on game performance. It thus stands to reason that a 10-core from Intel won't improve game performance due to core count either. A 10-core Intel chip at the same speed as an 8-core Intel chip on the same arch will perform within margin of error - at least until games start exceeding 4-6 threads.

-The ($750) 3950X trounces the ($600) 9900KS in most CPU-bound applications. Heck, it even beats the ($999) 10980XE in a lot of them. How's that for overpriced? Not all CPUs are made for gaming. And if you need gaming performance, the ($500) 3920X will do you just fine.

-With all of this said, Intel's "lead" boils down to ~11% (unrealistic 720p gaming) to ~1% (GPU-bound 4k gaming), with the realistic sweet-spot of 1440p for a CPU of this price hitting ~3.5% and 1080p for the esports crowd hitting ~6%. Tell me, how does that matter? At all? To anyone?
Posted on Reply
#85
ToxicTaZ
Valantar
Man, this is getting ridiculous. I get that at this point you're just desperately trying to either troll people or defend a multinational corporation you for some reason have an allegiance to, but let's dissect this a bit, shall we?

-There are two reasons for Intel's current gaming performance lead, both of which boil down to one point: games are still low-threaded applications. Intel thus wins (slightly) because they have higher max clocks and decent IPC. The other reason is that Intel Core has been the dominant x86 arch for almost a decade (2008-2017 or so), and a lot of game engines are still much better optimized for it. Intel also has higher multi-core turbo speeds, mostly due to ignoring power draw in recent chips.

-The reason the 12- and 16-core chips from AMD perform the best in games for their lineup isn't that they have more cores, but because they have the highest multi-core boost speeds. Games being low-threaded means that AMD's core advantage has little bearing on game performance. It thus stands to reason that a 10-core from Intel won't improve game performance due to core count either. A 10-core Intel chip at the same speed as an 8-core Intel chip on the same arch will perform within margin of error - at least until games start exceeding 4-6 threads.

-The ($750) 3950X trounces the ($600) 9900KS in most CPU-bound applications. Heck, it even beats the ($999) 10980XE in a lot of them. How's that for overpriced? Not all CPUs are made for gaming. And if you need gaming performance, the ($500) 3920X will do you just fine.

-With all of this said, Intel's "lead" boils down to ~11% (unrealistic 720p gaming) to ~1% (GPU-bound 4k gaming), with the realistic sweet-spot of 1440p for a CPU of this price hitting ~3.5% and 1080p for the esports crowd hitting ~6%. Tell me, how does that matter? At all? To anyone?

You're right you're getting ridiculous!

Why are you ranting about gaming performance? 9900KS is Superior single thread King... End of story

Funny how brainwashed you people are on the subject of Intel CPU Gaming performance... You have every excuse in the book coming out.

I don't even have to upload random pics with quotes trying to discourage and deceive other people into your cult.

9900KS 4K & 1440p gaming reviews right here from the pros of Techpowerup.

4K
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i9-9900ks/16.html

1440p
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i9-9900ks/15.html

Sorry that the 9900KS is the King of gaming and hurt your feelings, I'm hoping for AMD to do a better job with the 4000 series.

The only thing I can agree with you FBs is we all benefit from AMD market push, now they woke up the obviously sleeping Giant to build a $7+ Billion dollars super high-end 7nm factory called "Fab42" and there first CPUs coming out on brand new Architecture are Intel Meteor Lake.
Posted on Reply
#86
Khonjel
Why do you people engage with obvious fangirls? Now instead of actual discussion like the first few pages the thread's filled with arguments and counter-arguments which WILL go NOWHERE.

Assimilator
I'm guessing Zen 4/Ryzen 5000/AM5 will be DDR5. New memory type would definitely necessitate switching to a new socket.
Don't new DDR rams usually come out and be available in the market before the boards (and architecture) that utilise it come out?
Since Intel's Comet Lake is sticking with DDR4, I think AMD's gonna skip DDR5 too.

So I think DDR5 will come with AM5 or AM4+ whatever they call it.
mechtech
I wonder what Intel (Jim Keller) is going to put out and how it will perform once it's done? And will he go back to AMD after that to compete against his new chip he made while at Intel?

It's not AMD vs Intel

It's Jim vs Jim ;)
I think people were saying in reddit that Jim's intel design will come out in 2023 at the earliest.
Posted on Reply
#87
Valantar
ToxicTaZ
You're right you're getting ridiculous!

Why are you ranting about gaming performance? 9900KS is Superior single thread King... End of story

Funny how brainwashed you people are on the subject of Intel CPU Gaming performance... You have every excuse in the book coming out.

I don't even have to upload random pics with quotes trying to discourage and deceive other people into your cult.

9900KS 4K & 1440p gaming reviews right here from the pros of Techpowerup.

4K
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i9-9900ks/16.html

1440p
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i9-9900ks/15.html

Sorry that the 9900KS is the King of gaming and hurt your feelings, I'm hoping for AMD to do a better job with the 4000 series.

The only thing I can agree with you FBs is we all benefit from AMD market push, now they woke up the obviously sleeping Giant to build a $7+ Billion dollars super high-end 7nm factory called "Fab42" and there first CPUs coming out on brand new Architecture are Intel Meteor Lake.
Let's start off with this:
ToxicTaZ
Why are you ranting about gaming performance?
...I wouldn't say I'm "ranting", but I was specifically responding to this:
ToxicTaZ
Intel remains the 2019 PC Gaming King!
Trying to move the goal posts when people counter your arguments is a sign that your argument is fundamentally problematic. You were presenting gaming performance as the one true reason why Intel is still the best, I presented data to show that this isn't really relevant.

Beyond that, first off, the picture I embedded is from that exact review you linked. As were the numbers I quoted. If you actually read the review you might have seen that. To avoid typing it all again, the lead of the 9900KS spans from
Valantar
~11% (unrealistic 720p gaming) to ~1% (GPU-bound 4k gaming), with the realistic sweet-spot of 1440p for a CPU of this price hitting ~3.5% and 1080p for the esports crowd hitting ~6%.
Is it the single thread king? Sure. But what does it matter when it's not meaningfully - or, heck, even noticeably - faster than the competition? 6% faster at 1080p means at 200fps the closest AMD competitor would be at 188fps, or at 100fps AMD's option would be at 94. Neither of those are noticeable differences. The differences would drop to near half at 1440p. Is the 9900KS faster? Absolutely. Does it matter? Not really, no. Is it better value for gaming than a 3950X? Absolutely, it's ~$200 cheaper! Is it better value for gaming than a 3920X? No, as it's more expensive. The 3800X or 3700X trounces the 9900KS for gaming value, but they also compete with better-value i7s that make this a bit more complicated. Nonetheless, the advantage of the 9900KS is very small.

Arguing that a 6% 1080p/3.5% 1440p performance advantage makes it "king" ... well, I sincerely hope you can see how silly that is. It's faster, sure. Just not meaningfully, and at the cost of a significant power disadvantage.

Khonjel
Why do you people engage with obvious fangirls? Now instead of actual discussion like the first few pages the thread's filled with arguments and counter-arguments which WILL go NOWHERE.
Agree, but sadly I can't let nonsense like that stand unopposed. Also, using "*girl" in a derogatory way like that is ... quite sexist to say the least. Perhaps you ought to reconsider your phrasing?
Khonjel
Don't new DDR rams usually come out and be available in the market before the boards (and architecture) that utilise it come out?
How would that work? Who would put RAM to the market when there are zero platforms out there capable of using it? These things launch in unison.
Khonjel
So I think DDR5 will come with AM5 or AM4+ whatever they call it.
Yes. I don't think anybody has said differently. AM4 can't support DDR5 anyhow, so a new socket is required for that - which AMD won't be launching until 2021. And DDR5 isn't ready for mass-market adoption yet, so it likely won't be there for LGA1200.
Posted on Reply
#88
ixi
I'm amazed by people who tries to communicate with "ToxicTaZ". Just why? Let him troll once and ignore him.
Posted on Reply
#89
Valantar
ixi
I'm amazed by people who tries to communicate with "ToxicTaZ". Just why? Let him troll once and ignore him.
Some of us like to some small shred of hope for humanity :)
Posted on Reply
#90
Xuper
I looked at number of comments it was 68 and suddenly went to 84.i was temped to see comments...oh boy /facepalm
Posted on Reply
#91
Tatty_One
Senior Moder@tor
Chatroom cleaned up, reply bans issued, everyone is entitled to their opinion but when it becomes Toxic (no pun intended), that entitlement ceases.
Posted on Reply
#92
candle_86
ToxicTaZ
Want see heat? Run any R9 3900X or 3950X @5GHz+ ..... That's heat! Or is it even possible?? Lol

Maybe the 4000 series will have better luck.
Oh wow, you are they guy p4 was marketed to, you know ipc matters more than clock speed right?

Let me give you a quick lesson, go read a review on the Pentium 4 3.8, and notice how it lost to chips clocked at 2.4ghz. Amd doesn't need clock speed, they need ipc, there is a clock speed ceiling, Intel are hitting it again. They need ipc which they sent doing. If and can boost ipc even 10% then Intel will loose even if they release a 5.5ghz chip. Right now and beats Intel clock for clock by 2-5%, but 5ghz negates that. Now lets make amd 10% faster at the same clock and Intel looses.
Posted on Reply
#93
Jack1n
Valantar
5x performance? In two years? I'd like to see where that number came from. 3x the cores and a 66% IPC increase? 'cause clocks aren't going to get meaningfully higher (another 2-300MHz is 4-6%). What you're describing is never going to happen. Sure, Ice lake has a very nice 15-18% IPC increase, which meteor might add a bit to. And they'll get more cores for the same power with 10nm. But 5x? Don't be silly.

As for Intel's gaming lead, it's real, but pretty much meaningless. The difference between 160fps or 180fps, or 220 vs. 240fps, is for all practical purposes zero. And that's Intel's best case scenario ATM.
If you do not need that much FPS then why not just buy a cheaper Intel CPU? it will still be better value for your money, for gaming at least.
Besides, those numbers are for average FPS and not low 1% FPS, which is what matters if you do not want to feel the FPS drop, and if you payed for a an RTX 2080 or 2080TI it would be a real shame to feel those drops.
Posted on Reply
#94
Valantar
Jack1n
If you do not need that much FPS then why not just buy a cheaper Intel CPU? it will still be better value for your money, for gaming at least.
Besides, those numbers are for average FPS and not low 1% FPS, which is what matters if you do not want to feel the FPS drop, and if you payed for a an RTX 2080 or 2080TI it would be a real shame to feel those drops.
You must not have been reading CPU reviews much lately - AMD CPUs generally have better 1% and .1% lows than Intel CPUs at similar average FPS numbers (though this does vary between games and graphics cards, among other variables). That's one of the advantages of having more cores, as its less likely that background processes will cause dips. And if you stream or do anything else (especially while also gaming) AMD will perform better all around. There are still some good value i5s if all you do is game, but they pale in comparison to the other uses of similarly priced Ryzens.

But can we please stop beating this dead horse? This is not what this thread is about, and just because one troll brought up this stupid discussion doesn't mean we have to keep it going after they got banned from the thread.
Posted on Reply
#95
Jack1n
Valantar
You must not have been reading CPU reviews much lately - AMD CPUs generally have better 1% and .1% lows than Intel CPUs at similar average FPS numbers (though this does vary between games and graphics cards, among other variables). That's one of the advantages of having more cores, as its less likely that background processes will cause dips. And if you stream or do anything else (especially while also gaming) AMD will perform better all around. There are still some good value i5s if all you do is game, but they pale in comparison to the other uses of similarly priced Ryzens.

But can we please stop beating this dead horse? This is not what this thread is about, and just because one troll brought up this stupid discussion doesn't mean we have to keep it going after they got banned from the thread.
1. AMD does not have better 1%
2. It may be a dead horse from your point of view, but for me it is not, as the only intensive task I do on my PC at home is game and I do not stream.
3. It is completely relevant to thread as Intel's advantage in the OP was referred as virtual and I was the one who disagreed with it and first brought it up.
Posted on Reply
#96
Super XP
If ZEN3 is in fact 17% IPC increase over ZEN2, the argument about Intel being slightly faster in PC Gaming will no longer hold water.

Does this 17% IPC increase include the rumored 200-300MHz clock increase, the 7nm+ process enhancement? Or it only reflects the actual Architecture redesign which includes the cache system overhaul.
In my previous post I've asked this similar question.
Depending on what I'm asking, we may be looking at an even higher IPC uplift, over the 17% rumor.
ZEN3 is looking like a very serious contender, much more than the ZEN2 impact. And that ZEN2 was a big impact lol
Posted on Reply
#97
HTC
Super XP
If ZEN3 is in fact 17% IPC increase over ZEN2, the argument about Intel being slightly faster in PC Gaming will no longer hold water.

Does this 17% IPC increase include the rumored 200-300MHz clock increase, the 7nm+ process enhancement?
Or it only reflects the actual Architecture redesign which includes the cache system overhaul.
In my previous post I've asked this similar question.
Depending on what I'm asking, we may be looking at an even higher IPC uplift, over the 17% rumor.
ZEN3 is looking like a very serious contender, much more than the ZEN2 impact. And that ZEN2 was a big impact lol
No and doubt it.

No because, IPC increase doesn't rule out same / lower clocks. It will however close the distance VS Intel even more and MAY even bypass it, depending on the clocks.

Doubt it because the new process will increase density and therefore higher heat concentration. I actually expect either lower boost clocks or lower clocks in general: something like 100MHz or 200MHz is enough for that 17% IPC uplift to STILL be an performance increase VS Zen 2, in general.

After all, the rumor is about IPC uplift but there hasn't been a peep about performance uplift in general, has it?
Posted on Reply
#98
Super XP
HTC
No and doubt it.

No because, IPC increase doesn't rule out same / lower clocks. It will however close the distance VS Intel even more and MAY even bypass it, depending on the clocks.

Doubt it because the new process will increase density and therefore higher heat concentration. I actually expect either lower boost clocks or lower clocks in general: something like 100MHz or 200MHz is enough for that 17% IPC uplift to STILL be an performance increase VS Zen 2, in general.

After all, the rumor is about IPC uplift but there hasn't been a peep about performance uplift in general, has it?
Hmmm I read somewhere that AMD has the ability to increase clock speeds by 200-300MHz on that 7nm+ node. Doesn't say they will use that extra clock advantage but it's achievable with the latest node tap out. I'll look for the link. Think it was on wccftech the rumor mill website lol
Posted on Reply
#99
HTC
Super XP
Hmmm I read somewhere that AMD has the ability to increase clock speeds by 200-300MHz on that 7nm+ node. Doesn't say they will use that extra clock advantage but it's achievable with the latest node tap out. I'll look for the link. Think it was on wccftech the rumor mill website lol
I've seen several rumors stating that too: probably all from the same source ...

Because 7+nm has higher density, it stands to reason it will be more difficult to keep in check, temp wise, and this suggests lower clocks.

Besides, there's this video too (skip to 6:51):

Posted on Reply
#100
Valantar
Jack1n
1. AMD does not have better 1%
Tom's Hardware 9900KS review. Look at Far Cry 5 and FFXV. In pretty much every other title there's no noticeable difference in 1% numbers.
GamersNexus Ryzen 5 3600 review. Look at the AC:O 1440p graph and SoTR. Everything else is very even, the only major outliers are cases where Intel CPUs lag in 1% and .1%.
Jack1n
2. It may be a dead horse from your point of view, but for me it is not, as the only intensive task I do on my PC at home is game and I do not stream.
Gaming is the main intensive task for me too, but I nonetheless don't see the point of going for a dead-end platform with zero upgrade path just to get a ~3.5% advantage at the resolution I play at (1440p). That number is from TPU's 9900KS review, btw. That is in no way a noticeable difference, and the tradeoff is getting no upgrade path and a less powerful CPU for everything else - so I'll gladly pass on that.
Jack1n
3. It is completely relevant to thread as Intel's advantage in the OP was referred as virtual and I was the one who disagreed with it and first brought it up.
Not really. The news post is about the rumored IPC improvement in Zen3. While IPC is always averaged across different workloads, it would be very hard to reach 17% without also improving gaming performance by a bit. And they only need to improve by a bit to match or beat Intel across the board, even with next-gen Intel chips boosting clocks by another 2-300 MHz. Nonetheless, a post about IPC improvements need not devolve into a rehash of the stale "but Intel is still best at gaming" "yeah, but not by enough for it to matter" "but it DOES matter!" exchange that we've all seen a thousand times.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment