zamroni111
Posts: 446 +249
Amd should end the naming confusion. 4000 series has been used by zen2 laptop processors. Zen 3 should not use it for desktop processors.
Zen 3-based Ryzen 4000 CPUs rumored to come with 10-core model, new features
- Thread starter midian182
- Start date
dihartnell
Posts: 36 +25
Yeah its not ideal. I can see how they got there. They typically release the APUs/Mobile late in the cycle and very close to the release of the next gen. Some marketing person probably told them to name it based on the upcoming generation rather than the previous generation its based on otherwise sales might be hurt.
Irata
Posts: 2,288 +4,002
Just checked Newegg.
Asus ROG X570 Crosshair Hero costs $379 / 359 (with / without Wifi)
Asus ROG Maximus Hero Z490 costs $399 with Wifi, so $20 more expensive on an inferior platform.
But yes, you could also compare 2014 prices to 2020 prices and pin the blame on AMD, ignoring the fact that the Intel counterpart is even more expensive.
quadibloc
Posts: 423 +275
If there's a 10-core SKU in AMD's future, I have to suspect that it isn't going to be a part with two chiplets with five cores enabled, or one chiplet with all eight cores, and one chiplet with two cores.
Instead, I would boldly speculate that what this suggests is that AMD is going to put ten cores instead of eight on a chiplet.
So the 16-core SKU would be two chiplets, each with two of their ten cores disabled, and would correspond to the current 12-core SKU in terms of not being the absolute top of the line.
Now, though, that also seems to require that the current AM4 socket would be capable of handling 20 cores, but, hey, if they get two good chiplets, I suppose they could always put them in a Threadripper package instead.
So there would be 8-core, 10-core, 16-core and 20-core chips, but no 6-core or 12-core.
Instead, I would boldly speculate that what this suggests is that AMD is going to put ten cores instead of eight on a chiplet.
So the 16-core SKU would be two chiplets, each with two of their ten cores disabled, and would correspond to the current 12-core SKU in terms of not being the absolute top of the line.
Now, though, that also seems to require that the current AM4 socket would be capable of handling 20 cores, but, hey, if they get two good chiplets, I suppose they could always put them in a Threadripper package instead.
So there would be 8-core, 10-core, 16-core and 20-core chips, but no 6-core or 12-core.
Shadowboxer
Posts: 2,074 +1,655
I know right? How dare I blame your beloved AMD. X570 is definitely more expensive on average. I understand you have picked two SKUS that are more expensive on Z490 but in general X570 boards definitely cost more.
Oh and in general FYI, I would say Z490 boards tend to be better. They tend to have more USB C and other features like thunderbolt, optane etc. The only thing they dont have is PCIe4 and some of them even do have it but might work with next years CPUs. Either way it’s false to claim Z490 is inferior.
Irata
Posts: 2,288 +4,002
I used / checked the example you specifically made. Is it really that hard to understand?
You are performing some serious mental gymnastics here and it‘s tiring.
I couldn't resist, and had a quick look at Overclockers (UK), to see what's what. X570 is more expensive, no argumants there. However, not by that much: the cheapest Z490 is 135 quid, the cheapest X570 is 159. Maybe more representative if we consider comparable a comparable pair: Asus Prime Z490 is 155, while Asus Prime X570 is 170. For me, this falls into the "noticeable, but not definitive" category.
Your ASUS ROG Maximus Hero seems to be a very "top of the line" product, the current version for Z490 retailing at 399 (GBP...gulp...), while the same doesn't seem to exist for X570, a comparable version could perhaps be an ASUS ROG Crosshair VIII Hero at 389 or 439 (with or without WI-FI).
For me, it seems that prices are comparable tier-by-tier for Z490 and X570. As for 'the Z490 boards tend top be better" sentiment, I am in no position to confirm or challenge that, but would be interested to hear what is that statement based on (pure curiosity, I have neither). Cheers!
Its the other way round: You (the consumer) got the AMD message right. AMD positioned 3700X and 3800X pricing based on the yields. It was able to bin much more valid 3700X than 3800X from the same wafer and the bin ratio was driving the price and price was driving the sales!
They are already faster than Intel with gaming. Unless you're talking about 1080p gaming. Then Intel is slightly faster. They are also faster than Intel with other things too at a much cheaper price.
Squid Surprise
Posts: 5,605 +5,238
No, they aren't faster than Intel at gaming... but they're practically the same most of the time... If you are building a system SOLELY for gaming, then Intel is the one to beat... but nowadays, very few should be doing that.
Based on 4k gaming, the AMD has higher FPS at a cheaper price.
Same specs with just a different processor, the AMD produces higher FPS at higher resolution. The only time Intel is winning is with 1080p gaming.
Squid Surprise
Posts: 5,605 +5,238
Really? Please share the link to that... cause generally benchmarks are done at low resolutions in order to rule out the GPU as the bottleneck...
Then prepare to be surprised because 5nm was clearly stated it will be used for Zen 4 and RDNA 3 (which are scheduled to release in late 2021).
Similar threads
