AMD Ryzen 9 4950X details leak - a potential gaming king?
- Thread starter midian182
- Start date
Now you should understand that buyers are those who are stupid.
Zen2 desktop CPU's are 3xxx (out July 2019), so if Zen2 APU's (July 2020) are also 3xxx, then stupid buyers assume AMD is selling 1 year old stuff.
So naming is not stupid, it's very wise and makes sense. Problem is that buyers (and you) (sorry, couldn't resist
) are stupid.
Now you should understand that buyers are those who are stupid.
Zen2 desktop CPU's are 3xxx (out July 2019), so if Zen2 APU's (July 2020) are also 3xxx, then stupid buyers assume AMD is selling 1 year old stuff.
So naming is not stupid, it's very wise and makes sense. Problem is that buyers (and you) (sorry, couldn't resist
The first problem with that is that the CPU architecture is 1 year old stuff as APUs are released a year after desktop CPUs with the same architecture. That said, treating the numbering as Ryzen model years is pretty close but still not perfect.
2017: Ryzen 1xxx
2018: Ryzen 2xxx
2019: Ryzen 3xxx
2020: Ryzen 4xxx
Problems with that: Ryzen 3 3100 and 3300X were released in 2020, so should be Ryzen 4000 processors. And the Ryzen 1200AF and 1600AF were released in 2019 and 2020 so should be 3xxx and 4xxx processors, respectively.
CPU architecture is year old but APU architecture is just released. Renaming APU architecture as year old would cause consumers to think this is old stuff and wait for newer one.
That's how it basically works so far, removing Ryzen out. First number tells release year, not architecture. 1xxx is 2017, 2xxx is 2018 etc. So buying 4xxx series on 2020 would get latest stuff, very easy for stupid consumers to know if they are getting latest and not old stuff. There just isn't perfect solution available. More complex naming system would cause confusion and too simple means more irregularities. Still, AMD's naming system does have logic and it makes sense for stupid average customer.
3100/3300X and 1200AF/1600AF are no problems as those are crappiest chips AMD has manufactured but still working good enough. AMD is short of cash and manufacturing capacity so they build stockpile of crap chips over time (that's why those are released so late) and then dump them on market for throwaway price same time hoping too many customers don't buy them AMD doesn't want to rename better chips and sell them dirt cheap (Intel wouldn't even make that kind of release, they would just throw crappiest chips into trash.). It also explains why there is shortage of 3300X. Again, naming makes much sense.
MaxSmarties
Posts: 559 +326
under the same logic, customers buying a 2020 laptop with a Ryzen 4800H APU is under the (wrong) impression of buying a new architecture while it is the same (good) architecture present in his " old " Ryzen 7 3700X, for instance.Now you should understand that buyers are those who are stupid.
Zen2 desktop CPU's are 3xxx (out July 2019), so if Zen2 APU's (July 2020) are also 3xxx, then stupid buyers assume AMD is selling 1 year old stuff.
So naming is not stupid, it's very wise and makes sense. Problem is that buyers (and you) (sorry, couldn't resist
Partially true. First, APU's have slightly different architecture compared to CPU's. Another thing is that 3000-series APU models came out 2019 so buying 4000 series means buying modern APU instead last year stuff. We could except there are different customers for CPU's and APU's. Huge difference vs Intel, because Intel have GPU integrated on every consumer class (few exceptions) CPU.
Not perfect logic but keeping naming schemed both logical and not too confusing same time is quite impossible.
Shadowboxer
Posts: 2,074 +1,655
Who cares what it’s named!? At least the naming scheme isn’t as bad as AMDs GPUs, I swear they just use a random name generator for those!
A 100mhz boost to clocks isn’t going to topple Intel’s gaming dominance. They need architecture improvements aswell. Hopefully it comes because I want a new gaming CPU that is a sizeable upgrade over the 4790K I currently own. At the moment a 3700X would give me up to about 20fps more and just isn’t worth it.
A 100mhz boost to clocks isn’t going to topple Intel’s gaming dominance. They need architecture improvements aswell. Hopefully it comes because I want a new gaming CPU that is a sizeable upgrade over the 4790K I currently own. At the moment a 3700X would give me up to about 20fps more and just isn’t worth it.
MaxSmarties
Posts: 559 +326
I don’t care, it is not a problem for me or for you... but it is confusing for a non technical customer.
I know a couple of colleagues that had the same issue last year buying a notebook. They were under the impression that a Ryzen 3750H was the notebook version of the very good Ryzen 3700X...
MaxSmarties
Posts: 559 +326
Intel’s gaming “dominance” isn’t caused by architecture but by clock and old game engines.
Games are going to change in the next future. They are already changing, and the next gen game consoles are pushing the market in the multi core direction.
Zen 2 already is a valid solution for gaming, and I’m expecting Zen 3 to have lower latency and slightly higher clock.
If one accounts for clock differences, there is evidence to suggest that Intel's architecture is still better suited for games than AMD's - albeit by a relatively small degree.
4GHz CPU Battle: Ryzen 3900X vs. 3700X vs. Core i9-9900K
Expanding upon all the testing we performed in our day-one 3rd-gen Ryzen coverage, today we'll be running a clock-for-clock comparison benchmark. IPC can be a good indicator...
www.techspot.com
Games, unfortunately, don't lend themselves particularly well to parallel processing. While path finding, audio, netcode, physics, and shader compiling can all be distributed across multiple threads, the final render execution is still single threaded. And since the performance of any game is always determined by the slowest variable, the overall frame rate will always be controlled by a single core.
Oh, they "knew" about 3700X. Let's do some comparison:
3700X is 8 core, 12nm+7nm, PCIe 4.0, has no integrated graphics, 65W, L3 cache 16MB
3750H is 4 core, 12nm, PCIe 3.0, with integrated graphics, 35W, L3 cache 4MB
Not to mention, there was no 4-core Ryzen 3000-series CPU available last year.
So anyone knows even basic basics of 3700X can very easily spot differences. For those who have never heard about 3700X that is not problem.
So your colleagues went into common trap: they Believed they knew Something but actually they just knew 3700X is AMD's new chip. With just that information, making assumptions like 3750H is version of 3700X is just, well, yeah, exactly. It is ... stupid.
Sometimes having no information at all is much better than having some information. As people who have some information think they have much more than they actually have.
MaxSmarties
Posts: 559 +326
If one accounts for clock differences, there is evidence to suggest that Intel's architecture is still better suited for games than AMD's - albeit by a relatively small degree.
4GHz CPU Battle: Ryzen 3900X vs. 3700X vs. Core i9-9900K
Expanding upon all the testing we performed in our day-one 3rd-gen Ryzen coverage, today we'll be running a clock-for-clock comparison benchmark. IPC can be a good indicator...
Games, unfortunately, don't lend themselves particularly well to parallel processing. While path finding, audio, netcode, physics, and shader compiling can all be distributed across multiple threads, the final render execution is still single threaded. And since the performance of any game is always determined by the slowest variable, the overall frame rate will always be controlled by a single core.
You are absolutely right , but we are speaking about a 5-10% difference in the best case scenario. And I pointed out another factor: old game engines.
Most of those engine were written with Intel (and 2/4 cores at best) in mind. Now the situation is changing, and the new consoles are using AMD architecture with a 8C/16T configuration and a relatively low clock speed (around 3.5 GHz).
I wouldn’t be surprised if that article in one year would be different (testing new gAmes obviously)
MaxSmarties
Posts: 559 +326
To argue with you is so difficult
You HAVE THE TRUTH. Your words are a dogma. Everyone else is just stupid...
They are no expert, but they are engineers most probably even more brilliant than you (Since you called them stupid). Not being tech enthusiasts they didnt know about every detail in AMD architecture, but they did know about Ryzen CPUs and how good they are in this generation. So because Intel are basically using the same architecture in a 9700K and a 9750H (with core numbers and clock speeds difference) they were expecting something similar when they faced a Ryzen 7 3700X and a Ryzen 7 3750H.
But they were smart enough to ask me advices before buying.
It is so difficult for a fanboy to admit AMD is playing a trick with those names ?
Or do you think that AMD calling its CPU “3750H” mimic Intel nomenclature was a casual choice ?
Shadowboxer
Posts: 2,074 +1,655
I think it will take longer than one year to render quad cores and 6 core CPUs obsolete for gaming. And this is a good thing, we don’t want to have to need to buy an 8 core CPU just to get the most out of a graphics card. When red dead redemption 2 released it was was criticised for being too demanding, people claimed it was badly optimised etc. However if the same thing happened on a CPU you would welcome it?
I understand that a lot of people here have made investments into high core count CPUs and I understand you want them utilised. But for the industry and the profitability of the companies who sell the games they don’t want to have to make users buy expensive multi core CPUs.
Oh and I get that the consoles have 8 cores. The last consoles had 8 cores, albeit much weaker ones. It doesn’t mean there is a revolution coming.
MaxSmarties
Posts: 559 +326
It will take time, for sure, but the next gen consoles are going to accelerate the process, so in 1 year we could see some results.
6 core CPUs wont become obsolete immediately, but 8 cores will be better, and 4 cores will start suffering (right now Steam statistics are still showing a lot of 4 core CPUs used).
expensive ? You can buy a Ryzen 3700X for less than 300€.
Yes, PS4 Jaguar CPU technically was an 8-cores, but it really was more a “2X 4-cores”, and Sony let developers just use 6 of them (they added support for the seventh in a later stage, but basically developers never used it).
Next gen consoles will be much more like gaming PCs.
To argue with you is so difficult
You HAVE THE TRUTH. Your words are a dogma. Everyone else is just stupid...
They are no expert, but they are engineers most probably even more brilliant than you (Since you called them stupid). Not being tech enthusiasts they didnt know about every detail in AMD architecture, but they did know about Ryzen CPUs and how good they are in this generation. So because Intel are basically using the same architecture in a 9700K and a 9750H (with core numbers and clock speeds difference) they were expecting something similar when they faced a Ryzen 7 3700X and a Ryzen 7 3750H.
But they were smart enough to ask me advices before buying.
It is so difficult for a fanboy to admit AMD is playing a trick with those names ?
Or do you think that AMD calling its CPU “3750H” mimic Intel nomenclature was a casual choice ?
So because Intel has one kind of logic, AMD should use exactly same? Even Intel's logic is flawed when comparing just model numbers and one CPU is desktop and another is mobile.
So with Intel: Model numbers are not logical if desktop and mobile CPU's are compared.
And on AMD: Model numbers are not logical if desktop and mobile CPU's are compared.
Simple, isn't it?
When it comes to AMD's naming scheme, it borrows a lot from Intel. 3 is cheap, 5 is better, 7 is even better and 9 is best. Problem is that when you have something like 3700, then most obvious choice for second model is 3750. That sounds much better than 3729.
MaxSmarties
Posts: 559 +326
so you think the name "3950H" was a coincidence ? ?
We are speaking about the CODE name, not the class of the product.
The Ryzen 3750H should have been "2750H" , because it wasn't a Zen2 product.
You know it very well, but you HAVE TO defend the "Holy Brand".
Intel has a lot of defects, but a 10750H and a 10700K are both Coffee Lake.
so you think the name "3950H" was a coincidence ? ?
3750H? Not just because between 3700 and 3800, 3750 is best choice.
No it shouldn't because that would mean stupid people think that is 2018 product, not 2019. Right as you said: your stupid colleagues thought 3750H has something to do with 3700X. If that was named 2750H, they would think it is basically renamed Zen+, (launched 2018) and they are buying old stuff while it was actually launched 2019.
Coffee Lake has exactly same architecture that is used on 6.th generation CPU's. So basically Intel has renamed 6.th generation products to 10.th generation products so that people believe they are buying modern architecture. Instead they are buying 2015 Skylake.
Using your logic, 10750H and 10700K should be 6750H and 6700K.
They had 8 cores back with FX when Intel was still only doing 4 cores for mainstream. Yes, Intel had HEDT with more cores, but at insanely high prices. I don't consider that to be a viable comparison as it was not mainstream CPUs. Even the Phenom II had a 6 core CPU, so we are talking about 11 or 12 years of AMD having more than 4 cores in their CPU architectures for mainstream market over 3 different architectures now.
I'm digging the specs of the new 16 core, but I think the Ryzen 7 with 8 cores is plenty for gaming and even streaming while gaming. I'd only want the 16 core for production work on videos and audio since I'm a sound engineer. The extra cores will be of much more use for that task, but I do game as well, so seeing the higher single core boost speed is nice.
Depending on how much more IPC they gain, this should narrow that gap to Intel on the gaming and possibly push AMD ahead on that front. I guess we'll see. If that is an engineering sample, that's already some high clocks, and usually another 100 to 300 mhz can be eeked out of production chips. I remember how abysmal first gen Ryzen chips were when we saw the engineering samples. It was just a matter of time and refinement before they'd find the clock speeds and more IPC.
In any event, I'm just glad AMD is solid competition to Intel now. It's definitely improved the mainstream CPU space in performance and pricing. No more 4 core Intel mainstream CPUs at inflated prices that seemed to be in a perpetual limbo when AMD was floundering after the FX years.
MaxSmarties
Posts: 559 +326
MaxSmarties
Posts: 559 +326
that would be a long wait...
Similar threads
