Leak: Ryzen 3000 runs at 4.5 GHz and beats Ryzen 2000 by 15%

mongeese

TS Maniac
Staff member

Bilibili user “Ito Technology” claims that motherboard manufacturers have engineering samples of mainstream Ryzen 3000 processors in the four to eight core territory, but they’re expecting (and preparing for) twelve and sixteen core parts too. While final clock speeds haven’t been established, the CPUs reliably run at 4.5 GHz and outperform previous parts by 15%, while having impressively low thermal output and power requirements.

The architectural shift has seen a vastly improved execution pipeline, double the core density, improvements to floating point bandwidth, better branch prediction, improvements to instruction pre-fetching… the list goes on. All in all, there’s a sizeable boost in IPC (instruction per clock). The memory controller has also been upgraded, though it’s not a groundbreaking improvement.

AMD X570 motherboards are believed to arrive in July with up to 40 PCIe 4.0 lanes, powering eight USB 3.1 Gen2 ports in addition to the regular expansion slots, SATA, and USB 2.0. Unfortunately manufacturers are struggling with B550 which will arrive in September. New methods are still being devised, but not all B550 boards may arrive with proper PCIe 4.0 support. As a side note, though most previous motherboards will support the new processors A320 models most likely won’t.

This leak’s greatest claim to reliability is also its greatest downfall: for the most part it makes way too much sense. We know that Ryzen 3000 will have 12-core parts, making it very likely there’ll be 16-core parts, too. AMD’s CES Cinebench run using Ryzen 3000 performed 15% better than an average 2700X (16.1% better compared to TechSpot’s review sample). Doing some math, it’s easy enough to calculate that AMD’s CES benchmark sample was running at 4.54 GHz (though that doesn’t account for IPC improvements).

A July release date is exactly mid-year: what AMD already promised to us at CES. It’s already confirmed that X570 boards would have PCIe 4.0. The only surprise is the number, 40, which is double what X470 boards currently offer. Is that too high? Perhaps. But all in all, the leak is the logician’s dream – is that too great a coincidence?

Permalink to story.

 

Wessell Urdata

TS Booster
It would need to hit 5.0GHz before I would consider one, but impressive stuff AMD!
Keep it up.
Well technically speaking, with 15% IPC increase, a Ryzen 3000 at 4.5Ghz is like a 2700X running at something like @5Ghz.

...and a Ryzen 2700X running @ 5GHZ would be good enough for me.
And let's not forget the amount of cores you'd get with 3rd gen Ryzen.
 

Vulcanproject

TS Evangelist
2700X can sustain something like 4.1GHz or so on most chips. If you can have 10 percent more clock speed that virtually eradicates the 1080p gaming advantage that the 9900k had when it was tested by Techspot. It certainly means at 1440p or above the difference between the parts for gaming would be moot.

However if this clock speed bump is in addition to a 10-15 percent IPC improvement which is realistic, then you're looking at an AMD 8 core that can match or beat the 9900k in basically every area, including gaming.

After that there is just the small matter of pricing.
 

DukeJukem

TS Booster
Let's not forget that on the 7nm node these chops should run cooler and therefore overclock better....who remembers the Barton M days and the Athlon 64 days of overclocking? Some AMD chips easily overclocked 30-50% back in the day!
idk man going from and rx 580 to an rx 590 was a joke and the die shrank throughout that process. I couldn't overclock a 590 to save my life (yea I know you're not supposed to) plus it ran like TRASH always hitting 0% utilization in games for no reason. went to best buy and bought a 2070 to pair with my 4690k and no problems since. AMD needs to focus on their graphics department if they already have CPUs down considering intel is releasing their dedicated GPU next year. Seriously.....unless navi is some sort of godly product AMDs graphics division is dying next year.

Oh.....and AMD.......just release ONE processor that maybe doesn't have a million cores but can destroy an intel cpu in single core IPC for gaming etc. like maybe give us a 4 core ryzen that can smash 5.2 ghz for those select people that only care about gaming and don't mind only being able to have a handful of things open while gaming. some gamers are all about games......we don't need 8 cores to multitask. yea yea I know theres rendering and all that jazz......but I don't need that. I'll take that 4 core monster I just spoke of and let my video render etc while I sleep if I have to. no biggy if my games are performing godly.
 

pcnthuziast

TS Evangelist
So basically Intel still reigns in ipc performance. Guess I'm waiting another year or 2 to upgrade. Almost got an AMD chip. Almost.
 

NightAntilli

TS Maniac
Let's not forget that on the 7nm node these chops should run cooler and therefore overclock better....who remembers the Barton M days and the Athlon 64 days of overclocking? Some AMD chips easily overclocked 30-50% back in the day!
idk man going from and rx 580 to an rx 590 was a joke and the die shrank throughout that process. I couldn't overclock a 590 to save my life (yea I know you're not supposed to) plus it ran like TRASH always hitting 0% utilization in games for no reason. went to best buy and bought a 2070 to pair with my 4690k and no problems since. AMD needs to focus on their graphics department if they already have CPUs down considering intel is releasing their dedicated GPU next year. Seriously.....unless navi is some sort of godly product AMDs graphics division is dying next year.

Oh.....and AMD.......just release ONE processor that maybe doesn't have a million cores but can destroy an intel cpu in single core IPC for gaming etc. like maybe give us a 4 core ryzen that can smash 5.2 ghz for those select people that only care about gaming and don't mind only being able to have a handful of things open while gaming. some gamers are all about games......we don't need 8 cores to multitask. yea yea I know theres rendering and all that jazz......but I don't need that. I'll take that 4 core monster I just spoke of and let my video render etc while I sleep if I have to. no biggy if my games are performing godly.
RX 580 to RX 590 was 14nm to 12nm (which is actually more like a 14nm+), a much smaller difference between this and the jump from 12nm to 7nm.

Going with 4 cores nowadays for gaming is simply stupid. For really smooth performance, 6 cores is a minimum, preferably with SMT/HT.
 

akamateau

TS Member
HYPE = HYPERBOLE

@Isaiah Mayersen

Hyperbole is the use of exaggeration as a rhetorical device or figure of speech. In rhetoric, it is also sometimes known as auxesis. In poetry and oratory, it emphasizes, evokes strong feelings, and creates strong impressions. As a figure of speech, it is usually not meant to be taken literally.

While I certainly look at the leaked data with some reservations, I would ask the Techspot writer what was NOT meant to be taken literally in the data?

Or was your title itself HYPE and not meant to be taken literally?
 

Toju Mikie

TS Addict
Nice, I've always wanted something like this. 12 core CPU in a cheap socket! I could use 6 cores for Matlab, and the other 6 cores to game or do other tasks at the same time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Charles Olson

Evernessince

地獄らしい人間動物園
So basically Intel still reigns in ipc performance. Guess I'm waiting another year or 2 to upgrade. Almost got an AMD chip. Almost.
Doubtful given that a midrange engineering sample is slightly beating Intel's top of the line 9900K. One processor is going to cost around $200 USD, the other $560. It's going to look bad when the higher clocked, higher core count models are benched.
 

Rock Wilson

TS Rookie
Let's not forget that on the 7nm node these chops should run cooler and therefore overclock better....who remembers the Barton M days and the Athlon 64 days of overclocking? Some AMD chips easily overclocked 30-50% back in the day!
idk man going from and rx 580 to an rx 590 was a joke and the die shrank throughout that process. I couldn't overclock a 590 to save my life (yea I know you're not supposed to) plus it ran like TRASH always hitting 0% utilization in games for no reason. went to best buy and bought a 2070 to pair with my 4690k and no problems since. AMD needs to focus on their graphics department if they already have CPUs down considering intel is releasing their dedicated GPU next year. Seriously.....unless navi is some sort of godly product AMDs graphics division is dying next year.

Oh.....and AMD.......just release ONE processor that maybe doesn't have a million cores but can destroy an intel cpu in single core IPC for gaming etc. like maybe give us a 4 core ryzen that can smash 5.2 ghz for those select people that only care about gaming and don't mind only being able to have a handful of things open while gaming. some gamers are all about games......we don't need 8 cores to multitask. yea yea I know theres rendering and all that jazz......but I don't need that. I'll take that 4 core monster I just spoke of and let my video render etc while I sleep if I have to. no biggy if my games are performing godly.
Except the rx 590 was identical to an rx 580 except for a minuscule node shrink and clock speed bump. Ryzen 3000 completely redesigns Ryzen and is on a much more advanced node shrink. Everything is needing more cores nowadays. At least 8 threads to game with is optimal.
 

Evernessince

地獄らしい人間動物園
Let's not forget that on the 7nm node these chops should run cooler and therefore overclock better....who remembers the Barton M days and the Athlon 64 days of overclocking? Some AMD chips easily overclocked 30-50% back in the day!
idk man going from and rx 580 to an rx 590 was a joke and the die shrank throughout that process. I couldn't overclock a 590 to save my life (yea I know you're not supposed to) plus it ran like TRASH always hitting 0% utilization in games for no reason. went to best buy and bought a 2070 to pair with my 4690k and no problems since. AMD needs to focus on their graphics department if they already have CPUs down considering intel is releasing their dedicated GPU next year. Seriously.....unless navi is some sort of godly product AMDs graphics division is dying next year.

Oh.....and AMD.......just release ONE processor that maybe doesn't have a million cores but can destroy an intel cpu in single core IPC for gaming etc. like maybe give us a 4 core ryzen that can smash 5.2 ghz for those select people that only care about gaming and don't mind only being able to have a handful of things open while gaming. some gamers are all about games......we don't need 8 cores to multitask. yea yea I know theres rendering and all that jazz......but I don't need that. I'll take that 4 core monster I just spoke of and let my video render etc while I sleep if I have to. no biggy if my games are performing godly.
You don't really want a 4 core CPU anymore unless you are playing strictly eSports titles. Many games can utilize 6 cores pretty well now. Going 4 cores would cripple your performance in some titles.
 

pcnthuziast

TS Evangelist
Doubtful given that a midrange engineering sample is slightly beating Intel's top of the line 9900K. One processor is going to cost around $200 USD, the other $560. It's going to look bad when the higher clocked, higher core count models are benched.
>trusting early contrived bench scenarios
>believing launch prices will really be that low
 
  • Like
Reactions: mockingbird1

Puiu

TS Evangelist
I just want to see them running at this point. The "leaks" are all over the place, but 4.5GHz with 15% extra IPC is well withing the expected performance increase of this new generation.

What I am skeptical about are the 40 PCIe lanes. It seems too good to be true. Adding 2 NVME drives will no longer be problematic.
 

pcnthuziast

TS Evangelist
You don't really want a 4 core CPU anymore unless you are playing strictly eSports titles. Many games can utilize 6 cores pretty well now. Going 4 cores would cripple your performance in some titles.
I'll be back to say I told you so in a couple months. You're dead wrong.
 

redhat

TS Enthusiast
""outperform previous parts by 15%"" Hope it's ST performance not MT one as MT is quite predictable.
Same apply to Navi, I mean the performance level of vega 56/RT 2060 GPUs is the most popular on Steam, they just need to lower TDP
I hope that AMD will be able to address those problems right away
 

Evernessince

地獄らしい人間動物園

mcborge

TS Guru
I've already updated my Rog Strix X470-f board for Ryzen 3, I'm looking to get a Ryzen 3700x. It should be a nice bump up from the none X 2700 I have now. I'm just wondering if the Corsair LPX 3000 ram I have now will hold a Ryzen 3000 back in any significant way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Charles Olson

plonk420

TS Enthusiast
Let's not forget that on the 7nm node these chops should run cooler and therefore overclock better....who remembers the Barton M days and the Athlon 64 days of overclocking? Some AMD chips easily overclocked 30-50% back in the day!
good luck with 30-50% these days (and that's coming from an AMD fanboy/user)