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

[Aldain]

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

Um dude IF the 15 percent IPC is real (take it with a grain of salt , this is a Chinese rumor) amd is the IPC king

 

[klepto12]

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

This is not true... A 15% IPC gain puts them on par with Intel and is the clocks are right it will be faster than a 9900k with way less power usage.

 

[144hzGamer]

Yeah now we need to know how the IMC is, Latencies etc. Lets wait and see

 

[pcnthuziast]

A lot of bliss here.

 

[Evernessince]

This is not true... A 15% IPC gain puts them on par with Intel and is the clocks are right it will be faster than a 9900k with way less power usage.

Yep. TechSpot did a IPC test of the 2700X vs 8700K (which is identical in IPC to the 9900K).

https://www.techspot.com/article/1616-4ghz-ryzen-2nd-gen-vs-core-8th-gen/

Intel is on average 3% higher. A 15% boost will clearly put AMD in the lead.

A lot of bliss here.

Not bliss, just looking at the facts.

 

[Floodmayhem]

Everyone seems to not realize, the chip to hit 4.5ghz boost was an early engineering sample back in December, a quadcore to be exact, so expect 4.7ghz at least on a mature quadcore chip. Now, everyone knows AMD puts their faster binned chiplets into their higher core parts, so take into consideration ryzen and ryzen+ is able to OC 200-350mhz, add that to the higher binned, and possibly even the lowest core skus, and what do you have?? your 5ghz ryzens. Why in the world would amd show their hand of a not-as-fast-as-expected final product? They wouldn't, it was an unfinalized early engineering sample. Amd just now decided to release a tease of it.

 

[Chadley75]

It would need to hit 5.0GHz before I would consider one, but impressive stuff AMD!
Keep it up.

The Ghz race is long over and irrelevant. A 5ghz CPU can still be slower than a 4.5ghz CPU depending on architecture and IPC.

 

[bunny281993]

It would need to hit 5.0GHz before I would consider one, but impressive stuff AMD!
Keep it up.

I'm gonna go ahead and say that I bet you'll consider one nonetheless once you see their results, considering that the previous generation was already great to begin with.

 

[Meatroid]

It would need to hit 5.0GHz before I would consider one, but impressive stuff AMD!
Keep it up.

Momma always said life was like a box of gigahertz, you never know when you're going to understand instructions per clock.

 

[Knot Schure]

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

This is not true... A 15% IPC gain puts them on par with Intel and is the clocks are right it will be faster than a 9900k with way less power usage.

Beint 'high on hopium', never helped person nor investor. I too wish AMD would come out with +500% IPC, in the name of competition, but I'd wait for FACTS before flying any flags of support, as you are doing.

 

[pcnthuziast]

Glad everyone enjoyed the bait. Hope it was tasty!

 

[godrilla]

I really hope the 4.5 ghz plus x1.15 ipc gains is real.
need to upgrade my 9 year i7 980xe.

Anyone have an idea who makes the best motherboards for AMD CPUs?

 

[Evernessince]

Beint 'high on hopium', never helped person nor investor. I too wish AMD would come out with +500% IPC, in the name of competition, but I'd wait for FACTS before flying any flags of support, as you are doing.

He wasn't saying those were facts, he was simply saying that a 15% IPC boost will put them on par with Intel.

I really hope the 4.5 ghz plus x1.15 ipc gains is real.
need to upgrade my 9 year i7 980xe.

Anyone have an idea who makes the best motherboards for AMD CPUs?

ASRock has great high-end, mid-range, and low end offerings on AMD. Rock stable and good quality. ASUS and Gigabyte also make some good offerings. ASUS makes the best extreme overclocking boards if you want to go crazy with something like LN2 or a custom loop.

I'd personally recommend an ASRock Taichi board. Top of the line motherboard at a great price. If you can't afford that then something like the ASUS Prime Pro might be up your alley.

 

[godrilla]

He wasn't saying those were facts, he was simply saying that a 15% IPC boost will put them on par with Intel.



ASRock has great high-end, mid-range, and low end offerings on AMD. Rock stable and good quality. ASUS and Gigabyte also make some good offerings. ASUS makes the best extreme overclocking boards if you want to go crazy with something like LN2 or a custom loop.

I'd personally recommend an ASRock Taichi board. Top of the line motherboard at a great price. If you can't afford that then something like the ASUS Prime Pro might be up your alley.

TY.

 

[Nick D]

Well fanboys or not, when AMD makes moves like this, its great for the consumer. Fanboys get a price drop sometime after AMD forces Intel to compete, the rest get a better deal for the money and gouging goes down. We've seen what Intel does when in control (looking at the decade before 2017) and luckily we aren't stuck at 4 cores still because of that.

 

[jpuroila]

I'll be back to say I told you so in a couple months. You're dead wrong.

"We can all agree that high-end or even mid-range quad-core CPUs, even those with SMT support are dead"

https://www.techspot.com/article/1803-are-quad-cores-dead/

How embarrassing. All that snark and you couldn't even do the basic research to realize what I said has already came to pass.

What you just linked is one of the worst written techspot articles this year. I haven't seen any evidence that suggests that 7700k is anything less than competitive for gaming.

 

[Evernessince]

What you just linked is one of the worst written techspot articles this year. I haven't seen any evidence that suggests that 7700k is anything less than competitive for gaming.

It was written by Steve, who does nearly every benchmark on techspot. If you are going to complain that's it bad, give specific examples of why it's bad. Otherwise the data shows that for many modern titles, there is a big drop in FPS with a quad core.

FYI no one here is saying the 7700K isn't competitive for gaming. The article is saying you won't get as many FPS as you could be getting in modern titles. eSports and whatnot are fine but you'd be much better upgrading to one of Intel's latest offerings. People buying the 7700K should have known that it was going to be short lived. Intel launched an entire new lineup in less then a year to replace it. Four cores has been on it's way out for a long time thanks to Intel keeping the market stale. It's about time that has finally changed.

 

[meric]

Well this isn't very bright news in terms of performance. 15% better performance from a chip that's supposedly running at a ~400 mhz higher frequency is not impressive at all. What may be impressive is the power consumption figures, we will wait and see for that.

 

[Fuzzy Dunalap]

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.

what? why would you go from a 580 to a 590 when the only difference is clock speed, overclock the 580. what resolution are you using it for, a 2070.. (sigh). he was talking about processor not gpu.

this makes no sense. your knowledge in this area is highly questionable...

 

[ForgottenLegion]

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.

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

It's times like these I'm glad I jumped on the 2011-3 bandwagon.
More features than the mainstream for not a lot more money and the 5820K still performs admirably. Even at 1440p/165Hz

I wonder how long I can stave off a platform upgrade.
1080 Ti is holding strong too. I think this is the longest I've ever not upgraded a core component

 

[amstech]

Momma always said life was like a box of gigahertz, you never know when you're going to understand instructions per clock.

I knew I would get trolled with the IPC stuff by folks who think they're intelligent because they saw an article about the 15%-30% IPC increase. OH MY GOD! Lol, its still slower. Reading all the comments has been entertaining though.

I'm gonna go ahead and say that I bet you'll consider one nonetheless once you see their results, considering that the previous generation was already great to begin with.

Ryzen's gaming performance, while good, is still vastly inferior to Intel's. This has a lot to do with clock speed and instructions per cycle. Sorry but Intel still holds a slight lead in IPC or instructions per cycle, or how many instructions a chip can execute in a given time, (Source: Toms Hardware April 2019) which makes its chips better for lightly-threaded tasks (many games, web surfing and some Adobe software). Even with the IPC increase, which won't effect many applications. It's AMD's answer to lower clock speeds and its nothing the competition won't be improving either.
Get your chip to 5.0GHz 24/7 and I'll consider it, regardless of the IPC performance/technology.

 

[Veiran]

What you just linked is one of the worst written techspot articles this year. I haven't seen any evidence that suggests that 7700k is anything less than competitive for gaming.

It was written by Steve, who does nearly every benchmark on techspot. If you are going to complain that's it bad, give specific examples of why it's bad. Otherwise the data shows that for many modern titles, there is a big drop in FPS with a quad core.

FYI no one here is saying the 7700K isn't competitive for gaming. The article is saying you won't get as many FPS as you could be getting in modern titles. eSports and whatnot are fine but you'd be much better upgrading to one of Intel's latest offerings. People buying the 7700K should have known that it was going to be short lived. Intel launched an entire new lineup in less then a year to replace it. Four cores has been on it's way out for a long time thanks to Intel keeping the market stale. It's about time that has finally changed.

The article is comparing relatively low-end parts (with different cache and clocks) to the high end parts. The 7700K was not tested in that article. Hence, it's misleading to draw conclusions from that article alone.

 

[Maxiking]

"CPUs reliably run at 4.5 GHz and outperform previous parts by 15%"

This just means they are faster by 15% when clocked to 4.5hgz not that they are 15% faster clock to clock.

How is it written in the original post?

 

[pcnthuziast]

Bottom line is I don't believe AMD claims, at all. Not saying they won't have the top chip for a small window of time, but I highly doubt the disparity will be as big as claimed and am fully expecting much higher prices this go round.

 

[Evernessince]

I knew I would get trolled with the IPC stuff by folks who think they're intelligent because they saw an article about the 15%-30% IPC increase. OH MY GOD! Lol, its still slower. Reading all the comments has been entertaining though.


Ryzen's gaming performance, while good, is still vastly inferior to Intel's. This has a lot to do with clock speed and instructions per cycle. Sorry but Intel still holds a slight lead in IPC or instructions per cycle, or how many instructions a chip can execute in a given time, (Source: Toms Hardware April 2019) which makes its chips better for lightly-threaded tasks (many games, web surfing and some Adobe software). Even with the IPC increase, which won't effect many applications. It's AMD's answer to lower clock speeds and its nothing the competition won't be improving either.
Get your chip to 5.0GHz 24/7 and I'll consider it, regardless of the IPC performance/technology.

I don't see how you could declare that an IPC increase won't affect many applications if you haven't seen benchmarks yourself and don't know what changes they made. Talking out of your behind more like it.

The article is comparing relatively low-end parts (with different cache and clocks) to the high end parts. The 7700K was not tested in that article. Hence, it's misleading to draw conclusions from that article alone.

1. Were weren't comparing anything to the 7700K. We were comparing the 9900K to the 2700X.
2. The 8700K and 2700X is low end? They are literal flagships, the opposite of low end.

Bottom line is I don't believe AMD claims, at all. Not saying they won't have the top chip for a small window of time, but I highly doubt the disparity will be as big as claimed and am fully expecting much higher prices this go round.

That's a fair position to take.

Well this isn't very bright news in terms of performance. 15% better performance from a chip that's supposedly running at a ~400 mhz higher frequency is not impressive at all. What may be impressive is the power consumption figures, we will wait and see for that.

Just to put it into perspective, that 15% IPC boost + clock increases is more then Intel has gotten out of it's last 3 generations combined. Mind you, they hardly did anything the last 3 gens IPC wise.

AMD claimed they could double the cores at the same power so expect some power savings on the lower core count models.