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

[amstech]

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.
.

That statement came from Toms Hardware in reference to their testing.
I know all about the IPC ripple effect and how it changes basic calculation processing.
Before saying someone is 'talking out of their behind' atleast read what they had to say instead of always coming to AMD's defense, it holds you back and always has.

 

[Evernessince]

That statement came from Toms Hardware in reference to their testing.
I know all about the IPC ripple effect and how it changes basic calculation processing.
Before saying someone is 'talking out of their behind' atleast read what they had to say instead of always coming to AMD's defense, it holds you back and always has.

That's not what I was referencing with that statement.

The fact that you can't see that is amusing in the least.

No, the part where you magically assume that AMD's IPC increase amounts to nothing is what I was referencing. That I have to point that out is baffling. Stop trying to project yourself on others. You couldn't even see that you made a huge assumption and then attacked outs for pointing that out. What a joke.

 

[amstech]

Stop trying to project yourself on others. What a joke.

Puuulease.

No, the part where you magically assume that AMD's IPC increase amounts to nothing is what I was referencing. .

That's not what I said, in any way shape or form.
That's how you read it because your always defensive over AMD, which soils your ability to discuss things neutrally/logically.
Talk about projecting yourself, lol.

 

[Evernessince]

Puuulease.


That's not what I said, in any way shape or form.
That's how you read it because your always defensive over AMD, which soils your ability to discuss things neutrally/logically.
Talk about projecting yourself, lol.

Are you done with your petty bickering? I see you can't comment on point anymore so I'll take that as a concession.

 

[amstech]

Hahaha!

 

[gamoniac]

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.

With less power drawn, purportedly.

 

[Lew Zealand]

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.

Hasn't HUB takes a slightly different stance wrt gaming FPS in saying that it's not the IPC which determines the majority of the difference between Ryzen and Intel's consumer chips, rather it's the inter-core latency. Intel's ring bus is simply lower latency than AMD's Infinity Fabric.

Otherwise you'd expect Intel to lead in FPS by ~3% or so based on IPC alone, as mentioned by Evernessince, but in reality the difference is greater than that. Additional support for this idea is that Intel's HEDT chips using the higher latency MESH bus perform at or slightly lower FPS than Ryzen chips.

Based on this, it seems that Ryzen will need higher IPC in addition to equal or higher GHz in order to match Intel in gaming FPS.

 

[Evernessince]

Hasn't HUB takes a slightly different stance wrt gaming FPS in saying that it's not the IPC which determines the majority of the difference between Ryzen and Intel's consumer chips, rather it's the inter-core latency. Intel's ring bus is simply lower latency than AMD's Infinity Fabric.

Otherwise you'd expect Intel to lead in FPS by ~3% or so based on IPC alone, as mentioned by Evernessince, but in reality the difference is greater than that. Additional support for this idea is that Intel's HEDT chips using the higher latency MESH bus perform at or slightly lower FPS than Ryzen chips.

Based on this, it seems that Ryzen will need higher IPC in addition to equal or higher GHz in order to match Intel in gaming FPS.

Inter-core latency is already a part of the IPC calculation in articles like the one TechSpot did that I linked earlier. It would be very hard to avoid it unless you were doing specific benchmarks that didn't bounce data between the cores.

That is why you see AMD get a slight boost in certain games if you disable one CCX.

 

[RobJoy]

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

Why does it need to hit any kind of Mhz?
If it is 15% faster than 2700X it definitely means it is faster than any Intel in the same price range.
AMD approach to designing CPUs is different to Intels.

They could have 1000 Mhz with the same performance, and you would be waiting until the year 2044 to reach your imaginary Mhz.
Stop valuating CPUs based on what Mhz they run at LMAO.

 

[amstech]

Based on this, it seems that Ryzen will need higher IPC in addition to equal or higher GHz in order to match Intel in gaming FPS.

Your close.

Why does it need to hit any kind of Mhz?
If it is 15% faster than 2700X it definitely means it is faster than any Intel in the same price range.
.

Ive already addressed this.

 

[amghwk]

Come on...enough of all these "leaks" BS already.

What happened to reporting standards?

 

[mockingbird1]

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.

Doubt it.

Probably ~$350

 

[mockingbird1]

>trusting early contrived bench scenarios
>believing launch prices will really be that low

1. That's the price AMD has released the last 2 midrange products (1600 and 2600)
2. Those same numbers were provided by AMD

6 cores Ryzen 5 3600 is probably ~$200

 

[amstech]

What happened to reporting standards?

Yup.
Until I see a complete, standard review comparing all aspects, applications and fronts, no, I am not sold. Not one bit.

 

[pcnthuziast]

Intel still dictates pricing and with the 9900k still selling for 500, who in their right mind thinks the Zen2 equivalent (likely the 3600x) is going to be hundreds less? I'm predicting launch prices at least 200 higher than any leaks have eluded too.

3300 199
3300x 269
3300g 239
3600 339
3600x 399
3600g 369
3700 449
3700x 499
3800x 599
3850x 699

 

[Evernessince]

Doubt it.

Probably ~$350

6 cores Ryzen 5 3600 is probably ~$200

How can you doubt the 3600 will be $200 and then in your very next post say it's probably going to be $200? What was the point of your comment?

FYI, the 3600 will very likely be bumped to an 8 core or 12 core given the new top end will be 16 cores.

Intel still dictates pricing and with the 9900k still selling for 500, who in their right mind thinks the Zen2 equivalent (likely the 3600x) is going to be hundreds less? I'm predicting launch prices at least 200 higher than any leaks have eluded too.

3300 199
3300x 269
3300g 239
3600 339
3600x 399
3600g 369
3700 449
3700x 499
3800x 599
3850x 699

Does it need to be pointed out that the original zen series undercut Intel by hundreds of dollars?

 

[mockingbird1]

Doubt it.

Probably ~$350

6 cores Ryzen 5 3600 is probably ~$200

How can you doubt the 3600 will be $200 and then in your very next post say it's probably going to be $200? What was the point of your comment?

FYI, the 3600 will very likely be bumped to an 8 core or 12 core given the new top end will be 16 cores.

Intel still dictates pricing and with the 9900k still selling for 500, who in their right mind thinks the Zen2 equivalent (likely the 3600x) is going to be hundreds less? I'm predicting launch prices at least 200 higher than any leaks have eluded too.

3300 199
3300x 269
3300g 239
3600 339
3600x 399
3600g 369
3700 449
3700x 499
3800x 599
3850x 699

Does it need to be pointed out that the original zen series undercut Intel by hundreds of dollars?

Ryzen 3, Ryzen 5, and Ryzen 7 probably maintain the same number of cores.

Ryzen 9 is probably introduced at new price points with more cores.

There's no point in adding more cores at the current price points when AMD is already cheaper than Intel per-core basis anyway.

 

[mockingbird1]

AMD is already outselling Intel in retail processor sales.

...and when you are already outselling your only competitor, there's no point in dropping the prices any further because you would just be ruining your own profit margin

 

[ScrotumMonster]

The 4.5GHz clock that is being referred to is the base 3600 by the way. The 8c/16t 8600X is 4.8GHz. So so so many leaks show this. Just as the same leaks show the 3600 @ 4.5GHz. So there is nothing to worry about everyone. Plus the 3700X hits 5.1GHz if you care enough about core clock. In addition, being 7nm processors they will run cooler, and should handle substantial OC's. I predict the 3600X will be able to handle 5GHz OC with ease. I do not foresee having to win the silicon lottery to achieve these numbers.

 

[ScrotumMonster]

Intel still dictates pricing and with the 9900k still selling for 500, who in their right mind thinks the Zen2 equivalent (likely the 3600x) is going to be hundreds less? I'm predicting launch prices at least 200 higher than any leaks have eluded too.

3300 199
3300x 269
3300g 239
3600 339
3600x 399
3600g 369
3700 449
3700x 499
3800x 599
3850x 699

The difference in price isn't dictated by greed and just randomized, pcnthuziast. It's all based on profit over RND and investment cost. AMD manages to sell their product for cheaper because there is a higher success rate on their CPU wafers. With the Zen2, yields are at 70%. On Zen+ yields were 80%. Intel has a yield of 35% on their server CPU's. They have to throw out an awful lot of their product when they fabricate their CPU wafers. So that is cost down the drain they have to make up for. Intel is extensively expensive because they try to make up for their losses. It's a simple part of fiscal revenue management in business.

So knowing this, I can guarantee the Zen2 processors will be exponentially cheaper than the competitive Intel processors at that time.

 

[pcnthuziast]

I love being right and can't wait to gloat when it's proven, as always, that I am right again.

To recap my position:

A) Leaks and AMD's own press releases are raising expectations unreasonably high and I am choosing not to believe the hype yet.

B) I am 100% certain AMD has in the Zen 2 desktop lineup a cpu to best the 9900k, obviously, but am not convinced their middle tier chip will be that chip, even oc'ed vs Intel at stock (with turbo boost enabled by default). Even if their middle chip can, to think AMD will undercut when they have that big an advantage is foolish by any standards of doing business in any market.

A $200-300 9900k killer, doing it on less watts too? top kek

Realistic scenario I can picture:

If the 3600x OC'ed can match or beat the 9900k, the most logical move from a business standpoint would be for AMD to price it to parity with the 9700k's price. They wouldn't even undercut that price point because some loyalists, well informed or not, would still buy the Intel chip. Sales will decrease enough to prompt Intel to make it's cuts and we'd see reductions of the entire line from top down.

Lastly regarding undercutting:

AMD would be hugely undercutting Intel with '3300x 269' from my own prediction list. That chip could be an 8700k/9700k killer which for that price would be very tasty.

 

[Dimitrios]

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

lol almost spit out my drink reading that.

 

[Markoni35]

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

In 2006 Intel had Pentiums running at 3 GHz while AMD Athlon was running at 1.8 GHz. Guess what... AMD Athlon was sweeping the floor with Intel CPUs. Why am I telling you this? Because GHz is meaningless unless you count in the IPC. Intel parts were executing a lot less instructions per cycle, so even if they had almost double clock speeds, they were still slower.

If AMD can squeeze in more IPC than Intel (which we'll have to see to believe), then they can outrun Intel chips even at lower clocks (as we have already witnessed around 2006). The only number that matters is how many instructions per second a CPU executes. If a CPU can process more instructions running at 0.1 GHz than another CPU running at 7 GHz, then a 0.1 GHz CPU will be faster. Got it?

 

[mockingbird1]

The 4.5GHz clock that is being referred to is the base 3600 by the way. The 8c/16t 8600X is 4.8GHz. So so so many leaks show this. Just as the same leaks show the 3600 @ 4.5GHz. So there is nothing to worry about everyone. Plus the 3700X hits 5.1GHz if you care enough about core clock. In addition, being 7nm processors they will run cooler, and should handle substantial OC's. I predict the 3600X will be able to handle 5GHz OC with ease. I do not foresee having to win the silicon lottery to achieve these numbers.

You have to be really gullible to believe Adored's bull****.

 

[jpuroila]

The 4.5GHz clock that is being referred to is the base 3600 by the way. The 8c/16t 8600X is 4.8GHz. So so so many leaks show this. Just as the same leaks show the 3600 @ 4.5GHz. So there is nothing to worry about everyone. Plus the 3700X hits 5.1GHz if you care enough about core clock. In addition, being 7nm processors they will run cooler, and should handle substantial OC's. I predict the 3600X will be able to handle 5GHz OC with ease. I do not foresee having to win the silicon lottery to achieve these numbers.

No, there's exactly ONE leak that suggests this and it's highly questionable, in my opinion. Everyone just keeps reporting the same numbers from the same source over and over again.