ASUS TUF Gaming B760-PLUS WIFI D4 review
Netac NV7000 2 TB NVMe SSD Review
ASUS GeForce RTX 4080 Noctua OC Edition review
MSI Clutch GM51 Wireless mouse review
ASUS ROG STRIX B760-F Gaming WIFI review
Asus ROG Harpe Ace Aim Lab Edition mouse review
SteelSeries Arctis Nova Pro Headset review
Ryzen 7800X3D preview - 7950X3D One CCD Disabled
MSI VIGOR GK71 SONIC Blue keyboard review
AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D processor review
AMD Confirms It Will Launch Zen 3 This Year - We Haven't Seen the Best From AMD Just yet
AMD for the what .. fifth time this year is confirming that ZEN3 will launch this year. This time the turn goes to AMD Executive Vice President of Computing and Graphics Rick Bergman, who confirmed that we will see the new Zen 3 based processors before the end of the year.
He also stated that we have not yet seen the best that AMD has:
So, what’s next for AMD in the PC space? Well, I cannot share too much, but I can say our high-performance journey continues with our first “Zen 3” Client processor on-track to launch later this year. I will wrap by saying you haven’t seen the best of us yet…
This remark was made during the announcements of the new Ryzen 4000 Desktop APUs. It is interesting to see that AMD reiterates this news so many times, and quite frankly they seem really enthusiast about it, so let's hope it is really good! According to rumors, the processors based on this new architecture would be up to 20% faster in single-core and 15% faster in multi-core, and that is once again a really significant leap.
AMD Confirms ZEN3 and RDNA2 by Late-2020 on Twitter - 04/29/2020 07:03 AM
A bit unusual from AMD, but ZEN3 and RDNA2 based technologies will be released late 2020, AMD confirmed this on twitter. Earlier on a roadmap confirmed that the design phase of Zen 3 is complete and ...
AMD Confirms AGESA 1.0.0.3 ABBA firmware with a Blog post - 09/10/2019 06:36 PM
Following our story on the AMD AGESA 1.0.0.3 ABBA firmware, AMD just announced a comprehensive update for 3rd Gen AMD Ryzen processor boost behavior, desktop idle behavior, as well as a new monitori...
AMD Confirms that Ryzen CPUs are Immune to SPOILER Exploit - 03/19/2019 08:56 AM
Two weeks ago new vulnerabilities for Intel procs surfaced. The vulnerability was given the name Spoiler and was discovered by the Worcester Polytechnic Institute and the University of Lübeck. It i...
AMD confirms Raven Ridge Vega 11 and halts production Vega Reference Cards - 12/04/2017 10:19 AM
In a recent interview with James Prior, senior product manager at AMD and the guy behind Threadripper mentioned a number of things that are interesting news. First and foremost, Prior mentions that s...
AMD confirms all RYZEN processors can be overclocked - 01/08/2017 10:12 AM
One more for the weekend. I actually already mentioned this bit of in in one of my earlier posts, but it is now confirmed. AMD will release several RYZEN model CPUs at launch. What wasn't confirmed j...
nizzen
Senior Member
Posts: 2321
Joined: 2005-08-05
Senior Member
Posts: 2321
Joined: 2005-08-05
#5811635 Posted on: 07/23/2020 08:48 PM
While you're correct that a tweaked 10900K would beat the 3900x, the context of my point still stands. 3900x with partitioned L3 cache, off die memory controller, chiplet based architecture and lower clock speed than the 10900K with its monolithic architecture, integrated memory controller and unified L3 still managed to edge what is currently the fastest stock gaming CPU.
This is thanks to the huge L3 cache of the 3900x, combined with the Decima engine being able to render across multiple threads.
Bend the rules: 10 core 10900k oc 14nm++++++++++++++++++++++++ (LOL), is faster than 7nm high tech 12 core 3900x cpu. :p
PS: I have both 3900x and 10900k, and use them for different tasks. Now 10900k is for benchmarking ONLY
While you're correct that a tweaked 10900K would beat the 3900x, the context of my point still stands. 3900x with partitioned L3 cache, off die memory controller, chiplet based architecture and lower clock speed than the 10900K with its monolithic architecture, integrated memory controller and unified L3 still managed to edge what is currently the fastest stock gaming CPU.
This is thanks to the huge L3 cache of the 3900x, combined with the Decima engine being able to render across multiple threads.
Bend the rules: 10 core 10900k oc 14nm++++++++++++++++++++++++ (LOL), is faster than 7nm high tech 12 core 3900x cpu. :p
PS: I have both 3900x and 10900k, and use them for different tasks. Now 10900k is for benchmarking ONLY
Carfax
Senior Member
Posts: 3196
Joined: 2010-05-06
Senior Member
Posts: 3196
Joined: 2010-05-06
#5811642 Posted on: 07/23/2020 09:01 PM
For 8 core CPUs, but what about the 12 and 16 core? Those will likely still use multiple CCXs. Speaking of which, it's quite possible that AMD will only have Zen 3 CPUs with multiples of 8 CCXs, so the lowest SKU would have 8 cores. That's just speculation on my part though. AMD will also hopefully increase the speed of the IF connect for Zen 3.
Don't forget moving to an 8-core CCX will remove all the higher latency cross CCX communications. So while I'm with you that AMD wont beat Intel on the latency front I fully expect for CPU's with 8-cores or less to get really close. Close enough the better IPC will end up with AMD having better performance.
For 8 core CPUs, but what about the 12 and 16 core? Those will likely still use multiple CCXs. Speaking of which, it's quite possible that AMD will only have Zen 3 CPUs with multiples of 8 CCXs, so the lowest SKU would have 8 cores. That's just speculation on my part though. AMD will also hopefully increase the speed of the IF connect for Zen 3.
JamesSneed
Senior Member
Posts: 1665
Joined: 2017-02-14
Senior Member
Posts: 1665
Joined: 2017-02-14
#5811646 Posted on: 07/23/2020 09:10 PM
Right, over 8 cores I expect higher latencies. Of course Intel has a little higher latencies over 10 cores since they switch over to mesh instead of there ring bus but its still much better than AMD's cross CCX latencies. I think this is perfectly fine trade off that allows AMD to offer great gaming 8 core CPU's(or whatever else max single threaded performance is needed) that will hit very high FPS and if you really need more threads you know there will be a little sacrifice due to increased latencies. I think this fits much better in the real world since frankly if you want very high FPS you are looking at a 6-8 core CPU today due to how the thermals play out.
For 8 core CPUs, but what about the 12 and 16 core? Those will likely still use multiple CCXs. Speaking of which, it's quite possible that AMD will only have Zen 3 CPUs with multiples of 8 CCXs, so the lowest SKU would have 8 cores. That's just speculation on my part though. AMD will also hopefully increase the speed of the IF connect for Zen 3.
Right, over 8 cores I expect higher latencies. Of course Intel has a little higher latencies over 10 cores since they switch over to mesh instead of there ring bus but its still much better than AMD's cross CCX latencies. I think this is perfectly fine trade off that allows AMD to offer great gaming 8 core CPU's(or whatever else max single threaded performance is needed) that will hit very high FPS and if you really need more threads you know there will be a little sacrifice due to increased latencies. I think this fits much better in the real world since frankly if you want very high FPS you are looking at a 6-8 core CPU today due to how the thermals play out.
Noisiv
Senior Member
Posts: 8199
Joined: 2010-11-16
Senior Member
Posts: 8199
Joined: 2010-11-16
#5811675 Posted on: 07/23/2020 10:53 PM
Bend the rules: 10 core 10900k oc 14nm++++++++++++++++++++++++ (LOL), is faster than 7nm high tech 12 core 3900x cpu. :p
It would be funny if Intel was just playing with nodes and $$ like Nvidia, and if they could move to 7nm at will.
They're stuck with their foundries and litog. issues. That's not funny.
Bend the rules: 10 core 10900k oc 14nm++++++++++++++++++++++++ (LOL), is faster than 7nm high tech 12 core 3900x cpu. :p
It would be funny if Intel was just playing with nodes and $$ like Nvidia, and if they could move to 7nm at will.
They're stuck with their foundries and litog. issues. That's not funny.
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 1665
Joined: 2017-02-14
AMD is never going to be able to hit anywhere near that kind of latency, as long as the memory controller is located off die. Intel's monolithic style architecture is about as optimal for reducing latency as you can get. Even my 6900K at 4.2ghz with DDR4 3400 can hit in the low 50s for memory latency.
But that HUGE unified L3 cache and smart prefetchers means that Zen 3 won't have to take as many trips to main memory as an equivalent Intel CPU, so they will definitely gain some ground when combined with a solid IPC increase.
Also another factor to consider is that a large amount of AAA games are being designed with DX12 or Vulkan these days, which reduces the reliance on single threaded low latency performance due to the engine being more parallelized.
Don't forget moving to an 8-core CCX will remove all the higher latency cross CCX communications. So while I'm with you that AMD wont beat Intel on the latency front I fully expect for CPU's with 8-cores or less to get really close. Close enough the better IPC will end up with AMD having better performance.