Competition mentions Ryzen 7 3700X & Ryzen 5 3600X - Guess the Cinebench Score

#5614889 Posted on: 12/07/2018 03:54 PM

---

At least this confirmed the naming-right?
I Saypoints for(~x1.35 over 2920X).
2080 points for 3600X!.

#5614908 Posted on: 12/07/2018 04:28 PM

---

Maybe, remember that pinch of salt though

#5614919 Posted on: 12/07/2018 05:28 PM

---

This is awkward alright! ahah

#5614941 Posted on: 12/07/2018 06:41 PM

---

"whoops" 어디에왈도? 프로모션 전단지는 어디 갔어? 그는 무엇을 했는가?

#5614952 Posted on: 12/07/2018 07:15 PM

---

Could be they are going to punish the 9900K ?

edit : i'd double the 2700X score, and add a bit.

#5614953 Posted on: 12/07/2018 07:15 PM

---

Well I still have an issue with the 3700X being a 12 core rumor. It just doesn't make sense from a business perspective at all for AMD. The 2700X already dominates the price point for multi threaded work loads. An increase to clock speed, cache and memory performance and a little bit of overall IPC would be all AMD would need to really hold down the $329 8 core price point. So let's say the 3700X is still an 8 core I would think it could achieve 2000-2100 CB score stock based on what I think that processor will be. I don't doubt the 12 and maybe 16 cores will come to the platform but the pricing of that table the other day seem broken. Even if a 12 core came for $500 with those new clocks and architecture improvements it would dominate let alone for $299 lol. All I can say is that if AMD launches 12 and 16 core processors that can overclock near 5 Ghz for $500 or less I will buy at launch and never look back. That table definitely doesn't leave room for year over year improvements everyone likes to see. You could buy a 16 core AMD and use it for a very long time lol. Shit I was super tempted to buy 1950x during black friday for $450 but I just don't need that platform. Zen 2 could be used in my highend gaming machine very nicely

#5614955 Posted on: 12/07/2018 07:19 PM

---

The 9900K is already screwed because of its pricing and heat. Even if the 3700X is still an 8 core which I tend to believe over the 12 core rumor, the 9900K is immediately extinct. AMD really could just launch a new 8 core for $329 and cut Intel even deeper. The $299 12 core with high clocks to boot would kill Intel.

#5614959 Posted on: 12/07/2018 07:29 PM

---

I think there may be many cores out there, but i think the price is a tad low.

#5614962 Posted on: 12/07/2018 07:37 PM

---

I think there may be many cores out there, but i think the price is a tad low.


I agree! I mentioned this in my comment above the response to you as well. I certainly think Zen 2 will bring more cores to the mainstream but I am super skeptical that it will start at their current 8 core pricing. 16 cores for $449 would significantly undercut AMD's own Threadripper especially with PCIe gen 4 there would be less argument for PCIe lanes at least for most.

#5614966 Posted on: 12/07/2018 07:44 PM

---

Theres no reason to why threadripper could now start at 16

#5614993 Posted on: 12/07/2018 09:07 PM

---

I see what you mean and for the most part I agree, but I think they're just trying to kick Intel while they're down. AMD might be trying to create a deal so good that even Intel's hardcore fans might rethink their loyalty. Depending who you ask, it doesn't matter if they leave room for year over year improvements.

#5615049 Posted on: 12/08/2018 12:12 AM

---

Oh man, and I finally just caved on bought a 2600x on sale for 170$ a week ago or so. If the IPC improvements are significant...oh well it's not like it won't be BC and not like the 2600x isn't a significantly large upgrade over my 8 year old i7-950 that I paid almost 300$ for back then right? With Performance Test 8 my i7 950 scores almost exactly 1/2 overall as the average score for the 2600x. (And 2000 points higher than the average 950 score for whatever reason)

:p Now if only AMD's GPUs had the level of Anti Aliasing support Nvidia GPUs did and I would never look back.

#5615148 Posted on: 12/08/2018 09:11 AM

---

Personally I'm hoping the new design with a 14nm I/O chip is true. It could have the potential to be a game changer.
Two 4 core dies with 1 die running 5 GHz and when all dies are in use 4.5 GHz. Or two 6 core dies with 1 die running 5 GHz and so on.
The 64 Epyc has shown how easily AMD can add cores when needed and if the rumors are true with the new 14 nm I/O chip, it will
only become more rewarding to add cores and very easy for AMD to respond to whatever Intel comes up with.

#5615174 Posted on: 12/08/2018 01:05 PM

---

Problem with that argument is AMD already undercut their own ThreadRipper lineup when the 2nd gen launched. Suddenly a $1200 CPU from first gen became a $900 CPU and then as low as $600 on sale. Some have even dropped to the $500 region for a 1950X.

AdoredTV actually broke down the costs for this really well. Due to dropping the larger CCX modules with all the I/O gubbins on them and switching to two CCX's + and I/O die on 14nm they managed to drop the parts cost below that of the current CPU's. Even with that drop in cost they were able to double the cores per CCX (theoretically) while still gaining performance and at the same power limits as their 14nm process. With all the non-linear scaling components moved to the I/O die there's likely far more headroom for the cores to clock higher too.

There's always the question of latency to the I/O die, something we are yet to see manifest in testing so we'll have to keep an eye on the EPYC benchmarks to get an idea of what the 3xxx series will be capable of.

Finally even with the worst of the worst CCX dies there's going to be at least 3 viable cores per CCX when they are supposed to have 8 cores. Making 6 core as a minimum a very likely proposition. Even then the amount of dies that are that low in the viability list will be so minimal I would expect the R3 series to be single CCX and an I/O die with a dummy as the other die, making a minimum of 6 for R3 a seriously viable proposition and the 16 core 3850X flagship also a serious piece of kit.

There's still advatanges ThreadRipper has over the mainstream, such as extra PCI-E lanes, quad channel memory and so on. Having the entry level TR4 CPU being 16 cores would also be likely and the 3950X suddenly has a bit of a conundrum as will it double the 2950X's core count or will it be more incremental with the Reddit fake of 48 cores...

Whichever way this falls. Ryzen 3xxx is looking very interesting and AMD have a real chance to get market and mindshare back from Intel. Undercutting by half could well be the way to do it as their profit margins on the CPU's will still be greater than with the current generation.

#5615250 Posted on: 12/08/2018 09:57 PM

---

Problem with that argument is AMD already undercut their own ThreadRipper lineup when the 2nd gen launched. Suddenly a $1200 CPU from first gen became a $900 CPU and then as low as $600 on sale. Some have even dropped to the $500 region for a 1950X.

AdoredTV actually broke down the costs for this really well. Due to dropping the larger CCX modules with all the I/O gubbins on them and switching to two CCX's + and I/O die on 14nm they managed to drop the parts cost below that of the current CPU's. Even with that drop in cost they were able to double the cores per CCX (theoretically) while still gaining performance and at the same power limits as their 14nm process. With all the non-linear scaling components moved to the I/O die there's likely far more headroom for the cores to clock higher too.

There's always the question of latency to the I/O die, something we are yet to see manifest in testing so we'll have to keep an eye on the EPYC benchmarks to get an idea of what the 3xxx series will be capable of.

Finally even with the worst of the worst CCX dies there's going to be at least 3 viable cores per CCX when they are supposed to have 8 cores. Making 6 core as a minimum a very likely proposition. Even then the amount of dies that are that low in the viability list will be so minimal I would expect the R3 series to be single CCX and an I/O die with a dummy as the other die, making a minimum of 6 for R3 a seriously viable proposition and the 16 core 3850X flagship also a serious piece of kit.

There's still advatanges ThreadRipper has over the mainstream, such as extra PCI-E lanes, quad channel memory and so on. Having the entry level TR4 CPU being 16 cores would also be likely and the 3950X suddenly has a bit of a conundrum as will it double the 2950X's core count or will it be more incremental with the Reddit fake of 48 cores...

Whichever way this falls. Ryzen 3xxx is looking very interesting and AMD have a real chance to get market and mindshare back from Intel. Undercutting by half could well be the way to do it as their profit margins on the CPU's will still be greater than with the current generation.

Yea I saw the 1950x as low as $450 during a recent sale but that doesn't suggest anything for the Zen 2 CPUs coming out at a stupid low MSRP. I don't think that moving old product for low prices is the same as undercutting it with new product MSRP when you don't need to. AMD saving on production doesn't necessarily mean that all goes into our pockets. I am certain we will see 12 and 16 core mainstream products from AMD but I highly doubt the rumored prices. If AMD makes their processors at a more affordable price that is good for them and as a business they don't need to give us 4 more better performing cores for the price of the current 8 core. It would be significant to improve the 8 core and stay at current price point even though I would gladly take the processors at prices in that rumor table. We could make a logical case for that table all day but I would be really surprised if I eat my worlds at 3000 series launch. The table is wrong IMO mostly at prices and probably TDP as well. 12 core zen 2 would be a steal at $500 let alone $299. PCIe lanes won't be as important when it's Gen 4 on the new chipset. That alone is basically doubling the PCIe bandwidth of the mainstream platform so increasing lane count isn't as important at that point except for certain buyers.