Cooler Master MasterBox NR600 review
MSI to unveil 10th Anniversary RTX 2080 Ti Lightning Edition
Ballistix Elite 3600 MHz 16GB Dual Channel DDR4 review
ASUS ROG Rapture GT-AC2900 Gaming Router review
Asustor Nimbustor 4 (AS5304T) NAS Review
Promo: VIP-SCDKey Games and Windows 10 / Office
be quiet! Dark Rock SLIM review
Gigabyte GeForce GTX 1660 Gaming OC review
Edifier G4 Pro Headset review
Microsoft Office 2016 Pro and Windows 10 Pro for just $34
Rumor: AMD Seeds Board partners Ryzen 3000 Samples - Runs 4.5 GHz and show 15% Extra IPC
Well, loads of AMD related news today. Earlier today in this news item we discussed the X570 chipset, well, that same source mentions some more spicy info on their website. Apparently, AMD Ryzen samples have been sent to motherboard manufacturers for product validation, these engineering samples already run 4.5 GHz.
Yes, the same source, a Bilibili user called Ito Technology claims that motherboard manufacturers have Ryzen 3000 engineering samples (ZEN2) in house based on 4 to 8 cores. Typically, and I do say this with a bit of hesitation and care, engineering samples run slower opposed to the final SKUs. Apparently, the manufacturers are also preparing for CPUs with 12 and 16 cores (well yeah .. doh!).
While these engineering samples reportedly are running 4.5 GHz, IPC improvements also are mentioned to be 15% clock for clock. With these variables, the power consumption would be totally under control. It is also suggested that the memory controller shows some improvements, albeit not huge. Then again memory bandwidth never was an issue, latency however was and that should have been addressed by the chiplet design.
Obvious disclaimer; we cannot vouch for this information whatsoever and have classified it as a rumor.
Rumor: AMD Epyc2 processors could get 64 cores over 8+1 dies - 10/31/2018 02:48 PM
That AMD has been going insanely strong with many-core processors is not a surprise, you've read all our Threadripper reviews and have learned that the top tier processors (e.g. 32-core versions) hav...
Rumor: AMD Might Host Threadripper 2000 event in Scuderia Ferrari’s hometown Maranello - 06/30/2018 07:36 PM
A new rumor has surfaced on the web today, AMD would be celebrating it's one-year HEDT Threadripper release, with an event planned for Threadripper 2. This launch event would take place in Maranello,...
Rumor: ASUS Would be Repositioning AMD Graphics cards under a new AREZ brand - 04/06/2018 05:07 PM
The uncomfortable GPP discussion does not seem to stop, some new info just surfaced. It's unconfirmed but from the looks of it, ASUS will be rebranding their Radeon lineup and moving them away from A...
Rumor: ASRock is going to make graphics cards - 03/07/2018 03:30 PM
According to Digitimes, ASRock has active plans to start fabbing graphics cards. ASRock would release AMD cards solely, and in April the first one should surface....
Rumor: AMD Radeon 490 and 490X Polaris graphics cards launch end of June - 04/07/2016 02:33 PM
In line with expectations today some new rumors surfaced on the mighty WWW. AMD possibly will have its first Polaris based series 400 Radeon graphics cards available in June, this would invoke the R9 ...
vestibule
Senior Member
Posts: 190
Joined: 2014-04-21
Senior Member
Posts: 190
Joined: 2014-04-21
#5664334 Posted on: 04/29/2019 05:27 PM
Diminishing returns!!!!
Diminishing returns!!!!
Fox2232
Senior Member
Posts: 8824
Joined: 2012-07-20
Senior Member
Posts: 8824
Joined: 2012-07-20
#5664336 Posted on: 04/29/2019 05:36 PM
15% IPC boost is a lot. 4,5GHz * 1.15 = 5,175GHz performance equivalent of Zen+.
That would definitely match everything intel has. May be interesting.
15% IPC boost is a lot. 4,5GHz * 1.15 = 5,175GHz performance equivalent of Zen+.
That would definitely match everything intel has. May be interesting.
Reddoguk
Senior Member
Posts: 1664
Joined: 2010-05-26
Senior Member
Posts: 1664
Joined: 2010-05-26
#5664339 Posted on: 04/29/2019 06:03 PM
I can see 5.2 on 2 cores being a possibility for the new high end Zen2.
Zen2+ is looking very competitive. Low power usage, high clocks and plenty of cores for under £300. I want one already. 6-12 or 8-16 is the question. We'll see....
I can see 5.2 on 2 cores being a possibility for the new high end Zen2.
Zen2+ is looking very competitive. Low power usage, high clocks and plenty of cores for under £300. I want one already. 6-12 or 8-16 is the question. We'll see....
H83
Senior Member
Posts: 2623
Joined: 2009-09-08
Senior Member
Posts: 2623
Joined: 2009-09-08
#5664342 Posted on: 04/29/2019 06:06 PM
15% IPC increase means AMD has a real winner with ZEN2! It also means Intel is going to lose their performance crown after a very lengthy rein...
15% IPC increase means AMD has a real winner with ZEN2! It also means Intel is going to lose their performance crown after a very lengthy rein...
TestDrivers
Senior Member
Posts: 110
Joined: 2014-05-01
Senior Member
Posts: 110
Joined: 2014-05-01
#5664347 Posted on: 04/29/2019 06:35 PM
If this is correct I'm not sure Intel is feeling zen now o_O
If this is correct I'm not sure Intel is feeling zen now o_O
EspHack
Senior Member
Posts: 2406
Joined: 2010-01-03
Senior Member
Posts: 2406
Joined: 2010-01-03
#5664349 Posted on: 04/29/2019 06:38 PM
15% IPC is more than twice what intel has managed to produce in the last half decade, very skeptical
15% IPC is more than twice what intel has managed to produce in the last half decade, very skeptical
Embra
Senior Member
Posts: 813
Joined: 2014-11-19
Senior Member
Posts: 813
Joined: 2014-11-19
#5664354 Posted on: 04/29/2019 07:11 PM
It's possible, Ryzen design is still maturing and going through some changes.
It's possible, Ryzen design is still maturing and going through some changes.
karma777police
Member
Posts: 27
Joined: 2018-08-17
Member
Posts: 27
Joined: 2018-08-17
#5664357 Posted on: 04/29/2019 07:22 PM
So it will still be slightly slower than 9900k. 9900k over 2700k has more than 15% of IPC. At the end if AMD has really aggressive pricing on these, it will be very competitive. 16 Core over DUAL Memory Channel will never happen, because it would choke. Knowing that Intel is going to release 10 core variant for their mainstream socket, Intel will still have an upper hand.
So it will still be slightly slower than 9900k. 9900k over 2700k has more than 15% of IPC. At the end if AMD has really aggressive pricing on these, it will be very competitive. 16 Core over DUAL Memory Channel will never happen, because it would choke. Knowing that Intel is going to release 10 core variant for their mainstream socket, Intel will still have an upper hand.
Jagman
Senior Member
Posts: 2172
Joined: 2005-03-26
Senior Member
Posts: 2172
Joined: 2005-03-26
#5664360 Posted on: 04/29/2019 07:34 PM
Intels IPC advantage is around 5%. Their main advantage is in outright clock speed and has been for some time.
Intels IPC advantage is around 5%. Their main advantage is in outright clock speed and has been for some time.
chispy
Senior Member
Posts: 8756
Joined: 2006-10-29
Senior Member
Posts: 8756
Joined: 2006-10-29
#5664365 Posted on: 04/29/2019 07:45 PM
Key word " samples " = meaning they are lower clocked than Full retail chips. Samples clocking already at 4.5Ghz points to the right direction for AMD
add 15% ipc and we have a real winner right there 
, price accordingly around $329 US Dollars a 8 core 16 thread will be a real competitor to Intel 9900K $550 US dollars 8 cores 16 threads chip for or more less the same performance. Good for everybody , we all winners here as competition brings lower prices and innovation !
Key word " samples " = meaning they are lower clocked than Full retail chips. Samples clocking already at 4.5Ghz points to the right direction for AMD
add 15% ipc and we have a real winner right there , price accordingly around $329 US Dollars a 8 core 16 thread will be a real competitor to Intel 9900K $550 US dollars 8 cores 16 threads chip for or more less the same performance. Good for everybody , we all winners here as competition brings lower prices and innovation !
D3M1G0D
Senior Member
Posts: 1630
Joined: 2017-03-10
Senior Member
Posts: 1630
Joined: 2017-03-10
#5664368 Posted on: 04/29/2019 07:53 PM
I find the 15% claim too good to be true. According to Guru3D's benchmarks, the 9900K is only about 3.4% better in IPC compared to the 2700X. A 15% boost would mean Zen 2 will have a 11.6% IPC advantage over the 9900K!
A 15% boost in single-threaded performance would be more realistic (that would make it nearly as fast as the 9900K), based on both IPC and clock speed improvements.
I find the 15% claim too good to be true. According to Guru3D's benchmarks, the 9900K is only about 3.4% better in IPC compared to the 2700X. A 15% boost would mean Zen 2 will have a 11.6% IPC advantage over the 9900K!
A 15% boost in single-threaded performance would be more realistic (that would make it nearly as fast as the 9900K), based on both IPC and clock speed improvements.
nizzen
Senior Member
Posts: 617
Joined: 2005-08-05
Senior Member
Posts: 617
Joined: 2005-08-05
#5664370 Posted on: 04/29/2019 07:58 PM
I believe it when I'm benchmarking it myself
Going to upgrade my TR 1950x anyway to TR gen 3 .
I believe it when I'm benchmarking it myself
Going to upgrade my TR 1950x anyway to TR gen 3 .
nizzen
Senior Member
Posts: 617
Joined: 2005-08-05
Senior Member
Posts: 617
Joined: 2005-08-05
#5664373 Posted on: 04/29/2019 08:03 PM
What we want right now, is performance of 2700x + 15% ipc with frequence of 5Ghz +, and support for 4400+ mhz memory
Intels IPC advantage is around 5%. Their main advantage is in outright clock speed and has been for some time.
What we want right now, is performance of 2700x + 15% ipc with frequence of 5Ghz +, and support for 4400+ mhz memory
Aura89
Senior Member
Posts: 7214
Joined: 2008-07-31
Senior Member
Posts: 7214
Joined: 2008-07-31
#5664374 Posted on: 04/29/2019 08:09 PM
9900k doesn't have an IPC advantage over 2700x. Sure, in some areas it does, and some areas it doesn't, and some areas they are equal. This is called, equal, as nothing is ever "exactly the same"
What the 9900k DOES have over the 2700x is clock
9900k = 3.5Ghz base, 5Ghz 2-core boost, 4.7Ghz 8-core boost and i believe a 4.4 All-Core Boost
2700x = 3.7Ghz base, 4.3ish 2-core boost, 4.2ish 8-core boost and 4.1ish all-core boost
If the 2700x could match the boost frequencies of the 9900k, they would be very similar in performance, as again, their IPC is very similar. Yes, there would be areas where one would win out over the other, again, this is normal, nothing can do everything exactly the same being different architectures. Yes, there are likely some scenarios where one wins out significantly. Remember, GPUs do this as well.
So lets say this rumor is true, 15% IPC with 4.5Ghz, like above stated, that'd be similar to 5.175Ghz Zen+, which would be similar to 5.175Ghz 9900k. We don't know if this is a base speed or not. Usually from what i have seen, rumors come out with base speeds, so that leads me to believe that, it's possible 4.5Ghz will be base.
But lets say its not, lets go with worse case scenario, if this rumor is true, and the all-core boost is 4.5Ghz, remember, the 9900k is 4.4Ghz all-core boost, and doesn't have the advantage of a 15% IPC improvement.
Obviously, all of this is rumor, and we need to wait till its release, but please, stop spreading misinformation around, as your statement that the 9900k has 15% more IPC then 2700x, is purely wrong. 9900k has a FREQUENCY advantage over the 2700x, and IF Zen 2 were to even MATCH that frequency advantage with the rumors 15% IPC increase, it will not be "slightly slower than a 9900k"
Even if you believe that the 9900k intel has a 5% IPC advantage over the 2700x, which i wouldn't say is untrue, in some circumstances, as again, it's IPC increase between architectures, especially competing companies architectures, is circumstantial, a 15% overall average IPC increase from Zen+ to Zen 2 with similar clock speeds to the 9900k would not be "slightly slower than a 9900k"
Get your facts straight.
So it will still be slightly slower than 9900k. 9900k over 2700k has more than 15% of IPC.
9900k doesn't have an IPC advantage over 2700x. Sure, in some areas it does, and some areas it doesn't, and some areas they are equal. This is called, equal, as nothing is ever "exactly the same"
What the 9900k DOES have over the 2700x is clock
9900k = 3.5Ghz base, 5Ghz 2-core boost, 4.7Ghz 8-core boost and i believe a 4.4 All-Core Boost
2700x = 3.7Ghz base, 4.3ish 2-core boost, 4.2ish 8-core boost and 4.1ish all-core boost
If the 2700x could match the boost frequencies of the 9900k, they would be very similar in performance, as again, their IPC is very similar. Yes, there would be areas where one would win out over the other, again, this is normal, nothing can do everything exactly the same being different architectures. Yes, there are likely some scenarios where one wins out significantly. Remember, GPUs do this as well.
So lets say this rumor is true, 15% IPC with 4.5Ghz, like above stated, that'd be similar to 5.175Ghz Zen+, which would be similar to 5.175Ghz 9900k. We don't know if this is a base speed or not. Usually from what i have seen, rumors come out with base speeds, so that leads me to believe that, it's possible 4.5Ghz will be base.
But lets say its not, lets go with worse case scenario, if this rumor is true, and the all-core boost is 4.5Ghz, remember, the 9900k is 4.4Ghz all-core boost, and doesn't have the advantage of a 15% IPC improvement.
Obviously, all of this is rumor, and we need to wait till its release, but please, stop spreading misinformation around, as your statement that the 9900k has 15% more IPC then 2700x, is purely wrong. 9900k has a FREQUENCY advantage over the 2700x, and IF Zen 2 were to even MATCH that frequency advantage with the rumors 15% IPC increase, it will not be "slightly slower than a 9900k"
Even if you believe that the 9900k intel has a 5% IPC advantage over the 2700x, which i wouldn't say is untrue, in some circumstances, as again, it's IPC increase between architectures, especially competing companies architectures, is circumstantial, a 15% overall average IPC increase from Zen+ to Zen 2 with similar clock speeds to the 9900k would not be "slightly slower than a 9900k"
Get your facts straight.
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 744
Joined: 2001-08-12
So just as i predicted 4 months ago then by taking the 9900K core from benches with the average clock speed which matched the Intel show cased from power consumption and the clock speed it would be running in all core turbo then comparing to the 2700X adding average 13% IPC well i said 4.4GHz so i am 100MHz off. However what i am interested in in the 2 core max frequency.