Cooler Master MasterBox Q500L review
Promo: URCDKey Summer Sale Windows 10 Pro for $11
Colorful iGame GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Advanced OC review
ASRock Z390 Steel Legend review
Corsair M55 RGB PRO gaming mouse review
Promo: Windows 10 Pro for $13 With Office 2016 For $33
Lexar NM600 NVMe M.2. SSD (480GB) review
Tech preview: Radeon RX 5700 and 5700 XT
Tech preview: AMD Ryzen 3000 - 7nm ZEN2
Patriot Viper VPN100 M2 NVMe 512 GB SSD Review
Tech preview: AMD Ryzen 3000 - Incl Ryzen 9 3950X (16-core)
Ryzen Gen 3 aka Ryzen 3000 has received new announcements. You might have watched the live-stream, well that or you were asleep as that was nighttime in the EU, but in this preview article a deeper overview of what to expect Ryzen 3000 aka Zen2 wise including architecture details.
nevcairiel
Senior Member
Posts: 559
Joined: 2015-05-19
Senior Member
Posts: 559
Joined: 2015-05-19
#5679234 Posted on: 06/11/2019 10:36 AM
Hilbert, can you do some tests with higher-capacity memory setups for the Ryzen 3000 review? I would love to know what 24/7 memory clocks I can run with 64GB installed, so 4 Dual Rank modules, for example. The best modules to buy in that config seem to be the G.SKILL 3733 CL17 4x16GB kits, but i'm not sure if that isn't a waste if Ryzen 3000 can't actually run them properly.
Everyone seems to otherwise focus on pure "gaming memory" setups, 2 sticks of single rank memory for max speed, and not capacity.
Hilbert, can you do some tests with higher-capacity memory setups for the Ryzen 3000 review? I would love to know what 24/7 memory clocks I can run with 64GB installed, so 4 Dual Rank modules, for example. The best modules to buy in that config seem to be the G.SKILL 3733 CL17 4x16GB kits, but i'm not sure if that isn't a waste if Ryzen 3000 can't actually run them properly.
Everyone seems to otherwise focus on pure "gaming memory" setups, 2 sticks of single rank memory for max speed, and not capacity.
djeiraji
Junior Member
Posts: 6
Joined: 2017-12-20
Junior Member
Posts: 6
Joined: 2017-12-20
#5679244 Posted on: 06/11/2019 10:56 AM
Impressed.
That's one of the most exciting change in mainstream CPU history.
All of that with backward motherboard compatibility.
GG AMD.
Impressed.
That's one of the most exciting change in mainstream CPU history.
All of that with backward motherboard compatibility.
GG AMD.
StefanInter9
Junior Member
Posts: 9
Joined: 2018-10-28
Junior Member
Posts: 9
Joined: 2018-10-28
#5679251 Posted on: 06/11/2019 11:19 AM
Was going to go for 12core, may now save up a bit more and go 16core instead. Exciting times.
Was going to go for 12core, may now save up a bit more and go 16core instead. Exciting times.
nevcairiel
Senior Member
Posts: 559
Joined: 2015-05-19
Senior Member
Posts: 559
Joined: 2015-05-19
#5679256 Posted on: 06/11/2019 11:39 AM
Impressed.
That's one of the most exciting change in mainstream CPU history.
All of that with backward motherboard compatibility.
GG AMD.
They are actually compromising on some things to keep compatibility though. Not sure I'm a fan of that. Rather see them give it all it could have, but oh well.
Impressed.
That's one of the most exciting change in mainstream CPU history.
All of that with backward motherboard compatibility.
GG AMD.
They are actually compromising on some things to keep compatibility though. Not sure I'm a fan of that. Rather see them give it all it could have, but oh well.
CPC_RedDawn
Senior Member
Posts: 7574
Joined: 2008-01-06
Senior Member
Posts: 7574
Joined: 2008-01-06
#5679275 Posted on: 06/11/2019 12:18 PM
I'm still going with the 12 core CPU. It's a nice price, I get extra cores over my 2700X, better IPC, and higher clocks.
Something in the back of my head just tells me that my x370 asus crosshair vi hero might still have issues with the 16 core.
Although that 14 phase VRM on the gigabyte aurous extreme does look tasty and quite tempting.....
I'm still going with the 12 core CPU. It's a nice price, I get extra cores over my 2700X, better IPC, and higher clocks.
Something in the back of my head just tells me that my x370 asus crosshair vi hero might still have issues with the 16 core.
Although that 14 phase VRM on the gigabyte aurous extreme does look tasty and quite tempting.....
386SX
Senior Member
Posts: 371
Joined: 2017-06-26
Senior Member
Posts: 371
Joined: 2017-06-26
#5679279 Posted on: 06/11/2019 12:42 PM
There are some typos I guess in the PCIE page (page 5 of 6).
For example:
If NO 3000 series is used, the chips will fall back to PCIE 3.0 ...
And obviously the last sentence on that page should say 16 cores instead of 17.
@Hilbert Hagedoorn : Would you please correct that? Thanks a lot.
There are some typos I guess in the PCIE page (page 5 of 6).
For example:
If a Ryzen 3000 family proc is used, ...
If NO 3000 series is used, the chips will fall back to PCIE 3.0 ...
And obviously the last sentence on that page should say 16 cores instead of 17.
@Hilbert Hagedoorn : Would you please correct that? Thanks a lot.
Webhiker
Senior Member
Posts: 450
Joined: 2011-03-23
Senior Member
Posts: 450
Joined: 2011-03-23
#5679284 Posted on: 06/11/2019 12:56 PM
I was a bit stunned when Robert Hallock showed an i9 vs Ryzen 9 3900X playing Division 2 in 1440p, while streaming to YouTube with OBS using the slow preset.
i9 did 1.6 FPS while Ryzen 9 did almost 60 FPS.
Anyone interested can see it here ... :
(Starts with normal gameplay then starts streaming)
I'm still going with the 12 core CPU. It's a nice price, I get extra cores over my 2700X, better IPC, and higher clocks.
I was a bit stunned when Robert Hallock showed an i9 vs Ryzen 9 3900X playing Division 2 in 1440p, while streaming to YouTube with OBS using the slow preset.
i9 did 1.6 FPS while Ryzen 9 did almost 60 FPS.
Anyone interested can see it here ... :
(Starts with normal gameplay then starts streaming)
HWgeek
Senior Member
Posts: 405
Joined: 2005-04-04
Senior Member
Posts: 405
Joined: 2005-04-04
#5679285 Posted on: 06/11/2019 01:02 PM
Exclusive! The Cause of Chernobyl melt down!
Exclusive! The Cause of Chernobyl melt down!
Fox2232
Senior Member
Posts: 9098
Joined: 2012-07-20
Senior Member
Posts: 9098
Joined: 2012-07-20
#5679287 Posted on: 06/11/2019 01:04 PM
I was a bit stunned when Robert Hallock showed an i9 vs Ryzen 9 3900X playing Division 2 in 1440p, while streaming to YouTube with OBS using the slow preset.
i9 did 1.6 FPS while Ryzen 9 did almost 60 FPS.
Anyone interested can see it here ... :
(Starts with normal gameplay then starts streaming)
It was rather unfair. I have fine tuned streaming profile for low 6Mbps upload (Twitch limit for regular users). It is actually "Placebo" with good dozen of parameters and 48fps on 1080p. (I game at 96fps when I stream as RX-580 can't really do much more and keep fps stable.)
I am sure that 9900K would do 60fps steadily with those settings. AMD simply used some default preset which is not fine tuned to get best IQ per bandwidth while optimally using CPU.
It is easy to choke even that 16C/32T CPU just by doubling search radius for motion + increase number of frames which can be referenced (forwards/backwards).
I was a bit stunned when Robert Hallock showed an i9 vs Ryzen 9 3900X playing Division 2 in 1440p, while streaming to YouTube with OBS using the slow preset.
i9 did 1.6 FPS while Ryzen 9 did almost 60 FPS.
Anyone interested can see it here ... :
(Starts with normal gameplay then starts streaming)
It was rather unfair. I have fine tuned streaming profile for low 6Mbps upload (Twitch limit for regular users). It is actually "Placebo" with good dozen of parameters and 48fps on 1080p. (I game at 96fps when I stream as RX-580 can't really do much more and keep fps stable.)
I am sure that 9900K would do 60fps steadily with those settings. AMD simply used some default preset which is not fine tuned to get best IQ per bandwidth while optimally using CPU.
It is easy to choke even that 16C/32T CPU just by doubling search radius for motion + increase number of frames which can be referenced (forwards/backwards).
Webhiker
Senior Member
Posts: 450
Joined: 2011-03-23
Senior Member
Posts: 450
Joined: 2011-03-23
#5679291 Posted on: 06/11/2019 01:20 PM
It was rather unfair. I have fine tuned streaming profile for low 6Mbps upload (Twitch limit for regular users). It is actually "Placebo" with good dozen of parameters and 48fps on 1080p. (I game at 96fps when I stream as RX-580 can't really do much more and keep fps stable.)
I am sure that 9900K would do 60fps steadily with those settings. AMD simply used some default preset which is not fine tuned to get best IQ per bandwidth while optimally using CPU.
It is easy to choke even that 16C/32T CPU just by doubling search radius for motion + increase number of frames which can be referenced (forwards/backwards).
I believe the point was to prove what is possible with a 12 core CPU that can also be used fore gaming.
Not to choke a CPU on purpose, all though it did prove the point.
It was rather unfair. I have fine tuned streaming profile for low 6Mbps upload (Twitch limit for regular users). It is actually "Placebo" with good dozen of parameters and 48fps on 1080p. (I game at 96fps when I stream as RX-580 can't really do much more and keep fps stable.)
I am sure that 9900K would do 60fps steadily with those settings. AMD simply used some default preset which is not fine tuned to get best IQ per bandwidth while optimally using CPU.
It is easy to choke even that 16C/32T CPU just by doubling search radius for motion + increase number of frames which can be referenced (forwards/backwards).
I believe the point was to prove what is possible with a 12 core CPU that can also be used fore gaming.
Not to choke a CPU on purpose, all though it did prove the point.
Webhiker
Senior Member
Posts: 450
Joined: 2011-03-23
Senior Member
Posts: 450
Joined: 2011-03-23
#5679292 Posted on: 06/11/2019 01:26 PM
12 core for me as well, all though the 3700X / 3800X looks tempting as well.
I finally got 3533 MHz ram stable (3600 MHz here I come) on my 2700X and now it's almost time to replace it.
I'm also interested to see how they overclock, especially the 3600X.
I'm still going with the 12 core CPU. It's a nice price, I get extra cores over my 2700X, better IPC, and higher clocks.
12 core for me as well, all though the 3700X / 3800X looks tempting as well.
I finally got 3533 MHz ram stable (3600 MHz here I come) on my 2700X and now it's almost time to replace it.
I'm also interested to see how they overclock, especially the 3600X.
barbacot
Senior Member
Posts: 114
Joined: 2007-09-24
Senior Member
Posts: 114
Joined: 2007-09-24
#5679307 Posted on: 06/11/2019 01:58 PM
Well, I'm not impressed...
Looking at the benchmarks AMD had the edge in CS:GO, and a very tiny lead in Call of Duty Blops III and Plunkbat, but otherwise it was Intel who was just about sneaking in front when it came to 1080p gaming performance... judging that now you can buy a 9900k for 450 $ or even less (and they will cut prices even more for sure) and a motherboard that will be less expensive then why giving more money for a more expensive processor and expensive motherboard since the result is almost the same or even worst is some scenarios??? Also in my opinion the 9700k is still the king in gaming/price performance ratio compared with Ryzen 7 3800X...I'm not sure even why AMD choose to show that benchmark because is in their disadvantage. I don't stream while playing and I think that something was not correct in that demonstration in the same way that intel botched the 2700x/9900k famous benchmark AMD is no saint either!
P.S. I'm not an intel or amd fan I own both the i9900k and amd ryzen 2700x they are great CPU.
Well, I'm not impressed...
Looking at the benchmarks AMD had the edge in CS:GO, and a very tiny lead in Call of Duty Blops III and Plunkbat, but otherwise it was Intel who was just about sneaking in front when it came to 1080p gaming performance... judging that now you can buy a 9900k for 450 $ or even less (and they will cut prices even more for sure) and a motherboard that will be less expensive then why giving more money for a more expensive processor and expensive motherboard since the result is almost the same or even worst is some scenarios??? Also in my opinion the 9700k is still the king in gaming/price performance ratio compared with Ryzen 7 3800X...I'm not sure even why AMD choose to show that benchmark because is in their disadvantage. I don't stream while playing and I think that something was not correct in that demonstration in the same way that intel botched the 2700x/9900k famous benchmark AMD is no saint either!
P.S. I'm not an intel or amd fan I own both the i9900k and amd ryzen 2700x they are great CPU.
Exodite
Senior Member
Posts: 1846
Joined: 2006-09-28
Senior Member
Posts: 1846
Joined: 2006-09-28
#5679321 Posted on: 06/11/2019 02:21 PM
I'm going to scrape together the money for the 3950X.
So far I've been lucky to ride the edge of good CPUs and I see no reason to back off this time either
MOS 8502 -> MC68000 -> MC68020 -> MC68060 ->
A64 1800+ -> A64 X2 3800+ -> C2D E6600 -> i7 2600K -> r9 3950X?
Seems good to me.
I'm going to scrape together the money for the 3950X.
So far I've been lucky to ride the edge of good CPUs and I see no reason to back off this time either
MOS 8502 -> MC68000 -> MC68020 -> MC68060 ->
A64 1800+ -> A64 X2 3800+ -> C2D E6600 -> i7 2600K -> r9 3950X?
Seems good to me.
Astyanax
Senior Member
Posts: 1851
Joined: 2018-03-21
Senior Member
Posts: 1851
Joined: 2018-03-21
#5679327 Posted on: 06/11/2019 02:27 PM
Well, I'm not impressed...
Looking at the benchmarks AMD had the edge in CS:GO, and a very tiny lead in Call of Duty Blops III and Plunkbat, but otherwise it was Intel who was just about sneaking in front when it came to 1080p gaming performance... judging that now you can buy a 9900k for 450 $ or even less (and they will cut prices even more for sure) and a motherboard that will be less expensive then why giving more money for a more expensive processor and expensive motherboard since the result is almost the same or even worst is some scenarios??? Also in my opinion the 9700k is still the king in gaming/price performance ratio compared with Ryzen 7 3800X...I'm not sure even why AMD choose to show that benchmark because is in their disadvantage. I don't stream while playing and I think that something was not correct in that demonstration in the same way that intel botched the 2700x/9900k famous benchmark AMD is no saint either!
P.S. I'm not an intel or amd fan I own both the i9900k and amd ryzen 2700x they are great CPU.
intel ipc reducing every windows patch.
Well, I'm not impressed...
Looking at the benchmarks AMD had the edge in CS:GO, and a very tiny lead in Call of Duty Blops III and Plunkbat, but otherwise it was Intel who was just about sneaking in front when it came to 1080p gaming performance... judging that now you can buy a 9900k for 450 $ or even less (and they will cut prices even more for sure) and a motherboard that will be less expensive then why giving more money for a more expensive processor and expensive motherboard since the result is almost the same or even worst is some scenarios??? Also in my opinion the 9700k is still the king in gaming/price performance ratio compared with Ryzen 7 3800X...I'm not sure even why AMD choose to show that benchmark because is in their disadvantage. I don't stream while playing and I think that something was not correct in that demonstration in the same way that intel botched the 2700x/9900k famous benchmark AMD is no saint either!
P.S. I'm not an intel or amd fan I own both the i9900k and amd ryzen 2700x they are great CPU.
intel ipc reducing every windows patch.
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 405
Joined: 2005-04-04
Wow so now PBO can also raise the maximum frequency.
Also interesting that the X570 chipset is a 14nm version of the 12nm IO die on the cpu.
Yes, I knew it! LOL.
looks like even the cheap 3600 can match 9900K ST with the new PBO: