HWgeek:

I am almost sure that Zen 2.0 goint to have Equal or even better single core performance then Intel's 9900K, Remember if the ES 8 Core Zen2 was head to head with 9900K thar run @ 4.7Ghz all core turbo, then add ~5% for single core boost and you get at least 9900K single core performance level, what do you need more?

The big question for me around Zen 2 is not single thread performance or clocks. I think they are going to nail that. the concern for me is Latency. going for a chiplet design can have some latency issues between the cores and the I/O. hopefully it will be good.

slicer:

People here asking for better ST performance dont understand, that 5.5ghz is about max where we have room to go. In next 5-7 years. St performance was an old way of doing things. Parallel processing/computing is a way forward. Right now ST prorgramming rules, because 4Cores was a norm just 2 years ago. Developers are slowly but steadily adjusting to more core count CPUs. Because of the hard 5.5ghz fall ahead of us. Even at 3nm manufacturing process. Only way to get more performance is to add cores and programs that are built to use multiple threads at same time. ST performance cheering is like cheering for the use of coal in the age of rocketfuel.

What people like you don't understand is that I don't want to buy a CPU for some theoretical future that may or may not come in 5 or 10 years. I buy a CPU for things that I do with a PC right now, and in 2019 or 2020 that still requires strong ST performance. By the time this changes we'll have had 3 new generations of CPUs. As a developer myself, I can ensure you that such a change will not come over night, because there is a lot of fundamental limitations to multi-threading everything. Its extremely complex and in some cases requires fully re-thinking from scratch. As such, ST will still be an important factor for years to come, and people that try to talk that away are just blinding themselves.

HardwareCaps:

The big question for me around Zen 2 is not single thread performance or clocks. I think they are going to nail that. the concern for me is Latency. going for a chiplet design can have some latency issues between the cores and the I/O. hopefully it will be good.

>60ns latencies are possible on older platforms like lga775 where the memory controller is pretty far away from the cpu, with it on package , so long as the interconnect is clocked high enough, there shouldn't be any problems. I think if amd decouples the fabric from the memory speed, or at least provides some ratios to select(3:2 ,5:4 , instead of only 1:1), that would probably negate the issue for the most part.

HWgeek:

I am almost sure that Zen 2.0 goint to have Equal or even better single core performance then Intel's 9900K, Remember if the ES 8 Core Zen2 was head to head with 9900K thar run @ 4.7Ghz all core turbo, then add ~5% for single core boost and you get at least 9900K single core performance level, what do you need more?

On a 7nm process, I would want it to crush Intel, not just match a 14nm CPU, almost a year later at that. Anything else is still "catching up". If I wanted 9900K performance, thats what I would have bought last year already. I want performance to progress forward, and this year apparently is not the time for that yet. Maybe in 2020 with Icelake and whatever AMD has to counter that.

Fox2232:

Somebody has to pay for intel's multi year push to 10nm.

While AMD are on 7 nm :P

user1:

>60ns latencies are possible on older platforms like lga775 where the memory controller is pretty far away from the cpu, with it on package , so long as the interconnect is clocked high enough, there shouldn't be any problems. I think if amd decouples the fabric from the memory speed, or at least provides some ratios to select(3:2 ,5:4 , instead of only 1:1), that would probably negate the issue for the most part.

still on the same package. infinity fabric already showed to have worse latency than a monolithic die. also now cores themselves can get split between the 2 chiplets. I really hope you're right, Zen 2 could be a major breakthrough in CPU performance, also Zen 2 is most likely going to be the CPU of choice for the next generation consoles, which will dictate the requirements for games.

nevcairiel:

On a 7nm process, I would want it to crush Intel, not just match a 14nm CPU, almost a year later at that. Anything else is still "catching up". If I wanted 9900K performance, thats what I would have bought last year already. I want performance to progress forward, and this year apparently is not the time for that yet. Maybe in 2020 with Icelake and whatever AMD has to counter that.

A smaller node doesn't automatically mean higher performance. Even for Intel, their own slides show their first-gen 10nm would be slower than their current 14nm process. The main advantage of a smaller node is less power consumption - the performance gains come later as the process is refined.

D3M1G0D:

A smaller node doesn't automatically mean higher performance. Even for Intel, their own slides show their first-gen 10nm would be slower than their current 14nm process. The main advantage of a smaller node is less power consumption - the performance gains come later as the process is refined.

also density is a big gain. more cores on the same space.

This. This is what I've been waiting for for all these years. Nothing has been more enticing than this 100MHz bump on the same architecture we've seen since 2015! I can finally put an end to my wait for upgrading. /s

warlord:

They are not worried at all. In gaming AMD is gonna lose even from sub 200€ intel's cpu.

Riiiight.... because hardcore gamers make up Intel's greatest demographic... And I specify "hardcore" here because most people have 90Hz displays or lower, where the performance differences are largely irrelevant. Even if you account for all PC gamers (including casual ones), I'm sure Mac makes up for more of Intel's sales.

HardwareCaps:

also density is a big gain. more cores on the same space.

That tends to only be relevant for HEDT, servers, or GPUs. For mainstream CPUs, core density doesn't really matter all that much, and I don't see that changing for a while.

Waste of time from Intel... Good thing Zen2 is almost here.

nevcairiel:

What people like you don't understand is that I don't want to buy a CPU for some theoretical future that may or may not come in 5 or 10 years. I buy a CPU for things that I do with a PC right now, and in 2019 or 2020 that still requires strong ST performance. By the time this changes we'll have had 3 new generations of CPUs. As a developer myself, I can ensure you that such a change will not come over night, because there is a lot of fundamental limitations to multi-threading everything. Its extremely complex and in some cases requires fully re-thinking from scratch. As such, ST will still be an important factor for years to come, and people that try to talk that away are just blinding themselves.

If You want that speed now - buy i9-9900K. What the hell are you whing about? Just cough up 600euros and be done with it. And you have concrete proof that AMD cannot deliver that ST performance this year or even surpass it? Also not costing you 600euros while doing that... At least You and everybody else should be rooting for AMD that they deliver. That means better prices and better products for all of us.

slicer:

If You want that speed now - buy i9-9900K. What the hell are you whing about? Just cough up 600euros and be done with it. And you have concrete proof that AMD cannot deliver that ST performance this year or even surpass it? Also not costing you 600euros while doing that...

He has a 9900x What he's saying is that he's not here to buy hardware that might be good in 2-3 years. He buys what is good now because by the time some future proofed hardware becomes viable, he'll have upgraded anyway. Look at it this way, say you're a gamer. You can buy a 8700k or lets say 2700x. Some will say the 2700x is better because it has more threads. The thing is, right now, the 8700k will perform better in every game out there so he'd buy that. By the time the 16 threads are necessary, he'll have upgraded. Same goes for gpus with 16gb vs 8gb. You can buy a 2080 with 8gb vram or the RVII with 16gb vram. The 2080 is the better gpu but has half the vram. What do you buy? He would buy the 2080, because it is the better gpu now. He probably would upgrade it in a years time, maybe 18 months anyway and until then, 8gb will be more than enough because he doesn't game at 4k ultra settings. Get it? Some people tend to say "oh RVII is better because the 16gb vram will come handy in the future". Some people buy what's best now and if it needs upgrading, they'll upgrade. By the time games require over 8gb vram at 1080p/1440p to run without problems, the RVII will be obsolete anyway. It's like saying the 290x aged great, look at it now compared to the 780ti. Who cares? Both are obsolete and you can drop £200 on a gpu that will outperform both by a large margin.

metagamer:

He has a 9900x What he's saying is that he's not here to buy hardware that might be good in 2-3 years. He buys what is good now because by the time some future proofed hardware becomes viable, he'll have upgraded anyway. Look at it this way, say you're a gamer. You can buy a 8700k or lets say 2700x. Some will say the 2700x is better because it has more threads. The thing is, right now, the 8700k will perform better in every game out there so he'd buy that. By the time the 16 threads are necessary, he'll have upgraded. Same goes for gpus with 16gb vs 8gb. You can buy a 2080 with 8gb vram or the RVII with 16gb vram. The 2080 is the better gpu but has half the vram. What do you buy? He would buy the 2080, because it is the better gpu now. He probably would upgrade it in a years time, maybe 18 months anyway and until then, 8gb will be more than enough because he doesn't game at 4k ultra settings. Get it? Some people tend to say "oh RVII is better because the 16gb vram will come handy in the future". Some people buy what's best now and if it needs upgrading, they'll upgrade.

Yup, you should always buy for what you need right now. It's why I bought a Ryzen 7 (and later a Threadripper). 😉

D3M1G0D:

Yup, you should always buy for what you need right now. It's why I bought a Ryzen 7 (and later a Threadripper). 😉

I bought a 7700k 2 years ago because Ryzen came out and had a lot of issues and I was building a gaming rig. Now I'm waiting to see what the Ryzen 2 brings, looking at the 3700x performance especially. If it's underwhelming, I'll buy the 9900kfc 🙂

slicer:

At least You and everybody else should be rooting for AMD that they deliver. That means better prices and better products for all of us.

I am, and thats why I am disappointed that their only tool seems to be "moar cores", because thats not the direction I believe would suit mainstream the most at this time. A push to 8 cores for mainstream was fine. But beyond that it gets harder and harder to justify. What I am really personally interested in at this time is 8+ cores with no-compromise ST performance. Unfortunately the higher the core count goes, the more ST you usually give up. Value is only a secondary concern for me. If Zen2 can match Intel 9900K, for example, thats nice and all, but only offers an alternative, not an upgrade - ie. catch-up. What I'm really looking forward to is the 2020 CPUs. I just hope that AMD doesn't get stuck on the core-wars mentality exclusively.

"legit enthusiasts" is getting a single core 70$ 1400MHz CPU by cherry picking it based on its serial number and then clock it to 2300MHz instead of paying 450$ for 2200MHz one. Legit Enthusiast is modding an 6800LE to 6800 Ultra on your own. Legit Enthusiast is replacing the leaking caps on your Epox mobo. Just wasting cash for the most expensive stuff is not being an "legit enthusiast" it is just being prodigal. 🙂 If it is for gaming and you don't game really fast paced FPS like CS , CSS , UT (yup Battlefield and Call Of Duty not included since they have really slow mouse max speed limit you can't snap 180 degree in a blink) then anything beyond the refresh rate of your display is just waste of performance.

DARKSF:

"legit enthusiasts" is getting a single core 70$ 1400MHz CPU by cherry picking it based on its serial number and then clock it to 2300MHz instead of paying 450$ for 2200MHz one. Legit Enthusiast is modding an 6800LE to 6800 Ultra on your own. Legit Enthusiast is replacing the leaking caps on your Epox mobo. Just wasting cash for the most expensive stuff is not being an "legit enthusiast" it is just being prodigal. 🙂 If it is for gaming and you don't game really fast paced FPS like CS , CSS , UT (yup Battlefield and Call Of Duty not included since they have really slow mouse max speed limit you can't snap 180 degree in a blink) then anything beyond the refresh rate of your display is just waste of performance.

So, you are still talking about 240fps target, right?

metagamer:

I bought a 7700k 2 years ago because Ryzen came out and had a lot of issues and I was building a gaming rig. Now I'm waiting to see what the Ryzen 2 brings, looking at the 3700x performance especially. If it's underwhelming, I'll buy the 9900kfc 🙂

I was one of the early adopters, and had plenty of problems with my Ryzen 7 system. I don't regret it though - having 8 cores was a huge increase in computing power compared to my Core i7 4790K. I now consider a 4c/8t CPU to be low-end :P

D3M1G0D:

I was one of the early adopters, and had plenty of problems with my Ryzen 7 system. I don't regret it though - having 8 cores was a huge increase in computing power compared to my Core i7 4790K. I now consider a 4c/8t CPU to be low-end 😛

For games, a fast 4/8 is still plenty for 99% of the games. I'm seeing some high cpu usage in some games though and while those games still run great, I don't like stressing my cpu to near 100% in BFV and TD2. I'm waiting for the Ryzen 2 release and if they don't perform, 9900kfc it is. I don't regret getting the 7700k at all btw as all I do is gaming, no computing/productivity work here so it gave me 2.5 years of great gaming performance. I always say people should just buy whatever is best for them.

metagamer:

For games, a fast 4/8 is still plenty for 99% of the games. I'm seeing some high cpu usage in some games though and while those games still run great, I don't like stressing my cpu to near 100% in BFV and TD2. I'm waiting for the Ryzen 2 release and if they don't perform, 9900kfc it is. I don't regret getting the 7700k at all btw as all I do is gaming, no computing/productivity work here so it gave me 2.5 years of great gaming performance. I always say people should just buy whatever is best for them.

Just do not have firefox with multiple tabs and some flash/video player running on second screen eating one CPU core off. My problem with i5 was that it 1st became one main task system. Multitasking in gaming became almost impossible in many cases. Then it had performance problems even without anything running in background. 4C/8T in gaming is now in phase where you really have to be careful about what kind of multitasking you do with your PC. (Taking away multitasking from PC is like having gaming console. No sane person can advocate that.)