Sixteen Core Ryzen 9 3000 Series Socket AM4 ES Sample at 4.2 GHz spotted?
Click here to post a comment for Sixteen Core Ryzen 9 3000 Series Socket AM4 ES Sample at 4.2 GHz spotted? on our message forum
metagamer
12c/24t at around 4.5ghz will do me just fine. That's what I'm looking at atm. But not ruling out 16c/32t either. Depends on pricing.
DeskStar
YES...….YES...…..AND YES...….. PLEASE!.!.!.
nevcairiel
I curently have 10 cores at 4.5GHz. I'm interested in 12 cores. I'm not interested in giving up single-thread performance.
So that leaves simple logic for me - if its a gain in both factors, both cores and single-thread performance, I consider it an upgrade, and will go for it. To be a worthwhile (ie. significant) upgrade in single-thread performance, I reckon it'll need 4.7 or 4.8 GHz at least. This is of course just a guess, although an educated one.
You can make all sorts of crazy claims like "1hz but with the same performance", but thats just nonsense of course. My numbers are based on performance of Zen1, and an estimated generational IPC gain.
Personally I think 12 cores at 4.8 or even 5 should be reachable. Intel can do 8 cores 5GHz in OC on 14nm, so hopefully 7nm can beat that - given proper cooling.
That doesn't mean the CPU is bad if it only clocks 4.5 or 4.4. Its just not worth the money to upgrade for me personally.
chispy
Not bad clocks for an early engineering sample: Ryzen 9 3xxx 16 cores 32 threads 3.3Ghz base frequency / boost 4.2Ghz , Intel i9-7960x 16 cores 32 threads 2.8Ghz base frequency / boost 4.2Ghz. It all comes down to the price now as i believe AMD will match Intel ipc.
Ryzen 9 3xxx - Price ?
Intel i9-7960x - Price = $1400 US Dollars 😛
anticupidon
That will be Intel's Management Engine and AMD's PSP.
ladcrooks
so are they bad as each other ?
Venix
comparing mhz to mhz between different architectures is to a point pointless since even when the cpu's are in average equally fast there are tasks that they excel comparing to competition right now for example if you do a lot of avx tasks ...intel is still the way , obviously the 1hz example i set was overblown to extreme just to pass my point because most likely a cpu operating on 1hz might be slower than a human calculating binary in a piece of paper ! , now your personal use obviously for the work loads you do single thread performance is still very important more important than extra cores else you would be looking for a bigger core count already you are already on a big core count 10 cores @ 4.5 ghz ...even if the 12 core from amd come and boosts 5ghz on all cores or overclocks there how much it will help you ?you have already a little monster of a cpu if i was you i would have had no plans to upgrade :P, on the other hand we are enthusiasts so as far we can afford a shiny new cpu is always like Christmas came early so i totally understand that part !
asturur
Sorry no upgrades for you, if not minors and with 0 impact on real life performances.
If you are on x299/x99 you are even losing performances moving on the AMD basic platform ( less ram bandwidth/less pciex )
It will be hard to justify the expense even from my 2700x stock.
sverek
more leaks to throw some juicy coal and oil into the rumor furnace!
https://twitter.com/1usmus/status/1126843245093359616
... probably means nothing!
schmidtbag
They're not bad clocks in general. We all have to remember that AM4 is a "commoner's" socket. I'm sure AMD is using conservative numbers to make sure these chips don't overheat in the average setup, especially if they ship with a stock cooler. Or, so they remain stable (since many boards don't have VRMs built to handle 16 cores at 4GHz+).
If you want hefty performance, that's what Threadripper is for. The fact we're seeing 16c/32t CPUs in AM4 at all is still a bit weird to me (not in a bad way).
All that being said, I'm much more curious what the clock speeds of the 4-8 core models are like. Those will likely be able to boost much higher, and will in turn clue us in of the true potential of Zen2's clock speeds. If any of them get close to 5GHz, that's very promising.
Fox2232
At time AMD shown their 7nm 8C/16T vs. intel's, I was thinking that they may be using some scenario which favors them. But still there was like 60W smaller power draw on AMD.
That's surely enough to get another 8C/16T there since 2700X is basically 125W chip (default 105W).
As for boards. Reasonably well priced board can do easily 200W w/o heating VRMs to uncomfortable level. But 2700X with 200MHz extra on all cores eating 185W was not really worth those watts for me.
From comparison above I would say that 7nm 12C/24T could comfortably fit into same TDP as 2700X. (And that's still chip I am aiming for as I expect that it will be able to reach higher clock than 16C/32T while having reasonable price tag. And it will be less affected by dual channel memory.)
Kool64
I'm in the same boat going from midrange 1600X to the 3300X. I'm gonna be a "budget enthusiast"
tsunami231
intel is already behind the curve on core count there price is still ridiculous compared to amd and to boot, amd performance is not joke anymore more and there STP is atlest 2000 now which no longe really matters much, and seeing Mutlithreading programs are starting to come into there own now, intels advantage is gone. my next system if it make one is amd ryzen, unless intel pull there head out of there ass and actual makes the price premium worth it in most cases it not imo
intel had no competition for so long that even know they think there is no competition, or atlest that is how there trying to play it.
schmidtbag
Oh yeah definitely, I don't deny any of that. It just caught me off guard since not only are the clock speeds a healthy boost but an additional 8 cores over 1 generation of a consumer-grade socket just really caught me off guard. Again, I'm not complaining, I was more elaborating that the clock speeds offered on these 16-core models seems totally reasonable.
Agreed, but it's worth pointing out that on AM4, VRM quality varies quite dramatically because you can go from crappy budget platforms to modestly expensive and powerful. It's a very diverse socket. AMD needs to make sure they sell a CPU that ensures compatibility. The good thing is most boards tell you what wattage they can actually handle. However, it's also worth pointing out the proportions of wattage when increasing core count. 7nm isn't half the wattage of 12nm. So, if you thought a 200MHz boost on an 8-core was too much extra power draw, it's going to be even greater on a 16-core. So again, I'm sure AMD kept the clocks on this model relatively low simply because another 100MHz was going to multiply the TDP just a little too much.
Fox2232
Power draw vs. clock did really fall down to breaking point in voltage required for given clock. And those 14 and 14+ (12nm) were not very kind. Going from 4.05 to 4.25GHz on all cores was all that was needed to make that bad power draw. But on 7nm we do not know if it is breaking at same 4GHz or at 4.5GHz.
Zen+ is quite power efficient at 3.6GHz. Same way Zen2 on 7nm may prove to be still power efficient on 3.8~4GHz.
It will be biggest surprise for us all. I just hope that it will be pleasant one.
schmidtbag
I had a feeling you were going to bring that up. I was going to myself, but the fact still remains: you're still multiplying the power draw as you increase clocks. Frankly, none of this really matters - it's mostly going to be enthusiasts who buy this CPU, and they're going to buy a good board, a good PSU, and a good heatsink, and they're all going to overclock it way beyond the default clock speeds.
It's everyone else who AMD's default specs are catering to. Even though there's probably not going to be a single A320/A420 user who will use one of these CPUs, I assure you, those motherboards are not going to guarantee stability of 16 cores at 3.8GHz+ under full load. The fact that some board manufacturers are adding Zen2 support for these boards is enough of a reason for AMD to feel the need to use "conservative" numbers.
Astyanax
what it means, is that memory frequencies limit on the IF will be significantly reduced.
Alessio1989
Are those rumours under the new porn censorship law in the UK?
schmidtbag
Considering rules 34 and 35 of the internet, the answer to your question is a resounding "yes".
Mundosold
I think that is a bad idea... PS5 will be 8-core Zen2.
Considering many PC games are just console ports, you are going to want just as many cores, plus some to handle the OS/background tasks IMO.
This wasn't a big deal with PS4/Xbone because they both use the same very slow AMD Jaguar APUs. So even though they also had 8 total cores, they were very slow even when they came out.
I would go with 12/24 to be future-proof.
