AMD Ryzen 3000 with 12 and 16 cores will be coming as well

RYZEN 3k the sexiest hardware ever!

 

Looks like there's gonna be an upgrade-fest coming. Still on Sandy Bridge here. Ryzen 3000 looks like the most likely upgrade for me. Probably 8c if that gets me the highest clocks.

AMD is hammering on Intel who are also deathly afraid of the future of ARM. Not exactly fun times for Intel ahead.

 

Could this mean that we'll get an 8-core APU as well? With a kickass (1024 core???) IGP?

 

I want to know if they could make a APU chiplet with the io controler and 1 HBM module on the same interposer.

 

Didn't they talk about doing that ages ago?

 

I know they can make something similar for notebooks, but i didn't hear about that for desktops(real news not rumours)

 

That´s probably the future CPU of the new PS5 and Xbox something. And i expect a desktop version of it.

 

One difference is that AMD will be shipping them while what Intel "announces" won't be ready for prime time shipping until several months later, if Intel holds true to form. High-refresh-rate gaming, at high res (QHD & Up) is owned by the GPU--CPU matters very little at that point. That said, improved game-engine compilers for Ryzen will continue to bear fruit, imo.

 

Hardly a surprise that they didn't show case the 16 core part cause that alone would cannibalise their threadripper CPU, they need to clear the TR CPU inventory first then they can release it so i wouldn't be surprised if the 12 and 16 core variant are released later. Why would anyone by a TR CPU if you can get one that has the same core count, is faster, higher clocks lower latency and cheaper. Only advantage would be to the TR is the available bandwidth and PCIe lanes while costing significantly more in the cost of the CPU and the platform.

 

And whats the point in second core? Wont it turn the Ryzen into TR with all the associated problems and low gaming performance?

 

Not really. The X399 platform offers more than just more cores, such as quad-channel memory and more PCIe lanes. Remember that there were 8-core TRs as well, and TR can now go up to 32 cores (and could theoretically go up to 64 cores). The only thing that a 16-core consumer Ryzen would do is make 8-core and 12-core TRs redundant.

 

I'm betting that the 12 core and 16 core 3000 chips will work just fine in all the old am4 boards. Overclocking may be an issue with 12 cores and up. I'm sure the power draw per core with the 3000 will be lower at stock speeds. I don't see any reason at all that the 12-16 core chips wouldn't run on a B350. Just update the Bios. The way AMD is rolling the new CPUs out tells me they knew what they were going to produce years in to the future. No hindsight here.

 

Any chance you can elaborate on that Bossman? I have been curious what kind of secret sauce they were going to come up to eliminate such latency issues. I would value any insight you can offer.

 

The best thing with Zen 2 is you will be able to get away with installing slower ram without creating so much of a performance penalty.

 

Nonsense, usually there's 30% difference in framerate at high refresh rate gaming between 2700X and 9700K. That's a massive difference just from the CPU. While yes, 9700K is more expensive, that's a 1 time cost to always have better framerates.

 

Curious to know where you got your "30" from.

https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_ryzen_7_2700x_review,20.html

At 720p, where the difference between a 2700x and 8700k would be most notable, and is also a resolution almost no gamer games at so really isn't even relevant..., but anyways, there's a 12% on average performance difference.

At 1080p, it's not as critical, but hey at least more people game at this resolution. At this resolution, there's a 3% average performance difference.

Lets not even go to 1440p/4k, since it'd just go down from there.

Now, you may be going "But i didn't say 8700k! i said 9700k!", yes, that's true. If you want to go and find the REAL averages on some other benchmarks website, then go ahead and do it. But actually do the work, as i have done, rather then making up some random number and calling it good. Reality is, in most games the 8700k performs better at, the 9700k would likely perform similarly, since the 8700k has a slightly higher minimum frequency, and the 9700k has a slightly higher maximum frequency, and the addition of 2 cores, in the majority of games that again would have the 2700x performing less in, would not matter. Plus, the 8700k has hyperthreading whereas the 9700k doesn't. From what i've seen, there's an average of 1-5fps difference, sometimes in the 8700k's favor, which would not move the percent average differences much at all. If you want you can call it 15% at 720p and 4-5% at 1080p.

Again, i didn't just make these numbers up, i took the data provided in the above guru3d review, percentaged out the difference, and then averaged the percent differences.

You guys gotta stop making stuff up.

 

I'm not Hilbert but I'd assume he's talking about the chiplet design itself.

As things stand right now there's a large penalty if a process has to access memory belonging to a CPU on a different CCX, as any access to said memory have to traverse the fabric over to the other CCX and then access memory from that point.
With Zen 2 the memory controller moves out to the IO chiplet, which means consistent memory access latency as every chiplet goes through the same path for memory access. Supposedly the fabric itself has also been improved for the new generation.

As I understand it L3 cache may or may not be exclusive to the CPU chiplet, I've heard speculation of a potential mirror on the IO die, so we'll have to wait to read/see what the potential performance impact of that will be.

Overall though worst-case latency is guaranteed to be much improved.

 

Doesn't the IO chip means that they could add more memory channels in the 500 series motherboards, or that is controlled by something else?

 

Not without changing the socket, as that would require different a different pinout.

Well.. I mean theoretically they could have left a large number of pins unused, in reserve so to speak, to enable something like that but that's a pretty unlikely situation and one someone would have mentioned by now. Even so that wouldn't do anything for existing motherboards.

As AMD is sticking with AM4 the number of memory channels won't change. I'm not sure what to expect from the 500-series chipset truth be told, the new boards will likely have better support for PCIe 4.0 and stronger VRMs (for the 12-16 core CPUs) but those features don't really rely on the chipset.

*shrug* I guess we'll have to see!

 

Not had an AMD cpu gaming pc for over 6 years now.
Its time to open my wallet.