Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Hilbert Hagedoorn, May 27, 2019.
They claim it confirmed.
Tgought about it, but really want to see what AMD has to offer. With that said like with all good hardware releases, will supply and demand be there. I remember when the 970 gpus were released. I tried day and night for weeks before I could get one and even then I didn't get the one I wanted.
What would I use a 8 or even 12 core cpu for? Isn't most games only use 4 or 6 core?
Wow, that really puts my 1950X to shame - 3.4 GHz base / 4.0 GHz boost @ 180 watts vs 3.5 GHz base / 4.7 GHz boost @ 105 watts (and that's not including the IPC improvements). Gotta wonder what next-gen Threadripper will look like?
Reminds of me a video I watched today - retesting the R5 1600 vs i5 7600K:
Despite a hefty clock speed disadvantage (3.9 GHz vs 4.8 GHz for the overclocked results), the 6c/12t R5 1600 is close to the 4c/4t i5 7600K in several games and completely outpaces it in several modern games, beating the i5 by up to 25% (Shadow of the Tomb Raider, Assassin's Creed Odyssey, Battlefield V and The Division 2). It really shows the importance of having more cores for modern games. If you are planning on keeping your CPU for a long time, then I would say a 6-core CPU is the bare minimum (8c+ would be ideal).
Have some mercy for his wife.
As CPU norms change, games are starting to be much more thread friendly these days, and the number of threads with most common CPUs (4/6/8 cores) is becoming only a partial issue in many cases. Instead, in many situations, the problem also lies with software programming and possible logic limitations, as higher numbers of cores/threads increase complexity induced latency. Consequently, to take advantage of higher core and thread counts, a much greater per thread performance is still needed. Clearly, balance is important, and this also affects the way games are designed.
So, looking at a few game reviews on a tech site such as this usually gives you a good idea of current trends concerning CPUs, and if there is any real benefit in most situations. Beyond that, the choice is yours, because there will always be the possibility of gaining that addition few percentage improvements for various reasons.
Not to change the topic here, but Intel must be reducing its cpu prices. Microcebter has the i7 9700k for $379 and the i9 9900k for $479. Went to my local FRYS, to see if they price matched. The salesman I know there said wait till July, when they put the 9700k on sell for $319. Is this intel panicking?
Would it still make sense to buy 9700k? 8 threads for $319. How long will it last?
While Zen2 3700x offers 16 threads for $329.
I don't know if Intel is panicking, but their products might become obsolete by then.
3900X will breath on 9900K neck with more cores and might take it's "streamers PC" crown.
I would wager for at least a couple years the normal we'll see for games is scaling across 6 cores.
New chipset driver for Gigabye X570 is out- who can test if it helps with win 1903?
looks like same link on X470 models too.
Ryzen 5 3600 with all core turbo 3.8G and memory at 4266Mhz:
Its an option if I can't get a 3700x or 3800x. If they sell like hotcakes it could be months until one came available. I don't like preordering electronics as we have seen examples of things not being what they are.
Dose this confirm that 3700x/3800x will work with x470 MB?
why wouldn't it? have you not even ANY of the compatibility slides so far?
I'm one of those guys who believe it after I see it.
Could you believe that there is compatibility since MB manufacturers already released BIOS updates enabling use of Ryzen 3000 (Zen2) CPUs on B450/x470?
We dont have to forget that intel still has the bigger chunk of market on cpus... they could easily discourage the multi-threaded performance development in games with some partnership to "optimize game code".
8 cores could be a soft cap in cpu development for some time...
edit> PS: Im talking just gaming.
Intel has no reason to do that.
1st is that DX12/Vulkan is designed for 6/8 threads as basic (but not in a way that they will utilize each core fully, just spread workload nicely => shorten delays). Therefore 1 main thread for game, one 50% utilization thread for helper thread. Then maybe 4/8 threads using 25~50% of CPU cores at best. And maybe few cores for Physics.
But that's just a dream of future. 6C/12T for next year are safe. And I do not really expect to see games which would show full utilization and reduced performance.
Then there is another fact. And it is that AMD does not have production capacity same way as always. AMD can sell all they manufacture and number of CPUs intel sells may go down by 10%. Because people who will want to buy CPU will buy what's available. This means that intel is not even hardly pressed to reduce prices. They may do it for PR reasons. But anyone who comes to intel and asks for lower price because AMD has much better performance per $ may as well be laughed out of the door.
I'm going to have to disagree with that, I doubt Intel would have any say in gaming because they don't exist in the majority of that market - namely consoles.
Far more likely would be that any "soft cap" would be due to programming for the next-generation consoles, ie. 8 cores. I don't know whether we've confirmed SMT on the next-gen machines but it seems likely given how AMD has the feature over all but the bottom-barrel SKUs. Assuming that the next-gen consoles get it I'd say a soft cap would be 12-16 threads, on account of AMDs own hardware.