1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

AMD Demos 7nm Ryzen 3000 processors (and kicks a bit of ass)

Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Hilbert Hagedoorn, Jan 9, 2019.

  1. Kaerar

    Kaerar Master Guru

    Messages:
    346
    Likes Received:
    43
    GPU:
    RX Vega 64
    Well I guess it's ok to totally dismiss someone when nothing you are doing has any relevance whatsoever. I don't particularly like you right now as most of what you've said has been bashing someone else for analyzing the industry. Yes he has bias, who doesn't, though your's is pretty clear too and it's uglier than Jim's by a long shot. BTW getting outraged at that comment is basically just you being a snowflake. Can't really be that annoyed at him considering the twat he was dealing with.

    BTW feel free to provide evidence debunking the "tessellation myths" as I've never seen anything concrete to counter the issues they presented. Nvidia's dealings in the industry aren't exactly hidden...
     
  2. SaLaDiN666

    SaLaDiN666 Member

    Messages:
    32
    Likes Received:
    3
    GPU:
    1080 GTX
    2600x is 4-5% faster than 8700k clock to clock.

    2700x vs 9900k , both @ 4.ghz, it is 1805 vs 1702.

    So the outlook doesn't look good at all and it suggest minimal IPC gains and almost performance regression.
     
  3. Kaerar

    Kaerar Master Guru

    Messages:
    346
    Likes Received:
    43
    GPU:
    RX Vega 64
    Considering the CPU used was a 75W TDP part with 8c/16t at an unknown frequency vs Intel's 125W 9900K which moonlights as 95W TDP part. The CPU that lines up with that is the 3600/3600X from the leaks. That's mid-range 3xxx vs 9900K. So yeah not too worried here right now. CPU shot clearly had space for a second chiplet on there indicating the 12 and 16 core parts are a strong likelihood too.
     
  4. FrostNixon

    FrostNixon Member Guru

    Messages:
    188
    Likes Received:
    24
    GPU:
    GT 555M 1GB
    Until 3xxx hits HHs table we can't say much, however reaching 5ghz,even at the same ipc, which we know won't be the case, is great. Not to mention that, as many people above said, engineering samples are worse and they lack proper bios.
     

  5. Kaerar

    Kaerar Master Guru

    Messages:
    346
    Likes Received:
    43
    GPU:
    RX Vega 64
  6. Picolete

    Picolete Master Guru

    Messages:
    270
    Likes Received:
    61
    GPU:
    R9 290 Sapphire Tri-x
  7. nizzen

    nizzen Master Guru

    Messages:
    714
    Likes Received:
    129
    GPU:
    3x2080ti/5700x/1060
    Nice... It almost beat mye average 9900k :p

    [​IMG]
     
  8. H83

    H83 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,716
    Likes Received:
    394
    GPU:
    MSI Duke GTX1080Ti
    So was this CPU and R7 part or an R5??? If this turns out to be the 3600x version leaked before then this could be a great mainstream CPU.
     
  9. Kaerar

    Kaerar Master Guru

    Messages:
    346
    Likes Received:
    43
    GPU:
    RX Vega 64
    Your 9900K is at 5.3GHz...

    I highly doubt the 9900K used was anything other than stock so 4.7GHz unless the board did it's own thing and allowed it more than usual power, which it does look like it did. So the normal out of the box issue with all but one board OC'ing the 9900K from BIOS.
     
  10. D3M1G0D

    D3M1G0D Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    1,925
    Likes Received:
    1,233
    GPU:
    2 x GeForce 1080 Ti
    In case you weren't aware, Intel's own slides showed their first-gen 10nm being slower than their current 14nm++. The only major improvement is in power efficiency, which is what was shown with 7nm. Seems about right.
     

  11. HardwareCaps

    HardwareCaps Master Guru

    Messages:
    452
    Likes Received:
    154
    GPU:
    x
    Probably the R5, gonna be real value on this R5's
     
  12. Aura89

    Aura89 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    7,623
    Likes Received:
    893
    GPU:
    -
    Sorry i don't troll enough for you to be viewed as useful :)

    Actually, i'm not sorry at all.

    Though i find your comment interesting as you have for the most part been replying to the useless, bashing, negative based off of no information posts in this thread, yet i call it out as it is and that's your response?

    Very interesting indeed.
     
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2019
    BangTail likes this.
  13. holler

    holler Master Guru

    Messages:
    218
    Likes Received:
    37
    GPU:
    2x AMD Radeon VII
    lmao, at people expecting AMD to layout out their full CPU/GPU hand in January. I have no doubt they will be releasing scrumptious bits of more info in the months to come.... looks like AMD will own 2019.
     
    FrostNixon likes this.
  14. Venix

    Venix Master Guru

    Messages:
    931
    Likes Received:
    320
    GPU:
    Palit 1060 6gb
    damn i was expecting more .... this answered nothing other than give me the impression that 8core ryzen 3xxx are the r5 ....seems that another chiplet can fit in there ... will see !
     
  15. slicer

    slicer Member Guru

    Messages:
    106
    Likes Received:
    32
    GPU:
    Gigabyte VEGA 64
    To be honest it was not Jim's fault that some of the stuff was not announced on CES. Because AMD themselves backtracked and changed their minds several times.
    I bet that at first Navi was to be mentioned at CES, but something was not right with the performance or yields on 7nm new uarch, then their now "fired" president had an idea to launch Vega 20 (II) with GTX1080Ti like performance and price around 750 dollars... hmm.
    Does that sound familiar? AdoredTV's leaker just had old info to leak. But regarding CPU performance parts- he got that right! Yes, the 16C cpu was not presented, but we all can see from the cpu die placments that there is room for one more 8C die. Also Lisa Su herself confirmed in an interviu right after the keynote, that there will be more cores for Ryzen. And chiplet design was also confirmed by Jim. Altough for baby Ryzen 3000chips, it may not be needed.
     
  16. FrostNixon

    FrostNixon Member Guru

    Messages:
    188
    Likes Received:
    24
    GPU:
    GT 555M 1GB
    If they had a better hand we would have seen it. AMD are not Nvidia or intel they are too far behind on market share so if they have anything good or ready they will present it. This only shows that CES was a fee months too eraly for ryzen
     

  17. JamesSneed

    JamesSneed Master Guru

    Messages:
    585
    Likes Received:
    198
    GPU:
    GTX 1070
    Considering they have an engineering sample with the same cores matching Intel is actually pretty nice. I'm sure they will eek out some more performance by June be it clocks since apparently they certainly have TDP headroom or by a final silicon spin with some tweaks. However what they showed at CES was there mid range part. You do realize they all but confirmed 2 chiplet Ryzens to Anandtech and since the chip has that funky design where the chiplet is set in the corner well you kind of see it coming. So I assume they will have ryzen part that will score better than 2x what a 9900K can pull in Cinebench.
     
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2019
    Venix likes this.
  18. JamesSneed

    JamesSneed Master Guru

    Messages:
    585
    Likes Received:
    198
    GPU:
    GTX 1070
    True however having better when a product is 7 months away from launch and making better chips by then are two different things. The fact they showed of an early engineering sample was great for them being able to launch this summer. I can see why they would start off with a single chiplet design for validation simplicity at first.
     
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2019
  19. Kaerar

    Kaerar Master Guru

    Messages:
    346
    Likes Received:
    43
    GPU:
    RX Vega 64
    I just called out that both your posts in this and the other thread had no value at all. Didn't contribute and only complained. Not even on the topic, just on the people posting. I didn't see the point in either of them.
     
  20. chispy

    chispy Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    8,758
    Likes Received:
    891
    GPU:
    RTX 2080Ti - RX 580
    I thing they are holding their cards ( AMD ) very close to their chest and not showing more than they need to show at this moment ,paper launch , time will tell ... But the empty space on the die i bet 100% it is for another chiplet 8 cores ;) meaning a 16 core 32 threads cannot be dismiss. All in all good vibes from AMD and the Ryzen 3000 cpus :)
     
  21. Dazz

    Dazz Master Guru

    Messages:
    812
    Likes Received:
    78
    GPU:
    ASUS STRIX RTX 2080
    Well idk this is an engineering sample so clock speeds will be significantly lower than retail samples and the Intel score is inline with the 9900K running all cores at 4.7GHz. For all we know the Ryzen was running all cores at 3GHz, i am guessing maybe around 4GHz however is realistic, but thats significantly higher than what we are used to seeing with engineering samples from either Intel or AMD.

    We wish 125w, all core 4.7GHz is around 150w for the 9900K

    22w for motherboard, 3w for SSD, 5w for graphics card idle = 30w then the 150w from the CPU

    I agree they are holding them close they don't want to set expectations to high like they have done in the past because it always bites them in the ass and we are still months away from launch no point in giving your competitor many months to prepare.

    Remember someone came out and said the new Ryzen had 25-30% IPC and AMD officially commented it wasn't and was around 12%, but it turned out the 30% increase was only for AVX workloads so it was very workload specific. That tells me AMD is not wanting to set expectations to high. They maybe trying to set them low so people are amazed like the original Ryzen they said it was 40% IPC over pilldriver but tuned out to be over 50%.

    So we know the IPC gains of the Ryzen but we have no idea what clock speeds they will be hitting. Well i say no idea there are leaks of clock speeds similar to that of Intels. Although Intel are hitting them clock speeds on 14nm while it took AMD to go to 7nm to hit them, but the IPC increase will be what separates it in the end.

    *** Guess ***
    With the 12% IPC then this would appear the engineering sample is running at 4.2GHz Vs the i9 9900K 4.7GHz. However it may have a lower clock because SMT for Ryzen is more efficent than Intels hyper threading.

    Still 4.2GHz for an engineering sample does seem quite high to me.
     
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2019

Share This Page