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

Sixteen Core Ryzen 9 3000 Series Socket AM4 ES Sample at 4.2 GHz spotted?

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

  1. mackintosh

    mackintosh Master Guru

    Messages:
    222
    Likes Received:
    42
    GPU:
    MSI GTX 1080 Armor
    My baseline remains the same - either it beats the 9900K in daily and gaming use at its pricepoint or it won't. If it does, my next system (and first in over 15 years) will be AMD based. If it won't, I'll keep feeding Chipzilla.
     
  2. Silva

    Silva Master Guru

    Messages:
    873
    Likes Received:
    273
    GPU:
    Asus RX560 4G
    16 cores on a small socket sure sounds fun, and expensive.
    I was going to buy something around a 1600/2600 but I'm ready to take something like a 3600 home now.
    Hurry up AMD!
     
    typhon6657 likes this.
  3. Venix

    Venix Master Guru

    Messages:
    861
    Likes Received:
    290
    GPU:
    Palit 1060 6gb
    genuine question here i see a lot of people putting a mental threshold ...like if it hits 5ghz + good if it hits 4999 mhz and bellow bad .... i do not get it ... in gaming for example if you have a chip that can actually hit 5000 mhz and someone say has the same chip and can hit 4.7 ghz with the same video card same motherboard , ram you catch my drift ... will those 300 mhz matter at all ? what kind of difference will make? and even if it does will be only when you are not gpu bound i really do not get it i am just waiting for HH review to see what the cpu can do ... hell even if it clocks at 1hz if the performance is there i am in for it !
     
  4. metagamer

    metagamer Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,105
    Likes Received:
    418
    GPU:
    Palit GameRock 2080
    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.
     

  5. DeskStar

    DeskStar Master Guru

    Messages:
    545
    Likes Received:
    42
    GPU:
    4 eVGA GTX TITAN SC
    YES...….YES...…..AND YES...….. PLEASE!.!.!.
     
    Valken likes this.
  6. nevcairiel

    nevcairiel Master Guru

    Messages:
    566
    Likes Received:
    173
    GPU:
    MSI 1080 Gaming X
    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.
     
  7. chispy

    chispy Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    8,759
    Likes Received:
    889
    GPU:
    RTX 2080Ti - RX 580
    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 :p
     
    Embra likes this.
  8. anticupidon

    anticupidon Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    3,672
    Likes Received:
    545
    GPU:
    integrated
    That will be Intel's Management Engine and AMD's PSP.
     
  9. ladcrooks

    ladcrooks Master Guru

    Messages:
    245
    Likes Received:
    36
    GPU:
    DECIDING
    so are they bad as each other ?
     
  10. Venix

    Venix Master Guru

    Messages:
    861
    Likes Received:
    290
    GPU:
    Palit 1060 6gb
    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 !
     

  11. asturur

    asturur Master Guru

    Messages:
    295
    Likes Received:
    52
    GPU:
    Geforce Gtx 1080TI
    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.
     
  12. sverek

    sverek Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    5,075
    Likes Received:
    1,839
    GPU:
    NOVIDIA -0.5GB
  13. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    4,107
    Likes Received:
    1,147
    GPU:
    HIS R9 290
    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.
     
    Kaarme and chispy like this.
  14. Fox2232

    Fox2232 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    9,356
    Likes Received:
    2,013
    GPU:
    -NDA +AW@240Hz
    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.)
     
    Last edited: May 10, 2019
    chispy, Ricardo and Embra like this.
  15. Kool64

    Kool64 Member Guru

    Messages:
    178
    Likes Received:
    69
    GPU:
    Gigabyte GTX 1070
    I'm in the same boat going from midrange 1600X to the 3300X. I'm gonna be a "budget enthusiast"
     
    chispy likes this.

  16. tsunami231

    tsunami231 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    9,350
    Likes Received:
    287
    GPU:
    EVGA 1070Ti Black
    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.
     
  17. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    4,107
    Likes Received:
    1,147
    GPU:
    HIS R9 290
    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.
     
  18. Fox2232

    Fox2232 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    9,356
    Likes Received:
    2,013
    GPU:
    -NDA +AW@240Hz
    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.
     
  19. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    4,107
    Likes Received:
    1,147
    GPU:
    HIS R9 290
    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.
     
  20. Astyanax

    Astyanax Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,013
    Likes Received:
    487
    GPU:
    GTX 1080ti

Share This Page