Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
AMD said the AM4 socket was good to 2020...
TO 2020, not thru 2020...
So maybe sometime in 2020 we get an AM4+ / AM5 socket, along with quad-channel DDR5 memory (and maybe high-speed low-latency 32GB & 64GB sticks)...?!?
Nope, AM5 wil likely l remain dual-channel DDR5. The secret to this is that DDR5 is using a dual bus for better utilization of each memory module, giving you about 35% actual bandwidth at the same bus transfer rates. And it's looking to START at 3200, and jump all the way up to 6400.
Unfortunately, they wil need a new socket for the new pin outs for DDR5, and will likely pair it with 5nm EUV Zen 3 in 2021/2022. Zen2+ will still be on DDR4, and will probably not touch much.
Right now DDR5 DIMMs will be available by the end of the year, and they are expected to show up in servers first, then high-end cell phones and mainstream desktops. AMD's independent I/O die means that you can use DDR5 on EPYC server refresh starting next year, while still using the same refresh chips on DDR4 mainstream systems.
DDR5-3200 RAM will see an increase of 1.36x in bandwidth compared to DDR4-3200. However, DRAM chips are expected to ship with a bandwidth of 4800MT/s, or 1.87x that of DDR4-3200 RAM. The official upper limit for the DDR5 RAM standard is 6400MT/s, but some designs may be able to push that further through overclocking.
Zen 2 12 core is going to smoke 9900k
In highly threaded encoding/rendering workloads, certainly.
The question is what happens in more typical workloads, when you are more likely to pin a single core, with much lower utilization on other cores.
Single core Cinebench scores are what I am going to be looking for as a better predictor of general purpose performance.
I'm excited to see where 7nm Ryzen lands in this regard.
Honestly, if the 12c 24t processor lags just a little behind in single threaded performance, I will still jump all over it. 300% core count increase over my 7700k... Yes please!Single core benchmark as a better predictor of general performance???
You need to look at both of them to make a good decision.
I'd say they're equally important or else we'd be thinking unlocked dual cores are the way to go because their higher single threaded performance was a better indicator of general perf!
The people here looking to buy the higher core count CPUs are not going to be paying attention to single threaded perf AS much as MT. However I'm 100% certain that AMD will have a higher clocked CPU with less cores for the people that like ST to be high.
Single core benchmark as a better predictor of general performance???
You need to look at both of them to make a good decision.
I'd say they're equally important or else we'd be thinking unlocked dual cores are the way to go because their higher single threaded performance was a better indicator of general perf!
The people here looking to buy the higher core count CPUs are not going to be paying attention to single threaded perf AS much as MT. However I'm 100% certain that AMD will have a higher clocked CPU with less cores for the people that like ST to be high.
Not what I intended to say.
My point is that you know how many cores you have. You don't need to test to verify this. Scaling with added cores isnt all that different from argcitecture to architecture.
If you need more cores, choose the model with more cores, if you need fulewer cores, choose the model with fewer cores.
Where the key difference comes in is how capable each core is. "IPC"*clock speed.
Very rarely have I had a workload that is limited by my number of cores. Typically when I am CPU limited (which is rare) it is because I have a bunch of cores that are either idle or loaded no more than ~50% and one core that is pinned at 100% holding everything back.
This situation is improved by adding more per core performance, NOT by adding additional cores.
So 3.8/4.7. But that's pure guesstimating, so *shrug*.
Not what I intended to say.
My point is that you know how many cores you have. You don't need to test to verify this. Scaling with added cores isn't all that different from arcitecture to architecture.
If you need more cores, choose the model with more cores, if you need fewer cores, choose the model with fewer cores.
Where the key difference comes in is how capable each core is. "IPC"*clock speed.
Very rarely have I had a workload that is limited by my number of cores. Typically when I am CPU limited (which is rare) it is because I have a bunch of cores that are either idle or loaded no more than ~50% and one core that is pinned at 100% holding everything back.
This situation is improved by adding more per core performance, NOT by adding additional cores.
5nm EUV Zen
Then tbh it’s really your own fault to be disappointed. The leaker even said to take it with a grain of salt. Sounds you took it as the truth.Personally I'm at disappointment at Ryzen 3000 series specs so far, because I was expecting leaked specs(yes I'm a fool for believing leaks from known AMD fanboys) or at least similar..
According to leaked specs, we were suppose to get four CPU's(8 cores, 12 cores & 2x 16 cores) running @ 4.7-5.1GHz. and 3 of em(12 cores & 2x 16 cores) were clearly better than i9 9900K at lower price.
View attachment 164516
But we didn't get ANY 16 core CPUs, and on average Ryzen 3000 series are 400MHz slower than leaked specs.
We only get one 12 core CPU @ 4.6 GHz. Rest are 6-8 core CPUs @ 4.2-4.5GHz.. sigh
AMD Leaked Spec Formula = X(likely spec) + 400MHz + 4 cores
AMD Leaked Spec Formula = X(likely spec) + 400MHz + 4 cores
On a side note, this is probably why AMD isn't wasting their money on 16C chips if yields are lower than expected.
I think the 16 core would be cheaper to produce than two 8 cores, because the I/O die needs to exist only once.If they wanted to push a 16 core, it would take 2 perfect 8 core chiplets - which if sold as a single 3800x could net them $399 retail each vs. how much they could possibly make from the sale of a niche product like a 16 core Ryzen 9 x3999x
My bet is on motherboards. Give board partners more time to figure out which existing mobos meet the power requirements and perform validation.Dunno exactly what they're waiting for; could be motherboards, could be yields, could be they're sandbagging
Personally I'm at disappointment at Ryzen 3000 series specs so far, because I was expecting leaked specs(yes I'm a fool for believing leaks from known AMD fanboys) or at least similar..
According to leaked specs, we were suppose to get four CPU's(8 cores, 12 cores & 2x 16 cores) running @ 4.7-5.1GHz. and 3 of em(12 cores & 2x 16 cores) were clearly better than i9 9900K at lower price.
View attachment 164516
But we didn't get ANY 16 core CPUs, and on average Ryzen 3000 series are 400MHz slower than leaked specs.
We only get one 12 core CPU @ 4.6 GHz. Rest are 6-8 core CPUs @ 4.2-4.5GHz.. sigh
AMD Leaked Spec Formula = X(likely spec) + 400MHz + 4 cores
Dunno exactly what they're waiting for; could be motherboards, could be yields, could be they're sandbagging HARD and want to have a "But wait, there's more!" moment and really blow the doors off.
Many people that will buy the 12 core, are exactly the kind of people that will upgrade to the 16 core later. Why sell once, when they can sell twice?
At the time? Ya probably. In the long run? Nope.They paid way way too much for the ATI acquisition.
This. I think they will probably release 16 core down the road when they can bring the efficiency even higher and squeeze the best clocks from it, to bring it out under best case scenario. They basically have no need for it right now, beating intel on core and efficiency as we speak.
I think AMD simply does not need a 16C to be ahead of Intel in the mainstream platform. Intel will not be able to release a faster CPU for a long time .
Imagine ATi's worth in 25 years if they were still in the game?
Intel: We are behind on cores, add two more...!
ATI was on the verge of bankruptcy when AMD purchased them.
yeah i think a lot of people don't realize just how doomed ATi really was when AMD bought the company.. not to mention how much more AMD had to spend just to build it back up afterward, damn near killed AMD and would of left us with just intel and nvidia. worse case if they hadn't of bought ATi we would been left with just nvidia for discrete gpu's.
I think AMD simply does not need a 16C to be ahead of Intel in the mainstream platform. Intel will not be able to release a faster CPU for a long time .
Why is it AMD needs a 7nm process in order to be competitive with Intel's 14nm chips? By all accounts all else being equal, a 7nm chip should be crushing a 14nm chip. Smaller process size means less heat and power, which means you can crank things up more. The fact that AMD is only catching up to Intel's 14nm chips on per core performance on a 7nm process strongly suggests that all things are not equal.
AMD's current architecture may be better than the highly flawed Bulldozer architecture, but the above means that the architecture itself is still WELL behind Intel's, and that they are competitive solely because they currently have the process advantage.
Personally I'm at disappointment at Ryzen 3000 series specs so far, because I was expecting leaked specs(yes I'm a fool for believing leaks from known AMD fanboys) or at least similar..
According to leaked specs, we were suppose to get four CPU's(8 cores, 12 cores & 2x 16 cores) running @ 4.7-5.1GHz. and 3 of em(12 cores & 2x 16 cores) were clearly better than i9 9900K at lower price.
View attachment 164516
But we didn't get ANY 16 core CPUs, and on average Ryzen 3000 series are 400MHz slower than leaked specs.
We only get one 12 core CPU @ 4.6 GHz. Rest are 6-8 core CPUs @ 4.2-4.5GHz.. sigh
AMD Leaked Spec Formula = X(likely spec) + 400MHz + 4 cores