Printable View
Next year (possibly Q1), AMD will release the Ryzen 3000 series. Up to 16c/32t mainstream and will still be compatible with current AM4 motherboards. At the same clock speed as 2000 series Ryzens, these should be 10-15% faster. The current 2000 series is made with a 12nm process. The 3000 series is looking like it will be 7nm so there should be a nice power efficiency increase as well.
Any AVX fixes/upgrades?
No word on that yetQuote:
Originally Posted by zombie67
Threadripper 2 pricing seems to be confirmed.
Attachment 2962
About the Ryzen 3000 series
Quote:
Final retail samples could be more than 15% IPC jump versus what we have been hearing for a while. But it doesn’t end here.
Zen 2 is also aiming to fix and improve upon the memory controller by reducing the memory delay and allowing better support for higher frequency, lower latency memory. The other thing being talked about is AVX support. It is said that Zen 2 won’t support AVX-512 but will definitely get AVX performance enhancement compared to what Zen 1 can do right now. The clock speeds also get a huge jump, thanks to both, the TSMC 7nm node and revamped architecture design and one can also expect refined boost frequencies, allowing for higher XFR and Precision Boost limits.
Ryzen 3xxx = Zen 2? That’s not confusing at all.
Good to see AVX is getting improvement. Too bad about 512.
Yes. Ryzen 1xxx = ZenQuote:
Originally Posted by zombie67
Ryzen 2xxx = Zen+
Ryzen 3xxx = Zen 2
I'm not that upset about AVX 512. Intel overheats badly when they run it and hardly anything makes use of it anyway. AVX2 is where it's at
Any projected launch/availability dates for the TR3s?
Boom.Quote:
Zen 2 will also offer double the floating point performance of Zen, supporting 256-bit floating point calculations, which is a major stride for AMD, as AVX support is a strong point for Intel processors.
@Bryan: TR3 should appear next summer. The next round of Epyc CPUs will be 64c/128t (and a benchmark released today shows a just one beating dual Xeon 8180 Platinums) so this is getting nuts. Core Wars!https://cdn.wccftech.com/wp-content/...3-1480x359.png
I think I will build one. [emoji108]
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by zombie67
I might have to do a 2990WX 1st though :D
So it will do AVX2 good, then? At some point I'll have to decide when to update one of these 3930K rigs myself. Bummer is, I can't think of anything I'd use it for other than crunching, so kind of hard to justify at the moment. hmmm. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by zombie67
An 8c/16t Ryzen 3000 series CPU (based on 7nm Zen 2) was demo'd today against an Intel i9-9900K. Both were run at stock speed on the Cinebench R15 benchmark and basically tied each other. However, the AMD chip did it using 46W less than Intel (133.4W vs. 179.9W). If the 8c ties Intel, the 16c must be a beast. Still socket AM4 but it supports PCIe 4.0 with the x570 chipset.
I must be missing something. How can an Intel i9-9900K, with a TDP of 95 W be accused of consuming 179.9W? :) Must be some severe overhead to that Mobo. :))
Oh that's simple: Intel lied again :D Yeah they got caught a couple months ago bypassing TDP limitations set by the default motherboard BIOS/microcode across pretty much every brand. Doubt it'll be fixed though. People love performance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumps
The AVX2 on the TR2s sucks in comparison to Intel. They supposedly are going to fix it on the TR3 series.
Some pricing updates
https://www.notebookcheck.net/filead...3/AdoredTV.png
@JPM - Are those the ones that AMD is fixing the AVX in?
YesQuote:
Originally Posted by DrPop
Nice! At what point is an i7 3930K going to be bottlenecking my GPU? Just looking for a reason here... :DQuote:
Originally Posted by John P. Myers
If you're just looking for a reason, it's been bottlenecking it for years =)) Even a GT 430 on an old PCI bus needs at least 16 cores to operate properly :DQuote:
Originally Posted by DrPop
What's the point in terms of energy efficiency to run an application with a GPU which needs 16 cores to operate at its full load. Are the 16 cpu cores also at full load whilst GPU at 100%?Quote:
Originally Posted by John P. Myers
@Pinhodecarlos - JPM is just pulling my leg. ;-)
@JPM - seriously, though - in a demanding GPU situation, such as X-Plane 11 with all settings maxed or Shadow of the Tomb Raider on max settings in 2K or 4K ... at what point am I limiting myself by this ASUS P9X79 Pro mobo and i7 3930K setup? Or are we still GPU bound?
The best way to test if your GPU is holding you back is to play a game at 720p. CPUs are more responsible for FPS so lowering the resolution isolates it. If you get a big jump in FPS @ 720p vs. regular res then your GPU is the bottleneck. If FPS stays about the same, the CPU is the bottleneck. Make sure you turn off any form of frame pacing for the test (vsync, gsync, freesync, etc.)Quote:
Originally Posted by DrPop
I don't know about gaming but I have 2 GTX 1080Ti that are setup identically. The I7-3930K @3.8G and PCIe 2 outperforms the one running at 2.8G and PCIe 3 so CPU clock/ram speed are more important for crunching. It may be that identical CPUs would show a benefit with later PCIe versions but I don't think PCIe bandwidth is a limiting factor for crunching.
OK, thanks guys. I'll try that and see what I get. :)