AMD Zen 3 (5000 Series), rumored 17% IPC gain.

[Joxeon]

But many on here pushed CPUs with more cores and threads over those with less cores, despite having slower cores for gaming. So were they wrong for pushing Ryzen 5 and Ryzen 7 CPUs over Core i5 and Core i7 CPUs?? Even Zen2 was slower in a per core basis. The Intel CPUs were faster in most games.

Yeah, now both Intel and zen 2 offers slightly slower single core but better multi core performance at the zen 3 ryzen 5 and 7 price points so according to most these would still be the better options with the zen 3 chips reserved for those who cared about that extra couple of percent.

What could backfire even more is if intel chips still turn out to be faster in gaming. Then you would have a chip that is slower than intel in gaming and slower than zen 2 in multicore while being more expensive than both.

 

[DeathStorm]

Are we really going to argue semantics and how much cores do or don't matter until the 5th?

It's going to be a very long 3 weeks isn't it...

 

[benjii]

Are we really going to argue semantics and how much cores do or don't matter until the 5th?

It's going to be a very long 3 weeks isn't it...

This is classic OCUK content. These threads are on about a 3 page loop and continue to rehash the same arguments until they die after launch or get locked. A novel semantic argument is prime reading!

 

[Kamakazie!]

Yeah, now both Intel and zen 2 offers slightly slower single core but better multi core performance at the zen 3 ryzen 5 and 7 price points so according to most these would still be the better options with the zen 3 chips reserved for those who cared about that extra couple of percent.

Absolutely, if prices & benchmarks hold out that MT performance per £ is better on Zen 2 or Intel then they are the better buys depending on your workload.
If you have other priorities then the 5000 series might make more sense.

With the backlash seen to AMD pricing though, how long before they need to lower RRPs or introduce cheaper SKUs?

 

[queamin]

I don't understand the fixation on number of cores. For a given performance level it's better to have as FEW cores as possible.

I not so sure if we start ending up with 2/4 cores, there must be a point where you not got enough cores, if games are starting to use more cores like the new consoles have 8 cores.

 

[Richdog]

Are we really going to argue semantics and how much cores do or don't matter until the 5th?

It's going to be a very long 3 weeks isn't it...

Yup.

 

[pc-guy]

With the backlash seen to AMD pricing though

what backlash? people on this forum complaining that they can get a 3700X right now with change for the price of a 5600X. Or for the price of a 5800X, you can get a 3900x right now. People crying about lack of value for money and consumer value etc etc when it is really they need a bit of a reality check.

Upgrading computer parts as regular as some of the vocal members of this forum has NEVER been about VALUE FOR MONEY. it is about outright performance, best of the best and what they can buy (best of the best) for the money they have. If people want value then keep you parts for 5 years then buy new rig when it dies that is what true value is. what a load of BS that someone changes parts every 12months or 18months and talking about value for money...and value for consumer...AMD, Intel, Nvida didnt put a gun to anyone's head to part money for their products. I paid £260 for an OEM i7 4770k all them years ago. now for the same money you get a 6c part that is 2xST and probably 3-4xMT performance. So Great Value also bear in mind, inflation over the years would have made my £260 into £315 today's money.

i don't think anyone is complaining about the IPC improvements shown in the AMD presentation especially if it is proven to be true.

only sales figure will tell what backlash there is.

 

[pc-guy]

It's purely illustrative and I already made reference to the fact that AMD & Intel have not been able to follow that path.

The point being illustrated is that when presented with a 6 core CPU that outperforms an 8 core CPU in both ST & MT performance, there is zero reason to buy the 8 core (in a desktop environment) because the scheduler doesn't care, it'll chuck thread after thread at the same core if it's churning through them.

to be fair, you do have a point there. Intel and possibly AMD like to put stuff in their architectural design so that they can say, we have accelerator for THIS. and no one actually uses THIS or THAT. or THIS and THAT ain't useful for anyone. those additions clearly will cause some sort of inefficiency. If they both designed cores to be lean and mean, like the old George Foreman grills, then we would probably see better IPC ie ST performances. or offload a load of addon stuff to maybe other specialised chips, and run X86 instructions only on the cores. but I guess that's what ARM is about. and look at ARM's IPC gains over the years...

 

[Joxeon]

what backlash? people on this forum complaining that they can get a 3700X right now with change for the price of a 5600X. Or for the price of a 5800X, you can get a 3900x right now. People crying about lack of value for money and consumer value etc etc when it is really they need a bit of a reality check.

Upgrading computer parts as regular as some of the vocal members of this forum has NEVER been about VALUE FOR MONEY. it is about outright performance, best of the best and what they can buy (best of the best) for the money they have. If people want value then keep you parts for 5 years then buy new rig when it dies that is what true value is. what a load of BS that someone changes parts every 12months or 18months and talking about value for money...and value for consumer...AMD, Intel, Nvida didnt put a gun to anyone's head to part money for their products. I paid £260 for an OEM i7 4770k all them years ago. now for the same money you get a 6c part that is 2xST and probably 3-4xMT performance. So Great Value also bear in mind, inflation over the years would have made my £260 into £315 today's money.

i don't think anyone is complaining about the IPC improvements shown in the AMD presentation especially if it is proven to be true.

only sales figure will tell what backlash there is.

Todays 6 core is like buying a dual core 5 years ago especially if you want it to last another 5 years.

The chip you brought 5 years ago was the equivalent to the 5900X a 2nd tier chip in the stack.

 

[pc-guy]

Todays 6 core is like buying a dual core 5 years ago especially if you want it to last another 5 years.

The chip you brought 5 years ago was the equivalent to the 5900X a 2nd tier chip in the stack.

i bought mine in 2013-2014 pretty much as soon as it came out. it was 2nd tier yes, i think there was Xeon stacked at the top. also it got superseded by 4790k very soon after. so not much different to the current stack. but i am never one to compare stack position of the CPU i want. i go by what I needed. so for me and many others (majority), the £ to £ value is great. I am currently on Ryzen but only a 1600AF, that is becuase the old system was slowly being insufficient. so I am always going to get a new CPU to upgrade in socklet weather it is 3900X or 5800X, it will be what i think i need.

 

[Drollic]

Are we really going to argue semantics and how much cores do or don't matter until the 5th?

It's going to be a very long 3 weeks isn't it...

The best thing about it is that nobody knows what the next person can or can't afford rendering most of the arguments utterly pointless

 

[jigger]

Todays 6 core is like buying a dual core 5 years ago especially if you want it to last another 5 years.

The chip you brought 5 years ago was the equivalent to the 5900X a 2nd tier chip in the stack.

Kind of, but 5900X is more like the second fastest X299 chip.

 

[FoxEye]

)

Indeed, but if we had supper fast single cores, we wouldn't have multi-threaded software.

If you had 1 super-fast single core, putting 4 of them, 6 of them, or 8 of them together would yield a faster product

I think that basically always holds true doesn't it. And then general purpose CPUs lose out to multiple single-purpose chips too, like the old arcade boards, which had multiple slow processors, but needed a very fast PC CPU to emulate them several years later..

The only reason people are comparing a 6-core to an 8-core at all is because AMD put the prices of the 6-core up to match the previous 8-core price.

Otherwise nobody would be making that comparison, we'd be comparing the 3700X to the 5700X instead. Which would have been a lot nicer place to be.

 

[RavenXXX2]

 

[Twinz]

We're at a very interesting point, where this post is totally relevant - will the 5600X outperform the 3700X across-the-board?

If it doesn't, The price needs to come down. If it does, well, okay then I guess.

 

[Twinz]

what backlash? people on this forum complaining that they can get a 3700X right now with change for the price of a 5600X. Or for the price of a 5800X, you can get a 3900x right now. People crying about lack of value for money and consumer value etc etc when it is really they need a bit of a reality check.

This was a common speech repeated in the Ampere thread whenever someone pointed out that the 2080Ti was overpriced and that Ampere needed to offer more performance for less money. Then the same people giving that "gotta pay to play" speech were shocked when the 3080 dropped.

Real progress involves innovation that makes our *money* go faster with each generation. This is why the 1080Ti was awesome and the 2080Ti wasn't.

If Zen 3 can't outperform Zen 2 task for task, dollar for dollar, then it's overpriced.

 

[SmokSmog]

I see you are enjoying my memes

Btw. Zen3 has around 24% more IPC in Cinebench R20 vs Comet Lake

 

[pc-guy]

Real progress involves innovation

If Zen 3 can't outperform Zen 2 task for task, dollar for dollar, then it's overpriced.

How do you know zen3 doesn’t? And I can bet zen3 out performs zen2 with ease. The weakest link in zen2 is the CCX sharing cache and resources and causing latency by getting rid of that and leverage huge amount of L3 cache to an 8core monolithic CCX, automatically it is a superior chip even if you don’t fiddle with the architecture.

if that is not progression then what is?!

also 2080ti everyone knows it is not good value. Everyone knows 20 series are not good value yet people still flock to buy them by the droves. Used 2080ti are being snapped up at £600 in MM within minutes of being put up. Is that value there? Used 16GB ram being sold at £5 off RRP in MM is that good value? What has value has anything to do with anything when it comes to gaming performances. The same people will pay £1300 for 2080ti is complaining about a £29 increase on a £500 CPU. Or £39 increase in a £250 CPU. Let’s get real on what is REALLY overpriced and not.

 

[FoxEye]

What has value has anything to do with anything when it comes to gaming performances. The same people will pay £1300 for 2080ti is complaining about a £29 increase on a £500 CPU. Or £39 increase in a £250 CPU. Let’s get real on what is REALLY overpriced and not.

There are plenty of people who bought a 3600 non-X to pair with a mid/low end GPU, like the RX580 or 1650 Super or something.

Of those that bought a 2080Ti as you say, I wouldn't be surprised if they also spent more on their CPU, and got something like a 9900K or a 3950X.

When you start saying that the 5600X isn't overpriced because some people bought a 2080Ti, then I really think you're clutching at straws.

 

[BigBANGtheory]

If Zen 3 can't outperform Zen 2 task for task, dollar for dollar, then it's overpriced.

Unless you have a specialist case where it excels, personally I’m fine with Zen2 perf for productivity apps but held off for Zen3 for the gaming because I happen to play some CPU bound games even at low resolution