The lack of overclocking headroom is disappointing.
BUT the new 3rd gens look decent/appealing overall :)
LeetyMcLeet
The lack of overclocking headroom is disappointing.
I'm seeing this as a positive instead of a negative, it means that AMD have extracted everything that they can from the chips as “stock”. Overclocking is soon to be a thing of the past with turbo/boost clocks.
Hoonigan
I'm seeing this as a positive instead of a negative, it means that AMD have extracted everything that they can from the chips as “stock”. Overclocking is soon to be a thing of the past with turbo/boost clocks.
Not really. It means they can advertise a product that is “pushing the boundaries” but really they aren't producing the product on high quality materials and processes. How do we know even now that the silicone that is being used for zen2 is a good batch, where is the comparison? we wont know, because we don't even know what should be getting as the consumer. Back to the point at hand, great value and i just need biostar to sort out my bios issues :angst:
The 3600 looks like the right upgrade for me but I'd like to see the B550 motherboards before I decide. I can live with it for a little while longer.
im holding judgment until Hexus releases its revies of the Ryzen 5 and lower end 7 series, however, I will say that the high-end units are rather attractive compared to Intel's units, specifically the performance per watt.
I'm pretty pleased with this AMD CPUs. Maybe Intel with a similar production process (in term of nm) may do better, but AMD is NOW, Intel who knows…
Yes, they (again) a new higher level of performance on all consumer levels.
Something that Intel could do, but prefered to milk its fan base.
Hope people understand this and give AMD full support now (with their new builds),
as this time you are not losing on performance.
The Ryzen 3000 series, as has been tested so far, has lived up to my expectations …and possibly even exceeded them somewhat. Unless something unexpected should come to light my next rig will definitely be powered by a Ryzen 3000 series CPU. Which one, I don't quite know yet, but most likely a 3700X.
The X570 chipset, and motherboards based on it, on the other hand has managed to underwhelm me. The need for active chipset cooling, the seemingly high power draw and the high prices really turn me off. I'm much more inclined to go for an X470 motherboard, but I'm afraid that support of these boards will be neglected in favour of the new boards.
Kind of in the middle really as early benchmarks I've seen show the 3rd gens shining in expected places where a high core count is favourable compared to Intel, and as I do a lot of video production and rendering this is a tempting lure, but with my love of gaming I don't think its close enough to similar or slightly higher Intel price point to sway me all in.
I still find myself spending a higher percentage of the day in Photoshop, which seems not too fussed on cores (at the moment) so for the time being will use that and gaming performance to convince myself my hyperthreaded gamble has paid off in shelling out on a 9700K….. although if I can get enough coin in pocket I might persuade myself a dedicated R9 3900X production rig would be chuffing well nice :)
I didn't have any to begin with. But it's a great product line.
Don't fully know yet… on paper yes but until the 3950x is released properly and tested thoroughly it's still a little early to say.
Having said that the odds are I'm going AMD on my next build unless Intel brings out something special for the same cost as the 3950x, and I mean something special as I'm still not impressed by the performance loss from spectre etc.
Reviews of the 3600 (Gamers Nexus) make it seem a real bargain and quite good enough for most uses.
Didn't stop me ordering a 3700X though, which hopefully turns up on Monday :)
The code compiling benchmarks are awesome which is my normal workload, and for the evenings it should game nicely too.
I'm more than pleased for AMD of late, about time Intel got a kickup the proverbial for sitting on it.I didn't really need to upgrade from my Phenom X4 965 as I'm not obsessed with speed and don't game ,( and it still runs beautifully ) but I fancied a change. I passed on the 1st Ryzen
to let things mature a little and settled on a Ryzen 5 2600 when memory prices started to become acceptable. After research went for an ArcticE Sports duo , MSI B450 Pro Carbon and 16GB 3200 GSkill Trident Z. I have it @ 4ghz, 1.25v and memory at 3400 and idles at 29 degrees with very little tweaking. looking at the reviews on the new Ryzen I think AMD have done what they promised but hope they have some aces up their sleeve for whatever Intel doe's next. I've built PC's since 286 days using various chips from AMD , Intel , Cyrix, IBM , Transdata etc and am not a “Fan Boy ” by any means but AMD have always seemed to give better value for money for us poor peasants out there. It's about time AMD got a decent slice of the pie and I think this time round they have earned it , might just wake Intel up (maybe ).
Yes, i am very glad Intel and AMD are fighting on equal feet now. It means future releases will be Intel vs AMD and not Intel having high performing chips and AMD “just trying to be different”.
I am eyeing up a 3700X for my new build.
Tabbykatze
and AMD “just trying to be different”.
There was a rumour of Zen 3 having 3 threads per core. Different enough for you? :D
I always thought a 4 thread BIOS option would be good for workstation like workloads, gamers would probably want to stick with 2 threads though.
the chip it's self is ok ..
but it's the way it reacts with some of the older motherboards that has kept me on a 1700 x370 ..
apparently some are getting loads of errors .
Made me seriously consider building a new PC from scratch. As flearider above said, I did read about some issues that don't look very appealing, and the business of updating the BIOS of affordable B450 boards seems pretty convoluted, so I'm still on the fence.
Yes but, it would've been nicer if we didn't have to put up with the normal issues that always seem to accompany an AMD release, they don't do them any favors.
Not really. It was massively hyped up, and doesn't hold up to the boost clocks advertised, let alone intel level overclocking. Those expecting 5GHz will probably be disappointed. At the same time it was still good enough for me to order a 3600 which should be a big step up from my 3570k. I was originally considering the 3700X but with low boosts anyway the 3600 seems to give most of the performance for the most affordable pricing. Going budget on other components also mean that instead of like an upgrade rate of ~7 years or so, I can upgrade to either a new CPU or a whole new platform at say 4-5 years if necessary when there's a bunch of new technologies being worked on such as DDR5, PCIe5 and 6, USB4, AM5 and maybe wait for those to mature more.
I'd say it was worth the wait for competing performance and more affordability with lesser known vulnerabilities, but the core i7 still seems to be better than the 3700x for those completely focused on squeezing the most gaming performance at the mid-high end. But then at that level I may be tempted to go for the underdog when it was better multicore performance elsewhere. It's not likely intel was giving us much progress except addition cores when it was necessary due to AMD.
To sum up, not quite reaching expectations, but still great chips.
To be fair for most people the 3600 is well good and it works well in older motherboards if the BIOS is up to date. 6c12t is ample for most people. And asus showing that some x470 boards support some pcie4 functionality is excellent…
For me my next build is more about a decent amount of ram and decent nvme ssd rather than cores and threads
A good job by AMD….not perfect but much, much better. I can't blame Intel for what they have been doing as they have had no real competition and now that it has arrived, game on and hopefully better pricing and better performance all around.
The one area lacking is overclocking as it looks like 4.2 to 4.4GHz all core is about max on the new Ryzen's which to be honest I just cannot understand. The other thing is the pricing of the X570 motherboards….ouch! are they expensive or what!..starting at £200 for low to £300 for mid and $400 and above for high end….Thank god for the B450 and X470…as apparently ASUS have worked out how to give PCIe Gen 4 speeds to certain B450 and X470 motherboards via a BIOS update.
Bottom line, great for the consumers as we finally have competition and that can only be a good thing…roll on Intel 10nm next year sometime…
Having just splashed out on a Core i9 9900 for my Hackintosh I haven't given Ryzens any much thought.
vMax65
A good job by AMD….not perfect but much, much better. I can't blame Intel for what they have been doing as they have had no real competition and now that it has arrived, game on and hopefully better pricing and better performance all around.
The one area lacking is overclocking as it looks like 4.2 to 4.4GHz all core is about max on the new Ryzen's which to be honest I just cannot understand. The other thing is the pricing of the X570 motherboards….ouch! are they expensive or what!..starting at £200 for low to £300 for mid and $400 and above for high end….Thank god for the B450 and X470…as apparently ASUS have worked out how to give PCIe Gen 4 speeds to certain B450 and X470 motherboards via a BIOS update.
Bottom line, great for the consumers as we finally have competition and that can only be a good thing…roll on Intel 10nm next year sometime…
AMD said ages ago that the Ryzen 3 chips were not going to be great overclockers. They just cannot take the massive hikes in TDP that Intel can to overclock. I mean what's not to like about 6c12t and 65W which is really 65W
I was keeping my expectations muted, and so far I'm liking what I'm seeing. Intel has failed to tempt me into upgrading my i7-3770k because of their prices, but with Ryzen now offering similar per-core performance and more cores for the same price, I think I'm going to pull the trigger on an upgrade this autumn
Absolutely. I'll be dropping in either a 3700X or 3800X, to replace my 1700, when the prices have come down a little.
Salazaar
The 3600 looks like the right upgrade for me but I'd like to see the B450 motherboards before I decide. I can live with it for a little while longer.
My issue is I want the 3700x but it's too expensive, the gap between 3600/3700x/3900x pricing is too much, the 3900x is priced well, you get 4c/8t more for the same price as the 3600/3700x 2c/4t price bump, makes me feel like buying the 3900x.
Seems everything is coming good at once, to me Zen2 is a no brainer as I most to video/photography work with some gaming. Mix that with ram prices are dropping to make my 32gb or 64gb plan possible.
Will probably be a 3700 for me, will be a massive jump from my 3570k
Fury559
Salazaar
the 3900x is priced well, you get 4c/8t more for the same price as the 3600/3700x 2c/4t price bump, makes me feel like buying the 3900x.
The 3900x is tempting me too… just holding on for some solid reviews to come in to decide on components for my first complete new build in quite a few years.
PC-LAD
Hoonigan
I'm seeing this as a positive instead of a negative, it means that AMD have extracted everything that they can from the chips as “stock”. Overclocking is soon to be a thing of the past with turbo/boost clocks.
Not really. It means they can advertise a product that is “pushing the boundaries” but really they aren't producing the product on high quality materials and processes. How do we know even now that the silicone that is being used for zen2 is a good batch, where is the comparison? we wont know, because we don't even know what should be getting as the consumer. Back to the point at hand, great value and i just need biostar to sort out my bios issues :angst:
high clockspeeds (aka 5-6ghz) doesnt mean good performance. look at AMD FX-series. 5ghz easy on air, they performed pretty rubbishrubbishrubbishrubbish.
also, AMD uses great silicone. makes my breasts look much bigger.
joking aside, hopefully as yields increase we can get to 4.5-4.6ghz on something like a 3700x.
Impressed with the cpu's, A little disappointed with 570 motherboard prices. Seems a bit of a price hike just to add PCI-E 4 but at least there are other options around it.
Unlike Intel,Usually have to buy a new board just because they add an extra few pins.
I'm waiting to see what the 16/32 Ryzen 9 3950x has to offer. The X570 board prices have totally turned me off. One option is to get a 3700x when prices come down below $240.The other option is to wait for Ryzen 3 AM5 in 2020/2021.The way the China/Taiwan trade war is going. I may as well buy now before the world truly goes to hell.
3dcandy
AMD said ages ago that the Ryzen 3 chips were not going to be great overclockers. They just cannot take the massive hikes in TDP that Intel can to overclock. I mean what's not to like about 6c12t and 65W which is really 65W
Not disagreeing but i suspect PBO is a little broken ATM, theoretically we should be seeing slightly higher boost clocks when using PBO than manual OC'ing but that doesn't seem to be the case.
Yes. My decision to buy the 2700x and Crosshair Hero a year ago has turned out worthwhile - i can drop a new cpu into my existing rig and get a performance boost… Will be very interested in the 3800x reviews as I've not seen one yet…
Corky34
Not disagreeing but i suspect PBO is a little broken ATM, theoretically we should be seeing slightly higher boost clocks when using PBO than manual OC'ing but that doesn't seem to be the case.
Yeah deffo will be better when yields and BIOS's are a bit more up to date. Yes X570 boards are expensive but with Asus saying many pcie gen4 functions work on X470 boards I think I'll go that way to start for my long awaited work puter replacement. Currently on an X5670, 24 gigs 480 gig ssd R9380X setup. The Radeon is staying as no need for a better gaming card and the opencl performance is fine for now.
A nice Ryzen 3 with a decent nvme ssd and say 16 gigs ram to start will do me
I got a Ryzen 3600 this week, on a B450 motherboard, to replace a Core i5 4th gen.
A huge improvement in gaming, in PUBG i used to get massive stutters all over the place - it wasnt my graphics card (1660ti), but my CPU unable to process data quickly enough. Now i'm super smooth - i suspect my top end frames per seconds havent improved much, but my average has gone up a little, and my 1% lows will have climbed massively.
The experience of actually playing the game has changed from ‘ok but annoying’ to ‘smooth and satisfying’.
Although i still cant shoot accurately.
3dcandy
Yeah deffo will be better when yields and BIOS's are a bit more up to date. Yes X570 boards are expensive but with Asus saying many pcie gen4 functions work on X470 boards I think I'll go that way to start for my long awaited work puter replacement. Currently on an X5670, 24 gigs 480 gig ssd R9380X setup. The Radeon is staying as no need for a better gaming card and the opencl performance is fine for now.
A nice Ryzen 3 with a decent nvme ssd and say 16 gigs ram to start will do me
Personally i think X570 boards a fairly reasonable, at the low end they're around £50 more than X470 and around £100 more in the high to mid, boards with LN2 features are silly for norms (IMO) and priced accordingly. Most X570 boards have better VRMs than X470 so you can be pretty certain they'll take whatever AMD release in the next two years, possibly longer, and with PCIe 4.0 there's no need to worry if some future hardware is going to gimped, even though i think ‘future proof’ is a bit of a misnomer i think X570 will be fairly long lived.
To be honest I'm a little old and jaded to hold expectations about anybody's new hardware releases. A product arrives, reviews well and is in my budget, hey let's go for it. Ryzen 3600 would suit my needs for my next new build but not until new model sub £100 mobos arrive. I'm not messing about on the crap shoot of older boards being “compatible” but maybe only if your lucky to buy it shipping with the right BIOS. The new boards available right now are way too rich for my blood.
It is simply testimony to how good their auto tuning hardware and software is. Get over it humans. Machines can do many things better these days.
The total lack of overclocking headroom is the only thing I'm disappointed with, and that's not a dealbreaker ultimately.
el_raberto
I'm not messing about on the crap shoot of older boards being “compatible” but maybe only if your lucking to buy it shipping with the right BIOS.
As an example: the MSI B450 Tomahawk (£90 on scan, well reviewed and generally known as a good option) has the ability to flash the BIOS from USB without a CPU installed.
edmundhonda
The total lack of overclocking headroom is the only thing I'm disappointed with, and that's not a dealbreaker ultimately.
As an example: the MSI B450 Tomahawk (£90 on scan, well reviewed and generally known as a good option) has the ability to flash the BIOS from USB without a CPU installed.
Yup - as I said above AMD said months ago the Ryzen 3 chips are not focused on headroom but IPC and efficiency. Again many chips run extremely well in a 65W envelope
PC-LAD
Not really. It means they can advertise a product that is “pushing the boundaries” but really they aren't producing the product on high quality materials and processes. How do we know even now that the silicone that is being used for zen2 is a good batch, where is the comparison? we wont know, because we don't even know what should be getting as the consumer. Back to the point at hand, great value and i just need biostar to sort out my bios issues :angst:
Silicon not silicone - two entirely different materials.
What do you mean about ‘high quality materials and processes’ exactly? Because that claim makes no sense whatsoever, TSMC's 7nm node is amongst, if not *the*, most advanced fabrication node currently in existence. Simply expecting insane clocks just because it's a smaller node is, well wrong. Just ask Intel about their 10nm node. Even by their own publications they're expecting clock regressions moving from 14 to 10.
By a ‘good batch’ I suspect you're implying they're sending ‘good’ dies to EPYC? That implies that die quality is a scalar quantity which isn't entirely true - dies for high-end Ryzen are intended to be clocked highly which doesn't necessarily overlap with binning for operation at lower powers which is more in line with what EPYC processors demand. Essentially, you can't really sum up die ‘quality’ with a single number in much the same way you can't sum up CPU performance in a single number/benchmark.
I don't understand how some are painting lack of manual OC headroom as a negative TBH. It probably arises from the fallacy that Intel have ended up creating by specifically binning special ‘overclocking’ CPUs, making you pay for that ‘free’ performance, and just disabling overclocking on the rest.
For those whinging about ‘but but not 5GHzzzzz!!!’ (not quoted poster I know) - that's just downright silly. I can't believe I've had to explain this to so many people! Clock speed in isolation is a meaningless number - 5GHz on one CPU is not the same as 5GHz on another. Zen2 manages to be faster than Skylake at 5GHz (or above) at many tasks and at least on-par for majority of the rest. So why is its absolute clock speed remotely important? Go buy a FX-9590 if you want 5GHz!! :laugh:
In response to the OP, yes Zen2 is at least in line with what I expected based on recent announcements. Latency incurred by the multi-die approach turned out to be a non-issue, performance in most cases exceeded what I expected and game performance fell in line with what I reasonably expected with very few sticking points. Efficiency is excellent. Funny how people have gone silent over the whole power consumption argument again! Oh and memory speed seems to be far less critical than some feared. There's still something to gain by using faster memory, but it doesn't seem to have a major impact for most real workloads.
All in all a very solid launch for AMD in my opinion! Makes a nice change from AMD historically managing to get a good product to look bad on release for silly reasons! Release BIOS seemed sub-optimal but it reviewed very well despite that.
Help, I'm unable to activate my account. It keeps saying It's already activated but I need to log in, however I'm unable to do anything about it. I can't even contact forum staff because I don't have the permission without activating.
watercooled
For those whinging about ‘but but not 5GHzzzzz!!!’ (not quoted poster I know) - that's just downright silly. I can't believe I've had to explain this to so many people! Clock speed in isolation is a meaningless number - 5GHz on one CPU is not the same as 5GHz on another. Zen2 manages to be faster than Skylake at 5GHz (or above) at many tasks and at least on-par for majority of the rest. So why is its absolute clock speed remotely important? Go buy a FX-9590 if you want 5GHz!! :laugh:
I don't think anyone here was actually whinging about not getting 5GHz. That doesn't mean it wouldn't have been nice for it to clock higher, particularly since AMDs video about precision boosting for AMD was not only talking about the advertised boosts, but mentioned going higher with 4.75GHz as an example. Sure it's something to take with a grain of salt, but still zen 2 isn't “destroying” intel as much as was lead on by those sensationalising the hype. They're worth recognising for providing the best competition in a decade, but at the same time, the gap would be larger if intel didn't fail to bring us 10nm in a timely manner. Sadly a big reason why they tend to cost more is because they can. Although frankly I am kind of surprised that the string of vulnerabilities hasn't hurt their reputation more.
FRISH
I don't think anyone here was actually whinging about not getting 5GHz. That doesn't mean it wouldn't have been nice for it to clock higher, particularly since AMDs video about precision boosting for AMD was not only talking about the advertised boosts, but mentioned going higher with 4.75GHz as an example. Sure it's something to take with a grain of salt, but still zen 2 isn't “destroying” intel as much as was lead on by those sensationalising the hype. They're worth recognising for providing the best competition in a decade, but at the same time, the gap would be larger if intel didn't fail to bring us 10nm in a timely manner. Sadly a big reason why they tend to cost more is because they can. Although frankly I am kind of surprised that the string of vulnerabilities hasn't hurt their reputation more.
For many people it has…. but again many not going for a upgrade/crossgrade at this moment in time either
FRISH
I don't think anyone here was actually whinging about not getting 5GHz.
I saw a couple, but it was more of a general rant.
FRISH
That doesn't mean it wouldn't have been nice for it to clock higher,
Isn't that a bit redundant?
As for the hype, that's why you wait for the actual product before jumping to conclusions. For me personally, performance is at least where I expected based on AMD's official information, and achieved it at lower clocks (so higher IPC) than I expected. The absolute clocks are totally irrelevant. Clock speed has an awful lot to do with microarchitecture/layout choices, not just the lithography. There's a reason GPUs don't clock nearly as high as CPUs on an identical node, and two different CPU cores produced on the same node will have difference achievable clock speeds. Heck, even different core layouts of the same core on the same node can be tuned for different clock speeds, just look at mobile SoCs! But there are trade-offs to make e.g. power efficiency and area.
In order to get a hypothetical Zen2 core to hit 5GHz reliably on the current 7nm node, AMD may (or may not, of course) have had to trade-off a considerably amount of efficiency, extend the pipeline and therefore increase misprediction penalties and instruction latency, make the caches smaller and therefore reduce cache hits, make the dies larger and therefore more expensive and lower-yielding, etc. Get my point? Worst case, designing the core to hit 5GHz whatever the cost may have resulted in inferior real performance, efficiency and/or cost. Of course, it's not that far off that all of that would be likely required, but you get the point, it's a trade-off, and one AMD will have considered. Modern CPU cores aren't just designed in a vacuum then chucked onto whatever node is available, they're very closely tied together.
watercooled
I saw a couple, but it was more of a general rant.
Isn't that a bit redundant?
As for the hype, that's why you wait for the actual product before jumping to conclusions. For me personally, performance is at least where I expected based on AMD's official information, and achieved it at lower clocks (so higher IPC) than I expected. The absolute clocks are totally irrelevant. Clock speed has an awful lot to do with microarchitecture/layout choices, not just the lithography. There's a reason GPUs don't clock nearly as high as CPUs on an identical node, and two different CPU cores produced on the same node will have difference achievable clock speeds. Heck, even different core layouts of the same core on the same node can be tuned for different clock speeds, just look at mobile SoCs! But there are trade-offs to make e.g. power efficiency and area.
In order to get a hypothetical Zen2 core to hit 5GHz reliably on the current 7nm node, AMD may (or may not, of course) have had to trade-off a considerably amount of efficiency, extend the pipeline and therefore increase misprediction penalties and instruction latency, make the caches smaller and therefore reduce cache hits, make the dies larger and therefore more expensive and lower-yielding, etc. Get my point? Worst case, designing the core to hit 5GHz whatever the cost may have resulted in inferior real performance, efficiency and/or cost. Of course, it's not that far off that all of that would be likely required, but you get the point, it's a trade-off, and one AMD will have considered. Modern CPU cores aren't just designed in a vacuum then chucked onto whatever node is available, they're very closely tied together.
Well yes, but we already knew IPCs were higher so it's not entirely fair to expect much more in that regard, and there's no complaints about core counts, that leaves frequency. Intel can unlock more performance, AMD less so. While AMD win in a lot of aspects, it's not a flat out winner across the board as hoped by many. For example while the 3600 and somewhat 3900x seem like better options due to their budget and multi-core performance, the 3700x and 9700k are more down to preference. The 3600x and probably 3800x seem like less attractive buys, but personally I'm fine with that since imo it enhances the value of the other CPUs. There's also been talk about making sure fixes for intel are included for benchmarks, a fair ask, but I do think those people may have expected intel to get hammered more than they have. I think one thing that has really helped AMD, is intel's stagnation. I think it's fair to have expected a little more, but that doesn't mean they're not worth buying, and I'm definitely interested in seeing AMD continue to compete with intel more than the past decade.
I'm pleased with the performance of AMD's new processors, but a little disappointed that the X570 boards mostly have tiny little fans on rather than being passively cooled, which I expect will result in some annoying whiny sound.
Yep. I'm going for my first AMD rig in 25 years of computers. The security issues with Intel rules them out, and thats even before the performance edge the Ryzens have.
I've been saving for a while so it's going to be the 3900x and an X570 M/B. 1TB nvme and 32gb of 3400 ram.
I will however go for a Nvidia 2080, as the new Navi doesn't float my boat.
Yes, and I'll probably pick up a Ryzen 5 3600 and a cheap motherboard.
FRISH
Well yes, but we already knew IPCs were higher so it's not entirely fair to expect much more in that regard, and there's no complaints about core counts, that leaves frequency. Intel can unlock more performance, AMD less so.
It's more likely the other way around, Intel's 14nm is a very mature node and they're probably at the limits of what they can squeeze out of it in terms of higher clock speeds whereas TSMC 7nm node is pretty new and we know they've got improvements in the pipeline for it (7nm+ EUV), whether those improvements turn into clock speed gains remains to be seen, and then there's the fact that we know Intel will eventually move to a smaller node themselves and that's typical lead to clock speed regression at first.
Of course it's worth bearing in mind that AMD were expecting Zen2 (Ryzen 3) to be going up against Intel's 10nm, something that could ultimately work in Intel's favor as now they can make architectural changes to improve performance if whatever they fabricate on the next node shrink does suffer a clock speed regression.
Yes, it has lived up to my expectations. The speed and price makes it a good option when looking to build a new system. Even those looking to upgrade should give it a serious look.
FRISH
Well yes, but we already knew IPCs were higher so it's not entirely fair to expect much more in that regard, and there's no complaints about core counts, that leaves frequency. Intel can unlock more performance,
They can? Despite being on a very mature node and pushing up the efficiency ramp? Check out overclocked results for the latest iteration of Skylake, and note the power consumption increase for marginal gains.
FRISH
While AMD win in a lot of aspects, it's not a flat out winner across the board as hoped by many.
Maybe they were being overly optimistic then? AMD never hinted at that, and leapfrogging Intel in older games was always going to be a tough one. There are few other areas where AMD are not either on-par or ahead.
=assassin=;4115201
I'm pleased with the performance of AMD's new processors, but a little disappointed that the X570 boards mostly have tiny little fans on rather than being passively cooled, which I expect will result in some annoying whiny sound.
Apparently some are adding fan profiles in updates BIOS:
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/x570-bios-chipset-fan-control-profile,39884.htmlI agree it would have been nice to have some passive mainstream chipsets on launch, but it seems like they're just pushing the 400 series for that, even though many will need a BIOS flash to support Zen2, until new stock replaces them with latest BIOS, I suspect.
Corky34
Intel will eventually move to a smaller node themselves and that's typical lead to clock speed regression at first.
Indeed it looks like Intel's 10nm process will incur a significant clock regression, to the point that it may all but offset the IPC gains of Sunny Cove. 14nm is still appearing on higher-TDP parts at least until Q4 2020, if leaked slides are legit. The published slides showing clock speed of initial 10nm parts are straight from Intel though.
https://semiaccurate.com/2019/04/25/leaked-roadmap-shows-intels-10nm-woes/https://semiaccurate.com/2019/06/05/a-look-at-intels-ice-lake-and-sunny-cove/Corky34
Of course it's worth bearing in mind that AMD were expecting Zen2 (Ryzen 3) to be going up against Intel's 10nm, something that could ultimately work in Intel's favor as now they can make architectural changes to improve performance if whatever they fabricate on the next node shrink does suffer a clock speed regression.
Don't forget how long such changes take in the semiconductor industry. Sunny Cove is finalised, provided we do end up seeing that on desktop parts. Intel would need to make changes to a future product which would be competing against a future AMD product.
It surely has, beats intel for price for performance by a country mile.
My next build will be AMD. Goodbye Intel.
I'm waiting for the launch hype to die down before passing judgement, but it's looking good for AMD.
Still waiting for stock on the 3900X or the 3950X, but AMD have done a good job and are now an actual option again for many. And Intel don't really have a response for a while now.
I have a 2600X but I follow AMD pretty closely and honest I expected Zen 2 to clock higher. They're still great chips though, just not as much as I hyped myself for.