Well the leaks are saying that the 6c/12t CPU will be one of cheapest variants similar in price to the Ryzen 1400x and the high end will be in the 12c/24t to 16c/32t range but we might not see them until later in the year.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Well the leaks are saying that the 6c/12t CPU will be one of cheapest variants similar in price to the Ryzen 1400x and the high end will be in the 12c/24t to 16c/32t range but we might not see them until later in the year.
Isn't it rumoured to be unveiled in the computex keynote tomorrow and E3 will be more information?
This also applies to the Navi rumors, but leaked prices way ahead of launch are almost always bullshit. I expect Zen 2's prices to be roughly similar to the 2000 series, maybe a bit cheaper. Expecting something like $100 for a 6C and $200 for the 8C is setting yourself up for disappointment.
Depending on the price of AMDs offerings I'm really thinking about trying to sell my 8600k with its board off and jumping on these.
Possibly, but if they are splitting the announcements, they will keep the pricing for the later date.
For the security updates that drop your speed 5% at a time ;)
I'm sorry for Intel, but they cheated on us for many years. They really need the wake-up call from AMD
Yeah, 66% price drop is just very very unrealistic. And would be stupid from AMD.
Tomorrow's showcase can't come soon enough!
Still running the i7 2600k from my last build back in 2011, for Skyrim and Battlefield 3. Lasted me an entire console generation, two years before the consoles even released. I'm betting high-end Zen 2 models will do the same for the PS5 gen. Very excited to finally build a new PC later this year =)
Still running the i7 2600k from my last build back in 2011, for Skyrim and Battlefield 3. Lasted me an entire console generation, two years before the consoles even released. I'm betting high-end Zen 2 models will do the same for the PS5 gen. Very excited to finally build a new PC later this year =)
Consoles will be low/mid end Zen 2, probably "under clocked" for better thermals, so surely yeah.
It's not only about the core number. It's also about the denomination.
Ryzen 3 CPUs are between 100 to 150 dollars.
Ryzen 5 CPUs are between 200 to 250 dollars.
Ryzen 7 CPUs are between 300 and 350 dollars.
While I don't expect 100 dollars for 6 cores... I dont expect them to replace each others in term of pricing.
A Ryzen 3 CPU for 200 bucks would be too much. That'd put Ryzen 5 at 300, 7 at 400.
The truth is for most people, you'll be fine either way. If you aren't doing video encoding and the like, and aren't playing games above 60fps, then most of the time the best cpu for you is the cheapest one with enough power. The benchmarks are still useful though.
Eh, I personally wouldn't, I feel you'd be getting diminishing returns here the 8600k is still a great CPU for gaming
I know and I really don't want to, I'm just thinking about ZombieLoad or whatever these new exploits are called and the supposed "up to 15% loss of performance in certain workloads" that could happen. Aslong as these fixes don't impact gaming performance I'm fine but who knows if in the future some exploit is found where the fix would directly impact gaming performance, it would feel extra annoying to me as I'm now running 144hz.
ryzen should get another boost when eventually they add support for DDR5 in like 2 years. Memory bandwitdh is pretty big deal when dealing with many cores. It's even a bigger deal for their APUs. Those could become really viable systems that can game pretty well. Right now they perform a lot worse than what you should expect when considering CU counts. Memory is a big bottleneck. This platform should scale really well in the coming years.
Right now the boards have pretty bad and inconsistent XMP support. 4GHz is basically impossible to get right now but apparenty the new X570 boards can do that so this gen should perform better because of memory alone. Ryzen is demonstrated to scale pretty well with memory speed and now that they have 12 cores on mainstream product it's very needed.
Right now the boards have pretty bad and inconsistent XMP support. 4GHz is basically impossible to get right now but apparenty the new X570 boards can do that so this gen should perform better because of memory alone. Ryzen is demonstrated to scale pretty well with memory speed and now that they have 12 cores on mainstream product it's very needed.
Empirical benchmarks have shown minimal gaming perf loss. But if we're thinking about long term, I'd be less worried about zombie load performance impacts and more about rising PC requirements now that the next gen consoles will have a CPU that is overall more powerful than the 8600 (6c 6t @ ~4.2ghz all core turbo vs 8c 16t @ 3.2-3.5 GHz).
Probably not a major issue until ~2022 onwards, ofc.
He has an 8600k though, you can get that up to 5.0ghz and it's a noticeable bump over stock
Ah if he's at 5Ghz that's probably more viable for longer yeah. Time will tell, as always.
I do expect even people on 8700ks and 2700Xs will start feeling the burn when next-gen-only CPU heavy 30fps console games can only be run at ~40fps on their PC since I think a lot of us have become acustomed to overpowering everything up to 60fps, haha.
Hope these leaks are true. Zen Arch was really a game changer, if not we would be all still rocking in a 4c8t intel world.
I think it might be wishful thinking that consoles are going to leapfrog PCs that much (or at all). I sincerely doubt these chips are going to be running at 4.0ghz+ in a console (or even 3ghz probably)
I'm playing stuff right now at 144hz that the 'Pro' consoles struggle to do 30 FPS in
Are you saying the current G or duo model or lower level I5 is beating out and I9 in single and multi-threaded performance?
But no I'm saying its much nicer to have your $300 processor blown out by a new gen lower end model. Than your I9 that was $700-900 lol
I think in real world gaming performance, the i5 8600 4Ghz>Ryzen 3600 3Ghz, 3 reasons
1. IPC & Clock Speeds, Intel is still king here (well for now)
2. Most devs don't multi thread efficiently (this is still true in 2019)
3. Diminishing returns, performance doesn't scale linearly with more cores, also PS5/X2 are likely to have 1-2 Cores disabled anyway.
We had this discussion last gen, people thought the PS4's 8 core CPU would beat an i5 due to double the core count & all PC gamers would need to get an 8 Core CPU.
But i will be fair & say Consoles are going to have a advantage CPU wise if DX12 & Vulkan do not get widespread usage on PC, DX11 is quite outdated.
Well we have confirmation that it's 8 core Zen 2 (in PS5), and rumours are suggesting that it's somewhere in 3.2+ GHz territory. I don't expect it to be stronger than an 8700k, but I do expect that it won't be too far behind it in performance so long as the game is well threaded and taking full advantage of the core counts.
I guess if a full core (or heaven forbid, 2) is reserved for OS tasks, then this also cuts down on how much perf they have, but I'm thinking in general ballparks rather than specifics. I think it's not implausible that a game that really taxes the PS5/XBN CPUs and runs at 30hz won't necessarily reach 60hz on something like an 8700 or 2700X or similar, since although weaker, I doubt it will be under half.
Cerny already told us that PS5 will have 8c Zen2 CPU. [...but some of their cores will be dedicated to OS]
If we go by the Adore leak, it only fits the Ryzen 3 3300. Same base clock and boost. R5 3600 clocked higher. Ofc things can change, as most things do. But so far the leak have been pretty much on point.
This is why I think things will stay roughly the same. The same core counts slot into the same tiers while the 12 and 16 core SKUs will go into a higher one (maybe a Ryzen 9) at like $400-600 or even $700 for the highest 16C SKU.
It actually happened with the 1800x vs 6900k (and later on Skylake-X) where they traded punches while being $500 vs $1000. Desktop Skylake and its derivatives were and are still king in game performance because of the whole lower latency and higher clocks that games generally prefer over higher core count.
This is mostly me keeping my expectations in check, but I can see the 9900k still being #1 in games while AMD's 8C will slap it in pure number crunching. Either way the difference will be marginal, but it sure won't be worth spending $500 on a 9900k anymore.
Well I will admit that I find overclocking the 8600k much more confusing than my old 3570k but when I tried 5ghz I was faster in thermal-throttling land than I could say "Intel runs hot!". The highest I managed comfortably was 4.5ghz all-core and even that ran toasty with AVX added to the mix. I don't have the best CPU cooler but a beQuiet Dark Rock 3 isn't something to slouch at either. But yeah as said I wasn't sure if I did things correctly, could anyone maybe lend me a hand?
And honestly as selfish as that sounds I was happy with CPUs lasting 5 years, as someone with limited income I don't like tech advancing too fast :P
1 Core is gonna be disabled 100%, just like in PS4/XO, maybe 2 if they want a second one for a multitude of reasons. 6 Cores & 16 threads will still be beastly though.
Nothing is turned off on PS4/Xbone in the CPU, all cores are active always.
Yields are increased by allowing errors in the GPU CUs [in PS4, 2CUs are turned off]. In the end, PS4 APU is 8 CPU cores and 18 GPU CUs.
No point preemptively upgrading for fear of it not lasting, since no doubt by the time the consoles are on the market you'll be able to buy even better stuff for even cheaper if it starts to become apparent that you need an upgrade. We might be pleasantly surprised and maybe it'll last for several years into the generation, after all.
Last time i checked it wasn't until late 2015 that they let PS4 use 7 Cores, i thought the 8th was still locked.
The GPU has some components disabled to help yields, but I was not aware of any of the CPU cores being in a similar position. The operation system does have 1 (or maybe 2??) cores reserved for OS tasks, though.
Well I certainly hope so and you're right, this is exactly why I picked the 8600k overall, it seemed like the safest bang for buck option long-term. One question though, I haven't kept up with RAM/Plattform news, will these new Ryzens run on DDR5?
Well not the first time. Pentium 4s ran hot as hell compared to Athlon 64s.
No, PS4 has all 8 CPU cores active, but two were restricted for OS for years. Later they reduced that reservation, allowing games to share one of those cores.
I believe that this next AMD chipset won't have DDR5 support, but the one after it might. We had a leak the other day indicating that Intel's 2021 servers will have DDR5, so it's not clear whether it might ship in 2020 or 2021 for both companies, or just one, or whatever.
Who knows, tbh.
I see, well if these Ryzen 3000s end up as good as they promise and keep running on DDR4 then I'm somewhat happy as it would potentially allow me a cheap upgrade avenue in a few years with me not having to throw my current 16gb 3000mhz sticks out.
I think I misunderstood. I thought they were saying Intel had done so as well. With Coffee Lake.
Kinda, more like 8400 coming out and beating out the I5 Kaby lake that came out the same year, which was a refresh of last year's Skylake. Making my 6500 and Non K CPU obsolete.
And not only that, prices on Intel CPU going up preventing me in upgrading to an I7.
Yeah I actually confused myself in the trail of replies. I thought it was more of a general new CPU beats current one for half the price thing. Although technically Coffee Lake did make a lot of Intel HEDT CPUs obsolete for people who just wanted higher core counts and didn't need the extra I/O.
Probably. You should wait until the Computex keynote before you open anything. This is only the 3 series, just wait and see what the 5, 7 and Threadripper are capable of.
