AMD Zen Discussion Thread

K.O.Kiki

wotzgoingon

I wonder if that new Radeon 7 card will just be reference only (like Fury X) or will it be available with custom designs to board partners?

K.O.Kiki

Radeon VII product page is up.

Subcomandante Marcos

So AMD (Lisa Su anyway) have basically admitted there will be zen 3 cpus with more than one chiplet and more than 8 cores. That's pretty cool for the Ryzen 7 cpus. I actually think it will be 2x 6 core , not 2x 8 core, as 16/32 is total overkill, 12/24 is kind of overkill for consumers too but sure look, better to be looking at it than looking for it and all that. .


I think the 3600/x will be the 8core/16 thread 9900k competitor and the 3000 series cards will be the higher core lower clock version aimed at creators/streamers/etc. 8c/16t is more than enough if the clock speed/ipc gains can make it competitive with the 9900k and reasonably priced. I actually think they're playing this all very close to their chest so they can have a proper launch later in the year.

I don't expect Navi this year though, I think we'll see 8gb versions of the RVII gpu aimed at gamers for 400ish instead, aiming to outperform the 2060. I don't see currently announced RVII as a gamine card though, 16bg of HBM2 is beyond useless to gamers right now, it's total over kill and the only people it benefits are users doing compute based tasks.

wotzgoingon

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g39dpcdzTvk

16 cores 32 threads.

Venom

Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »

So AMD (Lisa Su anyway) have basically admitted there will be zen 3 cpus with more than one chiplet and more than 8 cores. That's pretty cool for the Ryzen 7 cpus. I actually think it will be 2x 6 core , not 2x 8 core, as 16/32 is total overkill, 12/24 is kind of overkill for consumers too but sure look, better to be looking at it than looking for it and all that. .


I think the 3600/x will be the 8core/16 thread 9900k competitor and the 3000 series cards will be the higher core lower clock version aimed at creators/streamers/etc. 8c/16t is more than enough if the clock speed/ipc gains can make it competitive with the 9900k and reasonably priced. I actually think they're playing this all very close to their chest so they can have a proper launch later in the year.

I don't expect Navi this year though, I think we'll see 8gb versions of the RVII gpu aimed at gamers for 400ish instead, aiming to outperform the 2060. I don't see currently announced RVII as a gamine card though, 16bg of HBM2 is beyond useless to gamers right now, it's total over kill and the only people it benefits are users doing compute based tasks.

If the speculation from the various tech sources such as the above video turns out to be correct, with AMD's 3600X mid-range offering beating Intel's top-end consumer chip at much lower wattage and non-optimised ram timings, then the rumoured 3700X and 3900X CPU's with even better clock speeds and with a quarter to double the cores and threads, then these absolute monsters will really bring the pain to Intel.



It kinda bugs me that while AMD's CPU division is firing on all cylinders which is exactly what consumers needed but on the GPU side of things, their still just so out of touch with what customers want. Seriously, the Vega 7 with just 8gb of ram and going for $450-500 would of be almost impossible to pass up. Would it really have been that hard to have a normal 8gb version and then a 16gb pro version of the card?

wotzgoingon

Venom wrote: »

If the speculation from the various tech sources such as the above video turns out to be correct, with AMD's 3600X mid-range offering beating Intel's top-end consumer chip at much lower wattage and non-optimised ram timings, then the rumoured 3700X and 3900X CPU's with even better clock speeds and with a quarter to double the cores and threads, then these absolute monsters will really bring the pain to Intel.



It kinda bugs me that while AMD's CPU division is firing on all cylinders which is exactly what consumers needed but on the GPU side of things, their still just so out of touch with what customers want. Seriously, the Vega 7 with just 8gb of ram and going for $450-500 would of be almost impossible to pass up. Would it really have been that hard to have a normal 8gb version and then a 16gb pro version of the card?

I don't think you realize how much money Nvidia and Intel make while for a number of years AMD were losing money(zero profit)

AMD came up with the chiplet design and it has actually paid off for them. Cheaper to produce then monolithic designs and is scalable.


Obviously they are at the minute trying to transfer chiplet designs to GPU's but these things take a number of years.

Slutmonkey57b

If anything it's the other way around: GPU designs suggested the chiplet approach. AMD's problem for the past 3 generations or more has been efficiency on their GPU designs: they're power hungry, and geared towards the wrong sort of performance - compute rather than render.

Venom

wotzgoingon wrote: »

I don't think you realize how much money Nvidia and Intel make while for a number of years AMD were losing money(zero profit)

AMD came up with the chiplet design and it has actually paid off for them. Cheaper to produce then monolithic designs and is scalable.


Obviously they are at the minute trying to transfer chiplet designs to GPU's but these things take a number of years.

Of course Nvidia and Intel have had the cash rolling in over the last few years due to lack of any real competition from AMD but Ryzen 1 and Ryzen plus have really taken a chunk of Intel sales in the desktop sector over the last 2 years and it's looking like AMD are making good strides into the server side of the market with Epic and Threadripper. Just like everything in the tech industry, any impact will take a while to show up but you can see movement away from Intel in the steam user surveys.


I wasn't saying Vega 7 should have been chiplet based as I expect that's something we'll see with Navi but an 8gb version of the card at a competitive price to the RTX 2080, wouldn't have been too much to ask for?

wotzgoingon

Venom wrote: »

Of course Nvidia and Intel have had the cash rolling in over the last few years due to lack of any real competition from AMD but Ryzen 1 and Ryzen plus have really taken a chunk of Intel sales in the desktop sector over the last 2 years and it's looking like AMD are making good strides into the server side of the market with Epic and Threadripper. Just like everything in the tech industry, any impact will take a while to show up but you can see movement away from Intel in the steam user surveys.


I wasn't saying Vega 7 should have been chiplet based as I expect that's something we'll see with Navi but an 8gb version of the card at a competitive price to the RTX 2080, wouldn't have been too much to ask for?

They probably cannot do that as it was designed for 4096 bit so four HBM dies.

Current Vega is 2048 bit as it uses two HBM dies. Even current Vega Frontier has 16GB's of HBM but it is still only designed for a 2048 bit so two 8GB HBM dies.

Infini

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

If anything it's the other way around: GPU designs suggested the chiplet approach. AMD's problem for the past 3 generations or more has been efficiency on their GPU designs: they're power hungry, and geared towards the wrong sort of performance - compute rather than render.

Only thing I've heard from reddit and such is that the Radeon VII are possibly holdover cards from another area that didnt quite make the cut so they're putting them out as "prosumer" cards as such. They aint perfect but Navi is the one to watch out down the line and they do hold up against the 2080 at least. Some might give out about the lack of Raytracing or DLSS but to be fair those technologies at the moment aren't even in mainstream use and wont be until more development on the software side bares fruit.

EoinHef

wotzgoingon wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g39dpcdzTvk

16 cores 32 threads.

This video seems a little fanboyish to me,i was well into it till he got involved in some sort of twitter rant with a rival leaker.

I think if next gen ryzen even achieves 80% of whats suggested in that video it will be an amazing product. Some of it seems far fetched to me though.

The most striking part for me was the comparison between RAM speeds,2666Mhz for both systems? Is Infinty Fabric not a thing anymore?

If its not thats huge thing towards the cost of a ryzen build!!

Subcomandante Marcos

EoinHef wrote: »

This video seems a little fanboyish to me,i was well into it till he got involved in some sort of twitter rant with a rival leaker.

I think if next gen ryzen even achieves 80% of whats suggested in that video it will be an amazing product. Some of it seems far fetched to me though.

The most striking part for me was the comparison between RAM speeds,2666Mhz for both systems? Is Infinty Fabric not a thing anymore?

If its not thats huge thing towards the cost of a ryzen build!!

Ryzen and Ryzen+ both work a lot better with higher clocked ram, no reason why it wouldn't be true of Ryzen 2 as well. If you use 3200mhs ram with the right timing it will run a lot faster than 2600mhz on ryzen, while it won't make much of a difference at all on Intel cpus.

wotzgoingon

Infinity fabric is still a thing. That was a very early engineering sample so we should have faster speeds at launch. Ryzen 1st gen memory speed was 2666MHz and 2nd gen was 2933MHz so 3rd gen should support faster memory speed out of the box.

Also the RAM speed at 2666MHz is what Intel would recommend you use with i9 9900K as that is the out of the box speed and anything above it is overclocking. But Intel chips memory controllers are not as picky as AMD's. So you will be able to run faster speed without any issues.

Slutmonkey57b

Infini wrote: »

Only thing I've heard from reddit and such is that the Radeon VII are possibly holdover cards from another area that didnt quite make the cut so they're putting them out as "prosumer" cards as such. They aint perfect but Navi is the one to watch out down the line and they do hold up against the 2080 at least. Some might give out about the lack of Raytracing or DLSS but to be fair those technologies at the moment aren't even in mainstream use and wont be until more development on the software side bares fruit.

They're rebadged from the enterprise compute line that was released about 6 months ago. And the underlying architecture hasn't changed since Graphics Core Next (Polaris) was introduced about 8 years ago. Whereas Nvidia has gone through 3 fundamental redesigns since then. That's why the last couple of generations have struggled with heat and the halo parts have to use expensive HBM instead of DDR, they're having to push way past what the architecture thought it was going to have to do.

Cuddlesworth

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

They're rebadged from the enterprise compute line that was released about 6 months ago. And the underlying architecture hasn't changed since Graphics Core Next (Polaris) was introduced about 8 years ago. Whereas Nvidia has gone through 3 fundamental redesigns since then. That's why the last couple of generations have struggled with heat and the halo parts have to use expensive HBM instead of DDR, they're having to push way past what the architecture thought it was going to have to do.

You what? 8 years ago was 2011. AMD moved from TeraScale to GCN and have gone through 5 revisions of GCN architecture and have made 18 distinct gpu chips since then.

Slutmonkey57b

You're right, it's actually 5 years.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/13570/the-amd-radeon-rx-590-review/2

A new "chip launch" isn't the same as a new architecture.

wotzgoingon

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphics_Core_Next

Cuddlesworth

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

You're right, it's actually 5 years.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/13570/the-amd-radeon-rx-590-review/2

A new "chip launch" isn't the same as a new architecture.

A new chip launch can fit into a good architecture, or may require a revision of it for new features.

Its been remarked that Nvidias new cards do very well in past "AMD" titles, and its architecture is oddly similar to GCN.

Skerries

DLSS possible on Radeon VII

Skerries

rumoured prices for Ryzen 2

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-ryzen-3000-specification-price,38731.html

CPU Cores / Threads GPU Base / Boost Clock TDP Bizgram Pricing (Converted to USD)
Adored TV Leak Pricing
Ryzen 3 3300 6 / 12 - 3.2 / 4.0GHz 50W $111
$99
Ryzen 3 3300X 6 / 12 - 3.5 / 4.3GHz 65W $145 $129
Ryzen 3 3300G 6 / 12 Navi (15 CU) 3.0 / 3.8GHz 65W $145 $129
Ryzen 5 3600 8 / 16 - 3.6 / 4.4GHz 65W $200 $178
Ryzen 5 3600X 8 / 16 - 4.0 / 4.8GHz 95W $258 $229
Ryzen 5 3600G 8 / 16 Navi (20 CU) 3.2 / 4.0GHz 95W $224 $199
Ryzen 7 3700 12 / 24 - 3.8 / 4.6GHz 95W $336 $299
Ryzen 7 3700X 12 / 24 - 4.2 / 5.0GHz 105W $370 $329
Ryzen 9 3800X 16 / 32 - 3.9 / 4.7GHz 125W $505 $449
Ryzen 9 3850X 16 / 32 - 4.3 / 5.1GHz 135W $561 $499
*Specifications, model names, and pricing in the above chart (compiled from Bizgram listing and AdoredTV leak) are not confirmed.

Subcomandante Marcos

a 6c 12t 7nm ryzen 3 that boosts to 4ghz at that price would be incredible value.

Inviere

I'd say the 3600X will be my cpu of choice for a build later in the year.

K.O.Kiki

Do it AMD.

Drive the knife in.

will56

I'm hoping these can live up to expectations and are at a decent price point.

Ryzen 3 and Navi could do some serious damage to Intel if launched right.

I'm holding on tight that this will be my new build post black friday this year :D

deceit

If these are true, I will be upgrading my 1800x with a 3850x.
I'm just hoping that threadripper starts with 16core also as I don't want to upgrade my main rig with a 1950x to above 16core and have the memory issues that 32core gen 2 ryzens have (unless they only have this above 32 core as they have more cores per die now?).

Serephucus

I'd be surprised if we don't see a 32-core drop-in replacement for the 1950X, and a 64-core version for the 2950X, though they may come a little later.

wotzgoingon

Preview of Zen 2, 20th of this month.

https://schedule.gdconf.com/session/amd-ryzen-processor-software-optimization-presented-by-amd/864865

smacl

Inviere wrote: »

I'd say the 3600X will be my cpu of choice for a build later in the year.

3700X seems like a beast for the (leaked) price. 5ghz, 12 core, 24 thread. Would probably be my CPU of choice. Had been dithering on a new 2700x build but may build based on a cheaper Ryzen 1700 with a view to upgrading later in the year.

Venom

smacl wrote: »

3700X seems like a beast for the (leaked) price. 5ghz, 12 core, 24 thread. Would probably be my CPU of choice. Had been dithering on a new 2700x build but may build based on a cheaper Ryzen 1700 with a view to upgrading later in the year.

My thinking as well. Just pop it into my current X470 board and let the auto boost do all the work for a crazy fast yet super quite system.