AMD Computex 2019 keynote

Cinebench R20 should be used instead of Cinebench R15.

Plague Tale: Innocence based on Unreal Engine 4 with deferred render path, GTX 1060 defeated RX 580.

AMD has to solve main Unreal Engine 4 branch's performance problems.

Strange Brigade is an AMD sponsored title.

@ronvalencia said:

@michaelmikado said:

@ronvalencia said:

@michaelmikado said:

@Gatygun:

This is a nuts hot take, unless PCs switch to AMD in mass the majority of PCs built will be quad core for the next few years so you wouldn’t get much out of an 8 core 16 thread part anyway. Intel isn’t even on 7nm yet to even make mass adoption of octacore feasible for most of the world.

Intel's 14 nm is like TSMC's 10 nm.

Intel's 10 nm CPUs are also year 2019 release.

Try again.

How is this at all relevant that Intel doesn’t have 7nm???? No one is arguing transistor density but that space, heat, and power are still concerns and it’s not going to magically make room for 8 cores on most main steam PCs. At the absolute most optimistic projection it may replace the quad core processors with a 6 core in low-mid tier PCs. It’s literally completely irrelevant to the point that mainstream octacore will not be a thing unless most manufacturers switch to AMD.

Your argument on Intel's lacking 7nm is flawed since TSMC 's measures their density differently.

https://pcpartpicker.com/products/cpu/#k=35&sort=price&page=1

Intel i7-7820X has 12 core CPU imprint with 8 CPUs being active (is close to $499 price range. My point, BOM cost is the same for all 12 core Intel Skylake X CPUs.

https://pcpartpicker.com/products/motherboard/#c=123,132,126&sort=price&page=1

Intel x299 motherboards are in AM4 X370/X470 motherboards price range. Intel can respond and it's waiting for AMD..

To keep things into perspective

Absolutely none of this is Relevant to discussion we were having about core counts. At no point were transistor density or performance mentioned. Only that we have a long way to go before 8 cores become the minimum core count in mainstream PCs. Intel is not tracking to have an 8 core low-end processor anytime in the near future. We weren't discussing performance at all.

@michaelmikado said:

@ronvalencia said:

@michaelmikado said:

@ronvalencia said:

Intel's 14 nm is like TSMC's 10 nm.

Intel's 10 nm CPUs are also year 2019 release.

Try again.

How is this at all relevant that Intel doesn’t have 7nm???? No one is arguing transistor density but that space, heat, and power are still concerns and it’s not going to magically make room for 8 cores on most main steam PCs. At the absolute most optimistic projection it may replace the quad core processors with a 6 core in low-mid tier PCs. It’s literally completely irrelevant to the point that mainstream octacore will not be a thing unless most manufacturers switch to AMD.

Your argument on Intel's lacking 7nm is flawed since TSMC 's measures their density differently.

https://pcpartpicker.com/products/cpu/#k=35&sort=price&page=1

Intel i7-7820X has 12 core CPU imprint with 8 CPUs being active (is close to $499 price range. My point, BOM cost is the same for all 12 core Intel Skylake X CPUs.

https://pcpartpicker.com/products/motherboard/#c=123,132,126&sort=price&page=1

Intel x299 motherboards are in AM4 X370/X470 motherboards price range. Intel can respond and it's waiting for AMD..

To keep things into perspective

Absolutely none of this is Relevant to discussion we were having about core counts. At no point were transistor density or performance mentioned. Only that we have a long way to go before 8 cores become the minimum core count in mainstream PCs. Intel is not tracking to have an 8 core low-end processor anytime in the near future. We weren't discussing performance at all.

Again, Intel is waiting for AMD to be competitive and Sony has declared 8 core Zen v2 for PS5's games, hence PC market's competitive pressures would be geared towards it.

Intel's 8 core lowest retail price is with defect chips i.e. the customer still pays for 8 core chip imprint with cores disabled. Fully activated CPU cores has a higher profit margin. BOM cost is the same across different SKUs within the same chip design.

(Socket 2066) X299 motherboard's cost is already AM4's X370/X470 price range, hence Intel already setting up motherboard infrastructure conditions to counter AMD's Ryzen 7 and 9 3000 series.

Socket 3647 is Intel's new premium workstation and server motherboard infrastructure. Xeon Bronze is it's lower cost entry point for Socket 3647 motherboards.

@ronvalencia said:

@michaelmikado said:

@ronvalencia said:

@michaelmikado said:

@ronvalencia said:

Intel's 14 nm is like TSMC's 10 nm.

Intel's 10 nm CPUs are also year 2019 release.

Try again.

How is this at all relevant that Intel doesn’t have 7nm???? No one is arguing transistor density but that space, heat, and power are still concerns and it’s not going to magically make room for 8 cores on most main steam PCs. At the absolute most optimistic projection it may replace the quad core processors with a 6 core in low-mid tier PCs. It’s literally completely irrelevant to the point that mainstream octacore will not be a thing unless most manufacturers switch to AMD.

Your argument on Intel's lacking 7nm is flawed since TSMC 's measures their density differently.

https://pcpartpicker.com/products/cpu/#k=35&sort=price&page=1

Intel i7-7820X has 12 core CPU imprint with 8 CPUs being active (is close to $499 price range. My point, BOM cost is the same for all 12 core Intel Skylake X CPUs.

https://pcpartpicker.com/products/motherboard/#c=123,132,126&sort=price&page=1

Intel x299 motherboards are in AM4 X370/X470 motherboards price range. Intel can respond and it's waiting for AMD..

To keep things into perspective

Absolutely none of this is Relevant to discussion we were having about core counts. At no point were transistor density or performance mentioned. Only that we have a long way to go before 8 cores become the minimum core count in mainstream PCs. Intel is not tracking to have an 8 core low-end processor anytime in the near future. We weren't discussing performance at all.

Again, Intel is waiting for AMD to be competitive and Sony has declared 8 core Zen v2 for PS5's games, hence PC market's competitive pressures would be geared towards it.

Intel's 8 core lowest retail price is with defect chips i.e. the customer still pays for 8 core chip imprint with cores disabled. Fully activated CPU cores has a higher profit margin. BOM cost is the same across different SKUs within the same chip design.

(Socket 2066) X299 motherboard's cost is already AM4's X370/X470 price range, hence Intel already setting up motherboard infrastructure conditions to counter AMD's Ryzen 7 and 9 3000 series.

Socket 3647 is Intel's new premium workstation and server motherboard infrastructure. Xeon Bronze is it's lower cost entry point for Socket 3647 motherboards.

Again. We aren't talking performance, price, or literally any other metric!! The user only commented on raw core count and I explained the expectation that 8-core 16 thread minimums are not realistic in the mainstream low and mid-tier market at this point because no matter what the reason is Intel isn't there yet. There are no 8 core/16thread low-end Intel processors. Nothing about the specs or pricing or business reasons changes that.

Im planning on buying a new rig sometime in June, was planning on using the 2700x, when i first looked at prices those were running for 300$ looks like they dropped to 280$ with the 3700x on the horizon.

Now im wondering if i should i could pay the extra 50$ and wait on the 3700x?

Anyone have any suggestions on what i should go with, building from scratch.

AMD 3700X is the successor to 2700X, I'd go for the 3700X if I were you. I'm running a 2700X myself, I'll be upgrading to 3900X which seems to be the much better upgrade then the rest. 2700X is still an amazing CPU from AMD and they are on sale now. 8 cores/16 threads is more then enough if you are only gaming of course.

@jeezers: @davillain-: Not if you’re playing at 144+FPS. The 2700X flat out struggles there. I’m close to pulling the trigger on an i9 9900k at this point. Those new Ryzen clock speeds have me worried. 4.6 with the ipc improvements may be enough, but I’m nothing more than cautiously optimistic at this point t.

@davillain-: as far as gaming I dont plan on getting a 4k monitor or anything crazy, I was told amd for mutitasking/production type stuff (which I need)

Like CAD programs, blender and adobe premiere.

I heard Intel if your going for high fps in gaming.

I'm not very knowledgable, ive only upgrade pre builds in the past.

Is the amd threadripper worth it for production type stuff vs 2700x? Im also lost in how upgragrading works, like if I need a different mother board if i decide to upgrade later.

@goldenelementxl: I'm more concerned with multi tasking/production than the gaming side of things. If I'm even over 100 fps I'm good. I dont plan on doing 4k either. If that helps.

@jeezers: 4K is actually easier on the CPU. High refresh rates are more taxing on the CPU while resolution and graphical settings hit the GPU.

Threadripper could be of value to you. There will also be a 16 core Ryzen 9 in the near future if the rumblings are true. The 12 core would also be great for that too.

You aren't the only one who's struggling in 144Hz with 2700X, I'm not in the mood going back to Intel. I do wanna get myself a 3900X but I'm keeping my expectations low until I see 3rd party benchmark reviews. If the 3900X can't manage that, I really don't wanna buy another CPU & MB at the same time.

Come on Ryzen 9: 3900X, don't let me down.

@jeezers: forget about Threadripper. 3900X is perfectly suited for you. Great for production and gaming.

@BassMan: thanks, will consider it

U clearly never experienced a generational shift.

Not a huge leap compared to what?

Compared to every other generation. With the intro of the Pro and X which clock in at 4.2 and 6 TFLOPS respectively we are talking about double GPU performance of the current best.

Hmm that’s funny I don’t remember the minimum spec for all games suddenly shooting up to octacore processors with the introduction of XBO and PS4? I wonder why that is....

So you never experienced one.

PC requirements always shoot up, everybody that experienced those shifts will know this. The reason why PS4 CPU didn't much impact PC cpu solutions was because the CPU's where total trash. Not even remotely comparable towards any high end CPU at the time or even mid range CPU. Even high end 4 years earlier cpu's that where only 4 cores would stomp them twice over.

It was a joke. There was no need for additional CPU performance.

On the GPU and ram requirement solutions that was completely different. before the PS4, 4gb and 1,5gb v-ram was about 10 times more then what consoles had ( ps3 gen ). that's like saying now next gen will require 80gb of memory split over v-ram and normal ram on pc). everybody thought that 10x the ram would be future proof until unit started to hit. Guess what those 1,5gb v-ram cards did? nothing. they where garbage bin material as 2gb now was the absolute minimum. for system ram 4gb was also to low, 6gb was the absolute minimum which shooted up fast towards 8gb not long after it with a 2gb v-ram solution that's 10gb total, 20x the total of what consoles used before.

I know this because i experienced it and had to upgrade because of it. Much like i had to upgrade already for ages ago when PS1 and n64 was a thing and voodoo cards. I experienced a bunch of those shifts.

With CPU that is no joke even remotely but actually a monster in the PS5, a 8/16 cpu 3,2ghz zen 2. ( unless they for some reason cut stuff down version) every single PC without a 8/16 setup at atleast 4ghz+ will struggle to the end of the earth. Will devs care? to reduce taxation on PC? lol they never did and never will because they don't make there games around PC's.

If unity or watch dog type of game arrives for the PS5, be ready to have that cpu as a bare minumum at 4,5ghz with it.

Your 4 core CPU aint going to run shit let alone that devs give 2 cents about it. Much like devs didn't give a dam about people with lower v-ram solutions back when the PS4 released.

Sorry but you lack experience and knowledge on this front. If the PS5 comes out with 24gb of ram also, be ready for PC's getting whooped by that box with having atleast 24gb of memory with absolute minimum of 6-8gb of v-ram if you are lucky.

This is why i say in topics constantly, anybody that upgrades under what consoles offer is setting themselves up for disappointment really quick and with PC's u are better off getting some overhead while you are at it because the requirements can spike even up far more on PC because of shit tier optimisation.

That's why i said the whole nvidia line up are garbage because of the simple reason v-ram. This is why radeon 7 is currently the only option for people that want to upgrade and keep there stuff for a while and not have to worry about stuff like v-ram. Even the 11gb cards are going to struggle.

Nvidia knows this, because nvidia makes there money this way. They play the users with v-ram limitations. The same as intel does with cores.

Nest generation we will see a massive jump up in cores real fast and ghz. 5ghz are going to be the focus and 16/32 cores are going to be the absolute best solution to sit the gen out. That's why intel is also pushing out of nowhere 8/16 cores at as high clocks as possible simple for the fact they know those 4/8 and 6 and 6/12 cores are going to be dumpestered really quick.

Men that 6 core they released what a joke.

That's why you see AMD now pushing forwards on the cores and focusing heavily on 8/16 solutions already with the upcoming release. It's needed. And we probably see 16gb v-ram cards real quick, 32gb memory pools as standard and 16/32 core cpu's pretty fast. Because i can't see how they going to push 6-7ghz cores. It's the only way they can push things forwards.

@jasonofa36 said:

15% IPC uplift from previous gen!

3700X!

3800X!

AMD catches-up to Haswell/Broadwell/Skylake S/Kabylake/Coffeelake class CPU core with dual 256 bit AVX FMA capable math hardware units.

Skylake X still has dual 512 bit AVX math hardware. AVX 512 bit also introduces 32 register storage model like PowerPC (fastest variant being IBM Power 9) and GPU like scatter instruction.

Intel's new Icelake CPUs has 512 bit AVX units. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_Lake_(microarchitecture)

AVX v2 introduces GPU like gather instructions which Zen v1/v2 supports.

Ryzen 7 3800 8C/16T has similar price tag to Intel i7-9700K 8C/8T which itself is the same silicon to i7-9900K 8C/16T, hence Intel already selling 8C/16T silicon imprint at $399 price tag to customers and Intel artificially disabled hyper-threading to create multi-tiered product stack.

The same is true for i5-9600K 6C/6T since it's 8C/16T silicon imprint for about $250. One can workout Intel's profit margin from lowest SKU to the highest SKU within the same chip family.

https://pcpartpicker.com/products/cpu/#f=90&C=6,32&sort=price

Intel already selling 8C/16Tsilicon imprint as i5-9400F 6C/6T for $149.99. Intel still profits from i5-9400F despite it's 8C/16T silicon imprint.

Intel is waiting for AMD to be competitive.

NVIDIA has hardware memory compression superiority over AMD. Memory compression doesn't work with CUDA non-graphics raster apps.

RTX 2080 Ti has beaten VII at 8K resolution gaming.

Ah I was thinking of the base consoles. Forgot about the refreshed ones.

You can bet your bottom dollar that both Sony and MS will pretend that Pro and X doesn't exist when they are stating how much times faster their new system is.

@Pedro: Probably. With the X we were looking at slightly better than a GTX 1060, but worse than a GTX 1070. If these Navi specs and comparisons are to be believed, we are looking at RTX 2070ish performance. That’s a smaller jump that the launch consoles to mid-gen upgrades. Much smaller. The RAM jump won’t be that big either.

But teh load timez!!11!1

My main concern with Ryzen 9 3900 is CCX boundary when CPU core usage over-spill from the 1st CCX (6C/12T active) module into the next CCX module.

PS5's has a single CCX module with 8 cores Zen v2.

There's a reason why AMD shows Ryzen 7 3800 with a single CCX module for games.

Vega 56 at ~1550 Mhz can run Forza Motorsport 7 at 8K ~60 hz which is twice the pixel pushing power over X1X's 4K 60 hz results. RX 5700's results has rivaled Vega 64 Liquid Cooled.

X1X GPU has alpha and MSAA advantages over RX-580 due to ROPS's 2MB render cache and higher baseline memory bandwidth differences.

@ronvalencia: A vega 56 at 1550 is a higher clock than the 64... Your response also has nothing to do with his post. Are you drunk?

I'm still set to go with 3900X once the independent reviews are out. Not going back to Intel, I'm done with those guys. Wish I could say the same for Nvidia but they have what I need.