AMD to Launch New Ryzen 3000 XT CPUs: Zen 2 with More MHz
anandtech.com
anandtech.com
At the very top, you have the Epyc/TR/3950x dies. This may be actually two bins, with the absolute highest end Epycs getting the top 1% of dies.
Next you have A grade dies, that go into the 3800x and the 3600x, and the first die of the 3900x. After that, B grade dies, that go into the 3700x and 3600, and the second die of the 3900x.
The 3950x is the weird one because it doesn't use two A dies (the 3900x uses an A+B)... it uses two Epyc/TR grade dies.
Those new XTs? Seem to be miniature 3950xes: 6+6, 8, and 6 Epyc/TR grade dies. Everyone who wanted a 3950x, but didn't want/need 16 cores? Here you go.
Although, honestly, unless you need a computer today, and as much as I love Zen 2, wait for Zen 3 as long as you can. Zen 3 uses 8 core CCXes, which eliminates the semi-NUMA split L3 latency issue.
That issue is incredibly mild, it isn't the cluster fuck that it was on Zen/Zen+, but it's enough that some especially badly optimized software (older games, mostly) is about as fast on a 3300x (single CCX quad core) as it is on the 3600 (dual 3 core CCxes), purely because of the ignorance of mem/cache locality.
That said, for a dumb desktop and PS4/XBOne-era gaming performance, the 3300X on a MSI B450 Max /w 16GB DDR4-3600 CL18 has exceptional value; just toss in a 1660 Super, and its a 1080p 60-120hz gaming king.
Looking back at it, I really haven't seen an AMD presentation with the [ 2017 < zen, zen 2, zen 3 > 2020 ]-timeline after the financial analyst day 2020, but have seen new updated versions in the form of [ 2017 < zen, zen 2, zen 3 > 2021 ].
[0] slide 10, AMD Investor Presentation, Apr 03, 2020, https://ir.amd.com/static-files/cff1a22a-788b-40a0-b89c-796e... [1] slide 42, AMD Corporate Presentation, Jun 05 2020, https://ir.amd.com/static-files/fd06c15e-0241-424d-9fd9-5a46... [2] slide 18, AMD Investor Presentation, Apr 04 2019, https://ir.amd.com/static-files/9c985e84-bbb6-4e23-99bd-dcbb... [3] slides 6 and 23, Financial Analyst Day 2020 - Data Center Leadership, Mar 5 2020, https://ir.amd.com/static-files/15702f66-d8d1-4816-8906-9612...
> AMD also re-confirmed that we are set to see Zen 3 processors in 2020.
So, as of last month, Zen 3 was again confirmed to be coming this year.
It's absolutely still just a rumor that Zen 3 is delayed until 2021. There has been no official confirmation of any change to the schedule, and attempting to read way too much into some slides doesn't change that.
> So, as of last month, Zen 3 was again confirmed to be coming this year.
Yes, I already expected a presentation at the end of the year, though this is not explicit about _shipping_ Zen 3 this year. /cynicism
You are correct though that it's a rumor, and I'm 80% sure that Zen 3 will launch this year. My comment was mostly to provide a counterexample to the "almost no evidence for Zen 3 in 2021"... Although, this evidence is indeed not a lot...
As always, I guess we'll see
Frankly if they can launch I think they'd be insane to delay, every year they've had the rumours first then come out with a body blow to Intel, that momentum has been building and they've finally started to get real mind share for the first time in nearly a human generation so it would be silly to lose that now.
Also if I had to guess why they put these out it's because production improvements have meant they've got more available high quality dies than they had at the start so it makes sense to get a last hurrah off the line and it preserves the price points for each back to somewhere near where they where at launch.
I was around when the AMD64 was battering the P4 and then Intel came out with the C2D an architecture they are still using which gave them a decade of owning the top/mid in desktops, pretty much all the laptop market and vast majority of servers.
Better to be out ahead when Intel comes back swinging.
but a 24 core threadripper has a TDP of 280w. The 24 core epycs of the same generation have 155w or 180w (depending on clocks).
The clock speeds are a bit lower on the epyc models, but but I would be willing to bet that chips that cant hit the lower wattage targets just get pushed as high as they can go, and it is then on the consumer to manage the extra heat.
Generally speaking, waiting to buy a computer is always better, because next year's tech is always better than this year's tech. So you only buy a computer when you need one.
Is your current computer slow in ways that you find annoying? Slow enough that you want an upgrade? If so, buy a new computer (or if its only slow in one or two benchmarks... like I/O or Video games, buy a faster SSD or GPU instead). If not, then wait another year or two and ask yourself the question again.
Big SV companies seem to be on a 5-year upgrade cadence. If you can't make the decision yourself, then just follow what they do and upgrade your equipment every 5 years.
Then the board wouldn’t POST :/ having a concrete issue to google for then surfaced tons of threads discussing the same or similar issues that hadn’t come up when I was doing research before buying. It took me a few days to finally be able to make it boot- it was probably an acculturation of small silly things like the board being picky about which cable/slot you plug in the monitor, removing and installing again RAM even tho it was seemingly well placed before, etc.
BUT! I have now a nice beast running Pop_OS and I couldn’t be happier. I hadn’t had this feeling of noticing a performance gain in years of upgrading from MacBook to MacBook. I’m giggling of excitement just from thinking about working on that thing :)
Not sure about this. Today in Zen 2, in a 4 core CCX the L3 cache is split between the 4 cores and a core can only directly access its own slice of it and has to go through the Infinity Fabric to access L3 cache of other cores in the same CCX. Just because Zen 3 has 8 cores CCX doesn't necessarily mean that they all access the entire CCX L3 in uniform manner. The latter seems much more important to me than bundling 8 cores in a CCX.
Do you have any links that support that statement that cores inside a CCX will have uniform L3 access in Zen 3? I can only find rumors, no official information on this.
Due to Zen 2 monolithic IO dies make this cost far smaller than the Zen/Zen+ design, since it only has to route inside of the IO die, and not use valuable IF<->chiplet lanes.
AMD has soft confirmed that they are rolling with 8 core CCXs, so for desktop Ryzens that are 8 cores or less, it will be a single CCD with a single CCX inside, thus a single L3 domain.
And yes, you are correct: if they turn it into a single, but dual ported, L3, two CCXes in a CCD would also be fine and optimal. However, this seems to be more complex than just making bigger CCXes. Intel has horrifically overcomplex memory controller designs because this is how they typically design things, and AMD wants to avoid repeating that mistake.
Except they've only done this for the high power 95W/105W models, not the 65W 3700X I actually care about, so "for the same power" isn't very exciting.
I hope that benchmarks prove me wrong here, but I doubt it.
With higher TDP they achieve higher sustained speeds than the 3600/3700X. A further boost at the same price point seems a good plan. Presumably the non-T parts are superseded by these.
And now you have a price increase of $50 (for a good air cooler) to $100 (if you follow AMDs advice of buying a 280mm AIO) on the 3800XT. Makes the deal a lot worse for most, if there are not hidden performance advantages not visible so far.
[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAGQwWDyURI (I think that was here, might have been for the 3600X)
[1]: https://www.pc-kombo.com/us/benchmark/games/cpu/compare?ids%...
[2]: https://www.pc-kombo.com/us/benchmark/apps/cpu/compare?ids[]...
Really not sure what there is to complain about...
> These XT processors increase it a little more at the same price point.
Only for the Ryzen 5s (and the 3600XT could come out a bit better looking). For the Ryzen 7s the price point is not the same, you have to factor in the cooler you have to buy now. That will make the offer even less attractive.
The CPU is less and less relevant for gaming. The reviews I've seen put it out ahead consistently but only by a 1-2fps. And as you say, a few percent in applications. If you want those couple of percent then you'll pay a 10% higher price for it. Disproportionate but to me it's still a great value processor.
And also for me the price would be the same - AMD's wraith cooler was noisy and I ditched it ASAP on both the 3700X and 3800X we have in the house here. They're in boxes in the attic so pretty much have negative value.
I wouldn't say that. We had a couple of very cpu heavy game releases recently, and with new console generations that usually makes a jump.
And you can get a bigger performance jump in games - with Intel.
> The reviews I've seen put it out ahead consistently but only by a 1-2fp
Right, rounds down to 0%.
> Disproportionate but to me it's still a great value processor.
No, by definition it's not a great value anymore if you pay that much more for that small gain, if you have equally fast alternatives after a minimal overclock.
You could have sold the Wraith cooler :) But that's a valid argument, for some the cooler inclusion or non-inclusion does not matter.
AMD won't do that change without a reason. They probably feel they are in the position for that now. They boosted the stock cooler importance for Zen 1 (that thing was great) gaining goodwill, then made it worse, now start to remove it completely. The infinite circle of corporate attention and customer focus in action.
Which intel product is more capable than a 3700X at a lower price than a 3800X?
[0]: https://www.pc-kombo.com/de/benchmark/games/cpu/compare?ids%...
[1]: https://www.pc-kombo.com/de/benchmark/games/cpu/compare?ids[...
2 fewer cores, that's a far worse deal.
It matters to me, I do a lot of parallel software builds. Two more cores makes a difference.
If you only game, that's one thing. I don't.
I was specifically talking about gaming, and mentioned in all my comments specifically what performance category I'm talking about when making performance claims.
I'd argue that going forward the intel chips are going to hold their own less well in games too, with a lower core count, especially as the core count in consoles goes up.
Though if these are the same more efficient chiplet bins as the 3950x, maybe the prism would make more sense on a 3900xt. Given they're not including it though, I guess AMD didn't think so
https://www.newegg.com/p/pl?N=100007625%208000%204131%204814...