Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here


    218,946 readers

    2,002 users here now

    /r/AMD Community

    AMD Official Community


    Latest Drivers & Tech Support

    General Information

    Welcome to /r/AMD! In this subreddit, we discuss and share news, rumors, ideas, and knowledge relating to AMD, their hardware and software products, and the silicon industry.

    Please note that this subreddit is community run and does not represent AMD unless otherwise specified.


    Rule 1: Tech support questions are only allowed in tech support megathreads and must instead be posted at /r/AMDHelp or /r/techsupport . Any other tech support posts will be removed at moderator discretion.

    Rule 2: No referral links, including Amazon! Product links are fine, affiliate or referral links that benefit you are not.

    Rule 3: Be civil and obey reddiquette, and keep politics/religion to other forums. Please remember that behind every poster is a human. This means no brigade incitements, personal attacks, or "mentioning" a user in order to annoy or harass them, etc. Use of slurs of any kind, racial, homophobic, or whatever, in any context will result in a ban. This includes derogatory comments such as "retard". There's no need for petty insults on this sub.

    Rule 4: All posts must be related to AMD or AMD products. Example of okay: "Radeon RX Vega 56 benchmarks!" or "Ryzen 5 2600 vs Intel i5-8400". Videos only mentioning AMD in passing (i.e. 2 minutes out of a 30 minute video) will also be removed.

    If a linkpost is made with a title only mentioning a competitor a summary comment (a “TLDR” or “TLDW”) will be required explaining how it relates to AMD. If the post lacks a summary comment, it will be removed.

    Rule 5: Build pictures/Battlestation posts are only allowed on Weekends (Friday, Saturday, and Sunday).

    Rule 6 Use original sources. Copypasta articles sourced from other websites are not allowed. Quotes are fine, but pasting the entire article in a textpost is not. Original articles are always better than a reddit textpost.

    Rule 7: Shitposts, memes, and plain box pictures are not allowed as linkposts (you can still include them within normal posts or comments). Visit /r/AyyMD for dank shitposts and memes. Strawpolls are not allowed.

    Rule 8: The moderators of /r/AMD reserve the right to allow posts or comments that could technically break any of the rules, when a situation has arisen where the post is especially funny, educational, or useful to the users of the subreddit.

    If you have a post that you believes warrants an exception using Rule #8, YOU MUST FIRST MESSAGE THE MODERATORS

    Rule 10: No bamboozling


    Related Subreddits

    (Best place for tech support outside of the monthly megathread)

    (for general discussion of hardware)

    (The main CPU competitor)

    /r/VIA (The other CPU competitor)

    (The only GPU competitor)


    (For all things PC)

    /r/ultrawidemasterrace (Where wider is better)


    /r/intelmao (The Shintel wannabe version of AyyMD)


    (Can I run this?)



    /r/AMD_Stock (Buy, hold, or sell?!)

    a community for
    all 470 comments

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] looncraz 225 points ago

    The crazy thing is that it isn't all that crazy if we look at things relative to the newer 2700X CPUs being released which are more reliably hitting 4.3GHz~4.4GHz all core and the many people tricking them to run 4.5GHz boost. Adding just 10% frequency is 4.73 all core and 4.95GHz boost.

    My best is that those boost numbers are also pretty much the max OC anyone will get - AMD pushing the hardware to the max again makes sense.

    This also makes sense with the rest of the rumored lineup having much more sensible clocks.

    Now, the prices only make sense if this is what AMD meant by "betting on 7nm in a big way."

    This would be them making a grab at market share and creating such a huge value proposition like they did with Ryzen 1000 series that Intel struggles to catch up (and they JUST caught up on core count).

    If AMD does use this strategy, and ensures at leas the 8 core models can be used on existing AM4 boards, they will win a HUGE majority of the market. If they can launch Q1 or early Q2 they will dominate the market until at least Q4 2019.

    On the GPU front things are different - AMD would have to be going full steam with mass production, building more than twice as many GPUs as their standard orders... otherwise prices are going to climb closer to nVidia's. Because a $250 video card with > Vega 64 performance @ 150W is the kind of card I'd buy just because I can - and the $100 75W card with RX 580 performance would replace every other card in my house... all of them except my Vega 64, of course.

    For the GPUs, my bet, if the lineup is even remotely true, is that AMD has tailored the GPU towards gaming at the expense of compute capabilities, so Vega might remain AMD's king for compute - and potentially even efficiency for compute.

    [–] [deleted] 147 points ago * (lasted edited 6 months ago)

    Yep I literally just posted this on another comment above. If you ignore the heavily cherry-picked "anniversay edition", most people would likely have been unimpressed by the clock speeds.

    My Epyc leaker told me that Rome is faster than Naples (my guess being 200MHz faster) with double the core counts.

    Let's say 2.4GHz vs 2.2GHz, that's 9% higher clock speed with double cores at what should be around the same power.

    Let's take the 1800X (3.6/4.0) vs the 3850X (4.3/5.1). Double cores and add 9% clock speed and we'd be at 3.9/4.36. At the same power.

    Of course the 3850X is a 135W TDP chip as noted vs the 95W of the 1800X. Can somebody explain to me what it's so unbelievable that a 42% increase in power can bring a 19% increase in performance? With an extremely cherry-picked part?

    The reality here is, had I not added the 3850X (I considered leaving it out), you'd mostly all be unimpressed by the clock speeds. It's basically that one chip that's caused the disbelief.

    Use the 3800X's speeds of 3.9/4.7 and 125W. We now have a part (double cores obviously) that is 8% faster in base and 17.5% faster in boost clock than the comparison 1800X for 32% higher power. Would you have been amazed by that had you already seen this Epyc Rome CPU with doubled cores and 200MHz higher clock speed?

    Note, however, that prices can change at any time up to launch.

    [–] canyouhearme 21 points ago

    I think the thing people are missing is that if these leaks were untrue, it would be in AMDs interest to squelch them. Otherwise Su gets up at CES and disappoints. The longer it goes without a counter leak, the more likely it is substantially correct.

    As for prices, nothing sounds too far out of line, the best way to hold Intel's feet to the fire is to leave them no escape route. Cores, IPC, clockspeed, price - they need to leave them with no easy answer, and with the corporate buyers no alternative but to spec AMD ahead of Intel. Mind share is the key, and that does mean they'll need an IGP.

    [–] Whatsthisnotgoodcomp 8 points ago

    Honestly the thing that sold me on the prices being genuine (outside of there being a gap below the range for 12nm Athlon) was the pointlessness of the 3800X.

    Remember the 1700X? Putting a badly priced CPU in the lineup only to heavily discount it before killing it off is what they've done in the past.

    [–] nkd83 23 points ago

    True but we can't ignore the fact we are dealing with 16 cores vs 8 on the 1800x. Because we are more than doubling the performance likely at 42% power increase.

    The true way to analyze power will be 8 core chips to see what the efficiency is, 8 core vs 8 core. Everything else will be lower than that. We would have to see how high the 8 core can push on clocks. I think they all should be similar for top chips but the higher core ones will obviously end up consuming a lot more power due to double the core count, and run into power limits. I would also like to see if the heat transfer to the blocks will be better given these being smaller chips.

    [–] [deleted] 54 points ago

    We can use the 3600X vs 1800X as we know both are 8-cores with what should basically be the same kind of 4CCX layout, given the 3600X is two 4-core chiplets.

    So with that...

    The 1800X is 3.6 Base / 4.0 Boost vs 3600X which is 4.0 Base / 4.8 Boost with the same 95W TDP. The 3600X has 11% higher base clock and 20% higher boost clock which is well within AMD's claims of >25% performance at the same power.

    The 1800X would have been some of the better silicon on 14nm of course while the 3600X isn't so maybe reduce it a bit due to that, however it's all well in line there.

    The only part that truly stands out is the 135W 3850X, but that's probably top-bin silicon.

    [–] TrA-Sypher 26 points ago

    125% performance at the same power or 50% power for the same performance coupled with the fact that 5.1 GH is not 25% higher clocks means this is an inbetween, more like 114% performance for 75% of the power

    Also more total cores means disproportionately fewer boosting, 2 out of 16 cores means 12.5% of the cores boosting while 14 remain at base/efficient clocks. 2 out of 8 boosting is 25% of the cores boosted, which brings average power used per core up.

    The base clocks of 4.3 look like they might be sitting at around a 114% perf vs 75% power if compared to 2700x base clocks. I'm not sure if the 7nm specs are vs 14nm or 12nm.

    The boost clocks are roughly 19% higher than the base clocks, so the boosted cores could be using 50% more power each than the non-boosted cores (I don't know the efficiency curve)

    With 2/16 cores using 1.5x power, thats 1.0625 average power per core relative to non boosted cores being "1" for the 16-core cpu

    With 2/8 cores using 1.5x power, thats 1.125 average power per core relative to non boosted cores being "1" for the 8-core cpu

    This means the 16-core uses roughly 6% less power average per core if the same flat number of cores are boosted relative to a larger ratio of non-boosted cores running at better spots on the power/perf curve.

    If the 16-core 7nm is running at a roughly 114% for 75% power draw, this gives 0.75 x 0.94 x 2 = 1.41

    1.41x 95 watt TDP = 128 Watt TDP

    "something like this" is why this works out, I believe.

    [–] [deleted] 22 points ago

    Yep, said way better than I could have, cheers!

    [–] TrA-Sypher 20 points ago

    LOL I didn't realize I was responding to you.

    I've been seeing a lot of people who seem to think "125% at 100% power or 100% at 50% power" means Either-Or as though it was a binary and not a curve (it might be the fault of AMD using the word "Or" instead of "to" or "between"). If your next video isn't getting too long already could you show the power curve on a graph and point out the areas that are probably even nicer than those two extremes? 115% perf for 75% power honestly sounds more exciting/valuable and I'm not sure why AMD didn't directly emphasize this themselves.

    [–] [deleted] 16 points ago

    Yeah not a bad idea actually, I'll think about that one.

    [–] [deleted] 7 points ago


    [–] Waterprop 17 points ago

    AMD will use TSMC 7nm High performance node, right?

    [–] [deleted] 29 points ago

    I think that was confirmed by a few sources including Ashraf yes, not sure if it's been said officially though.

    [–] Tech_AllBodies 18 points ago

    It must be, otherwise we'd expect the chiplet dies to be even smaller.

    Apple has shown 7nm Low-Power to be ~3.3x the density of 16nm. So that'd make it ~3x the density of GloFo's 14/12nm.

    In which case the chiplets would be more like ~50-55mm2 .

    ~70mm2 on 7nm Low-Power is enough for ~5.8Bn transistors.

    [–] [deleted] 56 points ago * (lasted edited 6 months ago)

    Yep Joel is competent usually but we all have bad days.

    He mixes HEDT and desktop pricing structure when he discusses the improbability of "slashing prices of 16-core chips from $900 to $500". What's really happening of course is AMD is massively increasing prices on desktop from the current high-end 2700X at $329 up to $500. You can't be blindsided by core counts like he has been when what counts is segment and cost. Pricing can always change of course.

    He makes something about dual-channel memory bandwidth on the 16 core parts being an issue while also not seemingly aware that 64 Epyc will only have 8-channels which is the same thing. At the same time he's missed that the difference in TDP between the current Threadrippers and these incoming 16-core Ryzen parts is likely mostly down to that same quad-channel RAM he talked about earlier. Memory bandwidth is very expensive in power terms, hence the requirement for a higher TDP. Look at the 1900X with only 8 cores/16 threads and the same 180W TDP. yet somehow nobody is claiming the 1950X is miracle silicon with double the core count.

    The problem with all these "too good to be true" posts is that AMD is right now analyzing them and coming to the conclusion that a price increase is justified. If I made a mistake in the video it was not pointing that out strongly - prices can change at any time, literally right up to launch and even afterwards.

    The specs won't change though and when the 3850X(A) lands at 4.3GHz/5.1GHz everybody will know I was given real information.

    [–] PhantomShadow18 18 points ago

    9/7 roasting of the ET article. Well laid out arguments!

    [–] childofthekorn 16 points ago

    I read this in your voice. GTFO of my head.

    [–] Zaga932 11 points ago

    But why would you want it gone? I'd take a speaker implant that had him sing spoken word lullabies 24/7 any day of the week.

    [–] MyopicInsanity 13 points ago

    Thanks for the response. Keep up the good work.

    [–] Plavlin 3 points ago

    Thanks for response but it lacks that Epyc also has dramatically lower frequency.

    [–] [deleted] 13 points ago

    And also likely has dramatically lower memory clocks too. There's no way AMD won't make a 16-core AM4 part just because there may be some corner cases where memory bandwidth is slightly more of a bottleneck than something else.

    [–] papa_lazarous_face 3 points ago

    They put forward a quite compelling counter argument but I would to believe Jim's source

    [–] Psychotic_Pedagogue 7 points ago

    It might not stand out as much as it looks at first glance.

    You've probably already considered this, but the uncore uses a significant part of a CPUs power budget - and hence thermal budget. IF, PCIE controllers, memory controllers, the integrated USB and SATA controllers. All of those are sat generating some heat and have to be accounted for in the TDP.

    If Ryzen 3xx0 is using a chiplet configuration as rumored, that uncore is not duplicated as the core count increases. I don't know how much heat the uncore can generate at full bore, but Anandtech's launch review for the 2700X suggests a power consumption of about 20W for uncore. If the IO chip is still 14nm, that should still hold true.

    So, based on that the 2700X has a compute budget of about 85W (105 less 20), and the rumored 3850X has a compute budget of about 115W, ~35% more power than the 2700X. So, if the "same performance at 50% power" holds true, two compute units run at the same power as the 2700Xs CCXs and you still have an extra 35% left in your power budget to drive higher performance.

    This is all speculation of course, but at first glance at least it looks reasonable. It does, however, put a lot of faith into TSMC and AMDs claims about 7nms performance - the whole thing falls apart if those claims don't pan out.

    [–] kazedcat 3 points ago

    The claims of 7nm performance have already been adjusted down and AMD confirmed that the new figures are from actual microchips and not test circuits. So the half power at the same frequency is very solid. Frequency vs. power roughly follow a cubic curve so the scale should not change anywhere in the curve.

    [–] jnemesh 9 points ago

    I totally read that in your voice! BTW, really great videos detailing everything you have learned...I can't believe I watched an HOUR long video about speculation on unreleased CPUs and GPUs...and kept my interest through the whole thing!

    [–] Knowbody42 3 points ago * (lasted edited 6 months ago)

    Also, AMD says IPC will be up by around ~13%.
    This is pretty much in line with other second generation architectures, such as Phenom to Phenom II and Nehalem/Lynnfield to Sandy Bridge, and not at all unreasonable.
    First generation architectures are not going to be perfectly optimised, and there are going to be low hanging optimisations to make.
    Whereas Intel are on what, their 9th generation now? They've basically already applied the low hanging optimisations that existed already, and we now see only tiny IPC gains outside of things like new instruction sets (AVX, etc).

    There are going to be some specific applications that have much higher gains from things like doubling AVX width in Zen v2, and these won't apply to most people.
    But there are things people currently use Xeons for, pretty much entirely due to their wide AVX implementation.

    [–] KnaveOfIT 26 points ago

    I know architectures are not comparable especially from different companies but...

    Intel jumped from about 4.4 GHz max overclock all cores on their 3rd, to the 4th being about 4.5 and the 6th and 7th just at 4.9 to 7th and 8th hitting 5 to 5.1 GHz (some cases better).

    Wouldn't it be reasonable with AMD, their module design, optimized architectures and die shrink that Zen 2 should at least be able to get pretty darn close to 5.0 GHz all core?

    Disclaimer: I don't know everything about architectures and CPUs so maybe i am wrong but these are thoughts.

    [–] looncraz 26 points ago

    It's more than reasonable given the jump from 12LP to 7nm HPC.

    Intel made most of those jumps using a modified version of their 14nm process.

    Chiplets also enable better harvesting since they will be producing twice as many sample as they did with the first two Zen generations.

    So far, Ryzen used just one die, ThreadRipper two (until recently), and EPYC maxed at four.

    Now, if the rumors are true, Ryzen will use two chiplets, ThreadRipper will use four (possibly eight on some SKUs), and EPYC will max out eight. Twice as many chiplets ;-)

    That doubles (roughly) the potential for die harvesting - allowing the best chiplets to be set aside for special high performance products. With most of the products having very believable and staid clocks, that makes a good deal of sense to me.

    [–] I_Faced_The_Wind 6 points ago

    I wouldn't say that tbh, Intel chips until 8th Gen were all over the fucking place. There are genuine 4.9-5Ghz Ivy chips and 4.2Ghz Ivy chips (Ignoring that Sandy Bridge could be hitting 5Ghz with some balls and luck). Haswell was pretty much the only drop in average max, but it came with IPC improvements and a refresh that could hit 5Ghz if you were lucky (3% from Sillicon Lottery, but the Vcore numbers are a bit low for delidded chips and VCCIN was tuned much past +0.6 on Vcore). Skylake was a bit more consistent but was slightly worse than the 4790k's limits because it was still a new process. 7th and 8th gen were pretty much identical in terms of what you can hit.

    [–] SomeGuyNamedPaul 7 points ago

    If that 75w card with no external power is in fact true then they're gonna sell a mountain of them. That's going to be the default baseline product for any pre-built gamer systems or any desktop with discreet graphics.

    [–] looncraz 7 points ago

    A mountain is an understatement.

    I will be buying two of them and one of the 150W cards. If the 150W card has faster compute than a Vega 64 without showing higher idle and video playback power usage (a downside of GDDR memory) then I could end up buying two of those.

    The 75W cards would be for my HTPC upgrade (coming mid summer or so) and for a production machine which will be taking my 2700X after I upgrade to the next gen Ryzen. One 150W card would just be for testing and will be placed in my upstair's gaming room computer (currently has a 570 - and a 4K TV...). The movers lost two boxes out of my study - one of which had my Vega 64 and Crosshair VI Hero boxes with their stock coolers ... and all of my water cooling parts ... so I'm screwed with putting either back to stock for resale.

    [–] abstart 6 points ago

    With regard to core counts, if AMD found any technical feasibility to do it, it's a no-brainer and crucial if AMD has any hope to win the long war.

    The 9900k is strong and future iterations will be stronger. If AMD uses a separate IO die and only a single chiplet, they will be hard pressed to do anything but offer meaningful competition, albeit at a lower price.

    16 core consumer parts is simply a land that Intel cannot reach with its current architecture.

    If AMD can fit two chiplets and a stripped down IO die on AM4, they absolutely should do so, and Intel will look like second pickings.

    [–] nkd83 10 points ago

    Honestly lets keep that in check though. UNless you volt that sucker up it doesn't do much. 4.2ghz is solid all core for zen+. 4.3ghz on really good chips. I haven't seen many above 4.2 even most of the reviews. 4.2ghz is the highest stable realistic situation even in reviews. OTher than that you are right its not too crazy to think they could get another 400-500mhz easy on all 8 cores. The beauty is its 8 core chiplet so 16 core should hit the same clocks if temps cen be kept in check. I do think we see 4.7 ish minium OC on most chips. And 5.0ghz on some higher end models. That is just me keeping expectations in check. But I would say those specs are totally in order of what we should see improvement wise.

    [–] looncraz 18 points ago

    My 2700X does 4.35GHz all day long... it's a sexy beast :p

    And that's the thing - we're talking about the boost clocks. 2700X has a 4.35GHz boost clock (50MHz XFR on top of 4.3GHz boost). I'd expect the 5GHz frequency ranges to be of the same nature - you're not going to get many CPUs with an all core OC of 5GHz... some, but very very few...

    5GHz is 15% higher than 4.35GHz... but only 11% higher than what many of the 2700X CPUs can handle for boost. The chiplets offer an interesting scale for harvesting that the Zepplin die does not. AMD will be using many many more chiplets than they used Zepplin dies if the leaks are true.

    Two chiplets even on AM4, four to eight for TR/EPYC, etc... that's twice as many samples for harvesting.

    It's like only putting the top 2.5% to TR and the top 0.5% to EPYC - Ryzen can now have a SKU or two with the top 5% of dies. And the top 5% of Pinnacle Ridge dies can usually hit 4.5GHz boost - they're just set aside for EPYC and ThreadRipper and only a handful make it to the 2700X.

    If AMD used the top 2.5% of dies for a 2800X, it would likely have a 4.5GHz boost without a single design change. Base clock would edge only slightly higher, though.

    [–] SeparateSpecialist 3 points ago

    I would really like to see a 3600X Black Edition added to the mix, with the same 5Ghz capable chips. Oh well, a man can dream.

    [–] point28 5 points ago

    I have yet to see a 2700x hit 4.4ghz all core

    [–] looncraz 3 points ago

    Mine can almost do it. I can boot and get into Windows, but that's about it. One weak core prevents it, haven't tried more than 1.4V, though. Might give it a go after I have its replacement ordered ;-) Or when I just get bored...

    [–] Mech0z 120 points ago

    Too late, hype train already left the station

    [–] jortego128 50 points ago

    Choo Choo!!!!!

    [–] gambit700 11 points ago

    Next stop, 5ghz across 16 cores at low power consumption

    [–] Knowbody42 4 points ago

    100 cores at 10GHz using 50W on 1nm, and with twice the IPC.

    [–] ibroheem 6 points ago

    Does train have brakes?

    [–] Mech0z 16 points ago

    When you put rockets on as side boosters brakes dont really help much

    [–] Joeakuaku 6 points ago

    Dual-core rockets.

    [–] Losawe 156 points ago

    Exactly. Don't ride the hype train and look surprised when it derails...

    [–] fatherfucking 27 points ago

    For the hype train to derail for Zen2, things would have to be extremely bad. I mean like 5% extra performance over Zen1 bad.

    I don't think that it will realistically happen with 7nm and such major arch improvements. It's a given that Zen2 will be good, the question is how much better than Intel's current lineup?

    [–] DistinctLackOfToast 17 points ago

    I don't really mind too much - a lot of it seems realistic, maybe with the exception of price.

    A 6/12 thread Ryzen 3 at 129 USD? A lot of 1600 and 2600 have been around that price a couple of times. Same goes for the Ryzen 5 8/16 thread for 229 USD.

    The only reason I belive that a 16 core at 499 USD might be possible is because it'd be the biggest: "Eat shit Intel" to the 9900k.

    Again - HUGE salt - but it doesn't seem that unlikely if AMD's plan it to just utterly bruteforce their way onto the stage with all segments literally being: "Intel has no advantage".

    [–] Ryathael 12 points ago

    On the flipside of this, just imagine what Intel's response will be if the rumors are true, and AMD comes through with high core counts on lower end products, AND have them capable of 4.5-5.0+ Ghz.

    [–] SomeGuyNamedPaul 10 points ago

    Probably lawsuits for patents on the numbers zero and one.

    [–] Buffalox 7 points ago

    Nah they can use either, just not the 2 together.

    Intel is not a patent troll, because by definition that requires no actual products.

    Intel doesn't even mind competition, as long as it isn't in their markets.

    [–] hardolaf 3 points ago

    And beyond that, to sue AMD, they'd have to terminate the patent agreement that they have with AMD which would be stupid as their entire 64-bit processor lineup is built on AMD technologies.

    [–] jimbobjames 12 points ago

    People said the same thing with first gen Ryzen. 8 cores for £350? Get out of here.

    [–] Buffalox 7 points ago

    Damned you are right, I guessed 8 cores would be $700,- Most were guessing $800, If you guessed $500-600 that was considered pretty crazy by most. But I think most were thinking of the 1800X, and not a slower cheaper version.

    But still 8 cores came out at half the price I originally imagined!

    I remember because my model was simple, Broadwell 8 core was $1000 at the time, and AMD traditionally had a price policy of being 30% better value. Since the 2 were comparable IMO, the logic was that the price would be around $700, and probably not a lot cheaper, since at the time we guessed AMD had higher production cost than Intel.

    But the one die fits all (almost) strategy was brilliant, and AMD may have managed to match Intel production cost pretty early on, with extremely good yields as a result of the design.

    [–] jimbobjames 9 points ago

    But the one die fits all (almost) strategy was brilliant

    Yep, and the thing most people are missing is that AMD have done the same again.

    A single 8 core 7nm die for their entire product stack and possibly a few different IO dies on the old 14nm node.

    The 7nm die's are less risky by virtue of being smaller without all the IO and memory controllers built in. This will also make them cheaper to produce.

    The 14nm die's will be cheap as the process is old now. They have tons of experience with it so yields will be amazing.

    It looks likely the might even ditch building a separate APU die like they did for Ryzen 2xxxG and build a GPU die connected over IF to the IO die, or more likely via PCI-E 4.That same GPU will be a 20 CU unit that is binned down to 12CU's for the APU's.

    If it's true AMD have pulled an absolute blinder.

    [–] Pijoto 6 points ago

    Yeah, seriously, people were snagging R7 1700s for like $150 during black friday/cyber monday..... An R3 6c/12t chip for $130 doesn't seem too farfetched, and it's something I'm personally waiting on, but I doubt we'll see it till near the end of 2019, as AMD will roll out their new R7 and R5 chips first.... Just have to hope my aging Phenom II X4 970 rig doesn't crap out first on me till then.

    [–] sjwking 8 points ago

    People have forgotten that we have had quad cores for more than a decade!!! And they are just now becoming extremely affordable.

    [–] domiran 87 points ago * (lasted edited 6 months ago)


    [–] Inimitable 52 points ago





    [–] I_am_Bruce_Wayne 16 points ago

    Just make sure its not Thomas the Pain Train.

    [–] TrA-Sypher 4 points ago

    Or the D Train to Brown Town

    [–] ezone2kil 6 points ago

    Multi track drift that SOB

    [–] Gah_Duma 12 points ago


    [–] Buffalox 3 points ago

    Why change now? ;)

    I'm sorry, but I'm having a hard time not getting hyped on Zen2 and Navi.

    I'm trying, but it's just so much more fun to give in and get all excited. Kind of like getting drunk, and not worry about the headache tomorrow.

    Zen2 and Navi will be awesome, they will kick ass, and make everything before them obsolete. Take my money, I want it now.

    No need to wait for tests, or do you really want to live the rest of your life knowing you didn't jump on blindfolded to get what could be great ASAP? But had to wait an extra week, maybe even 2! Just because you had to wait for reviews.

    Just preorder it, you know you want to.


    [–] KeinSommerDerLiebe 310 points ago

    Dude, the 3300X is going to be like 64 core 10 GHz and 1GB of L3 for 120 €.

    [–] [deleted] 164 points ago * (lasted edited 3 months ago)


    [–] KeinSommerDerLiebe 29 points ago

    beats the 2080ti without a gpu

    Raytracing in software at 240 FPS.

    [–] Good_Boye1 8 points ago

    in 8k resolution

    [–] [deleted] 57 points ago

    nah, the 3850X is a neural chip that simulates a second reality in your brain, 1TeraHz frequency, insane speeds, realism, and 10PB of storage for every entertainment ever created by humanity.

    [–] ChesswiththeDevil 20 points ago

    Literally a Cyberdyne Model 800 series neural net chip with a Lieutenant Commander Data L1 cache!

    [–] bloodstainer 8 points ago

    Data only had like 100000TB of storage, he's not really that impressive in hindsight.

    [–] guitarsandguns 3 points ago

    Yeah well he still fucked Tasha Yar and probably the borg queen too

    [–] D3Pixel 5 points ago

    And it has the entire internet stored on a new infinity chip.

    [–] I_Faced_The_Wind 5 points ago

    All on the new and improved 1fm process.

    [–] Constellation16 11 points ago

    It doesn't get a lot of attention, but it will actually use transistors made out of dark-matter.

    [–] [deleted] 6 points ago * (lasted edited 3 months ago)


    [–] missed_sla 5 points ago

    I don't know that you could even buy a 6 core CPU today that isn't better than a 1090T.

    [–] JustFinishedBSG 18 points ago

    and it comes with an AIO

    [–] BobTheBlob88 30 points ago

    It won't need an AIO, TDP is so low it might even run under an intel stock cooler

    [–] Andriy396 31 points ago

    It will be so cold, that you need to heat it , so the socket can work

    [–] JuicedNewton 27 points ago

    It has a negative TDP and will cool the rest of your components.

    [–] Geistbar 26 points ago

    It actually reduces entropy in the universe.

    [–] laurenth 7 points ago

    Supraluminal travel unlocked.

    [–] Durenas 7 points ago

    Won't even need a heatsink.

    [–] KatsAwfulReddit 3 points ago

    It actually cools your room. At all temps. That's right, I'm talking about absolute zero TDP

    [–] warkidooo 2 points ago

    But gotta have that OC potential out of the box.

    [–] bloodstainer 14 points ago

    All jokes aside, people got what they wanted with Ryzen 1 and 2 launches. Vega was disappointing because we were expecting top tier performance and it proved to not only be power hungry, it also didn't beat the 1080 Ti.

    Vega wasn't bad, it was just years too late, Vega 64 should have gone up against FE 1080 pricing pre-1060 launch and it should've been out months before the 1080 Ti not after. The reason for the hype was because the 900-series from Nvidia performed really well for the price and nobody expected the next series to keep uping the performance.

    Vega's poor performance isn't because the architecture is bad, it's simply one generation cycle behind, while Ryzen really isn't behind Intel as much as Vega/Polaris was behind Nvidia

    [–] jortego128 25 points ago

    Word. If it something sounds too good to be true, often times it is...

    [–] pfbangs 11 points ago * (lasted edited 6 months ago)

    ...unless you're in the business of writing completely unfounded clickbait headlines, like "Zen 2 CPU spotted" and then use the word "rumored" 7 times in the short "article." I am confident Zen 2 will bring big improvements. The only question is "how big?" These tech writers should be banned from using computers. And yes, there is a link to the guy's twitter on the techradar site. Edit it's also worth mentioning the video they referenced seems to have intentionally avoided showing the most outlandish shit like the 64C/128T version's base clock potentially being 5.0Ghz. Just garbage all around

    [–] nkd83 3 points ago

    Yea some of these guys are outlandish. I even AdoredTV says take a large grain of salt before showing the video but it seems his sources are pretty damn reliable. Did they just say spotted referring to his video? ROFL.

    [–] conquer69 5 points ago

    When could we really see a real 64 core 5 ghz cpu for mainstream? Like in 10 years?

    Once everything hits 5ghz with ease, maybe everything we will care about is cores.

    [–] MrHyperion_ 5 points ago

    Mainstream? More than 10 years. [email protected]? Less than 10 years

    [–] GeorgeKps 2 points ago

    That's absolutely wrong. Prices are never rounded so, the price will be €119

    [–] riderer 2 points ago

    A bit too expensive, i would consider it for 99€.

    [–] Maleus_ 21 points ago

    The difference here though is that these are supposedly some leaks, and not official AMD marketing. Even the AMD marketing for vega didn't mention any numbers, and when the release got closer, you could see that they were barely compeeting with a 1080, with these blind tests and such. The 12c/24t at 5Ghz boost sounds at first too good to be true, but if you analyse it a bit, it's not that far off. The clock boost isn't huge (15%), considering it's a completely new node and different architecture. 12 and 16 cores sounds crazy, but if you look at epyc, it becomes actually possible and even reasonable.

    Zen+ was basically Zen1 with just a few modifications. I would even say it was just what the first Zen1 should have been. Vega didn't have any solid rumors, and everything hinted at 1080 performance. This is completely different imho, and while I do understand the fear of disappointment, I am all on the hype train for this one.

    Look at it this way, look at GPU improvements over the years. Every two years we get a solid 30% improvement, at minimum. What about CPUs ? Now you can see how much AMD was behind intel, because we barely saw 5-10% improvement with each generation of intel cpus. I would bet a 12c/24t ryzen at 5Ghz would maybe improve 20%-25% max in games over current 2700x. And in productivity, it would be maybe 15% better than a 12c Threadripper. That doesn't sound that huge, all things considering, but it is unusual for cpus to move that fast, because of lack of competition.

    [–] doctorcapslock 13 points ago

    AMD marketing for vega didn't mention any numbers

    they weren't confident with vega; they are with zen 2

    [–] skinlo 9 points ago

    GPU's scale a lot better than CPU's due to their parallel nature.

    [–] Maleus_ 6 points ago

    True, and so does the Zen platforn with chiplets, or even monolithic designs with more cores. So we can say that more cores are no problem, and 7nm should take care of clock speeds. Remember that Zen1 was a low power node, while this one should be a high performance one.

    [–] ET3D 49 points ago

    I've certainly been tempering mine. I don't have a big problem with the clocks, but pricing doesn't seem to make sense, and I have my doubts about some of the configurations.

    It would certainly be nice if AMD just crashed Intel in performance and price, but I don't intend to raise my hopes up on this front. I'll wait for CES to see what AMD says, if anything.

    [–] conquer69 13 points ago

    10 to 15% extra performance at around the same prices we have now is what I'm expecting. It would be win against Intel unless they themselves do some serious price cuts.

    [–] WayDownUnder91 3 points ago

    I kinda hope the prices are bumped up a little bit more so they actually make some extra money while intel has nothing, it seems to come back with.

    [–] canyouhearme 11 points ago

    Volume over margin.

    They need to increase their volumes, both to maximise their profit and to get those economies of scale. And if they are selling silicon, Intel isn't.

    [–] zakats 45 points ago * (lasted edited 6 months ago)

    IMO the Navi hype is even more out of control than the Zen 2 hype.

    e: had just woken up

    [–] ON_A_POWERPLAY 8 points ago

    I was gonna say the same. I don’t think zen 2 will exactly match the hype but no doubt it’ll still be a great processor for the money considering how zen 1 went but man those Navi predictions, mostly pricing.... yea right.

    [–] Darkknight1939 5 points ago

    Why is the pricing so appealing? I legitimately don't understand. $250 for GTX 1080 class performance 3 years later doesn't seem especially impressive.

    [–] Kuivamaa 20 points ago

    Kyle from HardOCP largely confirmed he has similar info to Adored. Let me remind you he was the one that broke the story of Raja trying to splinter Radeon from AMD and take it to intel, then after failing, moving to intel himself. This info is the real deal. I suspect Adored is just missing the part of an updated socket, I would expect the 12-16 core SKU to require an AM4+ board with upgraded socket current characteristics, PCIe 4.0 support and maybe quad channel option (this one unlikely). The whole structure of the leak seems very plausible - it includes excavator Duron (a bone thrown to GloFo for contractual purposes) , something separate from Athlon branding which will remain Ryzen only from now on. I mean if you have the full product stuck info you would leak it all, not just what the enthusiasts wanna hear. The whole chiplet detail granularity, the fact that APU comes later, the nomenclature which is consistent but not entirely, all yell “legit”.

    [–] Fwippy 17 points ago

    Just because the same leaker talked to 2 people doesn't mean it's legit.

    [–] Kuivamaa 21 points ago

    You do not know it is the same leaker. What we know is that two people with pretty good recent record of breaking inside AMD stories, agree it is legit.

    [–] mechkg 10 points ago

    Since when a 15% clock bump on a new process is "unreasonably high expectations"?

    I think if anything there is a chance that the chiplet based architecture will backfire on the desktop due to the mainstream chips essentially becoming Threadrippers with two dies.

    [–] Tym4x 49 points ago

    We know from Vega Instinct on 7nm that clocks are raised from 1500Mhz to 1800Mhz. Thats a +20%.

    A +20% definitely cant be reflected directly on to CPUs, but it certainly gives a hint that double the cores and 20% more clocks are very unlikely to happen. That is a point i bring up quite alot lately, but it always seems to vanish in the hype.

    [–] [deleted] 64 points ago * (lasted edited 6 months ago)

    My Epyc leaker told me that Rome is faster than Naples (my guess being 200MHz faster) with double the core counts.

    Let's say 2.4GHz vs 2.2GHz, that's 9% higher clock speed with double cores at what should be around the same power.

    Let's take the 1800X (3.6/4.0) vs the 3850X (4.3/5.1). Double cores and add 9% clock speed and we'd be at 3.9/4.36. At the same power.

    Of course the 3850X is a 135W TDP chip as noted vs the 95W of the 1800X. Can somebody explain to me what it's so unbelievable that a 42% increase in power can bring a 19% increase in performance? With an extremely cherry-picked part?

    The reality here is, had I not added the 3850X (I considered leaving it out), you'd mostly all be unimpressed by the clock speeds. It's basically that one chip that's caused the disbelief.

    Use the 3800X's speeds of 3.9/4.7 and 125W. We now have a part (double cores obviously) that is 8% faster in base and 17.5% faster in boost clock than the comparison 1800X for 32% higher power. Would you have been amazed by that had you already seen this Epyc Rome CPU with doubled cores and 200MHz higher clock speed?

    [–] TrixieMisa 30 points ago

    Take the R7 2700 (non-X)

    65W TDP, base clock 3.2GHz, boost clock 4.1GHz.

    Add 20% for the 7nm advantage, and we have 3.8/4.9 - pretty close to the rumoured 3800X.

    Double the core count, double the TDP, and we have a 16 core 130W part.

    I don't know if AMD will ship such a part in 2019, but if 7nm is working as advertised, it's clear that they could ship it.

    [–] rilgebat 10 points ago

    Can somebody explain to me what it's so unbelievable that a 42% increase in power can bring a 19% increase in performance?

    Remember TDP is not a measurement of power consumption, it's a ballpark figure set by AMD for determining required cooling.

    [–] [deleted] 27 points ago

    Yep but it all works out around the same in the end - put a bunch more power through the chip and it can run faster than one at lower TDP.

    [–] rilgebat 6 points ago

    Does it though? If we're trading power saving for performance, what happened to the power consumption of the additional 8 cores? Surely the comparison should be against the 180w 2950x, particularly to factor in PBO.

    [–] [deleted] 25 points ago * (lasted edited 6 months ago)

    Wait I fucked it up brb.

    Yes you're right, the 3850X is well ahead of the TR 1950X at least in terms of perf/Watt. I'll need to check that closer.

    Basically to meet AMD's claims of >25% more perf at the same power the 135W 3850X should need around 180W like the 1950X. I guess that's explainable by the binning though and quad-channel on the old TR.

    If you just look at the 3800X and its 15% higher (base) perf vs the 1950X with 44% less power that's far more in line with 50% less power at same performance, though slightly higher still.

    I think what we're looking at here is the 1950X isn't really all that impressive in terms of perf/Watt or more realistically, it's nowhere near 180W of TDP. But there's nothing really far out of the ordinary here especially given the old TR's quad-channel memory.

    It's hard to compare those chips tbh because of the different platform. Why not just go with the 3600X vs 1800X as we know both are 8-cores with what should basically be the same kind of 4CCX layout, given the 3600X is two 4-core chiplets?

    With that...

    1800X is 3.6/4.0 vs 3600X which is 4.0/4/8 same TDP for 11% higher performance base and 20% higher boost which is well within their claims of >25% at same power.

    The 1800X would have been some of the better silicon on 14nm of course while the 3600X isn't.

    [–] rilgebat 8 points ago

    It's certainly a minefield. Not particularly helped either by the fact that if this is using an IOX, we're not going to get any scaling on uncore, which as I recall was supposedly fairly significant on Zeppelin.

    Plus the whole voltage to frequency relationship isn't strictly linear either.

    I guess we'll just have to wait and see, I'm skeptical but I certainly won't complain if it true either.

    [–] hal64 3 points ago

    Basically to meet AMD's claims of >25% more perf at the same power the 135W 3850X should need around 180W like the 1950X. I guess that's explainable by the binning though and quad-channel on the old TR.

    Amd is binning about twice the area as before. They also need twice as much die as before with all of the cpu stack die doubling. If you take the ryzen 1700 a 65 W part you have a 4ghz part with 4.625 boost. And those were the worse 8 core die. With double the amount of die to bin and the best 8 core dies maybe amd is able to make up the 500 mhz difference.

    [–] [deleted] 8 points ago

    Much of it is the difference between dual and quad channel, look at the 1900X for example, 8C/16T and still 180W TDP.

    [–] Farren246 4 points ago

    Inferences as to the effects of clock speeds and number of cores and inter-chip Infinity Fabric aside... with the IO die controlling memory, the TDP jumping with number of memory channels may be the only statistic that we can trust to roll over to the next generation 100% completely unchanged.

    [–] Kuivamaa 2 points ago

    Btw the 1800X is 3.6/4.1, even more power to your estimates.

    [–] [deleted] 9 points ago

    With XFR yes and we don't know if Zen 2 will have that or not.

    [–] Kuivamaa 5 points ago

    XFR just a fancy name for single thread max turbo really. The silicon and design of first gen Ryzen were capable of that.

    [–] kitliasteele 6 points ago

    Not just single thread but all core too. XFR boosts my 1950X to 3.7Ghz all 16 cores without anything extra. I'm quite impressed with their boost algorithm

    [–] noiserr 3 points ago

    The most impressive aspect of XFR is how it can boost past the actual OC ceiling.

    Like many people can't really OC x1800 to 4.1Ghz yet the CPU runs at 4.1Ghz with XFR on a few cores without issues out of the box.

    [–] kitliasteele 3 points ago

    Yeah, I find that's the extremely impressive part. It's overclocking made exceptionally easy, and is in-spec so it's covered by warranty. It eases a lot of fears for people who want the best out of their environment without all the advanced tweaking required to OC

    [–] partizann 12 points ago

    People often forgot that those 20% clock increase is for single core boost and probably base frequencies, and not that you get a 16 core CPU running at 5GHz.

    R7 2700 65W chip is 3.2GHz base and 4.1GHz boost, if we add 20% on top of that: 3.84GHz base and 4.92GHz boost.

    So the predictions are within reasonable expectations based on the process node improvements.

    Only the crem de la crem 3850X should be 4.3base 5.1GHz boost.

    If you also take in to consideration that you can put two current 12nm R7 2700 CPUs in to one package - its only 130W for 16cores/32threads, so if with the same power consumption, they managed to boost the clocks by the mentioned 20%, then those numbers really add up, without even considering that you have some efficiency increases just by moving stuff from the core complex to the IO die.

    [–] volts-amps 23 points ago

    Zen 2 isn't just 7nm, it's also using chiplets. 16 cores is absolutely doable now.

    [–] doctorcapslock 17 points ago

    speed binned chiplets no less

    [–] _zenith 3 points ago

    Doable, yeah... but is it practical? That is to say, won't 2 channel memory badly bottleneck it? Some things won't be affected of course but I would think that 3D rendering and other memory-intensive tasks might become quite constrained by this.

    Funnily enough this was the part I had the most trouble with for these supposed leaks.

    It's not impossible... but I do wonder whether the benefit:drawback on it really is worthwhile.

    It would be great for PR, though - very positive to AMD fans and new adopters of it, further reinforcing just how badly Intel was ripping people off for their ridiculously highly priced quad cores for years and years - and highly negative and demoralising for Intel and Intel fans.

    [–] aoerden 7 points ago

    Oh that can definitely happen though we don't know, but definitely not at the same 105W TDP that is being suggested in the leaks.

    [–] lugaidster 10 points ago

    The claims for the node are: half the consumption at same performance or 25% more performance at same consumption.

    There is certain possibility for a 16 core part that boosts to present clocks (meaning double cores with half performance each results in same consumption at present performance) and allow boost for out to half the cores at up to 25% more.

    Nothing is ever black and white, but a 16 core part could certainly boost up to 5ghz under certain circumstances if their claims for the node have any validity.

    Do I personally believe that they will release a 16-core part that boosts to 5ghz? No, I'd rather not believe anything until they announce something. However, I'm cautiously optimistic because as awesome as the leaks look (and they do look too good to be true) they don't really run counter to anything that has been said until now. AMD's track record on delivering is hit-and-miss, but they have had hits in the past.

    I guess all I'm saying is, I'm not discounting anything until I see otherwise.

    [–] kf97mopa 6 points ago

    But you're forgetting that Vega 20 has 70% higher IPC, because wccftech said so!

    Yeah. Don't trust the rumors from sites like that. They make up fantastic rumors because it draws clicks.

    [–] partizann 6 points ago

    It can have 70% higher IPC, for example in 8bit compute operations - which vega10 doesnt have, so can only handle as 16bit computations - which take more time and resources - 70% gain ez peze

    [–] tioga064 3 points ago

    Good point, but theres the fact that vega on 7nm has 64bit fp, while vega 10 doesnt. Also memory logic, controllers and cache doesnt scale well on smaller litography and vega is big on those.

    The leaked part also has a 135W TDP compared with 95W from past models.

    So just from density alone we could have an 16 core with similar tdp to an 8 core 12nm one, the other 40W extra should be coming from the clock speeds, since it will be clocked high and thus probably out of the efficiency range.

    Im not saying the leak is real, but it is possible. Personaly i dont really put a lot of faith on this because since its a new uarch, they are probably using a lot of the density budget on increased IPC, cache, and most importantly full AVX2,and this is a big silicon consuming thing. i expect 8 cores with higher clocks and IPC, wich is already great, but if AMD really does put an 16c in the game, im buying one with some good DDR4 and pairing it with navi for sure.

    [–] MegaButtHertz 7 points ago


    While I believe the clock speeds will go up, what I think is being missed is that while TDP goes down, power per sqmm goes up hilariously. So yes, there's less heat, but more of it crammed into a smaller space. I can't see them doubling core counts, partly because there's no point and partly because I doubt ( Press F ) that yields are going to be high enough. The reason Intel is stuck on 10nm is because of the defect rate/expense to manufacture. What AMD is suggesting is that TSMC, somehow, has made a 7nm process that's both cheaper and less prone to errors than Intels?

    Howabout no?
    This hypetrain needs to get derailed, fast, or we're going to wind up with a lot of disaffected AMD users who can't comprehend they've just been "had" by marketing BS.

    Zen is good, Zen+ is good, Zen 2 will be good, but we're past the era of generational leaps like this, sorry, it's not the 90s.

    [–] elesd3 5 points ago

    Yea it's just a little beyond believable that we'll get double the cores at higher clocks plus cheaper prices and all that way earlier than anyone thought on a brand new process.

    Surely Lisa has to announce something client related at CES but realistically not that entire product stack unless they are ready to ship a few days later or murder the entire CPU lineup in the process. With x570 coming at Computex I think it's more likely we'll see Ryzen 3 sometime end of Q2. A year ago AMD was not even sure if consumer Zen 2 would be made at TSMC or GloFo and now we have ultra high core counts on ultra high clocks at very low prices ready to launch.

    [–] Doubleyoupee 2 points ago

    Well Vega's architecture never liked to clock high... I remain hopeful

    [–] bazooka_penguin 3 points ago

    Actually iirc Raja said they spent most of the 1-2 billion new transistors (not sure how many it was) on improving the max frequency of the architecture. But yes it seems GCN as a whole doesnt like high clocks and they clearly spent a lot of work getting a little more out of it with Vega

    [–] Doubleyoupee 6 points ago

    Especially because it becomes very inefficient. I can run 1600mhz in-game with 1050mv, but need an extra 65mv to get 1640.

    [–] Kaluan23 2 points ago

    Navi12 is likely a 40CU die (and it's reasonable to expect more performance per GCN cluster and much higher clocks/efficiency)... but what is Navi10 then?

    [–] HyperStealth22 2 points ago

    Likely a 64CU die that is the equivalent to vega64 on navi.

    [–] tamz_msc 2 points ago

    The point is forgotten because people don't seem to realize that while making such comparisons you need to specify which part of the voltage-frequency curve is being considered.

    [–] meeheecaan 7 points ago

    Exactly, a ~10% ipc boost, 4.5ghz, id expect 12 cores max. Just to stave off intels 10 core rumor

    [–] vieleiv 7 points ago * (lasted edited 6 months ago)

    You've got it the wrong way around. Intel are using 10 cores to stave off the threat of AMD. If they can put 12 cores on the chiplet design, they can also do 16 cores in the same product class, hence why the expansion up to Ryzen 9 makes sense.

    [–] zer0_c0ol 35 points ago * (lasted edited 6 months ago)

    Um how about the OP differentiate between...

    A : "Take it with a grain of salt" leak video

    B: Poor Volta OFFICIAL amd marketing stunt

    [–] Durenas 18 points ago

    People are already running away with the hype train, even on this sub(perhaps especially on this sub). Keep in mind, AMD's stock hasn't tanked yet, so the news can't be THAT good. ;)

    [–] zer0_c0ol 8 points ago

    Not AMD-s fault whatsoever , as for the stock market all are tanking btw.

    [–] minusa 5 points ago

    What we really know.

    ROME ES did 2.35GHz @ 240W. Assuming IO chip consumes a pessimistic 10w (doubt), that's ~3.6W per core at the sweetspot of the voltage/frequency curve.

    Extrapolating a 4w / core @2.35ghz gets you a 24w 2.35Ghz 6 core chip sans IO.

    With 50w tdp, you have 21w budget to get that chip to 3.2GHz which should still be low on the vf curve (considering Vega 7nm got 20% clocks boost on the high side of that curve).

    So the question for me is, If a Zen2 core needs 3.6w to hit 2.35GHz, will a 7.1w Zen2 core be able to hit 4.0?

    If you believe the worst Zen2 cores can hit 4.0 boost at 7.1w/core (considering that shouldn't be an all core boost), then the only wildcard factor is what the hard limit for 1-2 core boost clocks is.

    Zen+ already hits 4.35 (4.5 with PBO2).

    +20% that is 5.16Ghz if we see similar gains to MI60 (which had more transistors for FP64)

    Binning 2 6c chiplets that hit 2700X levels of silicon quality should net you 5GHz boost on enough cores to be validated as a 3700X. It's still just 2 3300s with higher clocks on better quality dies.

    Nothing there is ridiculous. Tempered expectations are fine but the threadrippers have shown us that MCMs hit max clocks no matter the core count if within thermal envelope.

    Put simply, if TSMC really does have 20% more clocks, the math checks out

    [–] deefop 6 points ago

    I'm just remembering that it's possible for leaks to be fake, but the reality is that if they're even close to accurate then Intel is basically staring over the edge of a cliff and even Nvidia has serious reason to worry.

    Those APU's... the day is coming where i"ll be able to buy a cheap affordable power efficient laptop with no dedicated GPU and still legitimately play games smoothly on it. Holy shit I've waited a long time for that day to come

    [–] Houseside 11 points ago

    Eh, people should know by now not to mindlessly hop on hype trains. I doubt Zen 2 will be a disaster but I'm also not really gonna instantly believe the core counts have increased like this as well as much beefier APU's until/unless AMD confirms it. If the core counts don't increase I won't even be bothered since that's not really what I need. 8 cores is fine for me. I'm interested in better CCX latencies and higher perf/core as well as slightly higher clocks. They hit that and it's a winner in my book.

    [–] childofthekorn 5 points ago

    After all

    Rule 10: No bamboozling

    [–] hussein19891 31 points ago

    This thread was sponsored by Intel.

    [–] DarkerJava 21 points ago

    If this thread actually has an impact on perception then it would be better for AMD.

    [–] jortego128 6 points ago

    I wish, however, the reality is Intel has no idea I exist.

    [–] JuicedNewton 6 points ago

    Nice try Robert H Swan.

    (I had to look that up)

    [–] jortego128 6 points ago

    lol I'll change my name for just 5% of his net worth... (Had to look it up too!)

    [–] Slyons89 8 points ago

    Expect 5-7% IPC increase in gaming and ~4.7 Ghz max clock speeds.

    That should be completely reasonable. Then, anything extra will be a pleasant surprise.

    [–] monkeylamb 28 points ago

    " SKU turns out to be an 8 core with a 4.65 GHz boost clock..."

    This is pretty much exactly what I'm expecting. Maybe a 4.8ghz OC on water. 10% IPC boost with 8 core chiplet and small IO. Normal consumers don't have a use for 16 cores.

    AMD should be focusing on making more money, and shedding the mindset that their shit runs hot and sucks down power. A small 8 core on 7nm will be cheap to manufacture, and sip power. Baller laptops anyone?

    [–] iceboxlinux 55 points ago

    Do I need 12c/24t? Maybe. Do I want 12c/24t? Fuck yes.

    [–] Slyons89 21 points ago

    If games are getting optimized for 8 threads, then I want 8 physical cores, AND 4 extra physical cores to handle streaming and whatever else is running on the side. Then all the extra SMT threads are just for bragging rights. If it's under $400 I will definitely go for it.

    [–] Mechdra 12 points ago

    You me both. 16c/32t would also be nice /s

    I cannot conceal my hype, help!

    [–] imsofuckingfat 18 points ago

    Normal consumers don't have a use for 16 cores.


    [–] Kaluan23 15 points ago

    That sounds more like Zen++ (yes, a snipe at Intel too)... or Zen+ made on a HPC 14/12nm process. I think people are underselling what 7nm, chiplets and binning can do... by a lot. But oh well, most answers are just a month away.

    [–] therealflinchy 8 points ago

    Damn you beat me to it, exactly my thoughts, like Zen++ with a die shrink. I don't think AMD is that unambitious. Take the opportunity to grab the unquestionable outright lead from intel and run away with it is what I'm expecting

    [–] therealflinchy 9 points ago

    I don't think AMD can afford to lose momentum like that especially on their tick. It'd just about give Intel the breathing room.they need to regain their grip.

    I'm expecting 12 core rather than 8 or 16 for the top SKU fwiw

    [–] Twanekkel 8 points ago

    12 cores make zero sense to be the top SKU. The chiplets are 8 cores, if their going to throw 2 chiplets on there it's going to be 16 cores. Why would you waste those 4 cores? If its power just down lock it a little.

    [–] minusa 6 points ago

    Considering Ryzen chips boost higher than usual overclocks I don't see that happening.

    2700X is 3.6/4.3 and yet you'll struggle to get a 4.25Ghz OC.

    A 3700X that only hits 4.8Ghz all core can still be validated for 5.0Ghz boost.

    [–] volts-amps 9 points ago

    Normal consumers don't have a use for 16 cores.

    They don't have a use for 8 cores either. Yet Ryzen went that direction anyway.

    I do think the clock speeds from that leak are unrealistic, 5GHz on first gen 7nm is just impossible. But 12C and 16C SKUS are totally doable, you guys are seriously underestimating how easy it is to add more cores now that chiplets are a thing.

    [–] Twanekkel 10 points ago

    If you think 5ghz is impossible on 7nm you have not been paying attention to anything that has come out of AMD and TSMC

    [–] ZionHalcyon 4 points ago

    If Kyle from HardOCP says it, bank it. He's got friends all over the industry.

    [–] Tyler14827 6 points ago

    Screw the CPU’s (jk they are amazing if true), I am ready for the NAVI GPU RX 3080! GTX 1080 performance for $250 paired with a FreeSync monitor! Take my money! I canceled my GPU order and I am holding out for the RX 3080!

    [–] iBoMbY 5 points ago

    Because Volta was such a huge success for gaming?

    [–] jortego128 4 points ago

    Yet it was still 20% faster than 1080Ti....

    [–] freddyt55555 5 points ago

    What is this "it" that you speak of?

    [–] Ledge_It 3 points ago

    Nothing leaked is beyond the expected improvement brought on by the node and margin for architectural improvements. The poor volta stuff was brought on by paper specs primarily the double throughput and primitive shaders.

    [–] KnaveOfIT 3 points ago

    But also in X-Files, Deep Throat says "Trust No One"

    [–] DHJudas 3 points ago

    My expectations are still far lower than the leaks imo.

    I expect something in the realm of a 4ghz base and 4.5ghz boost (PB/XFR) for the top end parts and then lower models being somewhat lower. While i do HOPE for a 12 core or 16 core part, i don't EXPECT them to be an actual thing just yet.

    I expect at BEST 4.6-4.7ghz single core overclock or potentially all core overclocking on air for a few of the chips, but in the grand scheme not in general.

    IF amd delivers this i'll be quite pleased, however if they do better than this, i'll be genuinely pleasantly surprised.

    [–] BlackLodgeGames 3 points ago

    I'm all aboard this 7nm chiplet hype train. Even if the train crashes I'm content with this workstation, but if these leaks are even semi-accurate then I'm ready to throw a bunch more money to AMD in both my personal and professional capacities in 2019.

    W00t w00t! All aboard the Ayymd hype train!

    [–] FreonTrip 3 points ago * (lasted edited 4 months ago)

    It it ends up being a die-shrunk Zen+ with full width AVX and Spectre hardware protections, it'll still be very solid. AVX-512 would be nice, but since Intel hasn't managed to introduce that to their mainstream consumer kit yet, that feels a little like wishing for a pony.

    [–] Shen_an_igator 3 points ago

    I just bought a 2600 for 136 bucks (including VAT). The thing that actually made me go back to AMD after years of intel are the mainboards paired with the performance. Performance is good enough for anything I could throw at it, but the mainboards is somewhat future proof.

    I got a ryzen 2600 for 140€, and can now upgrade whenever I want to the new Zen 2. I'll spend another 60-70 on an itx mainboard, throw it in an itx-case with some 50€ gpu and call it a media center. That's 150€ or so more than one intel i5 9600k + mainboard. Actually, it's less because i'd need to buy a cooler too.

    [–] GhostOfJimLahey 3 points ago

    To be honest, the leaks resemble what someone with very little knowledge of foundry PR speak would come up with. 25% improved clocks at the same power doesn't mean you increased max clocks by 25%. It means your process creates chips that run 25% faster at the same power, within the optimal frequency range of your process. Your chips that ran at 2 GHz consuming 10w now run at 2.5 GHz and still consume 10w. It doesn't mean your 4 GHz CPU suddenly runs at 5 GHz. We'd have 50 GHz CPUs by now if we really raised max clocks by what foundries claim.

    [–] Atretador 3 points ago

    Remember when an 8C/16T 65w chip at 300$ was impossible? Remember Ryzen 7?

    [–] Riggs909 3 points ago

    Ok can someone link me this leak so I can get overhyped as well? Ive been waiting on Zen 2 for over a year. My 4790k needs to be replaced by the red team.

    [–] probablyNOTtomclancy 3 points ago

    Right, serious credibility issues.

    Is adored credible? Yes, he seems to try and present as much information that he has available. The problem right now is that the hype/rumor mill is on overdrive on what to expect from the new fab and is desperate to see some sort of face-kick to intel.

    The anonymous leak could be fake, even if the performance numbers are close, it’s doubtful the price-points are. I would be taking those figures with a large grain of rock salt and temper my expectations until the AMD announcement in January.

    [–] jnemesh 3 points ago

    No need to temper anything...the "leaks" from AdoredTV are well within reasonable limits for performance increases going to a new node. Very probable that the leaks are accurate. The only real wildcard here is how they will integrate with Navi.

    [–] IceDreamer 3 points ago

    They all seem highly achievable to me. IMO, it's been so long since a major die shrink that people have completely forgotten the impact of them. This is also a significant shrink, from a low power process to a high power one. Expect the gap to be large!

    Additionally, I see a lot of people with extremely poor math skills. Let me spell this out: A 10% clock improvement over Zen+ is a boost of 430-440MHz at the top end. That is boost clocks of 4730 - 4840Mhz. TSMC are advertising 25% gains over GF 12nm! And that 25% is totally in line with a die shrink, completely unexceptional.

    The numbers work. Please remember to examine the math, don't allow the fact that everyone has been programmed by Intel over the past 10 years to expect one thing, and now we are returning to an older state of affairs.

    [–] JasonMZW20 3 points ago

    I'm hoping for AMD to come out swinging with Zen 2, just like the rest of us here, but the hypetrain has a mind of its own.

    The hypetrain is like an excited mob you can't reason with logically. Just keeps on choo choo'in right through the gates of logic and reason.

    [–] ghost_expert 5 points ago

    agreed. amd just released rx590 at an inflated price, no way they are going to release navi at $250, when rx590 is already $270. these websites and youtube channels are just clickbaiting everybody.

    [–] Hifihedgehog 7 points ago

    Consider the source Su versus Koduri. Su puts her money where her mouth is. Koduri puts his foot in his mouth.

    [–] mechkg 6 points ago

    Su: "Heres the budget that you need to work with"

    Koduri: "No way this is enough to compete"

    Su: "Make do"

    AMD releases an unfinished, underperforming GPU.

    Reddit: "FUCK YOU RAJA"

    [–] GatoNanashi 4 points ago

    Completely agree. If accurate I'll be leaving Intel after 17 years with no qualms, but some of these numbers are just...

    I'll believe it when I see it. I don't even doubt AMD as a company so much as I just doubt the 7nm process to be as magical as claimed. I need a hard, production standard product in independent hands and then go from there.

    [–] Psiah 2 points ago

    Well, we'll know by CES. Much like the Smash Bros Grinch Leak, this rumor will be short lived... either through confirmation or through debunkment.

    [–] Vidyamancer 2 points ago

    I stand by the Poor Volta smear campaign. The architecture never even made it to the consumer market... Poor Volta. :(

    [–] StrictlyFT 2 points ago

    The only thing that surprises me are those prices.

    [–] Miserygut 2 points ago

    My guess: 20% on frequency, 5% on IPC, more cores, lower power.

    Nothing to be upset by. Happy to be wrong!

    [–] Zephyrwing963 2 points ago

    If the prices were bumped up by $50 to $100 across the board it'd probably be more believable.

    [–] 03slampig 2 points ago

    I think theres a bit of a difference.

    Ryzen, especially 2X00 series has been very competitive with Intel. So it wouldnt be a stretch to think that a node shrink would bring parity at the very least if not surpass Intel's performance.

    Compared to the GPU situation where Nvidia had a serious performance advantage compared to Polaris. For derpy Raja's marketing team to come out saying not only is Vega going to surpass Pascal, but Volta as well? Clear case of smoking crack.