Ryzen 3rd Generation 16-core rumoured to be a Threadripper-killer with insane Cineben

[WYP]

That many points on a single desktop-grade CPU?



Read more about AMD's rumoured Ryzen 3rd Generation 16-core Cinebench performance.

 

[AlienALX]

LOL look at the CPUs it's on the same list as. That's nuts.

That's like the who's who of CPUs.

 

[Avet]

LOL look at the CPUs it's on the same list as. That's nuts.

That's like the who's who of CPUs.

Yes. But... That is only in rendering types of workload. For everything else Intel is better.

This is interesting because it shifts traditional concept of massive single workstation PC that you use for everything. Wendell (Level1), and Eposvox did a lot of testing, and recommend one PC for editing based on 9900K, or 9700K because it is snappy, has fluent workflow etc... And another based on Threadripper that you use only as a rendering station. This way you get the best from both worlds, and you don't need the fastest CPU on the planet because you loose editing time wile it renders. This gives you much more room for scaling your systems.

This is where dual system cases like Corsair 1000D come in. One Intel Z390 build for editing, general use, and a Threadripper monster just for rendering. Any content creator's wet dream system.

I think this is the way reviewers should approach this "new generation" of CPUs.

 

[grec]

Yes. But... That is only in rendering types of workload. For everything else Intel is better.

This is interesting because it shifts traditional concept of massive single workstation PC that you use for everything. Wendell (Level1), and Eposvox did a lot of testing, and recommend one PC for editing based on 9900K, or 9700K because it is snappy, has fluent workflow etc... And another based on Threadripper that you use only as a rendering station. This way you get the best from both worlds, and you don't need the fastest CPU on the planet because you loose editing time wile it renders. This gives you much more room for scaling your systems.

This is where dual system cases like Corsair 1000D come in. One Intel Z390 build for editing, general use, and a Threadripper monster just for rendering. Any content creator's wet dream system.

I think this is the way reviewers should approach this "new generation" of CPUs.

Dual-mobo systems would likely become kinda redundant if these numbers are true(Since this would mean Threadripper has performance that matches Intel even in low core workloads). Essentially these are showing AMD matching Intel in IPC(Roughly same per core performance as the 9900K) in a benchmark that generally favours Intel. This would probably mean AMD surpassing Intel in a wider benchmark suite if true, unless the nature of Zen and its strong points has changed significantly.

 

[MiNo]

Ooh, look at those cinebench scores! Said no gamer ever.


JK, awesome performance - but COME ON with some top shelf gaming stuff already. Please. Don't leave us alone with Intel and Nvidia.

 

[Avet]

Dual-mobo systems would likely become kinda redundant if these numbers are true(Since this would mean Threadripper has performance that matches Intel even in low core workloads). Essentially these are showing AMD matching Intel in IPC(Roughly same per core performance as the 9900K) in a benchmark that generally favours Intel. This would probably mean AMD surpassing Intel in a wider benchmark suite if true, unless the nature of Zen and its strong points has changed significantly.

The biggest limitation on Ryzen CPUs is their architecture. First of them frequency, and second latency. Even if you match the frequency Infinity fabric will still be way slower than Ring Bus, or Mesh Interconnect. And i don't see chiplet design reducing the latency. It may be the opposite. AMD compensates for this by offering more cores for lower price. If you have task that can be perfectly multithreaded (rendering) more cores beat frequency, and latency in most cases. Apart from rendering, pretty much all other tasks can't be spread perfectly to all cores. For anything that requires tasks to be competed in sequence Intel architecture wins. That is why Gaming, scrubbing in Premiere, Music production work much better on Intel. In this tasks with Threadripper, for example, you have bunch of cores waiting on each other, and for the most of the time doing nothing.

That is why two mid to high range systems which are tailored for tasks that they do best (editing Z390, rendering X399) can give you much better performance than a massive Intel W-3175X system that does both tasks really good.

 

[grec]

Nothing to indicate Zen2 will (necessarily) have these problems imo, the main issues of latency were caused by the fact inter-CCX communication had to go via the memory controller to access the L3 cache of another CCX, which was far weaker and higher latency than even Bulldozer's, the chiplet design makes it incredibly likely that inter-CCX communication within the same chiplet has paths for direct communication without having to go via the memory controller(Because that's now off chip which incurs a power efficiency penalty), so upto 8 cores in use I think there's a good chance latency has at least dropped to Bulldozer levels, which puts it within nanoseconds of Intels latest. Improvements to cache size and prediction rate would also make this significantly less of an issue. Not using the L3 in a victim cache configuration could pay dividends if they've improved the branch predictor.

Secondly of course, even with inter-chiplet communication, the memory controller is now far stronger, and it's likely infinity fabric will be operating at much higher clock speeds, and latency in this case is obviously the direct reciprocal of clock speed. The latency induced by the longer paths would be essentially insignificant, as we're talking about data travelling at ~1/3rd the speed of light over centimetres, issues that arise are from the signalling changes between the interposer, but they've been using interposers for extremely high bandwidth connections since Fury now so I'm sure that's an area they've been attempting to progress in.

[Edit to add] In terms of frequency, that's much more of a transistor node issue than an architectural one nowadays, you can slice up the pipeline stages fairly liberally with modern microprocessor designs to match your nodes target frequencies, that's the only major change required architecturally to make a processor work in frequency bands higher than intended(And all the work to rebalance those pipelines to actually gain a perf improvement from it but that's heavily automated nowadays with modern HDL techniques).

 

[Gothmoth]

who is interested in gaming scores of cpu´s these days?
the plebs who still game at 1080p?



at 4K it doenst matter if you have an intel or amd.

 

[Emu]

People seem to be missing the point here. If this score is correct then AMD has made some huge improvements to the Zen architecture. A 9900k overclocked to 5GHz on all cores scores 2166 in Cinebench, the 16 core/32 thread Ryzen 3rd gen which is apparently running at 4.2GHz on all cores scored just under twice the score.

In other words, if this rumour is true then Zen2 has the same performance at 4.2GHz per core as a 9th Gen Core CPU running at 5GHz (assuming that Cinebench has a linear scoring system). To be quite honest, as nice as this would be I doubt that this is the case given all the rumours that we have heard up till now. Performance parity with Intel's 9th gen alone would be a huge win for AMD, especially if they can do that with twice the cores and half the power draw.

 

[NeverBackDown]

Will also take into account all these vulnerabilities from Intel means their CPUs keep taking performance hits. It's helping AMD.

 

[Dawelio]

Will also take into account all these vulnerabilities from Intel means their CPUs keep taking performance hits. It's helping AMD.

Yup, one of the main reasons I’m personally switching to AMD, also want to support them and they’re cheaper. Win all around in my opinion

 

[Dark NighT]

Will also take into account all these vulnerabilities from Intel means their CPUs keep taking performance hits. It's helping AMD.

Which is why i backed up an older mcupdate dll and will replace the new one when windows rolls out security updates which will hit my x99 cpu hard and costing me prettymuch my entire oc, so if i didn't oc at all i'd lose even more of my cpu.

I'm not to bothered about security things like these, a single pc isn't very intresting for those looking to exploit these vulnerabilities, the chance to get hit is insanely small if all you do is play games and browse the net sensibly.

Next year i will put in a Ryzen 3000 series and forget intel.

 

[AlienALX]

Yes. But... That is only in rendering types of workload. For everything else Intel is better.

This is interesting because it shifts traditional concept of massive single workstation PC that you use for everything. Wendell (Level1), and Eposvox did a lot of testing, and recommend one PC for editing based on 9900K, or 9700K because it is snappy, has fluent workflow etc... And another based on Threadripper that you use only as a rendering station. This way you get the best from both worlds, and you don't need the fastest CPU on the planet because you loose editing time wile it renders. This gives you much more room for scaling your systems.

This is where dual system cases like Corsair 1000D come in. One Intel Z390 build for editing, general use, and a Threadripper monster just for rendering. Any content creator's wet dream system.

I think this is the way reviewers should approach this "new generation" of CPUs.

Only a hardened Intel fan could post that.

If AMD pull this off Intel will be in the dust dude. This is the next step. What are they going to do? introduce 16 core monolith CPUs that are huge and cost a fortune because they are so hard to make?

This will give AMD a foothold unlike any they've had in the last 15 years. It's amazing.

 

[Dawelio]

Only a hardened Intel fan could post that.

If AMD pull this off Intel will be in the dust dude. This is the next step. What are they going to do? introduce 16 core monolith CPUs that are huge and cost a fortune because they are so hard to make?

This will give AMD a foothold unlike any they've had in the last 15 years. It's amazing.

^ This... I am truly hoping this happens (and I bet that it's not just me), Intel has been at the top too long and treated their customers badly. So I am truly hoping that AMD manages to pull this off and brings home the homerun and jackpot this year.

 

[Dicehunter]

Only a hardened Intel fan could post that.

If AMD pull this off Intel will be in the dust dude. This is the next step. What are they going to do? introduce 16 core monolith CPUs that are huge and cost a fortune because they are so hard to make?

This will give AMD a foothold unlike any they've had in the last 15 years. It's amazing.

If the benchmarks are real and AMD can bring it to market for around £500, That's an instant win for AMD considering the chip it beats, The 7960X, Costs £1500.

 

[WYP]

If the benchmarks are real and AMD can bring it to market for around £500, That's an instant win for AMD considering the chip it beats, The 7960X, Costs £1500.

Are you expecting a 16-core for £500? I don't think they will go that low. That said, AMD has surprised us before when it comes to pricing.

 

[AngryGoldfish]

I don't see why they'd bother selling them for £500 when they could sell them for more and make more money. A 16c CPU that can boost on a few cores to high frequencies, good support for high speed memory, quality chipset, PCI-e 4.0 support, no need to undersell that in my opinion. Know your market and go to town with it.

 

[Eddie long]

If the benchmarks are real and AMD can bring it to market for around £500, That's an instant win for AMD considering the chip it beats, The 7960X, Costs £1500.

I agree with that point but i would of thought the price on 16 core would be closer to £800 and the 12 core being £500 , even though i know many have seen bits posted saying the 16 will be around £500 mark
That said even at those prices it would still be a bargain

 

[Dicehunter]

I agree with that point but i would of thought the price on 16 core would be closer to £800 and the 12 core being £500 , even though i know many have seen bits posted saying the 16 will be around £500 mark
That said even at those prices it would still be a bargain

Are you expecting a 16-core for £500? I don't think they will go that low. That said, AMD has surprised us before when it comes to pricing.

Well considering a 2700X costs £280 and is basically half of a 16 core, £500 may not be outside the realms of possibility especially if AMD want to shift lot and have it remain on the AM4 platform.

 

[grec]

Yeah personally I think 12c parts will be their "mainstream performance" piece with the better price/perf, against a more specialised 16c part that sits relatively uncontested and can have a relative price premium while still being a lot cheaper than any competition atm.