CES19: AMD Zen 2 results.... Your Opinion? - Overclock.net - An Overclocking Community

Forum Jump: 

CES19: AMD Zen 2 results.... Your Opinion?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 41 (permalink) Old 01-10-2019, 06:19 AM - Thread Starter
New to Overclock.net
 
Storx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 110
Rep: 0
CES19: AMD Zen 2 results.... Your Opinion?

Hello All,

I wanted to get some input from the masses on what you think to come with the Zen 2 cpu's coming out mid 2019 now... Just going off what we were shown it appears there is room for a 2nd chiplet, or possible room for the GPU on those chips, but the cinebench scores were a little underwhelming in my opinion. Whats your take on all of this?


Just going off facts we already know...

Intel 9900K stock usually can acheive the score they shown with stock boost of 5/5/4.8/4.8/4.7/4.7/4.7/4.7Ghz
but...
We also know people have gotten similar or slightly higher scores in cinebench with extreme overclocks of the Ryzen 2700's to 4.35Ghz

So this leads me to think that the next Zen 2 cpu is only going to turbo up to 4.4 maybe 4.5Ghz, which ultimately is useful in production with lots of cores, but modern games are still designed around frequency as king in performance really...., heck the boost very well could only go as high as 4.3Ghz, but increase in IPC from the new I/O could make up some that held back the 2700's.

Even if they do come out with a 16 core version of the CPU later, i feel like the lack of clock is going to set them back in the gaming world unless your looking to use the CPU for both gaming and production which is a small fraction of the overall market. I do think the drop in power draw is huge on controlling temps and stability, especially on air cooling, but i feel like this is a wash if your already invested in high end cooling solutions, because the drop in power usage is just a few cents less of power your going to draw per year. I was really looking for better results from the released info, as i was waiting on ordering my next CPU choice based on this release, but feel like they let us down ultimately on the cpu, they very well may be able to overclock to higher, but then there is the issues with less overclockability with the smaller 7nm chip, because they can only take so much before damaging the chip.
Storx is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 41 (permalink) Old 01-10-2019, 06:23 AM
Kill Confirmed
 
speed_demon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 996
Rep: 57 (Unique: 47)
It's too early to tell. We had less of a tour-de-force and more of a small taste of what's to come. Just the bait to keep us on the line.


speed_demon is offline  
post #3 of 41 (permalink) Old 01-10-2019, 06:28 AM
In VB's Basement
 
ENTERPRISE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: England,UK
Posts: 63,796
At this point in time we can only speculate, we have some information based on rumors/reliable sources but not anything massively concrete on which to formulate a decision.


Need help with your account or something forum related ? Please use our Contact Us form



ENTERPRISE is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of 41 (permalink) Old 01-10-2019, 06:36 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
white owl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: The land of Nod
Posts: 5,150
Rep: 125 (Unique: 95)
Underwhelming? You speculation was that AMD beat a 5ghz/4.7Ghz CPU with a 4.4Ghz CPU while using 30% less power. This just drives home the thought that AMD can beat Intel core for core with lower clocks and less power and it's still not good enough lol
Who said that there are issues overclocking on 7nm? TSMC was pretty confident they could do 5Ghz.
When we went from 22nm to 14nm on Intel the safe voltage went up to 1.4v FWIW

The games don't just care about clockspeed if the IPC is much better. Games want strong single thread but now they're starting to favor more cores as well. Say you have two single core CPUs, one at 4Ghz and one at 5Ghz yet they score exactly the same in Cinebench. Games aren't going to see much difference there, sure more clock speed is always better on top of good IPC but if you can get more instructions across with less cycles then IMO that's the better arch.

Keep in mind we were watching a 6 month early ES chip which are ALWAYS clocked lower or equal to the final thing. Sometimes they don't even have boost/turbo.

Quote: Originally Posted by SpeedyVT
If you're not doing extreme things to parts for the sake of extreme things regardless of the part you're not a real overclocker.
Quote: Originally Posted by doyll View Post
The key is generally not which brands are good but which specific products are. Motherboards and GPUs are perfect examples of companies having everything from golden to garbage function/quality.
Hot n Bothered
(12 items)
CPU
4790k 4.7Ghz
Motherboard
Asus Sabertooth Z97 MkII 2
GPU
EVGA GTX 1080 SC
RAM
16gb G.Skill Sniper 2400Mhz
Hard Drive
2x Kingston v300 120gb RAID 0
Hard Drive
WD Blue
Power Supply
Seasonic 620w M12 II EVO
Cooling
Cooler Master 212 Evo
Case
Corsair 450D
Operating System
Windows 10
Monitor
Nixeus EDG27
Other
I have pretty lights.
▲ hide details ▲
white owl is offline  
post #5 of 41 (permalink) Old 01-10-2019, 07:11 AM - Thread Starter
New to Overclock.net
 
Storx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 110
Rep: 0
Quote: Originally Posted by white owl View Post
Underwhelming? You speculation was that AMD beat a 5ghz/4.7Ghz CPU with a 4.4Ghz CPU while using 30% less power. This just drives home the thought that AMD can beat Intel core for core with lower clocks and less power and it's still not good enough lol
Who said that there are issues overclocking on 7nm? TSMC was pretty confident they could do 5Ghz.
When we went from 22nm to 14nm on Intel the safe voltage went up to 1.4v FWIW

The games don't just care about clockspeed if the IPC is much better. Games want strong single thread but now they're starting to favor more cores as well. Say you have two single core CPUs, one at 4Ghz and one at 5Ghz yet they score exactly the same in Cinebench. Games aren't going to see much difference there, sure more clock speed is always better on top of good IPC but if you can get more instructions across with less cycles then IMO that's the better arch.

Keep in mind we were watching a 6 month early ES chip which are ALWAYS clocked lower or equal to the final thing. Sometimes they don't even have boost/turbo.
I honestly get what your saying, its a great improvement if a 4.4Ghz chip can match the performance of a 5.0Ghz chip on cinebench, which will be better in almost all cases unless your a gamer tho..

As a streamer, i have multiple friends with pretty high-end rigs, my one friend has a high-end custom watercoooled AMD 2700X setup which is overclocked to 4.35Ghz, which regularly gets cinebench scores of 2060-2080's, but he had to turn it down to 4.3Ghz due to some games he plays are unstable at the 4.35Ghz, but still at 4.3Ghz he can pull out a 2050-2060 score easily. His roommate who also is a streamer recently build a new rig 9900k w/ AIO only and just leaves his on 5.0 all core lock and lastnight after CES i asked him to benchmark his while we talked about the release and his posted up 2145 score, but afterwards we reset it back to default bios settings and it pulled a 2022 score.

So just comparing the 2 rigs, playing the same exact game together running the AMD rig overclocked to 4.3Ghz and running the Intel rig at stock settings and both have RTX 2080ti's, the Intel rig is pulling about 10-18 fps more average in the games, but bumping the intel cpu to 5.0 locked just widens the gap more..

Just seems the higher clocks are always going to win over in gaming when using the same GPU, even if the lower clocked chip is equal or higher in IPC
Storx is offline  
post #6 of 41 (permalink) Old 01-10-2019, 07:37 AM
Linux Lobbyist
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 126
Rep: 0
That ES Ryzen was running at up to 4.6GHz vs the 9900k. (No clue if it was PBO boost, or if they OC-ed all cores to 4.6GHz)
Dogzilla07 is offline  
post #7 of 41 (permalink) Old 01-10-2019, 07:40 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: NJ
Posts: 17,739
Rep: 845 (Unique: 618)
Quote: Originally Posted by Dogzilla07 View Post
The ES Ryzen 3 was running at up to 4.6GHz vs that 9900k. (No clue if it was PBO boost, or if they OC-ed all cores to 4.6GHz)
And to speculate further, they used the 65W cpu bcos my 65W R7 2700 Oc'ed to 4GHz uses around 135W at load in Cine15 (just based on HWINFO).
rdr09 is offline  
post #8 of 41 (permalink) Old 01-10-2019, 08:00 AM
9 Cans of Ravioli
 
The Pook's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 15,206
Rep: 941 (Unique: 578)
Quote: Originally Posted by white owl View Post
Underwhelming? You speculation was that AMD beat a 5ghz/4.7Ghz CPU with a 4.4Ghz CPU while using 30% less power.

Not sure you can consider an unannounced un-spec'd CPU overclocked or stock or underclocked

Was certainly impressive but I'm interested in what the off-set IOand chipplet/unused PCB space might mean. 16 core rumors might not be far-fetched.


Quote: Originally Posted by Dogzilla07 View Post
That ES Ryzen was running at up to 4.6GHz vs the 9900k. (No clue if it was PBO boost, or if they OC-ed all cores to 4.6GHz)

How does anyone other than AMD know that?

Intel i9 9900K Coffee Lake @ X8 5309mhz (+47.5%)
AMD FX-8320 Vishera @ X4 5022mhz (+43.5%)
Intel i5 4690K Haswell @ X4 5013mhz (+43.2%)
AMD X4 960T Zosma @ X6 4870mhz (+62.3%)
Intel i7 6700 Skylake @ X4 4709mhz (+38.5%)
Intel i5 6400 Skylake @ X4 4588mhz (+69.9%)
2 OP pls nerf
(24 items)
CPU
i9 9900K
Motherboard
AsRock Z390 Taichi
GPU
MSI GTX 1080 Ti
RAM
G.Skill 16GB DDR4 4133
Hard Drive
Mushkin Pilot NVMe 1TB
Hard Drive
Samsung 860 Evo 1TB
Hard Drive
Sandisk Ultra II 480GB SSD
Hard Drive
Toshiba X300 5TB
Hard Drive
Western Digital EZRZ 3TB
Power Supply
Seasonic Focus Plus Gold 750w
Cooling
Corsair H115i Pro
Case
Fractal Design Meshify S2
Operating System
Windows 10 Education x64
Monitor
Acer XF270HU
Monitor
Dell E2311H
Keyboard
CoolerMaster MasterKeys Pro S
Mouse
Logitech G502
Mousepad
X-Ray XL 26" x 14"
Audio
SMSL SA50 + FiiO E10K
Audio
Philips SHP9500S
Audio
Audio Technica ATH-M50X
Audio
Monoprice Modern Retro
Audio
AudioSource LS100
Audio
Polk Audio PSW111
CPU
i7 860
Motherboard
Advantech AIMB 280 ITX
GPU
EVGA GTX 950 2GB
RAM
Kingston 2GB DDR3 1333
Hard Drive
Seagate Momentus 2.5" 500GB
Hard Drive
Western Digital Blue 2.5" 320GB
Power Supply
Silverstone SFX-L Gold 500w
Cooling
Arctic Alpine 11 GT 2
Case
Silverstone Milo Z ML07B
Operating System
Windows XP x86 SP3
Keyboard
Velocifire TKL01 Outemu Browns
Mouse
Logitech M512
▲ hide details ▲


The Pook is offline  
post #9 of 41 (permalink) Old 01-10-2019, 08:15 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
white owl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: The land of Nod
Posts: 5,150
Rep: 125 (Unique: 95)
Quote: Originally Posted by Storx View Post
Just seems the higher clocks are always going to win over in gaming when using the same GPU, even if the lower clocked chip is equal or higher in IPC
I think you're misunderstanding this part. Games don't scale perfectly across many cores, that much is true but games and other applications don't care about clockspeed alone. Look at the FX chips, they did really well in multi but despite their very high clockspeeds Intel's IPC advantage always won in games even with lower clocks.
Games don't care about clockspeed, they care about single threaded performance. Now we're getting to a point where that's true but games can also leverage the core count up to a point.
IPC = Instructions per clock
If you have low IPC you can speed up the clock to get the same amount of instructions across in the same time frame. If you have IPC you can lower the speed and have the same work done in the same time.
Games don't care one way or another as long as the same work is being done in the same amount of time on a single thread. The FX series is living proof that games need more than just speed.

Quote: Originally Posted by SpeedyVT
If you're not doing extreme things to parts for the sake of extreme things regardless of the part you're not a real overclocker.
Quote: Originally Posted by doyll View Post
The key is generally not which brands are good but which specific products are. Motherboards and GPUs are perfect examples of companies having everything from golden to garbage function/quality.
Hot n Bothered
(12 items)
CPU
4790k 4.7Ghz
Motherboard
Asus Sabertooth Z97 MkII 2
GPU
EVGA GTX 1080 SC
RAM
16gb G.Skill Sniper 2400Mhz
Hard Drive
2x Kingston v300 120gb RAID 0
Hard Drive
WD Blue
Power Supply
Seasonic 620w M12 II EVO
Cooling
Cooler Master 212 Evo
Case
Corsair 450D
Operating System
Windows 10
Monitor
Nixeus EDG27
Other
I have pretty lights.
▲ hide details ▲
white owl is offline  
post #10 of 41 (permalink) Old 01-10-2019, 08:47 AM
Linux Lobbyist
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 126
Rep: 0
Quote: Originally Posted by The Pook View Post
Not sure you can consider an unannounced un-spec'd CPU overclocked or stock or underclocked

How does anyone other than AMD know that?
AMD said it to attendees at the conference.



courtesy of Videocardz comment section.

Oh also in the Anandtech article Ian surmised that the new ryzen chip was running 75W, and that the 9900k was running 125W, so that gives a really nice baseline to compare IPC.

I mentioned in the other 9900k post here on the forums, that this leaves AMD room for 105w clocks, and 135w clocks. Now hopefully 2-core 5.0GHz PBO fits into 105w, and all core 5.0GHz fits into 135W
though a full core 5.0GHz is really a best binned best case scenario, and we don't know if AMD is gonna let us have these dies outside Epyc 2 and Threadripper 3 xD or if papa Physics, mother Yield and uncle Defect are gonna let us have those either

Last edited by Dogzilla07; 01-10-2019 at 08:55 AM.
Dogzilla07 is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Overclock.net - An Overclocking Community forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off