[TPU] AMD Zen 2 Offers a 13% IPC Gain over Zen+, 16% over Zen 1 - Page 3 - Overclock.net - An Overclocking Community

Forum Jump: 

[TPU] AMD Zen 2 Offers a 13% IPC Gain over Zen+, 16% over Zen 1

Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #21 of 143 (permalink) Old 10-17-2018, 09:37 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 21
Rep: 0
10 % is realistic and would be a good increase. As well I would expect 4.5 GHz at least, its not a far jump from the 2700X. 4.8 would be even better, because it would then probably match a 9900K @5 GHz while consuming less power.
DivineLight is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #22 of 143 (permalink) Old 10-17-2018, 09:39 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
bucdan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 6,104
Rep: 202 (Unique: 181)
Quote: Originally Posted by DzillaXx View Post
Ryzen's 4 Core CCX limit hurts when the multicore performance. This count should to be improved. But we will have to wait and see.

From a consumer product viewpoint, the 8 core versions is more like two quad cores in a single die. Ryzen has lower latency between cores in the CCX than intel, but the current limit at 6 cores really slows it down. Moving data between the two sets of L3 CCX modules slows things down. Granted Intel's old Core2Quads were nothing more than two dual cores on a single package connected via the NB, and that thing ended up working out pretty well. So for what it is Ryzen is still a great design as the two ccx's are on the same die. But a move to even 6 cores in a CCX would really spice things up.

Also really hoping for Clock speed of 4.5-4.8 with an OC.

All I know is Ryzen 2 is my next system upgrade. Sandybridge has severed me well, and Ryzen's clock speeds are not as high as I would like. But the performance at its current clock speed is pretty solid IMO. Just give me 4.5+

Moved my Server into a Ryzen platform with ECC memory running ESXI and Virtualized everything. Honestly can't be beat for the price. ESXI 6.7 works great on the platform. Intel's going to need to step up their game, as AMD has a solid product in this market and only thing slowing them down is not having enough mainstream push.
I hope Ryzen can stop Sandy Bridge from hurting you too!

I'm in the same boat as you. Looking forward to Ryzen 2 myself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by holtzman go_quote.gif
Computer viruses are like herpes. You never think in a million years you'd get one... Till you do.
bucdan is offline  
post #23 of 143 (permalink) Old 10-17-2018, 09:45 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
D-S-J's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 152
Rep: 1 (Unique: 1)
Quote: Originally Posted by Warrax22 View Post
Significantly lower than the rumors of 30% ipc and 5ghz but still a good jump...I wonder if it's enough to beat Intel tho.
It's possible it'll beat Intel's 2018 offerings. But how will AMD's 7nm Zen2 2019 fare against Intel's 2019 offerings. 2019 7nm tech only matching on beating 2018 tech isn't that thrilling, it's to be expected. 2019 AMD vs 2019 Intel is the real battle. With Intel's track record their 2019 offerings will be faster than their 2018 offerings.
D-S-J is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #24 of 143 (permalink) Old 10-17-2018, 09:47 AM - Thread Starter
Waiting for 7nm EUV
 
tpi2007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 11,378
Rep: 894 (Unique: 503)
Quote: Originally Posted by paulerxx View Post
Clock for clock how much better are current Ryzen CPU when compared Intel's?

Right now, with Zen+ being 2.5 - 3% faster clock for clock compared to the first Zen iteration, AMD basically equalled Intel's Broadwell (2014 / 2015 chip) except in AVX performance, whereas Intel is basically still using the same Skylake architecture from 2015 (which came right after Broadwell) in their Coffee Lake chips.

Clock for clock in non gaming tasks AMD is on average around 3% behind in single threaded performance, but their SMT (Intel calls it Hyperthreading) implementation is superior, and there they can be up to 4% faster. In games it's a different story and AMD is worse than that core for core, but CCX implementation also matters in that regard. For example, if you compare the 2600X against the 8700K you get one result, but if you replace the 2600X with the 2700X, it gets better for AMD at the same clocks. It can be a combination of the games tested being well multithreaded and / or the fact that on a 2700X you've got 4C/8T on each CCX, whereas with the 2600X you've got 3C/6T and thus a higher chance that even more modern games will have to use more than one CCX more frequently, thus incurring in a bigger penalty, whereas with the 2700X they can stay within one CCX (4C/8T) more often.


See the benchmarks here: https://www.techspot.com/article/161...-core-8th-gen/



Last edited by tpi2007; 10-17-2018 at 01:15 PM.
tpi2007 is online now  
post #25 of 143 (permalink) Old 10-17-2018, 09:50 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,204
Rep: 347 (Unique: 263)
Looks like Ryzen 2 will be my first AMD cpu in over 12 years. Along with whatever 7nm gpu first comes available.

opt33 is offline  
post #26 of 143 (permalink) Old 10-17-2018, 10:26 AM
I <3 narcissists
 
bigjdubb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 5,586
Rep: 219 (Unique: 136)
Quote: Originally Posted by D-S-J View Post
It's possible it'll beat Intel's 2018 offerings. But how will AMD's 7nm Zen2 2019 fare against Intel's 2019 offerings. 2019 7nm tech only matching on beating 2018 tech isn't that thrilling, it's to be expected. 2019 AMD vs 2019 Intel is the real battle. With Intel's track record their 2019 offerings will be faster than their 2018 offerings.
Is there any reason why we should think that Intel's 2019 offerings will be anything other than their typical single digit performance increase? If AMD manages to beat the 9900k by 5% they would be within a few percent of Intel's 2019 products. I can't recall the last time I was impressed by Intel's generational performance increase.

Maybe Intel has been pretending to fail at making big performance gains because they haven't needed to make any big gains. Maybe they will knock our socks off next year, but optimism would be the only reason to believe such a thing.

Gaming Rig
(12 items)
Couch Gaming Rig
(10 items)
Work rig
(11 items)
CPU
Ryzen 7 3700x
Motherboard
Gigabyte X570 Master
GPU
EVGA RTX 2080ti FTW3
RAM
G.Skill TridentZ RGB
Hard Drive
HP EX920 m.2
Hard Drive
Intel SSD6 m.2
Hard Drive
Intel SSD6 m.2
Power Supply
EVGA G3
Cooling
CORSAIR H150I PRO
Case
LianLi PC-O11 Dynamic
Operating System
Win 10 Home
Monitor
LG 32GK650G
CPU
Ryzen 5 3600
Motherboard
Asus x470i
GPU
Radeon VII
RAM
G.Skill TridentZ RGB
Hard Drive
Samsung 970 evo
Power Supply
InWin A1
Cooling
NZXT M22
Case
InWin A1
Operating System
Win10 Home
Monitor
Vizio 4k TV
CPU
AMD Ryzen 7 2700X
Motherboard
Asrock X470 Taichi Ultimate
GPU
GTX 750
RAM
Patriot Viper
Hard Drive
HP EX920 M.2
Power Supply
EVGA G3
Cooling
CORSAIR H150I PRO
Case
NZXT Source 210
Operating System
Windows 10 Pro
Monitor
BenQ PD3200Q
Monitor
LG 32UD59
▲ hide details ▲


bigjdubb is offline  
post #27 of 143 (permalink) Old 10-17-2018, 10:27 AM
sudo apt install sl
 
WannaBeOCer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 5,534
Rep: 177 (Unique: 123)
Quote: Originally Posted by Warrax22 View Post
Significantly lower than the rumors of 30% ipc and 5ghz but still a good jump...I wonder if it's enough to beat Intel tho.
AMD's Zen+ single core performance is only 3.6% slower than Coffee Lake. If it's truely 13% faster than Zen+ that will put Zen 2 quite a bit faster than Intel. Along with IPC, AMD's SMT performance is superior to Intel's SMT(Hyperthreading)

Going to be an interesting year if Intel does indeed release their 10nm chips for the holidays of 2019.

Silent
(20 items)
CPU
Core i9 9900K... CoffeeTime! @ 4.2Ghz w/ 1v
Motherboard
Maximus VIII Formula
GPU
Radeon VII @ 1900Mhz/1250Mhz w/ 1v
RAM
TeamGroup Xtreem 16GB 3866Mhz CL15
Hard Drive
Samsung 850 Evo 1TB
Hard Drive
Samsung 850 Evo 1TB
Hard Drive
Samsung 850 Evo 500GB
Power Supply
EVGA SuperNova 1200w P2
Cooling
EK Supremacy Full Copper Clean
Cooling
XSPC D5 Photon v2
Cooling
Black Ice Gen 2 GTX360 x2
Cooling
EK-Vector Radeon VII - Copper + Plexi
Case
Thermaltake Core X5 Tempered Glass Edition
Operating System
Clear Linux
Monitor
Acer XF270HUA
Keyboard
Cherry MX Board 6.0
Mouse
Logitech G600
Mouse
Alugraphics GamerArt
Audio
Definitive Technology Incline
Audio
SMSL M8A
▲ hide details ▲
WannaBeOCer is online now  
post #28 of 143 (permalink) Old 10-17-2018, 10:38 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
EniGma1987's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,305
Rep: 338 (Unique: 248)
Quote: Originally Posted by reqq View Post
so.. whats the verdict.. we get 12 or 16 core on ryzen or only 8 core??
Im betting 12 core per die now, so 12 max on the AM4 platform. Epyc is supposed to get a 48 core product this gen, and so if they keep the same 4 die configuration that would mean 12 cores per die. It would also put them above Intel again on the desktop platform which AMD will want to do. And with 7nm they will have the space for it.








Quote: Originally Posted by bigjdubb View Post
Is there any reason why we should think that Intel's 2019 offerings will be anything other than their typical single digit performance increase? If AMD manages to beat the 9900k by 5% they would be within a few percent of Intel's 2019 products. I can't recall the last time I was impressed by Intel's generational performance increase.

Maybe Intel has been pretending to fail at making big performance gains because they haven't needed to make any big gains. Maybe they will knock our socks off next year, but optimism would be the only reason to believe such a thing.

Yes Intel will be along those same 3-5% performance improvements for another generation or maybe 2. Along with possibly adding another pair of cores each gen depending how they want to counter AMD on the core count front. It wont be until the architecture overhaul in 2-3 years that we see possible major improvements moving to a next gen for Intel.


Last edited by EniGma1987; 10-17-2018 at 10:42 AM.
EniGma1987 is offline  
post #29 of 143 (permalink) Old 10-17-2018, 10:41 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
D-S-J's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 152
Rep: 1 (Unique: 1)
Quote: Originally Posted by bigjdubb View Post
Is there any reason why we should think that Intel's 2019 offerings will be anything other than their typical single digit performance increase? If AMD manages to beat the 9900k by 5% they would be within a few percent of Intel's 2019 products. I can't recall the last time I was impressed by Intel's generational performance increase.

Maybe Intel has been pretending to fail at making big performance gains because they haven't needed to make any big gains. Maybe they will knock our socks off next year, but optimism would be the only reason to believe such a thing.
I expect Intel to be Intel. Just too much talk about 2019 7nm Zen2 vs 2018 9900K. Similar comparison would be 2018 9900K vs 2017 Zen1. Tech that's a year apart. Would be that be called fair? Comparing 2019 tech vs 2019 tech from competing companies would be considered fair.
D-S-J is offline  
post #30 of 143 (permalink) Old 10-17-2018, 10:45 AM
⤷ αC
 
AlphaC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 11,177
Rep: 904 (Unique: 590)
tpi2007 , I thought about buying a R5 2600X but ultimately the price difference to a R7 2700X is minimal when you factor in that people are paying $35-40 for the RGB cooler on Ebay even now. That's why I ended up getting the R7 2700X. Anything 4 threaded has the advantage in that you can lock it to a CCX.



----



What people underestimate is that the R7 2700X can hit ~4.2GHz or 4.3GHz all core quite easily with manual overclocks. It's when you have a full AVX load that it becomes an issue. It's been shown that Ryzen 7 2700X with a PBO overclock and BCLK overclock can easily reach 4.5GHz single threaded and 4.25GHz all core (see Crosshair VII Hero overclock guide). That's on a 240 AIO and not a copper radiator custom loop with a higher powered pump >6W.


Ryzen 7 1700X was able to hit ~3.9GHz all core @ 1.3-1.4V with better samples hitting 4GHz so a 10% jump from that is about 4.3GHz.



What I expect from Ryzen on 7nm to be very competitive is another 10% at least. So whatever the equivalent is to a R7 2700X @ 4.7GHz all core and 4.95GHz single threaded would be fine , although anything over 4.8GHz single thread and 4.5GHz all core out of the box would seem unlikely. Incidentally out of the box the i9-9900k boosts to 4.7GHz all core and 5GHz single threaded.



Elimination of CCX to CCX latency should remain a priority (decoupling it from memory speed or otherwise), even if it were to reach 4000MT/s memory speed the Infinity Fabric is only 2000MHz. Typically the ringbus on Intel CPUs is over 3.7GHz and when overclocking most people have it 4.5GHz or more.

► Recommended GPU Projects: [email protected] , [email protected] (FP64) (AMD moreso) ► Other notable GPU projects: [email protected] (Nvidia), GPUGrid (Nvidia) ► Project list


AlphaC 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