Overclock.net - An Overclocking Community

Overclock.net - An Overclocking Community (https://www.overclock.net/forum/)
-   AMD CPUs (https://www.overclock.net/forum/10-amd-cpus/)
-   -   CES19: AMD Zen 2 results.... Your Opinion? (https://www.overclock.net/forum/10-amd-cpus/1717918-ces19-amd-zen-2-results-your-opinion.html)

Storx 01-10-2019 07:19 AM

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.

speed_demon 01-10-2019 07:23 AM

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.

ENTERPRISE 01-10-2019 07:28 AM

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.

white owl 01-10-2019 07:36 AM

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.

Storx 01-10-2019 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by white owl (Post 27798870)
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

Dogzilla07 01-10-2019 08:37 AM

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)

rdr09 01-10-2019 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dogzilla07 (Post 27798998)
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).

The Pook 01-10-2019 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by white owl (Post 27798870)
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 :p

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. :specool:


Quote:

Originally Posted by Dogzilla07 (Post 27798998)
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? :o

white owl 01-10-2019 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Storx (Post 27798932)
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.

Dogzilla07 01-10-2019 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Pook (Post 27799052)
Not sure you can consider an unannounced un-spec'd CPU overclocked or stock or underclocked :p

How does anyone other than AMD know that? :o

AMD said it to attendees at the conference.

https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images...7b087fdbef.png

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 :P


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:46 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.