AMD Computex Live Stream, Ryzen 9 series confirmed! 12 core ryzen chip at 4.6 Ghz!

Off-Topic Games, Gaming and Hardware
14

Ryzen 7 3700x…4.4ghz boost LOL

Yeah, 5ghz was a dream. There was reason to doubt. That’s 100mhz more than the 2700x.

They’re using Cinebench R20…with an 8 core non-SMT vs an 8 core with SMT…

Cinebench has always favored SMT over HT…and here we don’t even have HT. This is not news.

Why didn’t they compare it to the 9900k? A comparably equipped 8/16 chip?

Ryzen 7 3800x…4.5ghz…PUBG benchmark that’s GPU limited… /yawn

Now I know why they have to release a 16 core chip…

15

Ryzen 3800x and Navi RX 5700 faster than i9 9900k and RTX 2080 TI in 3DMARK benchmark :rofl:

16

That you’ll need to upgrade your motherboard to get…but upgrade path right

17

ryzen 9 12 cores 24 threads 4.6 GHz boost :smile:

18

so, where’s that 5ghz we heard about?

19

OC probably, I even said 5 ghz was not a reality

I expect a 4.8 GHz OC maybe, all chips maybe

Radeon VII OC headroom is massive vs Vega 64, this is why I believe it co uld happen

I know i said it somewhere hold on

20

I don’t.

Ryzen 1 and 2 were nearly maxed out at their turbo boost with no headroom.

We’ll have to wait and see, but I am not holding my breath.

My opinion on the lineup:

3700x $329

3800x $399

3900x $499

They have nothing about the biggest most important segment, the Ryzen 5 lineup. I guess that came after the 7 originally, too. So no harm, no foul.

3700x might be worth it. The 3800x seems like a waste, if overclocking is there on the 3700x like it was for the 1700 was. Unless of course they are so tightly binned and so limited in frequency headroom (like Ryzen 1 and 2) you need to pay out to get the frequency.

Ryzen 9 3900x is overkill for 99% of users. The fact it gives you 50% more cores for the same price as the 9900k, doesn’t really matter since most people weren’t going to buy 9900ks anyway.

Personally, none of these are compelling. Give me a Ryzen 5 6/12 at 4.5ghz for $199 then we’ll talk.

Not counting the outlier of PCIE 4.0 (on synthetics only and which will go away when intel releases their next boards), the difference in performance between like-core count Ryzen 3 and coffeelake is LESS than the original Ryzen 1 and Coffeelake.

So…yeah it will still be the better pick over intel (presently), but it doesn’t blow it out of the water.

12/24? useless for 99% of users.

I want to see how competitively they price the Ryzen 5 series.

21

which would be at a later date, ryzen 2000 series only launched 2700 and 2700x then later the ryzen 5s

even linus tech tips knows whats up :rofl:

22

i believe I said that? look again.

23

Because limited on 12nm and 14nm, 7nm is a whole new game, look how good the radeon VII OCs compared to vega 64 as an example on how well 7nm is

1 Like
24

That was more a product of memory bandwidth, not the core, and why it has so much VRAM.

25

Knowing Ryzen, if 3700x can OC to 4.8 GHz then theres no need for Intel for productivity :rofl:

The ryzen 9 3900x kills Intel HEDT for $500 by it alone :rofl:

If the ryzen 5 3600 can OC the same as the Ryzen 7s then theres no need for Intel for gaming :rofl:

and if the 3dmark benchmark is the same in gaming benchmarks thanks to Navi PCIe 4.0 then Intel and Nvidia are in trouble :rofl: mostly Intel because no support of 4.0

If gaming benchmarks at launch goes well, I expect more people recommending Ryzen through out this summer/fall I hope :smiley:

and then maybe I can voice my opinion and nothing can be said about it :rofl:

1 Like
26

As Kagthul has said, most of us have already been recommending Ryzen 2000 over Intel.

This really changes nothing, except we change Ryzen 7 2700x to Ryzen 7 3700x.

I also find the synthetic benchmark using PCIE 4.0 very funny, which isn’t really an exclusive thing, It’s just that AMD got there first. Intel will be there.

27

I guess you will never understand that it’s not so much about what your opinion is but HOW you share your opinion and interact with others.

People will continue to find you insufferable no matter how much they agree or disagree with you.

:rofl:

5 Likes
28

nah, its more of the fact that I voiced out AMD 2 years ago on the old threads and got targeted for it, especially when OPs were asking for builds at their budgets and I met their budget with ryzen, while majority were trying to recommend Intel for $100-$150+more, or even lower end parts even though Ryzen was the better buy, because you can’t tell someone to save $100 more when you don’t know what their finances are

wasn’t just me some others who suggested Ryzen also got targeted on the old threads, like the guy who runs a youtube channel, forgot his name

Now here we are where AMD is close/at Intel’s level, where Ryzen may actually be a better recommend on these forums. Its ironic is all im saying :slight_smile:

30

Ryzen 1 wasn’t better than Intel at gaming; that’s the problem.

It wasn’t until Ryzen 2000 that it got “almost as good”.

31

Two years ago, the entire landscape of CPUs and their price points was different.

Holy crap, are you dense.

6 Likes
32

And with just the reveal today and the “leaks” that everyone “confirmed” repeatedly that were proved false…

Zen 2 is another casualty of “Over hyped and under delivered” caused by its own fan base.

33

I think it’s fair to AMD to emphasize that.

I dont recall AMD saying anything about Zen 2 that isnt borne out by the reality. The hype was almost entirely created by shills like You.

34

I mean the r7 3800x just matched the i9 9900k in single thread. Except the r7 3800x was clocked at 4.5ghz single core boost and the i9 9900k 5.0ghz single core boost. That’s a 10% ipc lead over Intel. Clocks can come with binning Kagthul, as your process matures, and you make more and more chips you will also get better clocks.

How do you think Intel was able to achieve those high clocks?