Zen 3

[C20]

It all depends on a lot of shit, again. Judging by the timing they most likely have an early B-die kit, so I'm not suprised it's beating 3600C14 and others. This kit could probably run 3600C14 or 4000C15, in 2x4 tho. Also, isnt Threadripper 6 channel anyway so kinda pointless?

Threadripper is quad-channel on TRX4 & octa-channel on WRX8

[mrgreenthump]

A 9900k is just a 10700k, so if that's on the benchmarks then you have a result.

Minus the hardware migitations for security vulnerabilities. But yes in general they are quite similar.

[Shakadam]

According to a GN content piece, Zen3 prefers more RAM in addition to fast RAM: https://youtu.be/-UkGu6A-6sQ
In their tests, a 4x8 3200C14 kit performs better than a 2x8 3200C14 kit. Same with a 4x8 3600C16 v 2x8 3600C16 and 4x8 3800c18 v 2x8 3800c18. This is despite the tests not needing the extra RAM.
Depending on the title it's a 5%+ difference, or barely noticeable, to just double up on memory.

In the pinned comment they say that 2x16 might be the sweet spot, but we'll have to wait and see for that, since it wasn't included in the testing.

At the cost of literally doubling your memory though, it might not be worth getting that performance bump, but it's worth considering

I found that to be kind of a weird test by GN.

It has been known since Zen 1, and honestly even since the DDR3 days even for Intel CPU's, that dual rank memory performs better than single rank memory. Zen 3 would appear to have maybe a larger performance difference between single and dual rank than previous CPU's but otherwise there's nothing unusual going on here.

2x8 kit = dual channel in single rank (there might be some 8GB sticks that are dual rank but very rare)

4x8 kit = dual channel in dual rank = more performance.


2x16 kit = same as 2x8 if the sticks are single rank. However most 16GB sticks are dual rank.

2x16 kit if both 16GB sticks are dual rank = dual channel, dual rank = same as 4x8 kit



4x8 or 4x16 if all sticks are dual rank however results in dual channel, "quad rank" which tends to overload the CPU memory controller and typically results in lower max memory frequency.

[Aleksej89]

Am i seeing right that the 750$ 5950X is achieving lesser performance in games than the 500$ 5900x?

So i guess for gaming purposes you are better off taking the 5900x than the more expensive 5950x?

[Temp name]

I found that to be kind of a weird test by GN.

It has been known since Zen 1, and honestly even since the DDR3 days even for Intel CPU's, that dual rank memory performs better than single rank memory. Zen 3 would appear to have maybe a larger performance difference between single and dual rank than previous CPU's but otherwise there's nothing unusual going on here.

2x8 kit = dual channel in single rank (there might be some 8GB sticks that are dual rank but very rare)

4x8 kit = dual channel in dual rank = more performance.


2x16 kit = same as 2x8 if the sticks are single rank. However most 16GB sticks are dual rank.

2x16 kit if both 16GB sticks are dual rank = dual channel, dual rank = same as 4x8 kit



4x8 or 4x16 if all sticks are dual rank however results in dual channel, "quad rank" which tends to overload the CPU memory controller and typically results in lower max memory frequency.

Yeah, I was mostly surprised by how much it helped in some cases. I think the biggest performance bump was like 11% (though it's been a while since I saw the video)

Am i seeing right that the 750$ 5950X is achieving lesser performance in games than the 500$ 5900x?

So i guess for gaming purposes you are better off taking the 5900x than the more expensive 5950x?

In some games. In others the 5950x wins. In yet other games the 5600x wins.

[mrgreenthump]

Am i seeing right that the 750$ 5950X is achieving lesser performance in games than the 500$ 5900x?

So i guess for gaming purposes you are better off taking the 5900x than the more expensive 5950x?

It's the boosting algorithm at work. It lets 5900X boosts higher with more cores active atm. It may get fixed at some point but PBO enabled the 5950X should win almost always as it will lift the power restrictions it is under(currently uses 10-15W less power on full load than the 5900X). Granted PBO is overclocking in a sense, but if you find a MB that enables it as auto, you can plead for innocence if things go wrong and you break the CPU somehow.

[Triggered Fridgekin]

I was excited to see what AMD would bring and if the rumors were true and it's easy to say that they've met and perhaps even exceeded expectations especially if they do drop the non-X versions for less in Q1 of next year. It should happen, anyway.

For someone who primarily games at 1440p though it's unfortunately more of a side grade from my 8700k and the fist full of frames I'd gain ruins the price to performance ratio but it's not like that was to be unexpected since 1440p shifts more towards the GPU.

These are still exciting times though especially for those who can use these to their full potential.

[Aleksej89]

It's the boosting algorithm at work. It lets 5900X boosts higher with more cores active atm. It may get fixed at some point but PBO enabled the 5950X should win almost always as it will lift the power restrictions it is under(currently uses 10-15W less power on full load than the 5900X). Granted PBO is overclocking in a sense, but if you find a MB that enables it as auto, you can plead for innocence if things go wrong and you break the CPU somehow.

So you think the 5900x sometimes beating the 5950x in games is something akin to a bug or oversight?
I thought it was related to 5900x having some higher starting/max clocks but im no hardware expert.

[kail]

If I can get my hands on a neat kit with the 5600x, I might look into retiring my 4690k. A good 5-6 years out of that CPU/Mobo combo.

[durenas]

5600X looks really interesting. Here's hoping they have a non-X 5600 in the wings.

[kail]

So you think the 5900x sometimes beating the 5950x in games is something akin to a bug or oversight?
I thought it was related to 5900x having some higher starting/max clocks but im no hardware expert.

I see it on games where the CPU simply isn't the bottleneck and the difference is less than a percent.

[Temp name]

5600X looks really interesting. Here's hoping they have a non-X 5600 in the wings.

They probably do, but are saving it for Intel's new CPUs.

[mrgreenthump]

5600X looks really interesting. Here's hoping they have a non-X 5600 in the wings.

There's a rumor of a $220 5600. But that is only a rumor. Currently AMD has both the budget option and mid tier option with the 3600 and the 5600X covered.. They probably arent very motivated to change their line up till supply on the 3600 runs out.

[BrintoSFJ]

This kind of defeat and win is pointless. Two companies are jumping around with 50 years old ISA which is owned by one of the 2 companies. I can't call this improvement. I would rather have AMD make subpar cpu and gpu with experimental ISA.

[Thunderball]

There's a rumor of a $220 5600. But that is only a rumor. Currently AMD has both the budget option and mid tier option with the 3600 and the 5600X covered.. They probably arent very motivated to change their line up till supply on the 3600 runs out.

AMD doesnt have any reason to release anything before Intel does something, i.e. dropping prices or Rocket Lake. 3600 supply wont run out because they're still going to be made for a long while.

[mrgreenthump]

AMD doesnt have any reason to release anything before Intel does something, i.e. dropping prices or Rocket Lake. 3600 supply wont run out because they're still going to be made for a long while.

Are they still making professional products with Zen 2 chiplets though. Zen 3 is made on the exact same process node, so making zen 2 will take away potential profit. Rome is getting phased out and there probably is going to be a Threadripper announcement early next year. Making Zen 2 just to keep old versions of Ryzen 3000 alive isn't a good choice atm with the limited capacity of TSMC. They probably still have a lot of chiplets left, so there will be a lot of CPUs supplied. But my point was after that supply ends they'll come with the lower SKU Zen 3 parts.

[Thunderball]

Are they still making professional products with Zen 2 chiplets though. Zen 3 is made on the exact same process node, so making zen 2 will take away potential profit. Rome is getting phased out and there probably is going to be a Threadripper announcement early next year. Making Zen 2 just to keep old versions of Ryzen 3000 alive isn't a good choice atm with the limited capacity of TSMC. They probably still have a lot of chiplets left, so there will be a lot of CPUs supplied. But my point was after that supply ends they'll come with the lower SKU Zen 3 parts.

Dont try to make me justify why they're doing that. Probably has to do with some OEM deals, but the point is that they do. They also have to release the full lineup of Zen 3 phase out Zen 2, which is just going to hit high end Zen 3 sales before all.

[durenas]

This kind of defeat and win is pointless. Two companies are jumping around with 50 years old ISA which is owned by one of the 2 companies. I can't call this improvement. I would rather have AMD make subpar cpu and gpu with experimental ISA.

And watch as nobody buys it.

I'd rather have a working CPU, thanks.

[Eschaton]

Are you guys aware of anyone who has benchmarked different CPU & GPU config's in Mythic raids?
Would love to see some hard data.

[mrgreenthump]

Are you guys aware of anyone who has benchmarked different CPU & GPU config's in Mythic raids?
Would love to see some hard data.

The only guy I know benchmarks WoW in a sensible way is Hardware Numb3rs. He did quite a bit of testing with just flying through Boralus with all Zen 3 CPUs, but hasn't done raid or dungeon testing yet afaik. Initial tests do show that it's quite strong for WoW.