add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube

3rd Gen Ryzen vs 9900k?

vwcrusher
  • 16 months ago

FWIW, saw this video and thought I would share.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyNJ3nH7iH0

Thoughts?

Comments

  • 16 months ago
  • 2 points

I do not buy into hype or rumors, wait and see. Given Ryzen 3rd gen is newer tech, it would be quite astonishing if they did not front up an 8 core chip that does not trade blows or better the Intel 8 core. i9-9900K will no longer be a new chip by the time the 3rd Gen Ryzen hits the shelves.

  • 16 months ago
  • 1 point

I'm likely going to take the gamble and buy a 1900X instead of a 9800X so I can pick up 3rd gen Threadripper later this year and sell the 1900X.

  • 16 months ago
  • 1 point

A 9700k will kill any game for the next 5 years.

A 9990k is just overkill (this coming from someone who has a 9900k).

If you want a new system now, if you have a specific game you want to play that doesn't go well on your new system, if you have the money go with a 9700k/9900. That's what I did, because the Battlfield 5 demo was garbage on my 4970k, it became perfect on the 9990k. I was also looking ahead to Cyberpunk 2077 and a few other games.

Next gen AMD isn't going to be any better than what intel have now. AMD are also pricing less cheaply that they are. AMD will hype up their product as an Intel killer and it'll come out and the hype will die.

Remember that AMD isn't some tiny company doing things out of the goodness of their heart. They are a worldwide multinational that make over 5 billion dollars USD revenue last year. Sure, they are a 10th the size of Intel and their 60 billion revenue, but neither are small companies.

  • 16 months ago
  • 1 point

Quick question: What if you're on an i5 7600K? Would you recommend sitting back or jumping ship? I'm only asking because I don't know if I should go to Intel's 9th Gen or switch to 3rd Gen Ryzen.

  • 16 months ago
  • 1 point

Quad Core 4/4 at 4.2ghz boost.. it's probably going to be good enough for another few years.

I think the current level of CPU that you should be looking to upgrade very soon is 4970k's or lower (especially at 4k or high resolution ultrawides & 100+ hz refresh rates).

  • 16 months ago
  • 3 points

Resolution has no impact on CPU workload.

  • 16 months ago
  • 1 point

No, but it shifts the performance burden onto the GPU. At 4K resolution, you're likely to be targeting 60 FPS, which generally doesn't need a high end CPU. If you're targeting 1080p or 1440p, you could also be targeting high frame rates for a high refresh rate monitor, which does require a stronger CPU.

  • 16 months ago
  • 1 point

You have much to gain if you can sit back (i.e. wait). Advantage 1) You will have the option of switching to the new Ryzen and Advantage 2) Intel's 9th gen should reduce in price a bit - if they are not stupid.... to make the choice more competitive towards a Ryzen pick. Either way, that's good for the consumer - or at least, that is the theory. :)

  • 16 months ago
  • 1 point

I would wait, with both Intel and AMD dropping to a small die size, I think now is a bad time to get in unless you on a real POS, which you are not. I think it'll do you just fine til then. thanks my .02

  • 16 months ago
  • 1 point

I think AMD has the potential to kill Intels 9 series with their new 7nm Ryzen, especially in the temp department which is the only reason I haven't pulled the trigger on finishing my new build. Im agonizing over temps and what cooler to get. Im starting to think that I may just go with the 8700k and hope the next line will be better.

anyway but I think shortly after Intel will bring out there 10nm and it'll crush AMD. If AMD does beat them it will likely be short lived (6-9 months max)

  • 16 months ago
  • 3 points

Smaller fab = greater thermal density. I don't expect to see an improvement in thermal issues moving to smaller fabs.

  • 16 months ago
  • 1 point

my thinking was that the TDP would be lower from fab improvements so likely less heat. though I am no expert so that may not translate the way I imagine it will

  • 16 months ago
  • 3 points

While smaller fabrications do reduce TDP, all other things being equal, the power and thermal density tends to remain as bad or get worse.

Imagine going from a die size of 1 cm2 @ 95W, down to 0.5cm2 at 65W, just as a rough example.

TDP is 32% lower, but thermal density is 37% higher. This has commonly been the trend in fab size reductions over the years.

It's almost funny looking at CPU coolers these days, because they are attacking the problem in such a strange way. The big bottleneck for thermals is the fact that the thermal density is so high, not that we need more dissipation capacity. The interface from the tiny CPU, is not good. The monster radiators, if cooling a large die, could easily dissipate 2500W without breaking a sweat, yet we're struggling to keep <100-200W in check.

A big heatpipe tower used to be able to dissipate 400W when placed on top of a 32nm piledriver chip. Now, the same tower can barely keep a 150W CPU cool.

  • 16 months ago
  • 1 point

This may be a dumb question, but since it's such a small area that is the issue, doesn't that limit the options that are available to cool the CPU? So, the only way for them to tackle the problem is to keep these gigantic rads and fans?

[comment deleted]
  • 16 months ago
  • 1 point

it runs hot in realistic situations as well, such as video encoding. Gaming doesn't use the cpu much, most games are mostly gpu bound. If gaming is all you do and you don't wanna overclock I think the 9900k will be just fine, but your still gonna want a really good top end cooler.

[comment deleted]
  • 16 months ago
  • 0 points

Hype piece best to ignore it because of what AMD openly showed.

AMD showed gaming which is no better then current models and graphics bound so we don't even know how well the CPU performs.

And their Cinebench they refuse to list clock speeds so we don't know if they overclocked or were running low.

There are always leaks and rumors running rampant before a launch and they almost never paint anything close to an accurate picture of final performance.

Edit: Also remember Zen 2 was developed over 10 months in which their CPU team also fixed the launch issues with Z1 and developed Z1 refresh.

In the last year they have developed Zen 3/4/5 and are already working with each.

Just to give some idea of how rushed these are AMD started working on Zen in 2012 after they launched Bulldozer and finished it in 2015.

  • 16 months ago
  • 4 points

It's like.... yes, we should have practical expectations. AMD is going to want to milk this process moving forward as much as possible. No doubt there will be intentional incrementalism as far as they can get away with it so they can maximize the profits of the smallest engineering effort possible.

On the other hand, every time I read one of your posts that paints these negative pictures of AMD based on a ton of supposed inside knowledge about timelines, development phases, test runs, batch completions, etc, I can't help but feel like there's something going on here that isn't quite right. This feels motivated by something more than just bias or a overzealous pragmatism. I've said it before, I'll say it again. You sound like a paid stock manipulator when you make these posts.

  • 16 months ago
  • -1 points

https://youtu.be/iQ_4C2TKHQ0

AMD has been open in the development and sampling time frames of every Zen architecture revision. So we know when they started working on Zen 2, They told us when Zen 2 and Zen 3 finished and they started work on Zen 5.

The only surprises that we have gotten from them is in the Zen 2 reveal that they added another revision to the time table with Zen 4 instead of skipping that number, and they are already working with Zen 3/4/5 silicon.

  • 16 months ago
  • 4 points

I guess I'm trying to figure out what the motivation here is.

It took several years to develop a new architecture from scratch. To Be expected.

Now they have the new architecture and have developed a road map to fine tune it. This means they have both an engineering drive and the market intelligence to know they need to maintain a yearly release cycle to maximize profit from the work they are doing. They've broken up the fine tuning process into planned phases/steps and given each a "zen #."

The take away from this is supposed to be that it will suck because it's rushed? Sorry... I don't buy that logic. AMD is looking more well organized than ever.

  • 16 months ago
  • -1 points

You and I know it isn't going to suck or be a massive game changer for the reasons you posted.

It took several years to develop a new architecture from scratch. To Be expected.

Now they have the new architecture and have developed a road map to fine tune it. This means they have both an engineering drive and the market intelligence to know they need to maintain a yearly release cycle to maximize profit from the work they are doing. They've broken up the fine tuning process into planned phases/steps and given each a "zen #."

The upcoming launches are not going to be massive game changers, they are spending just enough time on them to squeeze out a little more performance for an incremental improvement giving they are running 3+ architectures a year counting APU revisions alongside Zen.

  • 16 months ago
  • 4 points

A doubling of core count has already been announced on the server side of this.

That is game changing.

We know a doubling of core count is expected to follow into the enthusiast/desktop realm again at some point as well. I'd be inclined to expect AMD to hold out on that move till they are launching a DDR5 platform, but either way, that's a game changer.

  • 16 months ago
  • 1 point

Even if it is overclocked that still shows an improvement over their current 8 core chips, and the power draw was pretty sexy too.

  • 16 months ago
  • 1 point

Giving AMD has yet to actually showcase a "Fair" benchmark and the systems were hidden during the face off that actually remains to be seen.

[comment deleted]

Sort

add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube