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

3000 SERIES AMD VS 2000 SERIES AMD

adeoluy2k
  • 12 months ago

Noob Future First TIME builder: What wil be the main differences between AMD's new launch for both CPUs and GPUs wil there be any drastically new tech being implemented

Comments

  • 12 months ago
  • 2 points

We don't know. Specs are not know yet.

  • 12 months ago
  • 2 points

^ only released GPU is the Radeon Vii

  • 12 months ago
  • 2 points

Nothing out of the ordinary but where it counts, an increase in performance and hopefully a sizeable one (i'd be super pleased with a 20% advantage in raw 7nm proceeds) as long as AMD maintains the "best value to performance ratio".

I'm more looking forward to Ryzens official "pricing plan" as AMD is value-king and the Ryzen platter has proven solid with current consumer game/general compute demands. I wouldn't expect anything drastically startling in sabotaging intels single-threaded compute dominance but with Ryzen catching up and closing in on the gap for LE$$, intels lead in core-2-core supremacy becomes negligible.

  • 12 months ago
  • 1 point

thanks

  • 12 months ago
  • 1 point

Unless they manage major gains in IPC which giving the performance inhibiting design they are using it is unlikely they will be a major improvement.

We have already seen gaming demo's but those actually lag behind current models in that title when paired with that GPU so that is suspect at best.

The rumored specs are dead as can be between AMD statements on unfinished clock speeds, and second generation engineering and qualification samples not conforming to either the core counts or clock speeds in the leaks.

You like Everyone will have to wait on actual benchmarks.

  • 12 months ago
  • 1 point

could you dumb down the explanation a bit i think i understand what you mean but i need simpler clarity

  • 12 months ago
  • 1 point

Unless they manage major gains in IPC which giving the performance inhibiting design they are using it is unlikely they will be a major improvement.

Ryzen 2 is separating the cores from everything Memory Controller, PCIe bus, Input/Output.

Any gains from architecture are going to be limited by design.

On the WX series of Threadripper two out of four core complexes already do this and performance on those cores is significantly lower then the two that are connected to everything.

We have already seen gaming demo's but those actually lag behind current models in that title when paired with that GPU so that is suspect at best.

Sources have shown a VII running with a current generation 2700X and pulling higher frame rates then the AMD demo system was running with ultra settings. It does bring up a very likely chance that the demo was CPU limited not graphics as many believed at the time.

The rumored specs are dead as can be between AMD statements on unfinished clock speeds, and second generation engineering and qualification samples not conforming to either the core counts or clock speeds in the leaks.

For Rumors.

Clock speed increases were killed by AMD stating clock speeds were not finalized after the rumors dropped. So that cannot possibly be right without time travel.

The core count increases have been killed off by second generation ES having been benchmarked with a 4c/8t 16mbL3 configuration.

A second generation ES is "Proof of Package" with full features, core count and stock clocks finalized so testing can be done to ensure package viability. Boost clocks being opportunistic are not finalized on them.

What we do know is by design Ryzen 2 will be limited in performance.

The Cores are no longer connected to anything but themselves, Storage will take longer to access, Memory will take longer to access, even graphics will take longer to deliver the frames.

All we can do is wait on benchmarks to find out how much and what it takes to extract performance from them.

Edit: Ryzen already has a IPC advantage over "Lake" architectures it is unable to leverage between lack of programming support and a performance limiting design.

These newer models double down on the limitations in order to benefit from a cheaper to build design.

  • 12 months ago
  • 1 point

Like most have mentioned, it won't be a drastic improvement. Despite all the hype with 7nm, it won't be an "oh my God" difference like some people have hyped it to be. The revolutionary upgrade already happened, and that was going from the FX CPUs to Ryzen. That was probably the most drastic CPU upgrade in the last ten years.

2000 vs 3000, if I had to make a guess, I would at best guess the improvement to be slightly better than first generation Ryzen to second generation Ryzen. Realistically, the difference isn't big enough to get a 3000 series CPU (and even 4000 series next year) if you have a 2000 series CPU, unless you require extra cores and threads which the high end 3000 series are expected to have. I mean, let's say you have a 1700X, unless there's an absolute need, otherwise even a 4700X (or whatever the 4000 series 8 core, 16 thread CPU is called) isn't going to be a drastic improvement, but will be noticeable and can be considered, considering that's the last CPU that will be supported on the AM4 socket. The reason is because AMD is just improving the architecture, instructions, IPC, etc now, they're not developing a new one, so there really can't be a massive change.

The 20% raw performance expected above would definitely be good to see, but I wouldn't be that hopeful. I'm not a CPU engineer, but my understanding is AMD's architecture is cheaper to produce than Intel's, hence the lower price, but as such, won't reach Intel clock speeds (first generation could be overclocked, but all-core clock speed is generally around 4.0 GHz, similarly, second generation was about the same, but without the need to overclock). A realistic guess would be a 10% - 15% increase in raw performance, so I would expect the all-core performance to go from 2700X's 4.0 GHz to 3700X's 4.4 GHz - 4.6 GHz. To be honest, this is already enough. By doing this, they're not overly investing trying to catch up to Intel clock speeds, so this keeps the price down, yet at the same time, close the gap which further shrinks Intel's market. If it's less than this, it's disappointing, since we already didn't see a big improvement from 1700X to 2700X, but if it's more than this, it'll really be surprising, but at the same time, this would mean they get priced marginally higher, which will lower their price to performance ratio.

I hope it exceeds expectations, and in order for them to remain the value king, you'd have to hope Intel's next generation does even better to keep the competition up.

  • 11 months ago
  • 1 point

what about rumored new gpus

  • 11 months ago
  • 1 point

There's not much to talk about GPUs.

AMD's most recent high end GPU is the Radeon VII. This is the best GPU AMD has to offer and there's no word for anything after it. Give or take about 10% depending on how optimised games are towards Nvidia and AMD, it's around a 2080 performance. This has largely flopped unfortunately. One, marketing on it failed big time compared to Nvidia. The useless "real-time ray tracing" caught too many people's attention and people drove towards it. Radeon VII came after it, so naturally, no one was going to sell their three month old RTX card for a Radeon VII, it's unrealistic. Furthermore, HBM2 is good, but it doesn't really help gaming. 16 GB VRAM also isn't utilised properly. There's a handful of games more optimised towards AMD cards that do make use of HBM2 and the extra VRAM, but these are far and few, and although that's the case, these games still run perfectly fine on Nvidia cards, so it just wasn't a selling point to gamers. The extra VRAM is good for 3D modelling and animation though, but as is RT cores, so there's kind of a trade off.

When you mean rumoured GPUs, you must mean AMD's long awaited Navi. Now, why did I bother with the whole thing above? It's kind of a projection of what Navi might be and how it'll sit on the market. The thing is, Navi is meant to supersede the current RX series, 570, 580, 590, etc, so these are mid-range GPUs at best. Unfortunately, like the Radeon VII following the 2080, these GPUs will be following the footsteps of the 1660, 1660 Ti, 2060, etc, so unless they are marginally cheaper to make them superior in value, people won't get them. Nvidia has blanketed the market with their GPUs, covering practically every price point, so Navi GPUs will need to outperform for the same price or be cheaper at the same performance. I don't see these being able to do either as of now, but, we have no performance figures and price, so it's hard to say. Let's take the RX 580, for example, the launch was later than it's Nvidia counterpart, the 1060, it wasn't cheap enough to justify buying it at launch, so it largely flopped. However, post mining craze, the prices dropped drastically and with free games in a bundle, the RX 580 became superior in value, but this was a year after launch. Will Navi end up walking down this same path? Given how the Radeon VII turned out, unless AMD's strategy changes, my guess is Navi will walk this same path. This is just my speculation though.

If you want a GPU, I definitely would not wait on Navi. Nothing's confirmed, it's not worth the wait.

  • 11 months ago
  • 1 point

touche

  • 11 months ago
  • 1 point

you seem knowledgable enough so my next question is just on other components.......... water cooling scares the **** out of me....... how does one choose the right air cooler for a build i will be doing all amd ryzen

  • 11 months ago
  • 1 point

There's nothing too scary about AIOs these days. You rarely get leaks or anything, so it's not of concern. And it's not really knowledgeable, most of the GPU is my guess work, lol. I could be totally wrong and Navi has 1660 Ti performance for 1660 prices, that will absolutely blow the market up in the mid-range GPU competition. Unlikely, but there's hope?

It depends which CPU you're after and what you aim to do. For Ryzen, there's no need for super expensive coolers, because it's unnecessary. I'm not sure which Ryzen you're getting, but let's break it down. 1700, this CPU will overclock to 3.7 GHz with the stock cooler, so an aftermarket cooler isn't necessary at all. If you don't like the noise level of stock coolers, a be quiet! Pure Rock will do the job and have a quieter fan. The 1700X doesn't come with a stock cooler, but a budget cooler like the Hyper 212 EVO will let it overclock to 4.0 GHz, so it's really not necessary to get giant air coolers like the Noctua NH-D15.

Second generation Ryzens are even better, I would just use them all with the stock cooler for the best value, because they can't really be overclocked much, but like the 1700, if you're concerned with the stock cooler's noise level, a cheapish be quiet! Pure Rock will do the trick. The only potential CPU worth overclocking among second generation CPUs is the 2600, but even that's really not necessary. The 2600 has an all-core boost of 3.7 GHz and single-core boost of 3.9 GHz out of the box, overclocking is usually around 4.0 GHz/4.1 GHz, so there's not a big performance gain, and at this stage, I would get something like a Mugen 5, which is a $50 air cooler, brilliant, great value, very good performance. The problem with this route is, it's very dependent on price, if the price difference between the 2600 and 2600X is small, and it currently is, only $25 apart, it's better to get a 2600X that has a 3.9 GHz all-core boost, and a 4.2 GHz single-core boost, because this is cheaper. This is largely why I don't recommend the 2700. The price difference between it and the 2700X was small (it's actually grown a lot bigger now) so adding an aftermarket cooler to overclock it, it was just better to get a 2700X, and if you're not overclocking it, getting a 1700X with a Hyper 212 EVO to overclock is probably cheaper and gets a little more performance.

Anyway, to conclude, if you're getting a first or second generation Ryzen, there's no need for a big fancy cooler. Stock coolers are mostly fine, replace it with a budget cooler if you don't like the noise, and that's it.

  • 11 months ago
  • 1 point

as of now il prob be getting the ryzen 5 2600 and from what i understand u can overclock it to 2600 x performance........ i wil only be gaming on my computer nothing too crazy besides regular word processing for school work personal research i won't be video editing but might experiment with photoshop

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