Ryzen2 rumoured to have up to 16 Cores

[Dolk]

Well elaborated information, Dolk.

I'd rather they focus on what is needed now, IPC and speed. We (95% of home users) have all the cores we need. If we don't, that is what HEDT platforms are for.

It's an (annoying to me) e-peen game among Intel and AMD.

Again, a quad core came out for the masses nearly 11 years ago many sitll don't need it.

You can't just focus on one section, that's not how you get a good well rounded product that AMD and Intel creates.

It's not really epeen or anything more than you might think. Their marketing teams look at the forcast of what software and feature supports will come out while their CPUs are available to the market. They hopefully align and that's what they build toward. For the most part, its just a simple all fits one solution presented by AMD, and a multi-solution presented by Intel. Each company has different resources at hand and do what they can. AMD develops SOCs and an x86 core. They develop nothing else. So they are going to focus on making a very good core for what they need across their entire portfolio, and allow small tweaks to customize instruction load balancing (perf vs power, perf vs core util, etc).

 

[EarthDog]

I understand the concepts and how it trickles down. All I am saying is that both of them appear to be missing the mark here on the more cores idea. Then the uninformed lemmings (consumers) will follow... thanks marketing and cluelessness.

While sadly I would of said a few years ago quad core wasn't needed but these days I think its worthy to still have even in its lowest form thanks to how the OS (Windows in this case) treats the extra cores and the performance even browsers can use with content these days on the web. Now while more cores being utilized properly for the standard consumer market I think we are still a few years out but with all the general processes running on the PC and we want quick response extra cores for multi tasking is I think worthy of a minimum of quads these days.

A quad core these days is the minimum I would say as well... many however, still do not need it. I would be sad playing a game on a dual with HT, but I assure you my family, all rocking duals with HT from SB era, wouldn't know the difference interneting and emailing (Netflix, etc) which the majority of PC use is for. Gaming, a quad core I would consider to be a minimum these days. So yeah, 10 years later and the quad is a minimum...

The gap isn't very big with Ryzen chips. Team Red is hitting every advantage they have, so far. The now dead Skylake-X 7820x is $130 more than the 2700x. Same speed, same number of cores. (current newegg prices). The cheapest mobo for the Intel is $130, the AM4 can have a $41 mobo. There's a $171 difference just to get in. The Intel will OC better, but now your cost of temp control just went way over the AMD's, so you're probably an honest $200 more for the dubious "privilege" of getting an 'Intel inside' sticker.

RE: The gap... its smaller than many people think if they compare like to like. Literally, the difference between a i7-8700K and a 2700X system is the motherboard and two cores. Both are $300 processors, both would use the same memory (better go faster on AMD or else lose some perf..). That said, there is no way in hell I would put a 2700X in a $41 AM4 motherboard. Cooling when overclocking to the limits are going to be similar as well (don't bump your head on that low ceiling from AMD). Meanwhile, the 8700K overclocks a lot more (% and MHz) with the same cooling. Who needs 8 cores over 6? Whoever does, AMD is the right choice. The problem is, reality dictates very few need more and more isn't necessarily better. In four years, I'd still rather have the Intel hex than the AMD octo (yes, Im betting software will still be notably behind the curve). You compared a HEDT processor from Intel with a Mainstream from AMD... when comparing things a bit more similar and perhaps using a more realisitic motherboard for the CPU, that gap shrinks quite a bit.

I'm not hating on AMD and its mangy cores, I would just like for those two fools (AMD and Intel) to focus more on IPC and speed than width/MOAR cores. AMD finally has a great product out, but I dare say more cores are not for everyone and at the same price, for MY uses, I would go with less but faster cores.

 

[Alaric]

The big issue is both companies need new product to sell. Ryzen made a big splash and AMD is everybody's darlin' again, and they're doing it with more cores. Intel didn't have much choice, really. They've hit a wall with clock speed and the 10 nm is...well...it isn't.

Software has been behind the multi core curve since Phenom X4, and that isn't likely to change unless both companies are going down that road anyway.

I wouldn't put my new 2700x on a $41 board, either. But at the price of the LGA 2066 board (cheapest), you can get a 470x chipset Asus Strix. And the apples to apples CPU is still $130 more. Pretty sure that covers cooling-a solution the Intel doesn't come with.

 

[EarthDog]

Software has been behind the multi core curve since Phenom X4, and that isn't likely to change unless both companies are going down that road anyway.

But hey, more cores are better for the same price....right? RIGHT?

I mean the X6 was out... HEDT was out with so many cores...................and here we still are.

I wouldn't put my new 2700x on a $41 board, either. But at the price of the LGA 2066 board (cheapest), you can get a 470x chipset Asus Strix. And the apples to apples CPU is still $130 more. Pretty sure that covers cooling-a solution the Intel doesn't come with.

But yet for this comparison, you would? Hahaha, shady...LOL! Again, stop comparing HEDT Intel to mainstream AMD. TRipper and Intel HEDT are the two that go toe to toe along with the mainstream. Different market segments all together.

There isn't much doubt it costs more to get into the Intel side of things, even when actually comparing like for like. BUt the difference isn't as big as many make it out to be...especially when you consider the cost of everything else one needs to buy. Tends to be single digit % difference.

 

[Alaric]

But hey, more cores are better for the same price....right? RIGHT?

That seems to be the consensus. LOL Just in case. It's why people carry Glocks instead of Colt Pythons. Well, that and they can't shoot straight.

 

[Scu84St3v3420]

That seems to be the consensus. LOL Just in case. It's why people carry Glocks instead of Colt Pythons. Well, that and they can't shoot straight.

Like stated above, I too would rather see 8 cores remain the maximum and push IPC and Frequency to the max. If you need more than 8 cores then there is a solution for that as well and both AMD and Intel cater to those that do need more as well. Mainstream users are far from likely to use more than 4 cores, maybe 6 if they are really into home video rendering @ 4K...

 

[Alaric]

The times they are a' changin'. Sadly, I'm a lot like all those guys perusing the Alienware/Dell website. When I set my rig up and got all my clocks dialed in, I can open my email so fast I get paper cuts. I can find the New Posts on OCF faster than Hillary Clinton can lose an election. I can get 220+ fps in Heaven and get my GPU core to 2265 MHz. Bandwidth at 3733 MHz hits 52,000+ Read Speed.

What do I do with it? Check my email, peruse this site, watch youtube videos, listen to music, and play World Of Warships a couple times a month. Four of my threads are parked 90% of the time and I may shut off HT and try for the magical 5 GHz because Linus Tech Tips is better at 5000 MHz, right?

And I want an 8c/16t Ryzen that hits 4.5 GHz, 16 GB of DDR4 4000 (that actually works at that speed), a GTX 1080Ti HOF, and an M.2 drive with 4 TB of room on it. Why? Because if it exists and it's faster, why not? We in our little niche market congratulate ourselves for knowing it's silly, but we do it anyway and disproportionately drive the market by reviewing stuff and singing its praises! Besides, the market drives innovation. Look at how long software has been kicking the multi core can down the road. That bunch is never going to be on the bleeding edge of anything. Death and taxes are the only constant, and we even try to cheat on them. LOL

 

[Maviryk]

From a content creation standpoint, I use a lot of software and process that only SOMETIMES use more than two threads due to poor programming (looking at Adobe and Autodesk). For the majority of the work I do, we use single core optimized processes and render at the very end. Our workflow uses more speed than core bandwidth.

I can always add more computers for a render farm. I cannot add speed to reduce time to calculate a serial process/workflow. With that said, the majority of the workstations for the animators at work work will use 8700k's overclocked to 5ghz. Even some of the 3d software that I use will only a single core half the workday.

A 10-15% increase in efficiency adds up over time when you have 20 animators.


If I was a gamer... something that powers a 4k 144hz IPS monitors should be plenty.. Hopefully we're at the point where gamers will realize that content and gameplay are much more important than graphics.

 

[Alaric]

Again, stop comparing HEDT Intel to mainstream AMD

Just saw this. I compared two chips with the same clock speed and core count. Why does Intel get a pass for pricing theirs in the HEDT market segment while AMD makes theirs more available to the "mainstream"??? Now that's shady! As for the motherboards, I was just getting the lowest priced option for each on newegg. And the numbers I used are the numbers that Joe Shmo is going to look at when shopping for a computer. Pull some guy off the street and start talking IPC. His eyes will glaze over in 3 seconds. The Dell owners see "Same size(cores), same speed, less money. EUREKA!"

Tends to be single digit % difference.

Somebody wants a "nice" computer for the family and that can mean $135-$180 on a $1500-$2000 rig. Purt near the $200 figure I tossed out. And for a guy working 50 hours a week with his hands that ain't poker money. That's school clothes for a couple kids, or a nice night out with the spouse.

Hopefully we're at the point where gamers will realize that content and gameplay are much more important than graphics.

I spent $500 on a VGA because I want eye candy. Gameplay comes with the horsepower that delivers that eye candy. Content has nothing to do with either.

 

[Kenrou]

Like stated above, I too would rather see 8 cores remain the maximum and push IPC and Frequency to the max. If you need more than 8 cores then there is a solution for that as well and both AMD and Intel cater to those that do need more as well. Mainstream users are far from likely to use more than 4 cores, maybe 6 if they are really into home video rendering @ 4K...

You're forgetting gaming+streaming which is actually fairly common. Average Joe doesn't know how to set up properly half the time so it will use the CPU, 8c/16t is a good niche. And for those that do know and play with eye candy on like Alaric stated $500+ GPU's are needed. I payed £600 UK for my Strix 980ti in 2015 exactly because I knew it would be going to work overtime even @1080p

 

[mackerel]

Just saw this. I compared two chips with the same clock speed and core count. Why does Intel get a pass for pricing theirs in the HEDT market segment while AMD makes theirs more available to the "mainstream"??? Now that's shady! As for the motherboards, I was just getting the lowest priced option for each on newegg. And the numbers I used are the numbers that Joe Shmo is going to look at when shopping for a computer. Pull some guy off the street and start talking IPC. His eyes will glaze over in 3 seconds. The Dell owners see "Same size(cores), same speed, less money. EUREKA!"

For someone who doesn't care about the differences, get the cheaper one. That is AMD's battle plan. Give the impression of value. If you took the HEDT option you get up to 4x the IPC for AVX as well as double the ram bandwidth. No use for that? That's fine, but don't pretend there's no difference.

 

[Scu84St3v3420]

Agreed part of the fun of playing a game is seeing it look as the developer envisioned without FPS being a consideration. That being said I feel that is achievable currently, aside from the 4K platform...

I can't imagine someone is disappointed with their gaming experience directly because of CPU performance from either top end solutions from either company. Realistically the best bang for your buck on the market currently are the 2600 and the 8600K respectively combo'd with a 1080 Ti or a 1080 (if more budgeted). Yes a 2700X or 8700K are top of their class for each company, but realistically an OC'd 8600K or OC'd 2600 are fairly equal to each of their more expensive counter-parts in terms of gaming performance.

I'm certainly not disappointed in my gaming performance with a 2600X and a GTX 1080 @ 1440p Ultra settings netting over 120 FPS in every game I've thrown at it so far and hitting 134 FPS+ in Furmark 1440p benchmarks. But certainly when consider a CPU upgrade in under 5 years, a considerable boost in gaming performance would be what makes the decision for me. The same could be said about considering a GPU upgrade in under 2-3 years. But more cores, well not really needed, but they are going to push it in that direction anyways...

But someone trying to game @ 4K Ultra settings is under 60 FPS, but realistically is that due to CPU performance alone, no... GPUs can't handle that currently and the few 4K 144hz monitors currently on the market are $2K+... And a decent 60 Hz+ 4K display is like $800... So those numbers on that platform are fairly moot at this juncture.

 

[Alaric]

For someone who doesn't care about the differences, get the cheaper one. That is AMD's battle plan. Give the impression of value. If you took the HEDT option you get up to 4x the IPC for AVX as well as double the ram bandwidth. No use for that? That's fine, but don't pretend there's no difference.

Really? Who actually uses AVX and for what? I know you do, and there must be some others, but how much of the market is that? It's like being the fastest tow truck around the Nurburgring. There is a definite need/niche for it, but the distinction will mean zero to every other buyer of tow trucks not on race tracks in the free world. I don't begrudge Intel trying to create a need for something, but it isn't working too well in this case. That may well change in the future. Unfortunately, stockholders tend to ask "What have you done for me lately?". Intel is finding that question increasingly hard to answer. They're just going to have to take some lumps for a while. AMD is driving a lot of the market at present and Team Blue's "me too" product strategy isn't convincing anyone it should be otherwise.

With all that, now that it's AMD's turn at the wheel, they need to produce. What they have is cores, so that's what they're selling. Intel has clock speed, and their inventory is getting low. The clock speed fairies punched out early and went to the pub.

 

[EarthDog]

Just saw this. I compared two chips with the same clock speed and core count. Why does Intel get a pass for pricing theirs in the HEDT market segment while AMD makes theirs more available to the "mainstream"??? Now that's shady! As for the motherboards, I was just getting the lowest priced option for each on newegg. And the numbers I used are the numbers that Joe Shmo is going to look at when shopping for a computer. Pull some guy off the street and start talking IPC. His eyes will glaze over in 3 seconds. The Dell owners see "Same size(cores), same speed, less money. EUREKA!"



Somebody wants a "nice" computer for the family and that can mean $135-$180 on a $1500-$2000 rig. Purt near the $200 figure I tossed out. And for a guy working 50 hours a week with his hands that ain't poker money. That's school clothes for a couple kids, or a nice night out with the spouse.



I spent $500 on a VGA because I want eye candy. Gameplay comes with the horsepower that delivers that eye candy. Content has nothing to do with either.

GAH! My fault... for some reason I was thinking the 7820X is a hex core, not an octo. I suppose if you want to compare core for core (the thing I am saying people DO NOT need) then its a spot on comparison.

A 'nice' computer as you described is single % difference still, just like I said. If a family can afford a $2K computer (a frivolous purchase compared to clothes and a meal), and then not clothes and food, then perhaps one shouldn't buy the PC (a $2K one) in the first place.

I wouldn't buy an 8c anything for gaming in the first place. I'd rather have 6 cores, and 6 faster cores, than 8 (again unless I used more than 6).

 

[Alaric]

I don't disagree at all, but we aren't online with Dell sales chat or standing in Fry's looking at the shiny new HP towers. And we get a little more than we bare minimum need "just in case". Average consumers do, too. The difference is we actually know what we need and the guy standing in BB looking overwhelmed has a nice sales associate to tell him what he needs. And lately that guy has been needing 8 core Ryzens according to the press and sales figures. And if they can save him money on the CPU, he gets a better, big markup GPU. "Do you play any games, sir?" *mumble* "Oh, Minecraft! Yeah, then you're gonna want that 8 core Ryzen and the 'new' AMVidia De-Luxe 9000 graphics card for $425, since you're a gamer and all" While some kid in the back is throwing boxes of $100 (wholesale) Gtx 1060 3 GB cards in a bin marked 'AMVidia De-Luxe 9000' for the sales department. (I have no idea what the actual mark up is, but I worked at the hh gregg on Sawmill Rd for a while and I'll bet I'm not far off)

That single digit % point can still be almost $200. He's tired, more confused than when he started, and the nice salesman (or lady) is going to save him almost $200! And he can go home soon and the wife and kids are off his back about a computer. Just one more little detail and it's over! The. Extended. Warranty. Coverage. God, I hated that job.

 

[Maviryk]

FWIW 27" 4k IPS monitors are fairly ubiquitous at the $400 price point now. I can't wait until the new 27" IPS 144hz gaming monitors fall to the $6-800 range (2-3 years, perhaps?)

For me, being a content creator and light gaming use, I prefer the 27" Dell 4k 60hz vs the 27" Dell 2k 144hz Gsync, if I only had to choose one. In either case, the GPU is vastly more important than CPU core count.

My family will have a mid range laptop to share in lieu of a desktop. They're always on their tablets, anyhow.

 

[EarthDog]

It is indeed at 4K. 1080p, not so much in many titles. 2560x1440, a couple... point is, if you want every last FPS be it to make it playable or hit 144Hz, the fastest processor with the best clockspeeds wins out.

 

[Woomack]

There is one issue with 4k, no matter what CPU you have, most graphics cards won't handle many titles in 4K at higher FPS. I find 2560x1440 just perfect because most games run good and look good on something like GTX1060-1070. There are of course exceptions but what I want to say is that I wouldn't focus so much on the CPU as most 4 core+ will do the job. Even if the CPU helps then not as much as the graphics card. If you have the money then you can pick whatever you like but if budget is limited then I wouldn't invest in any expensive CPU as something like 6 core Ryzen and cheaper motherboard will handle every game.

Now I'm using 32" 2560x1440 60hz which I got for some graphics work and games. I wouldn't go back to anything 27" or smaller.

 

[Vishera]

Help me here, if I'm CPU limited why do I get a faster GPU?

Not current any more, but I did try 980Ti SLI on my 1700 system, and let's just say the average FPS on that sucked, even when I overclocked the CPU. I was aiming to use it for high(er) fps 1080p gaming, but it was struggling to get much over 60fps. Moved the 980Ti SLI to my 6600k system, and it went up to the 100's.

I don't have a Ryzen 2000 to repeat similar with, but I saw a good improvement going from 6700k to 8086k with 1080Ti (CPUs stock). 6700k was varying between 60-120 fps depending on game loading. Once I moved the GPU over to the 8086k it was over 100 most of the time. Would a 2600X or 2700X have given similar results - I don't know.

You were also using an 8 core CPU. Even with Intel, the higher the core count, the more gaming performance drops. The difference between that 6700k and a 6900k would probably be similar. Games favor high IPC, and higher clockspeeds, so that you have more of those high performing clock cycles.

 

[Scu84St3v3420]

There is one issue with 4k, no matter what CPU you have, most graphics cards won't handle many titles in 4K at higher FPS. I find 2560x1440 just perfect because most games run good and look good on something like GTX1060-1070. There are of course exceptions but what I want to say is that I wouldn't focus so much on the CPU as most 4 core+ will do the job. Even if the CPU helps then not as much as the graphics card. If you have the money then you can pick whatever you like but if budget is limited then I wouldn't invest in any expensive CPU as something like 6 core Ryzen and cheaper motherboard will handle every game.

Now I'm using 32" 2560x1440 60hz which I got for some graphics work and games. I wouldn't go back to anything 27" or smaller.

I agree, 4K isn't there yet on GPU for truly high fps. 1440p is perfect for a 2600 and a cheaper board with 16 gb of decent ram and a decent gpu. If budgeted GPU is your money best spent, 1080s are coming down, a couple under $500, so depending on budget I think either a 1060 6 GB or 1080 are the best choices, the 1070 and 1070 ti are too close in price to the 1080 for one to not justify the purchase.

My 27" 1440p 165 hz look flawless and is buttery smooth. 32" is the perfect size for gaming, but desk space was too limited lol... Still fairly happy with it though

But still it would be nice to see AMD drop a dookie in Intel's breakfast cereal with Ryzen 2