Since AMD's Ryzen 7 3000 family preparation was very hectic, to say the least, it took a lot of nooks to get the Navi and Ryzen exams completed in time. There was also some difficulty in ensuring cross-compatibility of the X470 and X570 motherboards was properly maintained, and not much time wasted watching. For this reason, I chose to test the Ryzen 7 2700X on an older X470 motherboard and the Ryzen 7 3700X and Ryzen 9 3900X on the new X570 motherboard. In our review, I found that AMD had relatively high idle power and that we did not know why.
We have done additional research on this and can now clarify part of the problem: X570 motherboards use a lot more energy than their X470 counterparts. If you put a Ryzen 7 3000 processor in an X470 chipset, suddenly a considerable energy efficiency appears. We changed the power graphics of our initial test and tested an additional X570 motherboard.
The MSI Godlike X570 was our original test bench, but we added a comparison with the old X470 MSI Gaming M7 AC. Although the Godlike X570 does give some of its energy to features such as OLED and integrated LED bling, this does not seem to be enough to match the level of difference. The other X570 motherboard we tested, the Asus Crosshair VIII Hero (Wi-Fi) also has a different power – and lower – but not as much as the OG X470.
We have not yet tested the 3900X, but there is no reason why these results do not apply as well. Here are our adjusted / expanded results.
The passage of the Godlike MSI X570 to the X470 Gaming M7 AC reduces power consumption by 38W under Prime95. Idling power goes from 67W to 52W, a substantial reduction. Suddenly, the AMD Ryzen 7 3700X processor at 7 nm is now only slightly behind the Intel processors, instead of being separated from them by a sinkhole.
The Asus X570 board has lower overall power consumption than the MSI, but not enough to reduce the gap between the two solutions.
Compared to the Ryzen 7 2700X on an even chipset, the gap between them has become a canyon. At full load in the old Prime95 version, the 3700X of AMD consumes about 70 W less.
The new Prime95 shows to play reduction to power on X470 compared to what we measured for X570 in this test. We confirmed the result, but we have no explanation. The two X570 motherboards maintain relatively constant power between the two variants of Prime95, but the X470 motherboard drops 20W. The Godlike MSI uses 15-16W more than the Asus X570 Crosshair VIII Hero.
The gap between the Ryzen 7 2700X and the Ryzen 7 3700X expands here to reach nearly 90W. These reductions give the Ryzen 7 3700X better energy efficiency than the Core i9-9900K, even after the Intel processor has reduced its frequency.
Finally, Cinebench R20. Here, our lowest power line is not standby power, it is a single-threaded power supply during the single-core test. There is a difference in power of 17 W between the cores and if AMD still does not match the relatively low power of the Core i7-8086K, the 80 W is a much better result.
Again, however, the X570 continues to draw considerably more power than before. The MSI card is one of the main offenders, with 174W, but even the Asus card still draws between 160 and 165W, against 130W for the AMD Ryzen 7 3700X. Again, even compared to the Intel Core i9-9900K, the Ryzen 7 3700X is a great choice.
The X570 chipset is extremely power hungry at the moment. Some of these problems can be corrected in UEFI updates. It would also be interesting to have the option to disable all LEDs or built-in OLED panels (such as on the Godlike X570) to confirm that they have no significant impact on the power of the problem.
AMD has always said that the X570 chipset would cover the X470 / B450 rather than replace it, but the company did not really say what energy efficiency it would give up by focusing on these chipsets as launchers. The Ryzen 7 3700X consumes far less energy than it seems at first when it is associated with a less energy hungry chipset. Running PCIe 4.0 for internal bandwidth, LEDs included, built-in fan – even with all of these factors in mind, there is still a huge gap between the two platforms.
In the meantime, when you compare the Ryzen 7 2700X to the 3700X of the same motherboard, the degree of improvement is incredible. From apples to apples, with the motherboard and with PCIe 4.0 support as the only difference, the Ryzen 7 3700X consumes 70 to 90 W less power than the Ryzen 7 2700X.
Update (7/9/2019): The original title of this story, "AMD's X570 chipset consumes so much power, it's a processor comparison," implied that the power differential was entirely a function of the X570 chipset itself. It was an unintentional inaccuracy. This is not the X570 chipset only that pulls the extra power, that's all the motherboard. The current X570 chipset only consumes ~ 7W at load. (If the X570 chipset actually called 30 to 50 W, the size of the heatsink and fan would be much larger than it would be).
The question of why these motherboards consume so much more extra power and why there is so much divergence from one board to the other is still in the study. These are all early motherboards and future updates of the UEFI could solve or significantly improve the situation.
After months of rumors, revelations and previews, AMD's moment of truth in 7 nm has finally arrived. The third-generation Ryzen 3000 family, 7 nm, is the first opportunity for AMD to seize the top of the processor market in nearly 15 years.
This review assumes that you usually know Ryzen and Zen Architecture 2; Our deep dive on the subject in E3 will help you upgrade if you need a quick reminder. To recap: AMD today launches its family Ryzen 7 3000, a new and complete update of its previous generation Ryzen products. These new chips are built on TSMC's 7-nm process node and utilize a new "chiplet" concept that separates I / O circuits and DRAM controllers that do not particularly benefit from losses and keeps them in a state of the art. common chip and connected by all chiplets. at
The Ryzen 7 3000 family does not drastically alter the number of AMD cores nor the overall positioning of the product in the midrange and low frequency markets, but introduces a new 12-core desktop processor with a 16-core chip still waiting. AMD has developed an extremely aggressive product line against Intel and clearly intends to be beaten by its main competitor.
Pricing says it all. AMD has positioned its 12-core Ryzen 9 3900X to face Intel's Core i9-9900K. The eight-core Ryzen 7 3800X will be attacking Intel's Core i7-9700K eight-core, while the $ 329 Ryzen 7 3700X is in a category at this price. The cheaper parts of the stack will face their counterparts Intel positioned equivalently.
AMD has sampled two of its third-generation Ryzen processors for this launch – the Ryzen 9 3900X and the Ryzen 7 3700X. The company is particularly proud of this product and believes it has a superior position in the overall stack.
For 18 years that I have covered the computer industry, AMD has never beaten Intel at a node, until now. Nearly 20 years ago, AMD effectively attached Intel when the two companies started shipping 180-nm parts at about the same time. This has never happened again. Subsequently, Intel migrated to new nodes, or even years before its competitor, until today.
Even taking into account that Intel's 10nm and TSMC's 7nm are considered roughly equivalent, AMD is on the verge of having 7nm processors and GPUs on the market in volume . Intel currently has only one Core i3-8121 10 nm, delivered without GPU and used only in a handful of low-end systems.
It's a clear and solid victory for AMD.
The Ryzen 3000 family will also be the first family of desktop processors to integrate up to 12 platforms on a mainstream platform. AMD had originally planned to change the number of processors beyond 8, with tracking of its Bulldozer family, but eventually decided to focus on improving the performance of this architecture in terms of reduced power consumption, while zen architecture was designed to replace it. While Intel and AMD have been offering processors with more than eight cores for many years, neither company has ever brought as many chips to their traditional desktop platform. Intel reserves them for its HEDT family (High-End DeskTop) and AMD has deployed them as part of its Threadripper product line.
AMD has not hidden its ambitions for Zen Architecture 2. At this year's E3, Travis Kirsch, director of AMD's customer management, said that this Was not anyone to buy an Intel processor to eleven Ryzen who had debuted. This puts a high bar for AMD to erase, given the mediocrity of its processors compared to Intel a few years ago.
When AMD launched Ryzen in 2017, it forced Intel to modify its entire product line, introducing Hyper-Threading on the low-end processors of the Pentium family and adding extra cores to its Core i3, i5 and i7 processors. After almost 6 years of static kernel counting, the market has changed dramatically in the last two years.
The is not AMD is not a target for Intel, but we particularly want to compare some places, including:
2700X against 3700X: The 2700X shows a slight improvement over the original Ryzen 7 1800X, but AMD has announced at least an overall gain of at least 1.15 times greater than the 2700X. It is difficult for a company to succeed these days, but we have speculated that there may still be some fruit at hand after the frantic rush to market the Ryzen. # 39; origin. AMD has promised an increase of 1.15 times that of the 2700X. We will therefore check what the company actually delivers.
Improved power consumption: 7 nm is expected to bring major improvements in overall power and performance per watt. We will check to see how AMD compares to Intel and its own previous processors on this point.
Global Leadership in Performance: AMD has queued up to 12 Ryzen cores to match the Core i9-9900K and you do not have to be a CPU engineer to guess how. it the comparison will go. What will be interesting, is to see how AMD's single-threaded overall performance is or is not stronger.
1080p game performance: If Ryzen had 1080p, his "weakness" depended largely on the games you played and the GPU you used them, but some games did not turn as fast on the new Zen architecture of AMD compared to Intel. This situation has apparently improved – we will monitor to see how much.
Our test configuration is complex enough to deserve a graph.
Originally, our plan was to test all AMD processors on the same platform, but this posed a problem with some of the first available motherboard UEFIs and the tight schedule for this review. AMD provided our kits with a fairly reasonable test window, but the volume of hardware we had to test and retry was considerable. The 430.86 WHQL driver from Nvidia and a Gigabyte Aorus RTX 2080 were used for all game tests.
We chose to use 16GB of DDR4-3600 for Ryzen 3xxx processors, but we have limited older processors to 16GB of DDR4-3200. It was partly a practical decision – we simply did not have time to validate the fastest clocks on every processor – but we also wanted to compare what was a high end configuration on the different chips that we were using against the advantage of equipping Ryzen processors with faster RAM.
All systems have been tested with Windows 10 May 2019 Update with all installed security patches. All security patches were installed and UEFIs were used for each motherboard. All the results presented in this review are new, nothing was drawn from the previous cover. Some of our reference versions have been updated accordingly and we have modified our hand brake coding test – the results are not comparable to previous iterations of the reference.
Note: our results on the 9700K are slightly lower than expected for non-game performance tests. This is under investigation. The game benchmarks with the chip were pretty good. The UEFI settings appear to be correct.
Our power tests were treated a little differently than our standard tests. All test benches were equipped with 32 GB of DDR4-3200 for this test. We have always used Prime95 for power testing, but Prime95 has recently released an update that changes the power of Intel and AMD processors. Previous iterations of the application provided the ability to test medium-length FFTs and positioned it as the most energy-hungry application of the benchmark. The new version of the test has a new option for small FFTs. Power amplifications on AMD and Intel processors are tested with this new version of the program, but they increase much more on Intel processors.
For this reason, we tested the power supply in both versions of the program, as well as in Cinebench R20 when rendering the multicore scene.
Our results are included in the slideshow below.
In fact, one of our graphics is not properly sized for the slideshow, so it's placed just below it. All d & # 39; other is integrated in the slideshows below.
The Blender 1.02Beta reference offers a range of scenarios and scenes for comparison – and Ryzen treats them all. Even before we reached the 12-core Ryzen 3900X, the Ryzen 7 3700X is 1.13x – 1.16x faster than the 2700X and 1.05x – 1.1x faster than the Core i9-9900K. The Ryzen 9 3900X is 1.34x – 1.4x faster than the Core i9-9900K.
The offside performance of the Ryzen 7 3000 family is, in a nutshell, excellent. The Core i9-9900K was dethroned in almost all cases by a processor costing 65% more. If you're ready to spend $ 500, the Core i9-3900X does not beat the Core i9-9900K as much as the neutralizer. The price / performance benefit offered by AMD at $ 500 is the same as Threadripper's offer to Xeon, but for a fraction of the price.
Those considering the Ryzen 7 3700X as an upgrade to a 2700X or a 1800X can still expect significant performance gains. The improvement of 1.15 times predicted by AMD compared to the 2700X Before the launch was, in hindsight, at lowball.
Now that we've talked about off-game performance, let's take a look at the game. We've tested eight titles in 1080p, 1440p, and 4K, using high-end video settings that match the options of a high-end GPU. The results are in the slideshow below. Each slide can be clicked to open it in a new window if you wish.
Intel still has an advantage in 1080p and the 9700K is a surprisingly powerful player in the video game, but it is clear that the third generation Ryzen processors reduce the gap between them and Chipzilla. The geometric mean of our 1080p test results for the 9700K is 115 frames per second, compared to 109 frames per second for the Ryzen 7 3700X and 101 frames per second for the Ryzen 7 2700X. At this point, Intel's advantage in 1080p is reduced to 6%. A margin of error of 3 to 5% is not considered unusual in the benchmark tests, and although we did not claim that Intel's performance advantage is simply due to the margin of error – it's all too consistent for that – there's just not a lot of "there". "The.
In the opinion of this reviewer, Ryzen's "weakness" in 1080p games has always been a little exaggerated. With Zen 2 on the market, it has gone from a minor point to a non-problem.
Finally, we turn our attention to power. As many of you know, the behavior of Intel processors can vary greatly depending on how the motherboard manufacturer has programmed its boards and settings implemented by the motherboard. In our case, the two Intel motherboards tested seem to implement the thermal and current limits expected by the manufacturer of the chip, but this has a certain impact on the behavior of our Intel processors under load.
After a relatively short period of time (usually 8 to 20 seconds), the Core i9-9900K, 9700K and 8086K will all be back from the hard metaphoric controller. The Ryzen 7 2700X, 3700X and Ryzen 9 3900X do not behave this way. Where the 9900K slows down even before reaching Cinebench R20 multicore rendering, Ryzen processors keep a full clock and power consumed throughout.
Prime95 29.4b8 energy consumption. The Ryzen 7 3000 processors run for a long time in slow motion – well above their Intel counterparts and above the Ryzen 7 2700X. This could improve with subsequent revisions to the UEFI or could result from the relatively powerful PCIe 4.0 chipset.
In Prime95 29.4b8, Intel processors reach powers between 190W and 205W for relatively short periods before returning to lower power. This is somewhat different from their behavior in Prime95 29.8b5.
In Prime25.8b5, Intel processors reach higher power and then slow down faster. This behavior on our Core i9-9900K was consistent during reboots and multiple tests. Reduced to 140W, the Core i9-9900K consumes less power than any other processor we have tested. So we decided to add a more realistic workload.
In Cinebench R20, we still see processors bursting and retreating, but they do it less aggressively and the turbo clocks are kept longer. However, none of the Intel processors tested would take its turbo clock to finish rendering the CB20 in multithreaded mode. This behavior is settable in UEFI – we just use the default settings set by Asus for its motherboards.
AMD processors do not behave this way, but the fact that they reach higher powers does not mean that they use more total energy. The Ryzen 7 3700X and Ryzen 9 3900X complete the CB20 rendering faster than the Core i9-9900K, reducing total power consumption. The Ryzen 7 3700X also represents a significant improvement over the 2700X: it consumes approximately 80% of the wall power in all cases.
In the spring of 2005, AMD launched its dual-core Opteron and Athlon 64 X2 processors and launched what would later be known as its golden age – a time when it was heavily challenged Intel on desktops, servers and workstations. Over the past 14 years, Advanced Micro Devices has never been closer to an equivalent moment.
Not until now.
When Intel launched the Core i9-9900K, we said that it was the 2700X of great products, but that AMD had a lethal grip on the performance category per dollar. This is no longer the case. Dollar for dollar, the Core i9-9900K is annihilated in multithreaded applications by the Ryzen 9 3900X and slightly exceeded by the overall performance not related to the game by the $ 329 Ryzen 7 3700X.
Intel does not have an easy short-term answer here. There are rumors about a 10-core desktop computer at the horizon, but the high-frequency 14 nm TDPs and number of cores are not favorable to anyone. AMD already has a 16-core desktop chip coming in September, and while not as good as its Threadripper counterpart due to limited memory bandwidth, it will be scalable enough. Like the fleet concept, the existence of this 16-core processor is tangible proof that AMD has gasoline in the tank and products that it can introduce to improve performance.
Zen 2 is a tremendous victory for AMD. This may not be a absolute victory – Intel retains a small lead in 1080p games, and the 9700K defends itself for these reasons, if you're obsessed with optimizing performance – but if you look at the test results in 2005, you'd find that AMD did not literally win every one of them at the time.
We would like to see if we can reduce idle consumption of the Ryzen 7 family, and the relatively high power of the single processor is a bit confusing, but the performance efficiency of the Ryzen 7 3700X and 3900X is, in an excellent word AMD has more than provided the promised improvements.
We will have more to say about Ryzen 7, the X570 platform, Intel and the overall performance of these new processors in the days to come. Stay tuned.
According to rumors, Intel could prepare to significantly reduce the price of its processors, with the upcoming launch of the AMD Ryzen 3000 family. What is less clear is if it represents a real potential outcome or simply wishful thinking.
According to DigiTimes (subscription necessary), Intel could reduce processor prices by up to 15 percent in response to AMD's upcoming Ryzen parts and has already informed motherboard manufacturers of this change. It is possible that Intel will take this step, but judging by the company's actions since AMD introduced Ryzen in 2017, it is rather unlikely.
Intel has taken several important steps to improve its products in the months leading up to the launch of Ryzen. He added hyper-threading to some processors in the Pentium class, and then, with the 8th generation family, increased the number of cores on his various processors. Similarly, the HEDT Skylake family of pieces has increased the number of base pieces at the same price. Intel's six-core and eight-core processors are about half the price they were four to six years ago.
What Intel has not done all this time is actually a reduction of its CPU. the prices as such. Instead, the company simply waited until the time came to introduce a new generation of parts and position the new processors more favorably than the old ones. This allowed Chipzilla to adjust its prices to take into account AMD 's competitiveness without launching into titles such as "Intel could reduce the price of its processor before the launch of Ryzen 3000 by AMD".
Intel does not want to see prices directly because it means you have competition in the first place. Not only that, but the fact that Intel's HEDT components are priced, even in the face of AMD's high performance Threadripper competition, means that the company has not faced much of the current threat of these chips. If users aggressively transferred their workstation purchases from Xeon to TR, Intel would have been forced to react. The fact that he did not suggest that they had not done it.
Intel chief executive Bob Swan has previously admitted that his company expects increased AMD competition in the server market and that gross margins could suffer, which would imply that some price cuts could take place, but not where society would prevail. Currently, the high-end parts of Intel are those where are virtually the essential price differences. An eight-core Intel processor can cost around $ 500 versus $ 300 for an AMD equivalent, but a 16-core AMD processor costs $ 829 on Newegg, while a 16-core Intel Core i9 Skylake X processor costs 1,700. USD. It would take more than 15% of the price to bring the two chips to parity.
Based on Intel's actions to date and its competitive response to Ryzen, we believe the company will reduce its prices as much as necessary. It may not be ready to happen before the launch of the Ryzen 3000 family and may choose to focus on lowering prices on specific SKUs for which it needs to improve its competitiveness rather than significantly reducing costs. At the same time, the room for maneuvering Intel to achieve certain price cuts, at least on some parts, is unclear. We will have to see how Ryzen 7nm parts stand out before saying more.
As the launch date of AMD's next Zen 2 architecture is fast approaching, the company has raised the curtain and provided insight into the capabilities and improvements of its new model. These new chips include a number of enhancements and benefits to generate both higher cycle instructions (CPIs) and better overall power.
Let's start with some basics. The Ryzen 3000 family is powered by AMD's Zen 2 architecture except for its APU. APUs actually have a generation behind them – the 2000 Series APUs were actually built on the first generation of Ryzen, and the APUs of the 3000 series are based on the second generation Ryzen. The architectural improvements and other features we are going to talk about today do not apply to the Ryzen 3 3200G or the Ryzen 3 3400G.
During his Zen 2 presentation, AMD Corporate Fellow Mike Clark said his 7nm transition was in fact more successful than originally planned.
Some of you may remember rumors that AMD would use Ryzen 3000 processors with clocks much higher than the previous ones. According to AMD engineers, the company did not necessarily expect Zen 2 to reach higher frequencies. at all. This is the intrinsic problem of shrinkage of modern UC nodes. Smaller process requirements mean lower voltages, and lower voltages can negatively impact the absolute operating frequency. In this case, however, the 7 nm TSMC node and AMD's own engineering were able to create components that could reach slightly higher frequencies than the 12/14 nm chips.
It should be kept in mind that AMD did not expect improvements in the clock frequency of 7 nm, which should be taken into account when doing the same. Evaluation of the accuracy of rumors about massive clock jumps in the future.
An important change coming with Zen 2 has nothing to do with the current processor. AMD informed us during the event that new scheduler changes were being incorporated into Windows 10 Scheduler from Windows 10 1903 (May 2019 update). There are two new features: topology recognition and faster clocking of the clock. A faster acceleration of the clock reduces the time required by the processor to change state, thus improving performance and theoretically, inactive power by allowing the processor to move more quickly to different states. lower clock. Knowledge of the topology should help to keep local CCX data relevant and complete a CCX before loading another one.
These gains – a performance of + 15% in 1080p in Rocket League and a 6% improvement in the launch of PCMark 10 applications – are only result from the update of the Windows 10 scheduler and are separate from any additional gain resulting from improvements to the Zen 2 architecture. Taking advantage of these enhancements requires both an updated chipset driver and the upgrade. day Windows 10 1903.
This slide represents the microarchitectural synthesis of AMD. The chip integrates with the new TAGE branch predictor in addition to the BP perceptron it used in the past. The micro-op cache has been increased to 4K instructions, with double the total of L3 on board. (AMD is now referring to its L2 and L3 combinations as "AMD GameCache".) A new Address Generating Unit (AGU) is now associated with the entire side of the core, with full support of the comma floating 256-bit via AVX2.
The slideshow below presents our in-depth analysis of the specific architectural improvements of the third-generation Ryzen processor. Each slide can be clicked to open it in a new window.
According to AMD, these improvements give them an edge over Intel, both in terms of performance per watt and absolute wall power.
Cinebench is not the ideal solution for measuring energy consumption, but it is not a bad test either. The 3700X – which, in all fairness, is probably closer to the ideal position for architecture – is assumed to be 56% more efficient than the Core i7-9700K, while it only consumes 86 % of the power in absolute value.
Energy efficiency gains over the 2700X are even greater. AMD claims that the 3700X is 1.75 times more efficient in performance / watts than the 2700X, while consuming 70% power.
Although we obviously can not decide to launch before having material to test, AMD offers an aggressive and exciting product family. The TDPs have dropped dramatically. The CPI would have risen 1.15 times. Clock speeds have been increased. Planner improvements and doubled floating point capacity should provide their own robust improvements beyond this figure of 1.15. The width of the Infinity Fabric bus has been doubled to allow the use of PCIe Gen 4 bandwidth and a new memory divider at the DDR4-3733 level can reduce IF clocks without compromising the time of day. DRAM scale.
If you're a fan of AMD APUs, 7 nm also has exciting long-term implications for them. Although we do not know when we will see these parts, the company has clearly aggressively targeted a decline in power in all areas. This will clearly pay off when refreshing the APU family at 7 nm. According to one of our 7nm launch theories, AMD would focus on energy efficiency at least on some parts, and we see it perfectly, with a higher-performance 8-core processor in a 65W TDP and a 16-core processor in at 105W TDP.
When AMD announced that 7 nm Ryzen would show up at CES 2019, sharp-eyed readers immediately noticed that there was room for the two Chiplets 7nm, not one. The possibility of a 7-core 7 to 7-core Ryzen built on 7 nm instantly became the least well-kept secret of the product family. When AMD provided additional details on the Computex processor, however, the product stack appeared to exceed only 12 cores – less than the 16 theoretically possible.
AMD proved that the latest product of the new Ryzen 3000 family at 7 nm was already delayed to be a little fine tuned for E3. Although this processor will not launch in July, it will bring 16 full cores to the Ryzen family of workstations. Meet the Ryzen 9 3950X.
In May, when the speed of a 16-core Ryzen engineering sample has passed, we have note that the relatively low clocks of the chip (base of 3.3 GHz, amplification of 4.2 GHz) could result from the maintenance of lower ES clocks than those of the shipping parts (common practice in l & # 39; 39; industry) or the fact that AMD wanted to limit the TDP of the coin to keep it within the limits of its AM4 capabilities. We can see both objectives reflected in the final specifications of the product.
Remember that TDP is usually calculated based on clock, not clock amplification, while AMD processors have been better at staying at their TDP state, this is not an absolute requirement since boost clocks are frequencies of the company do not promise will be available in all situations.
If you look at the magnitude of the gap between AMD's base and boost clocks across its entire product portfolio, you'll notice that low-end chips with a smaller number of cores maintain a gap of 1.16 times between the base and the boost clock. The Ryzen 3600, 3600X and 3800X all have a gap corresponding to this size. The Ryzen 7 3700X has a slightly larger gap to differentiate itself from the Ryzen 7 3800X, giving a gap of 1.22x. The 12-core Ryzen 9 3900X has a similar specification. The Ryzen 9 3950X, on the other hand, has the biggest difference between the base clock and the clock boost, with a difference of 1.34 x between the two parts.
The implication is that the Ryzen 9 3950X probably stands at a lower frequency than a higher core load compared to the other components, in order to stay within the limits of its TDP of 105 W. This, at in turn, could indicate that AMD will retain a 16-core Threadripper processor in the stack of products when it will launch these parts later. The Threadripper TDPs have always been much larger than Ryzen (the existing 2950X is at 180W), which could give AMD more leeway to raise the base clock by a few hundred MHz.
There may also be sizing differences in the applications due to the limited amount of memory bandwidth available for the 16 processor cores. The L3 cache doubled with Ryzen 3000 will help highlight the bandwidth pressure, but we will have to test it to assess its impact on performance. All we can say at the moment is that it would be surprising if 8C – 16C scaling is less efficient on a Ryzen 7 platform than on a Threadripper platform, at least in some cases. applications.
AMD announced at E3 that the 3950X would be available in September for $ 749.
Microsoft announced yesterday the Xbox Next at E3 and, although we still do not know what will be the next generation system, we will finally know what kind of specifications it will offer.
First of all, let 's talk about availability. Microsoft said it plans to launch its next generation console for the 2020 holiday, involving a schedule from November to December. That would be pretty much aligning with the Xbox One, which debuted on November 22, 2013. This also means that the Xbox One will not take off as long as its predecessor, although it gets a major mid-cycle upgrade in the form of the Xbox One X The Xbox 360 lasted eight years, from November 22, 2005 (there is again this date) until 2013. The Xbox One / X, on the other hand, had a life of seven years. The Microsoft E3 revelation trailer for the platform is integrated below:
Regarding the features, we know that the console, like that of Sony, will include an SSD, with performance up to 40 times higher than current systems. This is not impossible for SSDs, which offer access times typically measured at 0.1 microseconds or less, compared to 10-12 ms access time for hard drives. .
If all goes well, it means that the inevitable remake of Mass Effect will have fewer elevator trips without nowhere. The other statistics are about what you expect. Zen 2 and Navi are both connected, as is ray tracing (no explanation for the moment, however, ray tracing abilities or effects that will be specifically supported).
Supposedly, the platform will support both 120 fps output and 8K resolutions, but we do not expect 8K resolution to be a playable target resolution for traditional AAA game titles. Technically, the console is able to produce at this resolution, but these are modern PCs – if you play a pretty old game with super-sampling enabled. Similarly, a 120-frame-per-second game may be possible, but console games have always been targeted at 30 frames per second or, more recently, at 60 frames per second.
4Would Xbox Next support this? Yes … but only by sacrificing greater visual fidelity than most developers would likely choose to spend. That said, it would be interesting to see more game developers with this kind of tactic, or simply offer players an option to play with lower details and higher speeds. Maybe the message is less about the probability wide support and more on providing flexible features if developers chose to exploit them. Whatever the case may be, we do not expect 8K games to be standard.
Microsoft also seems to have learned from the terrible legendary debut of the Xbox One: instead of spending his unveiling to reveal everything, the head of Xbox, Phil Spencer, assured the audience that the game performance would be the focus. "For us, the console is vital and central in our experience," said Spencer. "We heard you, a console must be designed, built and optimized for one thing and one: the game."
There are a lot of things we do not know about the console, including how it compares to the PS5 in terms of speed and flow. The prize is also a major issue that has not yet been answered. These decisions were made in the past, but they are two companies, they stick to the subject to make sure they do not sell their current genes. . Despite recent news about collaboration in cloud games, Microsoft and Sony remain very determined competitors in the ongoing console war.