In what type of workload would that make any difference? Modern SSD are already plenty fast. I don’t think there’s any noticiable difference in rendering, compiling code or calculating meshes. Only thing I can think of is streaming high detail game data when going very fast through the game world.
1 Like
Another apparent observation has been confirmed, placing a Zen2 CPU in an X470 or B450 board will see no performance difference when compared to X570 boards.
The primary difference will be that SSD or M.2 memory won’t be as fast, but it won’t be as big of a leap even compared to going from SSD to M.2.
1 Like
Wait till the reveal of CPU’s itself and QVL lists for motherboards - different vendors will tackle compatibility differently and you may end up with X470 board that won’t work with you 3000 series CPU.
And probably X470 will get a bit chipper, when X570 will became available.
Also X470 doesn’t have any fans which is not a huge, but a noticeable advantage in my opinion.
1 Like
The 16 core part
Yes, 16 cores is confirmed. The chip uses just 105 watts, but with a maximum clock of 4.7 Ghz (which combined with the other improvements means single-thread speeds that can match or even beat Intel).
This part will not arrive in July like those with 12 cores and below, but in September. The price is also going to be AMD’s most expensive Ryzen part yet at 750 dollars, but the price of entry for 16 cores goes down again and AMD has shown they will slash prices some months after release.
It does seem clear that Intel doesn’t have an immediate response in the form of a product this year, as they prepared this press release using their usual slick marketing to taunt AMD.
I’ve been mostly an Intel guy throughout most of my computer life, but I have to admit, my old Opteron 185 based PC was one of the stoutest machines I ever built.
So trying to sort out where the new 3950x will come in against intels “best”
Comparing currrent Threadripper 2950x vs i9 9900K shows that easliy AMD outperforms what Intels has to offer.
Agent 327 benchmark
2950x - 673 seconds
i9 9900k - 1018 seconds…
So even their upcomming i9 9900KFCS at 5Ghz… agains 3950x with 15%ICP improvements… going to be fun times 
4 letters now, can their lineup become any more confusing to the average computer shopper?
If that new, new, new, chip can still not beat the Ryzen, will they unveil the i9 9900KFCSX? Intel should just focus on getting the Sunny Cove 10nm line out for Desktops, if the early hype is to be believed they might be able to keep AMD from burying them.
1 Like
I was partially joking, there was a i9 9900K. (rumours of) i9 9900KFC, and now i9 9900KS… so why not combine the
FKC was mentioned by one software (probalby typo?)
And of course offical KS 5Ghz all core…
Another sign of Zen 2 being a potent hardware product? Intel is reportedly planning to do something they have not done for around 20 years, they are lowering the prices of their chips.
1 Like
“Come beat us in Real World”. 
Me after looking at real world prices and performance:
“You have been beaten to death, reanimated, destroyed again and pissed on. WTH are you talking about ?” 
Now this action speaks louder than any of their marketing blabbering.
2 Likes
AMD lets out a notable CPU feature exclusive to the X570 motherboards.
Precision Boost Overdrive means that X570 will get a little bit of a performance boost when the CPU clocks itself beyond the advertised speeds (ie. 4.5 Ghz becomes 4.7 Ghz). This is an improved and smarter version of the Precision Boost technology seen in Zen1 and Zen+.
In other news, Intel has just acknowledged that AMD is offering serious competition again.
1 Like
One more benchmark to share, there was an alleged result that showed the 200 dollar Ryzen 5 3600 beating the 450 dollar i9 1990K in single-threaded performance.
This was several days ago, but if true, it means AMD has well and truly returned to a state it has not been in since they unleashed the 64 bit Athlon.
Well let’s hope that Intel doesn’t;t resort to the same underhanded tactics they did the last time this happened but I’m not really holding my breath on that. Though OEMs seem to be more willing to work with AMD this time around so maybe that won’t happen?
It’s nice to see competition and the resulting prices coming down because of it. Now we just need some of the same on the GPU side. My guess is that the biggest challenger to Nvidia’s discreet GPU stranglehold will most likely be Intel.
1 Like
The chip is out, and the reviews are coming in.
This is for the 12 core part, two points here…
- For multithreaded applications, this chip is an absolute monster, crushing the i9 9900K and delivering a performance boost well over 50 percent on average (compared to the 2700X).
- For single-threading and gaming, Intel’s i9 is technically ahead still, but only by 1-3 percent in most cases. That’s enough to say the advantage is only there not because of the IPC, but because of the clocks.
The Ryzen is all around a better deal if you’re a user who does more with his machine than just games. There’s also the factor of the chip doing better in newer games, so it could be just a matter of Intel losing its clout regarding who to optimize for.
1 Like
Personally going to save for 3950X. For compiling code, rendering and various 3D production workflows the chips look like absolute beasts.
Then we have rumors of a 64 core threadripper in the works, it used to be you needed a decently sized renderfarm for that power 
The 3950X is a two month wait yet, but it should all but kill off the 16 core threadripper models of both generations. I anticipate it being one pricey chip though as AMD needs two golden 8 core chiplets to put it together, but it should further lower the cost of entry for 16 cores.
they already announced the price at 749$.
It’s not cheap, but if you think at the intel alternative at the level it becomes really cheap. Also, a chip like that I think might perform on par with mid-high end gpus, or even beat them in complex scenes where the cuda speed advantage is much smaller. On top of that, you are no more bound to video card memory.
when you put all this stuff in the mix, it becomes a really attractive offer.
looking at those benchmark results, I wouldn’t be surprised if the 3950x could trade blows with a 1080ti
https://download.blender.org/institute/benchmark/latest_snapshot.html
just watching Gamers Nexus Review - the R9 3900X Stock easily beats an intel i9 9900K that is overclocked to 5.2 GHZ, in V-Ray by a significant margin.
In compiling Even the R9 3600X 6 core, curb stomps the i9 9900K running at 5.2 Ghz.
In Blender 2.79 The 3900X @ stock completes the render in 12.8 seconds, the 5.2 Ghz i9 9900K in 16.7 seconds.
Clearly there’s no reason to buy an Intel at this point.
hmm, i shall believe it when i see it. When rendering the tile that is my GTX 1070 runs absolute rings around the tiles of my 1700x. i would guess its at least 5 times faster.