I can't embed but trust me this is worth copy pasting. Ryzen 2 is looking even better than I thought it would be and I was being optimistic. There's so much to say here but I think it speaks for itself. They are raising the bar in every way imaginable from the entry level to the high end.

https://i.imgur.com/7Rff0JC.png

If these things overclock at least to their max boosts, or close, along with the relatively large ipc gains, Intel probably just lost the overall performance crown, leaving them with absolutely nothing to justify their overpriced shit with. The leaks could be wrong of course, but Adored has had a tendency to get them right.

Thoughts? For me >5ghz out of the box exceeds my expectations, and bringing 6 cores 12 threads to the lowest end cpu's for $99 is unprecedented, same for 12/16 cores on the mainstream with apparently no clock speed malus as core counts increase, one of the advantages of binning chiplets as opposed to monolithic chips, I'm sure.

Pretty sure people will still be recommending i5-8400 builds when this comes out though.

also can somebody embed pls?

imagine buying a $99 cpu and ocing a 6c/12t ryzen with 13% more ipc than current ryzen to 5.0ghz+ and doing it easily on a cheap air cooler because it's 50w tdp out of the box
now imagine benchmarking it against a $400 8700k
lul

If these are true (primarily the prices), Intel just went out of business.
The prices honestly seem too low. If they are really going to have an APU with 20 SM's that are at least as good as the current ones, that's going to be crazy for budget builders. If that ends up be 7nm Vega/Navi, I think the market for low end GPU's is gone (good for Nvidia I guess?)

/e one criticsism, why not just have R9 3800 and 3800x (keep it consistent with the other tiers). Would this also mean that Threadripper will now start at 16 cores instead of 8?

This post was edited by zell1luk on Dec 4 2018 04:50pm

No idea how it ties into threadripper but I assume the X is just marketing fluff, to get across that when you are buying i9 ryzen 9, you are getting the big dick premium chiplets either way. But yeah, it is rather inconsistent but then AMD naming conventions have always been trash, I have a bigger issue with "Ryzen 2" being "Ryzen 3xxx"

Yeah but that at least has a clear reason to it (albeit not that good IMO, should have just been zen 2 not zen+, for the purpose of not having zen2 be 3xxx sku's)

Real question if AMD wants to take the gaming crown completely, will there be any improvements to AVX support?

This post was edited by zell1luk on Dec 4 2018 05:04pm

They want to do the kinda tick tock improvement roadmap like intel used to with zen+ zen 2, but yeah the naming doesn't match how Intel did it at all. Zen+ should have been like R7 1790 etc. for that, and then Zen 2/Zen 2+ be 27xx.

AVX isn't for games, it's for high precision scientific workloads. I sure don't know of any games that make use of even AVX-256 instructions, which Ryzen already handles without any performance malus, let alone the newer AVX-512 instructions which I would expect better for in Ryzen 2 or Ryzen 2+ anyway since they have the licenses required to implement it as well as the engineering talent to make it happen.

Also Bulldozer is coming back once more under the Duron name. I don't understand why AMD is doing this, it's as stupid as if Intel had decided Pentium 4 needed to be refreshed after they already released the massively superior and successful Core 2 Duo/Quad line.

Imagine being Jim Keller right now, one of the chief architects behind Ryzen who is now the current senior VP over at Intel. You have to go toe to toe and slay the beast you constructed. It's got to be a weird experience.

I guess I thought avx played a part in a lot of console ports for some reason