Reading mode: Light Dark

Wait for Ryzen 4000?

Go to last post
T

tkbslc

Forum Pro
Messages
14,544
Solutions
25
Reaction score
12,776
Location
Salt Lake City, UT, US
I have been putting off upgrading my system for years now. I'm still running an O.C. i5-3570K.

I finally decided 2020 was the year. But this spring, parts were hard to come by. So here I am mid summer and parts are available and I have the money to upgrade. But now I hear rumblings of Ryzen 4000 around the corner.

Part of me says just buy it as Ryzen 3000 series has been discounted and is plenty fast. Part of me says I waited 7-8 years, what's 2-3 more months?

Probably looking at a 3700X and 1660 Super if I go now.
 
AMD just started shipping their XT parts. How far around the corner is the next gen? Or will it just be the ones with gpu onboard?

Likewise, Intel is just releasing their counters to catch up to the R3s. It's a never ending game.
 
tkbslc said:
I have been putting off upgrading my system for years now. I'm still running an O.C. i5-3570K.

I finally decided 2020 was the year. But this spring, parts were hard to come by. So here I am mid summer and parts are available and I have the money to upgrade. But now I hear rumblings of Ryzen 4000 around the corner.

Part of me says just buy it as Ryzen 3000 series has been discounted and is plenty fast. Part of me says I waited 7-8 years, what's 2-3 more months?

Probably looking at a 3700X and 1660 Super if I go now.
Click to expand...
Who knows? I was in the same position a month ago and went Ryzen 3900X and X570 motherboard because:
  • The 3900X is cheaper than equivalent Intel processors (and includes a fan and heatsink, which the unlocked Intel's don't have)
  • For Lightroom, Puget rate it higher than Intel
It seems that higher performance or next generation were going to be significantly more expensive. And the 3900X with 24 processors zips along in Lightroom compared to my previous overclocked Skylake i7-6700K with "only" 8 processors. It seems that LR now uses lots of cores for background tasks (building previews and exporting) which seemed to bog down my previous system.

But there will always be something better next month...
 
kelpdiver said:
AMD just started shipping their XT parts. How far around the corner is the next gen? Or will it just be the ones with gpu onboard?
Click to expand...
Below was the concluding paragraph of an official blog post from AMD just last week. While it's nothing specific it does still (re)confirm that we should see the next gen sometime before the year is out. Well...the product launch at least. Who knows about availablilty.
kelpdiver said:
So, what’s next for AMD in the PC space? Well, I cannot share too much, but I can say our high-performance journey continues with our first “Zen 3” Client processor on-track to launch later this year. I will wrap by saying you haven’t seen the best of us yet...
Click to expand...
The emphasis on "Client" is mine. As Gamers Nexus pointed out this means that Zen 3 in 2020 won't just be limited to Epyc server products.
 
tkbslc said:
I have been putting off upgrading my system for years now. I'm still running an O.C. i5-3570K.

I finally decided 2020 was the year. But this spring, parts were hard to come by. So here I am mid summer and parts are available and I have the money to upgrade. But now I hear rumblings of Ryzen 4000 around the corner.

Part of me says just buy it as Ryzen 3000 series has been discounted and is plenty fast. Part of me says I waited 7-8 years, what's 2-3 more months?

Probably looking at a 3700X and 1660 Super if I go now.
Click to expand...
I suspect we'll continue to see disrupted supply chains for a while, so the whole "it'll be here _____" seems ambitious at best. And then just a drawn-out, out-of-stock, non-discounted wait for a really long time.

IOW, I don't think you're better off waiting. Normal year and some competition from Intel, maybe. But it seems both of those things are off the table at the moment.
 
buggz said:
https://www.anandtech.com/show/1592...ryzen-4000g-series-apus-but-you-cant-buy-them
Click to expand...
The Ryzen 4000G uses the COREs from the current generation of ZEN 2 Ryzen 3000 series.
The NON G(without GPU) will use the new ZEN 3 (Vermeer) COREs.
https://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-4000...avi-2x-rdna-2-gpus-on-track-late-2020-launch/
tkbslc said:
I have been putting off upgrading my system for years now. I'm still running an O.C. i5-3570K.

I finally decided 2020 was the year. But this spring, parts were hard to come by. So here I am mid summer and parts are available and I have the money to upgrade. But now I hear rumblings of Ryzen 4000 around the corner.

Part of me says just buy it as Ryzen 3000 series has been discounted and is plenty fast. Part of me says I waited 7-8 years, what's 2-3 more months?

Probably looking at a 3700X and 1660 Super if I go now.
Click to expand...
Wait for the 4000 series ZEN 3 (Vermeer).
For motherboard I would look into the B550 because they do not use chipset FAN, most
came with updated VRM/sound over the X570 counter parts, but may have less
USB/NVMe ports and PCIe slots.
If want Thunderbolt ports, check the Gigabyte B550 Vision D



The Gigabyte B550 AORUS MASTER/PRO AC/PRO have Thunderbolt header, the ASUS
ATX models like B550 Strix/TUF also have Thunderbolt header, with the header you can
add a TB card later.

The Gigabyte B550 Aorus Master has very interesting "wiring" of its PCIe lanes



Asus Strix B550 F and B550 E Comparison



If Thunderbolt means nothing to you the MSI B550 boards seems to have the most
bug free BIOS and looks like MSI dropped the price of its B550 boards!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



VRM/PCB layers on the new AM4 motherboards
https://www.overclock.net/forum/25867962-post1.html

Finally, Ryzen likes faster RAM and with any option you choose buy RAM with
Micron E-die chips and nothing else!
https://pcpartpicker.com/products/memory/#m=12&Z=16384002,32768002&S=3000,5000&sort=price&U=4&h=1

Looks like the new Zen 3 will be able to use 4000MHz RAM!!!!!!!!!
The current Zen 2 is up to +- 3733MHz, some people goes faster, but it is
too much in the edge for my taste...

The DDR4 Crucial with Micron E-die chips are very overclockcable!
I was able to set my 3000MHz RAM to 3733MHz using the EXCELLENT
1usmus DRAM Calculator

RAM guide (use Chrome to translate)
https://www.computerbase.de/thema/ram/rangliste/

Some RAM tests:
https://www.computerbase.de/forum/threads/amd-ryzen-ram-oc-community.1829356/page-678#post-23004580

https://www.computerbase.de/tests/ram/

https://www.hardwareluxx.de/index.php/artikel/hardware/arbeitsspeicher.html



And if want a more efficient/silent cooler...





https://www.igorslab.de/en/intel-vs...ader-really-what-is-better-ryzen-9-or-core-9/



54c1b76cc8fa4d8ab2ab9ea755cd09d2.jpg.png
 
Last edited:
I would and am. I think the 4k series will be worth the wait
 
Depending on what programs you use for image processing current generation Ryzens are generally much faster even at single core processes than higher clocked Intel CPUs of your generation. As such buying a current generation Ryzen is not at all a bad decision--I've seen the 3700x as low as $250--equivalent performance costs nearly double for Intel.

Outside of rendering video writing that the Ryzen is "faster" is relative and a lot of people think they what they perceive as faster is due to the CPU but its due to faster storage media. An example for me is using On1 as a plug-in from Photoshop--the image renders back to PS--all in RAM-- almost instantly on a 3700xcompared to the 10 or so seconds it might take with an overclocked (actually much faster clocked) 4 core Skylake. But On1 seems to push all cores while rendering, the differences--if those ten seconds mean anything at all--are not so pronounced with less multithreaded apps, like Luminar or even mighty Photoshop.

Your current mobo chipset does not support M2. Boot speeds of NVME M2 compared to traditional SSD are less than overwhelming despite astounding benchmark differences in I/O. I doubt the cost of PCIe4 M2 drives yield anything more tangible for most users but no personal experience. Since they don't cost much more its worth getting a higher end M2 boot drive just to run Crystalmark, which is free.

If you play games I would wait to buy a GPU until nVidia and AMD announce their next gen, otherwise you could save money on an AMD 570/580 or just recycle what you have.

I going to assume the next gen Ryzen has faster clocks and improved per cycle efficiency, without throwing off even more heat. Otherwise the CPU is limited to what the 5xx chipset delivers, for good or ill, with current Ryzens.

It is not clear if AMD is going to drop the Wraith but the Wraith is a mediocre cooler. It is not clear if the next gen will have an iGPU. I would rather have the iGPU than the Wraith, but I have a Wraith. For now.

I have a Ryzen, the performance is impressive, but there are potential gotchas if you are used to Intel world where there really is a higher level of component compatibility. Ryzen RAM incompatibilities are a real and ongoing problem no matter what AMD fanboys say so pay attention to the mobo vendor's approved list no matter how small it seems. If the RAM does not run at a certain clock you can easily see the Infinity fabric won't run at its optimal speed, annoying but not all that big a deal for real world throughput. Cases are designed for Intel motherboards but few Ryzen motherboards have USB C headers and many lack traditional USB 3 headers, annoyances if you want all the front panel case ports to work. The list goes on and more likely than not given AMD's history there will be early BIOS problems with the next generation of Ryzen CPUs.
 
bmoag said:
Depending on what programs you use for image processing current generation Ryzens are generally much faster even at single core processes than higher clocked Intel CPUs of your generation. As such buying a current generation Ryzen is not at all a bad decision--I've seen the 3700x as low as $250--equivalent performance costs nearly double for Intel.

Outside of rendering video writing that the Ryzen is "faster" is relative and a lot of people think they what they perceive as faster is due to the CPU but its due to faster storage media. An example for me is using On1 as a plug-in from Photoshop--the image renders back to PS--all in RAM-- almost instantly on a 3700xcompared to the 10 or so seconds it might take with an overclocked (actually much faster clocked) 4 core Skylake. But On1 seems to push all cores while rendering, the differences--if those ten seconds mean anything at all--are not so pronounced with less multithreaded apps, like Luminar or even mighty Photoshop.

Your current mobo chipset does not support M2. Boot speeds of NVME M2 compared to traditional SSD are less than overwhelming despite astounding benchmark differences in I/O. I doubt the cost of PCIe4 M2 drives yield anything more tangible for most users but no personal experience. Since they don't cost much more its worth getting a higher end M2 boot drive just to run Crystalmark, which is free.

If you play games I would wait to buy a GPU until nVidia and AMD announce their next gen, otherwise you could save money on an AMD 570/580 or just recycle what you have.

I going to assume the next gen Ryzen has faster clocks and improved per cycle efficiency, without throwing off even more heat. Otherwise the CPU is limited to what the 5xx chipset delivers, for good or ill, with current Ryzens.

It is not clear if AMD is going to drop the Wraith but the Wraith is a mediocre cooler. It is not clear if the next gen will have an iGPU. I would rather have the iGPU than the Wraith, but I have a Wraith. For now.

I have a Ryzen, the performance is impressive, but there are potential gotchas if you are used to Intel world where there really is a higher level of component compatibility. Ryzen RAM incompatibilities are a real and ongoing problem no matter what AMD fanboys say so pay attention to the mobo vendor's approved list no matter how small it seems. If the RAM does not run at a certain clock you can easily see the Infinity fabric won't run at its optimal speed, annoying but not all that big a deal for real world throughput. Cases are designed for Intel motherboards but few Ryzen motherboards have USB C headers and many lack traditional USB 3 headers, annoyances if you want all the front panel case ports to work. The list goes on and more likely than not given AMD's history there will be early BIOS problems with the next generation of Ryzen CPUs.
Click to expand...
Interesting information.

My recent experience with AMD has been favourable. The file server in the office is a Dell Ryzen 7 2700U with 512Gb SSD; naturally I tested it thoroughly before committing my data to it. The raw performance is close to my HP i7 7500U with 1Tb HDD, but the usability of the Dell is significantly better due to the SSD.

Another laptop has the older AMD A9 CPU, also with SSD boot disk and it keeps up with the others.
 
tkbslc said:
Robert Zanatta said:
Intel is still faster for single core performance.
Click to expand...
With double the watts power usage, it’s a few percent ahead, yes.
Click to expand...
Passmark single core performance test. Top 18 processors are Intel.

Top Intel processor is 13% faster than the top AMD processor (10900F vs 3800XT). TDP for the 10900F is 65W and for the 3800XT is 105W, so I don't know where you get the "double the watts usage" from.
 
Last edited:
Robert Zanatta said:
tkbslc said:
Robert Zanatta said:
Intel is still faster for single core performance.
Click to expand...
With double the watts power usage, it’s a few percent ahead, yes.
Click to expand...
Passmark single core performance test. Top 18 processors are Intel.
Click to expand...
OK. That's one synthetic test. Cinebench R20 Single Core puts 3900X and 10900K at a tie and the Intel at a significant disadvantage for Multicore.

Most of the user submitted tests, like passmark or geekbench, the high scores will be from significant overclocks. Intel can overclock single core much higher than AMD, yes. If you are an extreme overclocker and care about having top single core scores, then Intel (and a big cooler and PSU) are your jam.
Robert Zanatta said:
Top Intel processor is 13% faster than the top AMD processor (10900F vs 3800XT). TDP for the 10900F is 65W and for the 3800XT is 105W, so I don't know where you get the "double the watts usage" from.
Click to expand...
Intel is stretching the truth with their TDP. That rating only applies at base frequency. When they turbo, which they always will, they can pull massive watts. 10900F and 10900K can pull 225W at full load based on multiple reviewers. Peak for 3900X (with more cores) is in the 135W range. So not exactly double, but almost 100W difference.
 
Unless the new 4000 is substantially different from the 3700x, I'd not wait. I just built a 3700x-based system and am starting to put it through its paces. I haven't done more than seat-of-the-pants feeling speed differences, but the 3700x seems a bit faster all around than my i7-9700k system from last year. I have them sitting back to back now, so I could pretty easily do some comparison test. (Suggestions? I'm thinking something in Lightroom, and perhaps something with Proshow Producer to stress the system with stuff that means something to me.)

Both my systems have the same RAM (32GB, same model number), and both boot from a NVME Samsung 1TB drive. I have a GTX1060 3GB GPU in the old rig and a Radeon 5700 XT in the new one. Aorus Master x570 in new, Taichi z390 in old.

Both the 3700x and 5700xt were substantially discounted from list price.
 
Robert Zanatta said:
Jim Keye said:
Robert Zanatta said:
TDP for the 10900F is 65W and for the 3800XT is 105W, so I don't know where you get the "double the watts usage" from.
Click to expand...
Intel's real-world power usage bares absolutely no resemblance to their claimed specs.
Click to expand...
Mine does.
Click to expand...
I wonder how much this depends on BIOS settings rather than innate chip properties. Different motherboards have very different default settings.

For example, the Skylake i7-6700K is as I recall rated at 91W TDP. However, at default settings, my Asus motherboard will see it running much higher unless you tweak the long-term and short-term max power settings down.

By contrast, I have an AMD 3900X, also in an Asus motherboard, and at default settings that won't go above the nominal 105W (although you can make it go much much higher if you tweak things).

There seem to be plenty of bloggers grumbling that default BIOS settings in many motherboards (not just Asus) can be rather arbitrary.
 
If I overclock, the power draw goes up quite sharply. An increase from stock to 5 GHz uses almost 50% more power and the temperature increases by about 20C (air cooling). Performance gain is about 15%, and I have slow RAM.

One thing that will cook the processor is heavy AVX2 instruction stress tests.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Dick Dastardly
The $100 laptop challenge
Replies
6
Views
17K
ChuckB
C
C
  • Locked
Upgrading from Ryzen 7 1700 - What Next?
Replies
8
Views
15K
Austinian
Austinian
Jefenator
Cycle Oregon 2025
Replies
3
Views
8K
Jefenator
Jefenator
the-ninth
Ideas for upgrade
Replies
17
Views
8K
XiaoDeer
X
U
Is this in my head or am i getting worse results on my A6700 vs A6400?
Replies
7
Views
22K
Lan
L

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top