Is there going to be a 16c 32t Ryzen 3 processor this year, or did we all get trolled by some Russian site?

Is there going to be a 16c 32t Ryzen 3 processor this year, or did we all get trolled by some Russian site?

Attached: cores-galore.jpg (1920x1079, 53K)

Probably not this year but I could see them doing it with Zen2+. There's room on the die to do it.

Hoping AMD makes a surprise announcement in April during their 50th anniversary announcement.

Lisa Su came just short of holding a neon sign above her head saying "yes Ryzen 3000 will have 16c chips" in a recent interview, but somehow retards still have gotten the hint.

>April
Nein.

COMPUTEX
O
M
P
U
T
E
X

She didn't say how many more cores (and emphasised this point), but she did confirm more than 8, so at least that part is certain.

why not. we saw 65W 8c boosting to all core 4.2ghz, 16c doing the ~same but with 105W doesn't sound impossible

She already confirmed they would be putting on more cores essentially.

Though I'm not sure if it's worth selling my 1950X for it just yet.

There is no zen2+

2 chiplets means 16 cores.
Now, many retarded gaymers will complain if the 16 core part is thermal limited and has to run at lower frequency, so it's possible they'll just launch a 12 core as the top cpu excelling in everything and be done with it.

Why would they complain? If the 8 and 12 core parts are shown to be better for gaming due to running higher frequencies, that's what most gamers will buy? That's still way more cores than intel will be offering at the same price.

People are stupid, and gamers even more.
Most of them don't understand that a cpu could be good at one thing and another at some other thing. The top performing cpu should be the one that beats everything else.
That's what they get from the reviews. AMD will need to be extremely careful with naming and price positioning if they want to look good in reviews, without giving excuses to Intel shills.

I dunno, even LTT videos manage to get the point across that ryzen products excell at productivity and are just 'good' for gaming. I think a lot of people are more aware of that now after nearly 2 years of amd being back in the game.
What do you mean about the naming? I don't see anything wrong with the current naming scheme since it compares directly to intel, and if their offerings match or beat intel's at similar or lower prices in gaming, I really don't see how intel shills could possibly put any credibly negative spin on that.

>Now, many retarded gaymers will complain if the 16 core part is thermal limited and has to run at lower frequency, so it's possible they'll just launch a 12 core as the top cpu excelling in everything and be done with it.
Agressive turbo table is the solution.

The naming is important because they will have to distribute much more configurations if they go up to 16 cores.
They might have excellent single chiplet 8 cores, how do you call them?
They might be the best for gaming, but if you call them R7, there might not be enough differentiation with the higher core counts. 12 cores will be R7 or R9? (if a 16C R9 will even exist). On the other hand if you call a top binned single chiplet cpu R5, it might pass as lower end, and gamers will look down on it, but most importantly if it cost as much as a current R7 (as it should) people will complain about increased prices.

Yes, the hope is that they were able to improve a lot the management of turbo states. Still, the infamous leaks pointed at a 16C with lower turbo frequency than the 12C, so there might still be room for improvement.
And for games there is still the issue of single chiplet vs many chiplets. Windows is extremely crappy at scheduling tasks on particular cores (e.g. on the same chiplet).

R3 for 6c, R5 for 8c, R7 for 12c, R9 for 16c.

>And for games there is still the issue of single chiplet vs many chiplets. Windows is extremely crappy at scheduling tasks on particular cores (e.g. on the same chiplet).
They're working on it.

screencapping this

Well i doubt that ryzen 3 will have 16c/32t. More like 6c/12t as the minimum core count. But i think ryzen 7 will have it. Ryzen 3000 looks to be really good.

If they release a 16core ryzen 3 too soon then no one will purchase existing inventory of gen 1 threadripper. They will probably wait awhile before they release it, doing an initial 8 core high frequency release with later 12 core and 16core ryzens.

Hasn't gen 1 Threadripper been out of production for a while now?

soon, brother.

He means Ryzen 3000 series, user

Considering I paid like $700 for an i9-9900k and someone was selling a brand new, sealed threadripper 2790x or some shit (rrp $1200 or something) for the same price I got my i9 for, I am going to start looking at AMD shit.

Fucking over Intel and fucking over nvidia over priced shit.

$1000 on an aorus waterforce 1080 ti which can't even carry out basic 3D CAD functions without going all registry on it and shit.

but expensive = better

Attached: skylake_guy.png (631x438, 107K)

True, unfortunately. Especially when you don't settle for second best anything

There probably will be, I mean that processor is clearly designed with 2 CPU chiplets in mind. The only reason there might not be that I can imagine is if AMD decides a 2-chiplet CPU is not necessary because Intel has no competition for it and as such will sit on it for later release. I would be very disappointed if they go that route, though.

I work at the fab plant and things aren't looking good for ryzen 2 sad to say.

HURRY THE FUCK UP AMD

I work as a personal slave for madame su and mama su promised me a cherrypicked 5.2ghz 16c 32t desktop cpu

>$700 for an i9-9900k
Jesus fuck, I can get one for like $500

>$1000 on an aorus waterforce 1080 ti which can't even carry out basic 3D CAD functions without going all registry on it and shit
Why the fuck would you buy a GeForce gaming card for that? It's a known fact that they don't have official support for CAD.

Ryzen 3 3000 2x 3core enabled chiplets
Ryzen 3 Gaming (single chiplet)
Ryzen 5 3000 2x 4core chiplets
Ryzen 5 Gamimg (single chiplet)
Ryzen 7 3000 2x 6core chiplets
Ryzen 7 3000 gaming 8core max binned chiplet at >5ghrz
Ryzen 9 3000 2x 8core chiplets
Ryzen 9 3000 gaming 2x binned chiplets at >5.2 ghrz xfr

Screencap this.

lol eat shit retard

Attached: 1536918615972.png (802x744, 238K)

>More "just wait(tm)"

Walking meme

If they do 2 chiplets, there might be no one chiplet sku at all, as this would mean a second asssembly line for the different solder mask IF (or regular batch changes)
Heat wise its better to spread a hypothecial 6 core over 2 3core dies and less heat is benefitial for power draw

Australian dollars. So $501 at the rate right now.

Also didn't get the card for 3D CAD, retard. Just noting that it couldn't do it.

Yes, but performance would be worse with cores spread out across multiple chiplets because there will invariably be more latency to get to from one to another (I assume it would be chiplet > I/O die > chiplet). Some applications are sensitive to that sort of thing, most specifically games and emulators. Gaming is the most popular 'high performance' use for consumer CPUs and it gets a lot of reviewer attention and coverage due to that. I'm sure AMD knows this so I really do wonder if they would kneecap their CPUs by doing something like including 2x3C chiplets. This wouldn't be such an issue at the higher end like 2x6C or 2x8C since 6C and 8C are generally enough for a game anyway, but it sounds like a pretty bad idea for their lower end parts. Plus we've seen their 8C/single chiplet ES already.

Of course it's also possible that they won't release any 2 chiplet CPUs as well, but then I wonder why they would even design it like that in the first place, or why they would give us 'cryptic' comments like saying we should expect that space to be used for something.

lisa su basicly confirmed this on their pcworld interview.................

>Also didn't get the card for 3D CAD, retard. Just noting that it couldn't do it.
I don't really understand what purpose stating the obvious has in that case, but sure.

ryzen 7 3700x will be 8 cores 16 threads.
later in the year,
ryzen 9 3900x will be 16c32t.
ryzen 8 3800x will be 12c24t.

see

That's stupid, they'll stick with r3, r5, r7 and ADD r9

It's just good PR if they can point to an r5 and be like LOOK IT'S BEATING AN i9 INTEL SUUUUCK.

5.0ghz CPU announcement? I'd hope so.

She could choose to release a flagship 12c/24t part and deny 16c/32t was ever planned for release.

>which can't even carry out basic 3D CAD functions

name these functions and i'll prove you wrong

what's up with all the odd numbers?
i don't get it.

AMD already confirmed there will be two chiplet variants. Once you put a second chiplet on there, it doesn't make much sense to only offer up to 12-cores.

Only practical issue is that they'll need to be 125w TDP for the x version of a 16-core, which will probably be a no go on most AM4 motherboards.

6gigahurtz 1.425v on air.
it will be another shoah.

single chiplet 8 coars tarbo 5ghz.
all 16 coars 4.2ghz.
i can live with this.

Seriously? It's just AMD easily communicating to consumers which tiers of their CPUs compete with Intel's i3, i5, i7 and i9 lines.

on 16c while still consuming less Watts than Intels Metero Crater Lake 10c nuclear blast

Parity with Intels i3, i5, i7 and i9 of course. It's just marketing bullshit!

I'm sure if it was the i4, i6 and i8, You'd also see even R numbers.

It ain’t Intel and Nvidia’s fault you’re a retard. Always do proper research before dropping that kind of cash.

I highly doubt that. I can only see them having two different chiplets if the yields are so good that basically nothing remains for the low end (2-4c) AND if they can't cut the chiplet into two. And I really doubt that the yields will be so bad, that they'll have excess of chiplets with 4-5 disabled cores (they'll need those for the very low end) and not enough 6-8c chiplets. And since single chiplet is perfecly fine cooling-wise, there's really no need to bother with that.