Have to wait and see what actually ships, real world feedback and costs...but certainly worth keeping an eye on.

AMD Zen 4 Ryzen 6000

Crazy...the Zen 3 CPUs are magnificent processors; I've built two 5600x systems in the past 6 weeks or so. They outperform every other CPU I've built with to date, including a 9700k and a 10600k, and they compete squarely with my own new 9900K.

If these Zen 4 successors are anywhere near the same generational bump in cost/performance that Zen 3 was over Zen 2, that would be truly remarkable.

Shame that WOFF has trouble with new AMD GPUs, as it's always been my own personal preference to build either all AMD or Intel/Nvidia, and the new AMD GPUs are equally as impressive as the CPUs...but that's another discussion.

Always used AMD without problems with WOFF

I was able to test some games on an 10850k, 3090 rtx, 32gb cl14 b-die ram at 4K and stock settings and all I can say is “game over for AMD” for at least another year. Unfortunately, it was only a brief two days of testing ray tracing, vr, dlss but AMD has no chance to compete with these technologies.

Not if you have a new AMD GPU, you aren't. Several people have reported the issues, it's been recognized by OBD, and Pol's already posted over at the AMD forums seeking their help with it.

Now, if you're saying you *are* using a new AMD GPU (that is, anything past RX Vega cards) and aren't having problems, then I'm sure a lot of people here would like to hear from you about how. The threads are available, so you can see for yourself what's been reported. Perhaps you hadn't noticed/followed them.

What I've seen indicates 6900XT can go toe-to-toe with 3090, outperforming it at times >(one example here)<, requires significantly less power - and is 2/3rds the cost, for roughly the same performance (that's a whopping $500 less cost - enough to buy the majority of the other components for a PC build).

But, I believe the thread was started about CPUs. As I said above, the GPU discussion is another matter.

The Ryzen CPU's are great. Much bigger bang for your buck than Intel. AMD sure have come a long way. But I do use an Nvidia GPU. No probs with any WW1 flight sim.

Leaked Core i7 11700K results show AMD Ryzen is still the CPU to beat in 2021

>LINK<

Flagship Intel CPU, not even released yet, but still facing serious competition from Zen 3 (and sometimes, losing that competition).

Have a Ryzen 1600 CPU and a RX480 8gig GPU card

Yeah, the RX480 was before the RX Vega (I actually own two RX470s) so you wouldn't have the issues.

The newer cards (after RX Vega 56/64, which themselves were after RX 400/500 series, like your 480) require newer drivers, which have issues in WOFF. As I mentioned, there are several threads here you could find which discuss this.

Possible release date of "somewhere in 2020" and 5Ghz on all cores. I hope it all shakes out that way.
More Zen 4 news

Of course if you measure AMD cpu vs intel cpu, AMD will always win in price to performance category. Unfortunately, a pc is more than it’s cpu when measuring real world performance in games and applications. Combining the latest cpu, gpu and memory, then nothing beats an intel/nvidia based system for raw performance.

I was benchmarking shadow of the tomb raider at 4K resolution and had got an average of 110 FPS with all settings maxed out on that system. The 3090 was using 98% of its 24gb memory and the 10850k was running at 5.2 stock (no overclocking and with MCE enabled in BIOS). I have never seen a score like that in SOTTR. Most all reviews were getting comparable test results and some even higher FPS. An AMD system would be in the low 80s. Although, I certainly do not claim that this one benchmark alone establishes that intel/nvidia platform is superior. But if there are no other reviews that I’ve read proves otherwise, then it becomes clear which is the stronger combination of cpu/gpu/memory.

AMD is good, but intel will always be ahead... when taken as a whole pc system.

I'm glad you understand that.

You can't use the concept of a "whole PC system" as some kind of proof that Intel will always be ahead (itself a fallacy - unless you're also claiming to know the future). The absolute reality is that cost is part of a 'whole system', and your comparisons always seem to ignore cost.

If cost is no object, there are ways I can build a system, right now - today - that would smoke an Intel setup as a "whole system". But cost *is* an object, and it cannot be ignored when it's convenient to do so.

In case you missed it, the link I provided above *is* a review that says otherwise: "It is clear that the Intel Core i7 11700K is the most powerful Intel processor in gaming, but slightly lagging behind the new AMD monsters in the Ryzen 5000 series." A flagship 11th-gen Intel CPU that's not even released yet, matched and outperformed in some cases by Zen3.

Also, this: "In GTA V, Shadow of War, Batman AK and Ashes of the Singularity, Intel Core i7 11700K obtains similar results with 10900K, or better, being surpassed by AMD processors from Ryzen 5000 series. " Just to be clear: The AMD 5000 Zen 3 CPUs outperformed the 11700k at times, which itself was deemed similar to 10900k "or better" - and it seems unlikely the 10850k would actually be better than the 10900K.

So, 10850K < 10900K < 11700K < Ryzen 5000 series.

And this thread is actually about Zen 4, which will almost certainly best Zen 3 and isn't far away at all.

But yeah, don't take my word for it. It's not as if the entire industry knows what's going on with all this and also sees Intel shaking in their boots...

...oh, wait. It is exactly like that.


EDIT: Oh, one other thing: Find me an Intel "whole system" with PCIe 4.0. The Nvidia GPU you speak so highly of obviously was built with understanding of the importance of PCIe 4.0...but you can't buy a motherboard today with an Intel CPU that supports PCIe 4.0. The CPUs aren't even due for perhaps another month. Meanwhile I've done several AMD builds since last year ("Whole PCs", actual, real-life working machines) that support it.

We have been here many times, but just let's hope this time AMD's competition is sustained, and then we get a real permanent competitor to Intel - then everyone wins. If they keep this up for 10 years then we'll be very happy.

Intel have been here before too, and in the past they pulled out some stops and brought out better stuff to leap ahead for the next 10-15 years but let's see how it goes!

I will be very happy if there are still new editions of WOFF coming out for the next 10 years.

OT, and I don't want to steal this thread. I just want to raise an issue with Nvidia support. Not related to hardware but more specifically to the "GEForce Experience" software for Nvidia. This layer provides the "Shadowplay" feature that is constantly featured in articles on the net with repect to failures to work.

It is a great feature but Nvidia has failed to make it "Break Proof" for many years

It is extremely frustration for gamers.

Best Regards

Everyone is entitled to voice their opinion and that’s what reviews of unreleased hardware is all about. Opinions.... they are reviewing engineering copies and not retail cpus. Things could change either way.

The 5950 and 3950 are equivalent to the 10600s at best and the 6900xt is equivalent to a 3080... but still lags in some games. There is a small few seconds difference between pcie 3 vs 4.... but nothing worth mentioning unless you use huge databases.....I’ve spent the last several months with the latest AMD/AMD and intel/nvidia systems... and those are my findings.

You said earlier "But if there are no other reviews that I’ve read proves[sic] otherwise..."

So, I posted a review that shows otherwise...simple as that.

Whether engineering sample etc is immaterial, things can always change (and this could fall in AMDs favor just as well). Unless we see the future then it's pointless to speculate. The real data, available right now, shows an 11700k is better than the 10900k, which obviously outperforms the 10850k you mentioned ...and *all* of them "being surpassed by AMD processors from Ryzen 5000 series."

It seems unlikely to me that you know more than the people with actual hardware in their hands doing these reviews.

As for PCIe and "a few seconds"...First of all, a 'few seconds' amounts to several *billions* of cycles to a computer CPU these days. So a few seconds is gigantic. Secondly, the real key with PCIe 4.0 isn't necessarily about a 'few seconds' performance difference. PCIe 4.0 literally *doubles* PCIe 3.0 potential...no matter about 'a few seconds', it's 200% the bandwidth. But, the real significance of PCIe 4.0 is that it's REQUIRED for upcoming technologies like DirectStorage (and RTX IO), which both will be *huge* improvements to gaming. As of right now, there is no actual, released Intel CPU/board that supports this huge potential...but AMD has been doing it for some time.

As above, it seems unlikely to me that you know more than the people at AMD and even Nvidia (who have all seen fit to move to PCIe 4.0, despite the fact you see it as "nothing worth mentioning"). Apparently, those industry professionals see it differently. The only outfit lagging here is Intel, which every reviewer who knows anything has *roundly* criticized for lack of PCIe 4.0 and failure to move from 14nm fab even in the (yet unreleased) 11th-gen flagship CPUs. Not even released yet, and already behind in a number of crucial ways: See here: >Intel's manufacturing is broken and new Rocket Lake CPUs prove it<

And, once again: This thread is actually about Zen4, which will undoubtedly improve upon the Zen3 that is currently embarrassing Intel...

...at least, you know, according to people who actually have ALL the hardware available to test, and have actually done so.

Don’t you guys know by now that KK,s opinion is the only one that counts ?



Yet you took the thread OT with your 1st post on this thread. Did you not? Your sly little dig at OBD/WOFF, why bring a GPU “issue” up on a CPU thread..not like you’ve mentioned it before is it.? Talk about Hypocrisy..unbelievable.



Anyway il leave this here as this is what imo we all might aswell do when you have an opinion on a topic that he gets involved in.



Anyway back on topic, I’m certainly looking at team red for my next CPU, excellent reviews from most reviewers, they really do see to be upping their game

Adger, every bit of what I've mentioned is directly related to the OP, in that it's all part of AMD's continued developments. The fact that there's a problem between AMD GPUs and WOFF isn't my fault, but it is definitely important relative to the topic.

And BTW I've said publicly many times it isn't OBD's fault, so it is not a "dig". It's simply a statement of fact at the moment, which as I said is a shame. It's not a dig unless you insist on trying to turn it into that.

Just because I bring perspectives to a discussion that don't agree with yours (or someone else's) doesn't mean my comments are "off topic". Nothing off topic about AMD hardware in a thread about...AMD hardware. I even said why they're related; myself (and lots of other people) prefer to build a machine all AMD or Nvidia/Intel, that's it. Factually, I worked on an AMD X570 machine not long ago that had problems booting with an Nvidia GPU, but (of course) worked just fine with an AMD card. There are legitimate reasons that using this approach makes sense.

Finally, I thought you were past your continued ad hominem attacks against me. I guess not. Unfortunate.