TC McQueen
Member
Where did that date come from?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
AMD Ryzen Thread: Affordable Core Act
- Thread starter ·feist·
- Start date
ethomaz
Banned
Delusibeta
Banned
The lede totally got buried in the official denial that there's any problem with the Win10's scheduler.
The 1700X and 1800X are deliberately reporting temperatures 20 degrees higher than their true temperatures.
Well, at least we know what's up with Shark Sandwich's temps a couple of pages ago.
AMD said:
The 1700X and 1800X are deliberately reporting temperatures 20 degrees higher than their true temperatures.
Well, at least we know what's up with Shark Sandwich's temps a couple of pages ago.
ethomaz
Banned
So it was not the Asus BIOS getting the temps wrong lol
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
Mr. Wonderful
Member
Computerbase ran their game benchmark set on Windows 7, Windows 10, Windows 10 with HPET (high precision event timer) disabled (as per AMD guidelines), and Windows 10 in "High Performance" energy mode ("Höchstleistung"):
https://www.computerbase.de/2017-03/ryzen-windows-7-benchmark-core-parking/
It seems like overall there is no large difference, though for a few individual benchmarks Win 7 and Win 10 in "high performance" mode show significantly improved results. Note that those two always track together, so it seems like the differences between Win 7 and 10 are really entirely attributable to more aggressive energy optimization and not scheduling changes. (And you can get the same or better performance as Win 7 in Win 10 by enabling the "high performance" profile)
I'm not familiar with this benchmark, but the important thing to note about power management is that it might not actually show up in a traditional benchmark and in all use-cases.
Where I have historically seen the biggest gains with power management for Intel processors is with applications that quickly spike the processor up to a high CPU state, and then fall back to idle. It makes a bigger difference to "responsiveness", as the system is able to respond sooner due to the quick ramp up in frequency, rather than, say, max FPS.
blu
Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.
There's nothing sage in my knowledge - it's common knowledge in the HPC world. We're just on a gaming forum. Some markets outside of gamers have been weeping for a product like Ryzen, as Intel have been practising extortion in those markets for many years now. In contrast, gamers are fine with an overclocked 4c. And since gaming is just a hobby for me, and my occupation lies elsewhere, I have no issue recognizing the advantages of something like Ryzen.
My job is in HPC, and it seems like a better fit for a datacenter chip to me (so the parameter study type workload rather than the communication-heavy one which might benefit from AVX throughput). Of course, this will also be a function of price, there's a lot of room there considering the absurd pricing on higher-end Xeons.
Anyway, scientifically it's rather interesting, since if you take the core cluster results on the 8-core chip and extrapolate that upward to a 2 socket system with 32 each you might get something like 3-4 levels of significantly distinct communication latency even on a single shared memory node with "just" two sockets. "Interesting" HW is rarely what domain scientists want in their HPC nodes though, in my experience.
Anyway, scientifically it's rather interesting, since if you take the core cluster results on the 8-core chip and extrapolate that upward to a 2 socket system with 32 each you might get something like 3-4 levels of significantly distinct communication latency even on a single shared memory node with "just" two sockets. "Interesting" HW is rarely what domain scientists want in their HPC nodes though, in my experience.
Does AMD have anything equiv to Xeon at this point? I know in the past, their Opteron line was the main competitor but I don't think AMD has made any newer ones.
And have AMD or any manufacturers revealed any multiple CPU socket motherboard? We're an Intel shop for our HPC stuff now but it'd be pretty neat to see AMD come back into the server market.
Thanks, I meant to post this earlier myself along with the 20c temp. update. Added to OP.Übermatik;232039537 said:
All current and prospective owners should read the above link.
Headings:
● Update Your Firmware
● Memory Matters
● Mind Your Power Plan
● The Observer Effect
● Overclocking!
● PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER
● Memory Matters
● Mind Your Power Plan
● The Observer Effect
● Overclocking!
● PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER
Highlights:
No, they don't have anything competitive right now.
They will once they get Naples out, which will scale up to 64 cores per shared memory node with two sockets.
shark sandwich
tenuously links anime, pedophile and incels
Haha man what a relief.
Still very aggravated about my memory (which I specifically chose from Asus' QVL) not running at its proper speed. Contacted Asus tech support Friday night and have not received a response yet.
Oh and the BIOS and Asus AI software both report differing XMP profiles and they're both wrong. CPU-z reports the correct #s, which are supposedly the ones they were validated at on this motherboard.
They had largely vanished from this space. You can heavily discount less-efficient and under-performing Piledriver consumer desktop parts, but that doesn't translate elsewhere.
For one, the upper end Opterons didn't get updated to the Piledriver+, Steamroller or Excavator core. They were faster and more efficient, but not sufficient enough to overcome AMD's lost market-share, or particularly feasible given their incredibly limited financial resources. They had to make a sacrifice in not being able to invest in several GPU and CPU products to put out fires elsewhere, while preparing for Zen.
The OP will have Server/HPC updates here: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=231164109&postcount=2
I hadn't yet included the most recent public showing, though it had been posted earlier in this thread.
AMD Naples Performance First Demo 2/21 - AnandTech.com
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15TcolqloKI
AMD Naples Benchmarks vs Intel Xeon E5-2699 V4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtYTPcshyA0
AMD Prepares 32-Core Naples CPUs for 1P and 2P Servers: Coming in Q2
http://www.anandtech.com/show/11183...aples-cpus-for-1p-and-2p-servers-coming-in-q2
AMD Ryzen Is Strong On The Desktop But Naples Could Really Put A Chink In Intel's Server Armor
https://www.forbes.com/sites/daveal...ld-really-put-a-chink-in-intels-server-armor/
AMD Naples server processor: More cores, bandwidth, memory than Intel
https://arstechnica.com/information...essor-more-cores-bandwidth-memory-than-intel/
Sorry, I thought I had shared my own temperature findings when you initially posted, but looks like I never hit submit...
Except, this is an issue that can be addressed in the BIOS.
I speak from first hand experience.
My Gigabyte Aorus X370 Gaming 5 shipped with F3 BIOS which is very close to what most reviewers used, and why so many commented on "high CPU temps" unless they had been more observant.
Both that and the F4 BIOS have the same 20c temperature discrepancy, causing the fans to spins far faster than they should and seeming to alter the the turbo/XFR states (note, I don't have extensive figures of my own on this).
After launch Gigabyte released the F5c beta BIOS, which finally resolved the issue. Before AMD confirmed this or reading Shark Sandwich's experience here, I was able to see this for myself.
Temps are reporting 20c lower and the fans aren't spinning unnecessarily from the inaccurate readings. The system is dead silent.
The other board manufacturers should be able to address this as well. My AX370's UEFI is laughably spartan, but at least Gigabyte's update got this aspect right.
Any other owner can confirm what I've said about temps. Since updating, I had downgraded to both F3 and F4 again for testing, and it went back to 20c higher temps and higher fan speeds. Currently on F5c/F5d awaiting the next proper update from AMD to all board makers and anything Gigabyte has before then.
ーーー
Here's chew*'s post on the review BIOS for the Gaming 5:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums...-of-the-Jedi&p=5254923&viewfull=1#post5254923
chew* @ XtremeSystems said:
Excuse the consecutive posts, but none of these are remotely related.
Biostar X370-GTN Mini-ITX
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=231452345&postcount=1001
Gigabyte Japan showed a slide of their B350 mITX board which is "coming soon."
Gigabyte AB350N-Gaming WiFi Mini-ITX
http://www.4gamer.net/games/259/G025981/20170314076/
http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/news/1049064.html
Biostar X370-GTN Mini-ITX
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=231452345&postcount=1001
Gigabyte Japan showed a slide of their B350 mITX board which is "coming soon."
Gigabyte AB350N-Gaming WiFi Mini-ITX
http://www.4gamer.net/games/259/G025981/20170314076/
Google Translate said:
http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/news/1049064.html
Google Translate said:
RenegadeXV8
Banned
Ryzen 5 release date is April 11: http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/am...-four-core-processors-available-april-11.html
Seems to be Samsung's process limitation.
Locuza
Member
Well the architecture can hit ~ 4 Ghz as seen with Ryzen 7.
The reason is probably the binning, where AMD uses worse chips for R5.
Silicon Lottery made a rough statistic for R7 SKU's (sample size per SKU 30, 90 in total for the comparison):
Ryzen 7 1700
93% reach 3.8GHz @ 1.376V
70% reach 3.9GHz @ 1.408V
20% reach 4.0GHz @ 1.440V
Ryzen 7 1700X
100% reach 3.8GHz @ 1.360V
77% reach 3.9GHz @ 1.392V
33% reach 4.0GHz @ 1.424V
Ryzen 7 1800X
100% reach 3.8GHz (assumed)
97% reach 3.9GHz @ 1.376V
67% reach 4.0GHz @ 1.408V
20% reach 4.1GHz @ 1.440V
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/5xybp7/silicon_lottery_ryzen_overclock_statistics/
Guru3D posted early and deleted that link because the official AMD announcement is later. "Cached" here.
Screencap of article:
That Ryzen 5 lineup slide gallery can be seen here: http://imgur.com/a/FGkBF
Risk Breaker
Member
The same test with 5960x
Ryzen as lower physical core-to-core latency which may explain why sp to mp ratio beats intel in some benchs, maybe.
So Ryzen has half the latency when only using cores in the same CCX compared to the 5960x, but higher latency when crossing CCX?
Does this mean with appropiate thread managing and mostly avoiding crossing CCX, the latency performance will be a lot better or am I extrapolating too much?
Looking at those 4-core only and SMT off tests, I'm pretty sure I'll get a Ryzen build in a few months. I'll just change core affinities for the games that work better with less threads or something, if I even need to do that (I have both 60 and 144 Hz screens, but don't need 144 for everything).
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
I hardly game these days becauses I am so busy with work and use my computer for it, so productivity takes precedence over gaming for me.
That said Intel have also been practising extortion in the gaming enthusiast market with 4-cores since Sandy Bridge up until Kaby Lake (with incremental perf increases along the way) occupying the top spot. Only now with AMD bringing affordable 8-cores Intel are moving their high-end 6-core HEDT down the product stack with Kaby Lake X.
The pure negativity in this thread doesn't match up with the reality of what a great set of CPUs these Ryzen R7s are. They should not be compared with a 7700K but unfortunately that is how the narrative has been set now. Ryzen R5's should be and although they won't match a 7700K, one of the R5's will be close to half the price.
Yes but the prices will be game-changers.
I wouldn't be surprised if the 1600/X have the least consistent gaming performance of the entire line-up with two 3-core CCX units, since gaming seems most affected by the dual CCX structure of the R7 CPUs.
One 4-core CCX (R5 1400/1500X) or two 4-core CCX (R7 1700/X) seem like they would be the better choice for gaming.
Interesting to see that the TDP of the 4c8t Ryzen models are still 65W. That points to them using two binned CCX as well, and models with only one CCX may well only appear once the APU models arrive (the announced Ryzen Mobile laptop line and some desktop APUs).·feist·;232094117 said:
blu
Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.
Pricing and density, both, IMO, will be a drawing factor for Ryzen. We will see how it will fare in the HPC world (which I was referring to in the context of NUMA knowledge, not that necessarily Ryzen will storm that market). That said, it seems AMD themselves will be positioning Ryzen more towards the datacenter marker, so there are multiple factors at play here.
I don't think we need to straight extrapolate that way. For one, IF topologies will likely vary much from the desktop variant.
Frankfurter
Member
The 1600 sounds like the CPU to get. Will probably overclock to 3.8-4 Ghz, has 6 cores + SMT. In games, it'll probably be very, very close to the 1800X@stock.
TC McQueen
Member
I dunno, the price gap between the 1600 and 1600X is small enough that paying the premium for better binning isn't a bad idea. With the R7s, the price gap between the 1700 and the 1800X is big enough that you're better off taking your chances with the silicon lottery than buying the highest binned chip, outside of scenarios where you need 16 threads at ~4Ghz.
michaelius
Banned
Yeah it really is shocking that gamers forum judges cpu by benchmarks in games.
Being great for rendering/workstation/server workloads doesn't mean anything to majority of PC gamers because they won't use anything more advanced than office suite on their pc so that leaves gaming as the only cpu demanding task.
If we are talking about narritives it's sad to see that some enthusiasts try to sabotage years of effort to make people understand that cpu matters for their partisan goals.
That wouldn't make any sense, there'd be massive performance variation between chips in that case. 3+3 is likely for the 1600 but there's no way we'll see a mix of 1+3, 2+2, 4+0 for the 4 core parts, at least within the same model number.
shark sandwich
tenuously links anime, pedophile and incels
1600 + 1600X should be pretty great. Gaming performance will be nearly indistinguishable from 1800X. And at that price it's competing against i5 7600k, so we could see a pretty big gap for games/workloads that make good use of >4 threads. Plus AM4 motherboards are cheaper and will likely support the next 1-2 CPU generations.
Still not an Intel killer, but it will be a strong contender for a lot of gamers.
Still not an Intel killer, but it will be a strong contender for a lot of gamers.
Beautiful Ninja
Member
It seems likely the 1600's will be 3+3 and if that's true, they may end up being the worst gaming chip since they'll have the fewest threads per CCX to deal with applications that don't like crossing CCX's like games. The 1500's are the wild card here, a 4+0 should consistently provide performance between and i5 and an i7 across applications and this is the rumored configuration for those chips. If the chips actually end up being 2+2, performance can range anywhere between a Pentium to an i7 depending on the app, for the same amount of cores/threads.
Larogue
Member
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
4 cores / 8 threads at $169
DAYUM
Yeah should thoroughly obsolete the 7700K...
LelouchZero
Member
4 cores / 8 threads at $169
DAYUM
Excellent, this is amazing! The 6 cores / 12 threads at $219 is great too!
4 cores / 8 threads at $169
DAYUM
Oh yes....I'm itching so bad to build myself a new gaming system. It's "killing" me.
I've had parts in my cart multiple times this week and haven't checked out. (i5s and i7s). I just need to hold out a few more weeks. Hopefully the R5s will perform well and the i5/i7s will drop in price.
I'm willing to buy AMD or Intel. I'm going to be all about price vs performance with this build. I have my case, my PSU, and my GPU. I just need a Motherboard, RAM, the CPU and few small things.
Exciting.
Not sure if serious or not...
Will be interesting to see how it compares to the best i5. Or even some i7's.
4 cores / 8 threads at $169
DAYUM
If the 1600 is anything like the 1700, it'll easily overclock to 1600x levels. Should be interesting.
brain_stew
Member
No. Posts like this aren't doing anyone any favours. The 7700K still clocks higher, the 7700K still has higher IPC and the 7700K will remain the go to option for a high end gaming focused machine.
The R5s are squarely targeted at the i5 range and they have a lot to offer in that segment. Including SMT and overclocking when compared to the locked i5 products is a tremendous value add for that end of the market.
DemonCleaner
Member
4 cores / 8 threads at $169
DAYUM
awesome. will build a 1600 system and OC to 3,9Ghz.
will the core distribution be 3 and 3 per CCX or 4 and 2?
4 cores / 8 threads at $169
DAYUM
Does this kind of kill the point of getting an i3 or even an i5? Price/Performance is probably going to be awesome. Plus, seemingly clean upgrade to Pinnacle Ridge next year.
Papacheeks
Banned
I'm in the same boat lol. i'v got 2 builds on PC part picker and two wishlists created on newegg just waiting to push that Add to cart button.
mixedbiznes
Member
http://www.anandtech.com/show/11202/amd-announces-ryzen-5-april-11th
Anandtech has a good write-up and confirms 3+3 for the hexas and 2+2 for the quads. Benches will be interesting. I wonder if it'll be possible to unlock some extra cores.
Anandtech has a good write-up and confirms 3+3 for the hexas and 2+2 for the quads. Benches will be interesting. I wonder if it'll be possible to unlock some extra cores.
Oh no.
I mean, I guess the 1500X gets double the cache per core - Anandtech still report 16MB total - and they're say it has 200MHz XFR (from 3.7GHz) but 2 cores per CCX seems like it's going to have the biggest penalty when gaming.
I'd say the R7 1700 is the CPU to get if you're building a Ryzen system for gaming, based on this information.
And I'm still considering it; it's just no longer an instant-buy for me like I was hoping. I'm waiting to see what Intel do to try and counter this, as AMD's pricing is very aggressive.
And I'm not even sure that Intel can counter this. They can compete on performance but I don't know about price.
I agree, even if it comes across as fun police.