AMD Ryzen

[samm]

Waiting for Threadripper and its motherboards to decide whether to invest in an Intel X299 or an AMD X399 platform. As things stand today, AMD could offer the more convincing platform regarding I/O and surprisingly even heat output

[mkreku]

Just beware if you decide to go for the X299. Only a few of the Intel CPU's available for that platform are actually made for it, ie. some of them are just rebranded i7's.

[Gfted1]

AMD Threadripper—16 cores and 32 threads for $999–arrives in August.

[Keyrock]

Damn, AMD is undercutting Intel pretty hard here. Good, hopefully Threadripper slaughters the i9s and Intel is forced to tone down the outrageously inflated prices they sell their high-end chips for.

[Zoraptor]

OTOH having seen the R3's info I'm not sure what their point is at all- AMD's APU based options ought to be a far better budget option when they arrive, and their direct Intel equivalents budget wise are the most pointless Intel offerings as well. Much like the i3 they don't bring much to the party, you'd still be better off either getting a lower cost G4560 or spending a bit more for an R5 (or i5 if an Intel loyalist).

 

Seems likely that they're not built from the core Ryzen chip as well due to being 4c/4t and their manufacturing yields being so high, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they actually were APUs minus the integrated graphics component.

[Gfted1]

Ryzen Threadripper Review.

[teknoman2]

OTOH having seen the R3's info I'm not sure what their point is at all- AMD's APU based options ought to be a far better budget option when they arrive, and their direct Intel equivalents budget wise are the most pointless Intel offerings as well. Much like the i3 they don't bring much to the party, you'd still be better off either getting a lower cost G4560 or spending a bit more for an R5 (or i5 if an Intel loyalist).

 

Seems likely that they're not built from the core Ryzen chip as well due to being 4c/4t and their manufacturing yields being so high, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they actually were APUs minus the integrated graphics component.

half of the CPUs in the ryzen lineup serve no real purpose. they are there to make it look like it has lots of options and make a quick buck off of the less tech savvy people.

there is no reason to pay more for a 1600x when you can take a 1600 and have pretty much the same performance

there is no reason to get a 1500X when the 1400 is the exact same CPU. 

same with 1700 vs 1700X and 1800X

the X is there to make ignorant people think they pay more to get something better when they are just paying more for the same thing. AMD is a corporation after all and it's main focus is to make money... and just like every other corporation, they will use every trick in the book to make you let them stick their hand ever deeper in your pocket.

[Bartimaeus]

Ryzen Threadripper Review.

 

I would have liked to see more single-threaded performance benchmarks: there were only two. Of course 32 threads is likely to beat 20 threads in tasks that actually take advantage of a huge amount of threads...but the reality is that most things that aren't synthetic benchmarks aren't really equipped to handle even close to that many threads...

[teknoman2]

there is only so much performance that can be squeezed out of a single thread and it usually is directly proportional to the clock speeds if the architecture is not designed badly (like in the FX series).

Edited August 11, 2017 by teknoman2

[Zoraptor]

 

Ryzen Threadripper Review.

 

I would have liked to see more single-threaded performance benchmarks: there were only two. Of course 32 threads is likely to beat 20 threads in tasks that actually take advantage of a huge amount of threads...but the reality is that most things that aren't synthetic benchmarks aren't really equipped to handle even close to that many threads...

 

 

As the article says, you aren't going to be getting a 10 or 16 core $1000 processor and $400 mobo for single thread performance when you could get a premier i/r7 equivalent for less than half that. Plus you can always do multiple poorly multithreaded tasks simultaneously with more cores and save time that way. i9 and TR are also theoretically* the same as standard ryzen and skylake/ kabylake just with more cores, so we already know what their performance is clock for clock.

 

*Having said that, Broadwell-E actually beats the new i9s in a bunch of tests. That I find hard to rationalise since the i9 should have better clock speeds and IPC.

 

half of the CPUs in the ryzen lineup serve no real purpose. they are there to make it look like it has lots of options and make a quick buck off of the less tech savvy people.

there is no reason to pay more for a 1600x when you can take a 1600 and have pretty much the same performance

there is no reason to get a 1500X when the 1400 is the exact same CPU. 

same with 1700 vs 1700X and 1800X

the X is there to make ignorant people think they pay more to get something better when they are just paying more for the same thing. AMD is a corporation after all and it's main focus is to make money... and just like every other corporation, they will use every trick in the book to make you let them stick their hand ever deeper in your pocket.

 

 

1400 and 1500x are intrinsically different, as the 1500 has more (2x) cache. I don't really have a problem with AMD's binning of Ryzen, if you don't plan on overclocking and for market segments where you don't expect overclockers to buy (eg preassembled for retail or corporate) they make sense, or if you already have a cooler and want a 'better' chip for not much more money. Certainly on a pure value for money basis x chips aren't the best there is for the enthusiast market.

[injurai]

there is only so much performance that can be squeezed out of a single thread and it usually is directly proportional to the clock speeds if the architecture is not designed badly (like in the FX series).

 

It's directly proportional to clock-speeds if architecture and code is the same. The problem is code optimization, architecture optimization, die-fab optimization, and clock-speeds are all hitting their upper limit.

[teknoman2]

 

there is only so much performance that can be squeezed out of a single thread and it usually is directly proportional to the clock speeds if the architecture is not designed badly (like in the FX series).

 

It's directly proportional to clock-speeds if architecture and code is the same. The problem is code optimization, architecture optimization, die-fab optimization, and clock-speeds are all hitting their upper limit.

 

we're saying pretty much the same thing: if other factors do not hamper it, clock speed is what makes or breaks single thread performance

[mkreku]

AMD Threadripper 1950X review: Better than Intel in almost every way

 

https://arstechnica.co.uk/gadgets/2017/08/amd-threadripper-review-1950x-1920x/

[Jozape]

OTOH having seen the R3's info I'm not sure what their point is at all- AMD's APU based options ought to be a far better budget option when they arrive, and their direct Intel equivalents budget wise are the most pointless Intel offerings as well. Much like the i3 they don't bring much to the party, you'd still be better off either getting a lower cost G4560 or spending a bit more for an R5 (or i5 if an Intel loyalist).

 

Seems likely that they're not built from the core Ryzen chip as well due to being 4c/4t and their manufacturing yields being so high, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they actually were APUs minus the integrated graphics component.

 

The R3 Summit Ridges serve as a substitute until the R3 and R5 Raven Ridges release which seems to be some months away. Also its a way to get into the platform on a budget. I almost bought an R3 because I intended to buy an 8-or-more-core CPU based on Zen 2 next year or the year after. I settled on the R5 1600 though as its twice as fast in most non-gaming applications and I didn't want to gamble on AMD or ASUS maintaining compatibility. AMD said they would maintain compatibility but both AMD and Intel have lied before.

[Zoraptor]

Some of the laptop Raven Ridges are out now, based on r5 and with a few Vega cores. They seem to be competitive vs equivalent Intel but not a gamechanger except for there being genuine competition again.

 

There are also quite a few 8 core r5s turning up now, so people getting a 1700 in a 1600 box, which suggests that the fabrication process for Zen really does have a fantastically good reliability and they're having to pad out 6 core models with 8 core ones- and aren't lasering off the extra cores either.

[Valsuelm]

 

AMD’s next-gen Ryzen processors could arrive in just a couple of months

 

[Zoraptor]

Theoretically they're coming Q2 2018 from AMD's financial reports, which would be March at the earliest. Would not be surprised if they get pushed up to February given that the yields have been so good with original Ryzen. Probably +~500Mhz overhead on the clocks and up to 5% IPC boost which is a nice boost to both and would lift IPC to almost Sky/ Kaby/ CoffeeLake levels, albeit still with a relative clock deficit.

 

Naming system is a little confusing though since Ryzen 2 will be '12nm' 'Zen+' rather than the '7nm' 'Zen2'. And the Ryzen (1) mobile chips are already using a 2### naming scheme as well.

[injurai]

Yeah, it's not really the next-generation, it's just an increment on their current architecture. But don't let me get in the way of the under-dogs marketing.

[Valsuelm]

Yeah, it's not really the next-generation, it's just an increment on their current architecture. But don't let me get in the way of the under-dogs marketing.

 

Which is not much different than the 'over-dog's' marketing.

 

The potentially important changes with the 'next gen' processors from AMD are going to be in the chipsets (if there are any new ones), not the processors themselves.

 

I'm very interested to see details myself, as I'm intending on building a new rig soon.

Edited December 17, 2017 by Valsuelm

[injurai]

You'll have to define what you mean by "chip-sets" and "processors" for me.

[Valsuelm]

You'll have to define what you mean by "chip-sets" and "processors" for me.

 

Are you unaware of what chipsets are? Serious question, as a lot of people don't know. In fact, in my experience a lot of people who consider themselves knowledgeable about computer hardware don't even know.

 

Here's a decent article for the layman on what chipsets are:

https://www.howtogeek.com/287206/what-is-a-chipset-and-why-should-i-care/

 

Put simply:

 

Processor X (AMD or Intel) requires chipset Y to run on. Sometimes Processor X can run on multiple chipsets, sometimes one specific chipset is required. Historically AMD has tended to be more backwards compatible than Intel has been.

 

The chipset determines CPU compatibility, memory compatibility, what features are available to motherboard manufacturers to put on their motherboards, how many of feature X is available (ie: how many PCI, USB, SATA channels there are, and what type), etc

Edited December 17, 2017 by Valsuelm

[injurai]

Computer engineers don't really think in terms of chipsets, it's more of a consumer facing abstraction judging by that link. I've been out of the BYOPC market for a while, It's a familiar term but I don't ever it carrying any significant water even when I last built a rig. From what I'm reading, the idea of a chipset just seems to muddy the water of cpu sockets and hardware abstractions in general.

 

I'd expect Ryzen 2 to remain on the same socket type, while rolling out any architecture optimizations features or extensions that came up short in the first rollout.

[Zoraptor]

Ryzen 2 and Zen 2 (presumably Ryzen 3) will all use the same socket, AM4. The current chipsets for AM4 are 300 series ones, 300, 320, 350 and 370 iirc, with more features as you go up the numbering. 400 series chipsets are very strongly rumoured to be released with Ryzen 2, so it's likely that 500 series chipsets will come with Zen2/ Ryzen3. Theoretically all the processors and all the chipsets can be compatible due to using the same socket, so long as the MB manufacturers support them in BIOS.

 

Intel is, as always, Intel when it comes to sockets and chipsets. Their current socket is LGA1151 and has 2 incompatible revisions but rather than renaming one they're called the same. Sky- and kabylake will work on 100 and 200 series chipsets (with BIOS flash) but Coffeelake only works on 300 series and neither of the other two do.

 

Chipset is a very important consideration, especially for Intel where overclocking is locked to both the 'k' processors and 'z' chipsets/ motherboards. While a Z and H MB of the same chipset series have the same socket if you buy an unlocked Intel processor and put it in a cheap H series MB you cannot overclock it and lose a lot of the value.

 

 

Yeah, it's not really the next-generation, it's just an increment on their current architecture. But don't let me get in the way of the under-dogs marketing.

 

Which is not much different than the 'over-dog's' marketing.

 

 

Yeah, Sky-, Kaby- and Coffeelake are all the same architecture which is why they have near identical IPCs. For Skylake and Kabylake especially there's very little to justify a new generation number and the 7700k really ought to be a Devil's Canyon like '6790k'. Coffeelake has the extra cores though, so fair enough.

 

A 5% IPC increase if AMD manage it would also be more than Intel has managed since... Sandy Bridge from Nephalim, I think. Intel's IPC even went down from Broadwell (non E) to Skylake, albeit because Broadwell was a 'failed' gen and the only desktop chips produced from it used EDRAM.

[Zoraptor]

The first Ryzen based APUs are out to the public, 2200G (4core/4thread Ryzen CPU, 8 Vega cores) and 2400G (4/8, 11 Vega cores). Very competitive performance and the 2400G's iGPU cores are competitive with a low end dedicated GPU (sometimes better, sometimes worse) despite the limited bandwidth. The laptop and desktop chips are supposedly the same, with the laptop ones being undervolted to save power. Despite their names they are 'Ryzen 1' rather than 'Ryzen 2'. As with all Ryzens they really need fast RAM and dual rank/ channel to get the most out of them; and a decent overclock helps a lot too. Due to their APU nature both also improve the iGPU performance significantly as well.

 

Still, should be a very nice chip for true budget gaming and in laptops.

[mkreku]

Ryzen 2X00 series comes out in two days.

 

https://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-2700x-x470-review-out-beats-i7-8700k-in-7-10-game-tests/

 

It actually beats the Intel Core i7 8700k in 7 out of 10 games tested. This is kinda impressive if it's true, since the 8700k is the best gaming processor out there right now.

 

We will see. I'm building an ITX gaming computer soon, I might opt for the Ryzen 2700 for that build. It's underclocked compared to the 2700X, but it's only 65W! That's kinda neat for an 8 core part.