AMD Ryzen

[Totally not Gorgon]

so which Ryzen is the core i5, ei. the value king. 

[Totally not Gorgon]

Ryzen 5000 i mean 

 

[ComradeYellow]

40 minutes ago, Totally not Gorgon said:

so which Ryzen is the core i5, ei. the value king. 

 

39 minutes ago, Totally not Gorgon said:

Ryzen 5000 i mean 

As stated a few posts back, the best "value" is the 5600X at $300, though it appears long time AMD fans still think it's a bit overpriced, regardless of its remarkable performance on 2020 gaming.

[Azdeus]

On 9/10/2020 at 11:13 PM, Keyrock said:

I'll be curious to find out if AMD managed to further improve the Infinity Fabric, given how sensitive the Zen processors are to memory speed. Zen 2's IF is rated at 1800 MHz, making 3600 MHz DDR4 the ideal choice (DDR = double data rate, hence 1800 X 2 = 3600). I had heard legends of people overclocking Zen 2 IF to 2000 MHz or even 2100 MHz, but 1900 MHz was the number most people could reliably reach. If Zen 3 IF were to, by default, top out at 2000 MHz, for example, that in itself would be a significant boost to overall performance.

It's partly this reason why I've held off on buying RAM for my upcoming build, since I don't yet know what the sweet spot will be for Zen 3.

I watched Linus tech tips WAN show last night where he talked a bit about this, the reviews that were made with 3200 memory found that, "ehh, the 5600 is about equivalent to the intels, nothing special" while the ones that ran 3.6+ghz memory found it beating the intels handily in everything (Except Red Dead Redemption 2 where Intel is still king). So yeah, seems I've got to get new memory next year aswell

[AwesomeOcelot]

I don't understand how there's so little YouTube content on Zen 3. I think this year might have broken YouTubers, what a schedule. GN has just released a video on a performance increase from only doubling RAM sticks. I remember when the advice was 2 sticks for dual channel, 4 sticks for quad channel. Not anymore apparently.

[Keyrock]

6 hours ago, AwesomeOcelot said:

I remember when the advice was 2 sticks for dual channel, 4 sticks for quad channel. Not anymore apparently.

2 sticks was indeed better than 4 for Zen 2. Whatever AMD did under the hood, the pipeline changes, have flipped the behavior for Zen 3. Here is the GN video on it:

tl;dw version:

* 4 sticks > 2 sticks

* Tighter timings are more important than raw speed

This is why I like GN. They go deeper in testing than a lot of other outlets and they are very clear, detailed, and meticulous with their methodology. 

Edit: I guess I have 2 more sticks of ludicrously expensive RAM to buy.

Actually, I haven't even opened the package yet. I might just sell it on ebay and get a 4x8 GB kit. I doubt I will ever need 64 GB RAM.

Edit 2: AMD has said that they are working on an update to increase IF speed. Right now, many people can only get stable IF OC to 1.9 GHz, same as Zen 2. In theory 2.0, maybe even 2.1 will be possible post-update, whenever that happens.

Edited November 8, 2020 by Keyrock

[ComradeYellow]

What do you call someone with inferior RAM

A dipstick

Ahahahohoho

[AwesomeOcelot]

Theory now is that it's interleaving causing the increase in performance. They didn't show low latency RAM in the charts, only CL16/18. Will it make low latency a bit pointless? 4 stick kits tend to be cheaper, this might change the demand.

It's probably has caught a lot of people out, as the advice was the opposite. Also overclockers prefer 2 sticks because you're more likely to win the silicon lottery.

It definitely won't effect every situation, but 5% is ludicrous considering how expensive high bandwidth or low latency RAM is.

[Keyrock]

16 minutes ago, AwesomeOcelot said:

They didn't show low latency RAM in the charts, only CL16/18. 

The base kit was 3200-14 and it traded "wins" (the difference was negligible) with 3600-16. 3800-18 had consistently the lowest gaming performance, all other things bring equal.

Edited November 8, 2020 by Keyrock

[ComradeYellow]

Overclocking RAM is super easy especially if you have a good motherboard.  I reckon anyone who's buying a Ryzen 9 is gonna be buying a killer motherboard with it so if I had to speculate,  4x8gb 3600mhz with overclocking should do the trick.

OR, if you want to really dig deep, there are memory brands that are dual-ranked so that means there are some brands where 2x16gb is just as efficient, but you'll have to research that on your own if you're interested.

[LadyCrimson]

7 hours ago, Keyrock said:

I guess I have 2 more sticks of ludicrously expensive RAM to buy

Is it that expensive?

[Keyrock]

24 minutes ago, LadyCrimson said:

Is it that expensive?

[AwesomeOcelot]

Mega expensive to double capacity just to double the amount of sticks. Also 2 stick kits tend to be more expensive because the chips are denser, the demand is higher due to overclockers favouring them. I would also predict that demand and supply with change in the short term. 4 kits, especially on the high end, are rarer.

2 hours ago, Keyrock said:

The base kit was 3200-14 and it traded "wins" (the difference was negligible) with 3600-16. 3800-18 had consistently the lowest gaming performance, all other things bring equal

I see now, the "stock" results are the 3200 CL14 x4. I should really stop skipping the intro, but I think their charts would be more readable if they just stuck with the same format on the labels.

[LadyCrimson]

*web search*

Ah. Yeah to get 64 does seem rather pricey.  I was contemplating next rig (3-4 years from now) I might bump up to 64 (just because...) but we'll see how prices are then I guess. At least you don't have to replace ram often, if ever, unlike I how I feel about gpu's since advent of 4k gaming started.  Edit: at least it's not like in way way way past where I swear I'd buy another gpu every year...

Edited November 8, 2020 by LadyCrimson

[AwesomeOcelot]

Technically we're in a period of cheap DRAM prices, if you're only looking for capacity, but high performance has always been ridiculous. A 3600 CL16 kit is a sweet spot, if you go higher expect to pay double the price for not a lot of performance uplift. DDR5 should be coming, and the transition period is always super expensive, but in 4 years prices should have come down again.

[Keyrock]

Some overclocking benchmarks of the 5600X and 10600K:

tl;dw version:

The 5600X overclocks better than previous generation Zen chips, though still not as well as the 10600K. Despite getting more gains from overclocking, it's not enough for the 10600K to catch the 5600X (except in RDR2 where Intel leads OC or no OC).

[Totally not Gorgon]

I'm thinking of buying a really expensive monitor in protest of how expensive a new PC build is. That way I'm not going to have that much left to spend. 

This makes perfect sense right ?

[ComradeYellow]

1 minute ago, Totally not Gorgon said:

I'm thinking of buying a really expensive monitor in protest of how expensive a new PC build is. That way I'm not going to have that much left to spend. 

This makes perfect sense right ?

Kinda.  I've always been of the impression that monitor choice precludes everything else.

[Humanoid]

It makes sense in that it sort of parallels the role of speakers in any audio system. The work of all the electronics earlier in the chain can only ever be as good as the output device at the end of it allows. Most of the rest of your system simply exists to allow for the monitor to display the best image it possibly can.

However there is a caveat in that monitor technology is magnitudes more volatile than speaker technology. Great speakers are things that will serve you for decades, and indeed likely serve your children. Great displays, not so much. Whether or not you think OLED or some alternative technology is the future, current backlit LCD technology and its attendant issues like uniformity is getting really long in the tooth. I would not personally be prepared to spend a whole lot on any LCD product with that in mind, despite having done so in the past.

[Totally not Gorgon]

I'm looking at https://www.google.com/search?q=Dell+U4320Q&rlz=1C1GCEU_enDK864DK864&oq=Dell+U4320Q&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i59j69i60j69i61&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

I already have a 27" 240 hrz  plain old HD monitor for gaming. I figure what's the point in 240 hrz if you can't push a boatload of frames to it.

 So I'm left wanting something that's just supposed to be big and have nice image quality. 

[Totally not Gorgon]

Wow for the link - fu. Why didn't that work

[Totally not Gorgon]

This Dell : https://www.dell.com/en-us/work/shop/dell-ultrasharp-43-4k-usb-c-monitor-u4320q/apd/210-avke/monitors-monitor-accessories 

[Totally not Gorgon]

I went off the idea of getting high refresh rates much for the reason Humanoid stated.

Also, only other Gorgon has edit. Sorry for the mess. 

[ComradeYellow]

Ryzen 5000 cpu's arrive on Silicon Lottery tomorrow (22 of Nov Eastern Standard Time).

Since this website has a relatively low volume of users, I figure I'm comfortable enough spilling the beans for the few and the proud in hopes maybe a few can get lucky and pick one up.

I may even be tempted myself if I see that one is available because humans are quite opportunistic creatures like bipedal rodents xD

[ComradeYellow]

13 hours ago, ComradeMaster said:

Ryzen 5000 cpu's arrive on Silicon Lottery tomorrow (22 of Nov Eastern Standard Time).

Since this website has a relatively low volume of users, I figure I'm comfortable enough spilling the beans for the few and the proud in hopes maybe a few can get lucky and pick one up.

I may even be tempted myself if I see that one is available because humans are quite opportunistic creatures like bipedal rodents xD

And sold out instantly!  Good grief...