AMD's Ryzen CPUs (Ryzen/TR/Epyc) & Vega/Polaris/Navi GPUs

It's not so much a job for it as a nice bonus. I need more power than my current rig, but if I build something like that, then so long as I set it up to utilize resources correctly, I'm thinking about what can I do with it, not what do I need it for. That is just the added bonus of stepping it up for the times I'm not doing more intensive work (or allowing someone else in the house to use what I'm not using when I'm not, making the money spent better used overall). Aside from that, it also gives me an excuse to play with the developer boards that are coming out supporting 4k@60hz. Now, I want to only get the home network good enough, because the real upgrades are in 2 years when 802.11ax gets here. The ad standard is nothing and the ay standard later this year doesn't go enough to get a new house router, etc., when ax will replace ac in 2019, a much better time to just get a docsis 3.1 modem and ax with more choice (and likely having use for it here by then). It is more plans to fulfill childhood dreams of connecting so many aspects of my house short of going to a smart house, which I do not trust yet due to security. But that is a start, maybe with later adding mics and using some voice recognition software to pull up media or start games.

 

Yeah, I am on ac now. I just have nothing right now that uses the 4c8t mobile CPU to its fullest. There is the occasional video encode and picture manipulation but these do not over load the system. It seems fast enouhg for most of my current work. I just look forward to a true Ryzen powerhouse system.

 

No Ryzen CPUs are on Tomshardware's best CPUs list despite many of them having performance equal to or better than their counterparts
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/69hdiw/no_ryzen_cpus_are_on_tomshardwares_best_cpus_list/

" DeezoNutso 90 points 5 hours ago

Funny thing - computerbase.de recommends the R5 / R7 over the i5 / i7 and has Intel as an alternative.

https://www.computerbase.de/thema/prozessor/rangliste/#abschnitt_prozessorenbestenliste_nach_preis "

Geez, how could Tom's do that... lame response from Tom's:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/commen..._are_on_tomshardwares_best_cpus_list/dh74f8f/

Lots of good info in the responses in both threads, also discovered a new subreddit, /r/AyyMD

Petition to add Tom's Hardware to the heretics list
https://www.reddit.com/r/AyyMD/comments/69i3w4/petition_to_add_toms_hardware_to_the_heretics_list/

 

TomsHardware has always been an Intel-Advertisement platform. They have been during Intels darkest times (1 GHz Athlon) and they still are. This is no news, it's just sad they are still referred to as unbiased hardwaresite. Just delete em from your browser...

 

I think we need to cut Toms Hardware a break here. Each one of the CPU's include HD6300 graphics. AMD Ryzen CPU's do not, so acording to how the end system is being designed for the GPU/IGP then the Intel selections may make sense.

On that same note allot more needs to be considered before recommending a processor or even other components. Considering the differences of the architectures a simple recommended CPU list is meaningless. Toms hardware needs to rethink its methodology.

 

I agree with @TANWare to a degree. Tom's does some good work, but other things they do are ****e. Here, the criteria they selected to make the recommendations is what undermines the quality of the recommendation. We can all agree there. But what they did with multiple mounting pressures with the TIM roundup a couple years back was genius! So, I find myself in between, although ultimately agreeing its CPU recommendation guidelines are useless.

On the ram, turns out the model I have is the exact ones added in the AGESA update, just different version because of the black and white spreader. Same timings. So I am set and happy!

But, ultimately, this is why no one site, taken alone, is king for recommendations. Many should be considered and compared to get the full picture.

 

Yeah, I can't speak of Tom's other articles. I haven't used the site in years. It is just that we are comparing apples to oranges, While he originally recommends just orange juice for light to heavy breakfast apple juice is a perfectly fine alternative.

Since either will require a CPU and motherboard along with ram and possible GPU what should be recommended is a platform bare bones comparison. I would say even for each level to build a bare bones of each and site the strengths and/or weaknesses of each.

In the end you have too many variables to just blindly prefer a CPU only from either camp. It is just too bad the sheep do not realize this. But on the other hand just saying you recommend one thing or another when there is a clear reasonable choice that can be made and without giving a reason why is irresponsible.

 

Biostar Racing X370-GTN Mini ITX AM4 Motherboard

 

Since talking about building a low end or budget gaming system and comparing CPU's



Also;

 

This is quite interesting about Vega, Zen+, Navi, etc.
http://wccftech.com/amd-taking-the-covers-off-vega-navi-may-16th/

I'm seriously looking into getting myself a new all AMD desktop.
Would cost (with a Freesync 1080p monitor) roughly £1100 (that's if I go with R5 1600).
I was thinking on spending more money by getting a 2k monitor, or R7 1700... or both (granted, both would increase the price by another £250 or so.

Alternatively, wait for Ryzen mobile platform and Vega discrete GPU (or at least E9550).

Although, I guess I could get an ALL AMD desktop now, and save extra money for a full Raven Ridge+Vega laptop for later (that is of course if OEM's can make a proper all AMD laptop, and I'd hope we could get 6 cores 12 threads [at least] as an option along with Vega HBM apu and Vega discrete GPU (or E9550) for less money than Nvidia/Intel systems.



EDIT
Also, there's this:
http://hothardware.com/news/amd-radeon-rx-vega-prototype-3dmark-fire-strike-appearance

In terms of the Firestrike results... we seem to know that Vega will launch in several 'flavors'.
The one demonstrated in Firestrike could be slowest.

 

Well all of this talk on various 7700K running at 5 GHz and killing the Ryzen are for naught. Intel now wants everyone to run within original specs.

http://wccftech.com/intel-i7-7700k-...aints/?utm_source=wccftech&utm_medium=related

 

Wants.

They can easily lock their next-gen though.

 

If you look at the gaming benchmarks of the Ryzen overclocked at 4.1 GHz and stock 7700K there is very little difference except in a few area's. Because of this I doubt Intel is going to lock the 7700K and loose those benchmark numbers from being overclocked.

 

Well, I can put in Intel's own website What is Overclocking? Explained by Intel If Intel don't understand or want that people Delidde their mainstream chips... Maybe they should start with solder instead of their junk paste?

 

I can understand their point. If the CPU has issues with heat then deliding it takes way their ability on a return to see if that were an original issue. There may be no way of knowing also if the process improved of hurt the chips cooling. Lastly there are those that will kill a chip and blame it on the chip itself.

 

Back in the good old days, if your delidded Intel CPU on your gaming PC breaks and Intel doesn't honor the warranty, your only choice is to get another Intel at your own expense. That, or give up. So not honoring the warranty on mainstream performance chips actually increases sells a bit.

Now for most games that don't scale beyond 4 cores Intel is still somewhat better. But the gap has closed to a point where an angry customer can jump ship and not take too much hit in performance. Some games that can scale further even favor the competition (given comparable prices). So delidding failures don't bring as much sells.

 

They could use solder instead of their junky paste and upping the prince with $1-5. Even 10 bucks. A more difficult process for them, but fully possible to do. People buy De-lidde tools. I don't think they would be very angry with a slightly higher price, if the temp results being better in the end. Maybe we will see solder with later crossroad? All bad publicity will force them to re-thinking next steps!!

 

No argument that they could do a better job, and now maybe going forward they will. It is doubtful they knew at the time how important having extreme overclock-ability on the 7700K would be. This could especially become true if AMD eventually gets the Ryzen chips to become more stable at higher clocks.

 

Theres nothing wrong with the paste Intel puts on their CPU though (soldering would yield better results). Its the gap between the IHS and the DIE.









I've delidded several Intel CPUs post 2nd gen and this seems to be the case. The adhesive (black) glue they use to keep the IHS adds gap therefore the IHS and DIE does not get proper contact.

 

This isn't exactly true. You are correct that it adds a gap. But, the quality of the thermal paste is one factor. Another is overall effectiveness, both of this and their solder.

So, when discussing mainstream chips, 10-30C is obtainable from delidding, regardless of generation. When you delid the soldered HEDT chips, 4-8C is obtainable. Yet, when a German overclocker delidded Ryzen, you saw 1C difference going from the solder to liquid metal or direct die.

When taken as a whole, this means AMD is doing something better, in this regard, than Intel. There is no discussion to be had. It can be done better!

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

Wrong or not with the paste Intel puts on their CPU... A hell lot of people will delidde their cpu so long Intel still use paste. Whatever thermal paste Intel want to use or even better fit from IHS, will never be able to replace solder its better cooling capability. BTW. Use all processors from AMD solder? I mean the newer and the one who will come? If all will use solder... Why shouldnt Intel do the same? The cost?

 

Last paragraph in that article says it all!

 

Oh no I agree, after gen 2 of the i7 quad they went cheapo mode with using paste instead of solder but at the same time they messed up the actual assembly or its probably the same assembly minus the soldering part therefore the drastic thermal increase on high load. What I just wanted to clear up is people saying its intel putting cheap thermal paste is the cause of the temp increase which is partially but not entirely the cause but if they used solder it would probably neglect the gap in the first place.

From intel's standpoint its probably easier for them to repair/fix a broken CPU non soldered and/or they probably just want to be cheap for mainstreamers and keep the X series for enthusiasts

 

All desktop AMD CPUs available now use solder/gold, including the Ryzen line up.

Yes. But the performance of solder is so good one can get away with a much higher IHS-die gap without thermal issues.

The solder layer on Ryzen doesn't look thin, yet even direct-die cooling (which most PC enthusiasts will never try) only gives 1c-2c advantage.

 

Yeah thats what I said on my previous post "if they used solder it would probably neglect the gap in the first place."

Oh its thin, with solder you'll have a direct heat transfer, and any type of paste or liquid metal as long as it makes contact with the IHS and DIE will work as intended. The adhesive glue that were used to keep the IHS on the PCB was one of the big factors that will cause increased temps because there was barely any contact to begin with.

lol you mean regular/mainstream users will never try... enthusiasts are those who go out of there way to get max performance or squeeze every bit just for a few temps, early days there were no IHS so direct die cooling was the norm, with our laptops we have direct die GPU and direct die CPU so squeeze on too tight or chip that DIE and you will have some problems xD

 

De-soldering and direct die cooling with der8auer:

AMD Ryzen Direct Die Cooling - Improvements?


der8auer's has a bunch of new OC'ing postings as well:
https://www.youtube.com/user/der8auer/videos

 

To be honest, it was late and I couldn't remember how to spell his handle last night. Sad, I know...

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2017/05/amd-ryzen-5-review-1600x/

My problem here with the cons, despite the major Intel bias, is did not Intel just recommend to not overclock the 7700K?

http://www.fudzilla.com/news/processors/43602-amd-s-ryzen-5-one-of-the-best-chip-products

 

So, this article confirms what I've been saying so far: AMD still has yet to catch Intel, overall. In any aspect worth considering except pure multithreaded performance.

In IPC, TDP and $$/performance it is still a second place finisher. As a platform, it is an option to Intel; but not a superior one. Being rushed to market is one of it's major weaknesses and one of it's greatest strengths too (bad for the initial users; great for showing how much progress was made in a couple of months...).

I'm not anti-AMD, really.

Just want the reality to be read for what it is; AMD is finally on the real road to improving on what it delivers/offers as a platform.

That road though is just as uphill as it ever was (post their circa ~2006 timespan)...

 

They did recommend not to overclock and the temp spike suggests a voltage spike occurring. Considering looking at only stock performance, of gaming, Intel still wins on gaming without good multi-threading support favoring IPC and only liking 4 cores, but the 6-core is the sweet spot for AMD if you want an all around CPU with a huge value considering the recommendation not to overclock in effect.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

That's quite true.

The only *Intel approved* way to test going forward would be Intel CPU's at stock speeds, and AMD CPU's a maximum OC speeds - AMD approves of OC'ing their CPU's

 

Wow, those voltage spikes might shorten the life of your Intel CPU, so we better not OC it!!

It wouldn't be responsible for those benchmark sites to recommend OC'ing Intel CPU's during benchmarking from now on given Intel's recent findings.

The only fair way to go moving forward is to run Intel CPU's at stock speeds for all benchmarks

 

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/biostar-amd-am4-cryptomining-motherboard,34356.html

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

Here's more news on Raven Ridge (Ryzen APU featuring Vega IGP) :
http://wccftech.com/amd-raven-ridge-ryzen-apu-vega-gpu-leak/

Looking forward to mobile solutions... but, I'd rather see a 6c/12t APU with Vega IGP and HBM.

 

I don't think this is the case.
Intel enjoyed market dominance for a long while now, and most software was optimized for it due to those circumstances.
Various benchmarks have shown us that clock for clock Ryzen can be equal to Intel if not better.
The software in which this is not the case is more a case of software optimizations.

Also, are you really going to be fussy about a 5% or 10% differential for a massive reduction in price?
I mean seriously, with future upgrades to the BIOS and software upgrades, Ryzen could easily dominate over Intel.

The fact that Ryzen managed to accomplish what it did right now with an unoptimized platform is nothing short of amazing.
I seriously think people need to cool their jets a little and stop expecting miracles of a product that hasn't been properly optimized for (these inital patches are just that, patches on a larger road - and btw, Intel was no different when it released a new platform).

 

New AMD Naples posts

Spoiler: A bunch more short clips...

 

128 logical cores probable means 1.0 GHz if that. Maybe a good use for the cooling side of a outdoor pool heaters heat pump. JK but try imagining the cooling required.

Now I think in time Ryzen will give Intel some trouble in gaming as well. In time Intel may iron out the voltage spikes too so in gaming it has a bit more breathing room. Remember not every one is a gamer so the casual user 99% of the time is way better off with the AMD solution and even if they are a gamer usually they are just fine with the AMD solution as well (unless on 1080P and a GTX 1080TI). So really only a very few actual systems take advantage

On that note a budget system could easily be converted to a Ryzen 7 1800X powerhouse down the line. I would be hard pressed to recommend to anyone an Intel specific platform for a desktop. Just a sever hardcore gamer with a specific extreme and very expensive hardware configuration. I am sure Intel realizes this and is not willing to bank just having the advantage in those cases alone but for now is relegated to exactly that.

 

Actually, 128 logical cores is 64 cores, 2p 32 cores, 1.4GHz base, 2.8 boost, no idea what all core likely run is as 2.8 is probably a single core number. You weren't far off (400mhz), but wanted to clarify with previously known/speculated information. Now, when next week comes around, then computex, we'll know more, which is good considering Intel is boasting a 2.5GHz on the SK-EP Xeon 28 core with higher IPC.

http://wccftech.com/amd-zen-naples-server-cpu-vega-gpu-platform/

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

Edit: also, the question is whether the spike is Kaby specific (design defect), or process specific (everything on 14nm+ is ****ed, including all upcoming HEDT and Xeon chips). It is important to know which is the problem, or if it is something sending the wrong signal or a code problem...

 

Agreed, if the issue is 14nm+ etc. we need to know. Unless you plan to run a GTX 1080 (TI) and 1080P gaming it makes little sense to go Intel 7700K and have to worry about it.

 

http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-16-12-core-x399-whitehaven-cpus-leaked/

Ryzen's Whitehaven 16c/32T
Base clock of 3.0Ghz, boost of 3.6Ghz. Wow. I hope that means the 12c can hit 4.0Ghz.

 

Now, to put this in perspective, this matches the leaked information in March. But, the other leaked information said that the final may be clocked at 3.6 with a 4.0 boost. Considering the 12 core is 2.7/3.2 (closer to what was seen by cannardpc in their leak around the same time, but a bit faster), we could be seeing close to true rumors. Even if Whitehaven doesn't hit 4.0, if it can overclock to 3.9-4.0, if sufficient cooling is provided, for 24/7, I think I've fallen in love! Especially considering this is on later revised silicon compared to Ryzen (more refined process, better yields). Further, Ryzen is about to put out the AGESA update 1.0.0.6, which will bring 4000MHz+ ram support to Zen based CPUs, meaning Whitehaven with quad-channel 4133 Trident Z! That also means that the infinity fabric transfer rates will be geared up! The question is wheather the quad channel also doubles the infinity fabric speed as well (I'm hoping it does).

Finally, did anyone else notice the L3 cache? 64MB! That is four times what Ryzen has and what would be expected if you threw 4 Ryzen dies on a single chip, like Naples, for example. Now, Naples is also expected to have 64MB of cache. Could this be a Naples chip with cores disabled? I now have more questions than answers. But more will be revealed on May 16th, then at Computex, then on release, then when I build my machine. AMD has earned my purchase, they will be my home server, and will be so for the next 4-6 years. Considering the plan to build one beast machine for the entire home and offload all computing to it, Intel cannot compete for the price for a 16C running at 3.6-4GHz with more PCIe lanes supporting more video cards and storage. Intel wins on IPC and DRM, granted. Cannot argue. But when I plan on using developer boards for terminals around the house, I'll need something that can support more resources for different rooms.

 

New AMD 16 Core Ryzen Whitehaven Engineering Samples Surface-Guru3d.com

Edit. AMD Zen Enterprise Roadmap Shows 48-core CPUs in 2018-Guru3d.com

 

ASRock AB350 Gaming K4 Motherboard Review + Linux Test
Published on May 11, 2017
IOMMu for guest graphics passthrough works on this board! But it is purely accidental that it does! If you give up PCI3.0 NVMe , you can use the PCIe 3.0 x4 slot for the HOST graphics adapter.

The GUEST graphics adapter will be in the x16 slot.

Just make sure that your graphics adapter supports re-initialization e.g. generally not a fury card of any type). I am hopeful that ASRock will enable GPU initialization selection.

I am happy to see that my PCIe x1 graphics card does work fine, too, if it is the only graphics adapter in the system.

I also recommend enabling the amd programmable interrupt controller -- avic -- for stability. Enable it with a kernel boot time param; learn more here

 

Ryzen 5 1400 vs. R5 1600: 4-core vs. 6-core!

 

Now, starship was already known to be 7nm and 48 cores, effectively adding 50% more cores with the same socket. What wasn't known was timing. It was expected for 2019 volume as AMD was expected to wait for EUV availability. But TSMC did not and the original chip designed by IBM was not on EUV. That team is now at GloFo. So, if true, we'll find out on May 16th when AMD was unveiling the roadmap and Intel is ****ed.

As I said, for a home server, this is tops, including future CPU upgrades on the platform!

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

Even the graphic shows possible starting in 2018 but extends to 2019. You have to take those future predictions with a grain or two of salt. Now more immediately I ma much more interested in the 16c,32t in 2017. While in practically a 8c,16t is more practical for a home PC, well I just want what I want.

 

But, imagine upgrading to a potential 7nm 24C/48T with DDR4 in quad channel in 2018 or 2019 using the same socket. How long would that last you? Plus, look at the IPC gains they got going to 14nm. What kind of gains would you get going to 7nm? As I said, they have earned my platform for 4-6 years. Video cards come and go, but a platform can be half a decade!

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

Nothing is 'half a decade' anymore... the advances in tech are too great to ignore.

And if you do ignore them or make excuses of why you don't need the latest and greatest (while you're already salivating at the next gen...); you do so at your own risk.

These multicore products are not that appealing... at the TDP ratings they're indicating so far...

 

I would love to say the IPC will get a great gain from going to 7nm but it is always a wait and see game there. As we can see even with Intel there can be unexpected issues, like the one with voltage spikes on the 7700K's. Not saying it is the process but you never know what can pop up as an issue. Just we do know, at least for now, there is not much of an issue with the 14nm.

I haven't used a desktop since 2007. I have not the need for the power and may still not. I am guessing it is time to go from DTR to a true DT. This especially while I can still go W7 and eventually just Linux.

 

@TANWare - kaby was an advancement on 14nm. Instead, this should be compared to the ipc jump going from HW to BW (although this may be closer to SB to BW in ipc). But you do have a very good point there. My correction here is to point to IPC of die shrinks rather than process improvements or architecture improvements. HW to BW is a die shrink, skylake to Kaby was mostly process improvement, with slight architecture improvement. With the move to 7nm, we get architecture improvement and die shrink, so like an ivy, a BW, etc., except with 50% more cores. But, as you pointed out, sometimes you don't always get much IPC improvement (like Kaby). So point taken.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk