The Notebook Review forums were hosted by TechTarget, who shut down them down on January 31, 2022. This static read-only archive was pulled by NBR forum users between January 20 and January 31, 2022, in an effort to make sure that the valuable technical information that had been posted on the forums is preserved. For current discussions, many NBR forum users moved over to NotebookTalk.net after the shutdown.
Therein lies the problem, no real comparisons. Sure that would have been nice but I would have settled again for inhouse comparisons between the variants. Without some sever issues Threadripper would have been my CPU of choice but play with me and you can't have my money or support either.
It is printed as Ryzen threadripper on the chip. This means it is likely considered a Ryzen and all Ryzen are overclockable. Further, all Intel chips for HEDT are overclockable. So most likely, yes.
I have calmed down since the AMD's conference and I have still very interested in Threadripper and that's partly to do with the 64 PCIe lanes (I am a storage geek/whore). Intel's offerings are interesting, but I need to see 4.5 on ALL cores (instead of the new Boost 3.0 on two cores) if they expect me to invest a "premium" in their new platform.
Another option is to wait for the 6950X to drop below $800 (which it will) and equip my remaining two X99 rigs with that processor.
Vega, on the other hand, is going to fill that little brother role against Volta. I have 1080's SLI or better in my rigs, so there is no rush for me new GPU's, but I think AMD lost me on an all AMD rig.
Analysis of Skylake-X part 2: the battle of the six cores and a check of scaling found on my analysis.
To begin, we take two 6 core scores, that of the i7 7800X and that of the Ryzen 5 1600X. The 7800X took the gold with a six core scoring 1929 in Cinebench r15 running at 5833.19MHz. The 1600X scored 1837 with a frequency of 5445.53MHz. When we scale the 7800X to the same speed as the 1600X, we use the equation (1929/5833.19)*5445.53=1800.803226022125. We then divide this by the 1837 to get the percentage difference in IPC performance, which is 0.980295713675626 or 98%. Considering the above comparison with the 10-core to 8-core gave a roughly similar 3.7% difference, we can chalk that up to margin of error. This includes this time being two different overclockers which may use slightly different approaches when overclocking. It is most important to note that it is lower than Ryzen and has the advantage of Quad-channel memory and memory frequency, as the i7 used 3620.6MHz ram speed and the Ryzen 1600X used 3118.6MHz ram.
Now, we look at a control situation by comparing the 1600X gold speed to an average overclock of 4GHz. We start by taking 1837 divided by 5445.53, giving us 0.337340901620228. We then multiply that by 3997.8MHz, the speed of the comparison test. This gives 1348.621456497347. We divide that by the score of that CPU, 1390, and get 0.9702312636671564, or 97%. What accounts for the difference in scaling? To start, we look at the dates the benches happened on. The LN2 score happened on April 11, 2017, after some refinements to the bios, but the release date of the CPU (meaning the score may have been recorded at an earlier date, then released on that day as part of the NDA, as the overclocker is a member of the ROG overclocking team). The later score at 4GHz happened on May 20, 2017, after the availability of the AGESA 1.0.0.6 beta bios for the Crosshair VI, the board that both overclockers used. Second, we look to the ram. The infinity fabric is tuned to run at half the DDR speed, meaning the faster the ram used, the more throughput is available. The score at 4GHz had a ram speed of 3467MHz, an increase of 348.4MHz, which is 174.2MHz increase on the infinity fabric speed. As has been seen through other overclocking, going from 3200 to 3466 can yield 1-3%, depending on the program used. Finally, we have improvements in the versions of the bench, potentially, that could impact the final score that is seen, including the OS improvements over that period. I believe that because of BIOS improvements, the ram speed, and software and OS enhancements, the 3% difference is largely explained, showing that the scaling used by this methodology yields roughly consistent results, within a margin of error.
From here, we now must scale the 7800X to an expected average overclock. Considering the 6700K was able to consistently hit 4.8GHz (4.7 being used more often) and the 7700K being able to hit 5.0GHz (but usually clocked lower on air because of heat), we will look at the numbers for this method at 4.6GHz and 4.7GHz. We start with 1929 divided by 5833.19, giving 0.3306938399057805. When multiplied by 4600MHz, we get 1521.19, rounded to the second decimal. When multiplied by 4700MHz, we get 1554.26, rounded. These are both higher than the 1390 achieved by the control CPU 1600X at 4GHz, an average overclock speed, by 9.44% and 11.82% respectively. This pattern matches the last analysis, roughly, on the lower IPC effectiveness, while showing a greater gain due to potential speed advantage on the CPU, making the difference about 10.63%, plus or minus 1.2%.
When we examine pricing, we see where things come into focus. The i7 7800X comes in at $389, whereas the 1600X comes in at $250. This means to buy the 7800X, you would be paying 55.6% more for the 10.63% increased performance and more PCIe lanes, as well as the quad-channel memory interface. If those things are a must have, then by all means do so. If not, you will see the Ryzen R5 1600X continue to have the best value in the 6-core arena. I have included my earlier analysis below to allow for easy access and comparison.
So, to do an analysis of the 7900X versus the 8-core 1800x, I find myself unimpressed with the per clock IPC performance. Do not take this as gospel, as it applies in one case and use and is an estimate, not an absolute measure of performance.
Start by taking the Cinebench score and dividing the score by the MHz achieving that score. What you get is 3181/5755, giving 0.5527367506516073. This is then multiplied by the top score reached by the 1800X flagship, 5364MHz. These were benchmarks performed by the same overclocker, but it should be noted that the Ryzen was done at 3400 MHz as the AGESA update was not yet available, which means the BCLK had to be offset to achieve that score, while the Intel used 4000MHz ram, without needing to adjust the clock to achieve it. Also, now that faster ram is available with Ryzen, we may see faster IPC due to faster data transfers on infinity fabric. This IS NOT A PERFECT TRANSLATION OF SCORES. When you then multiply by the 1800X speed, you get 2964.879930495222. You then divide this number by the top score of the 1800X to get the performance over the 1800X. This gives 1.208182530764149, which means just under 21% increase in performance. But the analysis does not end there. We must look at the number of cores. When this is taken into account, then you see the 7900X has 25% more cores. This while achieving roughly 21% improvement at the same clock. When considering that the test on multithreaded performance of the SL-X on CPU-Z only beat the prior BW-E by 3%, we are starting to see that AMD is built better for specific multi-threaded tasks at an equal speed.
If instead, after reaching the score divided by speed, we divide the result by 10 cores, then multiply by 8 cores, then proceed by multiplying by the lower speed of Ryzen, we see a score of 2371.903944396177, which is 96.65460246113192% of Ryzen's score.
No 7820X score is currently available for comparison.
Of course, they don't reach equal speeds, as the Intel CPUs will achieve higher clocks than Ryzen. This has to be said, as you cannot just look at performance at a given speed and crown a king. Considering, on average, you can expect 300-500MHz more performance from the Intel overclocked, and this LN2 run is about that, let us run one more analysis only scaling to 8-Cores and seeing the ration between the two CPUs to look at a potential performance on similar core count. (3181/10)*8 =2544.8. To find out the performance over the 8-core Ryzen 1800X, you get 2544.8/2454=1.037000814995925. This means there is a 3-4% increase in performance, but that means we now consider pricing. The 7820X will cost $600 while the 1800X costs $500. This is 20% higher cost, while performance is 3-4%.
Now, some will point out that the percentage increase at over 5GHz is different than at 4GHz. That is correct. 500MHz over 4GHz is a 12.5% improvement in speed. 5.8GHz over 5.3GHz is only 9.43396%. This is a 3% difference in percentage of scaling. That is a fair criticism. So, you may see a slight widening in that score, while still being well under 5% on the above analysis including speed for average OC. This also must be noted that TR will have Quad Channel memory and this analysis compares a quad channel to a dual channel setup. Also, AMD now supports higher speeds and the scaling found on the data fabric. TR uses an even higher transfer rate data fabric, supposedly, with the cores using the Zeppelin rather than fully what was found on the Ryzen R7, if rumors are true. The Intel chipset is newer, but both tests were on unrefined systems, with the world record on the Ryzen 1800X performed at the February announcement for the press, not after release with all of the improvements that came within weeks of release. Further, Intel's architecture allows better utilization as Skylake architecture is not exactly new and software has already been optimized for it. Considering it is only 3% difference between the 1700 overclocked and the 1800X, while that costs almost 50% of what the Intel 8 core costs, that will continue to be my recommendation for the 8-core chips (unless release data shows this analysis to be considerably off base). If you need the quad-channel memory or high IPC, while only needing the larger core count for a couple tasks, there are situations where Intel will be the recommended go to processor, including the extra PCIe lanes for an 8-core, which will help drastically on storage support or network support. So please don't write Intel off on cost alone. If your needs are such that you primarily need IPC and PCIe, Intel is the way to go. But, depending on price and release of a 10-core chip by AMD, that may change as TR may be able to give you the extra storage you need. IPC still will favor Intel, but that will then be a smaller subset.
So, this is an analysis performed from public data from Intel. I will later try to find data on Intel's products running blender on the same image and compare the original Ryzen data to released Ryzen data running the blender image to Intel, while looking at the score on the TR, while noting we know nothing on ram speed or the speed that chip was running at in the Taiwan show. That is the most frustrating part of this. Hope this helps some with the comparison before numbers actually become available.
Thanks a lot for the insightful post bro. Waiting for the 1800X to reach laptops so we can see some serious competition. And if I do build a new desktop, I will be looking at Threadripper as a primary option, assuming it is priced right.
So long as you can overclock on the laptop, the difference between the 1700 and 1800X is about 3%, while costing about $160 less. So, I don't know that this choice is worth it, unless for absolute highest clocks/performance.
For TR, I definitely agree. And the video they used to show the name, all I could think of is blade runner!
IIRC, I read somewhere that the 1700 in the Asus G702ZC could *not* be overclocked, so if we want max performance, 1800X is the way to go. However, I won't deny that the 1700 gives better value for money. We need an
@Prema BIOS to be able to OC the 1700.
They probably have a white list on hardware and the 1800X probably won't work without a custom bios. But Svet and Prema don't really do Asus notebooks, so...
I don't really care for Asus myself. If we could fit a 1800X in the MSI 16L13 or the Clevo DTRs, which would both hopefully get
@Prema BIOS, I would think that it would be very interesting.
I would definitely give Ryzen 7 a chance in DTR form but that could mean only Vega as an option for graphics. With no refresh coming down for the P870 series until the end of the summer or the fall, I think Ryzen 7 will be an option.
As far as AMD only graphics this may be the case with the APU (on chip graphics) but the chip could probably have discreet graphics from anyone. Not too sure the CPU would be worth doing in a higher end laptop like that, we have to wait and see.
Edit; I though I might add it seems with the x399 boards there is no HDMI out etc.. So unlike the B350 boards for Ryzen it does not look like an eventual integrated video was ever planned. This is not a bad thing just something I thought I'd point out.
"AMD Ryzen™ Combo Deals: For a limited time save on AMD Ryzen processors with up to 8 cores and 16 threads when purchased with select AM4 X370 and select B350 motherboards.
They also could be trying to move volume to increase the numbers for the second quarter, or to increase the spread between itself and Intel's offering later this month. Or, they revised the process to lower the price offering on TR to increase appeal, as the article suggests. Still don't know if temporary or permanent.
The platform has matured to where it is now time to aggressively push adoption. With the early addopter syndrome gone consumers will not feel like they are involved in a beta program.
Startin increased saturation will also prepare for the release of Vega. Once consumers think of AMD as a viable alternative the idea of a non Nvidia GPU does not fall far off.
For now at least, ThreadRipper seems more a niche market. Epyc I think will be the money maker but Threadripper will wet the appetites of those who would consider making the purchases. AMD will be showing they have a platform that can compete anywhere, and everywhere, within the market. No longer just for the low end budget systems.
Another thing that seems to be missed is the hardware. AMD has learned from Intel mistakes where higher end hardware is concerned.
1.) No BGA, everything CPU wise is on a socket. Very easy to go from 4 cores in the system to 8 etc..
2.) Soldered thermal interface. these are usually pretty good at thermal transfer. Longevity has yet to show but has not been an issue before.
You have a great skill using numbers, but you're missing the forest for the trees. You're guessing and then coming up with the numbers to prove your guess. Not how its done in the real world.
Assuming the gross injustice your 'analysis' does to the many differences in the platforms you're trying to compare, the last paragraph is where you stumble the hardest.
Sure, with these processors right now you'll save a whopping $139 on the processor. That is not a value sell when a complete and proper platform is in the $2K range or a mere ~7% of the total.
When you also consider that it is getting less performance too - that $139 dissipates very quickly to anyone that is building between these two builds for max performance/value over time.
Your theoretical calculations are great to read as an aside, but to base an 'analysis' on them is doing the community here a disservice, imo.
4 Channel memory (w/128GB supported by the processor) is also a huge difference that is given up by choosing Ryzen 5. Saving up an additional $139 (a matter of a few weeks for most people considering these systems) is a no-brainer here.
The 'value' is not saving a few $$ today. It is getting the most performance each and every day out of your purchase over the expected life of ownership.
no point in pointing out any potential flaws of
@ajc9988 ´s analysis, for now its based on all that we have and is definitely an interesting read to pass the time until more data is available
thats it, no "right" or "wrong" to point out here
"So, what we learned is that Intel will be releasing just the Skylake-X processors with up-to ten cores in a week or two. All motherboard partners had the 10-core SKU which would be the Core i9 7900X that will be priced at 999 USD. None, and I do repeat this none of the partners have had their hands on, or even seen the 12, 14, 16 or that 18-core part. So that does raise some questions as earlier on we have already stated that Intel is rushing things as an answer towards AMD’s upcoming Threadripper processor series."
Overclocking: "There is another thing that we did look into, overclocking. I am honestly getting a little tired of 6 & 7 GHz overclock announcements in situations where LN2 or sub-zero cooling is being used. Its getting old and it is not at all important or relative towards you guys, the end user. Now I did some rounds with the mobo partners and simply asked them what clock frequencies they can tweak the 8 and 10 core parts at with a more normal cooling method, like LCS or a really proper heatpipe cooler. The magic number seems to be 4.2 to 4.3 GHz depending on the ASIC quality."
tbh, if the threadripper rumors hold true at a friggin 850 bucks for the top end 16C/32T monster, then thats a total nobrainer for me. even at lower frequency/ipc and two less cores, its gonna be approximately situated between the 14C and 16C skl-x models and that at HALF the price (when looking at existing ryzen prices, expected price cuts and performance numbers, the 850 bucks wouldnt even be a total shocker!)
so basically, thats what i would get for a desktop system, over and out
If 4.2-4.3 all core is true for 10 cores, while the 14 or 16 cores hit around 3.9-4.0 all core, plus the price, AMD will be the winner. Makes me wonder how much I overestimated Intel's average OC.
Considering AMD's 8 cores overclocked (average score) is what Intel's 6 core gets on LN2 (slightly slower, but not much), and how much it drops down on speed for all core each time, so long as AMD allows getting all cores clear to their boost, you can step up to the next higher core count, still be cheaper than Intel for the lowest offering (non-X) at that level, and beat it, with the caveat of whether the software is heavily multithreaded. Considering AMD is working significantly with hardware partners to help them code for extra threads, this seriously interests me.
If $850 for 16-core, I'd pick up that, a MB, and a new cooler for it and still come in at $1500-1600 (I have the 4133 Trident Z ram and a 980 Ti, plus case and monstrous PSU). If I sell my current chip and MB, that is $500 or so, meaning an extra $1000 is needed. Then just wait for 2019 and 7nm chips while enjoying great performance...
Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk
Edit: btw, 300 mhz is 7.5 % over 4.0GHz, showing my estimate may be high in Intel's favor if AMD hits 4.0 on all cores.
I think it counts on when they can get them out. If Threadripper can come right out with the 1998x while Intel can only offer the 10 or 12 core variants then AMD would have a good case for setting the 1998x at $1199 for the release. This then lowering it later in the year as the other chips come to market that is.
I'd rather see them undercut the Intel offerings right off the bat, but do a tiered offering like Ryzen 7, then Ryzen 5, then Ryzen 3. So, see the 16-core variants and 14-core variants this month, while coming in lower than Intel's 10-core (or equal to it). Then, next month release the 12 & 10 core variants. Or doing something like that (16 this month, 14 & 12 next month, 10 in August)...
I'd like too se it as well but you have to let them rake it in while they can. As it is they need to bolster the stock prices, nothing like profitable chips to do just that. You have to realize as well with the 16 core out and only a 12 core Intel, the ThreadRipper will be king of the HEDT and deserves to be priced accordingly.
Edit; this also sets a precedent for Epyc, how far do they need to undercut Intel there as well? AMD needs aggressive pricing but really needs to make some serious coinage here.
If Intel's 10c can only do 4.2/4.3, I'm going to be very disappointed. I can get a stable 4.1/4.2 OC on my 6950X. I'll wait for the official reviews but TR is looking more and more like the chip to get.
Way too early for the what if's. I do not think if you are on a 6950 now there is much reason to upgrade to just the new 10c. Without so gerat OC results it may not be worth it until at least the 14c or greater. This could be true of the Ryzen as well. If you invested in a 1800x setup it may not be reasonable until the 12-14 core ThreadRippers before upgrading if even then.
While having the extra 20% or greater cores can translate to fast times in some apps returns are diminishing. You become more and more hard pressed to find the advantages once you are already at 8 cores. If that were the case if an Epyc 32c,64t were $1999 to match the 18core Intel at release then why not go all out for a single core Epyc system? Now would that not put a throw down on Intel?
Epyc drops this month, meaning that already sets the pricing between that and this.
Also, AMD was able to give an 8 core at $330 and still pull it's 30-40% margin target. Considering that, it is only the extra amount of the MCM and some changes in design that would add to the cost. This suggests either Intel costs way more to produce, or were building in insane margin.
Edit: Also, supposedly, they have yields per wafer of over 80%. With the yields that high, the costs are lower, especially considering the other portions of that 20% may be used for the 6 core variant. When looking at the core breakdown, if you had a die with 6 cores, 3x3 CCX, and a 4 core with a 4x4 CCX, that may become the 10-core variant. Same with 8 and 6 for the 14-core variant. By doing so, you are limiting waste, putting those on the MCM connected PCB. This suggests that they are losing less on the process than Intel, allowing for the lower price while hitting margins.
The later, insane margins. But when you consider advertising and marketing along with probably a larger overhead it makes more sense as well.
Edit; I'll repeat myself. I would love for AMD to put a smack down on Intel and release the Epyc 32c,64t for x399 with ECC etc. trimmed off as ThreadRipper+ 2000x with 3.0 GHz base and 3.6 GHz turbo with XFR for $1999 to match Intels top offering.
The way I see it is adoption is key for this round. It hurts Intel for 2-4 generations. At 7nm, Zen 2, you can increase it more to be closer to Intel's, but you are proven and you have 7nm to work off of, as well as high core count and more programs utilizing the threading. That is why I trust they'll go low and make Intel **** its pants on its highest margin parts, really causing pain moving forward!
I seem to recall being told i was saying 'garbage' by proposing similarly low prices for Threadripper pages back... and I used current Ryzen pricing as a starting point.
Now 'rumors' point into the direction of such low prices and people are considering them as a viable possibility.
I also proposed a similar idea of placing 1600x and 1700 into a laptop and someone shot down the idea that it's 'implausible' because current laptops top out at 4c for Intel, and now Asus is releasing a laptop with 1700 and RX 580 to boot, and 1600x will also be placed into a laptop as well with 570 for a cheaper option.
I was oddly right on the mark with these hypothetical scenarios, but they weren't taken seriously or considered as a possibility even.
Curious.
Oh well, I'll be happy to see Threadripper in action... but for now, I think I'll stick getting either a 1600x or 1700 laptop with RX 580 (depending on their pricing) - I was actually thinking on getting a desktop system with those specs, but I'd prefer a laptop.
One issue with this is the hypothetical pricing of all AMD ROG laptops.
OEM's have a tendency to overprice their 'higher end' laptops... but AMD was historically cheaper, and since ROG is using dekstop hardware in the first place (most of which is cheaper than Intel and nvidia - sans 580 obviously), I'm hoping the pricing will at least be comparable to the current laptops that have 7700qk and 1060 (1700 is cheper and faster than 7700qk after all).
I'll admit, I did not expect $850 to be the price bandied about. $1000-1300 seemed right. I've also seen one person mention $850 for the lower 16-core and $1000 for the flagship. But, in either case, I do owe you an apology, as this is where the rumormill is currently leaning.
I'm not the one to hold rumors in too high esteem... I do prefer to wait for final release and see how things pan out and leave things up in the air until then... but for anything in between, I do like to hypothesize based on previous numbers and in this instance, I used the differential between the current Ryzen line-up in core count and pricing to provide a possibility of how higher core count Ryzens/Threadripper might be priced (it seemed like a logical thing to do after all given how aggressively AMD priced Ryzen against Intel to begin with).
Apology accepted though.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but someone said (in another thread I think) that 7700hq would 'crush' 1700 in gaming.
I don't really see this happening.
7700hq is clocked lower than Ryzen at base levels and only turbo boosts by 100 Mhz higher.
The IPC between the two processors (single-threaded) is not that big or existent if software is properly optimized for both CPU's... plus, the 1700 is supposedly much cheaper, and also comes with 4 extra cores to boot (and if the cooling for it is adequately done, then there shouldn't be any issues).
The only thing that might set back the FPS a bit is possibly the 580 (though we've seen that 1060 and 580 trade blows depending on the title and either is more than enough for maxed out 1080p gaming while also decent for 2k).
Per Intel's own sheet, 7700hq costs $387, while Ryzen 1700 was $329 at launch and is now being 'slashed' to $315 it would seem.
I hope Asus takes this into account with their own pricing and makes this an affordable content creation laptop that's also more than capable for gaming.
It would seriously undercut Intel yet again (only this time in mobile space) if they made it to cost similarly if not LESS compared to laptops with 1060 (6gb) and 7700hq - though this might be difficult to achieve due to larger premiums being placed on laptops with SSD's in general and the fact we're talking about ROG lineup (as others mentioned, ROG is not necessarily going to be cheap).
Hypothetically at least... if ASUS were to price these ROG all AMD laptops aggressively as AMD priced Ryzen against current Intel CPU's on the market it would be amazing to see that the 'top end' all AMD ROG laptop could be configured for same or lower the cost of a 7700hq/1600 (depending on which other components a system is built with, say 256GB SSD, 16GB RAM and 1TB HDD as opposed to 512GB SSD, 1 or 2TB HDD and 32GB RAM etc).
Will be interesting to see how the pricing turns out for these Asus laptops
Don't know on the laptop, but another theory on the $850 price point is to cost half of Intel's similar core count product. They roughly did this with the 8-core last round, with BW-E choosing $1K. With Intel lowering the price structure, the current cuts on 8 core makes a little sense, to give them more room on pricing for the upcoming CPUs. Considering the 16-core Intel will be $1700, at $850, which is less than the 10-core from Intel at $1000, you would have a lot of benefit for much lower cost. At that point, I'd get the 16-core instead of waiting for the AMD 12-core chip without much thought.
As far as the laptop with a Ryzen, the issue is it is a desktop CPU in a laptop inherently expensive to do. same can be said with placing a desktop GPU in a laptop. Eventually we will see which is faster, the 1700 or the 7700hq. The 1700 I can see in a laptop but I thought it would have been Clevo, not Asus.
Pricing of $850 I think may still be a bit low but as mentioned timing could be an issue here. Lower present Ryzen costs though do bolster the price more so than where they were.
To anyone who doubted that Intel increasing cores over 12C/24T was not a reaction to AMD! The fact that you are looking at a 9-12 month period, that is a full tapeout cycle, meaning they got nothing! 10 core this month, 12 core in August, others NEXT YEAR! At least they won't get caught with their pants down on Cannonlake-X. But, it also means over 6 months of AMD on top, if you need the cores! If they also undercut the 10-core, the only one that could give them trouble until August, and the 12 core, the only one to give them trouble until 2018, they will take SO MUCH MARKET SHARE!!!
IDK if these results will be replicated in the new Ryzen 1700 / RX 580 laptops, CPU performance sure will be a great production tool, and the 580 is 1060-like enough for gaming.
Radeon RX 580 & Ryzen 7 1700 out of the box CPU, GPU, and RAM VS Overclocked Benchmarks 1080p
That performance is from end of April, and there have been performance improvements since then, I will look for new results
Either way, if you need the MT performance, the 1700 SMASHES what the Intel 6-core will be offering! So if the 10-core TR is priced right, that will smash the 8-Core offering, ad infinitum. Intel really is getting hurt in all of this. Guess resting on laurels isn't such a great idea!!!
I think the Ryzen core count would be maxed with the 1700. Clocks though may not be. Now maybe something above the Ryzen 7 will be offered in the future. I do know the Ryzen 9 will not fit though.
Problems? See this thread at archive.org.
