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

Same size, but supposedly slightly modified. Could be same coolers.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

Looking at those Heat Sinks I don't see a Clevo doing the ThreadRipper. Those things are almost as big, and probably as heavy, as allot of laptops by themselves.

 

They could do a vapor chamber cooler for it! Lol.

But I do doubt a TR Clevo. Ryzen, on the other hand...

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

Maybe we will get the all new matching Clevo LN2 backpack reservoirs.

 

I wrote some pages back that I have to consider two things. Whether to wait for TR (10c to 12c max) or simply upgrade the rest of my X99 rigs to the 6950X. I have a 6950X in my home workstation and I do not use it for anything outside of work. My other rigs have a 6850k to 6900K.

Either way I will have to invest some cash but TR will allow me an upgrade path whereas I will be stuck on X99 with the 6950X (still a couple great years of usage).

 

TBH, you could wait for the new x299 and 10 core. There is sure to be an upgrade path there later on. Albeit an expensive one most likely. Also without the new hardware what feature sets will become available? The good thing about x399, everything is available to all TR's from 10 to 16 core.

 

Links;
First I've heard of this rumored new Ryzen chips below? If true were price drops to get rid of old stock? Lastly are these new optimized CCX's slated for the TR?


Edit; I wonder if he is referring too;
https://www.pcgamesn.com/amd/amd-kyzen
http://digiworthy.com/2017/05/22/amd-ryzen-refresh-series-zen-2/

Maybe AMD Pinnacle Ridge or Zen+, but that is not until 2018
http://wccftech.com/amd-pinnacle-ridge-raven-ridge-processors-confirmed/

 

A vapor chamber cooler is not a bad idea.

What about a synthetic diamond/graphene heatsink?
Synthetic diamonds have dropped massively in terms of production costs and graphene did too recently with mass production being viable.
You wouldn't need to use large amounts of both materials either especially if you're doing a composite and use maybe carbon nanotubes.

Although... couldn't OEM's simply do compact liquid cooling for laptops?
It doesn't have to be as efficient as desktop options... but a more compact version could potentially provide at least 50% as much as the desktop liquid solution might.

 

That's news to me. I haven't heard of any "improved" Ryzen 7 chips, however, I could see some early Ryzen adopters viewing that as a slap in the face if this is true. On the other side of the coin, this will increase sales to more gamers if they can get upwards to 4.5Ghz on the 1800X.

 

The only thing that comes to mind about 'improved Ryzen 7 chips' might be 14nm+ versions...
Unless of course we're talking about more microcode/bios updates that are (very likely) in the pipeline (but these would affect the current Ryzen lineup too).

 

The desktop Ryzen CPU's that ASUS will feature in their ROG lineup will probably top out at 8c/16th and won't be upgradeable to the Threadripper variants (10/16 core ).
The socket for Threadrippers is too big for one thing, unless the 10 and 12 core ones are same size as 8 core variants.

Then there's increased TDP to think about, etc.
I guess that a very thick laptop with a threadripper inside and 65W RX 580 might be doable... after all, OEM's did put power hungry desktop 980 and 1080's into laptops, so I doubt this would be any different.
Though, portability would likely not be good, along with the thickness, and of course the price.

I guess it's a possibility they could do it with Vega...

Though I think that Asus ROG laptops might actually top out at 8c/16threads.

 

Yes the ROG, in its present form, will top out at 8c/16t. This is why we were joking about a Clevo putting out a TR laptop with a portable LN2 reservoir. I am not sure how they could be able to cool it TBH, so doubtful we will ever see a TR in laptop form other than maybe in a small case.

 

To the links;
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4078745-amds-threadripper-will-crush-intels-latest-offering
http://www.techspot.com/news/69560-ryzen-7-series-get-first-price-cut-wait.html

 

TR costs $110-20 per chip, including dies, etc. They will make bank! I hope the TR 16-core @ $850 can OC like the bigger brother. If it does like the 1700, I know my build, and Intel has lost this cycle. Period. That is just insane! Why spend the $1k for a 10 core or $1200 for a 12-core at that point? Makes me think how low priced AMDs 12-core will be...

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

TBH, that goes to costs of the boards etc. Also TR will most likely as in the Ryzen need high speed memory. Since CAS has little to do with Ryzen optimization I do not think going from dual channel to quad will eliminate this issue. Albeit I do not think a 12 core Intel chip will trounce a 16c TR.

 

I could potentially see Threadripper equivalent with Ryzen 2 on 7nm and Vega (or Vega refresh - or Navi?) in between late 2018 and 2019on laptops.

14nm+ (or existing Ryzen refresh) will probably yield higher clocked current Ryzens at same or possibly better power efficiency with Vega (the only reason they're probably not including it now is because Vega still didn't come out with Polaris lineup replacements nevermind the high end).

 

I think they are not including it as this is the planned 12-18 month refresh since they are skipping 10nm. To do so now would possibly mean 36+ months without a refresh, that could be suicide. Stagnation is not a good thing here.

On that note as Intel may go to 10nm AMD may start looking long in the tooth. So while skipping 10nm will save AMD money is it worth it in the long run?

 

My thought is we'll have a Ryzen refresh next year at 14nm+, which will be released alongside the pro series which will also have 14nm+. I'm betting Epyc and TR get moved toward the front on 7nm, as Intel is likely to release 10nm cannonlake-X/E next summer, leaning only about 6 months, give or take a couple, to respond. I don't see as much benefit in going 14nm+ for many of its products, but they do plan on that for Vega, then 7nm Navi on 2019.

But that is my guesswork. Just push back mainstream so you have a reason (them having a refresh) to take care of the HEDT and server sectors first (with an 18 month wait). You then roll out to mobile and mainstream.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

Intel have the king at 18 core but if TR 16 is below 1k. I know what I will be buying.

If TR 16 is at like 1.5k, its a different decision.

 

http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-threadripper-16-core-cpu-849-us-price-x399-motherboards/

Look where it says the cost per chip, @tgipier. They won't do $1500 unless completely stupid.

"It’s also mentioned in another tweet that Ryzen Threadripper CPUs are very cheap to produce as the cost of a 16 core and 32 thread chip is about $110-$120 US. That cost is included for the dies, package and testing."

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

This again fits in both i9 threads and AMD threads, but since it's title starts with AMD, here it is here

Is it time to switch to AMD? Has Intel lost its mind?

 

I've been doing research on the X399 boards and while we don't have much information to go on, these boards seem underwhelming to say the least. Compare them to their X299 counterparts and it does appear AMD isn't getting the 'best'.

For example, with 64 PCIe lanes, you would think the average SATA ports would be higher than 6. I use my two NAS's as cold/warm storage for my rigs and I have only dropped in about 2 to 3TB of drives in each, but it does seem AMD is getting the short end here. Perhaps it is just me and my love of storage....

 

@Rage Set
The one good thing about add on cards

Edit; these supposedly have the 3 m.2's and then 8 SATA ports.
https://www.pcper.com/news/Motherbo...Rock-Shows-Two-X399-Threadripper-Motherboards

 

There are a couple parts to this. First, even on AM4, you didn't see the MB manufacturers bring it. Look at the x299 lineup already versus the smaller number of X399 boards shown off.

Second, it is not all the MB manufacturers fault. Part is the chipset. Take, for example, Intel giving 24 PCIe lanes to their chipset. It still is only connected by 4 lanes (it may be 8 lanes now to accommodate Optane) to the CPU, but allows you to shove a **** ton of stuff on the board. It still has that bottleneck of 3.9Gbps, but it looks like so much more. So, part of that is Intel illusion.

But, you are correct. I'm not seeing fully what I want yet. I'm hoping for some awesome eATX boards to come soon. It may be the only way to get cards for everything a person wants in some cases.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

This might be of interest for TR and x399
https://www.hardocp.com/news/2017/06/05/asmedia_expects_sales_rally/

 

Intel Core i7-7800X and Core i7-7820X CPU Benchmarks Leaked, Compared To Ryzen – End Up Much Faster in Single and Multi-Threading, Core i9-7900X Performance Detailed Too.wccftech.com

"While the overclock speeds of both chips are different, it shows that Intel does provide higher overclock headroom compared to Ryzen parts which top out at 4.1 GHz on air and just a couple 100 MHz over 5 GHz using LN2."

I'm not interested in chips who top out at 4.1 GHz although it is cheaper. Sorry AMD I want high OC, not ok performance with stock clock!!

 

So, looks like uptick next month. Also said Intel forced a sandwich, doing Intel one month, AMD the next, followed by Intel. If you remember, MB manufacturers blamed AMD for not having the chips last time, when they focused on Z270 and had the Chinese holiday (bs to cover bad planning and having low expectations of AMD). Here, Intel said focus all on me to stretch them across 3 platform releases in 3 months. Once again, if it isn't ready, MB manufacturers at computex already hinted it was contingent on AMD getting them final silicon. But, as in March, we already know AMD had a ton of inventory built up of AM4 chips. We would expect them to have inventory here as well. This makes me call excuses before anything they get called out on, including Intel favoritism.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

Ryzen performance has been known for awhile, plus weren't you the one that posted Intel all core OC was 4.3-4.4, or lower than BW-E awhile back? 4.1 on all cores vs. 4.3-4.4 all cores is literally 200-300mhz. I read that article earlier. They have all LN2, do not disclose all frequencies, and did not originally give credit to the overclocker or HWBOT. It didn't mention the hardware used or anything. Just because it hits higher LN2 means nothing. I'd trust the rumor of average air you posted awhile back to tell me more than LN2 on that point.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

I dont go for LN2 OC'ing. I want something for everydays task + hell lot fun. I want to go Phase Change as I have before.
I want to see all out there before I invest in new tech. I do not have hurry!! Aka I will take my time. But I'm interested in OC'ing. Aka highest possible clock speed. 2-3 or 400MHz higher clocks is still better than less Save 1-2-3 or even $700 on new tech isn't very importent. I pay gladely +$1ooo on chips+MB if I find something what I want.

 

I'll take the best average for my purposes. Considering I am going to build an overkill server, not as concerned about taking a bit less. But let me also posit this. As Intel core count goes up, all core OC declines. Why might AMD, then, defy this with the rumors speeds? They have two dies, thereby splitting the heat source pouring into one area, which means it is easier to hit what they were before without destroying transistors. Something tells me that may be an issue on Intel's HCC chips! If my hypothesis is correct, Intel's 16-core may have the same top speed or lower compared to a TR 16-core. I have no proof of this yet, but a hypothesis.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

We know far too little about the big boys from Intel. Too early to make a final conclusion. But I'm not interested the biggest 16/18 core chips. Up to 14(i9-7940X) is of interest. This is max cores I want. But I will of course see AMD’s Threadripper in fully OC with Phase Change before I do a conclution

 

I'm looking at, if the cost is really under $1k, that 16-core. With water, if I get 4.0 or better, I'm happy. But, with a Phase Change... But, I also won't wait the time for the HCC either at that point.

 

Price cuts when there is (supposedly) no competition isn't a good thing.

What are AMD's sales figures that they need to cut the already 'great' prices the new platforms were introduced at?

 

Sorry for OT, but wanted to share something awesome. A die shot of Vega... http://www.tweaktown.com/news/57873/amd-releases-close-up-shot-vega-gpu-die/index.html


Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

If all you are intested is in OC AMD may not be for you. The issue for now is until 14nm+ (or Zen+) these will not have a high OC value. This is a new platform and is not ready for those high overclocks just yet.

 

Some further links;
http://www.bit-tech.net/blog/2017/06/06/amd-s-threadripper-could-be-the-best-option/

Rumor; now this is 849 for the 1998, not the 1998x
https://www.techpowerup.com/234114/...hread-threadripper-to-reportedly-cost-usd-849

 

I would be fine with that, especially if it overclock the same as the 1998X (like the 1700 overclocked to the 1800X). The flagship at $1K still is 6 cores/12 threads and likely will hit around 4GHz, going against a 10C Intel for the same price. The speed increase and any IPC advantage will likely be less than the 16C in most multithreaded applications that can utilize the chips power. What I'd like to see is a MB that will allow for 2x16pcie GPUs, 2x8PCIe GPUs, 1x8PCIe 40gbps fiber optic card, and an NVMe (4xpcie), with the rest focused on storage and peripherals (4xpcie). Set the NAS hdd to raid on the last four lanes, hopefully supporting raid 5. That would be a nice setup for a home server. . . .

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

Edit: Assuming AMD will allow forcing of triple or quad crossfire for games. Also assuming I can setup the vm resources to allow for multiple points in the house to use the server to do the processing for gaming in different rooms in the same house at the same time (so splitting up to 3 people gaming in different rooms at the same time, using developer boards, although the only developer board I've found supporting 10gbps is way too expensive at this time).

 

I'm sticking with my recommendation of intel for single core and AMD for multicore applications for the moment. Something for everybody.

 

If those prices are true, those are some nasty gorilla tactics by AMD.

 

Not so much nasty as necessary. They have to break back in and convince people that they're better, and a good way to do that is to get in at low price.

 

Same release from AMD has this:

AMD Radeon Pro Vega: 8-16GB HBM2, up to 22 TFLOPs
http://www.tweaktown.com/news/57876/amd-radeon-pro-vega-8-16gb-hbm2-up-22-tflops/index.html

That's a Pro model, but that should translate into a great gaming GPU model too

 

It also makes up profit by moving volume! By doing so, and leaving great margins for OEMs and others, they give every reason to support the platform. Also, the more they prevent from getting on Intel this year can turn into blocking them for 2-4 years of sales. That can definitely hurt a competitor.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

I also noticed they are using 400Gbps HBM2 on there instead of the higher speeds. Makes me think, in part, of the issues with HBM2 production...

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

Ryzen Game Perf Increases With New Rise of the Tomb Raider patch-Guru3d.com

 

Nice follow up from Guru3d, but those bar graphs need the numbers annotated for the "before" numbers so we can "do the math" to find the FPS difference and %.

Unless I am missing where those numbers are noted...

 

Going in the right direction. Intel has had years of optimization for the iCore, Ryzen is 3 months and 1 week old. Cannot wait for when they allow our design for higher core scaling in new games (may take years before we see that). But why I wouldn't mind building a server for the house to support a couple instances of gaming throughout.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

Indeed, this is why it's so important to make a big splash early.

 

Maybe it will go faster with higher core scaling in games when mainstream chips now will be more 6 cores as standard. Game developers shouldn't design games around low powered 15w chips!!

 

Delete. Problems with dual post again.

 

Well, with Ryzen and coffeelake, we may see that as a reality soon. Now it's waiting for them to catch up, and hopefully with TR and the 10-core and 12-core i9s being in reach, they figure out how to allow great scaling and, potentially, asynchronous parallelism, to allow for faster and better results with higher core count. But, I'm no software engineer, so I cannot speak to the hassle involved.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk