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

So higher frequency for some cores, but spread the work over all? I think they were talking about that being a possibility with i9 already, though I don't know if it was actually implemented.

 

No, the i9 is optimized for higher frequency over 2 cores/4 threads. That is to allow the less multithreaded apps to use those, providing more umph for gaming, etc. With other programs optimized for 4 cores, you can see the 8 core Ryzen pretty well be stuck at 40% on all threads, instead of higher. What I'm talking about is similar to the distributed work load of DX12 with the addition of support for asynchronous computing, while allowing for better scaling for cores and threads with higher utilization rates, if that makes sense.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

That does, though I am a bit surprised to hear the low numbers on Ryzen, not sure why I thought it would be better performance per core.

 

That isn't the CPUs fault. When it stays that low, it is either because the work is not that demanding or the code isn't written to use all cores fully. Think puff the games that keep a 4 core up at 90-100, being at 40-45% is about half that. But, when you have a program able to fully use the extra cores and threads, then it can really shine. So, just give it some time...

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

Definitely, I'm already excited for second gen Ryzen.

 

Links;
http://wccftech.com/amd-radeon-rx-vega-die-shot-fake/

 

Yeah Apple!

 

I have been weighting my options. That is between a TR and 7900x. While the 7900x in multi-thread will be beat slightly by a TR 16c,32t the x399 platform will be pretty much maxed out. At least with the x299 I would have the option would be later on for up to 18 cores (maybe). While the TR may have 64 PCI-e lanes will I ever use them? That is more so than the 44 lanes provided in x299.

I could care less myself about Raid, been there done that. It does seem the boards are feature rich enough. Lastly to be honest before TR I would have been ecstatic over 8c,16t now a faster 10c,20T may be just the ticket.

I am not a fanboy of either side. AMD has their value where as Intel has the end punch, at least for now. But that is it I am looking to build in the very near future. In the end, with Ryzen, it seems AMD has the win as for 95% of users they are the best option. For extremists, and again I say for now at least, Intel is the ticket.

I should note because TR is still such an unknown I am keeping an open mind but AMD's refusal to give us better information, since the lack thereof in Computex, is making it up for me.

 

I'm holding off on any upgrades for the moment because of this. It would be an investment to change, so I want to see more hardware in action first.

 

TBH I would prefer the 12c,24T and I am sure that would put multi-Threading closer to the performance of the 1998x at least overclocked to 4.5 GHz. Not totally there but close enough. Non overclocked you probably need the 16c,32t to match or slightly out weight the 1998x and the 18c,36t to outrun it. Intel has their numbers about right there.

But you are right, it is for most a wait and see game.

 

Why would you want to reward Intel's history of bad behavior, and not encourage AMD's efforts to provide a viable alternative to Intel?

Even if AMD is a little slower, with the high-end Intel for 2-4x the cost unless you have a mission critical requirement for the performance, the AMD choice is the forward thinking one.

Intel is just a mess right now. Intel is on an introspective downward self-spiral - off bellybutton gazing on it's own, shunning the community.

While AMD is providing interactive community support, reaching out to everyone to join them in improving the marketplace for individual users - interacting with the community to improve gaming, motherboard, and peripheral integration with meaningful performance improvements.

Intel has gone mental, and AMD is the sane one in the room now.

Which one do you want to get involved with?

 

@TANWare - if you are waiting for the 12 core, it will be here in August. Let's say you wait a month for hiccups on both platforms and for reviews. Either way, that will give time for plenty of reviews.

Also, we'll see what the actual plausible overclock on each platform is and if AMD used an IMC that can handle faster speeds.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

As said I am not building today but shortly. I still have an open mind but AMD is making it up for me. In the end I am one customer, on the whole I am sure AMD will eventually put a hurt on Intel's business. As said AMD looks to have the value for most end users with Ryzen.

 

I think they'd be smart to lock up the enterprise market first personally.

 

AMD Ryzen™ Powers You – coaching session with Vikkstar123

 

@Papusan @TANWare - the article showing 4.3 GHz on liquid cooling, cinebench of 2364 or around there (it is in the pic).


https://www.guru3d.com/news-story/c...up-to-10-cores-first-does-4-3-ghz-on-lcs.html
Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

What I gather from the information on the revised TB 3.0 is that you can get the most performance out of software developed around 2/4c chips now and still get more performance when software developers finally get around to optimizing their software for more cores. Essentially, you do get the best of both worlds, gaming and content creation/etc. This is going to be Intel's silver bullet. The question I pose to @TANWare is that little bit of extra performance worth the premium price?

I don't agree that the X399 platform will be maxed out. I see it aging better than X299. Do not get me started on the lack of full support for RAID on X299 without a key. That alone will cause me personally to avoid X299.

I'm waiting until at least September before I take the plunge on X399. By then we will know more about TR, Vega and have more information on Volta too.

 

I've Already posted this article in the Intel i9 18 core thread. As well posted bench results in post # 1772 here. We should merge the threads or make a brand new thread for both Intel and AMD. Now it's more like a mess if you want info about both architectures. It's easier to compare results and info if everything is into one thread. I know this is a AMD thread, but you know....

 

http://www.pcworld.com/article/3200...yzen-prices-ahead-of-threadripper-launch.html
Turns out that the rumors AMD slashed prices is false. But, this shows that AMD is leaving plenty of margin for good sales at different retailers.

 

Any sales that go to a company hurt the other(s).

No platform ages 'well' except one that just keeps working to spec's... The spec's we have today are noticeably in Intel's favor (yeah; Optane).

RAID 0/1/5/10 isn't interesting anymore on a workstation. Not when we can have multiple, single drives that can hit ~3.2GB/s and 10GbE connections to a properly and similarly spec'd NAS.

When discussing 'x' in a thread without allowing to discuss the other options ('y' and 'z') is just silly, imo. I agree 100% that all aspects of a 'thread' be allowed to be discussed in that same thread. That is called balance and context. Otherwise, it is just a home for fanboys of the thread 'topic'.

Hmmm... now we are getting responses to rumors from the actual manufacturer(s)... is this real info (I have yet to see an 'official' statement from the horses mouth) or will it just be something they can waffle on, soon?

 

Exactly You have to talk about both brand's products if this thread shall have a meaning!!

 

Actually I'd rather all the Intel stuff stay in the Intel threads, and we thicken up on the AMD only talk here.

If we are going outside of Ryzen, then ThreadRipper, Epyc, and Vega are closely related.

But, that's just me - I'm not interested in Intel's mess, already seen enough to not want to see more

 

hmscott, I appreciate your depth of knowledge but am dumbfounded with your comment above.

Hard to believe you would rather talk about a topic in it's own vacuum, rather than debate the benefits of it's opposition too.

 

http://forum.notebookreview.com/thr...99-vs-x399-vega-vs-volta-xeon-vs-epyc.805695/
This solves the issue. We can fully explore all of what we want to compare here without any complaints and it not going off topic. Just don't thread crap or troll!

 

No matter how you turn it, you will not get away from Intel info and comparison in the thread. As it is now, info is a bit here and there. With only AMD info, I'm sure this thread will be somewhat amputated.

The thread will be amputated with just AMD info!! And the interest will fall.

 

I do agree, but even though the comparisons will happen in both places to a degree, we now have a place where you can be told to go if the argument gets too much or a person is promoting the competitor in thread instead of truly contrasting the tech.

 

There is no argument - just trading facts.

Nobody can 'promote' a competitor either - the tech will and does speak for itself on it's own - we're here to be it's unbiased messengers (as much as we can be).

Talking about the a processor company in their own vacuum is like talking about insignificant IPC 'scores' and ignoring the rest the respective platform(s), as a whole.

Today's O/S and software are far from perfect. Not to mention most BM 'scores' that only strive to inflate differences between almost identically performing components.

That is why real world applicability is required to see the value or the performance of anything new that is introduced. To do that; the door and our minds must be kept open. And not just be a 'we so like each other' party of teenage girls...

I'm keeping my mind open about the benefits that AMD's delivered and promised platforms will have for my clients and me. That is why I keep coming back to this thread; to discover new facts about their platform(s). Needlessly jumping between three or four threads to discover what the others are up to is not too big a deal for me.

But for others that may not know both sides strengths and weaknesses and just reading just 'go AMD! go' for a couple of hundred pages may give them a distorted view of the truth, so far.

The best outcome is to compare and contrast all viewpoints - one or the other will be proved wrong in the end - but the info and the thinking that got us to the final truth will be laid bare for future readers too (not just the ones participating now).

Don't be afraid of being challenged - step up and prove your point - when you can.

 

That's cause you wanna talk about Intel...

I'll be watching here...

Ryzen vs i7 (Mainstream); Threadripper vs i9 (HEDT); X299 vs X399; Vega vs Volta; Xeon vs Epyc

"Enjoying my popcorn and watching the show"

 

To be fair, there are times when accurate comparisons need made. Even I pull in Intel info sometimes. Then there are Intel cheerleaders, like tiller (which I blocked because he cannot stay on topic it seems, ever!), that are problematic. So, there are times where comparison is needed.

But, so we can have it out on all arguments for comparison, including going off in left field about optane (lmao), we now have a thread where that IS on topic and the point of it!

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

Overclocking!! If yooo all want only AMD info here, No problem. I can handle that I thought we were too old for fanboyism

 

I don't have an issue for the Intel info you bring in. It is good for comparison. But, there are others and there are times tanware has to tell us to focus. This gives him a place to tell us to go. No need for hyperbole.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

I'm not an Intel cheerleader without reason; my direct experience with these products make me so for the last dozen years or so...

Btw, Optane is not 'going off in left field' when we're talking about the highest compute performance possible... sigh...

The topic isn't just what you decide it to be; nor is a conversation one sided. The most interesting conversations are the ones in which both sides discover something new. I'm not ashamed to admit that I've learned from this thread and even from you. I also hope that I'm offering something back to the community too - even if you want to keep blinders on from what I might say.

Take care.

 

My point is once you go 16c,32t where is the upgrade path other than higher clocked frequencies. Maybe a modified Epyc for the platform?

I doubt that I will be waiting till August but we shall see.

Edit; I like to see numbers for comparison also. That is a subject of definite on topic banter. The issue is with optane specifically where there is no comparison of usage between the platforms. If there were benchmarks out there showing say database benchmarks between an x299 and optane and the same system hardware with x370/x399 and no optane, or an equivalent, that may then become relevant. Since Optane is, will be, Intel's exclusive the conversation belongs on Intel threads.

My Take, sorry I could not resist as it was futile;

 

That is like saying once you go 18c/36 thread that you have no upgrade path on Intel. You have to remember, their higher core count this generation is on a different socket for Xeon. So, it is the same complaint. You can't just throw a higher core Xeon on your machine this round. Then comes the raid keys.

Also, with rumors of the boards being ready on July, numbers on the 10-core being roughly in-line with the expected overclock of the X variant for 12-core AMD, and the likelihood the HCC top all core OC will go down from that 4.3, with the 12 core not ready until August, and the 14-18 core chips not coming for a year, I'm not understanding your position here on TR and Epyc.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

My position is that it is great upgrading to 16c,32t but one there on x399 you are done. Not that it is a bad thing, it is just that you are done. You are right with the 18c,36T but then again if Intel needs to even Now there are 22c,44t Xeon tech to convert. Not that you ever will need to go beyond what even TR offers.

My point of mentioning Epyc is like Intel has the 22c tech to tap AMD has the Epyc tech to tap and convert to x399. On that note if Intel wants to play one ups mans ship with AMD all they then have to do is covert a 32c Epyc to x399 down the line and let Intel try and match it with just a 22c converted Xeon, Good luck.

Edit; Actually I have to commend AMD on not playing the one ups man ship game. To offer to consumers a 16c TR is gamble enough as it is. This is untested marketing ground. To then waste money on a device that just seems so far out to the extreme of a 32core consumer CPU is just insane. In the end though I can't realistically consider Intel getting this one as AMD could easily turn over the ball back to them it is just the market does not demand or support it as of yet.

 

TANWare, noted your points about Optane.

But performance and productivity isn't an AMD or Intel exclusive; what the other side has exclusively is what may be actually setting them apart.

See:
http://content.jwplatform.com/previews/PEFl9Bq2-LGVHcJDb


With a 2.5x increase in real world 'performance' (okay; game loading...) - this is a feature you ignore at your own (productivity) risk.

 

True, and once available and then can be compared to standard or other offerings it is a valid subject, until then it is not a valid subject about the competitors offerings or abilities.

 

The market didn't support when Intel went to 4 cores on mainstream. You heard your same comments about that (meaning the same criticism, not you specifically). The market didn't have much support for the 8-core HEDT system when it first jumped on the scene, except for those programs that used Xeons with higher core counts. Now, you say the same thing, except AMD is working with software engineers to add support scaling for more cores, trying to show them how to scale to n. This programming technique benefits AMD greatly, while Intel sees 1-3% increase from the same tweaks that give AMD 15% plus benefit. It isn't risky, it is moving the ball forward. AMD and their work on async with Vulkan and DX12 should tell you they have an idea about parallelism that is now being adopted, especially as Vulkan and openCL merge, which will only benefit AMD in the long run. I could see a consumer chip at 7nm with over 16 cores easily. When the software companies finish incorporating the new way of programming, then you will see a change in benefit.

 

But aren't those 15% AMD benefits still inferior to Intel's absolute performance already?

 

That is not the point, eventually it may be where 32c,64t on a consumer CPU makes sense but that just is not today. Especially being as it then puts AMD in the spot of asking $2,000 or more for the CPU. They won't do that in todays market, not meaning they will not sometime in the not too distant future.

As it is most people are just starting to realize the 8c,16t advantages. 99% of them out there will ever flex the 16c,32t with today's software. maybe %0.1 of users could use let alone fully employ 32c,64t on a consumer CPU. Although you would have a few more users than that just for bragging rights if nothing else.

 

Talking that stance, there would be no reason to buy over a six core, even if you intended to "future-proof" a build. It is arguing the absurd. Yes, most home users cannot use all 16 cores, but that will change very quickly. First, people need to learn resource management and how to stretch the legs, or properly set affinities. Second, you have to look at trends, such as streaming, etc., which this moved to one chip instead of two. Third, programmers need to stop just writing dual and quad core programs to use what is out there now.

So, part of this is educating people on what is possible and how they have been artificially limited for so long. Next, AMD is doing to get rid of the dual core programming, which Intel uses to claim it's better, yet the multithreading improvements have been marginal. Third is looking at the primary target of these chips, professionals with workstations. They do want consumers as well, but you have to look at the focus. That is why I'm using it to build a server. It is how I can set it up to stretch its legs. That is also why I've considered the 12-core, because with my uses, 16 may be a bit much even for my home server during slower points in use (although I know I can load it up at other times). But, if the 16 core can hit 3.9-4.0 on all cores, I'm not sure I'd get the 12 core just to have 4.1-4.2 on all cores. I'd take a hit in less optimized scenarios, but I would have the extra performance on tap. So, there is more to it than that. Considering how many skipped BW-E, you have to remember you are buying for 2+ years in the future. My bet, with Intel having a mainstream 6-core, AMD having a mainstream 8-core, and the threading and costs on the HEDT platforms, we will see quite a bit of software changes moving forward. Old games, those will forever be stuck as written. Current games you'll see some improvements. But new, forthcoming games will be designed to work with more, if games are your thing. Other software currently limited at 11 cores/22 threads will be expanded fairly quickly. Other software, even though for professionals, will take longer.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

Very quickly is more than likely a long time. In 2011 I setup my Q8200 4 core 4 thread P7900. We are at the 4c,8t stage now and other than gaming the majority of users do not use up that power. While yes there are users out there that will love the 8c,16t Ryzen 7 it is still not needed by most. The TR is going to be needed by even fewer overall. Again this is today, a few years down the line who knows.

Edit; links;
http://www.pcworld.com/article/3200...yzen-prices-ahead-of-threadripper-launch.html
http://segmentnext.com/2017/06/08/intel-i9-7980xe-release-date/
https://www.pcgamesn.com/amd/amd-threadripper-price-rumours

 

its a back and forth between tech push and user push. the tech world is almost completely dependent on tech push, us users surely can complain but ultimately the initial push comes from the industry. so taking that q8200 example for a spin, it doesnt really work imho, because during that time frame (until nowadays) there was just NO push due to lacking competition from AMD. so intel never saw a reason to push 6+ cores, so users and programmers never bothered to change/optimize anything towards more cores. now, however, with suddenly 8-18 cores getting ready for market introduction, we will definitely see a quick adaptation of programmers and users, much more so than the past decade wirhout that needed tech push

Sent from my HUAWEI NXT-AL10 using Tapatalk

 

My point is the push went from 4c,4t to 4c,8t but the software industry (and consumers) still does not even, again other than gaming, really push that limit. To expand to needing over 16c,32t will take a while. And yet again I am not saying it will not happen just that the market is not ready today for 32c,64t on a consumer level. Even a year down the line a market may develop, but again that is then not now.

I again commend AMD not just putting out on paper to do a one ups man ship of Intel

https://seekingalpha.com/article/40...bank-america-merrill-lynch-global?part=single

 

Even gaming doesn't really push core/thread counts to the limit as much as 1-4 core performance.

 

To build on this is barriers to entry. The costs and intentional market segmentation has been such that you had to sacrifice performance as a regular user in order to get higher thread count. It was intentional in that amd was not much competition at the time, the cost of a multithreaded Xeon was high, while having lower speeds for how the programs were written.

With the cost to entry barrier being smashed and set ablaze, we can enter into a new push in coding. Previously, AMD wasn't on SMT, so slow adoption while still coding for physical cores made sense. Now, we already see M$ and Linux distros starting to optimize for Ryzen. As they get better (with scheduling and other aspects of utilisation), and software gets better, we'll see some good gains.

I do agree we won't see a 32 core HEDT anytime soon, but I wouldn't count out users figuring out how to stretch a 16-cores legs. Some will try just for fun (then realize what all they can truly do with it)...

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

I also see a lot of room to expand just with the new hardware offerings we've got so hopefully that doesn't cause it all to stagnate again as developers see how far they can push the existing chips.

 

AMD News Roundup: X399, Threadripper, Vega Demos, and More! (Early June 2017)


(Ryzen Build) ULTIMATE MAKEOVER! The Go Anywhere Do Anything PC *2.0*

 

Even Micro$haft work for better support with more cores I'm shocked.
Game Mode changes-Ghacks.com
Game Mode, a special mode that aims to improve game performance on Windows 10, received several improvements as well:

• The Game Bar, which you can launch with Windows-G, features a button to enable or disable Game Mode for the active game now.
• Game Bar lets you take screenshots of games running in HDR.
• Mixer improvements, e.g. bitrate changes during game broadcasting should be smoother and "more seamless".
• Resources for Game Mode have been tweaked for popular PC configurations, for instance for 6 and 8 core CPU devices which results in improved game performance according to Microsoft.

 

I know this is old but this is a bit more like it, 4K on 1 Vega card.