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

TR at 3.8 and mild OC on 1080

 

So, the CPU arrived today! Sealed retail box! SL wasn't lying about pulling teeth with AMD, but being able to send in retail packaging. Come on Thursday!!!

Edit: What's your ram speed?

 

Congrats! I wait on what you can do bro!

My speed is 3200 but the beta BIOS I'm using won't let me get pass 3066, at least without a lot of tweaking. Before I delve deep into tweaking, I waiting on my CPU block. The AIO is not enough, not by a long shot.

I have 32GB of 3600 in my other computer, waiting to be unleashed.

 

Thank you. I'm looking forward to it as well!

Which beta BIOS are you using? Also, while you are waiting, you could always test at a set multiplier on the CPU and try different ram speed and timing, showing how that effects performance (although reviews have been done on Ryzen showing it, doing it on TR might be fun). Also exploring the NUMA/UMA for the community (also so that you know when to use it and switch it, if you feel so inclined, even though some reviews have said it really isn't worth it for switching in most use cases, as the performance increase is minimal).

I have my 32GB 4133 hoping that this chip has a STRONG IMC! If it can do 3600, I'll be happy. Anything above that is miracle land (but I must try to make miracles happen, even if I fail)!

 

Hey, new BIOS (not beta). It will be added to the website later, but is coming straight from Raja
http://www.overclock.net/t/1636566/...me-x399-threadripper-overclocking-support/180

 

Summertime Alien Watching

se7en fitty​

Vega64 spotted on Dellware Aurora Desktop Sales / Pimp Page. Total cost works this way: 1st pay for the included RX560 (~$100 estimated), add +$650 for V64 = $750. No room for V64 Aqua in that small chassis, 750 buys air-cooled reference card (add $100 to any card to get final cost)

____________________
edit@poppysan​

Azor & Mr Dell ...

 

Almost 1080Ti prices Damn, Amd Dell know how to make money

 

Way too much money. This Vega release has tainted Ryzen releases. They were doing so great but now all anyone can remember are Vega issues. Hopefully the Ryzen mobile and APU gets things back on track.

 

Even with that, AMD's market share has been on the rise for GPUs. Also, they sold 25,000 units (basically sold out of supply). Think about that. We complain, but they still cleared inventory. So even though we see it as tarnished, it really isn't. That is the truth!

 

HBM2 is AMDs devil and savior.... put in what's fit. They loose sales due shortage and the problems I think.

 

But the shortage until October means a potential revisit then with better drivers and bios. Now, it may effect them long term, I agree. But time will tell.

 

Pardon?
The Vega RX 56 is pretty well priced actually.
When you couple it with an undervolt on the core as low as it will go and overclock the HBM to say 950 MhZ, power consumption will drop to 1070 levels, performance will jump due to no throttling and HBM overclocking will push the performance further up by about 5%... maybe 10%?
Overall, you basically get close to 1080 like performance for less money and power draw.
That is a steal if you ask me.

Also, Vega 56 and 64 both went out of stock fairly fast. I doubt this is solely due to miners.

 

Where are the 56's? Maybe later on this will prove out but not right now.

 

Seen in previous posts what Dellienware will charge for 64? $5o under 1080Ti prices. Yeah, that's a steal @Cass-Olé

 

To be fair, what do they charge for the 1080 Ti, though? We are comparing it to the retail prices of the Ti, not the Dell premium price of a Ti. Something we should look up!

 

I agree with most of what you said @Deks but the last sentence. The 56/64 are out of stock for a few reasons. One of the main reasons is the lack of inventory on AMD's part. The second reason are miners AND people buying up multiple cards at MSRP to markup for resale. People tried to do that with TR and the X399 mobos (for example the Zenith) but it backfired on some of them.

I also agree with @TANWare. Where are the 56's? I had multiple websites open at 8am on Monday morning. Newegg.com sold out in seconds it seem. Amazon never displayed a search result for the RX 56 until AFTER the card was sold out (which makes no sense). The only place that still had stock was Bestbuy.com and I wasn't going to pay an extra $100 for the card that put it in the same price bracket as the 1080, of which I own two.

I was going to buy two for CF and see how it compares to my other GPU's. At this point, I will have to wait until Oct if not longer to buy one. The only good thing I can think of coming out of this are better aftermarket cards.

 

These BIOS are working well for me. No more slow down and I think (still need to further test it) I have 3200 stable on the RAM.

 

Vega56 Toms Hardware Review, checked last pages here in thread since publication & doesn't look like anyone's posted a link, so here it is:
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/radeon-rx-vega-56,review-33997.html
Safe to say they like it better than the Vega64, but it's still noisy! Noise is ok if you use the Power Saving Profile on the 2nd BIOS (selectable via BIOS switch on card). They also say the sweet spot in terms of power efficiency & fps is to select a TDP just slightly north of the Power Saving Profile on the 2nd BIOS (the 2nd BIOS is the lower powered BIOS too).

 

I'm not comparing the OEM inflated price tags.
We both know that pricing is out of AMD juridstiction.

However, at scan.co.uk, I can find Vega RX 56 for £390.
https://www.scan.co.uk/products/sta...treams-1156mhz-1471mhz-boost-800mhz-hbm2-dp-h

Yes, the price translates to $504 (or £80 more expensive than USA MSRP)., but that likely includes import tax and VAT.
We know that prices in UK usually reflect those in the US with altered currencies... that's pretty much standard practice here in UK.

In comparison, the cheapest 1080ti on Scan UK website costs £676 (£286 more expensive).
The cheapest 1080 costs £490 (£100 more expensive than Vega 56).
The cheapest 1070 costs £370 (£20 cheaper than Vega 56 - and you have to take into account that Vega was on sale for a while now).
So, I do think it's worth paying £20 more to get close to 1080 level of performance for a power draw comparable to 1070 after undervolting the core and oc-ing the HBM.

How (and IF) the prices change over time, we'll just have to wait and see.

 

That is good to hear! Btw, Raja is an in house employee for Asus, so anything he says or gives to the community is speaking as a rep for the company and is like tech support. The stilt is a team overclocker, so he can give great advice. He helped to develop the integrated OC profiles on the bios. So that lets you know a bit more on who you are actually trusting with that platform.

Since I went with Asrock, I'll be getting Chew's experience and him giving beta bios access, while relying on my own knowledge (I'm weak on graphics OC, but good on CPU and ram OC, so I try to help with what I'm good at).

See, here is the issue I have. I really want a Vega 56 pair. But, it is likely, with GDDR6 being widely available in Q1 2018 @16000MHz effective speeds (12000 and 14000 have limited availability now, hence the rumours of a Volta this summer), that 3-6 months from then, the Volta 70 and 80 will be here without as high of a markup as last time. Shortly after that, Vega will get a refresh on 14nm+, but 7nm Navi isn't until 2019. So, with a shrink from 16nm to 12nm plus faster GDDR with more bandwidth, it begs the question up buy or to wait.

Sorry, I always play devil's advocate!

 

And this is an interesting one, comparing performance of AMD's previous flagship, R9 Fury vs Vega56 - is it worth the upgrade they ask:
https://www.hardocp.com/article/2017/08/25/amd_radeon_rx_vega_56_versus_r9_fury
They seem to think it's worth the upgrade, 35% extra performance. Hmm, I don't think I'd bother upgrading a GPU for 35% more performance, I'd wait for 100% (maybe 75% at a push).

 

I wanted the Vega 56 also. It would have been nice in a TR build. I still have to wait on the proper AIO anyway, so we shall see.

 

New overclock utility version for Zenith Extreme released in the OC.net forum. It's beta, but supposedly deals with HPET issue.

 

http://m.hexus.net/tech/news/graphics/109544-amd-radeon-rx-vega-64-makes-100-loss-msrp-says-report/

 

They missed the Vega 64 OC and Vega 64 Water-cooled OC numbers

"Vega 56 flashing

If the AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 cards were, as MSRPs would suggest, significantly cheaper than their full 4096-core brethren it might be worth fiddling with the BIOS to get extra performance for zero £$£$.

Today VideoCardz reports that a ChipHell forum user was looking at the possibilities of upgrading a Vega 56 into a Vega 64 by modifying the BIOS. Computing history is full of examples of this kind of jiggery-pokery achieving results. However the result noted by 'KDtree' wasn't exactly as expected.



The BIOS mod didn't enable extra cores, but it did succeed in upping the default boost/base GPU clocks to 1545MHz / 945MHz respectively. In some simple user tests the revamped Vega 56 was just two per cent slower than a stock Vega 64. These are interesting results, and said to be achievable following a "simple mod". With RX Vega series cards having two BIOSes there is said to be little risk of bricking the card - but accidents happen so be extremely careful if you tinker."

Vega 56 Flashed To 64 = HUGE Performance Boost | RX Vega 10 HotChips Architecture Analysis


" RedGamingTech Published on Aug 30, 2017
RX Vega 56 can be flashed with the RX vega 64 bios to drastically improve the performance of the card, by raising clock speeds and max boost clocks.

While the 8 nCU's of the Vega 56 don't enable, the gpu is now only 2 percent slower than that of the RX Vega 64 in firestrike extreme. AMD might be losing up to 100 US Dollars per vega 64 sold in stores according to the sources over at fudzilla, but the company are content to just increase their market share for individuals wanting higher performance cards.

Finally go over a few of the new details of the Vega 10 architecture revealed at the 2017 hotchips.org conference, which show off some of the new features of the vega graphics cards, including support for up to 16 virtual instances and other such things."

Get bioses from here:
https://www.techpowerup.com/vgabios/
https://www.chiphell.com/thread-1769784-2-1.html
http://fudzilla.com/news/graphics/44401-amd-is-losing-100-on-every-vega

AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 gets faster with Vega 64 BIOS
https://videocardz.com/72299/amd-radeon-rx-vega-56-gets-faster-with-vega-64-bios

What I am wondering is... what are those additional cores in the Vega 64 doing?? Maybe AMD hasn't gotten them online and doing anything? Lots of upside in the Vega 64 if that is the case

 

SIGGRAPH 2017: Radeon™ ProRender Game Engine Importer

SIGGRAPH 2017: Radeon™ ProRender Integration into MAXON Cinema 4D

SIGGRAPH 2017: Maxon’s Cinema 4D Paired with Radeon™ ProRender Enables Creative Workflows

SIGGRAPH 2017: Learn about the Integration of Radeon™ ProRender into Modo by Foundry

SIGGRAPH 2017: Theory Studios Creates Beautiful Images Leveraging Radeon™ ProRender

SIGGRAPH 2017: Learn how Mix Master Mike Brings VR to the Music Industry

 

If AMD later can push hard for paying $100 usd less, they will go break even. What a business Or pay $110 usd less and start earning huge $10 usd for every unit sold Maybe they can decrease the loss?

 

I call baloney, AMD don't have the resources to sell at a $100 loss per unit, and cost guesses are speculation not based on fact - these rumors are a waste of time.

AMD is holding the line on price and haven't been playing any games - their release prices are the same as announced and being kept there.

And the 25K count of sales are another guess unsubstantiated, and indefensible.

Same kind of speculation every time, Nvidia releases too.

 

I'm sure AMD would sell for higher prices if their new graphics cards could push Nvidia out of the game. Too late, too weak, too High up and fast down again. Bragging ain't the same as delivering. Higher prices would kill Amd. I'm sure this isn't a big business. But they stay fluent.

 

You forget the RX 56 outperforms the 1070 - and with tuning reaches into the 1080 territory.

More so with the RX 64 air/water models, and with undervolting and power tuning the resulting power draw for performance is much less than simply tuning for max power draw.

There appears to be a short learning curve to figure out how to avoid high power draw, then you're set with high performance with less power usage.

You can make the RX56/64 draw a lot of power, or you can tune it for maximum performance with much less power draw.

At least AMD didn't lock the power down as with the Pascal GPU's

 

And this ^^^ should AMD be very happy for. Or it could be nasty Double nasty if AMD have done the same as Ngreedia

 

So, this has to be taken with the recent $30M announcement paying shareholders a settlement on the Llano launch (which sounds a lot like Lando Calrissian, which betrayed Han and the rest; just saying). The fact they just agreed to that settlement AND supposedly are losing $100 per unit (at 25,000 units equaling $2.5M on just the initial release of the Vega 64), the only way this is possible (which I'm dubious) is if the deal with Tencent and the other major cloud players in China is SOOOO large that they can take the loss for the first couple months of release. But the cloud deals in China were unknown until like a week ago, so the announcement of the settlement now makes sense. Still, it would seem with all of that, plus the initial AIB release on us, they would have to have made SO much from TR initial release and gaining server market share to make it anywhere near feasible. But maybe that is exactly what is happening, which would explain Intel's odd WS Xeon release announcement, pushing ES samples to release OC numbers on the same day as TR release, dropping constant info on the mainstream Coffee to get people to hold off, etc.

 

Maybe it's a reason AMD wouldn't or can't push out too many graphics before they can get a better deal with those who produce the components used. Less sales, decrease the losses HeHe

 

25,000 x $100 = $2,500,000 x 10 = $25M

I seriously doubt AMD are funding gamers and mining customers @ $100 each, for $2.5M to $25M

 

http://www.investopedia.com/ask/ans...es-use-regain-market-share-they-have-lost.asp

 

Having some fun with this beast.

Firestrike: 20,942 https://www.3dmark.com/fs/13498501 - Currently 1st with 1950X & single 1080

Firestrike Extreme: 11,103 https://www.3dmark.com/fs/13498549 - Currently 1st with 1950X & single 1080

EDIT: https://www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/13498549/fs/13430451/fs/13421092

One guy has an OC of 4.1 and I beat him with a 3.84, wtf.

 

Maybe crippled ram speed or outdated firmware?

 

That is because throttling is likely happening, the firmware, HPET, etc. There is one guy I told to downclock and lower the voltage and he hit over 3300 in cinebench at 3.8 on all cores on an AIO!

 

Links;
http://www.pcworld.com/article/3221332/computers/amds-ryzen-threadripper-1900x-cpu-launches.html
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/othe...tion-pc-market-with-ryzen-pro-chip/ar-AAr2aaa

 

So, just got done adding drivers to the Windows USB.... The taichi is in...

 

Air-cooled AMD RX 64 / 56 gaming comparisons.

[1080p] Radeon RX Vega 64 vs GTX 1080/ GTX 1080 Ti/ RX Vega 56 Gaming Benchmarks


[1440p] Radeon RX Vega 64 vs GTX 1080/ GTX 1080 Ti/ RX Vega 56 Gaming Benchmarks


[4K] Radeon RX Vega 64 vs GTX 1080/ GTX 1080 Ti/ RX Vega 56 Gaming Benchmarks

 

This chart comparing performance between 1800x and 1900x shows the advantage of time and firmware tuning the Ryzen release has over ThreadRipper.

I would assume ThreadRipper will catch up over time to excel in performance in all things, but for now it's early days with ThreadRipper and X399

AMD releases its 8 Core Ryzen Threadripper 1900X
http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/amd-releases-its-eigth-core-ryzen-threadripper-1900x.html

 

I don't know whether we can make that assumption though - theyr'e different chip layouts aren't they? The difference in performance could be due to those differences.

 

The 1080TI seems to be the best card, hate to say it but it is. The 1900x may not be in gaming what the 1800x is. The problem is the extra die, the TR x399 has the capability of disabling it so that the memory only close to the one die is used. This will reduce some of the added latency in the 1900x.

 

(Ah, that's the difference I was talking about!)

 

First, the 1080ti is Green, not Red, it's most obvious failing

I wouldn't use the x399 to neuter the 1900x, or any other TR CPU, that would be akin to the Kabylake-X debacle - losing memory slots. So sad.

The TR 1900x vs 1800x will come down to further optimizations for ThreadRipper firmware and game developer optimizations.

ThreadRipper 1900x vs Ryzen 1800x long term is a toss up unless some x399 features are useful to you, if higher memory count and PCIe lanes matter.

IDK, I guess if I was getting x399 I'd want to get the higher core count, but if I was planning on Ryzen it might be a nice stretch to x399 to plan upgrading with Rev II CPU's down the road.

 

The tuning or optimization improvements would take into account the different architecture for ThreadRipper and Ryzen, sure, but there are improvements that can be made for any new CPU architecture after release - it's part of the evolution of the compilers and library / application code optimization to take advantage of new CPU's.

It's a matter of market share too. ThreadRipper optimizations would lean toward professional applications and tools, but since x399 is a "gaming" motherboard release - maybe game developers and game tools developers will optimize for ThreadRipper too.

I would hope they do, as ThreadRipper is more likely the model for AMD CPU's going forward, higher core counts. Although another die shrink might allow for bumping up core counts in CCX's next round too.

 

The 1900x falls into where core count needs to be kept down, or just power usage etc.. I doubt at AMD they were looking at the 1900x as being a better gaming chip than the 1800x. I am sure it will have its use but for most the 1800x would be preferred.

This especially since the Ryzen Pro 1800 exists. As you can se though they are being sure all possible incarnations are available.

https://www.game-debate.com/cpu/ind...2&compare=ryzen-r7-pro-1800-vs-ryzen-r7-1800x

 

My EK CPU block came in, so it is time to build. I am flushing out my pump, radiator and reservoir. Anyone that is familiar with custom loops know how tedious this process really is. This build is going to require many hours to put together nicely but the finish product is well worth the trouble! I'll post some photos soon.

 

I wonder how low TR could undervolt on stock clocks.
Ryzen 1700 was apparently undervolted pretty low on stock settings.
I was looking into UV-ing ryzen and TR, but most of the websites that come up point to Vega 56 and 64 undervolt results (which are really good ).