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

I wouldn't be so sure that we couldn't expect larger increases as time goes by this time around.
Vega as is beats 1080ti and Titan at professional software.
That could indicate that it can be just as powerful, if not more so with proper hardware utilization.
Games however are different as compute performance does not readily translate to gaming... but Vega did launch with various features such as double Math precision (I think that's what it's called) that developers need to use so we can see proper hardware utilization in games like PRO software does.
If you couple that with Infinity Fabric optimization for gaming (depending on how much of an increase that alone will do), then we could extract 30% more out of the GPU.
As it stands... Vega seems like it's 'brute forcing' it's way through games.

Vega 64 with Liquid cooling might be a disappointment... primarily because overclocking the core yields smaller benefits for much higher power draw, vs HBM overclocking that's producing much higher benefits performance-wise for a virtually no increase in power.

Vega 64 with LC would make sense if it was produced on the same manuf. process like Pascal was which is suited for higher clock speeds, because if Vega could be brought up to say 1.9 or 2.0 GhZ at the core and say 1.5 GhZ on the memory, then, it might reach 1080ti in gaming from brute force alone while keeping power consumption in check or marginally greater.

But that's a moot point as the manuf. process from GLOFO is not suited for that.

That said, I'd keep in mind that Pascal is basically an overclocked Maxwell (so, not much of an innovation from Nvidia really - except for having access to an arguably better manuf. process that allowed them to overclock Maxwell significantly without losing on efficiency - otherwise, if they opted to use same manuf. process like AMD, I doubt they would be able to achieve same performance levels).

We could/willl (?) see improved Vega efficiency at 14nm+ though. I'm hoping the silicon quality will be better, resulting in much lower voltages at stock clock rates... and optimized Infinity Fabric for gaming (along with double math precision being used by devs at that point?) - but by that point the drivers will likely optimize IF for games on their own (unless it's a hardware issue - which I doubt).

 

It'll be interesting to see how Vega 56/64 develop in the future with driver & gaming optimisations related to the hardware strengths of this particular GPU architecture. Also interesting to see AMD's next iteration/release of GPUs whenever that's gonna be!

 

Indeed.
The next architecture is supposed to be Navi.
Also, Navi will be Raja's project. He wasn't the guy behind Vega (if I'm not mistaken) as he seemed to have been brought in late into Vega's development.

At any rate, couple of things we need to bear in mind for Vega:
1. Better drivers that should/will optimize Infinity Fabric for gaming (or if this is a problem at a hardware level - which I seriously doubt - then it's going to be 14nm+ refresh of Vega that will see this issue rectified).
2. Patches from developers that take advantage of Vega architecture for current and upcoming games (bear in mind that it's more likely we will see better utilization of the architecture in new games - whereas patches for current games - at least those that devs bother to optimize for - would bring partial improvements - but improvements nontheless).

Overall, for the current line-up, Vega 56 seems like the best option that can easily outpace overclocked 1070 in efficiency and performance when undervolted at the core (provided the undervolt sticks) and HBM overclocked to 940 or 950 MhZ (with its own bios - nor Vega 64 flashed bios).

 

The 1920x1080 MEME PC - WE BUILD & TEST IT
(ThreadRipper 1920x)

Another waste of time Linus video

*The tidbit of value is their finding that one of the Torx bolts on the socket wasn't tightened down and the CPU wasn't making contact with the pins... check your TR4 socket Torx bolts

 

Encouraging GPU Price Gouging?

http://www.gamersnexus.net/industry/3050-encouraging-gpu-price-gouging

 

Or they produce less graphics due waiting for lower price on HBM vram They loose money or (in best case go break even) with every new card sold Why make the loss even bigger?

 

Yep, I see your point.

 

Real Ryzen based APU's aren't out yet, but these "Ryzen socket" AM4 compatible APU's seem to have caught a lot of attention, so people are reviewing them. Here you go.

AMD A12-9800, These aren't the APUs you're looking for!

 

Bristol Ridge APU's based on bulldozer architecture aren't what people should focus on.
It's Raven Ridge APU's that are going to be relevant because they will be based on Ryzen with Vega IGP.
I'm curious though, since Vega as a dedicated GPU was designed with HBM in mind, wouldn't that indicate that the Ryzen APU with Vega will also have HBM in it?
I mean, it would certainly make sense.

Oh btw, here are more news on Vega 11 production beginning with Vega 20 slated for 7nm in about 1 year:
http://www.game-debate.com/news/237...-20-on-7nm-process-to-launch-2nd-half-of-2018

This indicates that we probably won't see Navi until 2019... and I'm thinking that Vega 20 will be comprised of several Vega chips tied with Infinity Fabric.
If it's also accurate that the 7nm process AMD will be using next year is based on IBM's 7nm which will allow the CPU's to reach 5 Ghz, then it might mean that AMD would be using a similar process to Samsung that's suitable for higher clocks but without compromising efficiency.

That said, it will be interesting to see what Vega on 14nm+ brings about.
But we need to start seeing developers optimizing for Vega and AMD getting in on the auto-voltage tuning - perhaps they could release a VBIOS update for Vega and Polaris on that... but I don't know if we can realistically expect this.

I'm ok with manually modifying voltages, but if that's the case, AMD seriously needs to fix Wattman's problems with Vega undervolts not sticking and allow HBM undervolting as well.

Given how fast the new RTG devision is releasing driver updates, you would think that 1 month of concentrated effort of fixing Wattman and allowing HBM undervolting would be enough for them.

 

Squeezing the most I can out of this GPU (while its on air). I'm still working on the optimum voltage for 4.25 but I am close.

Firestrike 21,435
https://www.3dmark.com/fs/13602971

 

I am guessing you mean 4.025? For 4.025 what cooler are you using?

So far I am looking at, I haven't ordered yet.

Enermax 360 TR4 cooler
1950x
Asus Zenith
Muchkin 1TB SATA SSD
HP S700 120 GB free SSD (Linux)
32 GB Corsair Vengeance 3433 certified x399 RAM
Thermaltake x31 RGB case
EVGA 1000w Gold PSU
Asus ROG GTX 1080 TI
Toshiba 3TG 7200 drive
LG BR burner 16x
Roswill internal card reader
Windows 10 pro (UGH......)

tax and delivery etc. $3961 USD

 

I am using the EK Threadripper CPU block. FYI, when you get your AIO/TR, you should be able to get 4.025 "relatively" easy with 1.270 to 1.2850v and stay around 29C at idle. A great friend of my has the Enermax Liqtech TR4 360 AIO you are getting and based of what he told me, you are good to go. I am trying to convince him to let me borrow it so I can compare.

Some 1950X's can hit 4.0 at 1.25v. Unfortunately, my isn't as great and requires 1.26v. I have tested 4.125 but the amount of voltage exceeds 1.4 and I'm not going to run it so high. I placed my limit at 4.1Ghz and I'll get to that after I know the best voltage for 4.0/4.025.

Edit: Nice set of RAM.

 

Threadripper installation tips:
https://www.hardocp.com/article/2017/09/11/amd_ryzen_threadripper_installation_redux

EDIT:
Vega
And some Vega64 vs FuryX testing done at identical clock speeds in order to show if there are any pure architectural advantages of Vega over AMD's previous architecture:
https://www.hardocp.com/article/2017/09/12/radeon_rx_vega_64_vs_r9_fury_x_clock_for/1

In the above article they find that Vega64's performance increase is due pretty much solely to clock speed increase. They say:
"This means that all or most of the performance uplift you see from Vega 56/64 versus Fury/Fury X (from Fiji to Vega architecture) is purely down to clock speed. The 500+ MHz clock speed advantage of Vega 64 versus Fury X is what makes it 30% to 40% faster than Fury X when normally clocked."

This flies in the face of what was said by AMD regarding some of the gaming benefits of their new architecture: they elucidate greater details on this in the conclusion of that article. They do sweeten the end of the conclusion though by talking "Fine Wine" - as in touted AMD architectural improvements might not be being currently utilised in today's games & hinting at the future.

 

I'm replacing/adding several (8 to be exact) in my TR build. Two 200mm, 800rpm, front fans and 6 120mm, 3000rpm, in a push/pull config on the CPU radiator.

That's not counting the other 10 case fans I have installed. I'll post before and after temps soon.

 

Nothing new in the sun, bruh. Same as with Nvidia's newest baby, 1070 vs. old 980N. They increased clocks a lot and then call it a day Same graphics but in a nicer package and with a different name

 

Hmm... the thing is, even if it is just Fiji under the hood... they are using it as baseline with a ton of new features that devs need to code their software to take advantage so that we can see Vega in full swing.
At that point, I do think that it can churn out 30% or much more in terms of performance.
The GPU DOES beat 1080ti and Titan at PRO software... indicating the hardware is powerful enough, just drastically underutilized at this time.

What I keep seeing is how devs bend over backwards by optimizing for Nvidia, whereas not so much for AMD.

 

I can't tell if people buy 56/64 for Pro work, mining or gaming.
But I will eat my hat if AMD can squeeze out 30% more gaming performance from 56/64 with optimizing drivers. If this is what you meant. And yeah, You are correct regarding Nvidia. All they will do is pushing out new graphics. No more tuning for heavily increased performance for today's graphics from the Green camp.

 

You might want to go "fruit" hat shopping now, so you are prepared for later

 

I don't talk about next relased models But yeah, AMD walk a mile extra for making better performance on current newest graphics than what Ngreedia will do. I'm sure We are agreeing on this Nvidia's thinking, is More money in the bank if we can push out new graphics all the time. They know people will jump on it.

 

AMD got that 30% and more with previous improvements on RX4xx / RX5xx, and Ryzen, so I wouldn't be surprised to see AMD do that again with ThreadRipper and RX Vega.

AMD tends to have a longer support cycle with real performance improvements long term.

Hopefully they can do this with RX Vega to prepare for RX Navi, and RX Next-Gen, the full 3 year arc.

 

Really !? 30% !?

 

I'm sure AMD can squeeze out more, but 30% is a bit on the high side for 56/64 But they have to try, as they pushed out Vega a year after Pascal and won't come with a new in long time Btw... Can AMD squeeze out +-30% more powa for Threadripper as well? Damn, Intel's 18 core 7980Xe will be killed. By big margin even slightly OC'd.

 

30%+ due to FineWine™? Yeah, sure.

 

Yes, 25% would have been more "reasonable", I did think you upped it to 30% to reduce the likelihood of "eating your hat"

Fruit is good for you, so I hope you are cheering for AMD to match or beat 30% improvements to performance through RX Vega driver updates

 

I mean the 30% numbers is from yooo. You started to be worry about my health? Thanks Too much fructose is not good as yoo know, LOL

 

AMD tweaks Ryzen with 30% improvement on Ashes benchmark
https://www.tweaktown.com/news/56937/amd-tweaks-ryzen-30-improvement-ashes-benchmark/index.html

"AMD has been optimizing as many games as it could, working with Stardock and Oxide Games to improve Ryzen performance on Ashes of the Singularity - by a pretty decent amount.

We have up to 30% more performance on the flagship Ryzen 7 1800X processor with the new update, and then there's more performance improvements promised for the upcoming v2.20.x major update."

AMD Ryzen chips see big performance improvements with gaming optimizations
https://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/amd-ryzen-ashes-optimization/

 

Read your own words... "AMD got that 30% and more with previous improvements on RX4xx / RX5xx, and Ryzen, so I wouldn't be surprised to see AMD do that again with ThreadRipper."

When can I expect too see those numbers? I'm sure Threadripper is around 3400cb in CBR-15 now. So I should expect seeing 4420cb in the end of this year? Or latest in the start of 2018 ?

 

Sit back and relax, and watch the world go by my friend, you can't rush perfection

Besides, specific benchmark improvements are too limiting, Ryzen improvements might come from unexpected places, I didn't expect them to come from Ashes first either.

It's a process that AMD has fewer people to move forward than Intel, so stop buying Intel and start buying AMD so they have more $$$$ to invest in improving current and future products.

That's how you can help AMD make it come true. You have to do your part as well. Eating fruit hats will only benefit you, not AMD, buy AMD along with your hats.

 

Cheers for the link. Solid improvements there.

 

AMD have already more people to move forward... And if they could squeeze down the HBM2 prices and started earn money. Maybe we can see they can come up on par with Intel late 2020 or there To the better for us all.

 

Yup, huge gains in market share for DIY AMD CPU and components, and AMD GPU's are sold out whenever they hit the market, but still it's gotta keep going that way for a few years before AMD is strong and back on solid track.

Until then, about 3 years after Intel get's the message that they need to drop prices and start innovating again. That's about how long it takes, 18 months to 3 years, for a new development to ship out to production, so if Intel's gotten the message we still won't see product worth buying from Intel for 2-3 years.

Until then Intel's gonna be shipping "pigs dressed so as to fly" from Intel trying to at least visually match AMD's new products.

Don't be fooled by Intel's "pigs in pokes", buy AMD

 

What happens when you put a custom waterblock on RX VEGA 64?

 

The authors of the article I quoted actually said that they're interested & considering to do the same tests but with Pascal vs Maxwell - which is what you're saying effectively.

 

Threadripper AIO Cooler - Full surface coverage! Enermax TR4 360 vs NZXT Kraken X62


Enermax Liqtech 360 OC TR4 Review


64 GIGABYTES of DDR4 3200 on AMD Ryzen Threadripper

 

Micro Center is charging $10,000 for multiple GPU orders to thwart miners
http://www.pcgamer.com/micro-center-is-charging-10000-for-multiple-gpu-orders-to-thwart-miners/

"Crytpocurrency miners have turned the GPU market on its head, and while AMD and Nvidia do not seem to be doing a whole lot about it, Micro Center has decided to step in. The retailer is limiting orders of some graphics cards to two before jacking up the price.

Take for example the PowerColor AXRX Radeon RX 580 Red Devil with 8GB of GDDR5 memory. The Radeon RX 580 is a popular card in the Ethereum mining community. In what appears to be an obvious attempt to thwart miners, Micro Center will sell up to two of these cards for $350 each. Quantities above that jump all the way to $10,000."

 

$350 for a rx580... How noble of them rofl

 

Especially for AMD is this very very good news. Selling to more people instead of fewer, means that they can keep production at the same level as now(Be forced to increase the production means higher losses)

 

The original partner suggested retail was $229 for the RX580, which I thought was way too low back then, what with the Nvidia 1060 MSRP $299.

Microcenter has the same $10k deal for more than 2 1060's as well, and the single unit price is $329.

Is the RX580 worth $20 more? I think so

 

The RX 580 at $350 is way too much.
Here in UK, I was previously able to find RX 480 (8GB) for roughly £200/£220 (cheapest).
The RX 580 shouldn't really cost more than £250 given the minor boost in clock speeds (all of which can be easily accomplished with a quality silicon 480 and undervolted to consume a lot less power in the process - because, realistically, the RX 580 is 480 with a better silicon, a name change and higher clock speeds - the manufacturer released RX 580's undervolt a lot better than most 480 cards if Reddit forums are anything to go by, meaning, they are end up more power efficient than 1060's.
I think most RX 580's manufacturer overclocked speeds can be undervolted to lower levels as well, or at least, downclocked just slightly and then undervolted - still smashing 1060 in most DX11 titles performance-wise and overtaking in DX12.

 

The problem is all GPU prices have gone up, you can't talk about the current price of the RX580 without putting it in the context of what 1060's are selling for in comparison.

See my previous post where at Microcenter the 1060 is going for $329 while the RX580 is going for $349, that's only a $20 difference, and the RX580 as you noted is faster, so why shouldn't it cost a bit more?

Comparing MSRP to MSRP I think the RX580 @ $229 is / was under priced against the 1060 priced at $299.

 

Oh... I was wondering what the MSRP of 580 was.
$229 is actually fine.
A minor boost in clocks with a better silicon seems about right vs $200 for 480.
Considering the mucking about manufacturers do in not undervolting the cards on those stock clocks as low as they will go, I find their inflated prices too much.

I realize the prices have gone up due to mining... I'm comparing 'regular' non-inflated prices.

It just demonstrates that AMD isn't only good for lowered prices... it provides a product that is just as efficient (if not more so - when of course manually undervolted) while performing better than the competition.

Stock for stock... Nvidia GPU's are actually worse off because they cannot seemingly undervolt without underclocking as well.
The 1060 boosts to about 1708 MhZ... RX 480 boosts to 1288 MhZ (and 1300, or 1350 MhZ with an undervolt on a good silicon gives better performance for AMD while dropping power consumption to 1060 levels or lower).

Factoring in undervolting... doesn't that make AMD's architecture overall BETTER than Nvidia considering it can achieve same efficiency and better performance than competing Nvidia products on lower clock speeds?

Just because a GPU performs better and can be more efficient doesn't mean you have to charge more for it.
Look at Ryzen.

 

I ended up going Asrock Taichi. 1950x, evga 1000w gold, 32 GB 3433 x399 ram, 1tb Muchkin, LG 16x BR burner, card reader, Thermaltake x31 RGB, 3tb HDD, free 120GB SSD (Linux). I did not order W10 yet as once built I want to look at W10 LTSB.

I have the Enermax TR4 on its way already. I would be so stoked if I can get 4.1 GHz but I am happy so far with my choices.

Edit; GTX 1080 TI Asus ROG

 

4.1 is very possible. I am rocking 4.0 as my everyday speed. Temps at idle are 29C and full load (AIDA64) 68C. I'm working on 4.1.

 

I have heard a few people say the Asrock board is a bit better for OC so that is why I went that direction. I would even love 4.0 as an every day, so we shall see. I know 4.2 is almost a no hope for, but here is to hope.

I really am hoping though more so than 4.1 GHz but the 3433 on the ram through XMP.

 

Vega 56 & 64 Shader Comparison at Same Clocks

Raja Koduri Steps Down From RTG For 3 Months | Is He Focusing On Navi & GPU Architecture ?


RTG Boss takes 'Sabbatical', Lisa Su takes Over RTG
https://www.tweaktown.com/news/59104/rtg-boss-takes-sabbatical-lisa-su-over/index.html

AMD Radeon Technologies Group Raja Koduri Takes Sabbatical
http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/amd-radeon-technologies-group-raja-koduri-takes-sabbatical.html

 

The problem is Vega as a product is holding back AMD. AMD as a product and stock was doing ok until the Vega failures. This to me smells of Ryzen mobile/Vega APU troubles. AMD could not afford those if true.

 

Speculation is fraught with disappointment

For us I don't see the performance being up to our needs for any of the APU's, unless they can fit it in a tablet or 2in1, it'll be a low end laptop for students and entry level gamers.

Although AMD may well sell far more of them to that market segment than to us in the high end segment, I doubt they will be as fussy about power requirements as long as the heat is dissipated well and quietly.

Given the current / previous APU's, I don't see how Ryzen + Vega APU's could be worse

 

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Ti Rumored To Be In The Works, Settling The Score With The RX Vega 56?

 

It was bound to happen, what with Volta being a year off... Nvidia needs something to throw out there.

The RX Vega 56 runs like a stock 1080 when tuned, the RX64 above that, so Nvidia is going to have a tough time slotting a 1070ti. If the 1070ti is just under a 1080 then the AMD RX Vega GPU's are still faster, and if the 1070ti is a "cheap 1080" I would have to assume there will be a 1080+ too?

IDK could be made up completely, it makes no sense to fracture the market with 2 1070's below the 1080, and neither does reducing the price for the 1070 - why when Nvidia are selling all they make would they need to reduce the price?