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

What Nvidia is doing now for desktops, is what they should done for laptops. But they pushed instead hard for Max-Qrippled and more cash A screwed up company. Maybe we will see TI for laptops now as well? More milking on same tech?

 

Esports Benchmark: GeForce GT 1030 vs. Radeon RX 550

B350 Vs. X370 Vs. A320, What's The Difference? Ft. Asrock Mini-ITX

 

iPhone X -vs- GAMING PC (Ryzen 1600)

 

Alright, I replaced the Vardar fans on my radiator with six new ones in push/pull and then added two more NVMe drives for a future RAID 0 boot volume. I log into the computer and discover my temps have gone up on idle, 29 to 36. I look into the Task Manager to see if an app is utilizing more CPU than it should and I see this. Either something is very wrong or I have the fastest TR ever on water!

(Apologises about the image size)

 

I discovered something. Only in Game Mode does this mobo truly use SLI. In Creator Mode, it is gimped. My rough estimate is 40% in Creator Mode and about 80% usage in Game Mode. If I am to use SLI, I must use Game Mode, otherwise Creator Mode makes SLI completely useless.

AMD Master Game Mode - Firestrike

Single 1080: 18,111 - https://www.3dmark.com/fs/13626896

1080 SLI X2: 26,119 - https://www.3dmark.com/fs/13626932

 

My understanding is even idle those NVMe drives run a bit warm. You seem locked down pretty well to 4.03 Ghz so not sure where that other number is coming from.

 

Well, maybe that is a wrong reading, but maybe it's a "boost" that goes beyond the current settings. I thought boost was disabled when the cores are manually set though...

Ditto on the PCIE M.2 temps being the likely culprit, they idle hotter than the SATA M.2 and of course run even hotter.

Maybe run a line of cooling through them somehow... See if there's a PCIE card that will hold them with better cooling that can be vented before heating up the motherboard / case.

Nice progress

 

Well if it somehow boosted to 4.7Ghz on water, I'm going to sell this bad boy for a lot of money. hahahaha. When I switched to a custom water loop, XFR did boost to 4.15 very often instead of 4.05/4.1.

 

Windoze cpu monitoring/reading in task manager has never worked as it should. Normally you get lower clocks as 4.76 instead of 4.8GHz or 4.84 instead for 4.9GHz. You are lucky. Windoze show more than normal, LOL Aka OC'd by the Win Trash I wonder how the new GPU reading in task manager will work when it comes with Crematory Fall Edition

 

Dummy Dies? Threadripper examined (en)

 

Well there is a direct challenge to AMD as it seems he has caught them in a bit of a fib. Maybe with Ryzen 2 we will see the 32 core but now at 180w we would definitely need the Enermax capability of 500w TDP to handle a 32 core TR. Also a TR at 32 core would that not undermine their own Epyc processor?

I do think though eve not OC'd it would trash a 7980XE, now that would be cool.

Edit; thinking about it, I wonder if this is why Epyc requires stepping 2, in order to get the 4 CCX complex's running.

 

Vega undervolt and overclock as done by german reviewers:
https://translate.google.de/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&u=https://www.hardwareluxx.de/index.php/artikel/hardware/grafikkarten/44084-amd-radeon-rx-vega-56-und-vega-64-im-undervolting-test.html&edit-text=

Surpasses 1080 performance for a lower power draw than 1080.

Hardcore undervolting of Vega 56:


Something interesting to take from this video is the HBM/VRAM voltage.
Its not that it does nothing... it seems that it acts like another core voltage modifier on Vega, because the VRAM/HBM is part of the same die along with the core, and if the VRAM/HBM voltage was set to too high levels (1.2 or 1.3V), then the lowered core voltage on states P6 and P7 does not remain low/or 'stick' unless the VRAM/HBM voltage is reduced as well (otherwise it gives the gpu the 'go ahead and just volt up to 1.2V regardless of P6 and P7 lowered voltages).


Man if AMD can auto-tune the voltage out the door, even on the current manuf. process, it would STILL be as efficient or more efficient than Pascal.

And if they made Vega on the same manuf. process as Pascal, and clocked vega on the core and HBM much higher, Vega would easily smash Pascal's entire lineup (because if Vega needs 1613 MhZ on the core and 1100 MhZ on HBM to surpass 1080 for a lower power draw with undervolting... what would happen if Vega was clocked to 2000 MhZ on the core and HBM to 1600 MhZ - or just the HBM is clocked to 1500 MhZ?).
Seems like HBM overclock results in about 10% increase for every 200 MhZ roughly. So... HBM clocked to say 1400 MhZ or 1500 MhZ could easily give another 20% boost in performance while increasing power consumption by what... 10-15W?
The core wouldn't need to be clocked higher than 16013 MhZ in that case... just leave it there and increase HBM.

Also, the little or no difference in performance between Vega 56 and 64 on same core clocks also might explain the increased power consumption on 64.
Among the previously mentioned things (such as high clocks not playing well with the manuf. process suited for lower clocks) seem to be the amount of GPU cores.
The number of GPU cores on Vega is much higher than on GTX... goes well past 1080ti.

Wouldn't it be better for AMD to reduce/disable the number of cores in that case and increase the clock and HBM frequencies instead while optimizing voltages?
That might bring them well up to 1080ti and Titan range from just overclocking and less compute units while significantly cutting power consumption (optimized voltages makes Vega similarly or more efficient than Pascal... dropping the extra compute units or at least disabling them for gaming GPU's would likely drop power conusmption and allow the clocks to be set to higher levels).

And ok... if AMD doesn't want to or can't even mess about with cutomizing each chip... why not disable the GPU cores instead via BIOS, increase HBM clocks dramatically (while less so with the core) and drop the freaking voltages?

 

Add to this list 8 vardar F4-120ER, VRM blocks, an XSPC Raystorm Neo sTR4 (black chrome), an EK 780 Classy block compatible with the 980 Ti Classy I own, a pack of 25 XSPC black chrome compression fittings, 25 PWM cable extensions, and you have a good idea of my build. On top of the photon res, I'll run a tube up with a cap to sit in the area where the two top radiators meet (that triangle area that is open), so that it is just removing the cap, screw in a compression fitting with tube on it, and top off when necessary. Thinking of switching the XSPC concentrate for Primochill Utopia and UV blue die. Have thoughts on this @Rage Set , @Papusan , @hmscott , @Mr. Fox

 

Undervolted & Overclocked Vega56 outperforming GTX 1080 - sounds like a golden sample to me. AMD aren't gonna be using too much voltage for no reason - they gotta keep all those cards stable, golden sample here I think.

EDIT: mind you there's only 17% performance difference between Vega56 and GTX 1080, in terms of Time Spy Graphics Score so in hindsight I don't find it surprising that a tweaked Vega56 can reach stock GTX 1080 performance: http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_radeon_rx_vega_56_8gb_review,30.html
That's stock GTX 1080 performance, so it's not saying Vega56 is better than GTX 1080, not at all.

 

Also, loop sequence:
Two MCP50X DDC pumps in sequence -> CPU Block -> VRM1 -> VRM2 -> Rad1 with 8 iPPC 3000 -> GPU1 -> Rad 2 with 4 Vardars -> rad 3 with 4 Vardars -> res -> pumps. Nice clean loops. The reason to stick Rad1 there is not to cool the liquid, just so that the tube goes almost straight up as the tube from VRM1 goes from the north most hole to the west most hole on the VRM2, with the East (or right) most hole sitting under the right most hole with the rad positioned for inlet and outlet at the back of the machine. This then drops from the outlet to the VGA card. You use gravity to keep the majority of the line out of sight going from the graphics card to the inlet on the Rad 2 (my window is on the right to see the CPU side), then dropping the outlet tube directly down to the top hole of Rad3. This then goes from the bottom to the bottom of the photon res 170mm. From there, it goes to the bottom second hole of the res. There will also be a drain T right after the second pump.

To fill, unmount the res and lay system on its side. Connect hoses to the T valve and the res top (that is why the m20 to g1/4", plus a 90 deg. rotary, to a compression fitting, tube, compression fitting, to female to female g1/4" fitting to either a cap or a g1/4" to M20 with cap; drain port is a Tvalve to ball valve with plug when not in use). With both the ball valve open and the drain port open, both with hoses suspended above the system and res oriented coming above the case, add fluid until you can't add anymore. This should allow it to run from Rad3 (lowest point), up through rad 1 before starting to hit issues, allowing for the majority to be filled before a pump is turned on to cycle. At the point the limit is reached, save a little room at the top of the res, close up the res and drain lines, and remove the drain line from the ball valve off of the T line. Stand the case up and mount the res, putting the add line up through the top of the case. Now it is time to cycle the pump 1 to push the air through the system, adding liquid as needed to the res. Repeat as necessary, then the normal tipping, etc. to work out air bubbles.

Thoughts on the process @Rage Set ?

 

AMD is indeed overvolting their gpu's to increase yields... but 1.2V is for 'worst case scenarios'.. .and thus far, we hadn't seen 'worst case scenario Vega' in terms of voltage.

Stock 1080 performance for a lower power draw than 1080... let that sink in for a second.
Even an overclocked 1070 doesn't reach that.

Also, I don't think this would be a golden sample at all.
Most reference GPU's can undervolt easily enough by one degree or another. Manufacturer produced Vega GPU's will ship with better silicon by default, allowing for lower voltages.
Most people undervolting Vega 56 report achieving these or very similar results on Reddit.

Apart from that, Nvidia has optimized voltages out the door. AMD didn't/couldn't due to being a much smaller company and not having access to the same manuf. process as Nvidia (which can get away with an occasionally higher voltage on an early GPU).

OEM made Vega's will likely ship with lower voltages - but this will probably be negated by the ridiculously high clocks which won't yield too much of a difference.
HBM overclocks would make far more sense along with lower voltage and moderately increased core.

 

GPU performance for an architecture will be remembered most significantly for it's stock performance as sold, and until AMD can start releasing Vega products that run at NVidia performance levels at NVidia power levels then they've not equalled let alone 'won'. It's promising that undervolting Vega can produce some fantastic results that are equal or slightly better than stock untweaked Nvidia Founders Edition cards, but that's not really a win either. AMD need to do more work to produce products that are more competitive, I hope they can tweak Vega & subsequent architectures with that goal.

 

If there were a $399 Vega 56 I would have gone there but even the $499 with bonus is $549 so it lost out to the 1080 TI.

 

Few things to note though:
Nvidia's Pascal cards can't really undervolt without underclocking as far as I can tell because the clocks and voltages are tied together.
AMD gpu's aren't running on optimized voltages and require manual tuning to see what the actual efficiency is... Nvidia voltages are optimized.
As I said, comparing AMD and Nvidia at this stage is like comparing apples and oranges because they aren't running on same voltages or manuf. process (or clock speeds for that matter - AMD is running on slower clock speeds to boot, not to mention Vega is bandwidth starved, which makes HBM overclocking ideal for performance gains).

As for the architecture, we know Vega shipped with several features that won't see the light of day until developers optimize for them.
And, again, Nvidia by default has more frequent support from devs to take advantage of their hardware (which has been pretty much maxed out).
Vega hasn't even begun to be optimized for by devs.
The best results we could expect to see I think are upcoming drivers from AMD to optimize Infinity Fabric for games and improved functionality with Wattman.

I don't care what the perception of Vega is at release because they are comparing an optimized Pascal to an unoptimized Vega.
People seem to be more forgiving for Nvidia than they are to AMD, and also fail to realize that in DX12 and Vulkan, AMD has a pretty good lead.

Here's a list of features that we could see with future developer support:
http://www.pcgamer.com/the-amd-radeon-rx-vega-56-and-vega-64-review/
"AMD notes five key areas where the Vega architecture has changed significantly from the previous AMD GCN architectures: High-Bandwidth Cache Controller, next generation geometry engine, rapid packed math, a revised pixel engine, and an overall design that is built for higher clockspeeds. "

Vega as an architecture may have been optimized to run at high speeds, but the manuf. process itself goes contrary to that and results in much higher power draw at higher clocks (undervolting fixes that problem, but if you go past certain clocks, power consumption will skyrocket again as you will need to increase the voltage to stabilize those clocks).

Other things such as 'next generation geometry engine, rapid packed math, a revised pixel engine' need to be optimized for by devs.
Don't think a simple driver update from AMD could make a game use those features... only if a game is capable of them (which I doubt would be the case for any game on the market out today).
I would hazzard a hypothetical guess that Vega's drivers are 'not particularly' ready due to issues with Wattman compatibility, and lack of Infinity fabric optimization for games.

 

The big reason for little, to no, forgiveness with Vega is because it took two year for them to get it to us from the original launch time frame. Even if we did not have it for that two years they did and they then had more than ample time to have the drivers ready and optimized.

 

@Rage Set - Review of the Asrock Taichi

 

Wow, a triple 480 rad configuration. Sounds like an insane build bro.

 

CHEAPEST X370 Board!!?? Gigabyte AX370-Gaming Review
What not to buy...

 

All things consider, while I am happy with my Zenith, if I were choosing an X399 mobo presently I would choose the Taichi. To be fair to Asus, they are normally great with BIOS updates long after their boards have launched. I hope Asus sees what Asrock has done with the manual voltage and get their act together.

He's very unlucky with his CPU. I am completely stable at 4.025. With the new fans and some adjustment, I idle at 32C and never go above 68C at full load.

 

Yup, there are many that I have heard getting above 4.0ghz, production purchases, so his earlier comments about engineering vs production performance is mis-leading, he just got some (one?) bad production unit(s).

It looks like with full coverage (full TR4 heatplate) and water cooling you can expect better than 4.0ghz, unless you are unlucky.

I wish Silicon Lottery would put back the % of each bin they find in the last batch they tested - I haven't seen them post it with each bin part listing for a while...

 

I hope to be lucky as well, but again too I'll be on the Enermax AIO.

 

That will be a crazy build, but overkill is the name of the game (want to run a bench comp after I have it up and running?)...

I figured you were, and it is a good board. But that is why you see me having to go to others to find info on troubleshooting on the Zenith. We just don't have an equivalent.

And he is, but I wonder if his issue is not enough cooling, in part. Same here with 3.85, which is why I need better cooling.

And that is because (regarding SL) you could do the math and decide to risk it in the general market or not. Not so good for certain chips.

 

I'm not disputing that AMD does have some interesting forward looking features that could become more significant in future games.

You say that Pascal can't undervolt. With desktop cards you can effectively undervolt by overclocking (without added voltage) to the max stable overclock, and then you lower the power slider - this cuts out the usage of the high voltage points on the curve and optimises the frequency for each voltage points used - it's essentially the same effect as undervolting.

 

Threadripper Delidding Reveals Epyc In Disguise – AMD 32 Core Desktop CPU Maybe In The Works

"This means that AMD, well… has the means – forgive the wordplay – to actually produce and launch a desktop processor with up to 32 cores. der8auer goes one step further to postulate that this is the very reason AMD is using four dies, because it may in fact have plans to produce a 32 core desktop processor."


Ethereum Mining Performance: GeForce Vs. Radeon-Tomshardware.com

 

Another thing not taken into consideration. AMD developed the TR under a TDP envelope. At 180w there were no solutions out there that could handle 360w TDP let alone if it were to be overclocked. Knwoing now like with the Enermax handling up to 500w TDP things are a bit different. Still there is the fact Epyc seems to require the stepping 2, that again could be of issue as well.

Even at stock TR clocks now, a 360w 32 core TR2 would soundly spank a 7980XE all day, and night, long. Even that rumored 1,000w possible 7980XE overclock would not stand a chance.

 

Let the race begin And the money will run out of your wallet.

 

Yeah, but I would spend the $2,000 USD for a TR2 as that is essentially XXX rated hardware.

 

More cores and AMD still will continue with low clocks aka BAD OC possibility

 

What is the direct competition to the Threadripper?

 

Intel Core i9 7960X @ HWBOT

 

That is LN2, it is not direct competition. Also who cares if at 32 cores for 360w as that would turbo at 4.2 GHz as well. That that speed it would most likely bench in R15 at close to 6,000. So much more that a 7980XE it isn't even close. A 7980XE on LN2 still would not beat it. At that point I am sorry but you can keep the overclockable CPU's.

 

This is the only results we have for Intel's 16 cores i9 for now.
And I'm sure neither Intel or Amd will Jump of the race. Us the consumers, is the winners. Not Intel or Amd.

 

Agreed, but if they are talking on air under water throwing 1,000w at a 7980XE, how much further do we need to go? Also if you are going to use those number to tout as the competition then also disclaimer under LN2.

 

Ryzen 5 1600 vs. Core i7-7700K using Vega 64 & GTX 1080

Radeon RX Vega 64 vs GTX 1080/ 1080 Ti Review: Has AMD Delivered A Generational Leap?

 

New Threadripper Linux Battlestation!

Lian Li DK-05: Making a Case for Sit/Stand Desks

 

I spent the last few hours reworking my fan setup. With a 4.0 allcore OC, I idle at a beautiful 19C with a max temp of only 48.3C with max fans. Now that's what you call custom water loop temps.

I'm about to push this machine very hard to see how high these temps will go with the new setup.

 

Should YOU Upgrade to Ryzen?

 

He forgets another issue. My laptop at 5 years and sitting at the video OC for that time will no longer stable OC the video memory. There are glitchs at over stock speed. Soeventually it will give up and needs replacing before that point. So not too much longer and a TR shall arise.

 

https://hothardware.com/news/amd-ryzen-mobile-multi-threaded-benchmark-leak-2x-uplift-bristol-ridge

RYZEN MOBILE PREVIEW


ryzen5 quad core at 2ghz.

 

2 Ghz seems like an engineering sample running on low speeds.
I doubt that the speeds will remain this low. Hopefully, AMD will increase the cores to at least 3.0 GhZ with turbo to 3.7 GhZ or more (though with a Vega iGP there too, it will be curious to see where it ends up)

 

If they can get the clocks to about 3.0 GHz it could be awesome. At least on the CPU side of things. Ah, beaten too it.

 

Well, the current geekbench scores (if they are representative of the engineering APU in question) are relatively close to 7700HQ mobile to begin with.
Clocking the thing to 3 GhZ baseline with boost to at least 3.5 GhZ across all cores would give it a sizeable advantage over 7700HQ... if they can do it.

 

7700HQ max scores I saw on geekbench are around 14827 in multithreading.
So, if Ryzen can be set to 3 GhZ baseclock, that should make it comparable in both single and multi-threaded tasks.
I'm hoping the turbo (sustained across all cores) could/will reach about 3.5 GhZ.

On the cpu end it should really be comparable or better than 7700HQ... as for the IGP... Vega should be a decent uplift over the current generation of APU's in terms of graphical performance, plus we don't know how high it will clock - not to mention the features it has once devs start optimizing for vega.

 

Some news on the ROG Ryzen laptops.

I tried calling Asus customer support to inquire about availability of ROG GL702ZC-GC104T,
and the woman I got kept telling me I need to check with websites and social media for news, and of course the retailers.
I kept telling the retailers were all in the dark about the release date of the laptops in question and that social media and websites are all out of date in terms of information, not to mention the fact the laptop was available for pre-order for months now with 0 change.
I tried asking to speak to a supervisor, or to be connected to an office, or sales team, and she kept saying they don't have that information. It was really frustrating.

Finally, I sent off an e-mail to Asus with this issue and inquired about the release date or at least an approximation of it, and this is what I was told:

Many thanks for your email.


I am sorry that you had a poor experience when calling our service center. I will address that internally.

In regards to your question, we are VERY pleased to hear you have ordered our new RYZEN NB.

This will arrive in the UK by the second week of October (at the latest) but we are in fact pushing to have it land even earlier.

OCUK should have their stock by the first week of October.

Did you purchase from OCUK?

BR


Arjang Salehi

Gaming Manager

ASUS UK


So, there you have it folks... it would seem that availability of this particular laptop should happen at the latest in 5 weeks... potentially 4 weeks for Overclockers UK.

Intriguing.
Finally can get my hands on a decent/sizeable upgrade.

 

even boosting clock to 2.5ghz would beat broadwell hq cpu's.

problem is if they can squeeze it all in a 45w tdp.

ryzen chips seem quite a bit less efficient than intel chips.
slower clocks and more power.

for the desktop ryzens, 67w tdp for 4c-8t, and that's without gpu.
intel i7 7700 65w tdp, 3.6ghz base clock, and gpu.