Ryzen vs i7 (Mainstream); Threadripper vs i9 (HEDT); X299 vs X399/TRX40; Xeon vs Epyc

Makes sense, I use most of my machines in already loud rooms and with headphones on, and on the one this doesn't apply to it's on a liquid loop and doesn't get maxed out for a long time.

 

Headphones only do so much, the whole body gets stressed when being subjected to elevated noise in the environment over long periods of time. Remote management, or extra long cables are the way to go, long term.

 

Interesting. Makes me wonder what all these years of working with loud music has damaged besides my ability to hear very high frequency sound.

 

The Effects of Different Noise Types on Heart Rate Variability in Men
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4276761/

Loud noise may increase your heart disease risk
http://www.health24.com/Medical/Hea...may-increase-your-heart-disease-risk-20151006

I noticed a correlation between data center noise, anxiety, stress, and blood pressure early on. I'd feel much better working outside the noise than inside the noise. At first it's exhilarating, but that's just a symptom - noise induces nervous system response.

I'm pretty calm and controlled, so I noticed it right away affecting me, and avoided it as much as possible, building sound isolated - disconnected - safe rooms for staff, and making it a priority to protect hearing for everyone within possible earshot or vibration - disconnecting surrounding floors and walls helps a lot.

Sometimes I can't avoid it, but I insulate against it, my body too - feet, clothes, ears, and eye's.

There are cooling methods that generate and isolate the noise within the datacenter too.

Quiet is important.

 

Thanks for the links. I find sound to be a contrast between work and not at work for me. When I'm at home (and not gaming or something), everything's muted to a quiet hum if possible. (It's my home desktop that's water cooled)

 

RAM Price Report: 5 Years of Data | DDR4 Same Price as Launch

https://www.gamersnexus.net/industry/3212-ram-price-investigation-ddr4-same-price-as-initial-launch

 

https://semiaccurate.com/2017/12/20/state-intels-10nm-process/

looks like 2 more gen of 14nm++ sweet, icelake looking good in 2019 or later. just need AMD to step up now and make even more profits.

 

Are you daft? It is ONLY Cascade, which is server and HEDT, and Coffee, which was the pushed version of what Coffee should have been instead of Kaby-r, which is what the 6 core is. Not only that, insiders say what they have seen of Intel 10nm SUCKS! If you look back to last spring, Intel admitted they cannot beat process performance until 10nm++, with 10nm+ being a push.

Here is what Whiskey Lake really is and why it doesn't mean ANYTHING!
https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/12/11/intel-corps-whiskey-lake-revealed.aspx

Edit: Just realized you could have said that sarcastically. If so, ignore above tone!

 

no, but are YOU daft?

edit: sorry didnt see your edit line and just jumped in and type whats on my mind

 

Evidently you are, as whiskey is referring to mobile and other chips related to iGPs. It isn't a 14nm+++. Have you followed how crappy 10nm Intel is and why Cannon is only being used in low power solutions? Or their own postings from last spring. I can track it down.


What does that say, considering Intel's 10nm, which has a matching density with TSMC and GloFo 7nm processes, will drop at the same time? So, we are looking at Intel failing to make the shrink on time, extending nodes, while everyone else is on schedule for 7nm, while Tiger was moved to be 10nm++ and they plan a third chip on 10nm before going to 7nm while their competitor will either be on the successor to the Zen arch by the time Tiger's successor drops, or at minimum on a third gen 7nm (Zen3 is 7nm+) or moving on to 5nm shortly thereafter. That seems like Intel is boned! Just saying, the facts are there and the writing is on the wall, buddy!

 

why do i feel like you always jumping to conclusion and put my thoughts in for me. lets rewind it a bit here, what exactly did you think i was trying to convey with that first comment you quoted. i think theres some sort of misunderstanding here so lets clear that up.

 

If you had sarcastic optimism on Intel's upcoming chips and whiskey, I added the edit to apologize. But if you meant to actually drum up excitement on them mentioning whiskey lake, then I wrote to take the wind out of your sails. If it was other than one of those two options, I missed it.

 

there we go thats where the misunderstand is. nope, definitely not rooting for intel. two more gen of 14nm is bull$h!t at this point. i wanted 10nm+ 8 cores but thats now pushed back possibility end of 2019 (according to the rumor whiskey lake AND more rumour of another 14nm after it). theres only real 1 benefit for me is that i purchased 8700k now to get it over with and can use it for long time b4 spending money again.

so i was saying, time to wait for AMD to make more money.

 

Yeah, I noticed the snark after I read it, which is why I did the edit. But I had already written so much response at that point and figured I'd get a different response with the edit being on the response, which you asking the daft thing, I take it you didn't see the sarcasm edit, which kept this going on. Sorry about that. On Whiskey, the article I posted had this to say:


"What is Whiskey Lake?

According to "chrisdar," Whiskey Lake-U is a so-called "4+2" processor -- this means that it has four-processor cores and Intel's so-called GT2 graphics.

He also says that Intel is targeting production of the products sometime between its workweek 27 and workweek 34, which suggests mass production roughly between July 2018 and August 2018 -- about a year after Kaby Lake Refresh went into production.

In the same conversation, "chrisdar" also said (per a translation of his comments from Chinese to English) that Intel's upcoming 10nm manufacturing technology is "really miserable" -- likely referring to the viability of the technology for mass production at acceptable costs.

So, if Intel's 10nm technology is "really miserable" but Whiskey Lake is slated to go into production in roughly half a year, this can mean only one thing: Intel is releasing yet another product family based on its now-mature 14nm manufacturing technology to serve notebook PC customer needs during the second half of 2018 and presumably through possibly the first half of 2019.

Kaby Lake Refresh is built using the company's second-generation 14nm technology, known as 14nm+, so it only makes sense for Whiskey Lake to migrate to Intel's newer 14nm++. This should lead to improved processor performance (roughly 10%) at the same power consumption.

Additionally, Intel's mobile chips tend to be what are known as multichip packages: Each chip "package" has the main processor chip (this includes the performance-sensitive technologies like CPU, graphics, memory controller, and so on) as well as a platform controller hub (PCH), which includes connectivity technologies as well as other technologies like audio processors.

Kaby Lake Refresh reused the same PCH chip that the older Kaby Lake chip did. In turn, Kaby Lake used the same PCH that the even older Skylake processor generation did.


However, Intel is expected to introduce a new, more efficient and more capable PCH with the Coffee Lake-U mobile processors. I wouldn't be surprised to see Whiskey Lake use the same PCH that Coffee Lake-U would use, although I think the fact that the upcoming 4+2 product is called Whiskey Lake instead of just a variant of Coffee Lake (Intel has in the past used the same basic platform name for different core count/graphics configurations of its processors) could point to Whiskey Lake using an even newer PCH for additional features and capabilities.

Indeed, I don't think it's unrealistic at all to expect that Whiskey Lake-U will include the PCH chip that was originally intended for Intel's second-generation 10nm processor family, known as Ice Lake."

So, considering the week for mass production, it suggests that the release is in the fall, with the 8-core Coffee being released during the summer, just like the Cascade chips, which are 14nm++. So I am guessing this is a coffee refresh or to replace cannon in mobile and low power solutions as they will not have Ice ready in time. But I don't know that it is a full blown line, rather to replace the current Kaby Refresh CPUs to follow on Coffee, not knowing if coffee is a full consumer lineup or not. So, it is hard to tell, but may not be horribly bad. If they do have to wait until mid to late 2019 for Ice, then I fear for them.

 

Roadmaps is designed to be changed over night. Intel won't let AMD easly take over the performance trone without fight. They already lose on prices. Aka changes can come fast if they being left behind. Intel has to be tight lipped when they clearly can see AMD's progress the last year. I'm sure they don't want run into the same mess as last year

 

honestly speaking, i already want to move onto 10nm+. heat, more cores, possibly tiny ipc gain, all benefits. if intel will do another TWO rounds of 14nm. they better have them as 14nm+++ and give us another 100-200mhz boost, or even 8 cores on 14nm++ that will fit the same socket.

amd already catching up ryzen 2 can probably do 4.3/4.4ghz. majority of consumers staying at stock anyway AMD really dont need to beat intel in GHz, its the reviewers purposely showing what intel is capable of while fully knows 99.99% of users out there will never be at that frequency. sadly that 99.99% of consumers also listen to the remaining 0.0001% and go by trend/hearsay.

 

No, they are in full damage control trying to throw everything they can out to stay on top while knowing that wall is quickly approaching. When process density and efficiency are literally within 10-15% of each other (15% on density according to Intel's NEW way of calculating density, but actually a slight edge on density to TSMC on density by the old way of calculating the density), and potentially lower like 5% on process transistor efficiency, you wind up in a situation where a lot of the nuances matter the most. AMD, if GloFo 7nm DOES give them 5GHz on consumer chips, may see a boost, especially as SMT is better than HT. We still don't know how much IPC improved with the better sensemi voltage control and the improvements on memory latency, but those should also be seen on the 7nm jump as well, with an extra year of refinement. As such, all the talk on what Intel will or won't do is just that, TALK! It means nothing if the gap is reduced and as you can see, AMD has more room to grow, whereas Intel's 10nm+ will likely be right around, or barely better than, 14nm++. That is stagnation as AMD is growing. What that means is they have nothing held back as they have pushed 10nm from 2016 all the way to 2019. What happens beyond that? AMD has a new Arch with more ability to scale. Intel is stuck on die shrinks and trying to use marketing gimmicks. Intel may have the crown for now, but convincing customers to be loyal in the near future is going to get harder and harder, with the trough being until around 2021 (likely at the move to 7nm), which is when a new arch is likely to be introduced by Intel, as seen from hiring posts in either 2016 or early 2017.

 

At least at present I think AMD is going to pick up more of that 99.99% than you think. Intel trouble + better price + probably going to have to upgrade mobo anyway in desktops? I bet a lot of SB/IB/Haswell users will jump ship if they have to upgrade soon.

 

its about 4% or at least i hope 4% by end of this year. mroe the better really that will finally push intel to actually get something better out rather than staying on core infrastructure.

 

I'm hoping the same thing for the same reason. I want the match to be as even as possible so right now any gains AMD makes I'm cheering on.

 

Honestly, besides my laptop in my signature, I have not purchased an Intel CPU since the Pentium 4 days. It has nothing to do with fanboyism, but rather bang for the buck. I suppose this is why I havent built a desktop in ten years or so, because AMD didnt offer anything that had any bang for the buck. When I looked at Intel, I just thought that they were too proud of their stuff.

Hopefully AMD takes advantage of the position they are in right now, and continues to build on a fantastic product so we can have lower prices all around. Believe it or not, Intel needs AMD. If there was no AMD, most of us would be sitting on Core 2 cpu's right now. That doesnt sound attractive to me.

 

We started to see it with Ryzen, the next gen hopefully is that really taking wing. I'm hoping also that they can do the same for NVidia, but I wasn't nearly as impressed by Vega as Ryzen/Threadripper.

 

Everyone bashes them versus Nvidia. But, the truth of the market share is that Intel is MORE of a monopoly than Nvidia is, or at least from the number I've seen.. I do think Intel is in trouble. Here is what I posted about them in another thread:


I listened to the conference call while working today. The questions from the analysts really should be focused on. There was a pop on adoption of server CPUs in the fourth quarter which was uncharacteristic and they are predicting that to be lower than the past FIVE YEAR AVERAGE. They are saying it is because of the sales, but what do you want to bet they did a sales push BEFORE the vulnerabilities came out, after all, they took money from the Intel Inside add campaign and moved it to sales for the server side last quarter. Smells rank to me.

They also focused attention on the areas that would do well, but as the analysts pointed out in many questions is that they kept saying these divisions were going to be up, but the overall revenues flat. So where is the money suck? This is also why automotive was combined with mobile, to hide the fact of bleeding money on the mobile side of things.

As to 10nm, they mentioned it, specifically finishing tooling to do mass production (FINALLY) in the second half of the year, with expenditures for tooling as well as some on R&D. We already know that Coffee was pushed to the summer to deal with Meltdown and that Kaby-R (the faux, 6-core coffee) was pushed out the door in limited supply to take it off inventory before the vulnerability was disclosed, which also boosted sales and the scaled down availability is likely why costs where down for Intel in Q4 (when you aren't making as many chips, you don't need to spend on materials, now do you?). But, they, although mentioning 10nm, did try to steer away from talking about it too much, although one analyst tried to pin them down on it toward the end of the call.

So, what I heard is they are going to have issues with certain segments, although they reiterated puffery like "strong" in describing demand, and general optimism in regards to cloud and other server segments. They did announce a large cloud deployment, so a plus in that partnership in China (which AMD already announced a deal with the same company this past summer or fall).

To give a better look, I'll need to dig into the 10-K and review the call again after that digging. I want to especially review the amount set aside for litigation. I'll also want to review their definitive proxy statement, which should be coming soon, which gives a really good look at the activities of the executives holdings, aside from seeing their public sales, 10b5-1 sale certs, etc. I'm just that kind of guy! ;-)

But, 10nm is a nothing burger this year, cannon is a joke, mostly skipped. We have Cascade-X and Coffee next summer with the CPU Meltdown fix (no guarantee Spectre is fully fixed for them or AMD for their April launch, except maybe on variant 2 for the two companies). Ice is when it comes, but Whiskey being talked about and them saying FURTHER development on 14nm suggests that they may have to run that against 7nm release for AMD in Q4 2018 to Q1 2019 for server (hopefully), and H1 2019 on the consumer side. That is going to be rough, especially since that means AMD will have transistor density and efficiency for a couple months to half a year.



This plays straight into the head to head coming, which will definitely be the fight to watch!

 

Didn't mean it to sound like bashing, I think it was more that I got what I expected from the GPU side, and then got way more than I expected from the CPU side.

 

Well, and wanting more on the GPU side isn't bad, as they obviously need a kick in the seat. I did post about the new heads for Radeon graphics division the other day:

http://www.pcgamer.com/amd-hires-fo...cs-execs-to-lead-its-radeon-technology-group/
"Rayfield will serve as senior vice president and general manager of AMD's Radeon Technologies Group, the company's dedicated graphics division from which Koduri departed, and Wang will hold the role of senior vice president of engineering for the same department. Both will report to AMD CEO Dr. Lisa Su.

"Mike and David are industry leaders who bring proven track records of delivering profitable business growth and leadership product roadmaps," said Dr. Lisa Su. "We enter 2018 with incredible momentum for our graphics business based on the full set of GPU products we introduced last year for the consumer, professional, and machine learning markets. Under Mike and David's leadership, I am confident we will continue to grow the footprint of Radeon across the gaming, immersive, and GPU compute markets."

Rayfield is a 30-year veteran of the technology industry, having most recently served an executive role at Micron. Prior to that, Rayfield was the general manager of the mobile division at Nvidia, where he led the team that created Tegra.

As for Wang, this is not his first stint with AMD. He previously worked on AMD's system-on-chip (SoC) efforts, and prior to that, he held various technical and management positions at ATI, ArtX, SGI, Axil Workstations, and LSI Logic. His most recent position before returning to AMD was at Synaptics, where he served as senior vice president of Systems Silicon Engineering."


This shakeup after Sue took over the head position in his absence might have spurred a recommendation to split responsibilities and hire more people with tighter focus. Hence, one to focus on the engineering and one to take on general management. Both are awesome in their own rights, and the one engineer is an ATI vet. So, this could be very interesting. Both have experience in SOC (one with Tegra, the other with AMD), and both seem to be good fits for where this is going. Especially with AMD potentially working on a multi-die card, which may utilize aspects of those skills.

 

That's good news! I will admit my main concern in the GPU side right now is that someone (preferably both Red and Green teams) need to start making dedicated mining cards so take pressure off the gaming ones.

 

They do, but the restrictions make it where you cannot sell them in the US! Not only that, only reason Nvidia is scared of it is they saw what happened when AMD cards hit the resell market when the 2014 crash happened and they know how many of their Pascal cards will be dirt cheap, thereby undercutting future gen sales. But I don't see price relief unless buying at release. Otherwise, it will continue like this for the next year or so.

 

Wonder how that will affect the PC gaming landscape...I almost see this being good for notebooks, since they're unlikely to be used for mining, they may stay reasonably priced.

 

Threadripper And EPYC Are Not One And The Same, Mostly. Der8auer Confirms.

 

So here is the Torvald tirade from last weekend in its entirety:

From Linus Torvalds <>
Date Sun, 21 Jan 2018 13:35:59 -0800
Subject Re: [RFC 09/10] x86/enter: Create macros to restrict/unrestrict Indirect Branch Speculation
On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 12:28 PM, David Woodhouse <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 2018-01-21 at 11:34 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> All of this is pure garbage.
>>
>> Is Intel really planning on making this **** architectural? Has
>> anybody talked to them and told them they are f*cking insane?
>>
>> Please, any Intel engineers here - talk to your managers.
>
> If the alternative was a two-decade product recall and giving everyone
> free CPUs, I'm not sure it was entirely insane.

You seem to have bought into the cool-aid. Please add a healthy dose
of critical thinking. Because this isn't the kind of cool-aid that
makes for a fun trip with pretty pictures. This is the kind that melts
your brain.

> Certainly it's a nasty hack, but hey — the world was on fire and in the
> end we didn't have to just turn the datacentres off and go back to goat
> farming, so it's not all bad.

It's not that it's a nasty hack. It's much worse than that.

> As a hack for existing CPUs, it's just about tolerable — as long as it
> can die entirely by the next generation.

That's part of the big problem here. The speculation control cpuid
stuff shows that Intel actually seems to plan on doing the right thing
for meltdown (the main question being _when_). Which is not a huge
surprise, since it should be easy to fix, and it's a really honking
big hole to drive through. Not doing the right thing for meltdown
would be completely unacceptable.

So the IBRS garbage implies that Intel is _not_ planning on doing the
right thing for the indirect branch speculation.

Honestly, that's completely unacceptable too.

> So the part is I think is odd is the IBRS_ALL feature, where a future
> CPU will advertise "I am able to be not broken" and then you have to
> set the IBRS bit once at boot time to *ask* it not to be broken. That
> part is weird, because it ought to have been treated like the RDCL_NO
> bit — just "you don't have to worry any more, it got better".

It's not "weird" at all. It's very much part of the whole "this is
complete garbage" issue.

The whole IBRS_ALL feature to me very clearly says "Intel is not
serious about this, we'll have a ugly hack that will be so expensive
that we don't want to enable it by default, because that would look
bad in benchmarks".

So instead they try to push the garbage down to us. And they are doing
it entirely wrong, even from a technical standpoint.

I'm sure there is some lawyer there who says "we'll have to go through
motions to protect against a lawsuit". But legal reasons do not make
for good technology, or good patches that I should apply.

> We do need the IBPB feature to complete the protection that retpoline
> gives us — it's that or rebuild all of userspace with retpoline.

********.

Have you _looked_ at the patches you are talking about? You should
have - several of them bear your name.

The patches do things like add the garbage MSR writes to the kernel
entry/exit points. That's insane. That says "we're trying to protect
the kernel". We already have retpoline there, with less overhead.

So somebody isn't telling the truth here. Somebody is pushing complete
garbage for unclear reasons. Sorry for having to point that out.

If this was about flushing the BTB at actual context switches between
different users, I'd believe you. But that's not at all what the
patches do.

As it is, the patches are COMPLETE AND UTTER GARBAGE.

They do literally insane things. They do things that do not make
sense. That makes all your arguments questionable and suspicious. The
patches do things that are not sane.

WHAT THE F*CK IS GOING ON?

And that's actually ignoring the much _worse_ issue, namely that the
whole hardware interface is literally mis-designed by morons.

It's mis-designed for two major reasons:

- the "the interface implies Intel will never fix it" reason.

See the difference between IBRS_ALL and RDCL_NO. One implies Intel
will fix something. The other does not.

Do you really think that is acceptable?

- the "there is no performance indicator".

The whole point of having cpuid and flags from the
microarchitecture is that we can use those to make decisions.

But since we already know that the IBRS overhead is <i>huge</i> on
existing hardware, all those hardware capability bits are just
complete and utter garbage. Nobody sane will use them, since the cost
is too damn high. So you end up having to look at "which CPU stepping
is this" anyway.

I think we need something better than this garbage.

Linus




So, looking at this, the fix to Spectre is going to be so costly in performance that Intel is leaving it up to people who may not know they have to switch it on to do so to be protected. Don't see this on the AMD side, but am glad AMD said, after the fact, they will be doing a microcode update to close off the possibility of the variant being discussed, even though they said they believe they have a near zero exposure to it. Happy Saturday!!!
https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/1/21/192

 

Are you freaken serious! That is insane! Leaving it up to the masses to switch on protection, that they will probably never know about? LOL. Intel is in a whole heap of trouble.

 

Oh, I have no doubt this will be brought up in the class actions!

 

Well, thanks for clearing my most behemoth doubt!
I thought TR is epyc, with 2 of the dies disabled! I thought amd's offivial announcement was just to seprate sales of TR and epyc, well gueass what thats true, cheers to der8auer!

 

I have to post this because I pointed out pcper giving misleading information on Ryzen latency and the effects of ram on Ryzen and the 10 core 7900X in May or June timeframe. I need to go to the early links in this thread and send the information to Adored on that. Just shows the bias and why I don't trust pcper personally for most of my reviews. When you see a pattern....





Edit: I thought I had here, but can no longer find it. It may have been deleted with the Tiller and me fighting.

So, PCPer used the latency test for Ryzen. In April, they showed that different speeds lowered latency. They then published a review of the 7900X, but compared it to the Ryzen results from March, then used faster ram with the Intel chip than the Ryzen chip, and showed Intel Mesh actually also lowers latency while increasing speed. They did not share the links between the articles at the time. As such, this shows the bias of the reviews which should be considered in sharing information on comparing and contrasting platforms. I'll attach the links shortly and will attach the email upon request between me and PCPer.

Edit 2: https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Proce...X-Processor-Review/Thread-Thread-Latency-and-






https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Proce...Core-i5/CCX-Latency-Testing-Pinging-between-t





http://dev.pcper.com/index.php/reviews/Processors/Ryzen-Memory-Latencys-Impact-Weak-1080p-Gaming


Notice also the mistake on the 1800X label for comparison to the 7900X when the 140ns latency applied to 2133. Also, this does not take into account the effects of specific memory timing tweaks that can lower latency further.

Edit: the discussion was roughly around page 27, give or take.

 

One fewer reason to want Intel! Optane!

 

Not surprised at the bias some sites have for one or the other, but at least hide it a little better. I can usually spot biased sites fairly quick.

 

I'll just leave this here! Any one good at desktop and server BIOS want to do experiments?

 

Intel’s Coffee Lake CPUs Outselling AMD Ryzen CPUs, Latest Report Reveals – Core i7-8700K Popular Among Gamers-wccftech.com

Is Ryzen Affect Over or Coffee Lake Just Too Good For Gamers?
"Intel may be seen coming back to their dominant position again thanks to Coffee Lake. There are several reasons why that is so. Intel’s Coffee Lake CPUs perform exceptionally well in games and the addition of more cores and decent prices on the 8000 series processors has made many users upgrade their older Intel PCs."

 

"...However, for AMD users, this is nothing to worry about. AMD has enjoyed months of processor sales and the reason why they are diminishing now is that there are users who are currently waiting for the next great thing from AMD. And that’s the Zen+ based Ryzen 2000 series desktop processors which will launch alongside the X470 AM4 motherboards.

Furthermore, those users who are currently running a AM4 platform can simply upgrade to a new chip without having to replace the entire platform. Once the new chips launch, AMD sales will rebound and take over Intel’s once again if priced right and perform just as great as the previous Ryzen launch from AMD."

You left out the punchline again, totally misrepresenting the message of the article...

 

Read one more time!! Intel’s Coffee Lake CPUs Outselling AMD Ryzen CPUs, Latest Report Reveals – Core i7-8700K Popular Among Gamers
No Need for posting everything in every article we post. People can read the whole if they just click on the link.

 

I'll agree here with @hmscott as you have included the content text you wish to highlight but not the counterpoint.

 

So now we have proof a quad die TR IS possible! That means that Intel CANNOT release something that can beat core count and price if AMD truly wanted to for HEDT. That is an INSANE thought. If 7nm does hit the higher limit toward 5GHz target for server (seen here page 2: https://www.globalfoundries.com/sit...s/product-brief-7lp-7nm-finfet-technology.pdf), then they could literally put out a 7nm (TR3) that just spanks Intel up/down/left/right/center. If still doing monolith, Intel couldn't do a 24+core for the HEDT at a reasonable price at 5GHz and win. Especially with the small benefit that is likely on Ice when going against 7nm TR3. Just saying, AMD, knock this out of the park and there will be nothing left for that stage of the fight!

 

This proves that according to the CCX's and TR PCB the four complexes can be at least powered. So AMD could muster up the system to make it really tough on Intel. This though may not be for x399 owners.

I could easily see where x399 may not be suited to properly divvy up PCI-e lanes and maybe a TR3 CPU and the new chipset (x499 or further?) to make it happen. I could see 12nm even being able to do this but AMD may not be willing to have a TR chip at TDP of 310 watts or maybe even higher.

 

Such an underestimated processor the 1900X

Im impressed with the Threadripper 1900X, especially for around $349-$399 Fantastic cpu to get up and running on the X399 chipset..

It seems every 1900X will run at 4.4Ghz with the new Enermax Dedicated Thread ripper AIO coolers.
They are working just as good as custom loops.

This 8 core @4,4Ghz really fights off the 8700K. People complain about single threaded performance, but it really breaks in to the SUB 190'S on CINEBEBCH, with the right memory. I dont think theres much difference.

Ive built countless intel systems. But i am hoping AMD is very successful with Ryzen 2. I'd like to see more variation in laptop platforms to, hopefully a mobile ryzen 8/16

 

Asus ROG GL702ZC owners lounge
http://forum.notebookreview.com/threads/asus-rog-gl702zc-owners-lounge.809882/page-21#post-10677730

Been tracking the Asus GL702ZC for a while here too:

AMD's Ryzen CPU's (Ryzen/TR/Epyc) & Vega/Polaris GPU's
http://forum.notebookreview.com/thr...ga-polaris-gpus.799348/page-233#post-10564935

That thread is for "pure" Ryzen discussion, while this thread is for "vs" comparison's.

The 1900x is a nice step up, but aren't the prices down far enough now that bumping up to a 1920x or 1950x isn't too much more expensive. Or, are you saying the OC for the 1900x has a leg up on those two higher core count CPU's?

 

Power isn't the issue. He is checking with Epyc which has two extra memory controllers on it (likely why it can't get past memory check) and that has an on board chipset, which means there are two chipsets in the system when an Epyc CPU is present. Of course the bios is going to be conflicted.

If AMD plans on compatibility through 2020, and they have plans for a future quad die, then the issue is firmware changes and disabling two memory controllers on two of the door dies, while also tweaking the shared memory to the two dies without IMCs due to the memory latency involved. It also would be without the on die chipsets found on Epyc CPUs. You are correct on paring down which die's pcie is used also. But these are technical issues that can be overcome. I understand not doing it first gen, because it would have harmed effectiveness and efficiency in the HEDT chips. I don't even think it will be on the 12nm variant. But beyond that, I think it is entirely possible.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

The 1900X does have a leg up on overclocking. But ive seen the 1920/1950X getting to 4.2-4.3Ghz stable mostly benching though. 4.15+Ghz is just about a given on any 1950X with that enermax Liqtech AIO "This AIO cooler works better than any! Huge heat plate that is full coverage of a Threadripper cpu, and some" . Considering the 1950X is only $799.. This is just so far beyond any intel.

And disabling cores will achieve the same results. In Ryzen master software. But, anything over 4ghz on 16 to 32 threads is devastation!

Ive read all about the GL702ZC laptop, and im in the market for a laptop right now. I might still get it. You can drop a 1800X Ryzen right in and undervolt it.. i want to buy one! But, i hate that it is limited to a underclocked RX580 running at only 1066mhz core. Ive read some people have flashed its bios to run standard RX580 clock speeds. Which puts it ahead of a gtx1060. But the 1700 cpu easily doubles that of i7 7th gen in other options.

If your really wanting 4.4+ ghz everyday stable on a 1950X. Id use a Ray storm neo waterblock. A water chiller, and (1) 480mm rad on its own loop. A 1900X would probably run 4.5Ghz on this nearly edging out a 6950X (10) core,

Fastest memory possible is key on these x399 systems. Preferably 3400-3600mhz

 

25 Games Tested | Ryzen 5 2400G vs Intel I5 8400 | Comparison


More Ryzen 5 2400G results here:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/thr...ga-polaris-gpus.799348/page-407#post-10679877

25 Games In 1080p | Ryzen 3 2200G vs Intel i3 8100 | Comparison

 

GT 1030 vs. RX 550 / Ryzen 3 vs Core i3, Finding The Best Budget Gaming Combo

1:41 PUBG
2:18 Fornite
3:10 CS:GO
3:50 Overwatch
4:42 Rocket League
5:18 DOTA 2
6:00 Rainbow Six: Siege
6:30 Star Wars Battlefront II
7:02 Wolfenstein II: The New Colossus

 

This is very interesting, X399 had more than 2x the interest by viewer count during the Computex 2017 AMD vs Intel coverage...