|
Zotix posted:What speed ram would you guys put into a build with the 3900x? I know and released a graphic saying they support up to 3733, but the sweet spot is 3600. Those of you doing a new build what are you personally going to use? 3733 is the max you can run infinity fabric(FSB) at 1/1 ratio so I'd go with that. The tighter the timings the better imo
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 14:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 05:10 |
|
|
Lube banjo posted:3733 is the max you can run infinity fabric(FSB) at 1/1 ratio so I'd go with that. The tighter the timings the better imo What do you mean together the timings exactly? The closer they are together numerically? Or am I primarily worried about CL?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 14:42
|
|
|
Zotix posted:What do you mean together the timings exactly? The closer they are together numerically? Or am I primarily worried about CL?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 15:21
|
|
|
Zotix posted:What do you mean together the timings exactly? The closer they are together numerically? Or am I primarily worried about CL? Lower number are better, primarily the CAS (which is also the first number in a description like 18-18-18-50). The rest of the timings numbers are not as important and there isn't any gotcha memory that's like 16-30-69-420. However, the existing Ryzen cpus have a drawback where they can only use even-number CAS at higher speeds. For example CAS 17 will be rounded up to 18. If that is still the case with Zen 2, it's not worth spending more money for 1 less CAS if it is an odd number.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 15:26
|
|
|
Harik posted:Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but I only see them from Insight or PCM. Did HP exit the building business entirely and just slaps their brand on someone else's computer now? Maybe the confusion is from the split to HP Inc. (hp.com) and Hewlett Packard Enterprise (hpe.com). HP Inc. manufacturers laptops, desktop, workstations, printers, etc. While Hewlett Packard Enterprise manufacturers servers, storage systems and such.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 15:41
|
|
|
Zotix posted:What speed ram would you guys put into a build with the 3900x? I know and released a graphic saying they support up to 3733, but the sweet spot is 3600. Those of you doing a new build what are you personally going to use? I'm going to wait and see what the sweet spot actually is based on gaming benchmarks, but hopefully the B Die 3200 / c14 ram I have can make it up there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 15:48
|
|
|
Saukkis posted:Maybe the confusion is from the split to HP Inc. (hp.com) and Hewlett Packard Enterprise (hpe.com). HP Inc. manufacturers laptops, desktop, workstations, printers, etc. While Hewlett Packard Enterprise manufacturers servers, storage systems and such. No I'm specifically talking about Insight and PCM. "Fulfilled by [third party manufacturer]". When companies use contractors they don't advertise it as a product of whatever their contractor's name is. They're not Foxconn iphones, they're apple.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 16:41
|
|
|
Yet another R5 3600 geekbench score this time with 3733 RAM, highest Windows score yet. http://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/13631495
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 17:08
|
|
|
Zotix posted:
3200/cl14 b-die
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 17:20
|
|
|
I don't have the good b-die ram since it was super expensive back when I built my Zen 1 system, but even with the inferior hynix stuff I'm able to push the clock above 3000. (Which I do because the 3000 C15 timing it is rated for gets rounded up to 16 anyways.) I wouldn't be shocked if b-die can push the clock substantially higher at the expense of timings on the new memory controller, assuming the mobo has good signal. I kinda get the feeling that it's the exact same ram chips are being sold as 3200 CL16, 3600 CL18, and 4000 CL20 -- just with different XMP numbers written to the jdec and a more fancy looking heatspreaders.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 18:58
|
|
|
I'm going with 3200/CL16 because it's half the price of 3600/CL14, and I have 2 machines to upgrade. My nodes with 2700s in them are already running 3000MHz RAM, and that'll be good enough for now (there's only so much money I can convince myself is worth throwing at my weird hobby of donating compute time and electricity, and 4 3900Xs is gonna be it for a while). The nodes with 1600s, OTOH, have ultra-cheap 2400MHz RAM in them. It seems pointless to upgrade to a 12 core CPU and strangle it with slow RAM.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 19:03
|
|
|
How important is CL? The RAM I was looking at was CL 19. I see options for CL 15 at the same speed/amount, but at double the price.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 21:07
|
|
|
surf rock posted:How important is CL? The RAM I was looking at was CL 19. I see options for CL 15 at the same speed/amount, but at double the price. As noted, if you can get CL16 for only a little bit more than CL18, it’s worth the price. But spending twice as much is pretty pointless as it’s unlikely this will bottleneck your system.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 21:14
|
|
|
For people who want a cheaper alternative to b-die, check out this thread on r/amd https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/c421ul/micron_edie_new_best_performanceprice_ratio_with/
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 22:02
|
|
|
Is this really something that I should be concerned with for the ryzen 3000 line or is it mainly much more applicable to the first two ryzen releases?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 22:12
|
|
|
Zotix posted:Is this really something that I should be concerned with for the ryzen 3000 line or is it mainly much more applicable to the first two ryzen releases? Wait for benchmarks. The extent to which it makes a difference on Zen2 is unknown.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 00:28
|
|
|
Zotix posted:What speed ram would you guys put into a build with the 3900x? I know and released a graphic saying they support up to 3733, but the sweet spot is 3600. Those of you doing a new build what are you personally going to use? I was going to be good and wait for benchmarks, but I just pulled the trigger on 32 gigs of 3600mhz (19 CAS) RAM last week, so I hope I didn't gently caress it up. It was too cheap to say no to, and by the looks of things my workload won't be super sensitive to RAM speed anyway. Might slow my games down a hair here and there, but I can most likely live with it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 01:40
|
|
|
So, what's the current feel on 6 Vs 8 core for a budget-limited New build? Are game engines likely to hit 8 threads in the next few years, or should I throw the difference into a spec bump for other parts?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 08:28
|
|
|
Kerbtree posted:So, what's the current feel on 6 Vs 8 core for a budget-limited New build? Are game engines likely to hit 8 threads in the next few years, or should I throw the difference into a spec bump for other parts? For budget builds the part picking thread's been suggesting 6 core amd mostly due to them running a little bit cooler. I use my PC for everything though so I went with an R7-1700 8 core when it was on sale as the second gen stuff came out. Since they don't keep prices artificially high on older CPUs like Intel, it's an option.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 10:24
|
|
|
Kerbtree posted:So, what's the current feel on 6 Vs 8 core for a budget-limited New build? Are game engines likely to hit 8 threads in the next few years, or should I throw the difference into a spec bump for other parts? If we assume that next gen engines are optimized for 8 cores (which is what new consoles are expected to have) then 6C/6T are a bad idea, 6C/12T should be fine when you're on a budget but a CPU with more than 8C would be ideal.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 10:32
|
|
|
Kerbtree posted:So, what's the current feel on 6 Vs 8 core for a budget-limited New build? Are game engines likely to hit 8 threads in the next few years, or should I throw the difference into a spec bump for other parts? A) What's your budget B) Gaming only or productivity + gaming C) 60 or 120/144 fps 1700 is incredible value if you can use the extra cores and don't need to push high frame rates. A 9400F is going to be the most single thread grunt you can get at a similar price but lacks hyperthreading. The 3000 series hexacores should be better than either at their respective strengths but may not fit into your budget.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 11:41
|
|
|
Kerbtree posted:So, what's the current feel on 6 Vs 8 core for a budget-limited New build? Are game engines likely to hit 8 threads in the next few years, or should I throw the difference into a spec bump for other parts? On a budget-limited gaming build you are always* going to get more value from the GPU than the CPU. If saving $100 on the CPU will allow your budget to include the next-higher class of video card, go with the six. *(within reasonable bounds, not a Atom CPU and a 2880ti) eames posted:If we assume that next gen engines are optimized for 8 cores (which is what new consoles are expected to have) Also what current consoles have. But it's a bad assumption because "optimize for N cores" is easier said than done. After a whole generation where multithreading was a *huge* priority because the console CPU was sucky and didn't have single-core boosting, a 4-core CPU is now sometimes a detriment to performance. The job of splitting more work off the main thread gets harder as you go one, not easier. An 8-core is a great choice for people with the budget, and for anyone who wants a slow upgrade cycle. But a 6-core isn't going to turn into a pumpkin in 2020.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 14:14
|
|
|
Klyith posted:On a budget-limited gaming build you are always* going to get more value from the GPU than the CPU. If saving $100 on the CPU will allow your budget to include the next-higher class of video card, go with the six. On the other hand, you can swap a GPU pretty much whenever while swapping a CPU is a compatibility gamble (not to mention the hassle of actually removing the cooler/CPU). If your GPU is sufficient for medium settings in the games you're playing now I'd recommend getting the better CPU with the intention of upgrading the GPU as time goes on. If you're building a system right now I think it's fair to say that your CPU/mobo/RAM will not be carried into the next system, so if you can get an extra year or two of usage out of those components for that $100 I'd say you're coming out ahead.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 14:51
|
|
|
Klyith posted:An 8-core is a great choice for people with the budget, and for anyone who wants a slow upgrade cycle. But a 6-core isn't going to turn into a pumpkin in 2020. Tell that to 6600k owners 
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 15:11
|
|
|
Klyith posted:The job of splitting more work off the main thread gets harder as you go one, not easier. My experience writing concurrent network code does not agree with this. There's a learning curve to writing well-behaved and highly-concurrent code, but it's not unlike the learning curve to writing well-behaved object oriented code. In both cases you have to unlearn some old assumptions and accommodate yourself to some new design paradigms. But I've found that once you get over that hump, and assuming good language support, writing code that spins off parts of itself for concurrent execution feels amazingly powerful and freeing. YMMV, obvs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 16:54
|
|
|
Arzachel posted:Tell that to 6600k owners  I'm not seeing where it's turned into a pumpkin. The 6600k isn't as fast as those two intel CPUs, but if you buy a K series processor and don't OC it then you played yourself. mdxi posted:My experience writing concurrent network code does not agree with this. There's a learning curve to writing well-behaved and highly-concurrent code, but it's not unlike the learning curve to writing well-behaved object oriented code. In both cases you have to unlearn some old assumptions and accommodate yourself to some new design paradigms. Mmm, I should have specified video games only. My understanding of the subject is that games are still highly dependent on the fastest core's single-thread performance because that main loop hasn't been parallelized and is very difficult to parallelize. So instead of being multi-threaded from the ground up, it's been carving chunks off the top and sides. Thus the diminishing returns and why games don't scale very much with core count. I'm not a developer, just have read a bunch of articles on the subject by devs so I couldn't say what the deep reasons are.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 17:19
|
|
|
Klyith posted:I'm not seeing where it's turned into a pumpkin. The 6600k isn't as fast as those two intel CPUs, but if you buy a K series processor and don't OC it then you played yourself. The 6600k is still fine in average fps but in some recent titles like Battlefield V quadcores without SMT are having bad frame time issues. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97sDKvMHd8c&t=3s
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 17:34
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:The 6600k is still fine in average fps but in some recent titles like Battlefield V quadcores without SMT are having bad frame time issues. 55 fps minimum = "a bad time" (here's the text version of the article so we can pull charts directly)
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 17:37
|
|
|
I had a 6600k until a month or two ago and sidegraded to a 2600X. I wanted to move to AMD anyway and can pass the 2600X down to my brother in a month. I was having a lot of issues with frame time and stutter in modern titles with a 1080 at 1440p, all gone with the 2600X.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 17:38
|
|
|
Thanks for linking those 1280x720 results, really appreciate it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 18:03
|
|
|
are we still gonna pretend that 4k ultra benchmarks are a valid way to evaluate CPU performance? It's not a build guide where you are comparing which build gets the most framerate-per-dollar if you redirect more money to the GPU, it's a comparison of CPUs, you want to get the GPU completely out of the way. it could be literally 240p, if the framerate is still changing then you aren't fully CPU-bottlenecked yet and aren't showing the actual limits of that CPU's performance. now that Ryzen is on the cusp of maybe coming out on top in those benchmarks, maybe we can drop the BS about them being an invalid testing methodology. That is the way you want to test gaming performance of a CPU. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 18:21 on Jun 24, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 18:08
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:55 fps minimum = "a bad time" If you're sensitive to frame timing, your game going from 100+ FPS to half that every several seconds is "a bad time".
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 18:10
|
|
|
720p is the proper way to test CPU performance, it's moronic to allow GPU limitations to come into the picture. It'd be no less dumb to bench a 2080Ti on an i5-750. We definitely hit the point a couple years ago where 4c/4t started to become a real limitation, but to make the assumption that something like an 8/8 or 6/12 CPU is going to be a limitation for a buyer on a budget any time soon is silly. Games are really hard to parallelize, the performance of your single fastest core is always going to be the limiting factor, and as long as you've got enough performance for the various other threads on your other cores you'll be fine.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 18:21
|
|
|
jisforjosh posted:If you're sensitive to frame timing, your game going from 100+ FPS to half that every several seconds is "a bad time". Yep exactly. It was very noticeable and I tried lowering resolution, playing around with settings and etc. I was just commenting on my experience and not making a prediction about the future either. I'm personally going with a 3700X or a 3800X depending on how benchmarks shake out.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 18:33
|
|
|
Klyith posted:And that's not all! It also offers to sell you Overclocking Insurance! After all, overclocking isn't covered under warranty and could damage your chip if you push it too hard. (Only $19.99 what a deal!) intel has offered this since the 2600k. gently caress yes i'll take some insurance for the cost that most people would blow on train sim DLC.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 18:36
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/hardwarepraise/status/1143210765853310978
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 18:38
|
|
|
incoherent posted:intel has offered this since the 2600k. gently caress yes i'll take some insurance for the cost that most people would blow on train sim DLC. Does that cover running over rated voltages? Because that's the only thing I could see causing actual damage to the chip.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 18:41
|
|
|
I really wish they'd compared against the 2600X and 8700K in more charts (eg games, cinebench, etc) because those are the relevant comparisons, not the 8C parts so much. Or at least the 9700K since that basically represents a mildly overclocked 8700K. Looks like the 9900K is still coming out on top in single-threaded, the 9700K probably as well, but it probably beats a (stock) 8700K. 8700K has a pretty low all-core boost at stock (4.3 GHz vs 4.7 on the 9900K / 4.6 on the 9700K). Memory latency is worse than Zen1, maybe that can be improved by other reviewers. And that obviously impacts Zen pretty heavily at least in previous iterations. Looks like kind of a low quality review in general so I wouldn't take it super seriously but it's looking decent, no major pitfalls so far. Probably going to slot in a bit below Coffee Lake in gaming and a bit above in productivity, core for core. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 18:53 on Jun 24, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 18:50
|
|
|
K8.0 posted:720p is the proper way to test CPU performance, it's moronic to allow GPU limitations to come into the picture. It'd be no less dumb to bench a 2080Ti on an i5-750. 720p is essential to proper CPU testing in order to highlight the potential and future differences between CPUs with the HUGE caveat that if you only test 720p you won’t have a sense of real-world performance right now. Many people vastly over-buy CPUs under the impression that they’ll see actual qualitative gaming experience gains, but in the end it usually just lets them eke out another year or two from an old system when they probably would have saved money in the long run and had the same qualitative experience going with the cheaper option and upgrading sooner. Totally agree with the rest, though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 18:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 05:10 |
|
|
Yeah there's something weird going on with their RAM setup as shown in the AIDA64 test
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 18:52
|
|