|
Combat Pretzel posted:I guess my TUF X670-E is already unsupported, given the latest BIOS is still on AGESA 1.0.8.0, while those dumb ROG boards are on 1.1.0.1 already. 1.0.8.0 is pretty recent still and gives you the best benefits (higher DDR5 clocks + support for higher capacity DDR5) you'd need. 1.1.0.1 is mostly to support the new processors that are coming. Having tried it on my Aorus x670e you don't want it. Its VERY buggy right now for most people. Actually just checked their site and GB pulled it! So yeah its super bad. Don't bother with it. Yeah I think they've said BIOSes to fix the various (there is supposed to be a bunch of them) vulnerabilities in UEFI are coming in the next few months. That is going to effect EVERYONE (Intel too) so that'll be interesting to see get rolled out too. I hope they do a fix for AM4 as well.
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2023 23:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 04:30 |
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:I guess my TUF X670-E is already unsupported, given the latest BIOS is still on AGESA 1.0.8.0, while those dumb ROG boards are on 1.1.0.1 already. I highly doubt it's already unsupported. More that it's Asus and they are taking their sweet time making sure the bios is working so it doesn't melt more chips because they rushed a bios version out. I scanned their site a bit. Of the half a dozen random B650 boards I checked, they were all on 1.0.8.0 as the latest. Of the X670 line, the Proart, Strix, and Crosshair are on 1.1.0.1. Only the Tuf and Prime are still on the 1.0.8.0. I'm on a Gigabyte B650 board and 1.1.0.1 was released for it only 4 days ago. I'm on 1.1.0.0, which you can't even get on Gigabytes site anymore, as it goes from 1.0.0.7 c to 1.1.0.1 now. Give it a bit, I'd bet the latest will be available for your board.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2023 04:54
|
|
|
The ASRock B650 Pro RS/Pro RS Wifi, meanwhile, is on AEGSA 1.1.0.0. Actually been wondering if/when the next update might show up, and the answer seems to be "when 1.1.0.2 drops". 
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2023 05:40
|
|
|
So, I just finished building a 7800X3D system, I'm mostly just running defaults on my Asus B650-A other than turning on EXPO (CL30/6000 MHz). Installed AMD chipset drivers. Is there anything else I should be doing? PBO? Ryzen Master? I updated BIOS to the latest available (2023/10/7) before installing windows, it appears to be running AGESA 1.0.8.0. Any reason to keep an eye out for further updates? Generally I'm gaming on this, but I care more that it *just works* rock solid stable over spending hours tweaking for a 3% gain in performance/efficiency.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2023 14:02
|
|
|
Seems like the 7000 series accept a small undervolt fairly well, so it could be worth investigating that. Here's a guide I'm planning to follow when I've finished putting together my next AMD 7000 system.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2023 14:41
|
|
|
Whoops, turns out I wasn’t even on 1.0.8.0. Fixin’ that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2023 14:44
|
|
|
Bjork Bjowlob posted:Seems like the 7000 series accept a small undervolt fairly well, so it could be worth investigating that. Here's a guide I'm planning to follow when I've finished putting together my next AMD 7000 system. Doing an undervolt would go against their desire for a more stable system over a small performance or efficiency gain.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2023 14:47
|
|
|
Kibner posted:Doing an undervolt would go against their desire for a more stable system over a small performance or efficiency gain. Fair, Tom's Hardware found only a few percent gain in performance for this processor after undervolting and applying PBO, so while they didn't find any stability issues at a low UV (-10) it's likely not worth it for this use case. I was planning to run my system continuously so I'm focused on ekeing out any efficiency gains I can.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2023 15:20
|
|
|
Remember how AMD weren't disclosing the breakdown of Zen 4 vs 4c cores in their latest chips? Tom's Hardware has an article saying they're rolling back that policy and will let people know what they're actually buying from now on (how kind). One of the pics in the article shows there's not a huge difference between the two types of core when it comes to efficiency:  Admittedly AMD's focus was on density for 4c, but it's interesting to see that there's nothing like the stark difference in efficiency as with Intel cores.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2023 15:48
|
|
|
Cinebench is probably the most favorable thing they could run on the c core, as it doesn’t care about cache. A 7700X beats a 7800X3D lol. I’m very interested to see some actual desktop testing on the Phoenix2 parts once AMD finally ships the desktop APUs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2023 16:57
|
|
|
we have to move on from cinebench R23 at some point, it's based on an ancient obsolete render engine
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2023 17:01
|
|
|
repiv posted:we have to move on from cinebench R23 at some point, it's based on an ancient obsolete render engine Pfff, next you'll tell me SuperPI isn't a valid benchmarking tool
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2023 17:18
|
|
|
repiv posted:we have to move on from cinebench R23 at some point, it's based on an ancient obsolete render engine You'll pry 3DMark2001SE out of my cold, dead hands
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2023 19:35
|
|
|
Zedsdeadbaby posted:You'll pry 3DMark2001SE out of my cold, dead hands Your hands are so cold because the benchmark barely taxes one of the 96 threads in your gaming rig. A modern benchmark suite makes the room toasty warm.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2023 20:55
|
|
|
Cygni posted:Cinebench is probably the most favorable thing they could run on the c core, as it doesn’t care about cache. A 7700X beats a 7800X3D lol. There are no cache differences between 7545U and 7540U. They both have 16MB of shared L3, and 1MB L2 per core. The only difference between the Zen4 and the Zen4c cores is achievable frequency.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2023 00:06
|
|
|
Tuna-Fish posted:There are no cache differences between 7545U and 7540U. They both have 16MB of shared L3, and 1MB L2 per core. The only difference between the Zen4 and the Zen4c cores is achievable frequency. Oh that’s interesting I must have misremembered that. The 4c cores on Bergamo have half the L3 cache per core of Genoa, and maybe I just assumed that was the same config in Phoenix2.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2023 08:54
|
|
|
Cygni posted:Oh that’s interesting I must have misremembered that. The 4c cores on Bergamo have half the L3 cache per core of Genoa, and maybe I just assumed that was the same config in Phoenix2. L3 amount is independent of core type. The APUs have been using 16MB (or, half of the desktop L3) for a long time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2023 12:47
|
|
|
Zedsdeadbaby posted:You'll pry 3DMark2001SE out of my cold, dead hands I had the same opinion for a really long time, but maybe I'm even more partial to 2000. That demo.. HalloKitty fucked around with this message at 17:02 on Dec 24, 2023 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2023 16:57
|
|
|
Zedsdeadbaby posted:You'll pry 3DMark2001SE out of my cold, dead hands So I had the itch to play around today, and I was a little surprised to see that 2001SE actually booted and ran on my 7800X3D/4070 Win11 system... but 3DMark 03, 05 and 06 wouldn't. (I was less surprised to see that 2000 didn't start correctly, and 99 refused to even install. ) Sadly, they give extremely nonspecific errors when starting up, so it's hard to troubleshoot what's going on. I'm tempted to download Vantage and see how well the system crunches through that, but 2001SE was funny enough as it was, and the 11 result was impressive enough for my blood.Funnily enough, though, I actually do get a sound error from 2001SE's demo even though the rest runs fine. I guess 2001SE doesn't play nice with the Realtek audio on the B650 Pro RS.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2023 07:27
|
|
|
SpaceDrake posted:So I had the itch to play around today, and I was a little surprised to see that 2001SE actually booted and ran on my 7800X3D/4070 Win11 system... but 3DMark 03, 05 and 06 wouldn't. (I was less surprised to see that 2000 didn't start correctly, and 99 refused to even install. Maybe it wanted Creative EAX? Get yourself an Audigy, friend. poo poo, you just reminded me that I still have a dedicated sound card in my desktop because the onboard realtek made me mad. Asus Xonar to the rescue!
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2023 16:17
|
|
|
this mobile naming scheme for AMD is horrific. AMD launching their "8000" series of products, all of them rebrands of previously existing silicon: https://www.anandtech.com/show/21177/amd-unveils-ryzen-8040-mobile-series-apus-hawk-point-with-zen-4-and-ryzen-ai the only changes on a lot of the skus is enabling the already physically present "NPU" block, or allowing it a higher turbo in SKUs that already had it... which is more or less only relevant on some adobe products doing specific effects. this includes an 8840U that you are going to see in a ton of handhelds that is physically identical to the 7840U and clocks the same, with the exception of a higher turbo on the NPU cores you will never use on a handheld. so dont be suckered into thinking its an upgrade if you already have one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2023 19:45
|
|
|
Yeah but have you considered Number Must Go Up???
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2023 20:11
|
|
|
*extremely Intel voice* There goes that snake oil again! *laugh track*
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2023 20:18
|
|
|
we just tested what's in the barrel gunk we just scraped, it's "zen 5 is late"
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2023 05:18
|
|
|
Cygni posted:this mobile naming scheme for AMD is horrific. AMD launching their "8000" series of products, all of them rebrands of previously existing silicon: they warned us they were going to do this a few years ago, third number is the one we care about, first number is just release year.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2023 06:08
|
|
|
Don't worry, that naming scheme needs to be replaced in two years anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2023 12:50
|
|
|
You'd think that, but then again maybe the world is ready for hexadecimal model numbers. Couldn't be much worse, right?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2023 14:47
|
|
|
Eletriarnation posted:You'd think that, but then again maybe the world is ready for hexadecimal model numbers. Couldn't be much worse, right? Don't give them ideas or we could end up with more products using monitor-like model numbering schemes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2023 14:56
|
|
|
Cygni posted:this includes an 8840U that you are going to see in a ton of handhelds that is physically identical to the 7840U and clocks the same, with the exception of a higher turbo on the NPU cores you will never use on a handheld. so dont be suckered into thinking its an upgrade if you already have one. So here's my hot take: if you buy poo poo with zero research or reviews, just because it has some bigger number or has some branding, you are already a sucker. A less-disingenuous CPU naming scheme won't help. You played yourself. None of these mobile CPUs are sold individually, they're all part of complete products. Buying it just for the CPU is stupid, so the CPU model naming scheme really doesn't matter.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2023 16:00
|
|
|
Desktop CPU names are fine because they're sold to people who understand, be it enthusiasts or IT departments. The masses buy laptops, so laptops CPUs are named to please the retailers, who want Numbers Get Bigger for their sales people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2023 16:07
|
|
|
So at least some mobo OEM's are releasing updated BIOS'es that also have that UEFI fix that addresses all those new super hosed attacks that got brought up a while back. The Gigabyte one is still in beta but so far so good as far as I can tell for stability. Didn't do a thing to improve overclocking the RAM or anything but seems no worse as well. Dunno if it really plugs all those security holes though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2023 16:26
|
|
|
ConanTheLibrarian posted:Don't give them ideas or we could end up with more products using monitor-like model numbering schemes. The problem is that now that AMD/Intel have Xilinx/Altera all these schemes look perfectly fine.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2023 16:44
|
|
|
PC LOAD LETTER posted:So at least some mobo OEM's are releasing updated BIOS'es that also have that UEFI fix that addresses all those new super hosed attacks that got brought up a while back.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2023 16:52
|
|
|
Klyith posted:So here's my hot take: if you buy poo poo with zero research or reviews, just because it has some bigger number or has some branding, you are already a sucker. A less-disingenuous CPU naming scheme won't help. You played yourself. As much as I hate bad numbering schemes, I also kind of feel like this in the end. Buying CPUs was never just about "bigger number is better" even back when the CPU was directly branded based on its clock speed and turbo wasn't yet a thing. You can ask anyone who took a Celeron 300A to 450, or who got a Willamette P4 with RDRAM. This has only become more true in an era of different core counts, heterogeneous architectures, multiple architectures sold simultaneously with the same branding, and widely variable TDPs. Fortunately there's lots of reference material out there explaining what each part number actually is these days, including first-party reference sites for both Intel and AMD. Before you buy anything you owe it to yourself to at least look the parts up and make sure that they are what you think they are, let alone looking up some benchmarks as well to make sure that they perform as you would expect.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2023 17:27
|
|
|
PC LOAD LETTER posted:Dunno if it really plugs all those security holes though. I'm sure UEFI stuff has an infinity of other holes. Hell, one of my PCs has a goddamn web browser built in the bios. But logofail was yet another attack where step one was gain admin access. If malware has the ability to run at the admin level so it can gently caress with your bios by putting a new logo in there, it can do an endless number of other bad things. Logofail is bad because it's a method for invisible compromise, something big companies and governments are very worried about. For most of us it's a very low threat, and I wouldn't run out to install a beta bios just for that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2023 17:47
|
|
|
Klyith posted:For most of us it's a very low threat, and I wouldn't run out to install a beta bios just for that. Fair 'nuff. I don't mind installing beta BIOS'es these days due to flashback but I can understand others getting put off by dealing with any potential SNAFU's.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2023 18:03
|
|
|
Eletriarnation posted:You'd think that, but then again maybe the world is ready for hexadecimal model numbers. Couldn't be much worse, right? UUID product names! I love my AMD a915a0e4-2615-4dcb-9d39-c9df54bc6bbc!
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2023 18:43
|
|
|
Who doesn't support the efficiency of a random hexadecimal naming convention!
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2023 18:52
|
|
|
EU goons - any idea what might be behind the recent price hikes on the 7950X3D? I was initially thinking Christmas demand but it hasn't cooled off. I'm hoping that it goes back sub 600EUR in early Jan but perhaps there's other factors forcing it upwards for a while. Other CPUs in the same generation don't seem to be affected by the recent changes. There's an Avatar bundle currently running until end December but I don't think that's causing it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2023 19:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 04:30 |
|
|
While I agree that power users will figure out the difference between the CPUs and the days of simple naming schemes arent coming back, the fact that the naming scheme is intentionally misleading and designed to bilk money out of the vast majority of laptop buyers who don't know the difference should still be called out. If we, the turbo dorks, don't call the Big 3 out on their scammy naming schemes, who will?? The vast majority of users don't go beyond "its an i5  " when buying a laptop, a smaller minority will get to "its a 2000 series i5", a teeny-tiny amount of people will get to "its a Sandy Bridge i5", and a laughably small amount of people will get to "here, lets look at the marketing decoder chart to see what CPU this really is before buying", and the Big 3 count on that when they do their naming. It sucks, call em out!(obviously scammy naming isnt new in this industry, its almost an institution. but we will talk about things like the "5k86 PR120" later)
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2023 21:57
|
|