|
Cygni posted:Because we are consumers trying to get the best goods for as cheap as possible from huge billion dollar multinational corporations? GRINDCORE MEGGIDO posted:it'd be great if software devs optimised for >4 cores. edit: That is still ~50%+ more expensive than what the 1600 is currently going for though. While certainly cheaper than what they used to sell a 6C/12T chip for that doesn't really seem all that affordable or "cheap" per se.\/\/\/\/\/ PC LOAD LETTER fucked around with this message at 09:01 on Jul 27, 2017 |
#
¿
Jul 27, 2017 06:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 14:35 |
|
|
I'm kind've surprised so many are so shocked about this. Its not like the AdoredTV guy was digging through some obscure legal files to find this information. I mean heck its all out there in public easily searchable articles and wikis, not moldering away in some ex-engineer's basement. Intels technical side does produce some solid stuff but its been well known that from a business ethical practices and legal standpoint they've been incredibly shameless scumbags since at least the 80's. Every bit as bad as ol' Big Blue was back in the 60's and 70's for the legal harassment shenanigans they pulled to supress competition. Oh well whatever raises awareness of the issue is a good thing I guess. PC LOAD LETTER fucked around with this message at 14:07 on Jul 27, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2017 14:03
|
|
|
kirtar posted:The one problem I have with Ryzen 3 in concept is at that integrated graphics should probably be present in the entry level price range. I believe AMD would argue that is what their APU's are for but they're not out yet and they'll probably cost at least a big more these new Ryzen 3's. That being said if all you need is windows/word garbage tier nvidia GF210 dGPU's are available new for $30 or less.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2017 16:17
|
|
|
SwissArmyDruid posted:Hm. The heatspreader has that weird rib in the middle... Cygni posted:either way, the whole thing is weird.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2017 18:17
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:What does memory latency have to do with IF? Does IF also use CAS timings? Memory and IF bus clocks are linked so if you crank the memory speed up you'll increase the IF bus clocks too. Changing the memory timings won't do a thing to the IF bus. That is why lots of people are trying to get to 3200Mhz on the DDR4 with AMD. Gets you something like 5-10% performance improvement in general. DDR4 3000 speeds (or 2933) is much easier to do and tends to cost quite a bit less ($124 for 16GB right now) and will get you much of the benefits as far as I can tell. There is some AMD specific RAM kits out (Flare X) but they tend to have a price premium that is too high IMO but if you want to get to DDR4 3400 or 3600 speeds they're pretty much the only game in town.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2017 16:42
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:Then I don't get those graphs. Between 3466 whatever and 3466 CL14 there's a huge bump, IF speeds should be the same between them But changing CAS memory latencies will have no more effect on the IF bus performance itself then it would on the PCIe bus.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2017 22:22
|
|
|
ShinAli posted:can I just get any brand of DDR4-3600? Do I need to get 4 sticks in order to get it to clock at 3600? I heard some brands of memory were getting issues to clock right with Ryzen. Really though given how well Zen performs with properly tuned 3400 RAM you might be better off adjusting your goals. And if you "only" can get 3200 stable I wouldn't get too upset either. That still provides a nice benefit over 2133 or 2400 DDR4 on Zen. This post by AMD on RAM overclocking for Zen is pretty informative and useful, not sure if you've seen it or not but just in case: https://community.amd.com/community/gaming/blog/2017/07/14/memory-oc-showdown-frequency-vs-memory-timings e: woops didn't know Geil had their AMD specific kits out too now, they're not common yet but they are out there now and somewhat cheaper than GSkill's kits which is nice. Apparently they're supposed to eventually have a 3466 capable kit out but I don't see it in stock anywhere yet PC LOAD LETTER fucked around with this message at 01:19 on Aug 4, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2017 01:03
|
|
|
Sri.Theo posted:So not many people have been discussing the lack of thunderbolt on AMD platforms. I think that will suck more then many people think for laptops, particularly as accessories are developed for it. The one possible thing that gets most anyone sorta excited about TB here, much less actual non-PC enthusiasts who don't even care much about this at all, is the possibility of using it to connect a external GPU to a laptop and even that is a fairly niche use case. Honestly even that, and the other really high performance, niche(s) might not exist for TB that much longer given 20Gbps USB3.2 is coming, probably in late 2018 at the earliest, but still it kinda throws a damper on things. Yeah TB3's 40Gpbs will still beat it but TB1, 2, and 3 have been faster than USB3 for years and it hasn't helped it much at all similar to like how Firewire was faster than USB2 but it still ended up in the dustbin of history. Fastest isn't the same as "best" since transfer rates are just 1 part of a pile of things that factor into which might be "best" for most.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2017 15:30
|
|
|
Sri.Theo posted:I hope AMD considers it for their laptop processors.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2017 08:13
|
|
|
Arivia posted:Maybe a new chipset to go with Raven Ridge?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2017 22:06
|
|
|
Munkeymon posted:Itanium had some cool features. Maybe if it'd taken over we'd have the sufficiently smart compiler it needed to realize its potential. More likely ARM would have buried it, heh. The reality is the magic compilers that were needed to really get the performance Intel was predicting out of EPIC for general purpose work loads are still a pipe dream and all talk by Intel of them being "on the way" or "just a few years out" was straight up lies. And Intel's response of "performance doesn't really matter anymore" to that issue, after several years of saying it'd all work out ~somehow~, was incredibly jaw dropping both from a practical standpoint of "we need more performance guys WTF" and from a marketing one given Intel's own comments about how badass EPIC was going to be. AMD isn't some virtuous company at all (see their recent handling of Vega's launch/pricing) but Intel's been such incredible, and thorough, assholes for so many years on so many different things that AMD comes off looking like saints in comparison. SourKraut posted:We absolutely have AMD to thank for x86-64, what are you talking about. You'd be living in an Itanium World otherwise. But yeah, AMD shouldn't be built into a paragon of virtue. Although Intel is definitely the far greater of "evils". PC LOAD LETTER fucked around with this message at 05:21 on Aug 25, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2017 05:13
|
|
|
Yeah daily use has been fine since at least the 1st month. Installation has been boringly smooth on the one I did for my bother.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2017 13:32
|
|
|
Munkeymon posted:Yeah, and I was saying the opposite of that
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2017 15:04
|
|
|
Munkeymon posted:You'd need to somehow software JIT machine code to get it as close to optimal as an x86's internal dispatcher, basically, right? Somehow the compilers were supposed to have kept nearly every internal hardware feature and resource running at near peak usage rates all the time to get the performance (IIRC around triple the IPC of x86 though in a round about way since the design was focused on TLP instead) Intel was expecting hence the denigration "magic compilers" is both a way of pooping on that approach and a literal description of what would've been required. edit: they do and have gotten better since that time but the pace of improvement is relatively glacial compared to what was expected. The magic ones Intel was expecting with Itanium would probably appear right around the time we get true AI worked out.\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ PC LOAD LETTER fucked around with this message at 00:34 on Aug 26, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2017 00:20
|
|
|
NomNomNom posted:So I I'm pairing the 1600 with a 1070, so go for the good ram? Its only at 1080p you run into some CPU significant bottlenecking with DDR4-2133. You don't actually need DDR4-3200 to address this for the most part either. DDR4-2933/3000 can get you most of the gains that DDR4-3200 will and runs around $130-ish for 16GB of it going by newegg while 16GB of DDR4-2133 goes for around $120-ish. A ~$10 price difference is worth it. You'll probably have to do a little finangling of course to get it work at those speeds with Ryzen but unless you're after the lowest possible timings for each setting this isn't all that hard to do. FWIW I used some DDR4-3000 that was meant for Intel X99 and X100 platforms and it worked fine at DDR4-2933 with the XMP settings in the BIOS after bumping up the DRAM volts to 1.4 and increasing the SoC volts to ~1.1. Took a few minutes to do those changes in the BIOS and to reboot and its been fine for months now. Some reported they had to switch to T2 command rates to get it to work at those speeds with Ryzen but that still isn't all that bad for non-B die stuff. A few have gotten it to work at DDR4-3200 but don't buy it expecting that. It was this stuff here I used. Not worth buying right now if you're on a tight budget since the price went up to $150 for 16GB but it was $132 when I bought it a few months ago.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2017 08:15
|
|
|
Seamonster posted:But you have to buy good RAM ($$$becauseDRAMpricingisfuuuuucked$$$$) to get the better out of any Ryzen Heck you can find 8GB DDR4-3000 that is only $1 more than 8GB DDR4-2133. Yeah its meant for Intel Z170 chipsets but as of AGESA 1.0.0.4-1.0.0.6 BIOS's most AM4 boards will run it at the listed speed with some minor volt bumps. Now if you really want DDR4-3200 or faster with Ryzen then yes the more expensive AMD specific kits are necessary but DDR4-3000/2933 will give you nearly all the benefits for far less. So at this point the whole 'AMD needs $$$$$$youfuckedboiDRAMlololol$$$$$$' RAM thing is pretty much FUD. Really it has been for months now.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2017 04:24
|
|
|
Lolcano Eruption posted:32 Gigs of B-Die RAM that actually runs at 3200 is $100 more than non B-Die. You should note that I did say that if you want 3200 or faster you will have to pay more for it on AMD in that post you quoted. My point was that a)3200 and/or expensive RAM isn't actually needed at all and that b)DDR4-3000, which is c)relatively cheap at the moment, gets you most of the benefits anyways if you want a nice speed boost with faster RAM for AM4 AMD platforms right now. Lolcano Eruption posted:I Bought 32 gigs DDR4-3200 at $250, they were SK Hynix and I can't do over 2666.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2017 02:21
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:Yes B350 will let you OC, but I’ve read that the VRMs or something component-wise were less than ideal on some/many boards. NewFatMike posted:Ah did not know. I mean it's a pretty weird use case since it needs DP anyway, so it's extra research. I'll keep a lookout. Thanks! Buildzoid did a very good video on this shortly after launch so its a bit old now but not much has changed with the cheap mobo's or their VRM's since then. Think this is it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGrxhf_xZWI No one really knows about OC'ing the built in iGPU. That has its own power plane that isn't really being used much by current Ryzens since none of them have iGPU's. vSoC power delivery will matter lots for that sort of thing though I strongly suspect that just slapping in some DDR4-3000 will be of more benefit than trying to crank iGPU clocks. Anime Schoolgirl posted:AMD coming out with a 7-actually-10nm product that performs before Intel can push out their 10nm laptop chips would be quite hilarious Yeah I don't think AMD has had a chip with a process advantage, or even been on par, on Intel since they beat Intel to copper way back in the early K7 days. It'd be interesting to see if they can really manage to knock it out of the park again. PC LOAD LETTER fucked around with this message at 10:57 on Oct 26, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2017 10:52
|
|
|
They probably did some marketing research and found Vega still sounds cooler so it gets more interest rather than Radeon Mobile or some such would. Stupid? Sure. But that is marketing for you.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2017 00:53
|
|
|
FaustianQ posted:Except it gives no specifics about it's actual performance whatsoever. Lmao at confused customers Not saying that makes it right. Just that its become the de facto "normal" and venting about it is kinda hopeless at this point. You gotta save your capital M Mad rage energy for the important stuff otherwise you'll burn out.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2017 02:45
|
|
|
I think AMD is happy to sell its GPU's to anyone and if that means they get to take a piece of Intel's pie as half of the APU equation that is fine by them. That doesn't mean they wouldn't have preferred to have Vega or Fury work out better for them but business is business. Price is going to matter lots here. If it turns out to cost $400-500+ then I think it'll be a hard sell for most since it'll work out to probably offer similar bang vs buck to a more typical Intel/AMD + dGPU laptop. If its like $200-300-ish and offers mid-ish range dGPU performance with a 4C/8T or better Kaby Lake with good clocks with good volume parts then that is a big big deal and Nvidia's entire low/mid range mobile market share might just drat near evaporate within 2 quarters. Given that they're supposedly targeting high perf thin n' light platforms with this thing that strongly suggests to me it'll be fairly expensive and either a ho hum or low volume part for high end laptops while also being fairly power limited in what it can clock to which will have a significant effect on performance in a bad way. Which to me would be disappointing and kinda uninteresting since I strongly do not care about the $1800+ laptop market and I don't think most others are interested or capable of spending that much money in general on a laptop these days either.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2017 19:33
|
|
|
3peat posted:This is a really interesting comparison between Intel 10nm and glofo 7nm https://www.semiwiki.com/forum/content/7191-iedm-2017-intel-versus-globalfoundries-leading-edge.html If its accurate it sounds like GF's "7nm" process will come out slightly ahead of time vs Intel's "10nm" and they'll essentially trade blows overall with either one having small-ish advantages in limited circumstances instead of the more typical situation of Intel having a head-and-shoulders-above-the-rest process lead when it comes to making high performance CPU's.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2017 18:27
|
|
|
SwissArmyDruid posted:it's with regard to HBM2 stacks not presenting a level plane with Vega dies. Actually changing the package or dies themselves to level out height differences probably is more trouble than its worth and would indeed be a engineering mess.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2017 08:57
|
|
|
GRINDCORE MEGGIDO posted:I mean they could just set specifications with reasonable tolerances and stick to them I guess. PC LOAD LETTER fucked around with this message at 09:55 on Dec 21, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2017 09:48
|
|
|
I think historically (well since the late 90's) speaking nearly every time we've had these simultaneous and dramatic DRAM price increases someone always gets busted for price fixing, gets a tap on the wrist, and prices go back down to sane levels for a couple of years or so before it all starts again.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2017 22:46
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:30%... is almost as far back as Sandy Bridge? If it was an across the board 30% hit to performance + the fixes didn't come out for a long time then I could see it hurting their server sales significantly. AFAIK the biggest issue AMD has is in the server market is getting more Epycs out the door since demand is high so its not like they can really capitalize on that potential weakness anyways. Given the way Epycs are made they should be able to get production ramped relatively quickly so maybe in another quarter or 2 their supply issues will clear up and we'll really begin to see them get some market share in the server space. Taking "just" 10% of the market from Intel would be big for them, getting back to 20% market share like they had back in the Opteron heyday would be huge.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2018 01:42
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:The really funny thing is that 50% number actually comes from running the patch on Epyc processors, not Intel (where the pathological case is 30%). In other words, a rough guess might be that this patch hits AMD twice as hard as it hits Intel. If they switch it on by default, Intel could actually gain relative performance It seems like you're bipolar or something when it comes to Intel or AMD and you need to address that or at least learn to tone down the hyperbole 20 or so notches when it comes to anything anti AMD or pro Intel you might say.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2018 21:39
|
|
|
Mediatek or Rockchip SoC would be my bet.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2018 21:51
|
|
|
GRINDCORE MEGGIDO posted:It's not biased to say it affecting epyc more then Intel is funny as hell Since the fix won't apparently be needed for AMD's chips its not a issue.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2018 23:06
|
|
|
GRINDCORE MEGGIDO posted:I was referring to Paul's post about the patch. I don't think Paul is a bad person/poster. I think he/she does post some good information on plenty other topics. Just anything Intel/AMD is gonna be questionable all too often.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2018 06:58
|
|
|
Haha for having a desktop CPU in it its not even all that thick for a 2017 mid-high end gaming laptop. Its almost like a svelter version of the old school desknote which I haven't seen in a long time. I kinda wish more companies would do something like that for the gaming/power laptop crowd. Thin n' light is nice but if I really need/want the performance and upgradability I'm happy to sacrifice those things to get it. Especially if it can save some money.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2018 09:25
|
|
|
Cygni posted:Essentially, yeah. It's on a slightly improved process, and they will be launching new chipsets (rebadged? i cant think of any new features to add) Cygni posted:But they have explicitly said its the same architecture, so maybe a few hundred more mhz? Cygni posted:If yields are good, maybe we get 6 cores all the way down the stack or more aggressive pricing, both of which would be cool for gamers targeting the R5 1600/ i5 8400 bang-for-the-buck zone. For anyone with a current AM4 chip or a Skylake or newer system your probably best off saving money for a better GPU or monitor until Ryzen2/+/whatever they're calling it now comes out in super late 2018/early 2019. That sounds like it could be a big IPC + clock speed jump there. Unless maybe you need more threads I guess but most won't need more than what a 8C/16T or even "just" a 6C/12T Ryzen/Intel chip can offer.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2018 02:15
|
|
|
Haha boy I still can't believe either AMD or Intel though it'd be a good ideal to implement these sorts of "secure and trusted" shitshows into their systems or chips. Its virtually guaranteed they'll either miss something in testing or years down the road the latest greatest security methods are found to have some sort of exploitable flaw and then they've got a mess on their hands. If they'd at least give the end users some way to disable it permanently (ie. a jumper on the mobo) then I wouldn't care but neither seem to want to do things the right way here. 8-bit Miniboss posted:I suppose but fix is already out and can’t you just outright disable PSP anyway? PC LOAD LETTER fucked around with this message at 07:24 on Jan 6, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2018 07:20
|
|
|
The OEM's do what they want and AMD can't make them use their chips. What do you expect them to do? Follow Intel's practices of paying OEM's to use their stuff? Even if they wanted to do that I don't think they have the cash flow to pull off that tactic.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2018 22:00
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:I can't see it? Intel users seem to be pretty self-aware of the company's failings. Craptacular! posted:I've spent most of the past 24 hours trying to find out if the budget Ryzen motherboards are stable and finding that nobody in charge of having tech opinions actually buys them. If you're buying for home/enthusiast use so long as it has a BIOS update with the latest public AGESA version almost all of them are perfectly fine. If you're overclocking you'll want one with a good VRM and maaaaybe a external clock gen if you want to try and max it as much as possible but the latter is usually not really needed especially if you're sticking to air cooling with sensible (ie. 1.3-1.4v tops) overvolting. SlayVus posted:So if I planned on doing a system upgrade to TR4 in November, should I just wait for Zen 2 in 2019? At this point its looking to be a few months difference of wait and that sort of wait is worth it if the jump is even half as big as its rumored to be. PC LOAD LETTER fucked around with this message at 01:53 on Jan 13, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2018 01:33
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:Depends how you define a couple of months. With Zen+, TR+ seems like at least 3 months behind, with what that super precise H2/18 timeline. They will still essentially be the same die AFAIK, the difference will be in the package/validation which is the whole advantage with AMD's approach.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2018 04:53
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:How much does single channel and dual channel matter? For CPU only performance the difference will be a different story, it won't be anywhere near as bad, but you'll still see some sort of a performance hit. If you have a dGPU you'll only have to worry about the CPU performance hit but yeah it won't be too terrible.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2018 06:03
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:Will this matter if it's a Linux based media player and bittorrent box? I just want to run a Plex server that can trascode because my pokey ancient ARM-based NAS device can't. There won't be any gaming happening on the actual silicon (I'd do Steam in-home streaming from my i7 dGPU if I was into that.) Sorry
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2018 06:18
|
|
|
SwissArmyDruid posted:Speak of the devil: They were pumping updated out frequently for that mobo until Sept of last year and then they just stopped. Maybe had something to do with trying to come up with a Spectre fix?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2018 20:21
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 14:35 |
|
|
8-bit Miniboss posted:The current 3.20 has some core clock locking bug where the processor would be stuck at 1.55Ghz despite whatever settings you applied.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2018 05:12
|
|