BrotherMichigan
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2016
- Messages
- 376
Not for AMD!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I haven't played with Ryzen at all yet. Does it typically allow you to set your own core count based overclocks?
You know, 5.2ghz for up to 4 cores loaded, 5.0ghz for up to 8 cores, 4.8 GHz for all core? Something like that?
I'd be happy with something like this, because generally when I need my best lightly threaded performance (gaming) my system isn't doing anything else.
I'd want to do it in the BIOS though, not in Ryzen Master or something like that. Most of the time I am not running Windows.
...Desktop is a niche. The volume of sales is in mobile.
That may be true, but the majority of [H] readers are here for /desktop processor info/motherboards/ram overclocking/GPU overclocking/.. on desktops.
Challenge accepted.
I'm sure someone would mill me a few solid silver waterblocks if I asked kindly!
I concur. At current spot prices $1000 of silver is about 5 lbs worth, or 2kg. You could easily make a full cover block for a GPU and CPU block with that amount.Silver is cheap enough for a project like that.
You could make maybe two of each depending on design. Especially if it was for Vega, probably more.I concur. At current spot prices $1000 of silver is about 5 lbs worth, or 2kg. You could easily make a full cover block for a GPU and CPU block with that amount.
Even back in the Sandy Bridge days, the stock Intel cooler was pretty anemic. The thing was loud and the TIM really wasn't anything special. You also aren't going to get those sustained boost clocks very much using the stock cooler. Let's not be overly dramatic. You won't spend anything resembling $2,000 on an AIO of any kind. You won't even spend that on custom water cooling with multiple loops,
I concur. At current spot prices $1000 of silver is about 5 lbs worth, or 2kg. You could easily make a full cover block for a GPU and CPU block with that amount.
sounds more like they're just trolling Intel which they deserve the right to do after all the abuse they received during bulldozer.
The issue with silver is that it tarnishes and degrades rather easily.
AMD deseved every bit of the 'abuse' they received for Bulldozer.
-an AMD fan that was hoping they'd one-up Core 2 instead of going in the complete opposite direction
But now that we see where that "failure" has lead AMD, was it a failure or an unavoidable step in getting to Ryzen as it inherits quite a bit from Bulldozer?
At the time, Yes. But now that we see where that "failure" has lead AMD, was it a failure or an unavoidable step in getting to Ryzen as it inherits quite a bit from Bulldozer?
Reddit discussion on that subject:
Success is built from failures.It was a failure. Revisionism won't improve it, it's done and gone.
Success is built from failures.
Excuse you? Please show me where I pretended it never happened, or sugar coated it. All I am saying is that failure played a part in the creation of Ryzen.Dude. Bulldozer was a failure. You don't need to pretend it wasn't or try to sugar coat it. AMD fucked up, big time. There is nothing wrong with admitting it. They're doing great right now, but don't pretend their failures didn't happen.
Excuse you? Please show me where I pretended it never happened, or sugar coated it. All I am saying is that failure played a part in the creation of Ryzen.
NWRMidnight said:But now that we see where that "failure" has lead AMD, was it a failure or an unavoidable step in getting to Ryzen as it inherits quite a bit from Bulldozer?
NWRMidnight said:Success is built from failures.
You dusting it off?[/QUOTE][QUOTE="Derangel, post: 1044245145, member: 175884"You sugar coating it.
You trying to deny that it was a failure. That what it means when you put something in quotes like that. Not to mention you trying to deny it was a failure and some kind of planned/required step.
You sugar coating it.
....Everything Dennard scaling slow down is referring to involves transistor count increases. Ryzen won't have any transistor count increases until Ryzen 3 using 7nm + node....
No, you are misunderstanding Dennard scaling, which has to do with process shrinks/transistor sizes and therefore power density, not the amount of transistors. So whether it has 1 billion transistors or 10 billion, the issues are the same.
Moore's law says that the number of transistors doubles about every two years. Combined with Dennard scaling, this means that performance per watt grows at this same rate, doubling about every two years. This trend is referred to as Koomey's law. The rate of doubling was originally suggested by Koomey to be 1.57 years[4] (somewhat faster than the doubling period of Moore's law), but more recent estimates suggest this is slowing.
Example: lets take a circuit, and lets say it has 1 billion transistors. 2 years later, per Moore's law, that same circuit now has 2 billion transistors. 2 years later it is 4 billion, then 8. It increases exponentially.Moore's law is the observation that the number of transistors in a dense integrated circuit doubles about every two years
(n.) Moore's Law is the observation made in 1965 by Gordon Moore, co-founder of Intel, that the number of transistors per square inch on integrated circuits had doubled every year since the integrated circuit was invented.
(Moore observed) One component (1959), 32 (1964), 64 (1965)-Moore put these numbers on a graph and connected the dots with a line. “The complexity [of cheap integrated circuits] has increased at a rate of roughly a factor of two per year,” he wrote.
There are a lot of bad definitions out there, but it is a doubling per area. Density is a factor:
"per square inch" is density.
The doubling per area at a rate of one doubling every 2 years, ended ~ 2008.
It's dead, Jim.
At the time, Yes. But now that we see where that "failure" has lead AMD, was it a failure or an unavoidable step in getting to Ryzen as it inherits quite a bit from Bulldozer?
Reddit discussion on that subject:
I wasn't aware that the Zen architecture was related to Bulldozer. I was under the impression they essentially threw out the entire thing and used Jim Keller to create a new, mostly from scratch design with SMT.
What are you basing that on?
I didn't mean to imply it was related to Bulldozer., but we really don't know, as AMD doesn't discuss such things. But there sure are a lot of similarities that makes a person wonder if Bulldozer never happened, would we have the Ryzen architecture as we know it today, or would Ryzen even exist? Did any part of the Bulldozer architecture influence Ryzen's architecture? Was it's failure a stepping stone to get to Ryzen? I was just asking a question, that caused some peoples panties to get all bunched up.
You implied a position which is wholly untrue, so yeah, you were called out.
Besides, even if I did have the opinion that Bulldozer wasn't a failure , I have that right without being attacked or called out for having such opinion.
You're on a public forum, so no you don't. Posts fall within the bounds of the rules or they don't. I recommend refraining from trolling or otherwise trying to trigger a response.
To answer the question (if there was one) more directly, Bulldozer is why we almost didn't have Ryzen, why it took so long to get here, and part of the reason why its release was so rocky vs. say Core 2 and following architectures.
If Bulldozer is why we almost didn't have Ryzen, why did Ryzen's development start in August of 2012, 10 months after the release of Bulldozer?
Because AMD almost went out of business on the way.
Making a terrible product that is less competitive than its predecessor absolutely contributed to their near-bankruptcy experience.That wasn't due to Bulldozer, that was actually caused by Intel dirty business tactics that hurt competitors, the antitrust and patent lawsuits with Intel, and the purchase of ATI during the same time frame.