Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'HardForum Tech News' started by Zarathustra[H], Mar 15, 2017.
Awesome, more cpus to not have motherboards for!
Or to play devil's advocate, much less expensive motherboards once new demand is overcome with supply.
I should get paid for common sense like Intel/nVidia trolls are paid............for trolling their companies fuds..........
Looks like Lisa Su is proving to be a better CEO from a business strategy perspective than other AMD CEO's of recent memory.
She's staggering the release of these products masterfully to keep AMD Ryzen at the top of the tech news cycle much longer than any other AMD product launches I can recall.
Makes me also wonder if that early review on the R5 group was less accidental as the effect clearly peaked interest on Ryzen again just when it was starting to slow down and drop away from the tech news cycle. Either way, I am impressed with the overall execution AMD is showing for this product launch and for the Ryzen performance (sure there are hickups in the release with motherboards and a few bugs to work out on the new uarch, but overall, I think AMD has marketted this product launch well so far).
Also, it is clear that AMD is responding in this video to the tech reviews on Ryzen gaming and the concern and interest in many forums revolving around getting the best gaming performance out of Ryzen. Not sure if that will result in meaningful updates to increase performance on the current generation or not, but AMD is clearly trying to give the impression they are making adjustments to address concerns in the gaming market.
I really want an excuse to build a Ryzen machine, it's just been too long since my Brisbane build... but it's impossible to convince anyone - much less myself - when the slowest PC I'm responsible for is actually packing an i5 3570K. 1st world problems...
cheesy video, why do they go through so much trouble preparing it, to end up with a boring result, why act like you are spontaneous when you are not ?
even if you prepare go to the room, say hello and ask ifthey could run a test, then say you are going to cut untill they prepare, then edit the video for the test, if thats what you are going for.
this kind of over the top acting, that treat viewers as idiots, is so 1980s...
source : linustech forum
Microsoft actively blocks updates for Ryzen on Win7/8 when it detects Ryzen or intel kaby
Hey look! good news about AMD. Lets wait for Shintai to come and crap on it.
Wow, that was low even for Microsoft. Forced obsolescence. Sounding more and more like Apple's Operating Systems.
Guess I'm going to dive into linux officially whenever I build a Ryzen system in the coming months.
maybe you should join the club and block him then you don't have to worry about reading his trash posts..
Wish someone could edit this and make it into the AMD train for fun. It even took out a FX processor at the 26 second mark.
If the R5 1600 can reach 4.3 GHz stable, and the 1400 could reach 4.5 Ghz stable, these would be untouchable. Since there was no difference in o/c ability between the R7 1700, 1700x, or even 1800x, I am guessing the R5 1600 and 1400 will be the way to go.
I've always been an i5 guy.... 2500k served a long time, and recently a 6600k...
If my chip or motherboard somehow blew up... I'd really have my eyes on one of the 6 core / 12 threads cpu. The price sure seems right.
Nah, I don't block anybody: in my mind, everyone deserves to at least be heard. At least I can help correct misinformation when it is spread, instead of ignoring it.
if the 6 cores ones OC to 4.5, then their gaming performance will be very close to the I7 7700s, keep in mind that these are 12threads CPUs, adn will be priced at lower price point.
Ryzen clock speed + memory performance scaling is very promising.
in the middle of all this i am moving to a 3770K at 5 GHZ with a 1080 TI .
let us see what innovation Intel will bring under competition from AMD and how the optimized rysen will turn out to be.
great time for CPUs.
Not that I have anything yet, but I'm hoping they do get the faster speeds on Memory working.
AMD Only makes 8 cores, that is quite exciting.
However as all we know it won't be better than Intel in gaming.
6-8 cores will make sense, the quadcores will effectively kill Intel's I3 but will not capture I5 market where the majority of gamers actually are.
These aren't going to get anywhere near a 4.5 OC. They'll hit the wall at 4.1, at best. They literally are the same chip as the R7, just with cores forcibly and (maybe) permanently disabled. Why would you expect better thermals than an R7 with cores disabled in bios?
Always felt AMD should differentiate itself by using tri-core module setups.
1x3 Core, 2x3 Core and 3x3 Core+ CPUs.
The 1500X will have a 2+2 architecture so no, it will not perform better. Actually worst because now it has less cores to work with on the same CCX and will have to travel all the time to the other CCX.
It's because each core in the CCX actually is assigned to 2MB of the L3 cache, so when you remove 4 cores you remove 8MB of cache with it.
Hrmf....bummed about the 2x2. I mean, it seems like they have a product that CAN compete on the gaming level, they just aren't selling it yet. Or at the very least the architecture is capable of performing in gaming. My guess is they had to compromise somewhere....the gaming market is fickle and prone to fanboyism, by making a better productivity/workstation chip it sets up a better base level of cash flow and maybe....maybe...they can release a killer gaming oriented chip?
I think trying to do a single 4 core ccx would change up way too much of their architecture. Maybe in the future they can change this up but probably wouldnt be until zen 2. And hopefully at that point 8 cores will be the norm
I was just thinking the same thing myself. AMD has run an absolutely fantastic marketing campaign.
That video is f'in awesome. Spectator fail.
Anandtech article showed the R5 1400 as a 8MB cache CPU. How is that possible in a 2+2 design?
Well that depends. You have to remember Intels X99 platform chips didn't overclock well at all. They are essentially held back by the slowest core in the batch. Plus there are thermal considerations of having more cores working at 100%. Therefore, you might have greater overclocking headroom with a R5 that might actually bring it closer to games optimized for a maximum of 8 threads or less. (Or 4 threads or less)
What I'm disappointed in is AMD deciding to use the multiple CCX approach which is creating the performance penalties we seem to be seeing.
Either way it is still a great buy.
Back to the good ole days of pencil traces? I wouldn't count on that working well for a 4ghz+ pathway.
It would still work. The pencil trace didn't do any high speed communication. It was just a resister setting that let the core know how many cores were active. Low resistance = core active.
I'm not old enough to remember that. I was probably just learning to walk then
I remember tying a thin wire around a couple pins on a barton cpu to unlock it... It'll be interesting to see what AMD does here. If you can buy a $169 cpu and unlock 4 cores that's going to make some budget enthusiasts pretty happy.
Doesn't each CCX component control 1 RAM channel? It's why 4x2, 3x2, and 2x2, will all be dual channel RAM systems and why the Naples server chips will be 4x8 (and I assume) 3x8 and 2x8 for 8-channel RAM.
Yea, AMD is going to have to do a lot of work with MS and developers to really take advantage of the power - otherwise we'll see like in that 1 thread how having 4 cores turned off in a 1700 is faster than having all 8 available. Maybe if Ryzen makes it into the next gen consoles then it'll become standard practice.
When are mobile coming? In the span of 7 months I went from a dual core Pentium, to a quad Pentium, to a dual A9 and it blows Intel offering away just not as efficient obviously.
"According to Mercury Research, 95% of all CPUs sold last year were less than $225."
This is really the only stat that matters for the larger discussion. Amd has been forced to herald competitive pricing under the 225$ mark for years, and now they will have a product that will give the same performance for less money where that is trigger pulling dealmaker. I Just bought a laptop for my son who's 9 years old and the amd equivalent of the same spec'd laptop was over 100$ cheaper than the intel version. The difference between $325 and $425 for a birthday gift is a huge difference. I also got a larger HDD than what the intel variant would have come with, and touchscreen control.
It was more powerful than i thought it could possibly be for that price, being able to play dolphin and every emulator at full fps.
If Ryzen can deliver more power around the same price, I might just get one for myself.
i3 line isn't going to be the only victim. At this point, the i5 doesn't make sense anymore, either. Basically, a 4 core/8 thread CPU will become the bottom end for mainstream gaming with the R5's release. Anything with 4 cores and no HT, or less cores is already obsolete for a new build.
Maybe. Im not sure how much the 7600K will be impacted. Its a 4 core / overclocked to ~4.8ghz chip. Theres still plenty of games that would prefer that over a 4GHZ 6 core / 12 thread Ryzen.
But there is nothing in the i3 line that will do anything. Even a highly overclocked chip is only 2 real cores at the point.
waited to see what ryzen brought before i built myself an itx gaming system, still ended up going i5 7600
if i want to watch benchmarks all day ryzen seems great with all those cores, if i want to play poorly multi core optimized games at 1080p seems i5 is just fine if not better
Very clear answer from AMD on Cores/CCX.
AMD Ryzen 5 Processors and Core CCX Allocation
Oh the 4 core cpus are going to be a "blast" then. /facedesk
I was considering getting one to play around with because I was hoping it would be just one 4 core piece. But this? Nah. Maybe I'll reconsider and try a full 8 core cpu in the future. But I'll stick to my i7's for now. :/
So you'll still get a 350$+ i7 while complaining about CCX layout on a ~180$ chip. Way to make a terrible comparison there. Maybe had you said i3/low end 5?
Call me stupid but i dont necessarily see 2+2 having the same issues as 4+4.. wouldn't the complexity going down in each core stack help somehow? Being the same silicon maybe they are not really killing cores but using them differently in such way that while effectively yes core count is down IPC can go up?