Telemetry is Spying on ME!
- Mar 18, 2011
On a more serious note, given that my gaming pc is attached to my TV @ 1080P, Ryzen doesnt do much more for me, compared to my i5-3570K@4.2.
But for others, it still a good buy.
Am I the only one excited about Ryzen 3? Right now you can't really get anything good in the $100-$150 price range; a locked 3.7GHz Core i3 isn't really acceptable in this day and age. R3 will be unlocked, and even with the poor voltage scaling we're seeing an R3 at 4GHz should be sub-100W for day to day use, and sub-50W at 3GHz. Pair that with a 1060 or a RX 480, 8GB of memory, and a 450W PSU and you've got solid HTPC/console replacement for $500, with excellent encoding performance to boot.
R3's niche is also something Intel can't immediately enroach on; AMD can sell cheap R3's harvested from otherwise-worthless 8c dies, but Intel doesn't have such a route - their 4c die is actually quite large because of the iGPU and it is unclear whether they can harvest i5's with defective GPU's. They could drop 7350K prices or add HT to the i5 to put pressure on AMD, but in any case us consumers win in the end.
yes, you realize that prime95 is likely worse on Ryzen, so even in the worst case scenario, it's using less power than the 6900k.
Wow they compared 3600 RAM against a bunch of 2133 RAM... and the 3600 RAM is faster?!? What madness is this?
I read the entire thing, what AMD stated is half BS, the other half isn't even telling us where the problem really is, You have Kyle, D_Dan, and a few others, that have all stated what I and others that have more experience with this type of issue, there is an underlying problem that is not going to be easy to fix. Yet you bring in an article, where AMD will tell us what? Nothing but smoke so people will get nothing useful out of it?
Things like this just don't get fixed with setting changes, bios fixes, microcode fixes.
I don't think it's bios related. I think AMD has just developed a more efficient power control that enables them to max things out on their chips. 1milliamp regulation etc.
Laughing at all the people making excuses for Ryzen's relatively poor gaming performance. Get over it.
YES, I am quoting my own reply...
Take a look at the Guru3d review. They were able to bench the RAM at 3600.
The throughput absolutely smokes Intel in dual channel mode.
True and I do know and accept the fact you all have more knowledge about this. He did post that new new asus bios increased performance around 10%. So there is something that can be addressed. Also he said there were other people telling him that they are getting better performance with gigabyte board which he will get around to testing. Plus also he said this doesn't happen in all games. I wasn't talking about AMD, I was talking about editor stating those facts. Also stating windows even timer or something giving him 5% boost. Some of these issue can certainly be new platform teething issues. Not all but some of them.
You did seem to leave those parts out. My link was for readers to read the article in entirety and ofcourse AMDs excuse was lame but that wasn't the entire context of the page.
Doing more reading, it doesn't look like there'd be a benefit to disabling 7 cores, to try for a max OC on a single one due to the CCX structure. BUT, what if 4 cores were disabled? Any theories on if this would increase headroom? Obviously, people don't want to gimp an 8core chip, but it might give insight into how the R3's will perform. The problem with my theory is that I have no idea on what the R5 6 core chips will look like, unless 2 of the cores are physically disabled in some other way.
The R1700X is slower than the 7700K in *every* gaming benchmark. And the 7700K is $50 less.
I mean...I'm sorry that AMD didn't do better? If you need 8 cores then sure, go for Ryzen. For gaming I see no reason whatsoever to choose the AMD product over Intel's offering.
What? Dude, GloFo is known for poor clock scaling. We have no idea how many chips runs they've taped out to perfect the process. I'm sure it will improve in the future, but yes - it could very well be limited by this. Also this is a new architecture - there are certainly tweaks to be made.Limited solely by the architecture/process? Intellectual dishonesty is the same as lying........just saying.
Kyle ain't bullshittin'. Look at my post from a few pages back (or this thread on AT).Limited solely by the architecture/process? Intellectual dishonesty is the same as lying........just saying.
What? Dude, GloFo is known for poor clock scaling. We have no idea how many chips runs they've taped out to perfect the process. I'm sure it will improve in the future, but yes - it could very well be limited by this. Also this is a new architecture - there are certainly tweaks to be made.
I get the loyalty but don't become a Negan (a Kyle in this case).
I'm sure it's coming from conflicts that deal with how SMT prioritizes cache access. Does the two CCX's have the ability to cross share L2?Is it not possible that enabling SMT causes performance regression due to the increased potential for the windows scheduler to ignore CCX locality and assign data to threads on another CCX?
I'm guessing there's a major penalty for cache reads from the other complex, wasn't it limited to 18GB/s or something?
This would be easy to test if you could be certain that disabling 4 cores disabled one CCX entirely, if the performance regression from using SMT disappears then...
Some people just want to insult others because they don't only say nice things about their favorite company. I'm still trying to figure out how Kyle is lying, he's done a pretty good job so far with this review.Dude AMD is pushing the chip beyond thermal and voltage ideal ranges or near the ceiling of them so when overclocking it goes beyond, you will not see the exponential increase in power usage if they aren't. We have seen this from Fiji, Polaris and now Ryzen all at different frequencies, different processes too, but the attributing factors are node and architecture.
Some people just want to insult others because they don't only say nice things about their favorite company. I'm still trying to figure out how Kyle is lying, he's done a pretty good job so far with this review.
Yep can't assume it, and them being speced out at lower frequencies is telling too.
You don't have to look far, the major jump to 65 W on the 1700 alone is saying it all. Having said that, I'm seriously happy with things the way they are.
Maybe they should term their new 1800X "pre-overclocked for your convenience" and make it a marketing strategy.