His scenario is not silly, it's absurd. Next on Dallas we'll find out it was Nvidia who payed Sony to pay AMD to not launch Vega.
His scenario is not silly, it's absurd. Next on Dallas we'll find out it was Nvidia who payed Sony to pay AMD to not launch Vega.See how silly your scenario sounds.
His scenario is not silly, it's absurd. Next on Dallas we'll find out it was Nvidia who payed Sony to pay AMD to not launch Vega.
Never mind. Mods comment came after I read yours.Off topic, but so wrong on every level. I *was* around back then, and nobody said we "ran out of oil". OPEC cut production and decreased exports for political/economic reasons. As for "fake news" Trump may not have invented it, but he most definitely perfected the tactic of using the term to discredit legitimate information. (End of my comments on this.)
Thanks for the updates. It's interesting that mobile Raven Ridge can run W7. Maybe it is an issue that can be ironed out with future updates. Still no W7 drivers on the download page though, so even if it doesn't crash on boot, that still needs to be tested.Here are some updates and comments:
W7 is also disproportionately more popular for older games and HTPC's (due to Media Center) - the two applications for which low-powered APU's are also similarly ideal. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.To make it worse, the win7 loyalty is higher at the lower price points, so the crowd that would benefit the most form Ryzen APUs are the ones that want windows 7...
A lot of those old game will play on Linux with Wine and Kodi can replace Media Center in both Linux and Win10. I'm not sure I would mess with Win7 as Win10 can be used with ClassicShell and similar programs.W7 is also disproportionately more popular for older games and HTPC's (due to Media Center) - the two applications for which low-powered APU's are also similarly ideal. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
- During a win7 fresh install, regardless if slipstreamed usb drivers or PS/2 keyboard use, at some point, install will crash throwing the ACPI error..
My guess that the CPU part will work fine, but the iGPU wouldn't.These are still Ryzen CPUs- maybe they would work fine if put into a W7 system that was installed with Summit Ridge?
i38100 Vs 2200G @ 4ghz. (1050ti)
https://youtu.be/-cEESU-sHCM
Just as I thought, i3 is now a redundant processor, no reason to buy this overpriced chip, cheaper 2200G gives it a pasting whether using igpu or attaching dgpu, even productivity seems a bit better on ryzen (OC) didn't expect the gap to be this big though, thought it would be very close.
CS:GO showed much better performance on coffeelake, but that's about it.
Your right, those results do look suspicious, at first glance it did look rather too good as I stated in my post (to that effect).Gonna call bogus on those results, adjusting for IPC differences between CFL and Ryzen, a 4GHz 2200G (or Ryzen 3) should be very close to a 3.6GHz 8100, not 20 - 50% faster in games as those results show. The real giveaway is the GTA 5 results, a game that has always run much better on Intel, sees the 2200G with a 15% lead. Sorry, but that just ain't gonna happen: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i3-8100-cpu-review,5385-5.html
Let's use some common sense here, if a 2200G @ 4GHz was indeed 20 - 50% faster than an i3 8100, that makes it as fast or faster than a 8700K for games. See how absurd that sounds? Its simply not possible.
Another dead giveaway that these results are flawed is that there is no way a GTX 1050 Ti will show that much spread between two relatively evenly matched CPUs at 1080P medium/high settings, as virtually all games will be GPU limited with these settings on a 1050 class GPU. Take it from me, I own a GTX 1050 for my secondary gaming rig, plus my laptop runs a 1050 Ti, these GPUs are the limiting factor for 1080P gaming, not the CPU.
The 2200G is a solid processor for the price, with an excellent iGPU. But let's not kid ourselves, in terms of actual CPU performance, it's not an i3 8100 killer, even at 4GHz. Numerous Ryzen 3 reviews have already confirmed this.
We will have to wait and see for better/more detailed benchmarks, throughput has never been Zen's problem ( good SMT scaling, good renderer performance etc) but gaming was behind relative to that point. So far we know in the 2k's that they have lowered cache latencies and improved turbo's etc, thats could he helping it catch up. Or he could just be a bad benchmarker.....lolGonna call bogus on those results, adjusting for IPC differences between CFL and Ryzen, a 4GHz 2200G (or Ryzen 3) should be very close to a 3.6GHz 8100, not 20 - 50% faster in games as those results show. The real giveaway is the GTA 5 results, a game that has always run much better on Intel, sees the 2200G with a 15% lead. Sorry, but that just ain't gonna happen: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i3-8100-cpu-review,5385-5.html
Let's use some common sense here, if a 2200G @ 4GHz was indeed 20 - 50% faster than an i3 8100, that makes it as fast or faster than a 8700K for games. See how absurd that sounds?
Another dead giveaway that these results are flawed is that there is no way a GTX 1050 Ti will show that much spread between two relatively evenly matched CPUs at 1080P medium/high settings, as virtually all games will be GPU limited with these settings on a 1050 class GPU. Take it from me, I own a GTX 1050 for my secondary gaming rig, plus my laptop runs a 1050 Ti, these GPUs are the limiting factor for 1080P gaming, not the CPU.
The 2200G is a solid processor for the price, with an excellent iGPU. But let's not kid ourselves, in terms of actual CPU performance, it's not an i3 8100 killer, even at 4GHz. Numerous Ryzen 3 reviews have already confirmed this.
We will have to wait and see for better/more detailed benchmarks, throughput has never been Zen's problem ( good SMT scaling, good renderer performance etc) but gaming was behind relative to that point. So far we know in the 2k's that they have lowered cache latencies and improved turbo's etc, thats could he helping it catch up. Or he could just be a bad benchmarker.....lol
https://youtu.be/HnADhTqytLE
Here is a different person benching R3 1200@ 3.9 Vs i3 8100.
Pretty close but overall i3 8100 beats it, including in GTA 5, BUT raven has some small improvements to cache latency, plus that 1200 was on dog slow 2400mhz ram and 100mhz slower..
I wouldn't write that 2200g result off just yet, i have not seen alot of overclocked raven dgpu benchmarks to be honest.
https://youtu.be/HnADhTqytLE
Here is a different person benching R3 1200@ 3.9 Vs i3 8100.
Pretty close but overall i3 8100 beats it, including in GTA 5, BUT raven has some small improvements to cache latency, plus that 1200 was on dog slow 2400mhz ram and 100mhz slower..
I wouldn't write that 2200g result off just yet, i have not seen alot of overclocked raven dgpu benchmarks to be honest.
Edit, Here is the original benchmarker pitting i5 8400 Vs 2400G @ 4.3!?..(really?)
2400G beats it... Mmm.
https://youtu.be/Y0-4wp6tdig
Suspicious, but I don't want to discredit someone without some facts first, has anyone got 4.3ghz on raven ridge? Was he using x470 or something? Water cooler? 3200+ ram?..odd, but I wouldn't dismiss this just yet.
Well, although rare, I have read other accounts of Ryzen 2400G hitting 4.2ghz, it is not impossible if he has a good cooler and some good silicon.No offence but I think we have enough reputable sources without having to rely on an obscure YouTube tester with 2000 subs.
But damn, 2400G @ 4.3GHz?! Maybe he has a special edition based on the 12nm Zen refresh
Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if a 2400G at 4.3GHz matches or beats a 8400 in gaming, considering it has a 500MHz clockspeed advantage. That is at least a whole lot more believable than a 2200G beating a 8100 by up to 50% on a 1050 Ti @ 1080P
The weird thing is that for the synthetic scores such as 3DMark Physics and Cinebench, the results are pretty much in line with what you would expect,
I think it's as much the i3's scores are abnormally low. Eg, Cinebench scores for the i3-8100 are way off - "565" for 4T is approx 6-8% slower than every other site testing the chip - Examples - 601 (hardware.info), 605 (pclab), or 608 (purepc), etc, and also far short of typical 600-610 scores seen on the i5-7500 that's virtually an identical chip at same 3.6GHz 4T load). The 2200G is good enough of a chip that it doesn't need "extra help" by the reviewer quietly underclocking the i3-8100 to 3.2-3.3GHz or something which seems to be what half these scores reflect...Agreed 2200g beating i3 8100 by 50% is absurd, clearly a bad benchmark.
could be dual vs single channel having an effect?I think it's as much the i3's scores are abnormally low. Eg, Cinebench scores for the i3-8100 are way off - "565" for 4T is approx 6-8% slower than every other site testing the chip - Examples - 601 (hardware.info), 605 (pclab), or 608 (purepc), etc, and also far short of typical 600-610 scores seen on the i5-7500 that's virtually an identical chip at same 3.6GHz 4T load). The 2200G is good enough of a chip that it doesn't need "extra help" by the reviewer quietly underclocking the i3-8100 to 3.2-3.3GHz or something which seems to be what half these scores reflect...
Suspicious, but I don't want to discredit someone without some facts first, has anyone got 4.3ghz on raven ridge? Was he using x470 or something? Water cooler? 3200+ ram?..odd, but I wouldn't dismiss this just yet.
I think it's as much the i3's scores are abnormally low. Eg, Cinebench scores for the i3-8100 are way off - "565" for 4T is approx 6-8% slower than every other site testing the chip - Examples - 601 (hardware.info), 605 (pclab), or 608 (purepc), etc, and also far short of typical 600-610 scores seen on the i5-7500 that's virtually an identical chip at same 3.6GHz 4T load). The 2200G is good enough of a chip that it doesn't need "extra help" by the reviewer quietly underclocking the i3-8100 to 3.2-3.3GHz or something which seems to be what half these scores reflect...
Yes it does seem off, interesting.Based on the CB15 ST score he posted, the clocks are < 4.1GHz.
Raven scores 160 at 3.9GHz.
These UEFI BIOSes contain AGESA 1.0.0.0a. I wonder if the BIOSes wth AGESA 1.0.7.2 would be able to recognize the Ryzen APU, AND be able to boot win7. I will try it.