I suspect you are correct regarding Sweepr. It kinda sucks because many new data points have been collected since Dec 23rd.
I suspect you are correct regarding Sweepr. It kinda sucks because many new data points have been collected since Dec 23rd.I too wish he would update this thread with as much love as devotion that he puts into his beloved Skylake/Kabylake thread. I suspect he thought Zen would end up being rather poor; now that it's very likely going to upset the Intel monopoly he has stopped posting.
I assume he's financially involved with Intel, what a sad state of affairs.
I suspect you are correct regarding Sweepr. It kinda sucks because many new data points have been collected since Dec 23rd.
I suspect you are correct regarding Sweepr. It kinda sucks because many new data points have been collected since Dec 23rd.
He was only interested in amd bashing.... This was originally a troll thread. He clearly isn't going to come fix it in an objective fashion.
He hangs around the shoulder of Shintai, especially on [H], the excessive cynism and post liking is nausiating. I just don't get how people can find solace in something being bad.
But but small core...Juan was correct on his clockspeed findings, so 1 out of 5 for him.
I just got the idea that this could be related to this paper, which I cited on my blog. It describes, how the AMD researchers achieved higher clocks by throttling the FPU (in Orochi) somewhat. This reduced voltage droops/swings during more complex FP instruction execution.Ryzen's power consumption is and stays relatively low, unless the user is a complete imbecile and acts accordingly.
Also there is almost no difference in power consumption based on the utilized instructions, like there is with Intel's wide designs (Haswell and newer).
You can achieve pretty much identical power consumption with SSEx as you can with either 128-bit or 256-bit AVX, AVX2 or FMA.
What about single core speed with XFR then? That would be the most important part for gaming, since 3.7 - 3.8 all core speed on air would be fantastic already for productivity.AMD is back, let's not get it twisted, AMD is back and matching INTEL and there's no other way to look at it. Sure you can nit pick here and there, but grand scheme of things, put up an INTEL CPU at 3.4GHz and compare it to 1800X and AMD will win. I can prove this, I have seen this and you all will this coming week.
AMD has extremely good memory bandwidth efficiency, better than INTEL's even in dual channel mode. So I wouldn't say the IMC is weaker per se, yes it's over 1GHZ lower than what INTEL can manage on air cooling (4266MHZ DDR4 vs 3200MHz max on AMD), but weaker is to undersell what AMD has managed here.
So in dual channel mode @ 3200MHZ, CL15 you can get up to 50GB/s memory writes in AIDA 64 which is damn near theoretical limit and that's at CL15.
AMD IMC always runs a command rate of 1T/1N. You can't change it at all and you also can't use really use the tight timings that we can right now on INTEL platforms. Those 12-12-12-26 B-die timings are not going to happen, but no matter, you'll still whip most 7700K systems that aren't tuned to death.
Overclocking this platform is crazy complicated and unrewarding. The clock speeds are low and if you have dreams of a 4.5GHz 24/7 setup, best forget it. In fact most of us will run 3.8 to maybe 4GHz on all cores if we're lucky for 24/7. 1.4V at 4GHz = 90'C load temp with air cooler, so be mindful of that. We need new coolers for the most part because the CPU height is not the same as previous CPUs amongst other changes.
For Haswell-E 5960X to match or beat 1800X (3.6~ 3.7GHzGHz) you'll need about 4.5GHz in the multithreaded programs as Ryzen is ridiculously fast at this beating 6950X sometimes.
Juan was correct on his clockspeed findings, so 1 out of 5 for him.
It is a "Brainaic" over a "speedster" as he puts it. Thermals are real at 4Ghz lol.
Hardware is here. Is software here? Everything in HPC is mostly CUDA based. Yes, AMD has HIP/Boltzmann Initiative.I'm actually quite interested to see if AMD can make any headway now with APUs in HPC as the fusion vision from circa 2007 is really starting to come together.
Now with:
(1) Competitive x86 core
(2) Shared memory controller and address space between x86 and GPU
(3) Highly programmable GPU "hardware"
(4) Expansion of very-parallel programming languages (i.e. OpenCL / ROCm)
(5) Infinity Fabric large memory architecture
They have most/all of the basic toolset required for people to put together some really powerful HPC software.
Then when you think of things like using augmented reality headsets as surgical tools, with the computing power to perform real-time interpolation of scans and present them on a headset for the surgeon to get a much better understand of what they are doing inside a patient, then accelerated compute has potential far beyond the "big clusters" and pure research you'd typically consider.
Well, lets wait and see what will be in reality. We have seen similar hype before, and it ended up pretty badly. Its about 8 days, left, to the NDA supposedly lifting up.AMD is back, let's not get it twisted, AMD is back and matching INTEL and there's no other way to look at it. Sure you can nit pick here and there, but grand scheme of things, put up an INTEL CPU at 3.4GHz and compare it to 1800X and AMD will win. I can prove this, I have seen this and you all will this coming week.
AMD has extremely good memory bandwidth efficiency, better than INTEL's even in dual channel mode. So I wouldn't say the IMC is weaker per se, yes it's over 1GHZ lower than what INTEL can manage on air cooling (4266MHZ DDR4 vs 3200MHz max on AMD), but weaker is to undersell what AMD has managed here.
So in dual channel mode @ 3200MHZ, CL15 you can get up to 50GB/s memory writes in AIDA 64 which is damn near theoretical limit and that's at CL15.
AMD IMC always runs a command rate of 1T/1N. You can't change it at all and you also can't use really use the tight timings that we can right now on INTEL platforms. Those 12-12-12-26 B-die timings are not going to happen, but no matter, you'll still whip most 7700K systems that aren't tuned to death.
Overclocking this platform is crazy complicated and unrewarding. The clock speeds are low and if you have dreams of a 4.5GHz 24/7 setup, best forget it. In fact most of us will run 3.8 to maybe 4GHz on all cores if we're lucky for 24/7. 1.4V at 4GHz = 90'C load temp with air cooler, so be mindful of that. We need new coolers for the most part because the CPU height is not the same as previous CPUs amongst other changes.
For Haswell-E 5960X to match or beat 1800X (3.6~ 3.7GHzGHz) you'll need about 4.5GHz in the multithreaded programs as Ryzen is ridiculously fast at this beating 6950X sometimes.
How would it not be a problem? Now a MB maker has 250,000 boards that haven't been stability tested with the CPU that will be put in them by customers. What company is going to take that chance?
Edit: I think this would also cause the MB to have to resubmitted to the FCC for EMI certification.
There are other SKUs in the lineup. No need for 1800x if all you do is game. 6C/12T and 4C/8T parts will have significantly less cores so I guess OCing on water could net bigger gains with them.OrangeKrush, I guess if you are so in the know. Then the only real question left is will Ryzen 1800x at 4.0Ghz BEAT a 6 year old Intel chip at 4.7Ghz in SINGLE THREADED performance where Intel shines and most customers care about (IE. Most games)? Easier way to put it is will a 4GHz Ryzen single core passmark score be above 2500? I do get your point, Ryzen is like a Porsche with 4 cylinder turbo beating an old muscle car with a V8, but if it only beats it on programs that use all cores and threads, it will be a fail, because in reality 99% of programs don't use all those threads and cores.
Juan was correct on his clockspeed findings, so 1 out of 5 for him.
It is a "Brainaic" over a "speedster" as he puts it. Thermals are real at 4Ghz lol.
Of course he won't update this thread with positive Ryzen news. As speculated, the entire reason he made this thread under the false pretense of "news" is that he could better direct the narrative about Ryzen should any bad news surface. What's very interesting is this is textbook ACTUAL "schill" strategy used on reddit and many message boards. Companies will hire "PR" firms that employ thousands of registered users to promote their brand/products.
Its just awfully strange that while he claims to be unbiased he hasn't updated this thread. He has some leaks that have been proven to be blatantly wrong still on the first post! I say the first post should be reported as suspecting schilling/trolling.
AMD is back, let's not get it twisted, AMD is back and matching INTEL and there's no other way to look at it. Sure you can nit pick here and there, but grand scheme of things, put up an INTEL CPU at 3.4GHz and compare it to 1800X and AMD will win. I can prove this, I have seen this and you all will this coming week.
AMD has extremely good memory bandwidth efficiency, better than INTEL's even in dual channel mode. So I wouldn't say the IMC is weaker per se, yes it's over 1GHZ lower than what INTEL can manage on air cooling (4266MHZ DDR4 vs 3200MHz max on AMD), but weaker is to undersell what AMD has managed here.
So in dual channel mode @ 3200MHZ, CL15 you can get up to 50GB/s memory writes in AIDA 64 which is damn near theoretical limit and that's at CL15.
AMD IMC always runs a command rate of 1T/1N. You can't change it at all and you also can't use really use the tight timings that we can right now on INTEL platforms. Those 12-12-12-26 B-die timings are not going to happen, but no matter, you'll still whip most 7700K systems that aren't tuned to death.
Overclocking this platform is crazy complicated and unrewarding. The clock speeds are low and if you have dreams of a 4.5GHz 24/7 setup, best forget it. In fact most of us will run 3.8 to maybe 4GHz on all cores if we're lucky for 24/7. 1.4V at 4GHz = 90'C load temp with air cooler, so be mindful of that. We need new coolers for the most part because the CPU height is not the same as previous CPUs amongst other changes.
For Haswell-E 5960X to match or beat 1800X (3.6~ 3.7GHzGHz) you'll need about 4.5GHz in the multithreaded programs as Ryzen is ridiculously fast at this beating 6950X sometimes.
You do understand that they can be intentionally misinformed?Noctua NH-D15 is actually better than a Corsair H110i. So I think you are referring "wraith type" air coolers when you said 4 Ghz is the limit. A Czech hardware guy on Techpowerup forum said 4,3 is doable on all cores with a good air cooler a lot of time ago. So with a custom water loop I think all of the 1800x's will reach 4,5 Ghz on all cores. Your source maybe wrong. I had a friend who is working on AMD. He briefed me that "We'll have 5 SKU's at launch, and prices won't be disruptingly cheap" on January 2017.(BTW this guy is reporting directly to Papermaster) But today we have full product stack at launch, and disruptingly cheap prices. So AMD is a weird company. Everybody in company is clueless about products except the engineers. If you see a chip with the name 1800x on retail package, then your friend tested it, I can't say something about this. But other than that your friend can be also one of clueless guys who is just misinformed by their superiors. Since CanardPC stated 5Ghz single core on air; design is allowing higher clocks.
Like 80% of 6900ks hit 4.2Ghz on voltage that allows even big air to cool it in Prime 95.6900K is hardly getting into 4,2 Ghz with Custom Water Coolers.
Like 80% of 6900ks hit 4.2Ghz on voltage that allows even big air to cool it in Prime 95.
Like 80% of 6900ks hit 4.2Ghz on voltage that allows even big air to cool it in Prime 95.
Broadwell has a wall on both desktop and HEDT where it can hit some frequency on mild voltage but then will refuse to go even 100mhz higher without rising voltage by ridiculous amount.Tomshardware says their sample just do not go beyond 4,3.
Nah, that's because Broadwell has a wall when it is pretty calm on energy consumption until you hit the frequency wall.Because they are using a 28% larger die, mostly... that makes cooling easier.
Yep!But even if we only see 4Ghz on the 1700[X]/1800X we're still paying about 50~70% less for a meaningless 10% lower performance (assuming IPC / MT scaling doesn't make up for that...).
AWe need new coolers for the most part because the CPU height is not the same as previous CPUs amongst other changes.
Are you joking? That will be the end all be all reason to buy a CPU.You are reading too much into these prime benchmarks. It just one workload and as can be seen from other tests it is not reflective of general performance of the core. Every core has some weak(er) points, who cares about few tests? For desktop we have several things that matter: rendering, encoding, gaming, streaming (while gaming) and multitasking. In all of these scenarios Ryzen will be good. If it "sux" in something Vs its main competition it better be a wprime benchmark because nobody will care .