Read more.Quote:
Nearly 84 per cent surveyed were positive about Ryzen 5 in a 3DCenter survey.
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
Nearly 84 per cent surveyed were positive about Ryzen 5 in a 3DCenter survey.
Might have pushed 85-88% if they'd just called it "Zen" with model numbers. :P
I'm not convinced - they seem to have managed to differentiate Ryzen 7 and Ryzen 5 quite nicely, with Ryzen 5 getting the main plaudits (presumably for their combination of performance and pricing). I'd say AMD's got it spot on - people love Ryzen 5, which are also their mainstream offerings (Ryzen 5 1400 is less than £160 now, and 6 core Ryzen 5 1600 is only £199 at Scan - that strikes me as phenomenal value...).Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozaron
Might have got 100% if they weren't so crap at overclocking....
A process which would overclock higher might be far less efficient at the current clock especially the stock clock of the 1700 or far more importantly the Naples server parts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagpuss
Beside, the only parts which are a poor clockers (stock vs max) is really the R7-1800X and R5-1600X. The R5-1600 and R7-1700 manage a respectable +33% or so taking them from 3GHz to nearly 4GHz. That the process doesn't manage past to get past 4GHz even with crazy volts is probably why it gets very good perf/watt at 3GHz or less. The Stilt's work showed at least two critical points where perf/watt declined:
http://i.imgur.com/8Rch6JF.png
Obviously if AMD were a much bigger company with far larger sales they might have access to a different process which worked well at 4.5-5.0GHz but if they have to make a choice (excellent under 3GHz performance vs being able to hit 4.5GHz+) then what they currently have is the correct choice.
I dunno. Being able to hit 4.5Ghz+ would have given them the crown of the fastest CPU bar none, whereas now they still lose to Intel for single-threaded perf.Quote:
Originally Posted by kompukare
The choice you claim they made might give them more efficient high-volume mainstream parts but leaves them without a market leading halo product.
The server market doesn't care about halo products. It's all about perf/watt. The server market should be WAY more lucrative for AMD right now than the consumer market, so they're absolutely spot on to target perf/watt at lower clocks if they can only do one silicon run. Having a consumer part @ 4.5Ghz stock at the cost of only being able to do ~ 2GHz @ 65W would not be worth it.Quote:
Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq
Intel's big socket processors make the same trade off; they don't really scale well past 4GHz either, and top out around 5GHz even under LN2. It's just that Intel can afford to run as many different fabrication lines as they want, so they can do separate consumer dies on different processes and with tweaked layouts to get the higher clock speeds. It's the twin advantages of owning their own fab plants and having huge reserves to invest in creating the complex masks that modern processors/processes require.
AMD can't afford to run many fab lines in parallel, so they're forced to make general purpose dies that can address multiple markets. Given that limitation, it's impressive that Ryzen is even vaguely competitive with Intel's consumer platform while easily beating Intel's HEDT/server-type parts on perf/watt.
So why server first? Intel's current range topping server CPU offers 24C/48T @ 2.4GHz in a 165W thermal envelope. I reckon (based on the chart kompukare shared above) that AMD's naples processor will offer 32C/64T - i.e. 50% more parallel throughput - at the same clock speed and thermal envelope. That Intel chip? Suggested customer price is just under $9000. That's why server first.
*Drops microphone and moonwalks off the set*Quote:
Originally Posted by scaryjim
Never got the hang of the moonwalk, sadly... ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Biscuit
Good performance in every metric and a decent price. What's not to like?
(if anybody mentions single threaded performance they'll get a fart in their face)
Yes they have, but I meant dropping the RY and keeping just "Zen". Just naming, nothing wrong with the models themselves. As an aside I'm thirsty for an excuse to build a 1600 system, but it ain't happening.Quote:
Originally Posted by scaryjim
I did some pricing up yesterday and realised that well under £500 gets you an R5 1400, a decent B350 mobo, 8GB of fast DDR4 and an RX 570. Then I also realised that I don't currently play a single game that's less than 5 years old, and there's a lot of other cool stuff I can do with £500.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozaron
Doesn't stop it being tempting though ;)
Asus own the Zen name in relation to computers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozaron
I just can't understand the dinosaur idiots who keep harping about single-threaded performance. Give it a rest! That is so legacy in terms of coding practice. In this age of cloud computer, AI, VR/AR, multi-threading parallel processing is the way to go and the future of all software.Quote:
Originally Posted by qasdfdsaqI dunno. Being able to hit 4.5Ghz+ would have given them the crown of the fastest CPU bar none, whereas now they still lose to Intel for single-threaded perf.Quote:
Originally Posted by kompukare
The choice you claim they made might give them more efficient high-volume mainstream parts but leaves them without a market leading halo product.
These are the juvenile kids who spend their parent's money so they are incapable of comprehending future proofing and bang for the buck. They just whine about wanting that single digit edge in single threaded performance now. Not much different from my 3 yr old nephew who just wants his Oreos now now now...
Of course, those same kids are the ones whining how they're not as good a gamer as the other kid cos their rig might be 5% slower in FPS for single-threaded legacy crap games. Even though it is clear that its (1) Skill and (2) Internet speed (in that order) that matters way more. Not to mention that the really great gamers would only buy AMD Ryzen with at least 6 to 8 cores because they are the only ones with worthy audiences to stream their game play live to.
No wonder it is true that parallelization coding simply isn't taught early enough or extensively enough in the computing schools. Most games are still single-threaded today, believe it or not - at a time when those same kids are still whining about frame refresh rates and visual details not being high enough!
That's because in the cut throat world of game development, games just recycle old code from many years ago, such as the Quake engine that was used in multiple successful titles including Half-Life. Even today's Unreal engine, which was developed 17 years ago and was used in titles as recent as Gears of War and Bioshock among others.
AMD's architecture embraces all that should be and buying Ryzen means having a CPU that will get faster over the next 3 to 5 years as all software becomes updated to multi-threaded. Ashes of the Singularity already showed how simple patches can enable Ryzen to leapfrog all Intel competitors with up to a 31% improvement. What else do the kids want?
Exactly, those same kids who want to brag about the highest over-clocking number on their rig built with their parents' money... no doubt wouldn't be able to comprehend what the power bill means, unlike the real commercial world.Quote:
Originally Posted by scaryjimThe server market doesn't care about halo products. It's all about perf/watt. The server market should be WAY more lucrative for AMD right now than the consumer market, so they're absolutely spot on to target perf/watt at lower clocks if they can only do one silicon run. Having a consumer part @ 4.5Ghz stock at the cost of only being able to do ~ 2GHz @ 65W would not be worth it.Quote:
Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq
So why server first? Intel's current range topping server CPU offers 24C/48T @ 2.4GHz in a 165W thermal envelope. I reckon (based on the chart kompukare shared above) that AMD's naples processor will offer 32C/64T - i.e. 50% more parallel throughput - at the same clock speed and thermal envelope. That Intel chip? Suggested customer price is just under $9000. That's why server first.
It might be a tad hard to put that in your laptop though? ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by scaryjim