Ryzen

T

time

0
Joined
Jan 18, 2002
Messages
4,932
Location
Brisbane, Oz
Ryzen 2 appears to be completely competitive with current products from Intel.

I suspect the Intel advantage in Passmark single-core scores is not real, because it doesn't seem to be corroborated by any other benchmarking. There is a newer alternative to Passmark.com called UserBenchmark.com which looks a bit more consistent to me when comparing historical CPUs.

Coincidentally, as of December 2018, I cannot buy most Intel CPUs. I imagine that whatever they are able to make is going to Dell, HP, Lenovo, etc. So AMD now completely dominates retail sales of component CPUs. I haven't built anything for quite a while, but the 65W Ryzen 5 2600 looks pretty good: 6 core (with 12 threads) that appears to outpace any 6-core Intel i5-9xxx for less money to boot (~US$165 in Aus). The 90W 2600X doesn't seem to add enough extra performance to justify the significantly higher price and power consumption.

Motherboards seem cheap, what's not to love?
 
time said:
Ryzen 2 appears to be completely competitive with current products from Intel.

I suspect the Intel advantage in Passmark single-core scores is not real, because it doesn't seem to be corroborated by any other benchmarking. There is a newer alternative to Passmark.com called UserBenchmark.com which looks a bit more consistent to me when comparing historical CPUs.

Coincidentally, as of December 2018, I cannot buy most Intel CPUs. I imagine that whatever they are able to make is going to Dell, HP, Lenovo, etc. So AMD now completely dominates retail sales of component CPUs. I haven't built anything for quite a while, but the 65W Ryzen 5 2600 looks pretty good: 6 core (with 12 threads) that appears to outpace any 6-core Intel i5-9xxx for less money to boot (~US$165 in Aus). The 90W 2600X doesn't seem to add enough extra performance to justify the significantly higher price and power consumption.

Motherboards seem cheap, what's not to love?
Click to expand...

Have all those performance robbing malware fixes been resolved?
I was thinking about a new system next year since 2018 was so messed up.
I'd hope we have 8 cores at 5GHz with some aquatic.
 
I just built a Ryzen 2700X on ASrock x470 Taichi motherboard with 32GB Corsair 3000MHz for my girlfriend as her new photo editing workstation. I'm almost done stress testing it and getting everything setup and so far it's really nice.

Ryzen 2700X: $269.99
ASrock x470 taichi: $164.00
Corsair LPX 32GB DRAM 3000MHz C15 Memory Kit (2 x 16GB): $249.99
Noctua NH-D15 SE-AM4: $89.90
Noctua NF-A14 PWM chromax.Black.swap Premium-Grade Quiet 140mm Fan: $24.90 x 3
HP EX920 M.2 1TB PCIe 3.0 NMVe: $161.49
Fractal Design Define R6 Blackout Brushed Aluminum/Steel ATX Silent Modular Tempered Glass Window Mid Tower Computer Case: $167.95
SeaSonic Electronics Prime Ultra Gold Series 750W 80 Plus Gold: $120.56
Arctic Silver 5 High Density Polysynthetic Silver Thermal Compound: $15.43
HGST Deskstar NAS 3.5" 8TB 7200 RPM: $229.99
Repurposed Nvidia GTX 780 GPU from an older gaming system
Windows 10 Pro: $40 (from my friend who gets the family discount)

~$1585

I'll be moving over 6 other hard drives and SSDs from her other workstation. I also have a Samsung SM1715 1.6TB NVMe with a x4 PCIe controller to add to this system as a process drive.
 
LunarMist said:
Have all those performance robbing malware fixes been resolved?
I was thinking about a new system next year since 2018 was so messed up.
I'd hope we have 8 cores at 5GHz with some aquatic.
Click to expand...

AMDs CPUs weren't vulnerable to Meltdown, only some the Spectre variants, most of which performance loss due to mitigation were minor.

My only concern with Ryzen are the mobile parts, and how AMD has handled the driver situation with them...
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/9xez7h/amd_ryzen_mobile_couldve_been_a_great_product_if/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/9yxdu4/amd_ryzen_mobile_driver_update/

As for 8core @ 5GHz, IBM has had that covered since 2014 with POWER8. (POWER8 available in 4,6,8,10 and 12 core variants, ranging between 2.5GHz and 5GHz, w/ 32 channel DDR3/4 memory interface). IBM and Tyan both have bare-bones servers based on the architecture...
 
Were Ryzen CPUs ever *not* competitive with Intel?

It just seems like Intel has continued to bungle it while AMD is hitting all of its targets, making the situation a lot more clear. Also, Intel couldn't price a processor competitively if its life depended on it.
 
The forthcoming Zen 2 based Ryzen 3000 series chips have my interest. The rumor mill is building. They showed off a prototype 8-core/16-thread Zen 2 based Ryzen 3000 at CES that was performing equal to the Intel i9-9900K in Cinebench while using less power to do it (133W vs 179W).
 
I'm genuinely interested in their new Ryzen 3000 release for my next build also.
 
Handruin said:
I'm genuinely interested in their new Ryzen 3000 release for my next build also.
Click to expand...
I wonder if they're really going to release a 12C/24T 5GHz (boost) 3700X or the 16C/32T 5.1gHz (boost) 38050X per the rumors. I think the chips are probably likely in some configuration similar to the rumors, but that the rumored pricing is not accurate. $329/$499 for those core counts and speeds seems unlikely to me. They'd basically be doubling the number of cores as the 2000 series Ryzen chips + another 20% boost from the faster clocks at about the same price as the 2000 series.

Maybe they really want to plunge the knife into Intel's mainstream CPU business. I'm not sure.
 
I feel like, if AMD thinks that they can make money with it, they will release the higher core-count products. They don't care about undercutting their own HEDT products any more than they did about HEDT undercutting workstation/server.

However, throwing on that second chiplet will not be a cheap thing.
 
16 cores seems like a lot for only 2 RAM channels or does the 300 series have a work around for the RAM limitation?
 
I don't recall there being room on the chip to expand to 4 channels of memory so it might indeed be an issue for performance. Perhaps that would be the one of the features and benefits of going with a Threadripper over Ryzen 2 3000 with higher core counts like 16+.
 
Plenty of folks have 8 core/16 thread chips with 2 memory channels without running afoul memory bandwidth. So, in most cases, it can't be terrible to run 16 cores out two channels.

At least each chiplet will have equal access to the memory, unlike the four-chip Threadripper 2000 CPUs.
 
Many of the discussions and benchmarks I've read show that existing Ryzen CPUs benefit somewhat significantly from faster memory. Adding 8 more cores to the same memory controller may end up showing little performance return on specific tasks that are high in parallel processing. Tasks that benefit from multithreading that are storage IO limited might offer improvements.

I hope I'm wrong and it works great. That would make me wonder why Threadripper has four memory controller.
 
Mainly I don't want a slower/hotter CPU in order to have more than 8 cores, which reach diminishing returns with a single program anyway. I don't operate a server or have any reason to need all those cores. I would like as much RAM as feasible. My 4+ YO PC has 64GB. Can I get 128GB with the dual channel RAM in these new chipsets?
 
Handruin said:
Many of the discussions and benchmarks I've read show that existing Ryzen CPUs benefit somewhat significantly from faster memory.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure that this has to do with which parts of the 1000/2000 series chips is linked to the RAM clock. If I recall correctly, the Infinity Fabric speed is linked directly to the memory clock. So, faster RAM makes crossing CCXes faster.

I hope I'm wrong and it works great. That would make me wonder why Threadripper has four memory controller.
Click to expand...
Product differentiation? Four is "half way" between the standard two of desktop and the eight of workstation/server.
 
Yup yup. Infinity fabric speed is exactly the same as actual RAM clock, so say you've only got DDR4-2400 -- it only runs at 1200MHz where at 3200 it'll run at 1600. It doesn't sound like such a huge leap until you figure that's probably the main bottleneck of this setup anyway.
 
The post was truncated.
It's 135w which is similar to what I have now.
Click to expand...

My CPU has 140W TDP, so the power and cooling should be similar.
 
Stereodude said:
I have to hand it to AMD, better performance, lower power, and cheaper than what Intel is offering. Intel was on the top of the mountain of efficiency for so long to have AMD push them off by so much is surprising to say the least.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/1440...-cores-for-499-up-to-46-ghz-pcie-40-coming-77
Click to expand...

So the rumors were full of it? I'm not seeing all the cores and clock speeds previously expected. :(
It seems like a minor or moderate upgrade at best to the 2000 series. Is there any idea when AMD will push the new designs to the Thread Ripper series?
 
LunarMist said:
So the rumors were full of it? I'm not seeing all the cores and clock speeds previously expected. :(
It seems like a minor or moderate upgrade at best to the 2000 series. Is there any idea when AMD will push the new designs to the Thread Ripper series?
Click to expand...
I guess that depends on your perspective. They're delivering CPUs with better performance than what Intel has for a fraction of the price while using quite a bit less power. What exactly were you expecting? Those rumors seemed unlikely to anyone paying attention.
 
I guess I should clarify my last comment slightly. The Ryzen 9 3900X is a fraction of the price of the Intel equivalent CPU (I9 9920X) with better efficiency and performance*. The other Zen 2 based Ryzen models are a bit cheaper than the Intel equivalent while offering better efficiency and performance*. It also seems that AMD has better IPC than Intel since they're matching or just slightly exceeding Intel's single threaded performance* but at lower clockspeeds.

*pending confirmation of the AMD numbers
 
I read the PR on that AnanaTech site. I'm sure it is important to system integrators and stockholders. ;)

I can wait until August for the test results to see how the cores hold up on their own, how speed and cooling measure up, and what influence the Meltdown and Spectator crippligations have. I don't know the new chipset, but can it be assumed that there is some way to extend the 24 lanes to use more than three PCIe devices? I understand that the 24 lanes is common for the consumer PCs, but that the Thread Ripper is more like the Intel HEDT with excessive PCIe lanes.
 
It looks like Intel has not just stumbled badly, but actively failed to recover. AMD is executing and will capitalize.

I feel like Intel would abandon the desktop if AMD weren't also making such inroads into its cash cow server territory.
 
LunarMist said:
I don't know the new chipset, but can it be assumed that there is some way to extend the 24 lanes to use more than three PCIe devices? I understand that the 24 lanes is common for the consumer PCs, but that the Thread Ripper is more like the Intel HEDT with excessive PCIe lanes.
Click to expand...
The CPU has 24 lanes: four are dedicated to communication with the southbridge, and most motherboards will take 16 for a graphics slot and 4 for M.2. The x570 chipset has 16 lanes, but four are dedicated to communication with the CPU.

For me, that's not nearly enough lanes, but I think it'll do for most people.
 
I need two M.2/U.2, 10GbE NIC, SATA/SAS 8-drive controller and video card. Is that just a no go with the AMD? IIRC Intel had some way around that 24 lane deal, albeit at a possibly reduced speed.
 
Of the x570 motherboards that I've seen, it seems like it's pick two on your first three requirements.

It appears that most manufacturers are going with 3 m.2 slots but only 6 SATA ports. That's is easily fixed with an add-in card.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fb
sechs said:
Of the x570 motherboards that I've seen, it seems like it's pick two on your first three requirements.

It appears that most manufacturers are going with 3 m.2 slots but only 6 SATA ports. That's is easily fixed with an add-in card.
Click to expand...

I don't need to have the 10gBe NIC and RAD controller integrated, just the ability to use PCIe cards for them. I think those two are 4+8 lanes, plus 8 for the video and then 8 more for the two M.2/U.2. Ideally the U.2 could be PCIe, but I could use an M.2 adapter.
 
Since the concern is over the number of PCIe lanes available you may want to refocus your search on I/O cards that may begin to support PCIe 4.0 in the future. Given that PCIe 4.0 is 2x faster, an NIC or storage controller could hypothetically need half the number of lanes to achieve the same bandwidth.
 
That is interesting, but the cost of new add-in cards would probably be more than a better CPU/chipset.
Is there any indication of when NVMe will increase performance to PCIe 4.0? I suppose that will bring ~6GB/sec. transfer rates.
 
Yup there are a few vendors who have mentioned m.2 nvme storage that will support pci3 v4.0 with performance near what you're predicting. I don't recall if they announced a release timeframe on these storage devices. This info only came out in the last few days but now that pcie v4 will be available, we should start seeing more devices become available over time.
 
LunarMist said:
I don't need to have the 10gBe NIC and RAD controller integrated, just the ability to use PCIe cards for them. I think those two are 4+8 lanes, plus 8 for the video and then 8 more for the two M.2/U.2. Ideally the U.2 could be PCIe, but I could use an M.2 adapter.
Click to expand...
If you get a the 10g and M.2 on the motherboard, then you only need the add-in card for the storage ports. That's a single x8 slot.
 
I'm currently using SFP+. It looks like the MSI x570 has 4 long slots, but I'm not sure how they are arranged. It probably costs more than the CPU due to the 10GBaseT card..
 
LunarMist said:
I'm currently using SFP+. It looks like the MSI x570 has 4 long slots, but I'm not sure how they are arranged. It probably costs more than the CPU due to the 10GBaseT card..
Click to expand...
I'm guessing that the top two slots share lanes and operate as either a single x16 or two x8.

The other two are probably a x8 and a x4, sharing lanes with the M.2 slots.
 
sechs said:
Also, Intel couldn't price a processor competitively if its life depended on it.
Click to expand...

Six months on, I'm not sure if this is as clear cut.

I can now buy an i5-9400F (6c, 2.9-4.1GHz, no IGP) for US$155. Ryzen 5 2600 (6c/12t 3.4-3.9GHz) is US$153. The Intel has a higher IPC and uses slightly less power. The Ryzen creams it with 12 concurrent threads, but that's not a realistic scenario - up to 6 concurrent threads, the Intel is ahead. I think you can argue that these two are competing for the same segment.

But what if you don't want a gaming PC? Both these chips require a standalone graphics card, which currently is the Nvidia GT710 at US$35-37. This is a terrible excuse for a graphics adapter, but the more reasonable GT1030 starts at roughly US$75. An i5-9400 CPU (including IGP) costs me US$181, which compares with US$188 for the Ryzen 2600 + GT710 combo. I could well be wrong, but I suspect the Intel IGP is superior to a GT710.

Ryzen 3600 is going to enter the market at US$200, which is nearly 30% above the i5-9400F, so no competition there.

Motherboards for both now cost about the same, when comparing B450 and B360 for instance. And Intel has the advantage here with chipset features that prop up their value proposition.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top