[HN Gopher] AMD Zen 3/Ryzen 5000 announcement [video]
___________________________________________________________________
AMD Zen 3/Ryzen 5000 announcement [video]
Author : thg
Score : 487 points
Date : 2020-10-08 15:57 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.youtube.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.youtube.com)
| ebbflowgo wrote:
| Add to calendar / reminders
|
| Radeon 6000 BIG NAVI - Oct 28
| https://www.usehappen.com/events/89753512
|
| Ryzen 5000 on shelf - Nov 5
| https://www.usehappen.com/events/20853465
| whatch wrote:
| Thanks for sharing both the website and specific events!
| formerly_proven wrote:
| 5900X beats a 10900K by 100 points in Cinebench R20 Single-
| Thread. 100. Points. That's 20 % higher per-thread throughput.
|
| 20 % IPC increase, 20 % higher perf/W on the same process,
| effectively double the cache size, and reduced memory latency.
| Absolute insanity from AMD.
|
| I'm almost a little disappointed they didn't introduce a 5960X --
| they could probably claim 2x-3x performance over the Intel part.
| hnracer wrote:
| Intel is toast
| dang wrote:
| Maybe so, but could you please stop posting unsubstantive
| comments to Hacker News?
| hnracer wrote:
| You are right, I was not in the best state of mind.
| dang wrote:
| It happens to all of us.
| baybal2 wrote:
| > 20 % IPC increase, 20 % higher perf/W on the same process,
| effectively double the cache size, and reduced memory latency.
| Absolute insanity from AMD.
|
| An increase like this wasn't something unexpected from a
| generational update back in nineties.
| dragontamer wrote:
| But this is an architectural tweak on the same node. Zen2 was
| 7nm TSMC, while Zen3 is 7+nm TSMC.
|
| TSMC must have optimized the heck out of their transistors to
| deliver such a large benefit. Or the AMD Zen 3 architecture
| really found some low-hanging fruit or something to grossly
| improve performance.
| bch wrote:
| > low-hanging fruit or something to grossly improve
| performance.
|
| If there's such a thing anymore I'd be fascinated to hear
| about it.
| pedrocr wrote:
| Anandtech will have one of their detailed
| microarchitecture breakdowns at product availability day
| (November 5th).
| pedrocr wrote:
| The IPC increase seems to be coming from the
| microarchitecture, not the process. The Anandtech article
| includes a breakdown:
|
| https://images.anandtech.com/doci/16148/1%20Slide%206_575px
| .... +2.7% Cache Prefetching
| +3.3% Execution Engine +1.3% Branch Predictor
| +2.7% Micro-op Cache +4.6% Front End +4.6%
| Load/Store
| phkahler wrote:
| No silver bullet there, just small gains in a bunch of
| areas. Some of those may have been hard wins too.
| moonbas3 wrote:
| In the slides it was still marked as 7nm without the +.
| brundolf wrote:
| It's much harder to do now
| Teknoman117 wrote:
| I think it's been neat from an architecture perspective for
| AMD. TSMC (and AMD) has had trouble matching the frequencies
| that Intel has been attaining on their 14 nm node, so the only
| way they were going to beat Intel's single threaded performance
| was to increase IPC enough over Intel that the frequency gap
| didn't matter. Seems like they finally got there (the point
| where their IPC is high enough that a 4 point something GHz Zen
| part can exceed the single threaded performance of a 5 point
| something GHz Intel part).
| greggyb wrote:
| 5960X would be a Threadripper part (at least based on the
| releases of the 3000-series Ryzen desktop processors).
| Threadripper has typically lagged the Ryzen announcement. I
| think we can expect some insane TR parts soon.
| Teknoman117 wrote:
| The fact that they made of point of supporting threadripper
| in their announcement gives me a certain level of confidence
| there will be Zen 3 thread rippers. I mainly say this because
| people were curious if the 3950X would mean the end of the
| threadripper line, which was of course later proven wrong
| when the 24, 32, and 64 core TR parts came out.
| adrian_b wrote:
| Even more significant is that it beats the newest Intel Tiger
| Lake by 6% at equal clock frequencies (at 4.8 GHz).
|
| That means that AMD will enjoy a better IPC than anything Intel
| for at least 1 year, until the end of 2021, when Intel will
| launch Alder Lake.
|
| Intel Rocket Lake, expected in March 2021, cannot have an IPC
| better than Tiger Lake, so it will also have an IPC slower by
| at least 6% than Zen 3.
|
| Because Zen 3 tops at 4.9 GHz, Rocket Lake will have to reach
| at least 5.3 ... 5.4 GHz to match or maybe exceed Zen 3.
| Tepix wrote:
| Is Rocket Lake expected to scale up to 16 cores?
| adrian_b wrote:
| No, the top model of Rocket Lake will have only 8 cores &
| 16 threads.
|
| Therefore, for multi-threaded tasks it will be much slower
| than Zen 3.
|
| However, it is expected to have an IPC comparable with Ice
| Lake and Tiger Lake, so if it would reach 5.4 GHz, it might
| be a little faster than Zen 3 for single-threaded tasks and
| gaming.
| charwalker wrote:
| I'm after an 8/16 chip myself so that would work for me
| but Intel chips are DOA at this point.
| Jap2-0 wrote:
| Although everyone is saying that Intel is dead in single
| thread (which is definitely far more true than
| previously), I don't see 5.4GHz as infeasible for them -
| tenth gen goes up to 5.3GHz at the very high end and I
| would be surprised if they didn't reach at least 5.4GHz.
|
| Looking historically, the 6700k reached 4.2GHz, the 7700k
| 4.5GHz, the 8700k 4.7GHz, the 9900k 5.0GHz, and the
| 10900k 5.3GHz - which would imply 5.5 or 5.6GHz for what
| will (presumably) be the 11900k.
| MrBuddyCasino wrote:
| Plus 15% IPC and 10% more max boost, this checks out. I'd
| expect the 8-core part to have a higher multi-threading
| performance increase than the 12-core part, because it has just
| one CCX.
| wiremine wrote:
| I don't follow the chip world closely... I see a number of
| comments about how this compares to intel, but is there a good
| unbiased summary that compares the current roadmaps for Intel and
| AMD?
| SteveNuts wrote:
| Intel's Roadmap: \
|
| AMD's Roadmap: /
| teruakohatu wrote:
| Pricing is just a little disappointing. The 3800X launched at
| $399. The 5800X will be $449. Still good value though.
| jagger27 wrote:
| They're delivering smack down best in class performance and
| efficiency for the price it's worth.
| whynotminot wrote:
| They frankly can afford to charge what they're worth now. No
| longer any caveats when comparing with Intel.
|
| Effectively, they charge what they want to now. They are the
| market leaders.
| ece wrote:
| The 1800X was $500 (top of the line 3 years ago), though the
| 1700 was $330, and the street prices were often lower. Raising
| prices to compensate for more demand seems like a rational
| thing to do, the 3000-series did have stock problems.
|
| I'm not sure $450 for the only 8-core is value though,
| hopefully there is a 5700 65W SKU coming.
|
| The Big Navi number for Borderlands 3 4K seems inline with a
| 3080, so if priced right, AMD's going to run the table.
| bobcostas55 wrote:
| Yeah, I was thinking of upgrading from my 3600 but the prices
| are pretty crazy. $180 for the 3600 vs $300 for the 5600X, for
| the same core count and a slight IPC improvement? You can get a
| 3700X with 2 more cores for that money!
|
| New generations of hardware are supposed to improve the
| price/perf ratio!
| twblalock wrote:
| It's not that good of a value. The 3800x sells for between $320
| and $350 right now. The new chip costs $100 more. That is at
| least a 30% price increase and the new chip is not 30% faster
| than the old one.
| warrenm wrote:
| If $50 on a top-end CPU is your breaking point ... you're not
| the customer they want
| gtm1260 wrote:
| I almost wonder if it's meant to keep demand a bit lower since
| the 3800x was almost impossible to get at launch. Given how the
| most recent set of more desirable launches went, I wouldn't be
| surprised to see this price come down in the future.
| JS62 wrote:
| Time to say 'AMD Inside'
| Causality1 wrote:
| I'm very excited for this. The only applications I run where I
| really hurt for extra CPU performance are game emulators, and
| most of those are heavily constrained by single-core performance.
| tgb wrote:
| They make this sound like a large change to the fundamental
| design of these chips. That gets me wondering: how do they test
| redesigns during development? I assume it's very hard to predict
| the performance impact of many changes. How often are they
| manufacturing test chips to measure performance? How much does
| that cost to do? Can you realistically simulate performance
| characteristics?
| wmf wrote:
| It's too expensive to fab test chips so it's all done using
| cycle-accurate simulation software like SimpleScalar or gem5
| and later using FPGA-based emulation like Palladium/ZeBu.
| dang wrote:
| The anandtech article is here:
| https://www.anandtech.com/show/16148/amd-ryzen-5000-and-zen-...
|
| (via https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24720711, which we've
| merged hither)
| jonplackett wrote:
| And Intel's share price is.... still totally fine. Wait, WFT?
| yakz wrote:
| AMD has produced a "better" CPU before, it didn't result in
| them taking over the market for CPUs.
| kadoban wrote:
| Their market share is already rising. They're not going to
| "take over", there's too much inertia everywhere for that
| (and there's business and tech considerations beyond raw
| performance), but the main reason Intel's stock didn't take
| a hit is that this was expected.
| dfdz wrote:
| Intel Revenue US$71.9B (2019) Intel Mkt cap US$226.98B
|
| AMD Revenue US$6.48B(2019) AMD Mkt cap US$101.57B
|
| (AMD stock is too high imo)
|
| Source: wikipedia and google search
| xur17 wrote:
| How does revenue growth compare though?
| owenmarshall wrote:
| The downside is priced in. Stock changes now are about
| expectations for future releases. The market has bet that Zen
| 3 will be good (short term) and Intel will regain ground over
| the long term.
| gameswithgo wrote:
| market already knew this was coming
| jules wrote:
| How it the TDP number determined? How can the 8 core CPU be 105W
| and the 16 core CPU be 105W too? Why isn't the maximum power draw
| of 16 cores roughly double the power draw of 8 cores?
| DenseComet wrote:
| GamersNexus has a pretty good article on TDP [1]. It can be
| summarized as being a mostly marketing number that is useful in
| a few specific ways. This is applicable to both AMD and Intel.
|
| [1] https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/3525-amd-ryzen-tdp-
| explai...
| ksec wrote:
| This is one of those Shut up and Take my Money Product
| announcement.
|
| ~20% Increase in IPC, ~10% Increase in Boost Clock Speed. It
| doesn't matter how Intel spin it, single thread performance will
| no longer be an Intel only selling point. _32MB_ L3 Cache is
| going to be very useful for certain types of Application.
|
| Some of these were rumoured for quite some time. But having it
| confirmed is a completely different matter. And the pricing is
| still very good compared to what we used to get from Intel.
|
| My only concern is stock availability. And not just at launch but
| over its life time. AMD has been very conservative with their
| production estimate. ( Again It is not TSMC's fault ) It wasn't
| long ago they were on the verge of bankruptcy, so it is
| understandable but at the same time I wish they took a little
| more risk.
|
| It is also interesting there is no mention of EPYC 3. I am quite
| concern about their lack of progress in the Enterprise / Server
| segment.
| old-gregg wrote:
| Isn't this how it's always been? New tech shows up in
| enthusiast/consumer segment first, bugs are ironed out,
| manufacturing ramps up & yields go up, then new server parts
| are announced?
|
| Besides, isn't EPYC2 the best server CPU already? There's no
| time pressure on AMD, they're comfortably in the lead.
| tyldum wrote:
| AMD lacks AVX512 instruction set, which is a show stopper for
| many applications.
| nate_meurer wrote:
| AVX512 is garbage. It incurs a massive performance hit from
| both frequency and mode-switching penalties. Apart from a
| few niche HPC and ML applications which you'll never
| encounter, AVX512's most compelling use cases are to drive
| Intel's shady market fragmentation, and to create more
| bullshit FP benchmarks that Intel can claim to win.
|
| https://www.extremetech.com/computing/312673-linus-
| torvalds-...
| gameswithgo wrote:
| 1. not many 2. avx2 with twice the cores is about as good
| as avx512 a lot of the time
| smarx007 wrote:
| Automatic vectorization for AVX512 would work on the
| simplest of cases and using intrinsics or writing inline
| assembly is beyond the scope of 99% of software projects.
| gnufx wrote:
| Which applications, and why? Some computational ones will
| go significantly slower on the same number of cores if they
| could have kept avx512 fed (perhaps small data in cache),
| but most don't spend all their time in something like GEMM.
| The new UK "tier 1" HPC system is all EPYC.
| smolder wrote:
| It's not a given at all, even if that's common. As a fresh
| counter-example, Nvidia released Ampere on TSMC 7nm for the
| enterprise many months before they released chips of the same
| architecture for consumer devices on Samsung's cheaper and
| significantly less dense 8nm node.
| wahern wrote:
| Regular EPYC CPUs have too high a TDP for smaller server
| installations, such as so-called edge servers. EPYC Embedded
| is still stuck on Zen 1. Intel hasn't upgraded their
| comparable line of mid-range server CPUs (e.g. Xeon D line),
| either, but AMD won't win on performance alone. Intel has a
| _huge_ SKU lineup, _much_ _more_ volume, and a _much_
| _richer_ vendor and platform ecosystem. If the vendor demand
| isn 't there to push AMD on EPYC Embedded, Ryzen Emedded, and
| other market segments, AMD should _build_ demand, otherwise
| they 'll just recapitulate their rise & fall during the
| 2000s.
| xigency wrote:
| Cloudflare recently announced that they would be building
| out some data centers with EPYC CPUs. Do you believe that
| the situation has changed since February? They did a pretty
| exhaustive analysis [0] of price, performance, and power
| where they saw an advantage in switching away from Intel
| for that generation at least.
|
| If the existing server hardware is already in a decent
| spot, then maybe they need to spend more resources on sales
| rather than making changes to keep it cutting edge.
|
| [0] https://blog.cloudflare.com/an-epyc-trip-to-rome-amd-
| is-clou...
| MikusR wrote:
| And before that Cloudfare announced that they are
| migrating to Arm servers.
| wahern wrote:
| I think Cloudflare is a different kind of "edge" service
| than what EPYC Embedded targets, and I would think
| Cloudflare uses regular EPYC chips. The "edge" that EPYC
| Embedded, Xeon D, etc target is, I think, more about the
| hardware configurations (smaller enclosures, minimal
| number of drives and other devices) and the type of
| facility (usually not a colocation facility, so power and
| heat are of significantly more concern). But the
| workloads are still very much server-class.
|
| EPYC Embedded chips are competitive with Intel's
| offerings (Xeon D, etc), but as I said Intel's ecosystem
| is richer--for example, more, better motherboards. It's
| not enough that AMD's chips are competitive with Intel's.
| AMD has a huge ecosystem handicap, and so either they
| need to improve the ecosystem or sell chips that are
| _dramatically_ better than Intel 's, and for EPYC
| Embedded neither is the case. Long term a better
| ecosystem is necessary for AMD to survive because a
| broader product and customer base brings consistent
| income and mindshare--staying power. I would hope and
| assume AMD is working closely with cloud vendors on their
| proprietary hardware, but the results are opaque; judging
| by traditional channels (Supermicro, etc), AMD hasn't
| even begun to close the gap.
| pdpi wrote:
| I don't think survival is at stake. AMD powers both XBox
| and PlayStation for the second generation in a row and
| that ought to help keeping them alive. It's more a matter
| of whether they can capture enough of the market so
| they're not merely "surviving".
| HeadsUpHigh wrote:
| With the kind of marketshare ryzen has gotten on custom
| builds plus several % increase in server( which has large
| margins) I don't think amd has financial issues right
| now. They'll probably target gpus next, go for the low
| hanging fruit and then slowly iterate on the rest of
| their products.
| wahern wrote:
| Fair enough. Survive was a poor choice. What I had in
| mind was surviving as a contender at the high-end, so we
| can continue to benefit from competition for server-class
| chips. Alpha, SPARC, and POWER all lost the high-end
| market (their only market) to Intel at a time when Intel
| was inferior. AMD previously failed because Intel
| surpassed them, but that's because AMD couldn't leverage
| their initial advantage to secure their markets and thus
| their ability to keep investing. Without volume and
| mindshare failure is inevitable. Providing the best high-
| end chips is insufficient to remain competitive long-
| term. The reasons for previous failures were complex
| (ISA, operating system, sales channels, etc), but
| ultimately it comes down to something like diversity--
| customer and product diversity provide buffers in terms
| of sales as well as changes in market direction. AMD's
| chips are indisputably better than Intel's right now, but
| even with Intel's mindboggingly _massive_ fumbles they
| 're barely sweating in terms of current and prospective
| revenue.
| [deleted]
| kar1181 wrote:
| My last AMD processor was the Athlon 64 x2 circa 2005, it's
| going to be nice going back.
| dghughes wrote:
| My Athlon is in a case next to my left knee. I was almost
| scared off by the Intel hyper but not too sure of AMD spin.
| We're all casualties of marketing departments. In the end I
| bought AMD because it was cheaper than Intel.
| incompatible wrote:
| I'm using a AMD Athlon II X2 260, released in 2010.
| rhizome wrote:
| I'm still running an Ath 64 x2 6000+ for a web server, I
| think it's from about 2006. That with an old hard drive are
| running 120W, which would be nice to hack down.
|
| I don't remember if I jumped straight to this from my Pentium
| Pro 200, but the role of this box started with that one.
| phkahler wrote:
| I ran one of those until a couple years ago when I got the
| 2400G APU. What a nice upgrade. Even better parts available
| now.
| [deleted]
| genpfault wrote:
| > 32MB L3 Cache is going to be very useful for certain types of
| Application.
|
| Are there applications where more cache is actively
| detrimental?
| phire wrote:
| General rule of thumb is that bigger caches are slower to
| access.
|
| If AMD have traded a bit of access latency for their larger
| cache, then theoretically there will be a memory heavy
| application with a working set that fits in 16MB that will
| see a preformance hit.
|
| Though, we don't know Zen 2 was running into area based speed
| limitations for it's L3 cache. It's entirely possible Zen 3's
| cache runs at the same speed.
| rnvannatta wrote:
| Having more cache can potentially lower the speed of the
| cache, as the access time is limited by the time the longest
| path takes, the propagation delay.
|
| So there's a tradeoff between cache size and cache speed,
| which is why there are separate L1, L2, and L3 caches of
| various sizes. So potentially the L3 cache in this
| architecture could be slower than the L3 cache in the 3000
| series. It could also be the same speed if the size was
| limited for other reasons, such as yield.
| formerly_proven wrote:
| AMD claims a significant improvement in memory latency
| though, which is concordant with their large gains in
| gaming workloads (a 20 % general-purpose-throughput-
| oriented IPC increase alone would never give you a 20 % FPS
| increase in games).
| Sohcahtoa82 wrote:
| > a 20 % general-purpose-throughput-oriented IPC increase
| alone would never give you a 20 % FPS increase in games
|
| Is this true even for games that are CPU-bound? When I
| play MS Flight Simulator, enable the Dev toolbar, and
| look at the framerate monitor, it tells me that it's
| spending 20 ms of CPU time per frame, which causes my
| framerate to cap at 50 fps. A 20% increase in IPC would
| theoretically bring the frame time to 16.67 ms, giving me
| a cap of 60 fps.
| nitrogen wrote:
| There was a now-deleted comment about the CPU busy-
| waiting for the GPU, to which I had this reply:
|
| Reviews/benchmarks of Flight Simulator by e.g. Gamers
| Nexus show that Flight Simulator is heavily CPU limited,
| running on a single CPU thread.
| [deleted]
| rnvannatta wrote:
| A larger cache size would improve memory latency assuming
| the working set can utilize the full 36mb, which I'm sure
| the 2 games that had a 20% uplift can.
|
| It's purely speculation but I suspect the cache size was
| limited by yield concerns rather than timing constraints.
| It looks like the 5600X has 1mb less cache so they
| probably engineered a way to disable faulty sections of
| the cache on a 1mb granularity.
|
| Edit: My speculation's wrong. The cache difference
| between the 5700X and the 5600X is due to core count
| differences. It's the sum of the various cache sizes, and
| I misread the slide.
| alfalfasprout wrote:
| While this is true, in practice for the vast majority of
| applications this is a good tradeoff since the relative
| slowdown of L3 cache vs. the improvements in reductions of
| cache misses ends up being tiny:huge.
|
| I'd expect the workloads that could suffer (all else equal)
| would be something like SIMD optimized matrix multiply
| where you're always able to prefetch the elements needed
| into cache effectively and memory access tends to be
| sequential. But those slight losses would likely be dwarfed
| by the improved core clocks, etc.
| flavius29663 wrote:
| isn't the difference between L1, L2 and L3 also because of
| the functionality, not just the size+speed? L1 is data and
| code. L2 is data only, per core. L3 is data, synchronized
| between cores.
| rnvannatta wrote:
| Yeah, technically there are 2 L1 caches; x86 is a
| 'Modified Harvard' architecture. The instruction cache
| also typically has to deal with caching micro-ops. I
| believe L2 and beyond store both instructions and data.
| There's also cache associativity, where the the same
| location in memory can be stores in one of N locations,
| which can differ per level. I think L1 caches are
| typically more associative because that takes extra
| silicon per byte. It looks like Zen 2 at least has an 8
| way associative L1 cache.
| sedatk wrote:
| There probably are in which more cache is useless.
| wmf wrote:
| Not as such, but larger caches are slower (due to the speed
| of light) which can reduce performance. A few apps have seen
| performance regressions on Tiger Lake.
| tylerhou wrote:
| > but larger caches are slower (due to the speed of light)
|
| Wouldn't it be more accurate to say due to gate delay
| because of an additional level in (de)muxing?
| wmf wrote:
| I assumed the slowdown is due to wire delay (a larger
| cache has longer wires) not gate delay but I could be
| wrong.
| foota wrote:
| No? Other than the next best use of that silicon/heat budget,
| to whatever degree the latter is relevant for cache. But not
| afaik from an architectural point of view.
| agumonkey wrote:
| `buy the rumor, buy the news` -- amd
| nwallin wrote:
| > 32MB L3 Cache is going to be very useful for certain types of
| Application.
|
| "Going to be"? The Ryzen 3600 ($199) and above already have
| 32MB L3 cache, the 3900X ($499) and above already have 64MB.
| The big L3 cache is already a big selling point of Zen 2.
| cma wrote:
| The difference they talked about is it is now uniform latency
| instead of split into two blocks of 16MB accessible at
| different latencies depending on which group of four cores
| you are on.
| nakovet wrote:
| At least for the laptop market AMD seems to have been issues with
| distribution, manufacturing, I was looking the Lenovo website for
| some models and it's hard to find an AMD based one. Out of stock
| or not available. Feels like when the Nintendo Switch was first
| launched. Hopefully they will address that soon.
| toast0 wrote:
| I don't know if it's higher than normal demand or lower than
| normal supply, but a lot of the laptop market has been low on
| stock since summer (if not sooner).
|
| Of course, AMD is supply constrained, TSMC fabs are a
| bottleneck and AMD isn't the only customer that can easily sell
| every chip that comes off the fab.
| I_am_tiberius wrote:
| I'm waiting for a Dell XPS 15/17 with a 4800u/h but not sure if
| that ever happens. Maybe I go with the Lenovo T14 as soon as
| 4800u is avaiable on it.
| imhoguy wrote:
| Just ordered T14 thru gold partner. Spec: Ryzen 7 Pro 4750U
| with 8c/16t and 32GB RAM. Arrival first week of Nov in Europe.
| Can't wait to get my toys running on the box - Linux, Docker,
| VMs.
| post_break wrote:
| Custom build amd thinkpads had months backlog, but some of the
| crappy prebuilt spec ones were ship next day.
| qppo wrote:
| Supply chains are highly disrupted right now for lots of laptop
| manufacturers, I was researching laptops for a friend and it
| seems like many high end models (or really any mid/low volume
| SKU) are out of production temporarily.
| rozab wrote:
| I think it's more a case of demand than production,
| especially for enterprise-focused laptops like Lenovo's
| ds wrote:
| This. If they cant get it under control, it wont effect intel
| as much as you think.
|
| Some say its yield issues, but who knows. 4900HS laptops are
| selling out like crazy and not keeping up with demand- New
| laptops arent using the chips because of lack of inventory.
| They are absoultely beasts though. The zephyrus g14 absolutely
| dominates on performance + battery life.
| imhoguy wrote:
| Pitty it hasn't got webcam and pgup/pgdown/home/end keys! It
| completely disqualifies it for business/programming/wfh work.
| brandmeyer wrote:
| I just bought a T495s from their website a few days ago, so
| your experience must be temporary.
| distances wrote:
| But that's the old generation isn't it? T14 and T14s are the
| new ones with AMD 4000 which absolutely now dominates laptop
| CPU performance charts.
| brandmeyer wrote:
| Well, drats.
|
| OTOH, T495s works great with Debian stable! I just needed a
| kernel backport from buster-backports to get graphics to
| work.
| nightowl_games wrote:
| In 2017 I decided to build a gaming PC. I had been out of the PC
| Gaming world for a while, so I watched some youtubers to see what
| I should buy. Ryzen first gen had just come out, and Linus Tech
| Tips was pretty pro AMD. Seemed pretty optimistic.
|
| I bought a Ryzen 1700, and checked the AMD stock price. It was
| ~$10.
|
| I told all my friends to buy AMD stock.
|
| I had never purchased stocks before, but I was pretty sure that
| AMD was going to go up. I bought $500 worth of AMD stock at $12.
| (it took a few months for me to get around to buying it)
|
| As 2018 went on, financial market started to pay attention to
| AMD. People were calling it a buy at ~30$.
|
| I was pretty sure that everyone else had missed the boat and that
| I was in the money solely because of Linus Tech Tips.
|
| Now here we are, AMD at $85. Thanks Linus.
| option wrote:
| I never recommend friends and family to buy a specific stock.
| This is a good way to loose friends. I am happy to share with
| them what I am buying though, if they ask
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| I bought 3dfx stock in the late nineties for a similar reason.
| It went to zero. My recommendation would be to sell some of
| your stock to lock in a little bit of profit and then you can
| let the rest ride and it'll affect you less emotionally.
| distances wrote:
| Same for me, not 3dfx but stock losses affecting me much more
| than wins. So I do mostly just index funds now to remove the
| buy/sell stress.
| p1necone wrote:
| It's such a good feeling when something gains enough for you
| to be able to sell back your initial investment entirely and
| still have a decent amount.
| alcover wrote:
| > I told all my friends to buy AMD stock.
|
| I thought I should buy AMD when the Intel security bugs
| appeared. Then with the success of AMD's new line of procs, I
| thought even more so.
|
| I didn't do it because I got lazy to study how one buys stock.
|
| Now when I look at the stock I want to headbutt a brick wall.
| bootloop wrote:
| Had the same exact thought and problem. Only that I bought
| AMD "fake" demo stock in my bank account on that same day
| just for fun. So know I can see exactly how much I could have
| made if I only would have bothered to get my real account to
| work that day..
| alcover wrote:
| Maybe we should still setup a trading account and buy ? Who
| knows where the stock will climb if Intel's image degrades
| further ?
| throw51319 wrote:
| You should've put more in. 500 is nothing
| nightowl_games wrote:
| I know. It was my first stock purchase so I only put in what
| I was willing to lose.
| donor20 wrote:
| What I love is that these are often drop in replacements. How has
| AMD gotten AM4 to last so long as a form factor? Intel just burns
| through socket designs it feels like by comparison.
| simfoo wrote:
| Oh man, really regretting paying 800EUR for the 3950X in January
| now
| glandium wrote:
| PSA: If you're on the market for a new CPU, and have seen in the
| past that rr (https://rr-project.org/) didn't support Ryzen, you
| can stop worrying about it: Support for Ryzen has recently
| landed. It's not in a release yet, but it's on the master branch.
| [deleted]
| qppo wrote:
| So the benchmarks are insane, always trust but verify there. I
| only caught the tail end but what would really let me buy in to
| Team Red is a competitor to VTune and IPP.
| bennysonething wrote:
| Do intel still out perform AMD on emulation? I'm upgrading my pc
| under my tv, I find most of the games I play now are on
| emulators. Especially great playing old PS1 games that I never
| played the first time round, which all the smoothing etc. I keep
| hearing IPC is higher on intel? But I guess this latest news
| means ryzen will out perform on IPC too?
| Grazester wrote:
| Emulating a PS1 can be done well on a PC from 2000. The Sega
| Dreamcast emulated select PS1 games with resolution upscaling
| and texture filtering in 1999/2000.
|
| You would only need a beefy processor if you are emulating a
| PS3 or using one of those insane near 100% system SNES
| emulators with Run-ahead
| bennysonething wrote:
| Yeah, I'm currently running a 8200 intel. But I'd like to be
| able to emulate PS2, gamecube, Dreamcast and wii. I'll need a
| decent graphics card too.
| proverbialbunny wrote:
| In theory these new CPUs should give around a 20-25% fps
| increase as long as you're not bottle necking your cpu with
| an under powered graphics card.
| EasyTiger_ wrote:
| Single-core performance always held me back from AMD. Will wait
| to see more benchmarks but this looks extremely promising.
| throwawaysea wrote:
| Can someone please explain the branding differences between Zen,
| Ryzen, and Threadripper? Keeping up with all this is exhausting
| and confusing.
| neogodless wrote:
| Zen is not a brand. It's a codename for the evolution of their
| CPU architecture.
|
| Zen, Zen+, Zen 2 and Zen 3 are the generations of CPU
| architecture.
|
| Ryzen is the consumer brand of CPUs. Geared towards anyone who
| doesn't specifically need Threadripper.
|
| Threadripper is the enthusiast/workstation brand of (rather)
| high core count CPUs. If you run software that uses a lot of
| cores, you should know whether this is the right line of CPUs
| for you.
| tus88 wrote:
| No DDR5 supprot. Ill be skipping this one.
| brundolf wrote:
| I'm bracing myself for supply shortages come November, given
| global events combined with what will no doubt be an insane
| amount of demand
| satai wrote:
| Remember, remember, the fifth of November.
| [deleted]
| kube-system wrote:
| Now get OEMs to put one in a higher-tier laptop with a decent
| keyboard and socketed RAM and you can take my money.
| chrismorgan wrote:
| When the 3800X and 3900X came out, they included coolers.
|
| Then the 3800XT and 3800XT bumped the clock speed by around 2%,
| increased the price by 15-18% (coming in at the prices the X
| models had been at release, but said X models had come down), and
| removed the cooler, which effectively bumped the price by, I
| dunno, maybe another 5% to get equivalent coolers--if you can
| even _get_ cheap coolers for them.
|
| Now the 5800X and 5900X are coolerless too.
|
| Any idea why they seem to have changed their philosophy here?
| I've always thought having a cooler was very convenient, as on
| paper the provided cooler seemed to be quite good enough--though
| to be sure there's a reason why the 3950X and up don't include a
| cooler ("cooler not included, liquid cooling recommended").
| The_Colonel wrote:
| Including cooler makes sense for low end + mid range, but not
| really for high end where people will most probably want to use
| a specific cooler.
| sedatk wrote:
| Stock coolers have never been popular among who build their own
| PCs. They were considered mediocre at best. Since people
| wouldn't care whether they were in the package or not, removing
| them might have looked like an easy way to increase profit
| margins. Removing the cooler from their production cycle might
| have also increased their production throughput.
| roguas wrote:
| People buy or have already nongeneric coolers for this types of
| cpu. Almost always.
| xwdv wrote:
| Wow, we're entering a new age now where AMD is the processor of
| choice by default.
| nick_ wrote:
| Uhh, what happened to the 4000-series desktop CPUs?
| searchableguy wrote:
| Number 4 is considered an omen in china. Probably changed it
| due to marketing reasons.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_numerology
| brobinson wrote:
| It's not limited to just the PRC...
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraphobia
| onli wrote:
| They claimed confusion with the 4000 series mobile processors
| and APUs. That's quite more likely, they wouldn't have
| released that series otherwise.
| CraftThatBlock wrote:
| They skipped 4000 because of their mobile/APU series, which
| always used +1000 in the model number:
|
| - Zen 2 desktop: 3000 - Zen 2 mobile/APU: 4000
|
| This way, Zen 3 will all be on 5000
| mattashii wrote:
| They probably wanted to fix the confusion about what type of
| core was fitted into each processor, as the 3000-series desktop
| processors contain Zen 2 for the parts without iGPU, but use
| Zen 1+ for the parts with iGPU. 4000-series currently is only
| parts with iGPU and Zen 2, so they have comparable performance
| to the 3000-series desktop processors without iGPU.
|
| So, I expect that iGPU-enabled parts which contain Zen 3 will
| also be branded as 5000-series CPUs.
| CorpOverreach wrote:
| Now if only I could acquire an RTX 3080 to pair with it :(
| foota wrote:
| Wait a couple weeks and you can snag a navi along with it
| iaml wrote:
| Which is a smart choice anyway, because if navi's good nvidia
| might announce ti versions or price cuts.
| MrBuddyCasino wrote:
| There won't be any price cuts this year, and probably until
| mid 2021, as TSMC capacity is fully booked until then.
| Samsung was a stop-gap solution for Nvidia, they gambled
| for better prices and lost.
| cptskippy wrote:
| I've been reading a lot of comments everywhere about
| disappointment with Big Navi but your comment exemplifies
| why Big Navi matters even if it's not King.
| foota wrote:
| It could be, but the verdicts out till it lands. My guess
| is cheaper and near 3080 performance, but it could go
| either way. Likely cheaper regardless just based on
| history though.
| heelix wrote:
| Price cuts? I've not found a single 3080 in store or online
| yet. There was a 200 person queue for the 12 available at
| microcenter launch day.
| andy_ppp wrote:
| If you want to know what changed to get 20% performance increase
| - everything basically - but they focus on the 8 cores on a die
| can now access 32mb L3 cache directly rather than two sets of 4
| cores on a die accessing 2 x 16mb L3 cache.
|
| Here is the point in the video about IPC improvements:
|
| https://youtu.be/iuiO6rqYV4o?t=406
| NikolaeVarius wrote:
| No 5700 w/8 cores price point? Annoying
| usainzg wrote:
| YEEEEESSSSSS
| jug wrote:
| With the two coinciding like this for 2021, I feel like you'll
| get a ton of gaming bang per buck with a budget CPU from the Zen
| 3 series and a budget graphics card from Nvidia's 30 series or
| maybe also AMD's counterpart. Exciting times with major leaps on
| both fronts.
| awslattery wrote:
| Can't wait for Steve to validate some of these claims, but was
| still hoping the October street date rumor was real.
| mrkwse wrote:
| Release is 5 November
| ckastner wrote:
| I was somewhat taken aback by this complete focus on gaming.
| Gaming this, gaming that, FPS this and that.
|
| Buying a 3900X was one of the best purchases I ever made, but
| from the video, as a non-gamer, it's not entirely clear to me why
| I should consider upgrading to the 5900X. A non-gaming benchmark
| would have been helpful.
|
| Perhaps I just misunderstood the target demographic of the Ryzen
| 9, and maybe what I'm thinking of (and should be looking at) is
| Threadripper after all.
| numpad0 wrote:
| What kind of intensive tasks even exist today, apart from
| gaming?
|
| And on top of that, I'm slowly realizing that regular people
| don't appreciate snappy computers. They don't want to wait, but
| don't want quick moves either. So _things happening instantly_
| demo might not work anyway IMO.
| ckastner wrote:
| Software development, machine learning, general number
| crunching, etc.
|
| But, as I mentioned above, perhaps I'm just looking at the
| wrong product, and maybe I should be looking at Threadripper
| instead.
| greggyb wrote:
| Compiling large programs. All sorts of data analytics use
| cases. Rendering - covers still and video. HPC. Real-time
| data processing.
| anonymfus wrote:
| The most mainstream application of massive computing power at
| home seems to be video editing.
| leetcrew wrote:
| > And on top of that, I'm slowly realizing that regular
| people don't appreciate snappy computers.
|
| I don't think this is true. my 70yo father who couldn't care
| less about tech is always asking me why webpages don't load
| instantly even when he pays for the highest tier of internet
| service.
|
| I think most people just don't have the knowledge to make
| hardware/software choices that reflect their desire for
| "snappiness". a lot of people don't understand that a laptop
| is inherently less powerful than a desktop, let alone how to
| allocate money towards cpu/ram/storage to get the best bang
| for their buck.
| zargon wrote:
| It doesn't help that many retail computers have imbalanced
| specs, trying to sell to people looking for the highest
| number on a specific component (and sacrificing every other
| component for cost) rather than offering a well-balanced
| system.
| AshWolfy wrote:
| For consumer chips, gaming is where the money is, wait until it
| comes out and see what the benchmarks are then
| xfalcox wrote:
| There was at least 5 non gaming benchmarks, like GCC,
| Cinebench, VRay, CAD...
| akmittal wrote:
| They did show cinebench and content creation benchmark
| https://youtu.be/iuiO6rqYV4o?t=1237
| greggyb wrote:
| Gamers appear to be the most avid and most vocal fans of any
| given computer technology (except maybe networking?). They're
| probably trying to ride the hype train.
|
| That said, you should always wait for third party benchmarks
| from a source you trust, with benchmarks that relate to your
| production workloads. I like Anandtech, Phoronix, and Gamers
| Nexus for such reviews. The last, despite the name, includes a
| decent swath of non-gaming benchmarks, and they are incredibly
| transparent about benchmarking methodology, which I appreciate.
|
| With the necessary caveat out of the way, some observations:
|
| If the IPC gains are there, and we're seeing similar or higher
| clocks (which seems to be the case), then you should expect a
| pretty good uplift to non-gaming performance.
|
| The cache architecture optimization should also be a boon to
| many workloads outside of gaming.
| fomine3 wrote:
| Now Gamers Nexus is my #1 review site despite the name.
| Anyway most important thing is check a similar workload
| benchmark for your use rather than Cinebench(if you're not CG
| renderer).
| theandrewbailey wrote:
| > Gamers appear to be the most avid and most vocal fans of
| any given computer technology (except maybe networking?).
|
| Gaming is very sensitive with network latency. Bandwidth is
| less important, but helps for downloading and installing
| games.
| greggyb wrote:
| I absolutely understand the importance of network
| performance in gaming.
|
| My observation was on how vocal gamers tend to be in their
| excitement about hardware. I see gaming media go nuts over
| CPU and GPU releases. There's excitement and detailed
| analysis of motherboards. I've seen in depth content on
| storage, and there's been a lot of hype over the PS5's new
| storage architecture. RAM gets attention. Obviously
| displays get lots of attention, both from a visual quality
| and refresh frequency perspective. There are endless buying
| guides for peripherals such as mice, keyboards, and
| headsets.
|
| I don't tend to see much content on networking, nor
| anything approaching the excitement I've seen for any of
| the categories above.
|
| These observations do not diminish the importance of the
| network in online gaming. I merely noted that networking
| hardware tends to generate less vocal excitement among
| gamers. Beyond networking equipment, I believe gamers lead
| in hardware excitement.
| tssva wrote:
| Network performance may be important but the reality is
| that for the most part those things which influence
| network performance are out of the hands of gamers. There
| is "gaming" network hardware out there but for the most
| part I would categorize it with the $500 coax cables sold
| to audiophiles.
| greggyb wrote:
| The biggest lever in the toolbox for a typical user to
| optimize network is good old ethernet. Wired vs wireless
| will typically reduce latency a little bit and
| _massively_ improves on jitter, which is arguably more
| important for competitive gaming (within a reasonable
| range of latency).
|
| Outside of that, I agree.
| leetcrew wrote:
| the single thread performance is the meat of the story here.
| that was the main caveat that stood in the way of an
| unconditional recommendation of amd over intel in the last
| generation. it makes sense to primarily target people (like me,
| incidentally) who would have bought amd last time around but
| for the deficit in gaming performance.
| f311a wrote:
| Gamers are the biggest audience when it comes to high-end
| consumer CPUs. You don't need $550 CPU for your laptop or PC if
| you don't play games.
|
| Many professionals, including developers, don't need such CPUs
| too.
|
| When I need a lot of CPU power, I just ask my company to
| provide me servers.
| cma wrote:
| If you compile large c++ codebases they are a godsend. A
| slide showed 5950x was only 9% better at a compiler benchmark
| than the 3950x though. A deeper pipeline based IPC increase
| may suffer with missed branch prediction in the type of
| parsing and optimizing workloads of compilers and not get the
| full benefit.
| f311a wrote:
| Do C++ developers prefer desktop computers at work? I think
| a lot of them use laptops.
| outworlder wrote:
| Is DistCC (or related tech) not a thing anymore?
| leetcrew wrote:
| depends on the project. it takes me about 20 minutes to
| do a full build on an overclocked 9700k. if I were forced
| to use a laptop, I would probably quit.
| spockz wrote:
| What about spinning up a 24core vm and mount your code
| with sshfs for those compiles? Edit: corrected ashes to
| sshfs
| leetcrew wrote:
| this has been discussed internally. for a variety of
| reasons, testing the software on a remote machine is
| kinda painful, so we would still have the overhead of
| copying the executable back to the developer's machine.
| the more straightforward approach is just to buy fast
| desktops for all the devs. a desktop with 32GB ram, a top
| of the line consumer cpu, and a middling gpu is roughly
| the same price as a good ultrabook anyway.
|
| also, c++ compilation doesn't scale perfectly with more
| cores. linking is still single threaded, AFAIK.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| lld will parallelize your link step. Major improvement
| over ld. Barely any change to the rest of your build
| process.
| StillBored wrote:
| sshfs adds far to much latency to large compiles which
| tend to open a ton of little files, read a KB or two, and
| close them. If your on a local LAN its doable on NFS or
| other low latency network sharing, but for everything
| going over the internet ssh is going to be far to slow.
| In those cases its better to just git pull the changes
| and maintain a local copy on the compile target.
| sukilot wrote:
| What do you mean? The code is on the build server. You
| only need to push your human-timescale changes.
| ahartmetz wrote:
| You can always get roughly 2-3x the CPU performance of a
| laptop in a desktop (2x core count, higher clock due to
| much bigger heatsink). It makes sense to use a desktop
| for the compile times.
| ben-schaaf wrote:
| The most performance you can get in a mobile CPU right
| now is an 8 core ryzen. On a desktop you can get the
| 3990x at 64 cores. That's at least 8x the performance.
| ben-schaaf wrote:
| Can't fit a 32 core threadripper in a laptop no matter
| how hard you try. Afaik most use workstation desktops if
| they're working on large codebases with long compile
| times (think chrome, Firefox, unreal engine, etc. with
| compile times often in the hours on slow computers).
| DoofusOfDeath wrote:
| I usually find myself developing C++ code directly on
| servers, via SSH. In that setup, a laptop + external
| monitor is my preference, because of portability.
|
| If I ever get to do local-machine development again, the
| choice of laptop vs. desktop really depends on how build
| times compare, and which platform has Intel CPUs with the
| required ISA extensions.
| sroussey wrote:
| Which ISA extensions are useful for compilation?
| StillBored wrote:
| None really, compilation is considered a branch/integer
| workload and has been that way for decades. Its a lot of
| tree traversals, and short string manipulation. One of
| the bigger boosts in recently memory were the "fast
| strings (rep mov*)" implementations about 10 years ago.
|
| Single core compilation is actually a fairly good metric
| for general purpose performance. Of course it scales
| almost linearly with core count too.
| DoofusOfDeath wrote:
| Regarding the speed of compilation, I'm not sure which if
| any recent ISA extensions matter.
|
| What matters to me is the ISA extensions that are needed
| by the software I'm building, typically DL or HPC code.
| Life is easier when I can build and test the software on
| my local machine, without having to involve some fancy
| new server.
| xrikcus wrote:
| Many of us who do use laptops do the builds elsewhere.
| gambiting wrote:
| We are a company that only does development in C++ and
| everyone has a desktop workstation. Laptops are simply
| too slow unless absolutely huge and besides my minimum
| requirement in a workstation nowadays is 64GB of ram with
| 128GB preferred. Hard to find a laptop that can support
| that much.
| ip26 wrote:
| Honest question, why no build farm?
| gambiting wrote:
| We have a build farm. This is just for running the
| editor.
| sroussey wrote:
| My MacBook has 64, don't think 128 is an option.
| tmd83 wrote:
| Yeah I noticed that comparison and was surprised at that
| given the amazing single thread benchmark performance
| improvement. We really have to see the benchmark.
|
| One might end up in a situation where for developers the
| older generation cpu being cheaper and more available might
| make more sense.
|
| I wish somebody really did some suitable benchmark suite
| for developers.
| vbezhenar wrote:
| You don't want older generation CPU. You won't
| clean/build your project after every change. You'll use
| some kind of incremental build which will use few cores.
| Your IDE will use few cores. And significantly faster
| single-thread performance from new generation will be
| extremely helpful.
| GordonS wrote:
| > Many professionals, including developers, don't need such
| CPUs too
|
| While I agree that many people don't need mass multi-
| threading, I don't count developers among those.
|
| Compilation and transpiration are computationally intensive,
| and usually take advantage of multi-threading. Developers
| often also run multiple virtual machines and containers, for
| example to run a database, message bus or blob store.
|
| As a developer, I'll take all the compute capacity I can get,
| thank you very much!
| lliamander wrote:
| > Many professionals, including developers, don't need such
| CPUs too.
|
| True, though I think there's a distinction between "need" and
| "can make use of". If I'm going to spend 8+ hours a day
| working on a computer, I'd probably be willing to spend a
| extra 20% or whatever on total system cost to eek out a bit
| extra performance even if that cost doesn't make sense from a
| strict cost/benefit calculation.
|
| That said, there isn't really a good way for developers to
| calibrate the hardware to their workload.
| ATsch wrote:
| It's not that developers don't need these CPUs, it's just
| that there's a lot more gamers than developers, and most of
| them will buy laptops or be provided workstations with Ryzen
| PRO or Threadripper processors.
| warrenm wrote:
| Apparently you don't do development, local virtualization,
| work on enterprise apps, or any of 1000s of other things that
| benefit from extra horsepower
| manigandham wrote:
| They said _biggest audience_ , not the only one.
| Glyptodon wrote:
| I definitely need ram way more than I need CPU, but there are
| still plenty of things that CPU helps me save time with as a
| dev, and often those things are somewhat parallel. So more
| cores is good too.
| gambiting wrote:
| >>Many professionals, including developers, don't need such
| CPUs too.
|
| Lol, sorry, but our C++ projects have an average build time
| of 40 minutes on an 8-core/16threaded Xeon CPU in my
| workstation. Even using Fastbuild/SN-DBS it still takes 5-10
| minutes. We'll take any number of cores we can get, thank
| you.
| sukilot wrote:
| 20% faster CPU isn't going to solve your problem. You
| should look into caching and distributed compilation.
|
| The biggest companies in the world writing the largest
| software don't have build times that slow.
| xorfish wrote:
| > 8-core/16threaded Xeon CPU
|
| What generation and what frequency?
|
| Those things can be quite dissapointing for what they cost
| compared to consumer CPUs.
|
| I would expect the 5950X to be around 3-6 times faster than
| an 8 core Xeon.
| gambiting wrote:
| It's the Xeon W-2145.
| DoofusOfDeath wrote:
| I wasn't familiar with Fastbuild or SN-DBS. Can/should they
| be used in conjunction with ccache?
| f311a wrote:
| Yeah, but there are 10 JavaScript developers for each C/C++
| developer.
|
| I'm a Python developer and I can work from laptop. I do a
| lot of data processing and my laptop can handle development
| and testing. On production, some of the scripts are running
| on 64 core machines and use vector operations via numpy and
| scipy.
| notJim wrote:
| LOL I'm a "js developer" and the system I work on
| requires like 10 docker containers. Not sure where this
| idea comes from that JS developers don't need power.
| rowanG077 wrote:
| You are just wasting cycles and memory. Don't use docker
| if you care about performance.
| notJim wrote:
| This kind of response is supremely unhelpful. I work at a
| company with a large team, I'm not just going to tell all
| 300+ people to drop everything and rewrite the entire dev
| stack. Docker has become the de facto standard for dev
| environments.
| rowanG077 wrote:
| My comment was flippant because your comment was useless.
| Of course if you decide to use something like docker you
| will force yourself into a performance corner. This would
| happen with literally any piece of software. It's not
| then valid to use that as a way of requiring a better
| cpu. No what you need is to get your development
| environment in order.
|
| Btw docker is only standard for CI systems. Never would I
| advise anyone to actually use docker for local
| development let alone 10 docker instances at once. It's
| just pure insanity.
| notJim wrote:
| Why is it not valid to buy a better cpu to have a better
| dev environment? What does validity even mean here? I was
| never told I had to check in with you when making
| decisions. Before docker I remember spending tons of time
| setting up dependencies locally on machines when starting
| a new job, or maintaining puppet scripts to do so. And
| then since machines change over time, and run a different
| OS, your dev environment never quite matches prod. A $500
| CPU is drastically cheaper than the bugs, headache, and
| time suck of maintaining a dev env.
| AlfeG wrote:
| Webpack compilation of hello world projects are insanely
| long task. If new CPU can reduce this *hit in 20% I will
| be happy
| sroussey wrote:
| Even JS devs "compile" their code and use multiple
| threads. And when JS runs, every JS engine uses multiple
| threads (parsing, running, GC). Just look at how many
| threads chrome is using on a single web page. No need to
| throw shade on JS devs and their equipment needs.
| f311a wrote:
| Yes, but you can't use 105W CPU in your laptop anyway.
|
| In a company where I work, almost every front-end
| developer uses a laptop with an external display because
| it's a portable solution.
| lliamander wrote:
| I think OP's main argument is that if you actually need a
| lot of cores, then you should probably be offloading some
| of that work onto a server.
|
| I currently use a 6-core mobile H-class CPU for my work
| that is a mix of Java and JS development, with a bunch of
| browser tabs and docker containers running, large
| IntelliJ project, etc. While my system often has a lot of
| processes/threads running, the main cost of those is in
| memory utilization rather than constant CPU performance.
|
| I'm not saying that can't use more CPU horsepower, but
| it's certainly enough for my needs (for now). The main
| benefit of having more cores for me right now is just to
| maintain system responsiveness while running a bunch of
| background tasks, rather than raw throughput of large
| compile jobs.
| tmd83 wrote:
| Kind of the same setup for me. Primarily Java work on a 6
| core laptop. Between Chrome absurd RAM/cpu usage,
| IntelliJ, Gradle, Weblogic memory usage is just super
| high and cpu is not so little either at times even
| without build. Add anything extra I'm running for
| diagnostic, performance tuning and things are very
| troublesome. And Mac doesn't seem to handle such pressure
| as gracefully as Linux (though I'm not 100% sure).
| lliamander wrote:
| I'm running Linux and things generally feel pretty smooth
| to me. It wouldn't surprise me if Linux had better multi-
| tasking support.
| tmd83 wrote:
| I think more than better multi tasking it's handling of
| load when things are at the limit in some fashion whether
| is excessive cpu or ram.
| ohazi wrote:
| "Any number of cores" != "Fastest possible core design"
|
| I also compile large, multi-compilation-unit C++ programs,
| and it's much, much better to have a 24 or 32 threads
| clocked at 2 GHZ than 8 threads clocked at 5 GHz.
|
| The parent comment was talking about fast individual core
| designs, which _are_ genuinely useful for gaming, and can
| 't be approximated by adding more cores.
| mey wrote:
| Been a long time since I've done heavy C++ development
| (long time) but how does Fastbuild compare to Incredibuild?
| gambiting wrote:
| It's about the same, we've stopped using Incredibuild
| some time ago because there were almost no benefits to it
| over Fastbuild and the cost was huge.
| walshemj wrote:
| Not for content creators and other workstation type
| applications - all those non server workstation boards are
| going some where right?
| overcast wrote:
| You don't need it if you DO play games. I'm running an 11
| year old Xeon, that maxes every modern game at 2560x1600 on a
| 1070. GPU is WAY more important than CPU in gaming.
| leetcrew wrote:
| > GPU is WAY more important than CPU in gaming.
|
| depends on the game. plenty of popular esports titles will
| bottleneck on the CPU with even a low end graphics card.
| overcast wrote:
| Look at any gaming benchmarks, unless they are running
| them at low resolutions, the CPU is not the bottleneck. I
| agree there is some fringe simulation cases, but most
| gaming is not inhibited by CPU. Once you're up in the 2k
| and 4k land, the GPU is the bottleneck. This video
| focuses on 1080p performance benefits. There is zero
| reason to be upgrading between generations unless you're
| just burning money. Anyone paying $500+ every time there
| is a new CPU platform, is guaranteed already running 2k
| and 4k content.
| outworlder wrote:
| Simulation is not necessarily 'fringe'. Kerbal Space
| Program, Oxygen Not Included, heck... Dwarf Fortress (ok,
| the last one IS fringe).
|
| You are correct that most games don't use that much CPU.
| Most titles will run comfortably with an Intel I3 from
| the past three generations or so, provided there are no
| bottlenecks in the GPU. The CPU will be the bottleneck,
| but if you are getting sufficient framerates, so what?
|
| Modern CPUs are insanely powerful. Even then, I moved to
| Ryzen - for the above mentioned titles.
| overcast wrote:
| I run Kerbal and Dwarf Fotress on an 11 year old Xeon, as
| well as every other modern game with a 1070 at 2560x1600.
| All the eye candy on. I'm not suggesting running a decade
| old CPU, but it's completely silly for this presentation
| to be pumping expensive CPUs for 1080p gaming benefits.
| leetcrew wrote:
| it's really not so clear cut outside of the few highly
| gpu-intensive AAA titles that get released each year. I
| play csgo (an older, but still very popular game) on a 4k
| display. my gpu hovers around 40% at max settings, while
| a couple cpu cores are constantly pegged.
|
| it is hard to find benchmarks to show this however. the
| reputable sites mainly focus on 1080p because this is
| where the difference between cpus is most visible.
| doesn't mean there isn't a meaningful difference at
| higher resolutions, it just isn't as good a way to show
| what they are trying to show in a cpu review.
|
| > There is zero reason to be upgrading between
| generations unless you're just burning money.
|
| agreed, the speedup is almost never worth such a short
| upgrade cycle, especially for consumers. but this is
| moving the goalposts given the thread's context.
| jyrkesh wrote:
| The big CPU-bottlenecked esports game is CS:GO, or any
| other Valve / Source game. Even on an older CPU with
| mediocre single-threaded perf (i7-5820K), I can run the
| game _fine_ on high settings, 1080p (100-250fps), but it
| occasionally dips down below my 144hz refresh rate, which
| can be annoying.
|
| And yeah, the GPU is never begged while playing, but
| multiple CPU cores definitely are.
|
| Also, emulation is another big place where CPU
| bottlenecking is a thing. Look at Dolphin (Gamecube/Wii),
| Citra (Wii U), and yuzu (Switch), they're all CPU bound.
| Folks in the various subreddits will ask why their new
| GPU isn't netting them a higher framerate, and it's
| because the GPU is almost not even used (though in some
| cases with better graphical effects, shaders, etc. they
| can be beneficial)
| NikolaeVarius wrote:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmeWo7BLN9Y According to
| DF, 4k games are bottlenecking on the CPU via the 3090
| FartyMcFarter wrote:
| When do they say that in the video? The CPU-limited
| comment at 10:28 is for 1080p / 1440p.
| NikolaeVarius wrote:
| 10:41 , so 10 more seconds. I910900k bottlenecking Hitman
| 2 at 4K Max
| FartyMcFarter wrote:
| It doesn't seem like that's 4K: the text on the top-right
| corner clearly says 1080p or 1440p next to each
| framerate. The narrator also says 1080p and 1440p.
|
| It's definitely confusing, since there's a mention of 4K
| elsewhere...
| NikolaeVarius wrote:
| Sure, but that drives the point further right? Already
| CPU bound at 1080P
| FartyMcFarter wrote:
| No. The CPU is the bottleneck at 1080P, but the GPU might
| become the bottleneck at a higher resolution.
| leetcrew wrote:
| not really. cpu bound at 4K implies cpu bound at 1080p,
| but the converse is not true.
| Matthias247 wrote:
| While I agree with the general statement, I want to
| remark that 1080p is actually 2k if you treat 2160p as
| 4k.
|
| I guess you mean 1440p - which you could maybe label as
| 2.6k. But I don't think there is any such designation.
| Calling it WQHD is probably the right thing.
| mikepurvis wrote:
| It depends. I threw together an HTPC a few months ago out
| of mostly second-hand parts and it's been a mixed bag. With
| an i5-4460 and an RX 570, I can run modern shooters
| perfectly, but a bunch of indie games give me unexpected
| trouble. Hades for example (isometric roguelite heavy on
| visual effects) still gives me lots of slowdowns and
| framedrops, and I even get jitter and issues on some really
| old titles that I would have expected to be butter-smooth,
| like Sonic Generations.
| overcast wrote:
| The RX 570 is definitely a budget level GPU, an upgrade
| to that would certainly give you what you need to run
| those games on an I5 properly.
| easde wrote:
| If you're playing at high framerates (120Hz+) you'll find
| that your CPU is inadequate for many recent games.
|
| (playing games on a 1070 and a 6 year old Xeon and feeling
| the lack of single-threaded performance)
| Rebelgecko wrote:
| Have you tried MS Flight Sim? That's the game that
| convinced me it's time to upgrade my trusty i5-4670k
| XCSme wrote:
| Also because Google Chrome, Microsoft Word, Visual Studio Code
| and Slack don't have an FPS meter, and you rarely notice a few
| dropped frames, compared to games were you can easily tell
| performance differences.
| gameswithgo wrote:
| AMD was already ahead of intel on _every other use case_ so
| they finally got gaming too.
| andrewstuart2 wrote:
| Assuming that your workloads are standard non-gaming workloads,
| they will probably also benefit substantially when gaming
| benefits. My reasoning being that a common bottleneck for
| gaming workloads is single thread performance, and unless this
| is highly focused on a single core clock boost, I'd expect that
| single-threaded performance increases would be multiplied
| appropriately by core count, though perhaps not perfectly
| linearly.
|
| When you see marketing reaching for "non-gaming" metrics, it's
| often for highly parallelizable workloads, which benefits non-
| gaming disproportionately, but e.g. for compiling/linking there
| are still tasks that have to be done serially, which is where
| that single-threaded performance boost is critical.
|
| I'm definitely excited at this point to see what a Zen 3
| threadripper can bring to the table.
| x87678r wrote:
| I'm wondering how many non-gamers actually buy desktops. Either
| they use laptops or their company chooses one. I'm a non-gamer
| who likes desktops but am happy with my old PC and am thinking
| of getting a laptop for next box.
| hombre_fatal wrote:
| I built a small form factor PC for fun, but it's pretty much
| deadweight.
|
| Having to sit down in the same chair at the same desk for an
| entire work session is a self-inflicted dealbreaker for me.
| It made more sense when laptops were so underpowered with
| such bad battery life. But now, gaming and exotic workloads
| are the only thing that really justify being tethered to a
| machine.
|
| If I could go back in time, I'd save that $1000 towards a
| maxed out Macbook Pro and dual-boot Windows.
| x87678r wrote:
| Lol I sit at the same chair at the same desk every day.
| Perhaps you just persuaded me what I should do next.
| [deleted]
| protomyth wrote:
| Business PCs are determined by the company building the PC. The
| consumer market that actually builds their PCs is mostly
| gaming. They did mention content creators a couple of times.
| zamalek wrote:
| Gaming workloads are strict superset of almost any other
| workload (because they are extremely taxing on almost any
| metric a platform can have). Game benchmarks are abundant and
| reproducible. They are a good indicator of how a platform will
| deal with almost any other software.
|
| AMD did have a CAD benchmark thrown in.
|
| > Threadripper
|
| Not a bad choice at all (wait for that 5000 TR announcement),
| however, a *950X comes close to TR for much less. My 3950X has
| made a striking difference for Rust compilation times and I'm
| strongly considering a 5950X.
| pimeys wrote:
| I'm also having a 3950x for Rust work and it has been the
| fastest CPU I've ever used. It just flies every day and makes
| rust compilation times not an issue anymore.
|
| That means, I really don't know do I want to have the trouble
| of finding the 5950x and the work of replacing the CPU. I
| really don't feel like I need more CPU power at this point.
|
| But replacing my 2080ti with a new fast Radeon, that would be
| something...
| dvdplm wrote:
| Indeed. And for rust compilation, good single threaded
| performance can have a significant impact on that last
| annoyingly slow linking step (at least when building
| executables).
| steffan wrote:
| I've noticed the same thing on EC2 instances, compiling,
| e.g. Alacritty, there wasn't a lot of difference between 8
| vs 16 vCPUs since the last step took a significant portion
| of time and was single-threaded. It's fun watching 16 (or
| 32) CPUs maxed out though.
| celrod wrote:
| Gaming doesn't really have SIMD or FP at all though, does it?
| zamalek wrote:
| Couldn't be further from the truth. Rasterization is all
| linear algebra. That being said, you don't really see games
| with the likes of AVX-512.
| moonchild wrote:
| That all happens on the GPU. There's a tiny (trivial)
| amount of linalg on the CPU and the rest is punted to
| shaders.
| sharpneli wrote:
| Plenty of it. Going trough the transform hierarchy (tons of
| 4x4 matrix multiplications which definitely are vectorized)
| and then the physics simulations, and that's just part of
| it.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| Can gaming workloads simulate the 100% of all cores that a
| parallel large scale native C++ compilation will generate?
| zamalek wrote:
| Games are typically written in C++, so that's a yes. As for
| the threading, older (2yr or so back) games tend to assume
| 4 cores and don't scale past that (thanks, Intel!). More
| recent games tend to aim at arbitrary horizontal scaling.
|
| You do still get major titles that are completely single-
| threaded.
| moonchild wrote:
| ? no
|
| The parent was talking about c++ _compilation_.
|
| A c++ compiler is very different from a game engine
| written in c++.
| fomine3 wrote:
| written in C++ not means it's compatible workload. Gaming
| is performance is just gaming. For gaming, realtimeness
| is important and normally single thread perf is important
| even though some process is multithreaded.
| m12k wrote:
| Modern game engines can, yes
| pier25 wrote:
| > _A non-gaming benchmark would have been helpful._
|
| Like Cinebench?
| ckastner wrote:
| Fair enough, on that point.
| azeirah wrote:
| I personally love their cpu's for development, can run a solid
| IDE, have 3 browsers open, compile huge programs with many
| threads, run 40 docker containers next to each other, have
| discord, YouTube, Thunderbird etc.. open
|
| And it keeps running smoothly! I don't know what the market
| share of developers is vs gamers :x
| skrtskrt wrote:
| 40 docker containers?? My fully spec-d out Macbook Pro could
| only dream of running 8 without a hiccup
| whatch wrote:
| Which macbook do you use? Thinking about replacing my
| thinkpad e590 with macbook pro 16
| skrtskrt wrote:
| I had (before switching jobs) the 2018 MBP with all the
| options maxed out.
|
| Was running a Docker stack of about 8 containers, plus
| PyCharm. It worked okay-ish, but everything was maxed out
| all the time and the fans were always spinning. Battery
| was being drained even when on the charger. Pycharm would
| lag for a second or two here and there.
|
| Now switched jobs and was issued a 2018 MBP with only
| 16GB RAM and the 2.2GHz i7. I have gone to the trouble to
| run everything locally (A single 200MB Python repo +
| Spark). I don't see the same power drain but Pycharm lags
| VERY hard on its indexing and code insight... sometimes
| 5-10 seconds.
| distances wrote:
| Every time I code with the MBP from work I dream of using
| my home desktop computer instead. There's just no
| comparison. I have just the 3700X CPU but already that on
| Linux runs circles around my work laptop.
| alderz wrote:
| Keep in mind that Docker for Mac runs in a virtual machine,
| so it is much heavier than running it on Linux.
| skrtskrt wrote:
| Good point.
|
| I have yet to take the dive into buying or building a
| Linux workstation for development. Probably very worth
| it, but I have found the endless fiddling you can do with
| Linux to really distract me from doing the actual work I
| turned on the computer to do.
| read_if_gay_ wrote:
| It's not only endless fiddling you _can_ do but
| occasinally you _have to_ do as well.
| intricatedetail wrote:
| Mac these days is a fashion statement rather than a serious
| tool, plus company shady practices e.g. making devices
| difficult to repair, questionable design decisions e.g.
| running high voltage rails right next to low voltage
| signals to increase the likelihood of failure and then
| making it difficult to recover data and forcing you to use
| their cloud so they can analyse your data. No thanks.
| azeirah wrote:
| Hyperbole, meant that I never had any issues with how many
| containers I was running haha I think I ran like 15 at most
| on my desktop
| znpy wrote:
| As far as I see/understand it:
|
| Gaming is a single-thread use case that resonates with a lot of
| people and is generally easy to understand / relate to.
|
| AMD could have used some other single-core use case like high
| frequency trading, but that would not have been grasped by so
| many people like the gaming use case.
|
| Now add the huge success of youtube channels like LinusTechTips
| and similar and you get the point: the gaming use case helps
| deliver the message to a wider audience.
| x87678r wrote:
| from the comments:
|
| >Shame that COVID-19s still here. Can't attend Intel's funeral.
| _sveq wrote:
| https://kensegall.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/apple.toast...
| burnte wrote:
| The FPS improvements on some of those games are huge, makes me
| think that they've also improved memory transfer efficiency as
| well as IPC improvements.
| CyberDildonics wrote:
| What do you mean by "memory transfer efficiency"?
| Filligree wrote:
| Zen has traditionally been extremely hungry for memory
| bandwidth. Memory latency is bad, so processors prefetch
| whatever they can, but they sometimes get it wrong and fetch
| data that doesn't get used.
|
| This allows you to give an efficiency rating, and Intel is
| better here.
|
| Also means single channel Zen is a bad idea, but that doesn't
| stop laptop manufacturers from doing it.
| CyberDildonics wrote:
| I haven't ever seen that measured or heard of that hurting
| memory bandwidth, do you have a link?
|
| Most programs are not memory bandwidth constrained because
| they aren't optimized well and are bottlenecked on memory
| latency.
|
| Prefetching is going to be wasted much more on programs
| that are hopping around in memory, which will be
| constrained by memory latency and far from having memory
| bandwidth problems.
|
| Programs that run through memory linearly with short or no
| branches will be using all the prefetched memory.
| cameron_b wrote:
| memory bandwidth here being relative, because part of the
| architecture is putting a pile more cores behind a memory
| controller than before.
|
| Relative to previous architectures, the cores have to
| wait in line for more other cores if they need to grab
| something not in cache
| CyberDildonics wrote:
| That would be memory latency, not memory bandwidth.
| loeg wrote:
| They've gone from 4-core CCXes with 16 MB L3 as the atomic unit
| of CPUs, to 8-core chiplets with 32 MB L3. So, broadly,
| workloads that fit in 32MB but not 16MB will perform much
| better on Zen 3.
| proverbialbunny wrote:
| In the video they said they increased branch prediction quite a
| bit, so I imagine it has more to do with this than it does with
| latency.
| dathinab wrote:
| I think in the video they said something along that line.
| ilaksh wrote:
| Double the L3 cache size and more cores in the complex.
| shusson wrote:
| I wonder how they came up with 19%. Surely they could nudge it up
| to 20% and no one would notice. These are synthetic tests after
| all right?
| xondono wrote:
| 1st rule of negotiation, avoid round numbers.
|
| There's a big psychological difference between asking for
| 50.000$ and 52.178$ and 23cts.
|
| The second looks more believable because it looks like
| something you got from "running the numbers", even if you just
| made that up.
| anonymfus wrote:
| Surely they can also bump the price from $299, $449, $549 and
| $799 to $300, $450, $550 and $800 respectively, and nobody will
| notice either.
| vikramkr wrote:
| 19 sounds more "real" since it isn't a round number
| jacquesm wrote:
| It looks pretty round to me.
| mrlala wrote:
| The 9 might be round but the 1 has a bunch of pointy edges.
| vikramkr wrote:
| The secret is to print all prices and
| marketing/performance numbers with 8 bit displays. Then
| you will make all the money.
| jacquesm wrote:
| man round
| OkGoDoIt wrote:
| At first impression, a claimed 19% improvement feels more
| trustworthy, more data-driven, rather than a 20% which might be
| written off as marketing fluff.
| [deleted]
| neogodless wrote:
| > The +19% value that AMD is using is taken from internal
| testing, using the geometric mean of 25 benchmarks involving a
| mixture of real-world and synthetic.
|
| This is from the article. So yes, some synthetic tests, and
| some "real-world" benchmarks.
| marcosscriven wrote:
| What I'd love to see is an 8-core APU, for a powerful Linux
| desktop that doesn't need especially good graphics.
| gruez wrote:
| Ryzen 7 4700G fits your build, but it's zen2.
| marcosscriven wrote:
| Sounds perfect, but read they're OEM only.
| headmelted wrote:
| Hoping the PS5 digital edition becomes a perfect Linux
| workstation with an early days exploit.
| satisfaction wrote:
| No news on Threadripper?
| twblalock wrote:
| ~20% more performance for about ~50% more price, based on what
| the 3000 series is selling for. Maybe the 3000 series is a better
| deal.
|
| The price increases really make Zen 3 less compelling.
| bluecalm wrote:
| I am waiting for my 3970x to arrive next week (it was a long wait
| to get a GPU and 256gb of RAM due to shortages) and I am already
| thinking that maybe I should have waited just a bit longer. That
| is after not upgrading my Ivy Bridge quad for about 7 years due
| to lackluster offerings from Intel. It's very exciting these days
| thanks to AMD!
| buran77 wrote:
| This looks very promising, with 19% IPC increase and keeping the
| power envelope. They're calling it "the fastest core on the
| market". And that's at $549 for 12 cores, $449 for 8 cores, and
| $299 for 6 cores.
|
| Off topic, it's incredible what a flat tone Mark Papermaster
| managed to use when saying "I couldn't be more excited to
| present...".
| modeless wrote:
| Something about the sound quality in this video makes him sound
| exactly like a text-to-speech system. It's uncanny.
|
| Single thread performance was the only caveat I cared about vs.
| Intel. Really tempted to build a new PC now with Zen 3 and
| Nvidia 3080. If they are actually in stock anywhere.
|
| I don't understand how Intel's stock price has held up in the
| face of their clear loss of their longstanding most important
| asset, the lead in single thread performance. I expect Apple to
| beat them soon as well, putting them in 3rd place.
| animationwill wrote:
| >> Off topic, it's incredible what a flat tone Mark Papermaster
| managed to use when saying "I couldn't be more excited to
| present...".
|
| That's an awesome last name though!
| all_blue_chucks wrote:
| Glad they skipped the 4000-series branding. Now we can look
| forward to next year's release of the 5700XT CPU to pair with the
| current 5700XT GPU.
| ehsanu1 wrote:
| They didn't skip it, but all the 4000-series CPU's are for
| laptops AFAIK.
| xondono wrote:
| they've skipped _for desktops_.
| intricatedetail wrote:
| Why they go with gaming CPU first when it doesn't make much
| difference if cpu is 6% faster? I was hoping to see a product I
| could use in a workstation e.g a 32 core one that would have
| single core speed better than Intel. From that perspective the
| launch feels dissapointning. I've been needlessly holding money
| as I need a new CPU. I will have to go with a top Intel one. I'll
| try AMD next year maybe.
| honkycat wrote:
| What I am really hoping for out of the next-gen AMD offering is
| value.
|
| GPUs are so insanely expensive anymore, it is so frustrating to
| want to upgrade my 6 year old 970 GTX and be unable to do a
| meaningful upgrade without spending over $400.
|
| Edit: 8 year old -> 6 year old Edit: Ryzen 5000 line -> next-gen
| AMD offering
| dragontamer wrote:
| > GPUs are so insanely expensive anymore, it is so frustrating
| to want to upgrade my 6 year old 970 GTX and be unable to do a
| meaningful upgrade without spending over $400.
|
| A $150 to $200 GTX 1660 Super or Radeon 5500 XT will be much,
| much, MUCH faster than a GTX 970.
|
| EDIT: Yeah, NVidia and AMD focuses on selling their $500 or
| $700 or $1500 GPUs. But every generation, they eventually
| release a $200 GPU with the same tech (just cut down and
| slower). Its less exciting, but that's all most people need.
| honkycat wrote:
| GPU Benchmark puts the 1660 Super at +35% benchmark speeds,
| and the 5500xt at 12%.
|
| I don't really see the point in upgrading for that level of
| improvement when I can spend a bit more and get a much more
| significant upgrade.
| dragontamer wrote:
| Indeed. Its a sliding scale from $150 all the way up to
| $700. (Then a jump to the 3090). Performance scales with
| price very well in the $150 -> $750 range, you can pick
| pretty much whatever performance suits your budget.
| (Especially as the "last gen" models drop in price to the
| levels associated with their performance)
| neogodless wrote:
| I'm a little confused. The Ryzen 5000 line is CPUs. The GPUs
| being announced on October 28th will be Radeon 6000s.
|
| But maybe I'm just misunderstanding you a bit!
| honkycat wrote:
| No, I misspoke. I was talking about the next-gen GPUs but I
| had a brain fart
| nine_k wrote:
| I only hope that the wonderful improvements in AMD chips are not
| made possible by something as clever as Intel's 10 years ago,
| which ended up exploitable in interesting ways.
| formerly_proven wrote:
| * 25 years ago
| piinbinary wrote:
| It sounds like "Big Navi" may roughly match RTX 2000-series
| performance, but not quite meet RTX 3000-series performance
| (which is better than I was expecting).
| mcraiha wrote:
| "This will be the only processor (at launch) with a 65 W TDP"
| that is shame. The 3900 got good reviews, but it is very hard to
| buy, while 3900x is available. So I assume same will happen with
| 5900.
| xondono wrote:
| It's not like TDP means anything anyway...
| CyberDildonics wrote:
| In many bios setting you can adjust the dynamic overclocking
| with course and easy or more nuanced settings to give you what
| you want. Many times a lot of the power and heat comes from
| high dynamic overclocking which uses a disproportionate amount
| of power.
| loeg wrote:
| You can also underclock the high end parts by lowering the
| voltage and/or thermal limits that govern the behavior of
| CPB/XFR/PBO (the CPU's internal clock-setting mechanism(s) at
| P0). That might correspond more directly with the benefits
| associated with a 65W SKU without hampering performance more
| than necessary.
| OkGoDoIt wrote:
| They say lower-TDP processor should be available within six
| months. I think that makes sense, AMD wants to make the
| marketing splash with really nice high numbers at launch.
| omgwtfbyobbq wrote:
| I wonder if the lower-TDP versions are whatever didn't make
| the high performance cut with part of the die disabled. If
| that's the case they would have to wait a certain amount of
| time to offer them.
| pier25 wrote:
| You mean like a 5700X ?
| loeg wrote:
| "At launch." They're rolling out the highest margin SKUs first,
| the rest of the lineup will fill out after Nov 5.
| Aardwolf wrote:
| They mention "wider issue in float and int engines"
|
| What does that mean? wider AVX?
| lhoff wrote:
| Interesting points:
|
| ZEN3:
|
| - 19% IPC improvement
|
| - 8 Core CCX complex with unified L3 Cache (before 4 cores shared
| half the L3 Cache)
|
| - Still 7nm process
|
| Ryzen:
|
| - 631 points in single core cinebench for 5900X - 640 points in
| single core cinebench for 5950X
|
| - 26% performance increase in 1080p gaming compared to Ryzen 3000
|
| - Models (Available November 5th): -5950X (16C
| 32T, 4.9Ghz / 3.4 Ghz, 105W TDP, 799$) -5900X (12C
| 24T, 4.8GHz / 3.7 GHz, 105W TDP, 549$) -5800X (8C 16T,
| 4.7 Ghz / 3.8GHz, 105W TDP, 449$) -5600X (6C 12T,
| 4.6GHz / 3.7 GHz, 65W TDP, 299$)
|
| Radeon:
|
| 6000 Series launch on October 28th
| jeffbee wrote:
| That cinebench score is about 6% higher than the highest score
| on Anandtech, which is an Intel laptop part. Not sure which I
| will consider more vaporware.
|
| https://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU-2020/2758
| scuget wrote:
| The TDP is really good. Even by "being conservative about our
| specs" standards.
| baybal2 wrote:
| They, again, use an interesting binning trick:
|
| They sell 2 low bin dies on a single package as a superior
| product to a 1 die good bin, and delay a 2 good die release:
|
| $ per core:
|
| 16C $50
|
| 12C $45
|
| 8C $56
|
| 6C $50
|
| $ per die:
|
| 16C $400
|
| 12C $275
|
| 8C $450
|
| 6C $300
|
| This time though, they decided to linearise boost clocks
| against the place in the lineup: i.e. 8C now has boost below
| 12C, and 16C.
| pedrocr wrote:
| What would be the 2 good die release? They've already
| announced the line-topping AM4 part that uses all the cores
| from the two dies. Isn't the next step up a four die part in
| a Threadripper packaging on a different socket with some
| cores disabled?
| baybal2 wrote:
| 2 good die is 5950, and I believe they will delay it for a
| few month like 3950
| Nursie wrote:
| On sale November 5th, according to the presentation.
| pedrocr wrote:
| They've already announced it. You're assuming the retail
| availability will take a while?
| vbezhenar wrote:
| 5950X base frequency is 3.4 Ghz according to anandtech.
| lhoff wrote:
| Thanks. Wasn't shown on the slides.
| greggyb wrote:
| That 5950X (and its predecessor) seem like voodoo with the core
| count, clock frequency, and TDP (yes, I know TDP is a flawed,
| flawed number - it's still impressive).
| zanny wrote:
| TDP is about as meaningful on CPUs now as nm is in fab tech.
|
| In practice the 3950x pulled up to ~225w running maxxed out
| avx2 workloads, ~300w if you overclocked it. The 3900x pulls
| up to ~190 watts at stock boosts. Both are called "105w TDP"
| parts.
| GuB-42 wrote:
| Maybe not the voodoo you are thinking about but on the GPU
| side, the 3Dfx Voodoo was indeed a groundbreaking 3D
| accelerator card.
|
| At the time, 3Dfx main competitors were Nvidia and ATI,
| Nvidia finally bought 3Dfx and AMD bought ATI. So
| technically, voodoo is on the side of AMD's competition.
| greggyb wrote:
| Intel's name for its CPU architecture is "Core."
| Nevertheless, AMD discusses its CPU cores. "voodoo" and
| "Voodoo" need not be the same (;
| bob1029 wrote:
| I second this reaction. Historically, clock speeds scaled
| inversely with the # of cores. Seems like the efficiency is
| overtaking other constraints at this point.
| loeg wrote:
| The achievable all-core clock will inevitably scale
| inversely with # of cores, in practice. The advertised
| single core and all-core clocks are some combination of
| binning and pure marketing.
| greggyb wrote:
| With most modern PC processors, both GPU and CPU, one of
| the primary limitations is thermal headroom. There are
| features and technologies with varying names across
| brands and processors that essentially do the same thing:
| run at the maximum clock that the current thermal
| situation will support.
|
| From my personal experience, my Threadripper 3970X will
| happily maintain ~4.4GHz all-core (rated for 4.5GHz max
| single-core) so long as I can keep the temperature in or
| below the 70s, with no overclocking.[0] There are power
| limits as well, but rated performance numbers are within
| the power limits. Overclocking can put you past the
| marked power limits, and certainly needs ample cooling.
|
| [0] Granted, I need to pump cold air into the case to
| maintain the temperature, but that's a limitation of my
| current thermal solution. At some point I'll probably
| upgrade to an excessive water cooling solution (:
| jrockway wrote:
| That's an interesting piece of data and I'm glad you
| posted it. I also use a 3970X and can't get it to 4.4GHz
| even with all but one CCD disabled (much less all-core).
| I am on air cooling, though, and suspect that switching
| to water cooling would help a lot. I hit 90C almost
| instantly under load. (I use the automatic overclocking
| and can do 4.2GHz all core; much better than the
| specified 3.7GHz all core.)
|
| Since I don't run into Threadripper owners very often,
| I'm wondering if yours also has a pretty high idle power?
| Mine idles at 80-90W (reported; 200+W from the wall)
| which is surprising to me coming from the Intel world. So
| much electricity wasted simply because I am too lazy to
| turn off my computer.
| amarshall wrote:
| I have a 3960X on Gigabyte Aorus Master with an RX480,
| 1080 Ti, X520 NIC, 3x SSDs, and my total-system idle on
| Linux is 180-210 W. I do agree that the high idle is
| frustrating, as it dumps a lot of heat into the room.
| greggyb wrote:
| I have a hunch that I won the silicon lottery with it,
| though I haven't confirmed with any overclocking. I'm
| happy to dive deeper if you want. Below is a basic
| summary.
|
| I have 5x140mm intake fans, with a Noctua NH-U14S TR4-SP3
| cooler. That runs with push-pull 140mm fans, 2000RPM
| in/1500RPM out.
|
| This reaches steady state within a few minutes under
| load. With an open case, it will clock down to ~4.2GHz
| after 5-10 minutes. With a closed case, that is faster.
| For fun, I ducted the A/C vent in the room into the case
| and cranked it. It stayed reliably up around 4.4GHz all
| core. Technically, I think it would reach a lower steady
| state clock/higher temp if I left it for days, as it does
| noticeably warm the room.
|
| I don't recall idle power, but yeah, it's warm.
| formerly_proven wrote:
| The difference with watercooling for CPUs seems to mostly
| come down to lower noise, and only marginally better
| thermals.
| greggyb wrote:
| I can get much more surface area of radiator than can
| reasonably be reached by the heat pipes on an air cooler.
| There are limits to how many radiators you can
| effectively leverage in a cooling loop.
|
| Additionally, a loop with a large volume of liquid offers
| much more thermal buffer before reaching a steady state
| temperature.
|
| Most air coolers will be heat saturated within a minute
| or so. A water cooling loop may maintain lower
| temperature for minutes to tens of minutes. So even with
| two solutions that otherwise reach the same steady state
| temperatures (and therefore throttle equally), you may
| see better real world performance out of the water
| cooling solution.
|
| I'll note, I would be building an open loop, not using an
| AIO/closed loop cooler. My case has room for 7x140mm of
| radiator in a couple of configurations. I would probably
| use 5x of that in one 420mm radiator and a 280mm
| radiator. This should offer much more cooling capacity
| than any tower cooler.
| paranoidrobot wrote:
| I can only offer anecdata, but I built a Ryzen 3600 based
| desktop earlier in the year.
|
| Initially I used the stock cooler, but it idled at ~45C,
| and the moment I did anything approaching a load it
| immediately shot to 90C. This was in a room with ambient
| at around 23C.
|
| After getting annoyed for a while I swapped for an AIO
| Liquid cooler and hey-presto it now idles at 30C and when
| maxed out - 75C.
| greggyb wrote:
| That's not really a good air vs water comparison. You'd
| have gotten similar results if you swapped for a better
| tower cooler as well. The stock coolers are basically
| built to cover base clock and a bit of turbo.
| baybal2 wrote:
| The thermal wall off 100W/cm2 is not much about how much
| heat you can sink, but how much you produce.
|
| The heat cannot leave the silicon itself quick enough
| with modern chips.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| zapnuk wrote:
| As much as I like the new generation I'm not quite sure about
| those prices.
|
| Right now I can buy: - Ryzen 9 3900X (12C /
| 24T) 3.8GHz - 4.6GHz => 389EUR - Ryzen 7 3700X (8C /
| 16T) 3.9GHZ - 4.5GHz => 299EUR.
|
| It seems to me that the current Ryzen 9 3900X has an insane
| value compared to the new generation. Sure, it's single core
| performance is lower by a meaningful amount. But I'd assume
| that the multi core performance is WAY better with its 12 cores
| compared to the 6/8 cores of the 5600X/5800X.
| neogodless wrote:
| If you compare MSRP at launch to retail a year later, you're
| going to notice a big difference.
|
| In the US, the Ryzen 9 3900X MSRP was $499 but is $70 less
| now. (Initially, supply was low, and it was selling over MSRP
| as high as ~$570.)
|
| But they came with coolers... I have a Ryzen 2700X that I got
| for $230, and I still use the stock cooler. To jump to a
| Ryzen 5800X plus a cooler would be a huge expense. I will
| definitely be on the sidelines for the next six months, but
| then I'll revisit the pricing situation (once motherboard
| manufacturers release updated 400-series firmware.)
| NikolaeVarius wrote:
| They don't ship with coolers?
|
| Man the lack of a 5700x is really making it hard for me to
| not justify getting a 3700x on sale
| coder543 wrote:
| > Man the lack of a 5700x is really making it hard for me
| to not justify getting a 3700x on sale
|
| Sounds like a win-win for AMD. Either they sell to
| customers that demand the best absolute performance, or
| they sell to customers that demand the best value. Since
| they offer products to meet both demands, they don't
| really care which type of customer you are.
|
| Zen 2 is still a fantastic processor, and it will
| certainly be more affordable than Zen 3 for the immediate
| future.
| Tuna-Fish wrote:
| The rumor is that any cpus with TDPs of 65W or below will
| ship with coolers, and ones with above that will ship
| without.
| zrm wrote:
| The thing to watch is then going to be the "5700X", i.e.
| the Zen3 version of the 3700X, which, if the analogy
| matches, should have 8 cores and a 65W TDP. It isn't in
| the initial slate but they left room for it in the
| numbering.
| Teknoman117 wrote:
| Anecdotally, all of the PC gamers I know put aftermarket
| coolers on their CPUs. The box cooler is still in the box
| taking up space in their closet. The AMD parts especially
| benefit from additional cooling (higher turbo clocks). I
| think it makes sense to not include box coolers on parts
| so high up the performance chart that using a box cooler
| would just hamstring it.
| zapnuk wrote:
| Sure, the prices of the new generation will fall over time.
|
| But I still don't quite see how the multi core performance
| per $ of the new generation will be competitive compared to
| their previous generation. At least at the lower end,
| simply because you can buy more cores/threads for roughly
| the same money - although with a lower clock speed and
| single core performance.
|
| However, I guess we will know more when meaningful
| benchmarks are released and this ends anyways when the
| remaining supply of 3900X is sold out.
| gruez wrote:
| >But I still don't quite see how the multi core
| performance per $ of the new generation will be
| competitive compared to their previous generation
|
| AFAIK that was the case during the 3000 series launch.
| The newest generation always has worse bang/buck.
| zapnuk wrote:
| The difference is that the 3000 series introduced 12 Core
| CPUs that weren't available before AND provided increased
| gaming performance.
|
| This time around the major reason seems for upgrades to
| be single core performance - which I guess as they didn't
| really go into multi core performance. But we'll know
| more when the benchmarks come out, and discussion
| beforehand is pretty pointless.
| [deleted]
| Roritharr wrote:
| I've just upgraded my Notebook to an HP EliteBook 835 G7, which
| is a 13" Notebook with a Ryzen 7 4750U. I've decked it out with
| 64GB Ram and a 2TB SSD. 8 Cores, 16 threads, boosting to 4,1ghz,
| 3 outputs capable of 4k 60hz, (2* dp over usb-c, 1 hdmi 2.0), 2
| full size USB A Ports... and a lot more goodies all packed in a
| very supremely built chassis.
|
| I couldn't want for more, (ok Thunderbolt, but that's not as
| valuable as everything else).
|
| I'm VERY happy with it's performance and couldn't be more
| grateful that AMD is providing much needed competition in the CPU
| market, I wouldn't have gotten a machine this powerful at this
| size otherwise.
|
| So yeah, i'll upgrade my Desktop to Ryzen 5950 once I get the
| opportunity, even if it's just to hold more fire below Intel's
| feet.
| kissiel wrote:
| I got this 4750U in the T14. The CPU performance is great, but
| the iGPU is terrible when connected to an external 2160p60
| screen. Animations for stuff like maximizing window have 2-3fps
| tops. iGPU from intel in 10510U manages 10+ fps. (5.8 kernel,
| Gnome 3.36).
| Roritharr wrote:
| This must be a software issue in Linux, I don't have anything
| close to these problems in Windows. Perfectly fluid with 2
| external 2160p60 screens connected.
|
| WSL2 is amazing btw.
| kissiel wrote:
| Probably infamous radeon drivers. Thanks for the hope :D
| qz2 wrote:
| Got a bottom end T495s here that quite happily handles an
| external 4K screen with Ubuntu.
| cashewchoo wrote:
| Where did you buy it from? I'm in the market for a 13" laptop
| with 32GB of ram and a ryzen CPU, with no hardware that's not
| Linux-friendly. So this sounds like a close fit.
|
| But I can't even find the Elitebook 835 on HP's website, or on
| Amazon.
| pedrocr wrote:
| Something that fits that description as well is the Lenovo
| X13/T14/T14s
|
| https://psref.lenovo.com/syspool/Sys/PDF/ThinkPad/ThinkPad_X.
| ..
|
| https://psref.lenovo.com/syspool/Sys/PDF/ThinkPad/ThinkPad_T.
| ..
|
| https://psref.lenovo.com/syspool/Sys/PDF/ThinkPad/ThinkPad_T.
| ..
|
| What I've yet to find is anything similar that also has a
| more than a 1080p screen. Frustratingly the Lenovo T14/T14s
| in Intel spec does have a 4K screen.
| rowanG077 wrote:
| It's so frustrating. I would love a 13 inch Ryzen laptop.
| But all their screens suck in some way.
| qz2 wrote:
| I've got a bottom end T495s which is mostly used as a
| terminal. The screen is 1080p but quite decent. I like
| the whole machine to be honest.
|
| I wouldn't want to bet on a 1" smaller screen for a
| decline in quality with the X395
| phs318u wrote:
| Same. The best I could find were models with 16GB soldered on
| the MB. Settled for a System 76 Lemur Pro (10th gen i7).
| Roritharr wrote:
| I ordered from a small notebook dealer in my area
| (notebook.de) that offer to upgrade the devices if you ask
| for it. I was looking for weeks for this special model as it
| was the first 13" model with the right ports that offered 2
| so-dimm slots, so I emailed them about it before it was
| listed to be among the first to receive it.
|
| Funnily enough HP in their own specsheet made the mistake of
| declaring it as only supporting 32GB which then lead to me
| having to very forcefully demand them to just order the
| memory at my risk and install it anyway. Of course it works
| beautifully.
| [deleted]
| dzonga wrote:
| when are the AMD APU's going to be out ? those seem like a killer
| deal for cpu | gpu combo. casual gamin g + dev work.
| Bayart wrote:
| Probably second half of 2021. They'll get the Threadripper and
| non-X desktop CPUs out of the door first.
|
| The Zen2 APUs and laptop chips came out a few months ago,
| practically a year after Zen2 launched.
| teruakohatu wrote:
| The 5900X has claimed 26% improvement for gaming. This is huge.
| Intel is going to have to start shipping fridges with their next
| batch of CPUs.
| zamalek wrote:
| You joke, but you really can get phase-change cooling[1]. I'm
| eagerly awaiting the RDNA2 announcement, as I'm really hoping
| to complete my current build as my first red box (AMD CPU, AMD
| GPU).
|
| [1]: http://www.ldcooling.com/shop/14-phase-change
| bserge wrote:
| Jesus, those prices... yeah they're pretty compact, but if
| you do it for a desktop, you can do it for 1/2 or even 1/3 of
| the price by getting a portable air conditioner or a mini
| fridge (new or used) and modifying it for cooling. Way higher
| BTU transfer, as well.
|
| There were a few of these DIY projects last time I checked,
| and they worked well. Downsides: big cooling unit right next
| to you, loud af unless you mod the fan, as well :D
| pedrocr wrote:
| Linus Tech Tips did it with an aquarium cooler:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMtvEbD2MQo
|
| It looks like quite a straightforward setup actually. But a
| custom water cooling loop is almost surely a better
| solution.
| bserge wrote:
| Interesting idea!
|
| Though it seems to me a normal PC water cooler would be
| cheaper nowadays :D
|
| I watched their industrial fan experiment yesterday, that
| seems even easier... if you could put your PC in a
| separate room
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EM2G5vLGcQQ
| rowanG077 wrote:
| I'd actually worry about erosion with that industrial fan
| setup.
| pedrocr wrote:
| I'm planning a new house and one of the ideas for the
| floor plan is precisely to have a small room just behind
| the study to put the noisy stuff and just have the
| peripherals in the living space. And once again LTT has
| done it by running all the PCs in the home from a single
| rack (even a single EPYC machine with virtualization) and
| routing fiber over the house to where the peripherals
| need to be:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvzeZCZluJ0
| toast0 wrote:
| I think it was a reference to Intel's overclocking stunt.
|
| https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-28-core-
| processor-5g... (best reference I could find quickly)
| overcast wrote:
| 26% at 1080, which no one buying a $500+ CPU every generation
| is running. The benefits will be minimal at 2k and 4k, with the
| same GPU, and a decent processor within the last 5-10 years.
| [deleted]
| neogodless wrote:
| While I agree with the sentiment here... this has been the
| argument Intel has been using as a "last excuse to buy Intel
| over AMD" - if you buy a fast enough video card, but play
| your games at 1080p on a really high refresh rate monitor...
| the gaming performance was better on Intel.
|
| So AMD focuses on it here to say "look, your very last excuse
| for choosing Intel over AMD is no longer invalid."
|
| Of course I do more "non-gaming" than gaming, so it wasn't
| very important to me in the first place, and I don't spend
| enough on a graphics card for this to matter. But I want a
| lot of cores for fast compilation and great multi-tasking
| with containers and virtual machines.
| intricatedetail wrote:
| The AMD software to control CPU doesn't work with
| virtualisation enabled. They have been ignoring requests to
| fix it for years.
| overcast wrote:
| Yes of course, non gaming, dev and media work, these will
| be beast. I was just confused on why they were so focused
| on 1080p gaming performance benefits. Buying a whole new
| setup if you're running any relatively modern CPU would be
| a waste of money for gaming. At 1080 you're probably
| already killing it in framerate, and at 2k+ the benefits
| just aren't there.
| read_if_gay_ wrote:
| Because at 1080p you can actually compare the performance
| maybe?
| formerly_proven wrote:
| What's the difference between 1080p and 2K?
| p1necone wrote:
| Generally GPU load scales with resolution and graphical
| fidelity, while CPU load mostly just scales with framerate
| irrespective of resolution or graphics settings - so you
| might be CPU bottlenecked at max settings 1080p with an
| average CPU and a mid-high end GPU, but even with the
| current highest end GPUs and a mid range CPU you're likely
| not bottlenecked by the CPU at 1440p or 4k because the GPU
| isn't pushing out as many frames.
| komodo wrote:
| 2560x1440 is often called "2k"
| manigandham wrote:
| 2K has no official designation and is sometimes used to
| describe 1440p.
| 0-_-0 wrote:
| Nothing, AFAIK
| smcgaw wrote:
| The higher the resolution you run a game at the more likely
| it is that the GPU becomes the bottleneck for the frame
| rate.
| overcast wrote:
| 78% more pixels at 2560x1440, also the performance sweet
| spot for high end GPUs.
| logicOnly wrote:
| What part of gaming?
|
| Loading times are entirely based on hard drive/SSD times.
|
| Visual takes the majority of processing and is done on the
| video card.
|
| So what exactly is improved?
| theandrewbailey wrote:
| It wouldn't be the first time Intel did that.
|
| https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-28-core-cpu-5ghz,372...
|
| > Unfortunately, it turns out that Intel overclocked the
| 28-core processor to such an extreme that it required a one-
| horsepower industrial water chiller.
| tmd83 wrote:
| A long time ago perhaps up until even Phenom2 processor from AMD
| I used to hear people saying AMD systems felt snappier even
| though they weren't benchmarking as good.
|
| Does anyone have a solid explanation was it just rumours,
| fanboyism or there was something about the system. I just thought
| about context switch or syscall overhead was that ever
| meaningfully different.
| erulabs wrote:
| Way back in the day particularly the Athelon / Applebread days
| and chips had the first on-die memory controller for consumer
| processors. While they had fairly significantly lower IPC than
| some Pentiums (remember the Pentium D egg cooker?), they had
| much better memory latency. Hard to prove anything - but some
| people claim they were quicker
| Unsimplified wrote:
| AMD keeping the same standard TDPs at 105W and 65W was such a
| good design decision. Clear contrast to Samsung's oft-criticized
| MLC to TLC move with their 980 Pro.
|
| People care about both absolute TDP and power efficiency.
| Thaxll wrote:
| Zen3 performance looks really good, however the GPU ones ... I
| think it's going to be pretty bad compare to the RTX 30xx.
| ebg13 wrote:
| > _however the GPU ones ... I think it 's going to be pretty
| bad compare to the RTX 30xx._
|
| Their teaser numbers seemed to show par performance at 4k
| against the 3080.
| Bayart wrote:
| Their GPU numbers show parity with the 3080, which is what
| everybody expected.
|
| They probably don't have their final lineup yet, much less
| pricing.
| djsumdog wrote:
| When is Intel's next chip announcement? Is there anything in the
| pipes to make them more competitive with home enthusiasts again?
| My main Linux box and NAS run Ryzen and I'm a fan, but I don't
| want to see competition leave the market. I was hoping Intel
| would finally release stand-alone workstation graphics cards.
| vbezhenar wrote:
| They promised 2021 Q1. Not sure about announcement date. I
| think that they won't be competitive until 7nm and that won't
| happen anytime soon.
| leetcrew wrote:
| imo, that was just a flailing attempt to spoil the zen 3
| launch. the fact that they didn't even give some vague
| details on performance in the rocket lake announcement is
| telling. my guess is they don't currently have a path to a
| competitive product in Q1, or they would have said so.
| emddudley wrote:
| Intel's next move is the 11th Gen Rocket Lake, set for Q1 2021.
| Doesn't seem very compelling to me.
|
| https://www.anandtech.com/show/16145/intel-confirms-rocket-l...
| bhouston wrote:
| The integrated Xe graphics that actually performs well is the
| main game changer. For ultrabooks this could be quite nice if
| it isn't super hot.
|
| https://www.pcmag.com/opinions/intel-iris-xe-is-
| here-5-ways-...
| warrenm wrote:
| Intel's fabled "tick-tock" releases haven't been interesting in
| what...a decade or more?
| distances wrote:
| Intel hasn't been doing ticks in years. I haven't kept track,
| but it's been now more like tick-tock-tock-tock-tock-tock.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| What is a little disappointing is the big increase in MSRP. Then
| again, it's a pandemic and AMD is the leader in almost
| everything, so it is somewhat justified. However, Ryzen 3000 will
| still be around for the more bang-buck focused builders.
| Finnucane wrote:
| I was literally about to order a new pc with a 3900. So do I get
| that or wait for this? Will it be sold out for months?
| greggyb wrote:
| Do you need the PC today?
|
| Yes -> Buy it now.
|
| No -> Wait for third party reviews with benchmarks that
| represent your workload. Decide on the price/performance
| tradeoff then.
|
| In general, there will always be a better processor coming
| around the bend. Intel promises its next release in Q1 2021.
| Zen 4 is on the roadmap and will be coming probably in a year
| and a bit. There are a few reasons that I think it's worth
| waiting right now (if you can):
|
| - We are less than a month from release
|
| - AMD is suggesting significant performance improvements over
| the current gen
|
| - AMD's claims for its Ryzen series have largely held true when
| third parties release their own benchmarks
|
| I would not suggest pre-ordering. Always wait for third party
| reviews and benchmarks.
| dvfjsdhgfv wrote:
| Invest in the motherboard, buy a 3600 now and replace it later,
| maybe with something even better than 3900.
| bob1029 wrote:
| You could get the 3900 today and upgrade to the 5000 series
| after the fact. Socket compatible.
| jacquesm wrote:
| That's not exactly free, whereas waiting for a bit has zero
| overhead.
| entropicdrifter wrote:
| zero monetary overhead*
|
| I agree with you in principle, but time and opportunity
| have value worth considering too
| boardwaalk wrote:
| But, don't waste money on a 3900 you're going to replace. The
| 3300x and 3600 are really good placeholder options (I have
| the 3600 for this purpose).
| Finnucane wrote:
| That actually seems like a reasonable idea--get the cheaper
| cpu now, which would still be a big boost over my old
| system, then swap later when supplies allow.
| myself248 wrote:
| That's what I did last year, with a 3200G. It's a
| functional placeholder for now, still a significant bump
| over what it replaced, but only temporary.
|
| My plan is to wait for Socket AM5 to come out, and get
| the last-best AM4 offering to stuff into my existing
| motherboard. That may be complicated by BIOS and chipset
| support (which effectively means a socket-generation-
| increment even if the physical connector is the same),
| but we'll see how far my B450 can take me. And at the
| time, I'll be adding a discrete GPU, since I'll surely be
| going to a non-APU chip.
| blihp wrote:
| If you want the best bang for the buck, wait for the Black
| Friday sales (which usually start in early Nov) when resellers
| will probably be heavily discounting the 3xxx series. If you
| want the absolute best performance, wait a few months on the
| 5xxx and I'm sure you'll see some discounting. You can still
| buy the 2xxx series new for ~$200... the old models don't
| disappear just because the new model comes out, they get
| cheaper.
| WaxProlix wrote:
| Cinebench R20 score of 631 is bonkers. Hopefully pricing stays
| nearly in line with the 3000 series. Very exciting for what's
| basically a same socket incremental update.
|
| Edit: 549 usd for the 5900X, 449 for the 5800X, 299 for the 5600X
| [deleted]
| brundolf wrote:
| $299 for the 5600X
| koluna wrote:
| At this point, picking AMD for your CPU becomes such a no-
| brainer. Compounded by Intel's security issues and all.
| vbezhenar wrote:
| ECC support in AMD systems is strange. It's supported
| theoretically, but practically there are issues, one have to
| carefully pick motherboard and even then it's some kind of
| unsupported configuration. Intel sells cheap and fast Xeons
| with proper ECC support. I'm very interested in AMD CPUs and I
| hope that ECC story will improve, so I can buy some kind of
| workstation-branded motherboard and use fully supported ECC
| configuration.
| adrian_b wrote:
| You are right, but if you buy a motherboard that claims to
| support ECC, you will usually not have any problems.
|
| For example I am using an ASUS Pro WS X570-ACE, which is a
| reasonably priced workstation board ($300) with a Ryzen 7
| 3700X and ECC memory.
|
| ECC worked OK, without any problems. I have also used a
| couple of ASRock MB's and ECC also worked OK on them.
|
| I would much prefer more guarantees from AMD, but rather than
| buying a slow Intel CPU I prefer a little risk with AMD.
| grishka wrote:
| Dumb question. Why would one want ECC in something that isn't
| a server? How often do bits in memory actually flip by
| themselves for it to be warranted?
| JoeAltmaier wrote:
| https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4109218/do-gamma-rays-
| fr...
|
| tl;dr: one bit error in 4GB every 72 hours
| coder543 wrote:
| I wish someone with a larger server farm would count the
| number of reported ECC errors per GB-hour and give us
| updated numbers. That StackOverflow question is about 10
| years old now, and I think it's relying on data even
| older than that.
| moonchild wrote:
| Yes; per the internet archive[1], the data's at least 20
| years old.
|
| 1. https://web.archive.org/web/20010612184424/http://www.
| boeing...
| bentcorner wrote:
| Someone once did a bit-squatting experiment and
| "estimates that 614,400 memory errors occur per hour
| globally".
|
| https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2011/08/10/bh-2011-bit-
| squa...
|
| It would be interesting to repeat this experiment today.
| p_l wrote:
| The difference is that AMD doesn't disable ECC support in any
| model line, while Intel disables it, sometimes without rhyme.
|
| Extra funny when you notice that certain Xeon lines are
| actually i7 with different branding and ECC left enabled.
|
| The problems with ECC on AMD comes from consumer vendors not
| putting the time into testing, and possibly not even
| connecting the ECC lines (remember, ECC requires putting
| additional traces between memory controller and memory
| slots). Then you have to deal with whatever customisation the
| vendor of the motherboard did to firmware - their changes
| might have resulted in effective disabling of ECC.
|
| With Intel, you either have the same game as above (with the
| non-Xeon ECC-capable parts), or pay through the nose for
| comparable performance "workstation/enterprise" gear, as ECC
| support being used for market segmentation by intel is pretty
| much an open secret.
| vbezhenar wrote:
| You don't need to pay through the nose with Intel, at least
| for latest generation. 10900K costs $499. 10900K with ECC
| called Xeon W-1290P and costs $539. That's 8% extra. ASUS
| Pro WS W480-Ace is $280 which is reasonable cost for a good
| motherboard.
| spockz wrote:
| How do you discover which Xeon is the i7 version of the
| same chip or vice versa? Is it just spelunking through
| Intel Ark to find a same generation, clock speeds Xeon or
| is there more to it?
| vbezhenar wrote:
| Something like that, yes. Specs are almost identical.
| There are CPU families so I picked best models from a
| family and compared them.
| als0 wrote:
| Would be interesting to compare die shots.
| posnet wrote:
| Any of the Xeon Ws are just rebranded i7s, others might
| be as well. You can tell because they have the DMI memory
| bus instead of the Xeon exclusive UPI interconnect.
| StillBored wrote:
| I picked up a i3-9100 a few months back because its was a
| low cost processor with ECC (for an edge/embedded
| solution). The problem then becomes the motherboard, and
| it seems intel has just shifted the ECC tax from the
| processor to the motherboard/chipset. That core fits on a
| lot of low cost motherboards, but to enable ECC requires
| about another $100 chipset tax.
| dragontamer wrote:
| ECC support is iffy at the consumer brands. Its a "we won't
| disable it, but we won't guarantee that it works" sort of
| deal.
|
| If you want verified ECC support, you need to buy the
| workstation chips and motherboards: Threadripper Pro or
| EPYCs.
| TwoNineA wrote:
| The latest BIOS for ASUS Prime X370 Pro has ECC explicitly
| as a configuration option. Seems to work in Linux. I am
| using 2x8R ECC 2666Mhz RAM from Kingston.
| JackMcMack wrote:
| ECC is supported on the Pro series as well. My home server
| is running Ryzen 5 Pro 4650G (yay for integrated graphics)
| and Asrock B550M.
|
| I went through the effort of using qvl memory, but actually
| testing ECC is a bit more difficult. While ECC is supported
| & active, memory errors are sadly not reported to the OS. I
| remember seeing a forum post somewhere of somebody
| overclocking/undervolting the ram to force errors, but I
| can't seem to find it right now. There's a fine line
| between stable, stable with recovered errors, and unstable.
| vbezhenar wrote:
| That's what I'm talking about and I wouldn't call it
| "fully supported". I want to know about ECC statistics.
| It's important because if I can see that ECC recovers
| abnormally high number of errors, it's likely that I need
| to replace RAM right now.
| JackMcMack wrote:
| I don't disagree with you, but when was the last time you
| ever had to replace a stick of ram?
| adrian_b wrote:
| ECC statistics are available for Ryzen if you use Linux
| (configured to load the appropriate EDAC module).
|
| So on Linux, ECC is fully supported, even with Ryzen.
| raegis wrote:
| What operating system? On Linux, I had a memory stick
| that was not completely inserted, and periodically I saw
| corrected memory errors reported in the logs until I
| fixed the issue.
| baybal2 wrote:
| A very good way to undercut low end Xeons which were bought
| solely for their insurance against an out of the blue crash.
| DCKing wrote:
| AMD guarantees ECC works with their workstation focused
| Threadripper line. On Ryzen, it only works if you do your
| homework picking hardware.
|
| It's a shame they made the TR platform much more expensive in
| the last generation.
| henriquez wrote:
| Is that a new thing? I have an older Threadripper and my
| motherboard definitely doesn't support ECC (even though the
| CPU does)
| loeg wrote:
| What Xeon and Xeon motherboard with ECC support are "cheap?"
|
| In that price range, AMD markets Threadripper and Epyc, both
| with proper ECC support.
|
| ECC support in Ryzen systems is up to the motherboard
| manufacturer, and some manufacturers advertise support very
| clearly. E.g., at least a couple years ago, ASRock explicitly
| supported ECC in all their Ryzen motherboards.
| mhh__ wrote:
| For a normal machine that does look to be the case but I've
| always found AMDs manuals and software quite lacking so it may
| be worth going with intel just for the tooling (i.e.
| performance counters seem to be much better documented on
| intel)
| f311a wrote:
| It's not that simple for computing. I heard that in Data
| Science Intel is still preferred because of better AVX support.
|
| There are also things like Intel MKL. A lot of software can use
| it when compiled on a user machine.
| adrian_b wrote:
| The new Zen 3 cores are expected to have a higher AVX
| throughput per cycle than all Intel CPUs, except the most
| expensive models of Xeon Gold, Platinum or W and the HEDT i9
| models that have dual AVX-512 FMA units.
|
| The cheaper models with only one AVX-512 FMA unit have a
| lower throughput, which will be exceeded by Zen 3, even at
| the same clock frequency.
|
| For multi-threaded tasks, Zen 3 CPUs will have a higher
| clock-frequency than any Intel CPU, so it is expected that
| any older Intel CPU will be beaten easily.
|
| It remains to be seen which will be the performances of the
| Ice Lake Server CPUs, to be launched before the end of the
| year. However, miracles are not expected, because these are
| using the older Intel 10 nm technology, not the improved one
| used by Tiger Lake.
| gnufx wrote:
| > The cheaper models with only one AVX-512 FMA unit have a
| lower throughput, which will be exceeded by Zen 3, even at
| the same clock frequency.
|
| I think there are relatively few with only one FMA (and
| there's no way of interrogating them at runtime, sigh) but,
| yes, if you know you have one, you use AVX2 for GEMM
| kernels, as a specific example.
|
| For general computational workloads, you're likely better
| off with more AVX2 cores and high memory bandwidth, even
| without whatever improvements there are in Zen 3.
| Const-me wrote:
| > is still preferred because of better AVX support
|
| AVX1 and AVX2 performance is on par.
|
| For instance, vmulpd AVX1 instruction is faster on AMD, 3
| versus 4 cycles. vpaddd AVX2 instruction is same at 1 cycle
| latency. vfmadd132pd FMA instruction is slightly faster on
| Intel, 4 versus 5 cycles. Throughput is the same across these
| two. I was looking at AMD Zen2 versus Intel Ice Lake.
|
| Some Intel chips have AVX512. Still, many practical
| applications don't need that amount of SIMD wideness, and
| these who do are often a good fit for GPGPUs.
|
| > There are also things like Intel MKL
|
| There're vendor-agnostic equivalents like Eigen.
| DoofusOfDeath wrote:
| IIUC, Intel uses the term "AVX-512" as an umbrella term,
| and different processors support different subsets of
| "AVX-512" instructions [0].
|
| AFAIK this is a break from previous Intel nomenclature,
| where any processor supporting e.g. "SSE4.2" instructions
| was guaranteed to support _all_ SSE4.2 instructions.
|
| I'm concerned that sometimes this causes confusion when
| talking about processor -- software compatibility.
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVX-512
| loeg wrote:
| I think the consideration GP was trying to make is that
| Zen (at least 1 and 2 -- and I haven't heard otherwise
| for 3) do not support 512-bit wide AVX registers at all.
| f311a wrote:
| For some computer vision tasks, Tensorflow is much faster
| when you have AVX512.
|
| Also https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/artificial-
| intellige...
| Const-me wrote:
| These results were achieved on dual-socket Xeon E5 2699v4
| (the architecture is 5 years old and has no AVX512, they
| optimized for AVX2) and on Xeon Phi 7250 (that thing does
| have AVX512 but that's not a processor, a specialized
| accelerator with 68 cores).
|
| Also Tensorflow is awesome fit for GPGPUs and is usually
| way faster on them.
| singhrac wrote:
| > There're vendor-agnostic equivalents like Eigen.
|
| That's looking at the wrong layer of the hierarchy, I
| think. There are many open-source linear algebra libraries,
| but iirc they all link against something that has a
| BLAS/LAPACK API. That might be something like MKL,
| OpenBLAS, ATLAS, etc.
|
| When I last checked, MKL was much faster than its
| competitors, and is only available (at full speed) on Intel
| CPUs. Has that changed?
| gnufx wrote:
| > When I last checked, MKL was much faster than its
| competitors
|
| That has never been generally true in my experience
| measuring over the years. It has been true at times for
| specific cases, e.g. OpenBLAS until it got avx512 support
| on a par with MKL (at least for serial DGEMM -- I've
| forgotten quite how the rest of level 3 goes).
| Const-me wrote:
| > iirc they all link against something that has a
| BLAS/LAPACK API
|
| Eigen can consume these I think, but they are optional.
| It has it's own implementation of these, written in
| manually vectorized C++, with intrinsics, up to and
| including AVX512 (controlled with macros). For
| parallelization it uses OpenMP provided by the compiler
| (also controlled with a macro).
|
| > Has that changed?
|
| It's hard to directly compare Eigen to the rest of them.
| They don't do the same thing.
|
| One feature of Eigen is lazy evaluation. Expressions like
| a+b or axb don't return another matrix or vector; they
| return a placeholder object that only computes something
| on assignment. For complicated expressions this can be a
| huge win, e.g. r=a+b+c+d will read from a,b,c,d, compute
| sum of the 4 on the fly, and write into r without
| temporary copies in memory.
|
| However, also makes Eigen's source code outright scary,
| and hard to debug or optimize.
|
| Anyway, based on the old pics there
| http://eigen.tuxfamily.org/index.php?title=Benchmark they
| are more or less comparable. Things like alpha*X+beta*Y
| were much faster in Eigen (probably due to that lazy
| evaluation thing), Hessenberg was much faster in MKL, in
| general they are close.
| gnufx wrote:
| > There are also things like Intel MKL
|
| There are also things like OpenBLAS, and BLIS (which AMD
| support).
| joshstrange wrote:
| I'm searching now but does AMD have an alternative/answer for
| Intel's QuickSync? Turning on HW acceleration on my Plex server
| (so that it uses QuickSync) is a game changer. From struggling
| to handle 3+ 1080p streams and pegging all the cores to being
| able to do 6+ without going over a load average of 1.
| toast0 wrote:
| QuickSync is GPU accelerated encode/decode right? This
| processor announcement is for their CPUs without GPUs, so
| you'd need a GPU add on board, and both AMD and NVidia
| support that. AMDs processors with GPUs (they call them APUs)
| support that too. AMD tends to release desktop CPU, then high
| end desktop/server, then laptop APU and finally desktop APU.
| They only released Zen2 desktop APUs a couple months ago, and
| they're currently OEM only and very hard to find in the US
| (grey market imports only, AFAIK, but send me an email if I'm
| wrong, address in profile)
| joshstrange wrote:
| QuickSync is all in the CPU (no GPU needed). IIRC it's part
| of the Intel Graphics (built into the CPU) so maybe it's
| not exactly fair to call QuickSync part of the CPU but it's
| included in the physical CPU chip and I have no discrete
| graphics card in my server right now. I know I can get a
| GPU to offload decoding/encoding to but QuickSync is pretty
| awesome for my use-case and buying a graphics card has it's
| own issues (space in case, cost of card, getting it play
| nice with Plex in docker, etc).
| toast0 wrote:
| It is GPU needed. The intel spec sheet for i3-9350KF
| doesn't show QuickSync, but i3-9350K does. The difference
| between the two is that the F series doesn't have a GPU
| (or it's disabled). Also unavailable on server class
| Xeons without GPUs.
|
| I agree, it's convenient to have a GPU on most CPUs, but
| AMD puts less priority on that market, so we just have to
| wait.
| Const-me wrote:
| Video encoders/decoders are parts of GPUs, not CPUs. Only
| CPUs with integrated GPU have these pieces of hardware.
|
| AMD is pretty comparable in that regard:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_Core_Next but I don't
| have computers with AMD APUs or GPUs, and don't have a hands-
| on experience with these features.
| joshstrange wrote:
| Hmm, looks like Plex doesn't have support for Video Core
| Next yet: https://forums.plex.tv/t/feature-request-add-
| support-for-amd...
|
| I'm still probably 3-6mo away from a new server build so
| I'll just re-evaluate then I guess and honestly I might
| just go with another storage server and leave my intel/QS
| server as-is and just go with a AMD that plays nice with
| UnRaid.
| DenseComet wrote:
| Plex supports Nvidia GPUs for hardware transcoding, so
| you could pick up a cheaper Nvidia GPU and stick it in
| the build, but that will probably not be possible for
| small builds.
| lostlogin wrote:
| I wanted AMD but quicksync for a Plex server is just so
| good. I bought an I7 NUC10 for this role and it's great.
| Virtualised OS, Docker for Plex and it'll do 11x
| transcodes (1080p to 720p) in hardware while also hosting
| several other machines. The first time you pass though
| the GPU to the Vm, then into Docker is a bit of a head
| scratcher, but it's actually fine and works well.
|
| It has a maximum of 64gb ram and is tiny. With an nvme
| drive (Samsung Evo) it is really really fast.
|
| The next best option as far as I was concerned was the
| NUC8, and while I'd love to have the PSU onboard and no
| brick, a Mac Mini is a lot of money.
|
| The Nuc8 is a better option than the 10 for anything
| that's needing actual graphics. The 10 has a very anaemic
| GPU compared to the 8, but has 2 more CPU cores when
| comparing i7s.
| Const-me wrote:
| Which OS are you running there? If it's Windows, does
| your software have an option to select MS Media
| Foundation for video encoding/decoding?
|
| In my experience, GPU vendors, all 3 of them, are
| including reasonably well-made media foundation hardware
| transforms as a part of their GPU drivers. MF API is
| vendor agnostic. Apart from a few bugs I found in Intel's
| drivers (it was about h265 hardware encoder, Intel
| neglected to react), the same API works with all capable
| hardware.
| lostlogin wrote:
| Plex works so well with Ubuntu that I have become a huge
| proponent of this method. I'm not sure if it's their
| developers having a bias for the OS, but the Ubuntu
| version always seems to work well.
| Thaxll wrote:
| When you have 24 "HT" cores I'm not sure why you would need
| QuickSync.
| Const-me wrote:
| Because video resolution has grown well above 1080p. I'm
| looking at 4k monitor at the moment, recent chips have some
| support for 8k video.
| lotyrin wrote:
| Because in addition to theoretical capacities I also care
| about my power bill and how comfortably cool the room my
| transcoding machine is in stays.
| lliamander wrote:
| Who here uses their own computer for work? If you work for an
| employer, what's the agreement like that allows you to do that?
| jeffbee wrote:
| I work remotely at Goldman Sachs and it is 100% BYOD.
| lliamander wrote:
| Interesting! Follow up questions:
|
| - Are there any constraints or requirements on the kind of
| device, software installed, etc.? E.g. using a VPN,
| antivirus.
|
| - Do you use a separate work and personal accounts?
|
| - laptop or desktop?
|
| - how does your employer feel about personal projects?
|
| Thanks!
| jeffbee wrote:
| Accessing anything at work requires Citrix in to a windows
| VM that's racked up in a dark datacenter somewhere. What
| device anyone uses to accomplish this is their own
| business. No VPN or AV, no MDM or any of that nonsense.
|
| I personally use a Pixelbook Go with an external monitor
| for this purpose. Really anything will do the job.
| lliamander wrote:
| Ah, so actually development is done on a virtual desktop.
| Makes sense.
|
| Currently, I do most of my work locally on a work issued
| laptop (and external monitor) with some services
| offloaded to AWS.
|
| I wouldn't mind building a desktop PC for fun, but as I
| don't really do high-end gaming, I couldn't see
| justifying the expense unless I was able to do work on it
| as well. I'd of course have to get employer sign-off, but
| I'm just trying to figure out what that kind of agreement
| might look like.
| sosodev wrote:
| I use my own computer because my company just doesn't have any
| rules against it afaik. I just installed a VPN client that's
| compatible with their server.
| lliamander wrote:
| Did they also issue a laptop?
| sosodev wrote:
| No, they asked if I needed one and I declined.
| lliamander wrote:
| Cool. Sounds like their cool with it then. I'm sure some
| employers don't mind saving the expense.
|
| If you don't mind me asking, what are the specs of your
| computer, and are they appropriate for your workload or
| overkill?
| sosodev wrote:
| CPU: AMD Ryzen 5 3600
|
| GPU: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti
|
| Memory: 16GB
|
| Storage: Samsung Evo 970 500 GB NVMe SSD
|
| OS: Pop!_OS 20.04
|
| Pretty middle of the road specs but it's plenty enough
| for the web development and light gaming that I do. :)
| lliamander wrote:
| Indeed! Faster than almost any laptop for a much better
| price.
|
| Wendell from the Level1techs has said that, for most
| developers the R5 3600 is all you need.
|
| Personally I've been eyeing the 3900X, which is probably
| overkill, but is such a great bargain that it would be
| hard to pass up.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-10-08 23:00 UTC)