|
Haswell and Haswell-E are the same though, core counts are the only difference?
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 15:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 06:41 |
|
|
Haswell-E actually has *lower max clocks* than the Devil's Canyon parts, actually. Compare a top-of-the-line Haswell Refresh 4790K's rating at 4.0 GHz with turbo up to 4.4, to a top-of-the-line Haswell-E's 5930K at 3.5 GHz and turbo to 3.7. Obviously some of this has to do with the extra cores (The latter's 6 to the former's 4), and considering Zen's targetted at 8 from the top down, I think it's a more reasonable target than comparing to the non -E i7s. edit: I guess what I'm trying to do is manage my own expectations. SwissArmyDruid fucked around with this message at 15:40 on Jun 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 15:38
|
|
|
Exactly. If we can get close enough to Haswell on just a core vs core level, having 8 of them could put it at or above a Haswell - E which would be gloriously good. But of course, not counting those chickens before they cross that road.... Plenty of Hype trucks to run them over. On that note however, is Zen just going to be a 8C/8T chip? Or is AMD going to have their own version of HT as well? If they could pull off Haswell performance with 8C/16T like HW-E, hot digity that would be a kick in the nuts I have been wishing Intel would receive for a long time. (Pending it is priced competitive to all Haswell parts at least.) $1700 for a 10 core "enthusiast" chip is downright retarded.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 15:46
|
|
|
Zen is using "simultaneous multithreading", which is really just basically what Intel calls hyperthreading. IBM's modern architectures use a more extreme form of it, with 8-12 threads per core 
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
That does lend hope that if AMD can pull this off... We might see actual competition in the CPU world again. Sadly it still remains at wait and see...
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 19:14
|
|
|
Gwaihir posted:Haswell and Haswell-E are the same though, core counts are the only difference? More cache for Haswell E, 2.5 mb per core vs 2 mb for Haswell (also double the memory bandwith if that matters for your workloads).
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
SwissArmyDruid posted:Haswell-E actually has *lower max clocks* than the Devil's Canyon parts, actually. Compare a top-of-the-line Haswell Refresh 4790K's rating at 4.0 GHz with turbo up to 4.4, to a top-of-the-line Haswell-E's 5930K at 3.5 GHz and turbo to 3.7. Haswell-E overclocks about as well as Haswell, it just eats a buttload of power doing it. Which, really, so does Small Haswell.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 22:40
|
|
|
Anime Schoolgirl posted:Zen is using "simultaneous multithreading", which is really just basically what Intel calls hyperthreading. The two places IBM's processors (POWER) get used are HPC and mainframes. HPC is massively threaded by design, and mainframe OSs have major architectural differences from regular desktop/server OSs. SPARC goes even more nuts - 16 cores per chip, 8 threads per core, so 128 threads per chip. If your workload fits the model it's definitely more power-efficient, which is a big deal in the HPC world. But for most users the massively-threaded processor dream died with Itanium. Single-threaded performance is really king for most workloads where latency is even slightly a consideration.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 22:46
|
|
|
NihilismNow posted:More cache for Haswell E, 2.5 mb per core vs 2 mb for Haswell (also double the memory bandwith if that matters for your workloads). AMD seems to be doing 2MB per core for Zen, and with a higher transistor density of 14nm LPP vs 22nm Haswell-Broadwell doesn't seem to far off honestly, especially based on core size. Also someone pointed out something interesting in theory about Zens design, it's eerily similar to POWER8. Is there any advantages to cribbing POWER design into an x86-64 design?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 02:41
|
|
|
FaustianQ posted:Also someone pointed out something interesting in theory about Zens design, it's eerily similar to POWER8. Is there any advantages to cribbing POWER design into an x86-64 design?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 04:13
|
|
|
EdEddnEddy posted:Exactly. Here's the thing: Of the usual slate of reviewers, there are maybe... a handful of names out there that I expect will make the correct comparison. One of them works *for* AMD now. None of them are named Linus Sebastian or Luke Lafreniere. Everyone else will just compare straight across to whatever the top-of-the-line Kaby Lake SKU is, or if by dint of some miracle Kaby Lake ships after Zen, Skylake-E.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 08:28
|
|
|
Oh that is a friggin givin. Every so often you will get a few that do more than just the top 2 (or 4) comparison, but it is rare. Though if Zen ends up within striking distance to a Skylake, then even a direct comparison would be good if the numbers show it as 10-15% slower, but 50-60% cheaper.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 15:42
|
|
|
I don't really see being able to get away with selling an 8 core chip and having it be a commercial success, solely because the laws of chipmaking pretty much stipulates that an 8 core cpu is going to be more constrained on single core speed than a quad, and that outside of professional environments and niche communities (Uber nerds like us that do silly things like have home fuckin VM farms) we're all served by better single threaded performance. Like, yea, an 8 core haswell for a hypothetical 300 bucks is a super great deal, if it's got decent 3.5ghz ish clocks no questions asked. But if it's slower for gaming, and unnecessary for generic PC stuff, who's going to buy it?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 16:26
|
|
|
Gwaihir posted:I don't really see being able to get away with selling an 8 core chip and having it be a commercial success, solely because the laws of chipmaking pretty much stipulates that an 8 core cpu is going to be more constrained on single core speed than a quad, and that outside of professional environments and niche communities (Uber nerds like us that do silly things like have home fuckin VM farms) we're all served by better single threaded performance. Everyone that just buys thing that have more # = Better mentality. Really, though while I may not be in the market for one, I would seriously consider one for certain thrifty clients, work comps for a few people I know, etc that need some higher end performance, but would like to save $500 not having to do a full Intel build. Overall we are still at the wait and hope stage so I guess we will see. A pleasant surprise from AMD would be nice for a change.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 16:30
|
|
|
More cores for cheap is a really good deal for anyone that is at work doing encoding/HPC/scientific stuff, since many times the budgets there don't really stretch far enough to accommodate the 1000-2000$ you need to drop to get the better Xeon-E5s with both 8+ cores and high TDPs/High clock speeds. I was trying to spec out a workstation at about 2000$ total for someone that needed a good bit of CPU power, and there's not a lot of choice there, really. It's just probably not very large of a market that both needs those type of things but can't easily afford them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 16:40
|
|
|
A lot of scientific work is run in amazons cloud thing. It's just cheaper and much less of a hassle than building your own.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 16:47
|
|
|
Gwaihir posted:More cores for cheap is a really good deal for anyone that is at work doing encoding/HPC/scientific stuff, since many times the budgets there don't really stretch far enough to accommodate the 1000-2000$ you need to drop to get the better Xeon-E5s with both 8+ cores and high TDPs/High clock speeds. I was trying to spec out a workstation at about 2000$ total for someone that needed a good bit of CPU power, and there's not a lot of choice there, really. Is Zen incapable of scaling down for other more mainstream bits of the market? If it is indeed Haswellish on a percore basis, what would be keeping it from scaling down to 6/4/2 core setups and pricing aggressively in those areas. Haswell i7/i5/i3's are all still pretty pricy so if you could get nearly the same performance for 1/2 the price, that would be competitive especially if it offers a few more native bits like USB 3.1/Type-C/TB + Quad Channel memory, More PCI-E Lanes, even if it is a tad slower.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 17:48
|
|
|
When I looked at other computer-building forums(*cough*reddit), when SA was down, there were STILL hordes of people recommending and building Bulldozer 8-core(sorta) machines because ALL THOSE CORES MAN, gently caress INTEL. Give those people an actual competitive chip in single-threaded performance that still has a bunch of cores and they'll lose their poo poo. It doesn't have to be quite as power-efficent or -quite- as fast as the latest Intel chip, just reasonably close. Hell, I'd buy one for a VM box- I'm still using a Westmere Xeon 'cause it has six cores and was cheap, but I'd like USB3 and SATA 600.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
EdEddnEddy posted:Is Zen incapable of scaling down for other more mainstream bits of the market? Plus the design for a Zen module seems like they can place the 4 core module in a few different SKUs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 22:05
|
|
|
So, let's assume that desktop Zen is 8C/16T. Let's further assume that the cheaper chips are made by disabling cores and/or per-core threading. I think AMD could get a ton of support in the enthusiast community by having cores that can be re-enabled through fancy motherboard BIOS, like the old Phenoms. This strategy could also help mitigate the fact that AMD will have a process disadvantage relative to Intel (to the enthusiast crowd); Intel wins on overclocking frequency potential, but AMD counters by offering chips that ~might~ have one or more unlockable cores. Maybe follow Intel and restrict this capability to K-only SKUs and/or with motherboards with a fancier, more expensive chipset.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 22:36
|
|
|
I have an FX-8350 with a stock cooler (oh god) which I don't know why I haven't upgraded yet. What do people with these processors recommend for air cooling? My case is not optimized for airflow, I suspect. Is there a thread on that?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 23:13
|
|
|
When I was doing random things, today, a question popped up that I don't have the expertise to answer. If this isn't the right place, feel free to yell at me: Why can't an x86 processor scale down to zero, or nearly-zero, Mhz? My i5 Windows laptop drops down to 1Ghz (from 2.8), my AMD FX drops down to about 1.3Ghz (from 4Ghz) on Linux. My iMac i5 drops down to about 1.1 Ghz from 2.9Ghz. In all cases, system load is below 10% or so. Why doesn't the clock speed go lower? My mind tells me it's related to having a consistent multiplier with the FSB, but I haven't been that deep into the hardware for years so I wouldn't be surprised if I'm wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 23:16
|
|
|
TheShazbot posted:I have an FX-8350 with a stock cooler (oh god) which I don't know why I haven't upgraded yet. I have an 8320 with stock cooler and it stays consistently within 5F of the ambient room temperature when idle. When loaded it'll jump to about 15-20F above room temp. You need to get good airflow both into and out of the processor cooling area before you decide if the stock cooler is your weak spot. Edit: Also, every other year, no matter your cooler, you should pull off, clean, and re-apply the thermal paste and heat sink.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 23:18
|
|
|
PBCrunch posted:So, let's assume that desktop Zen is 8C/16T. Let's further assume that the cheaper chips are made by disabling cores and/or per-core threading. I think AMD could get a ton of support in the enthusiast community by having cores that can be re-enabled through fancy motherboard BIOS, like the old Phenoms. This strategy could also help mitigate the fact that AMD will have a process disadvantage relative to Intel (to the enthusiast crowd); Intel wins on overclocking frequency potential, but AMD counters by offering chips that ~might~ have one or more unlockable cores. I remember that! Enabling cores was definitely one of the more interesting capabilities of the chip. More than a handful of enthusiasts probably bought them intending to unlock, though I don't know how much money AMD would make from another round of that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 23:42
|
|
|
TheShazbot posted:I have an FX-8350 with a stock cooler (oh god) which I don't know why I haven't upgraded yet. Either the Cryorig H7 or the Hyper 212 EVO . Both are good coolers with the H7 beating out the EVO by a small margin while costing a little bit more. For airflow inside the case just make sure your cable management is good and you have fans pointing the correct direction for the desired effect of either positive or negative air pressure.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 00:19
|
|
|
TheShazbot posted:I have an FX-8350 with a stock cooler (oh god) which I don't know why I haven't upgraded yet. It was like this only copper (and 10 years ago): http://m.newegg.com/Product/index?itemnumber=N82E16835118157 Again, virtually silent was the goal.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 00:49
|
|
|
JnnyThndrs posted:When I looked at other computer-building forums(*cough*reddit), when SA was down, there were STILL hordes of people recommending and building Bulldozer 8-core(sorta) machines because ALL THOSE CORES MAN, gently caress INTEL. Give those people an actual competitive chip in single-threaded performance that still has a bunch of cores and they'll lose their poo poo. It doesn't have to be quite as power-efficent or -quite- as fast as the latest Intel chip, just reasonably close. They're OK for things like video encoding if you don't mind using boatloads of power, but lol at recommending a Bulldozer-based chip for anything else in TYOOL 2016. People are idiots who don't understand how critical single-threaded performance really is to gaming, and you might as well just get an i3 for web stuff and Office.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 01:17
|
|
|
TheShazbot posted:I have an FX-8350 with a stock cooler (oh god) which I don't know why I haven't upgraded yet. The Cooler Master Hyper 212 Evo is pretty much the standard recommendation (if it fits in your case). Just put all the fans on intake to build positive pressure in your case, except for any fans on top of the case. If you have empty fan mounts it's not that expensive to fill them if you want. AIO liquid coolers are also pretty cheap and can help in cases with lovely airflow (since you're pushing the heat directly outside), but they don't necessarily work better than a good air cooler - the 212 works fine for most cases with semi-decent airflow.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 01:20
|
|
|
Gwaihir posted:I don't really see being able to get away with selling an 8 core chip and having it be a commercial success, solely because the laws of chipmaking pretty much stipulates that an 8 core cpu is going to be more constrained on single core speed than a quad, and that outside of professional environments and niche communities (Uber nerds like us that do silly things like have home fuckin VM farms) we're all served by better single threaded performance. Intel quad cores these days are pretty low TDP, there's room for the 8c Zen to have a higher TDP without people holding that against them as long as the performance is there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 01:22
|
|
|
Arsten posted:When I was doing random things, today, a question popped up that I don't have the expertise to answer. If this isn't the right place, feel free to yell at me:
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 01:23
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:Intel quad cores these days are pretty low TDP, there's room for the 8c Zen to have a higher TDP without people holding that against them as long as the performance is there. The Haswell-E and Broadwell-E parts have a 140W TDP. It all depends how much higher a TDP Zen has. When you are getting close to 200W, that's like Haswell-E with a full-on overclock, and many people find the amount of power an OC'd Haswell-E consumes to be problematic.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 01:27
|
|
|
Well the cheapest Intel octocore at this point is $1000, a 200W TDP chip might require a $100 CLC for proper cooling with overclocking. That's still a great value proposition if the performance of Zen is close to the Intel chips.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 01:41
|
|
|
TheShazbot posted:I have an FX-8350 with a stock cooler (oh god) which I don't know why I haven't upgraded yet. Try undervolting it a bit. I think I'm running at something like .875v idle to 1.15v under load (think stock is ~1.35v?) on my 8350, but it's been a while since I set that and I'm not where I can have a look. It's perfectly stable and runs much cooler now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 03:27
|
|
|
Professor Science posted:yeah you're wrong. let's simplify this a bunch and say that there are two kinds of power consumption: static and dynamic. static is determined by whether the chip is on, dynamic is determined by the clock. changing the clock has no impact on static power. so even if you go to 1MHz, you still pay the entire static part (which is a lot). accordingly CPUs use idle states that turn off the clock to various parts of the chip depending on how long they're going to be idle (since a CPU is either running instructions on a given cycle or it isn't), which reduces both the dynamic and the static power consumption. So, in basics, the minimums I'm seeing are the minimum required energy to keep the processor "on" so if they cut the processing speed to 500Mhz from the current idle of 1Ghz, they use the same amount of power in both states because it's keeping one segment of the core alive at the lowest power level available? Interesting.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 04:23
|
|
|
Arsten posted:So, in basics, the minimums I'm seeing are the minimum required energy to keep the processor "on" so if they cut the processing speed to 500Mhz from the current idle of 1Ghz, they use the same amount of power in both states because it's keeping one segment of the core alive at the lowest power level available? Some technologies require a minimum clock rate, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_logic_(digital_electronics)
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 07:04
|
|
|
Arsten posted:So, in basics, the minimums I'm seeing are the minimum required energy to keep the processor "on" so if they cut the processing speed to 500Mhz from the current idle of 1Ghz, they use the same amount of power in both states because it's keeping one segment of the core alive at the lowest power level available? Here's a slide from Anandtech's Skylake review.  There exists a frequency where power consumption is at a global minimum, and going lower than this actually increases power consumption. This is due to transistor leakage being worse at lower frequencies.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 08:36
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:Well the cheapest Intel octocore at this point is $1000, a 200W TDP chip might require a $100 CLC for proper cooling with overclocking. That's still a great value proposition if the performance of Zen is close to the Intel chips. I see a Xeon E5-2620 V4 listed at €460 in my local pricewatch (intel MSRP $417). 8C16T. Seems like great value . 85 watt TDP. Get 2 on a cheap multisocket motherboard and have 16 cores 32 threads for under $1200 (ram not included).
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 12:52
|
|
|
How hilarious would it be if DX12 came along and performed remarkably well with CMT based processors in a way that no hyper-threading-based approach could really match? Followed by a sudden demand frenzy for last gen FX series CPUs that rivals the craze for 58xx GPUs when bitcoin mining on GPUs took off.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 23:30
|
|
|
Wishful thinking. Between the actual architecture choices that AMD made for their CMT processors and the inability to deliver any kind of single-threaded performance comparable to Intel offerings, it's become apparent that it's much easier to split one physical core into two threads then it is to fuse two threads into one logical core. If there were anything to it, that one thing that AMD was working on with the dynamically-allocated logical cores would have taken off by now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 00:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 06:41 |
|
|
I had the stock cooler on my FX-8350 for a while, out of laziness since I set it up to test the system and didn't feel like replacing it. It did ok at idle but sounded like a vacuum under load, and temps started getting scary with the summer heat. So I finally installed a Hyper 212 Evo and it's much quieter and cooler. So yeah don't use the stock cooler any longer than necessary. I've seen AMD's bragging about their new bundled cooler, and while I'm sure it's better than the old one, for air cooling nothing really beats a tower heatsink with a 120mm fan.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 19:32
|
|
