|
eames posted:I'd say 4.0 Ghz on all 16 cores should be possible with good watercooling Is there even a watercooling block on the market that could bolt onto that socket and actually cover the whole chip?
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 14:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 18:48 |
|
|
If that's 4GHz boost, then I'm in. The IPC should be equivalent to my 4GHz Haswell-E, but I'd gain 10 cores and ECC.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 15:06
|
|
|
Maxwell Adams posted:Is there even a watercooling block on the market that could bolt onto that socket and actually cover the whole chip? Not that I know of. I'm sure they are being worked on. I wonder if it is going to be a challenge to keep all four Dies at the same temperature, probably not unless the coolant flowrate is too low. Combat Pretzel posted:If that's 4GHz boost, then I'm in. The IPC should be equivalent to my 4GHz Haswell-E, but I'd gain 10 cores and ECC. Four core 4 GHz boost seems realistic to me, double that of a 1800X and one core per Die.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 15:10
|
|
|
Maxwell Adams posted:Is there even a watercooling block on the market that could bolt onto that socket and actually cover the whole chip? Not currently on the market, but EK say they have a range ready to launch when TR does.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 15:11
|
|
|
I'll leave the OC'ing to someone else, I just want those sweet, sweet cores. And ECC ofcourse.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 15:13
|
|
|
I just wish there was some decent higher frequency ECC RAM, PC-3200 would be perfect. AMD published a video confirming the previously leaked prices and specs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3pJ_--nf5E Early August. videocardz commenter posted:Cinebench scores comparison:  the scaling in cinebench seems very close to 100% eames fucked around with this message at 15:18 on Jul 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 15:15
|
|
|
eames posted:Four core 4 GHz boost seems realistic to me, double that of a 1800X and one core per Die.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 15:29
|
|
|
eames posted:
But MAH FRAMES
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 15:31
|
|
|
eames posted:I just wish there was some decent higher frequency ECC RAM, PC-3200 would be perfect. Yeah, I don't see how X299 survives this considering TR4 is just so much monstrous value and Intel's choices on Skylake-X end up making the extra absolute headroom more virtual headroom. I've never bought HEDT but I'm almost positive for the people buying into it, 60% more cores is more important than another 500mhz.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 15:36
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:Wait, I thought boost is all-core where as XFR gets you another 100MHz on a single (favored) core or something like that? No, the 1800X for example only boosts over 4.0 with two cores. Look at the drop-off where it says "Number of Active Cores > 2". XFR uses various parameters like voltage and thermal headroom for even higher frequencies during boost. At least that's my understanding... eames fucked around with this message at 15:41 on Jul 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 15:38
|
|
|
Does 16core threadripper have two 8 core ryzen dies? So no disabled cores? Or is the threadripper four 8 core part with half of the cores disabled?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 17:06
|
|
|
Ihmemies posted:Does 16core threadripper have two 8 core ryzen dies? So no disabled cores? Or is the threadripper four 8 core part with half of the cores disabled? It looks like TR is 2 dies and Epyc is 4 from what I've been reading. Tracks with TR having 64 pcie lanes to Epyc's 128.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 17:08
|
|
|
eames posted:It's a shame games don't scale well with threads (yet) or that'd be my go-to platform. What the hell are game developers doing if their go-to platform are consoles with 8 core??????
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 20:07
|
|
|
incoherent posted:What the hell are game developers doing if their go-to platform are consoles with 8 core?????? My understanding is games are perfectly capable of using a single thread for individual processes, like sound, networking, physics, AI. But each individual process doesn't need the same amount of CPU power, so you end up with certain processes that use way more CPU power than the others and you can only go as fast as the slowest process. What games can't do is take the AI thread and make it run on 8 threads at once, since you can't just break your average game process into parallel chunks and have them complete ASAP, everything needs to be done in a certain order. It seems to be a fundamental problem with sequential programs that no one's really figured out how to get around yet.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 20:46
|
|
|
Actually AI is a thing that can be easily parallelized. Each agent can be simulated on its own thread.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 20:58
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:Actually AI is a thing that can be easily parallelized. Each agent can be simulated on its own thread. Ah. I picked a poor example then. But the main problem for games seems to be that you can't easily parallelize all the functions of a game, so you end up with some sort of single threaded bottleneck someplace that slows everything else down. Consoles work around this by liberal use of 30 FPS games.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 21:03
|
|
|
Beautiful Ninja posted:My understanding is games are perfectly capable of using a single thread for individual processes, like sound, networking, physics, AI. But each individual process doesn't need the same amount of CPU power, so you end up with certain processes that use way more CPU power than the others and you can only go as fast as the slowest process. Early attempts at multi-threading game engines worked like that, with a dedicated thread per subsystem, but most modern engines have moved on to a task-queue or task-graph architecture instead. The idea is to launch a general-purpose worker thread for each CPU core then have idling workers pull tasks from a shared list of poo poo-that-needs-doing, the advantage being that the workload evenly balances across the CPU cores provided the tasks are granular enough and there aren't too many inter-task dependencies. But there's an overhead to managing a task, so they can't be too granular. In theory these engines can use any number of threads, but in practice the task granularity will be tuned for the 7 threads available on consoles.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 21:09
|
|
|
I think Amdahl's Law describes this problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl%27s_law and a quick look at steam's hardware survey shows dual/quadcore processors at 94%, granted that includes a lot of laptops but still. I think ideally you'd want a game engine that's well threaded to begin with and then uses extra cores to scale up/down features that can be parallelised depending on the available core count.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 21:13
|
|
|
eames posted:and a quick look at steam's hardware survey shows dual/quadcore processors at 94%, granted that includes a lot of laptops but still. aka Gustafson's Law - in practice, the scope of a task will expand to fit the available capacity. You can't run the serial portions any faster but you can drastically increase the amount of parallel tasks with little impact on performance. The problem with this for games is that whatever you're scaling basically can't have any impact on the game (eg AI or game mechanics) or else you are creating an unpredictable single-player experience and ruling out multiplayer between dissimilar clients. PhysX had much the same problem - it was essentially only used in cosmetic poo poo (throwing particle debris from explosions, making Batman's cape flutter or paper blow in the wind, etc) because you couldn't rely on it being present. They open-sourced it a couple years ago, but it still hasn't got much uptake for core game mechanics apart from maybe PUBG (not sure what it does in that game).
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 21:26
|
|
|
eames posted:I think Amdahl's Law describes this problem: Neat, I just read a blog post about that Law where a user's mouse stopped working with 24 core system. https://randomascii.wordpress.com/2017/07/09/24-core-cpu-and-i-cant-move-my-mouse/
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 21:40
|
|
|
Better not be some bullshit changes introduced to make that Linux subsystem stuff work. Process creation and tear down is already heavy-handed as is in Windows.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 22:16
|
|
|
Someone on /r/amd noticed a clever trick AMD are using on Epyc (and probably Threadripper) There are actually two versions of the Zeppelin die, mirrored vertically to allow for much tighter routing between the Infinity Fabric interfaces. I assume they can even use one set of masks for both versions by just flipping them upside down as needed. Jim Keller 
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2017 22:48
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:They open-sourced it a couple years ago, but it still hasn't got much uptake for core game mechanics apart from maybe PUBG (not sure what it does in that game). PhysX isn't just fancy particles, it's general physics engine just like Bullet or Havok. Unreal 4 uses it for its physics calculations and quite few other games do so as well. Nvidia-only GPU accelerated parts of it are very very rarely used nowadays. Last commercial game I recall using that was Batman Arkham Knight. Sininu fucked around with this message at 04:15 on Jul 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 04:13
|
|
|
Yeah, the last game I played with Nvidia-only goodies was Borderlands 2, quite a while ago.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 04:40
|
|
|
So with X variant threadripper starting at $800 and $1000 repectively. Could we potentially see the low end 16c at $900 and maybe lower end 12c at $650-750? Now sure how two 14c variants are going to fit between a low end 16c and high-end 12c.SinineSiil posted:Nvidia-only GPU accelerated parts of it are very very rarely used nowadays. Last commercial game I recall using that was Batman Arkham Knight. SlayVus fucked around with this message at 06:58 on Jul 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 06:56
|
|
|
with how the CCX works I'm not sure we're going to see anything but multiples of 4 in practice
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 06:57
|
|
|
Anime Schoolgirl posted:with how the CCX works I'm not sure we're going to see anything but multiples of 4 in practice We already have 6c units made from two CCXs. They just have one core disabled on each CCX. There's no reason why you couldn't use partially functional CCXs in a 14 core or 10 core thread Ripper. That's how their making the 12 core units anyways. SlayVus fucked around with this message at 07:03 on Jul 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 06:59
|
|
|
The really neat part of the CCX system is that what used to be "single core turbo" is now "single core per CCX turbo". So on a 16C/32T TR4 box, "single core turbo" is actually four cores active (one per CCX). At least that's my understanding of it. They really need to release the Zen BKDG already...
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 07:11
|
|
|
SlayVus posted:We already have 6c units made from two CCXs. They just have one core disabled on each CCX. There's no reason why you couldn't use partially functional CCXs in a 14 core or 10 core thread Ripper. That's how their making the 12 core units anyways. It has to be across all CCXs though, so you can't have a 3+3 paired with a 4+4 or 2+2. Keep in mind all EPYC CPU's work in multiples of 4 as well. There is a rumor for an 8 core TR4 part as well. Also apparently the 7401P 24C/48T will come in @ 1075$, only somewhat more expensive than the 1950X. If Epyc and TR4 share a compatible socket then I can only wonder how Intel will get sales on X299 at all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 07:19
|
|
|
repiv posted:Someone on /r/amd noticed a clever trick AMD are using on Epyc (and probably Threadripper) Wait a minute, I was promised "every die is only one hop away from another die", how do those traces work going from top-right to bottom-left?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 07:20
|
|
|
I can see them avoiding unbalanced configurations because that might give unpredictable performance. With 12 and 16 they've got two dies with two CCXs with 3/4 cores each, which keeps everything equal. They could go down to 8 or 4 but there's little point, the only advantage over Ryzen would be support for more memory, and those customers would probably go for lower end Epycs instead for even more memory.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 07:25
|
|
|
FaustianQ posted:Also apparently the 7401P 24C/48T will come in @ 1075$, only somewhat more expensive than the 1950X. If Epyc and TR4 share a compatible socket then I can only wonder how Intel will get sales on X299 at all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 07:29
|
|
|
What's gonna happen to the mouldy stock of FX parts? They were hard to move in the first place, now I can't imagine any of them being sold at all, with Ryzen being out and priced competitively.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 09:28
|
|
GAY 4 ORGANS
|
so, i updated my bios and finally got my ram to 3200 from 3000. now my 1600x fluctuates between 30 and 40 degrees several times a minute. How do I fix that? E: Actually, it will drop to 28 C according to ryzen master if I don't do anything. If I swap focus to chrome and do nothing else, it will go to 38 and cool back to 28 by 2 degrees every update tick. E2: even dropping it back to 2933, my computer sounds like a leaf blower at idle :l. Considering rolling back my bios to pre AGESA 1.0.0.6 because even though it wouldn't do 3200mhz on my ram, it wasn't a jetplane at idle underage at the vape shop fucked around with this message at 11:41 on Jul 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 11:31
|
|
|
A SWEATY FATBEARD posted:What's gonna happen to the mouldy stock of FX parts? They were hard to move in the first place, now I can't imagine any of them being sold at all, with Ryzen being out and priced competitively. I'm gonna go with "top off that hole in the desert full of ET cartridges"
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 14:11
|
|
|
Well they're being sold at like $80 so yeah once that doesn't work out ET hole it is.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 14:13
|
|
|
R3 hits July 27th, but still no APU information. I had thought for sure R3 was going to have integrated graphics, but it looks like they're just 4C/4T SKUs. LISAAAAAAAAAAA you're tearing me apart! Fake edit: how have we not been doing The Room quotes for AMD? "Oh hai Mark(Papermaster)" Now that press event season is largely over, I'm sad I've missed this opportunity.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 14:38
|
|
|
Vega, you're tearing my PSU apaaarrrt!
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 14:59
|
|
|
SinineSiil posted:PhysX isn't just fancy particles, it's general physics engine just like Bullet or Havok. Unreal 4 uses it for its physics calculations and quite few other games do so as well. Killing Floor 2 and Fallout 4 have some Nvidia only particle/debris effects. There was also a lack luster Warhammer 40k game that had it, and that Free to Play Ghost in the Shell game.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 16:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 18:48 |
|
|
NewFatMike posted:R3 hits July 27th, but still no APU information. I had thought for sure R3 was going to have integrated graphics, but it looks like they're just 4C/4T SKUs. Given what we now know about things in general, I don't understand why R3 parts *aren't* the APU line.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 19:54
|
|