|
eames posted:Yes but I'd argue that big hook is X299/KBL-X/SL-X There are people on the AnandTech forums who think it's superior to Threadripper. They cite poor single threaded performance mainly.
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 06:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 02:13 |
|
|
Measly Twerp posted:There are people on the AnandTech forums who think it's superior to Threadripper. They cite poor single threaded performance mainly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 06:46
|
|
|
honestly the 8 core TR is the least interesting of the bunch to me. its 8% cheaper than the 7820X that has true quad channel memory and the same number of cores with better IPC and turbo clocks, and 10% more expensive (plus a more expensive motherboard) than the 1800X that will probably match it in performance for everything thats not extremely memory bandwidth hungry and NUMA friendly. it has a place if you desperately need PCIe lanes, but with crossfire/SLI kinda dying out in games, thats mostly gonna be NVMe raid people, multiple NICs, machine learning, or other very specific niches.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 07:40
|
|
|
SwissArmyDruid posted:...no, no, I call bullshit. There is *no* goddamn way they are pricing TR _THAT_ loving low! Goddamnit, AMD, what happened to not leaving money on the table anymore!? You don't have to do that in order to make Intel hurt anymore, your product is- A wafer unused is a wafer you still have to pay GF for, everything must go!  Besides, it makes sense to get everyone on the platform if they plan to provide an upgrade path.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 07:53
|
|
|
Cygni posted:honestly the 8 core TR is the least interesting of the bunch to me. its 8% cheaper than the 7820X that has true quad channel memory and the same number of cores with better IPC and turbo clocks, and 10% more expensive (plus a more expensive motherboard) than the 1800X that will probably match it in performance for everything thats not extremely memory bandwidth hungry and NUMA friendly. what on earth do you mean by "true quad channel memory"
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 07:57
|
|
|
Scarecow posted:what on earth do you mean by "true quad channel memory" My understanding of Intel's mesh arch from STH articles is that there are 2 memory controllers, 2 channel each ( i think they are actually 3 wide in hardware, but only 2 enabled in SLX vs Xeon?) on opposite "sides" of the mesh, but all cores can get the full bandwidth. In TR/Epyc, each die has its own local 2 channel memory controller, but dies can reach across IF to access the other banks local to other dies. In STH's testing, it was a significant bandwidth and latency hit to reach across IF. So in reality, any one thread/die cant get all of the quad-channel bandwidth. At best, it can get 100% of its local, and about 60% of the other dies'. I honestly dont know how much that will matter in the real world, and i imagine in some workloads that distribute well and play well with NUMA, it wouldnt be an issue. STH were pretty high on their Epyc test servers, and Intel's memory design make compromises in other places. Guess we will have to see when real stuff shows up. e: btw as another caveat, i probably dont know what im talking about. i just like talkin bout puters my dudes. Cygni fucked around with this message at 08:23 on Jul 31, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 08:12
|
|
|
FaustianQ posted:On AMD's own facebook page Ahahahaha that's amazing 
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 08:53
|
|
|
Measly Twerp posted:There are people on the AnandTech forums who think it's superior to Threadripper. They cite poor single threaded performance mainly. It would have to be non-gaming single-threaded applications since the L3 cache structure of the Skylake-X is currently having issues with games and as a consequence it's no better than Ryzen even with a big clock advantage. The cache restructuring and possibly the mesh bus has totally ate away at the potential advantages that Skylake-X would have over Ryzen and Threadripper. Coffee Lake seems more compelling if the rumors are true. 
MaxxBot fucked around with this message at 09:08 on Jul 31, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 08:58
|
|
|
Newegg has prices up for Ripper boards, looks like 3200mhz is gonna be the max OC the boards will claim which I'm a little disappointed in
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 10:38
|
|
|
Cygni posted:honestly the 8 core TR is the least interesting of the bunch to me. its 8% cheaper than the 7820X that has true quad channel memory and the same number of cores with better IPC and turbo clocks, and 10% more expensive (plus a more expensive motherboard) than the 1800X that will probably match it in performance for everything thats not extremely memory bandwidth hungry and NUMA friendly. Don't forget that the 1900X has an all core base clock of 3.8GHz which is shockingly high for Ryzen, so out of the box it's basically running at what many people are overclocking their 1700's to. There will be a cheaper 8c/16t part, the 1900. This I think makes Threadripper at quite competitive with the 7820X, especially if you'd rather spend that 8% somewhere else in the system (someone is going to spend it on RGB lighting and now I feel bad). MaxxBot posted:It would have to be non-gaming single-threaded applications since the L3 cache structure of the Skylake-X is currently having issues with games and as a consequence it's no better than Ryzen even with a big clock advantage. The cache restructuring and possibly the mesh bus has totally ate away at the potential advantages that Skylake-X would have over Ryzen and Threadripper. Coffee Lake seems more compelling if the rumors are true. There may have been some decent arguments over there against these benchmarks, unfortunately it got entirely lost in a sea of the stupidest bullshit I've ever had to read. I think the most compelling argument was that these benchmarks are just GPU bottlenecked and therefore irrelevant. Which personally I think is bullshit. Over on the AnandTech forums certain members wanted to see these same tests repeated at a lower resolution in order to "gauge future performance". This I think is based on the faulty assumption that games will continue to utilise available CPU resources in the exact same way in the future. Often the failure of Bulldozer to influence game developers to do so is brought up as part of this assertion, however with Ryzen prompting Intel to finally introduce 6 cores to the mainstream with Coffee Lake, and with AMD themselves developing partnerships that have already brought performance improvements to existing games, I don't think it holds up at all. Reviewers have even done that exact kind of testing in the past, however to the best of my knowledge none have ever followed it up and demonstrated that it had any predictive value what so ever which is a huge problem since people constantly bring it up as if it has. We should be testing games for the performance you can reasonably expect to get today, with the graphics fidelity that people exepct to enjoy today. To the best of my understanding that means people want to see 1080p Ultra and sometimes 4k too. If that means we're testing CPUs on a 1080ti and they're still GPU bottlenecked in some games then so be it. That's more important to know than how the same game performs at 720p, especially if you're buying on a budget and looking to get the most cost effective computer for playing the games you want to play.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 10:59
|
|
|
Measly Twerp posted:There are people on the AnandTech forums who think it's superior to Threadripper. They cite poor single threaded performance mainly. They're not wrong but the Intel consumer CPUs (7700K/8700K) are much better value for single threaded performance up to 6 cores and Ryzen/TR is cooler/better value at 8 cores and beyond. I guess that leaves the i9-7820X for those who need good ST performance, don't care about high FPS, can't live with 6 cores but are satisfied with 8 cores. Pretty niche if you ask me. Not to mention potential upgrade paths and goodies like ECC. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 11:04
|
|
|
Wait are people making the argument that you should sink nearly triple the cost into a system for futureproofing in gaming on an explicitly workstation platform? Hahahaha, loving seriously?
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 11:05
|
|
|
Ryzen/Threadripper is shipping with revision "ZP-B1", Epyc is shipping with a newer "ZP-B2" revision. Looks like there's some truth to the B2 rumors after all. I expect that the newer rev will tricke down to consumer/prosumer eventually but it's interesting that there's a difference at all. http://www.planet3dnow.de/cms/33149-amd-threadripper-ist-nur-zp-b1-somit-kein-teildeaktivierter-epyc-zp-b2/
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 11:23
|
|
|
FaustianQ posted:Wait are people making the argument that you should sink nearly triple the cost into a system for futureproofing in gaming on an explicitly workstation platform? Hahahaha, loving seriously? I'm not sure that the attitude was that you should buy the 7800X over anything else for gaming, however let me quote the argument against the Hardware Unboxed benchmarks that I was addressing: MajinCry posted:If you want to test the prowess behind a CPU, the games must have all GPU-related settings turned to minimum. Texture detail, polygon count, shadow resolution, shaders, and cloth physics (if done on GPU). I think it's fairly obvious that they didn't like that the 1600X was performing so well in these benchmarks and wanted to find some way of invalidating the benchmarks. Why? I don't know.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 11:33
|
|
|
Measly Twerp posted:I'm not sure that the attitude was that you should buy the 7800X over anything else for gaming, however let me quote the argument against the Hardware Unboxed benchmarks that I was addressing: See this poo poo always irks me because I really don't care about theoretical performance but practical performance. Who gives a poo poo if the 7800X is better in an entirely contrived scenario, it's not practically different. It's basically the "Vega is a 1080ti competitor at 8K" of the CPU world.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 11:39
|
|
|
Measly Twerp posted:I think it's fairly obvious that they didn't like that the 1600X was performing so well in these benchmarks and wanted to find some way of invalidating the benchmarks. Why? I don't know. I'm mostly curious what this person thinks these have to do with CPU performance.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 14:51
|
|
|
eames posted:Ryzen/Threadripper is shipping with revision "ZP-B1", Epyc is shipping with a newer "ZP-B2" revision. --edit: I sure hope it gets updated. I have to sit it out for GeIL's 3200MHz ECC modules, anyway. Combat Pretzel fucked around with this message at 17:07 on Jul 31, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 17:04
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:TR has the B1 die? yes Combat Pretzel posted:It will keep it through out its lifecycle? nobody knows; it could be that B1 has some (minor?) errata that disqualifies it for server applications and they're offloading old dies via Desktop/HEDT Combat Pretzel posted:--edit: I sure hope it gets updated. I have to sit it out for GeIL's 3200MHz ECC modules, anyway. same although I don't know what advantages B2 would bring
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 17:14
|
|
|
Last the B2 stepping came up, things about PCIe/uncore. Apparently there's an issue with FMA3, maybe that got fixed in B2?
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 17:39
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:Last the B2 stepping came up, things about PCIe/uncore. Apparently there's an issue with FMA3, maybe that got fixed in B2? No, the bug for that was allegedly tied to the firmware itself and was supposed to have been fixed with AGESA 1.0.0.6.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 17:41
|
|
|
In the 8core TR, how high is the latency between the dies, vs the CCX latency on Ryzen?
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 20:47
|
|
|
Based on ServeTheHome's test with EPYC and I think DDR4-2400 RAM, the inter-CCX latency was 80ish ns while inter-die was 130ish ns.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 21:11
|
|
|
God i loving hate being in australia. The retailer's here are trying to charge a thousand didgerydoos  for a board that newegg has listed for 550usdAnd people wonder why brick and mortar stores here are loving dieing off
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 03:36
|
|
|
Scarecow posted:God i loving hate being in australia. The retailer's here are trying to charge a thousand didgerydoos What board are you looking at? I just saw the absurd price of the Asus Zenith at PCCG and surely they or the distributor have to know people are just going to import them and avoid the $300+ mark up. No doubt the retailers will all be crying to the government again in a few months over how internet shopping is the devil and not their stupid prices.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 04:55
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:Based on ServeTheHome's test with EPYC and I think DDR4-2400 RAM, the inter-CCX latency was 80ish ns while inter-die was 130ish ns. Thanks man. It's going to be bouncing off that a lot, I guess
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 05:19
|
|
|
KillaZilla posted:What board are you looking at? I just saw the absurd price of the Asus Zenith at PCCG and surely they or the distributor have to know people are just going to import them and avoid the $300+ mark up. No doubt the retailers will all be crying to the government again in a few months over how internet shopping is the devil and not their stupid prices. Yeah im looking at the zenith and yup 750aud delivered from amazon has me flipping the bird at stores here
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 06:49
|
|
|
Scarecow posted:Yeah im looking at the zenith and yup 750aud delivered from amazon has me flipping the bird at stores here Holy poo poo. They're not even available yet in this European backwater with 27% VAT, but I'm pretty sure when it is it will be cheaper than that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 07:46
|
|
|
579€ (incl. 20% vat) over in Germany. https://geizhals.eu/?cat=mbtr4
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 08:36
|
|
|
I've just ordered one of these: Overkill a little?
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 11:06
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:Based on ServeTheHome's test with EPYC and I think DDR4-2400 RAM, the inter-CCX latency was 80ish ns while inter-die was 130ish ns. No this was for 2667, 2400 it was ~150 https://www.servethehome.com/amd-epyc-infinity-fabric-latency-ddr4-2400-v-2666-a-snapshot/ (thanks Cygni) It's about an 8% improvement moving from DDR4 2400 to 2667, so I'm guessing you'll get a 10-15% further improvement moving to DDR4 3000-3200, or about 110-120ns for inter-CCX latency. IIRC, this is about what Intel's general latency is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 11:37
|
|
|
FaustianQ posted:No this was for 2667, 2400 it was ~150 https://www.servethehome.com/amd-epyc-infinity-fabric-latency-ddr4-2400-v-2666-a-snapshot/ (thanks Cygni) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6laL-_hiAK0 intel seems to be around 80 atleast with the 5960x I don't know what the new intel mesh is at.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 11:49
|
|
|
Maxwell Adams posted:Suddenly, a holocube What's the point in that?
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 12:05
|
|
|
wargames posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6laL-_hiAK0 According to Toms Hardware the new i9 7900 is worse only compared to other Intel products. It averages at around 75ns, where as the previous HEDT processor averaged at 65, faster ram makes things worse and both generations of HEDT are worse than their regular desktop processors.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 12:27
|
|
|
Measly Twerp posted:Holy poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 12:43
|
|
|
Measly Twerp posted:According to Toms Hardware the new i9 7900 is worse only compared to other Intel products. It averages at around 75ns, where as the previous HEDT processor averaged at 65, faster ram makes things worse and both generations of HEDT are worse than their regular desktop processors. So basically AMD needs about DDR4 4000 to be close but not on par for inter-ccx latency, or to run the IF at 2:1 divider or asynchronously. Wonder why higher ram clocks hurt Intel though?
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 13:47
|
|
|
latency matters more?
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 14:29
|
|
|
Cygni posted:My understanding of Intel's mesh arch from STH articles is that there are 2 memory controllers, 2 channel each ( i think they are actually 3 wide in hardware, but only 2 enabled in SLX vs Xeon?) on opposite "sides" of the mesh, but all cores can get the full bandwidth. In TR/Epyc, each die has its own local 2 channel memory controller, but dies can reach across IF to access the other banks local to other dies. In STH's testing, it was a significant bandwidth and latency hit to reach across IF. So in reality, any one thread/die cant get all of the quad-channel bandwidth. At best, it can get 100% of its local, and about 60% of the other dies'. This kind of penalty has always existed on the Intel side, they've just been sorta covering it up by running the inter-node communications async and really fast and basically masking the memory controller layout from software to give consistent latencies and an easier software optimization target at the penalty of some performance. The Cluster-on-Die mode takes all that away and exposes the two numa nodes with their memory controllers so applications that are numa-aware can optimize against them and get improved latency/bandwidth if the workload can take advantage of it. http://en.community.dell.com/techcenter/b/techcenter/archive/2016/05/06/intel-cluster-on-die-cod-technology-on-vmware-esxi
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 14:57
|
|
|
wargames posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6laL-_hiAK0
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 15:26
|
|
|
So 1700X is 600-700€ cheaper than 1920X with a mobo... 150€ per core is a bit meh price.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 15:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 02:13 |
|
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 17:45
|
|