|
If I have two nmve's, a top-tier video card, two sata SSDs, and couple USB 3 ports, how many lanes do I need to run this poo poo at full speed?
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 04:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jan 24, 2021 03:51 |
|
|
All of them
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 04:47
|
|
|
WAR DOGS OF SOCHI posted:If I have two nmve's, a top-tier video card, two sata SSDs, and couple USB 3 ports, how many lanes do I need to run this poo poo at full speed? SATA and USB don't use PCIE lanes. (SATA Express does but I'm not convinced SATA Express actually exists)
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 05:06
|
|
|
Malloc Voidstar posted:4x2 + 16 + 0x2 + 0x2. So 24 lanes. Thank you!
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 05:53
|
|
|
SwissArmyDruid posted:If there is a criticism that I have continually levelled at AMD, it is that they appear to be hell-bent on leaving as much money on the table as possible. When you're charged for not making chips thanks to the WSA, it kind of skews the pricing curve 
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 06:08
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:The other thing is that people infer quality from price. If something is 10% cheaper it's a good deal. If it's 30% cheaper it's a lower-tier product. If Intel wants to fight on pricing, they can. Intel's gross profit margins are enormous, and AMD could just be trying to win-market share up front and not have to look reactionary by cutting prices when Intel does. That said, I know very little about pricing theory and even less about hardware pricing. My only experience is with software pricing, and that the best prices for software are free or $50k+ per year.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 13:59
|
|
|
Intel has gigantic operating costs due the fabs they run and R&D costs to improve them that AMD doesn't have to deal with though. A price war might just end up hurting Intel more than AMD at this point. I think AMD is more than happy enough to "leave money on the table" with their current pricing since they're still getting more money, volume, and better ASP's than they've had in years and they probably really need the cash now while building some good will in the market. And this is without even having their new server chip out yet or mobile parts either and those should be much more profitable for them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 16:40
|
|
|
New AdoredTV video on Threadripper vs Skylake-X https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3l9vZD7h_8
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 03:22
|
|
|
AdoredTV still chasing those /r/amd clicks I see. Threadripper does look promising but declaring victory before we know SKUs, prices, performance or even a hard release date is a bit premature.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 12:35
|
|
|
repiv posted:AdoredTV still chasing those /r/amd clicks I see. Threadripper does look promising but declaring victory before we know SKUs, prices, performance or even a hard release date is a bit premature. Well, the rumored specs of 16C/32T at the full 4GHz for $849 certainly make me think they have won. I'm wondering if the large size of the heatspreader combined with the spread out topography of the chip due to how it's manufactured from smaller sub-dies allows the chip to run at the full 4GHz speed sustained with sufficient cooling, probably something water based. I'll agree that the AdoredTV guy does come off as a pretty big fanboy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 14:17
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:I'm wondering if the large size of the heatspreader combined with the spread out topography of the chip due to how it's manufactured from smaller sub-dies allows the chip to run at the full 4GHz speed sustained with sufficient cooling, probably something water based. That's a good point. I'm wondering what the spead out design means for cooling though, having to buy a special heatsink with an XXL contact surface would be annoying (and more expensive due to low volume).
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 14:26
|
|
|
repiv posted:That's a good point. I'm wondering what the spead out design means for cooling though, having to buy a special heatsink with an XXL contact surface would be annoying (and more expensive due to low volume). Well, yeah, it's clearly going to require coolers with very large footprints due to the sheer size of the package, I thought that would be obvious to everyone so I didn't bother to mention it. poo poo, I think it's big enough that coolers on the market right now would have to mount through the package because the screws are not spaced far enough apart for it to fit between them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 14:54
|
|
|
Existing coolers might be big enough to cover the actual dies even if they don't cover the entire package, but maybe that's just wishful thinking. It depends on Threadrippers layout under the IHS, which we haven't seen yet.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 14:56
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:New AdoredTV video on Threadripper vs Skylake-X What in the world? It's like a 23 minute long MacRumors video.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 14:57
|
|
|
repiv posted:That's a good point. I'm wondering what the spead out design means for cooling though, having to buy a special heatsink with an XXL contact surface would be annoying (and more expensive due to low volume). yeah it'll definitely make aftermarket coolers more expensive, but you're buying an $800 cpu. suck it up. also evidently the heat spreader plate is way bigger than the CPU area. compare this pic of the 4-die epyc, even that clusters the dies fairly centrally. so waterblocks and some standard coolers may work ok if they have enough contact area to cover the chips. the trouble will be mounting them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 15:15
|
|
|
Klyith posted:yeah it'll definitely make aftermarket coolers more expensive, but you're buying an $800 cpu. suck it up.* * when the comparable intel chip is $2000. Can't stress the value proposition enough here.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 15:20
|
|
|
I thought Intel's prices were based on what the market would bear rather than actual cost to produce?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 15:49
|
|
|
Obsurveyor posted:I thought Intel's prices were based on what the market would bear rather than actual cost to produce? As they should be. The question isn't if Intel will react, but rather how much.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 15:49
|
|
|
Intel needs to be careful to not piss off the customers who've been buying at $2K per. "You could have sold this to me at $750? WTF?" is a tough sales context for future conversations.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 15:50
|
|
|
Twerk from Home posted:As they should be. The question isn't if Intel will react, but rather how much. So far, results aren't promising.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 15:51
|
|
|
PerrineClostermann posted:So far, results aren't promising. Given the 6-8 month long lead times just getting a finished on the shelf design produced, if AMD played it close enough to their chest to catch Intel completely off guard, it wouldn't surprise me to see that this IS Intel's reaction, the only one they could really perform within a year.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 16:04
|
|
|
Twerk from Home posted:As they should be. The question isn't if Intel will react, but rather how much. Reaction: Raid keys, $100 or $300
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 16:05
|
|
|
If Intel really was pricing based on what the market will bear, and not as low as they can, and there's a large difference between those values, wouldn't Intel have been able to simply respond with lower pricing? They wouldn't necessarily have to design new chips to compete. Instead they're releasing x299, and they're not likely to engage in any price drops from their announced prices, right? That leads me to believe Intel can't price their products to push AMD out of any market share gains. What am I missing?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 16:17
|
|
|
PerrineClostermann posted:If Intel really was pricing based on what the market will bear, and not as low as they can, and there's a large difference between those values, wouldn't Intel have been able to simply respond with lower pricing? They wouldn't necessarily have to design new chips to compete. That Intel believes (and is likely correct) that people will pay a premium for Intel stuff even when performance is similar. Intel has tons of room to come down on prices if they chose to.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 16:31
|
|
|
At what point do we as outsiders say "Intel can't" instead of "Intel won't"? And does it make much of a difference either way if the end result is high prices on a platform that doesn't make sense?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 17:07
|
|
|
PerrineClostermann posted:At what point do we as outsiders say "Intel can't" instead of "Intel won't"? And does it make much of a difference either way if the end result is high prices on a platform that doesn't make sense? Intel's goal is to make profit, not win a release cycle. They are pricing at where they think that will happen. There are likely a lot of customers who would rather pay a higher price for CPUs (which probably make up a small % of their cost) than have to switch supplier contracts and build new relationships. The fact that Intel is putting up pretty good profits means they are likely not skirting right on the edge of profitability per chip. That's not to say they may not drop prices 12,18 or 24 months from now, but I am guessing they are still pricing their premium offerings at a premium price for a reason.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 17:25
|
|
|
Fair enough, I suppose. It'll be interesting to see how everything pans out either way.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 17:34
|
|
|
Intel is betting on losing less potential profits from sales than they would from lowering margins, which I agree with. If market adoption is very strong they will revisit this and adjust pricing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 17:36
|
|
|
Comatoast posted:What in the world? It's like a 23 minute long MacRumors video. Guy is a fanboy but some of his thoughts aren't completely trash.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 19:10
|
|
|
I still can't quite believe that they were on the brink of bankruptcy last year, trading for $2 and are now shipping an architecture that looks like it will scale well from mobile APUs all the way to 64 core servers. Right where it matters and apparently just about everywhere in between. Oh and yields are better than expected. Turns out /r/ayymd was on to something, too bad I didn't buy in. e: did I mention that their GPUs are flying off the shelves (no matter the reason)
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 21:35
|
|
|
Word around the campfire is Ryzen is still unstable.. even after the latest round of BIOS and memory updates. Not good.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 21:52
|
|
|
redeyes posted:Word around the campfire is Ryzen is still unstable.. even after the latest round of BIOS and memory updates. Not good. Really? Mines been stable since release and my ram has run at advertised speed since a bios release on the 26th of April...
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 22:12
|
|
|
Seems like it's only a matter of a microcode update and that issue will be done with. It's a rather usual problem for a brand new arch tho.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 22:12
|
|
|
similar problems happened with sandy bridge and didn't really even get fixed until ivy bridge. especially with the P67 
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 22:24
|
|
|
redeyes posted:Word around the campfire is Ryzen is still unstable.. even after the latest round of BIOS and memory updates. Not good. Care to expand on this?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 22:35
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Intel needs to be careful to not piss off the customers who've been buying at $2K per. "You could have sold this to me at $750? WTF?" is a tough sales context for future conversations. Depends on the market. For my applications it is Intel or ... No vendor support if I'm building clusters. $750 is also budget dust until you're building enough to add two zeroes to that for enterprise.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 22:54
|
|
|
B-Mac posted:Care to expand on this? Also curious
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 23:07
|
|
|
Some Ryzen Linux Users Are Facing Issues With Heavy Compilation Loads
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 23:41
|
|
|
I wouldn't buy a zen CPU until the bug is fixed but it doesn't make me worried either. Seems like they are zeroing in on the bug and will be able to patch it. This isn't ideal but isn't shocking for a new architecture and doesn't mean much long-term, unless it doesn't get patched.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 00:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jan 24, 2021 03:51 |
|
|
Reading the responses so far and it appears to be more related to heavy overclocking, so doesn't sound like a massive hurdle but just a system maturity issue. For something like Epyc, I don't see it as a potentially huge problem as focus on that platform will be system stability and reliability at the cost of performance (especially since this would provide a large enough gap between Summit and Pinnacle after system maturity).
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 06:00
|
|
