|
I preordered a 2700 yesterday as soon as I saw the news of availability. My current desktop box is a 1700, and it is tasked with software development and crunching WorldCommunityGrid workunits. I rebuilt it in December, swapping out a Skylake i3-6100T. I was a little worried because of all the early IPC numbers I'd been reading before doing the rebuild. But it became clear that most people were talking about single-core, max boost, maximum throughput when they talked about IPC numbers. I'm operating in a different regime, where all available threads are at maximum utilization (and some are occasionally in contention, because I'm also listening to music and doing compiles) at all times. What I've found in real world use is that the 3GHz 1700 slightly outperforms the 3.2GHz i3 on a core-for-core basis, while having 4X the threads, for 2X the watts. Anyway, as much as I love these processors, I'd probably have skipped the Zen+ iteration and waited on the (hopefully) bigger improvements from Zen2. But I decided to get another mobo and some more RAM, so I could use spare parts to turn another old machine into a pure crunchbox. My desktop will get the 2700, and this other machine will inherit the 1700. And my WCG numbers will skyrocket. Yes, I do find idle/incremental games oddly compelling; why do you ask?
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2018 19:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 07:18 |
|
|
PC LOAD LETTER posted:Ryzens are drat good number crunchers even if they aren't really HPC chips. They really are. My single 1700 hovers right around 400th worldwide in the WUs/day stats. It's crazy that a ~$300 processor turns out numbers like that.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2018 21:00
|
|
|
FaustianQ posted:Still think AMD needs some SKUs below 99$. Like, loving firesale the Bristol Ridge poo poo AMD, or get more Raven Ridge SKUs out. A 4C/4T, 6CU part and 4C/4T, 4CU part for 79$ and 59$ respectively, heck even the A12-9800 is worth it if it's only 50$. AMD might not be doing it, but MicroCenter sure is: 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2018 02:54
|
|
|
Jim Keller, having left AMD to go to Tesla after completing work on Ryzen, has now left Tesla to go to Intel. https://electrek.co/2018/04/25/tesla-autopilot-jim-keller-lea
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2018 09:04
|
|
|
The computer of the day on woot is an HP "Gaming" Pavilion desktop. R7 1700, RX550, 16G of DDR4-2400, and a crappy 1TB HDD. But that's not a bad heap of componenets for $550. Edit: I'm more excited by what this represents, generally -- the beginning of endless cheap ryzen HP refurbs on woot. mdxi fucked around with this message at 22:54 on May 22, 2018 |
|
#
¿
May 22, 2018 22:51
|
|
|
Woot now has two more refurb HP Ryzen machines, both R5 1400s, and both priced above the R7 1700 machine -- seemingly due to their included GPUs. One has a RX580 (vs the RX550 in the R7 machine) for $580; the other has a GTX 1060 for $650.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2018 01:10
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:I'm sort of surprised that processors can be the kind of thing that creates a fanboy cult. For your own sanity, don't go to r/amd or r/realamd. I went there looking for news about AMD products, which did not seem unreasonable. What I got was an infinite tide of complaining about Intel breaking the law by being mean to AMD. And Nvidia being the antichrist because they're mean to AMD. And youtubers being lying sacks of poo poo because they were mean to AMD (unless this week they were awesome because they were nice to AMD). And pictures of "Team Red" PC builds with 4000 upvotes. (Parenthetically, r/hardware is far less zealot-y, but frequently seems to believe that CPU and GPU development revolves around (and is driven forward by the needs of) ~~gamers~~, which is just hilarious.) As for myself, I'll happily go back to Intel as soon as they drop a CPU that equals or betters the performance, thread count, and power envelope of the Ryzen I'm using, but costs less. mdxi fucked around with this message at 08:51 on May 26, 2018 |
|
#
¿
May 26, 2018 08:49
|
|
|
In the lead-up to the Ryzen 2X00 release, I had planned to replace my 1700 with a 2700, and put the 1700 in a partial build that I had put on hold. But some life stuff came up, and I had to put that cash elsewhere for a couple months. Yesterday I decided to finish out the build, but to just keep my desktop as-is and slot a 1X00 into the second machine. My local microcenter had restocked, and had 10+ R5 1600s at $150, so I snagged one of those. Now I have 28 threads, in two machines, crunching WorldComputeGrid workunits 24/7. Two years ago that would have cost me, what, $2500 in Intel CPUs? Total CPU outlay here: $450. Since neither of these machines is a gaming rig, I'll probably keep their mobos and memory and swap out CPUs when the Zen2s arrive. Finally, it looks like the continued BIOS and/or kernel upgrades have improved performance under Linux. When I first rebuilt my desktop with the 1700, all cores were running at their base clock of 3.0GHz. Yesterday after initial install, I checked the speeds of the 1600s cores, and the kernel was reporting 3.4GHz. I thought I remembered (and Wikipedia confirmed) that the base clock of a 1600 was 3.2GHz -- but the all-cores boost clock is 3.4GHz, and the CPU is continuing to run at that speed even after about 18 hours of 100% utilization. The reason I think this is due to BIOS/kernel improvements is that my 1700 is now running all threads at 3.2GHz, which it definitely was not doing before. I'll take it. Edit: interestingly, the 1600 is running all cores at 3393MHz, with just fractional clock differences. The 1700 has a bit more of a spread: 6 cores at 3193MHz, 1 core at 3187MHz, and 1 core at 3184MHz. mdxi fucked around with this message at 21:41 on Jun 3, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2018 21:38
|
|
|
SamDabbers posted:Well? Show us some sweet graphs of these monsters in action There's not really a lot to show, but here's some relevant WCG screenshots:   SamDabbers posted:Have you tried overclocking? No. I'm running them at 100% utilization 24/7, and they're hot enough and drawing enough power as it is. Maybe this winter!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2018 18:31
|
|
|
AMD posted:Threadripper2  Two years ago I was all about trying to build the most effective machines I could: maximizing compute capability with low power usage. Now I want to throw out every machine I own and build something to hold this monster.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2018 21:25
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:Boost clock ain't all-core on Ryzen, right? Paul MaudDib posted:What exactly is the distinction between Boost, XFR1, XFR2, and PBO? It seems like all of them more or less fall into the category that Intel would define as "turbo". I'm still kind of confused by it myself, but I can tell you how the 1x00 chips behave vs. how the 2x00 chips behave. I had a 1700, and still have a 1600. Their base clocks were 3.0GHz and 3.2GHz, respectively. Given sufficient thermal overhead (which they had), both ran at their "all cores" boost clocks of 3.2 and 3.4GHz, 100% of the time, while being at 100% utilization. And while there would be variance in speed between cores, it was usually <1MHz. The 2x00 chips don't have an all-cores boost clock; just base and max. I upgraded the 1700 to a 2700X last week, and its behavior has been...unexpected. For the first 24 hours it ran right at its base clock of 3.7GHz. Like plus or minus 25MHz (and sometimes it was minus). I was checking so obsessively because I also switched from air cooling to water cooling, and I was really interested to see how effective that was. Over the past 4 days, the clocks have slowly been drifting upward. First I noticed that it was reliably above 3.7GHz. Then it was almost 3.8GHz. Then right around 3.8GHz. And about 20 minutes ago I noticed it cracking 3.9GHz for the first time. Per-core speeds vary far more considerably than in a 1x00 chip as well. code:mdxi fucked around with this message at 03:24 on Aug 7, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2018 03:22
|
|
|
I acknowledge that my clock checking has not been automated, or regular; it's just been me wondering "hmmm, what's it up to now?" It's an anecdote, and checking right now shows clocks around 3.77GHz, so it is fluctuating. I tend to agree with the idea that it's small environmental factors. The temperature in my apartment is decently stable, but not perfectly so. The thing I'm surprised by is that there's so much thermal overhead available with this water cooler, but boost clocks on the 2700X have been relatively low. Under air cooling the 1700 was happily chugging along at all-cores boost speeds while running at 68C. The 2700X meanwhile, appears to be much more conservative with boost clocks when running at 55-57C.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2018 15:48
|
|
|
Munkeymon posted:So are the E parts OEM-only as well? The article only calls out the X ones as being OEM limited. I really hope not. Intel sells boxed T series CPUs, so I'm hoping for parity there.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2018 21:15
|
|
|
mdxi posted:I really hope not. Intel sells boxed T series CPUs, so I'm hoping for parity there. Aw poo poo. 2700E has a page on AMD's site now. The only part info given is: "OPN Tray: YD270EBHM88AF" Every other retail CPU in the Ryzen line has had a part ending in "BOX", like the 2700X's "OPN PIB: YD270XBGAFBOX"
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2018 04:38
|
|
|
I'd love to move my compute nodes to 16c, but that'll depend on what the power and cooling requirements look like. I'd still be really happy with 12c parts that operated in the power/thermal envelope of the 2700.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2019 18:11
|
|
|
dead comedy forums posted:One thing that I am curious about is with AMD pushing ALL THE CORES for the consumer market, how software development will work from here? I am a student and programming stuff to use multiple cores is waaaaaay beyond my level, but I am fascinated by the implications of software becoming efficient enough (one day) to properly use many cores. If you want to more easily take advantage of high core counts, the first thing you need is to be solving a problem which is amenable to being solved through either parallelism or concurrency. If you find yourself thinking things like "I wish I could split this one big problem into N smaller but otherwise identical problems", or "I wish I could have this processing flow keep going while I handle other things", or "It would be nice to just fire off handlers for these requests as they come in", then you're looking at the sort of problem which plays well with being made concurrent or parallel. After that, just use a language which has features that make it easy to tackle those sorts of problems. Go and Rust are very popular these days. Python 3 has the concurrent futures module, which makes wrangling task workers pretty simple. In these three cases, spreading work across available cores is handled by the language runtime. If you have enough work, you'll just magically get more routines running on more cores. I'm sure (at least I sure do hope) that other languages have evolved threading/coroutine libraries which aren't a bloody nightmare by now.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2019 02:42
|
|
|
Built my fourth compute node today. Went to Microcenter and picked up a 1600 for $99 to make it happen. I wanted more cores, but I realized that I'm going to upgrade the CPU in all four machines as soon as the 3x00 series comes out, so I decided to go cheap for now. I'm really, really hoping for a 65W part with 12 cores, as that would give me 48c/96t across my tiny compute farm.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2019 07:34
|
|
|
I'll take more than 12 cores, of course. And since the R7 2700 is a 65W part, it seems almost inevitable that there will be at least a 12 core part in that same envelope, given the move to 7nm. I'm just keeping my expectations on the low/realistic side.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2019 01:22
|
|
|
My laptop has started acting up, so I decided to use that as an excuse to build a wee baby shell/web/dev box. I picked up one of ASRock's new AM4 socketed, STX mobo, external PSU barebones boxes and put an Athlon 200GE in there, along with 8GB of DDR4/2400 RAM and a 500GB NVMe M.2 drive. $357.71 total at newegg. It's cute, and worked as expected after I updated its BIOS -- the Arch linux installer would halt with some weird "TO BE IMPLEMENTED BY MOTHERBOARD/BIOS PROVIDER" errors before updating. The wifi module is Intel, so it worked flawlessly with no hassle. There's actually a pair of 2.5" SATA drive bays mounted under the mobo, but I'm not using either of them. Other than the tiny-ness of the mobo, there's nothing to write home about here. If you need a small "real computer" (i.e. something with a bit more grunt than an RPi) to do some utility computing, it might be worth a look though.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2019 21:29
|
|
|
Marketing is marketing, and this is a marketing piece. But it's still nice to see someone talking about actually doing something with all those cores, instead of just complaining about how a video game is 8FPS slower on a core--per-core basis. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOJGP4NPM-g
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2019 07:29
|
|
|
Stickman posted:There has to be some sort of strange and/or sad story here. Are FX-8350s the new money laundering currency? Some of the cultier denizens of r/AMD, to this day, defend the FX series processors as being Not Total Garbage because they have so many (lovely) cores which clock very high (never mind that you're burning so many watts to do comparatively little work because, as mentioned earlier, the CPU design was a losing bet). They cluster together and defend their decisions (and FX CPUs) to each other, in the middle of discussions about how excited people are about new Ryzens. There are two main divisions of people who read r/AMD. First (these days) are people who started going there because of Ryzen, for news about upcoming products and/or to talk about their new builds. Second are the old, hard-line, true-believers, who have bad cases of Stockholm syndrome, sunk-cost fallacy, and regard perfectly reasonable business decisions on the part of Intel as deep conspiracies against their AMD waifus. They're also the kind of people who unironically upvote Asian marketing materials involving AMD waifus. The FX people are, so far as I can tell, the gutter-crust-punk subset of this second group. I have no idea what actually drives them, though.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2019 05:28
|
|
|
SwissArmyDruid posted:I need a new VM-running machine, damnit. I need more cores and those AVX speedups for crunching more science.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2019 19:45
|
|
|
Statutory Ape posted:Oooh, 2070 performance at the price of a...nice 2070 from evga and massive warranty As (a? the?) resident "how much science can it crunch" nerd, I want to be excited for Navi, because AMD GPUs tend to beat Nvidia pretty good in the raw compute department. But... GRINDCORE MEGGIDO posted:I'll be surprised if it needs less then 250W Yeah, me too. I have a stack of 4 machines running 24/7, using the air in my living room as a heat exchange medium. I stick to the 75W and under cards. I'd love a Navi variant to be released that competes directly with the GTX 1650, but I'll believe that when I read reviews and benchmarks.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2019 05:12
|
|
|
I'd really love a 3900 (No X) running at 3.2-3.4GHz at 95W. But if the 3900X is all there is, then that's what I'll be migrating my compute stack to. I don't know if 70MB of L3 will mean a lot for gaming, but it'll sure mean a lot for scientific computing. One of the projects I crunch for uses the Rosetta suite, and it wants to keep 4MB of data resident in L3 at all times, per running thread. If you're low on cache and consistently have misses, that thread's runtime goes up by a factor of about 2.5X (~4500s to ~11500s on my hardware). So yeah. It's huge for non-gaming applications, for sure. This puts the 3900X on par with high-end Xeons. mdxi fucked around with this message at 05:30 on May 27, 2019 |
|
#
¿
May 27, 2019 05:28
|
|
|
Khorne posted:You can underclock to hit the power curve sweet spot. An excellent suggestion. Fun times ahead with BIOS settings and the killawatt.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2019 05:38
|
|
|
Sininu posted:Is there any reason to get one of these new motherboards over current probably cheaper ones if I don't care about PCIE 4 yet and probably won't be going with more than 8 cores? General consensus seems to be that B450 and up boards will be fine. BIOS support appears to be broader than that, but some people worry about the electrical components on lower-grade boards.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2019 09:20
|
|
|
ufarn posted:Are we to assume no major difference in AVX support and performance beyons pure IPC gains? To the contrary Zen2 AVX performance is 2X over Zen+. This was plainly stated at the Rome announcement, and not-so-plainly stated again last night. It's what this slide means:  I don't remember the exact wording, but last night Dr. Su used one of the more polite wads of marketspeak I've ever heard in order to say "We unfucked AVX performance, so yay" without using any of those words. EDIT: here's Ian Cuttress and Mark Papermaster talking about Zen 2's FP units, back in November, at the Rome reveal  Source: https://www.anandtech.com/show/13578/naples-rome-milan-zen-4-an-interview-with-amd-cto-mark-papermaster mdxi fucked around with this message at 16:59 on May 27, 2019 |
|
#
¿
May 27, 2019 16:37
|
|
|
Broose posted:Since I gather IPC and clock speeds are different Yes. IPC is Instructions Per Clock, which means exactly what it says: per tick of the clock, X many instructions are handled by a core. IPC is important because (broadly speaking) it tells you about speed-ups due to architectural changes. Clock speed is: how fast are the ticks of the clock? Clock speed improvements (again, generally speaking) tell you about process improvements. You can have clock speed improvements wihout IPC improvements (usually described as a "speed bump" by the press). You can have IPC improvements without clock speed improvements. In each step, from Zen to Zen+, and from Zen+ to Zen 2, we've gotten both. quote:would you be able to figure out equivalent GHz of an older generation by multiplying the IPC gain percent by the clock speed of the newer generation? In a rough, "on paper" fashion, sure. This is exactly what AMD did to get the "2X performance between 1800X and 3900X" number that they put up on a slide last night. code:quote:Or are there smaller details in there that would make that wildly inaccurate? I would assume it would be or else everyone would have been spouting off numbers otherwise. Also yes, but that's the real world for you. Every workload varies. Boost varies with available voltage and thermal overhead. Chips within a batch vary tiny bits, even if binned into the same bucket. You can't meaningfully account for everything, and you sure can't market products that way. So manufacturers make generalizations (sometimes fair, sometimes bullshit) and call it a day. Then reviewers and/or invested users do focused benchmarks for the things they're more specifically interested in. I'm planning a couple weeks of testing to get a full characterization of all 3 generations of Ryzen CPUs in scientific computing, once I have my hands on a 3900X.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2019 17:54
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Wait, what now? I thought Rome was confirmed to support AVX-512. AMD's not saying until Rome launch. From an interview with Mark Papermaster last November (link 2 pages back):
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2019 03:16
|
|
|
Broke out the Kill-a-watt this afternoon to see what the actual system power usage was on my compute stack machines. I currently have 2700s and 1600s in use, both with a listed TDP of 65W. Other than the CPUs, all 4 systems are identical. I got an idle power usage of 24.5W -- that would be CPU at idle, stock HSF, 2 x 8GB DDR4 (3000MHz), 2 x 120mm fans, and a M.2 SSD. Usage at 100% load on all cores+threads was 98.5W for the 1600 and 104.5W for the 2700. So the CPUs, at load, were burning 74W and 80W, respectively. I'm really curious to see what the under-load usage of the 3900X will be, and how that will drop as it is underclocked. Fun times ahead!
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2019 01:12
|
|
|
Mindblast posted:Currently sitting pretty on a 8700k but all this AMD news is nice. The market needs competition and AMD is bringing it. I can use what I currently have for some time to come but when the time comes I may just go for AMD this time around. I hope nvidia gets a similar kick in the dillz for pretty much the same reason. This is my position as well, despite every machine I own currently having an AMD CPU in it. The key word is "currently". Two years ago, my "hot" desktop was an i3-6100T with a GTX 1050 Ti in it. I happened to fall down the rabbit hole of grid computing projects just as the original Zen hype was getting going. I had a fever for more cores, and there was this slim chance that AMD was going to unfuck themselves and give them to me. The rest is history. But this has all happened before, and it will all happen again. If we go back to 2002, my "hot" desktop was a dual-socket Athlon MP -- but every machine I had between then and now was an Intel, because AMD decided to throw themselves in a dumpster after the runaway success of the Opteron line. I'm currently loving what Ryzen is doing for me, but as soon as the cost-benefit analysis is back on Intel's side, that's where I'll be. And my compute machines will have Nvidia GPUs in them until AMD delivers something that performs better while running inside the 75W power envelope. I don't mix religion and corporations. Everyone should use the tools that work best for them, with the problems they are currently trying to solve. But all that said, it is super-fun to watch Intel gently caress up at every opportunity right now.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2019 04:12
|
|
|
movax posted:I feel dirty cheating after 20 years of running Intel hardware but can't justify the $$$ for performance here. No gods, no masters. Only cost-benefit analysis.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2019 18:53
|
|
|
If I had just one machine, I'd upgrade to a 3950 in a heartbeat. I've got 4 though, so 3900s all around to start with. I'll swap in 3950s when the price drops and I'm thirstin' for those exxxtra cores.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2019 01:11
|
|
|
I noticed that ASRock released the updated BIOS for my motherboard, so I did some messing around with underclocking/undervolting. I've always run everything stock, so I wanted to learn how this all worked before the 3X00s dropped. I used one of my 2700 machines for this. Before changing anything, here's what it looked like: * All cores boosted to 3300MHz at full load (100MHz over base clocks) * System power of 24.5W at idle * System power of 104.5W at full load (all threads 100% utilization) I read in a couple of places on the internet that Ryzen systems were ridiculously efficient, if you wanted them to be. I now agree. I was expecting to fiddle endlessly with things to get single-digit wattage reductions, but the very first thing I tried: * Turn off XFR/PBO (labelled as "AMD CBS" in my mobo's bios) * Set overclocking mode to "manual" * Leave CPU clock at stock (3200MHz) * Set Vcore offset to -100mV And rebooted. Under full load, the entire system was now pulling 86W. That's an 18.5W drop just from telling the CPU to stop overclocking itself, and the Vcore offset. Also, the CPU is running about 10C cooler than it was previously. I am crazy excited for the 3900X now. Edit: my load testing is the work these machines are usually doing: scientific grid computing tasks. Not all tasks are created equal. I just observed total system draw at 92W, so there's going to be some up and down, clearly. I'm still happy with how dramatic the reductions are for so little effort. mdxi fucked around with this message at 00:33 on Jun 13, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2019 00:23
|
|
|
To others running Linux on ASRock boards, heads up: I've updated to the most recent BIOS on 2 boards now (Fatality B450 MITX, and the A300 STX mini desktop), and in both cases the my network interfaces have been re-enumerated. The B450 board's wireless interface moved from wlp36s0 to wlp7s0; the A300's wireless moved from wlp46s0 to wlp2s0. Not the worst thing in the world, but i spent several minutes wondering how the gently caress a BIOS update broke my internet.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2019 00:39
|
|
|
I'm doing prep work for my All-Generations Ryzen Real-World Workload Numbers-O-Rama (Don't Call It A Benchmark). I think/hope it will be useful for people wanting to know how these processors perform when pushed hard, even if they don't understand what the workloads are (full disclosure: I don't completely understand what the workloads are either, and I can't find any information at all on the algorithms/packages being used by the MCM subproject). If nothing else these numbers are being generated by doing actual work, of various types, for extended periods of time, with the processors at maximum load. I'll won't mention it again until it's done, but i'm posting it once in its unfinished state because it might help some people who are agonizing over springing for a "lowly" 1600, to see what one is really capable of. (Spoiler: the 1600 is a crazy value right now, in terms of money and work it can do.) And I'm sure the 2X00s will be on fire-sale soon. Expect an update every 36-ish hours, as I process and add data for the ZIKA, FAH2, and MCM subprojects. https://firepear.net/grid/ryzen3900/ mdxi fucked around with this message at 04:58 on Jun 17, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2019 04:55
|
|
|
Sub Rosa posted:The one workload I'm interested in seeing is nodes per second from free chess engine Stockfish if there is any chance you would add it to your battery of tests. I looked into this, and while I think it would be fun, it appears that Fishtest requires Python 2 and QT, and possibly some other things which are not installed on my compute nodes (they run headless, so anything that expects a display isn't going to work). Sorry 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2019 08:17
|
|
|
Sub Rosa posted:stockfish benchmark stuff Ah, cool, thanks! Done, for the machines I have now. I'll update when I get my hands on a 3900X: https://firepear.net/grid/ryzen3900/#stockfish-chess-benchmark Edit: this app exhibits some of the best SMT scaling I've ever seen, btw. Whatever it's doing, it's highly amenable to having extra integer and scheduling units available. Also, in doing these tests I discovered that my 2700's motherboard was clocking its memory at 2133MHz instead of 3000MHz. Fixing that resulted in a 5% performance gain. mdxi fucked around with this message at 05:34 on Jun 20, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2019 05:29
|
|
|
ConanTheLibrarian posted:What's the deal with Ryzen 3 APUs? All I could find was the 3400g, which despite the model number is 12nm. My company will be buying a batch of PCs soon and it would be great to get all dem sweet cores The Ryzen vs. Zen naming is confusing enough, but the APUs add another layer of complexity. * There were no 1X00 APUs * The first generation Ryzen APUs were the 2X00 models, which came out after all the 1X00 products and before any other 2X00 series products * The 2X00 APUs were fabbed on a 14nm process, but with the architecture improvments that went into the 2X00 chips * It is expected that the 3X00 APUs (which are, remember, the 2nd gen Ryzen APUs) will follow this trend. They'll be on 12nm, but will include 3X00 arch improvements. And from what I've read, the expectation is that they'll be monolithic instead of chiplets. * Edit: And they are apparently NOT coming out before the rest of the 3X00 series. And then there's the Athlon 300 series, which has shown up in a laptop at Computex, but which AMD hasn't even mentioned. Who knows? mdxi fucked around with this message at 21:27 on Jun 20, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2019 21:24
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 07:18 |
|
|
I'm going with 3200/CL16 because it's half the price of 3600/CL14, and I have 2 machines to upgrade. My nodes with 2700s in them are already running 3000MHz RAM, and that'll be good enough for now (there's only so much money I can convince myself is worth throwing at my weird hobby of donating compute time and electricity, and 4 3900Xs is gonna be it for a while). The nodes with 1600s, OTOH, have ultra-cheap 2400MHz RAM in them. It seems pointless to upgrade to a 12 core CPU and strangle it with slow RAM.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2019 19:03
|
|