AMD responds to 1080p gaming tests on Ryzen. Supports ECC RAM. Win 10 SMT bug

[zMeul]

1 hour ago, alextulu said:

There's a conflict between HPET and SenseMI.

and why should I give a flying fuck?!

both of these are AMD's tech, if they can't get it working in their own house with their own fucking tech .....

I don't even .. it's like they're playing hot potato with a live grenade

[leadeater]

4 minutes ago, zMeul said:

and why should I give a flying fuck?!

both of these are AMD's tech, if they can't get it working in their own house with their own fucking tech .....

I don't even .. it's like they're playing hot potato with a live grenade

With no arms?

[zMeul]

Just now, leadeater said:

With no arms?

Intel took them back, AMD forgot to pay the licence 

[zMeul]

 

[Tomsen]

17 hours ago, done12many2 said:

 

You obviously chose to see what you wanted in Steve's video.

 

Also, why is it cool with you for AMD to tell them to disable multi-core enhancement on the Intel chip, but leave XFR enabled on the AMD chip?  You're right, what's wrong with that?  You should disable the overclock on one and not the other because that's the fairest way to do it.  While your at it, run the x99 (6900k) in dual channel memory configuration, which nobody with x99 does.  Why?  To keep it fair.

17 hours ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

And AMD's XFR doesn't?

 

I had forgot all about XFR, jesus.

 

17 hours ago, djdwosk97 said:

*cough* XFR *cough*

And again, no one is going to disable that. 

 

Of course you'll run into the same issue. At some point, you'll end up with a powerful enough GPU that will cause the CPU to be the bottleneck. Whether or not a 7700k or 1800x ends up being better in the long run is a complete guess. Single threaded performance is still a critical factor as a lot of tasks simply cannot be parallelized -- even with DX12/Vulkan. So, you can bet on multi-core becoming more important than single-threaded performance, but that is just as much of a guess as the alternative.

 

It's a complete crapshoot as to which will be better in the long run (7700k vs. 1800x). So with that being the case, you're better off spending less money and getting more performance TODAY. Now, you can PERSONALLY choose to take the risk and go with whichever you PERSONALLY think is more likely, but that doesn't change the fact that a 7700k is a better cpu for gaming thereby making the 1800x a bad choice. 

I doubt we will run into the same issue, simply because many of the previous restriction was imposed by the old API's. That was the whole deal with DX12/Vulkan, to have more versatile API.

 

Also, just because one is better with a few percentage, doesn't make the other solution a bad choice. Would you say games would be unplayable with a ryzen chip?

[Ryujin2003]

2 hours ago, Tomsen said:

Would you say games would be unplayable with a ryzen chip?

Do you expect any unbiased Intel fanboy to really provide a legitimate answer to this?

[79wjd]

2 hours ago, Tomsen said:

I doubt we will run into the same issue, simply because many of the previous restriction was imposed by the old API's. That was the whole deal with DX12/Vulkan, to have more versatile API.

 

Also, just because one is better with a few percentage, doesn't make the other solution a bad choice. Would you say games would be unplayable with a ryzen chip?

It's more than just that though. Multi-threaded programming is still much harder AND, remember, there are still a lot of things that can't be parallelized further as the calculations are dependent on data that is currently being manipulated in another core. 

 

Most games aren't unplayable on an FX8320 either, that doesn't make it a good choice. Why would I spend the same/more on an inferior product (for gaming)? Now, if Ryzen would overclock better (and just be 10% behind a 7700k in single-threaded performance), then I would personally opt for a 1700 over a 7700k in gaming as I'd be willing to risk a 10% (single-threaded performance, not framerate) loss now for a potential gain in the future due to having twice as many cores. But that still doesn't change the fact that I'd be buying a lesser product and hoping it ends up being better. But at a 20% loss, you're looking at more of a problem as once the GPU bottleneck is gone (which it will be in the lifetime of either the 7700k or the 1700), you'll start to notice that single-threaded deficit more (which is why CPU benchmarks are done at low resolutions).

 

How I expect things to play out:

7700k - high end gaming

7600k - mid-high end gaming

X99 - top end workstations (people who need the extra 10% performance, quad channel memory, or >24 PCIE lanes)

R7/R5 - all but the top end workstations 

R3** - mid-end gaming (at 4ghz~, it will outperform any of Intel's locked SKUs while being cheaper)

G4560/Ryzen APU - low end gaming

 

**assuming R7 overclocks are indicative of the lesser SKUs, which may or may not be the case -- I'd really like to see someone disable cores on their R7 and see how far it overclocks.

3 minutes ago, Ryujin2003 said:

Do you expect any unbiased Intel fanboy to really provide a legitimate answer to this?

And how exactly am I a fanboy? 

[Ryujin2003]

1 minute ago, djdwosk97 said:

And how am I a fanboy?

Not saying you are.  Yes, it isn't a 7700k; however games will run on it. So if you're a pure gamer, obvious answer there. However It's still got a spot for casual gamers who are 60Hz 1080 gamers, who also do work. It's an alternitive. It's not a pure solution by itself.

 

The hype train didnt help things, but this isn't a gaming chip as reviews have proven. So yes, you can game with it, but you can do other things as well. If you need more power for multi threaded tasks, it's an option.

 

 

Not saying you're a fanboy, but I've read posts from many people of either game with Intel or get a board game....

[LAwLz]

2 hours ago, Tomsen said:

Would you say games would be unplayable with a ryzen chip?

3 minutes ago, Ryujin2003 said:

Do you expect any unbiased Intel fanboy to really provide a legitimate answer to this?

Ryzen isn't unusable for gaming, but when comparing a 330 dollar CPU vs a 500 dollar CPU, why pick the more expensive one when the cheaper one performs ~35% better?

It doesn't make sense to pay more, for less.

 

Of course, the Ryzen chip is better at some things, but those things are not what's important for the average Joe/gamer.

 

Like I said in another thread, Ryzen 7 killed the X99 platform. The only beneifts the X99 platform has are mostly for niche things, like a lot of PCIe lanes.

Anyone who was thinking of getting an i7-7700K or an i5 will be better off with those chips though, and that's by far the two most popular chips for people who build their own computers. The z270 platform, with the i5 and i7, is better than Ryzen 7 for the type of things most people want to do.

 

So no, it does not make sense for what I'd estimate is 95% of people on this website to buy a Ryzen CPU. It caters to a rather niche market of people who want x99 but don't need all of the things that platform offers. The same people who were going to buy the 6800K for example (like me).

[Notional]

 

Nice min frame rate compared to Skylake!

[79wjd]

4 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Ryzen isn't unusable for gaming, but when comparing a 330 dollar CPU vs a 500 dollar CPU, why pick the more expensive one when the cheaper one performs ~35% better?

It doesn't make sense to pay more, for less.

 

Of course, the Ryzen chip is better at some things, but those things are not what's important for the average Joe/gamer.

 

Like I said in another thread, Ryzen 7 killed the X99 platform. The only beneifts the X99 platform has are mostly for niche things, like a lot of PCIe lanes.

Anyone who was thinking of getting an i7-7700K or an i5 will be better off with those chips though, and that's by far the two most popular chips for people who build their own computers. The z270 platform, with the i5 and i7, is better than Ryzen 7 for the type of things most people want to do.

 

So no, it does not make sense for what I'd estimate is 95% of people on this website to buy a Ryzen CPU. It caters to a rather niche market of people who want x99 but don't need all of the things that platform offers. The same people who were going to buy the 6800K for example (like me).

I thought I've been pretty clear, but maybe not, I'm just talking about people who game. If you render/virtualize/other and game (and gaming isn't a much bigger priority), then Ryzen is the obvious choice. 

 

The hype train, heavily driven by AMD, was the biggest problem with all of this imo. I consider the product a success, but the launch a failure stemming from AMD driving up performance expectations beyond what they were, to AMD asking reviewers to gimp Intel hardware to make Ryzen seem better, to skewing benchmarks in their favor, to rushing the launch and leading to a mess with bioses. That's not to say that Intel/Nvidia/every other company isn't guilty of the similar at times, but it's everything put together that made this launch as a whole a disaster. 

4 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Ryzen isn't unusable for gaming, but when comparing a 330 dollar CPU vs a 500 dollar CPU, why pick the more expensive one when the cheaper one performs ~35% better?

It doesn't make sense to pay more, for less.

In fairness, I haven't seen any compelling results indicating that an 1800x makes any sense over a 1700. 

[Notional]

On 2/3/2017 at 5:37 PM, 3DOSH said:

Bug was found in win 10 affecting Ryzen where it allocates both logical and physical cores as if they were physical cores while incorrectly guessing processor cache size.

Quote

each zen thread is being registered as an individual core with its own L2 and L3 cache. i.e. totaling 136 MB cache!!. this is using Windows Sysinternals. This explains the SMT troubles in the event that a thread bounced to a HT thinking its the real deal.

 

Source:Anandtech Fourm user

 

Well that is very interesting indeed. Explains a lot of issues with both SMT and cache. Now I'm even more certain we will get a big scheduler update to windows 10 for Ryzen to fix this issue and the cross CCX L3 cache.

[Ryujin2003]

49 minutes ago, Notional said:

Well that is very interesting indeed. Explains a lot of issues with both SMT and cache. Now I'm even more certain we will get a big scheduler update to windows 10 for Ryzen to fix this issue and the cross CCX L3 cache.

Yeah, assuming this Windows "fix" doesn't unfix other things.

[TOMPPIX]

The human eye can't see more than 4 cores.

[Notional]

17 minutes ago, Ryujin2003 said:

Yeah, assuming this Windows "fix" doesn't unfix other things.

Such as? Looks like the scheduler isn't treating the CPU properly.

[Ryujin2003]

2 minutes ago, Notional said:

Such as? Looks like the scheduler isn't treating the CPU properly.

Not anything CPU specific,  but I've had issues where updates break Explorer. Start menu doesn't work, stuff like that. So if they could release an update that doesn't break more things than it fixes, that would be greatly appreciated! Haha.

[PCGuy_5960]

1 hour ago, Ryujin2003 said:

Do you expect any unbiased Intel fanboy to really provide a legitimate answer to this?

And do you expect an AMD fanboy to provide an unbiased answer?

[Notional]

Just now, Ryujin2003 said:

Not anything CPU specific,  but I've had issues where updates break Explorer. Start menu doesn't work, stuff like that. So if they could release an update that doesn't break more things than it fixes, that would be greatly appreciated! Haha.

 

Oh, lol yeah. Though I believe the sheduler is quite separate from GUI elements of Windows. Hopefully this will be a small update/fix, although it might take a few weeks for MS to get their shit together.

[Ryujin2003]

1 minute ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

And do you expect an AMD fanboy to provide an unbiased answer?

Um... also no. Haha.

But Intel has the bench marks in their favor.

 

 

[PCGuy_5960]

8 minutes ago, Ryujin2003 said:

 

Intel:

• Gets mad at benchmarks: Since when? Intel wins, just FYI
• Pays $100 more for a motherboard: (That has 2x the features)
• No money left: WTF?
• Gets defensive when AMD is mentioned:
• Pays extra for unlocked CPUs. (Good thing that they can OC beyond their boost clock)
• Thinks Skyrim and Startcraft are the best games for benchmarking: (No, 99% of games favor Intel)
• Thinks Intel costs less due to 10W less power draw: (Irrelevant with Ryzen)
• Often cite low-res Anandtech benchmarks: (You know the ones that show CPU performance)
• Often 12: The exact opposite
• Unnatural loyalty to Tom's Hardware: Says who?
• PC Parts bought by mom: Just no

AMD:

• Found that AMD is faster through personal research: By finding the one game in which AMD performs better
• Uses superior software that uses all the *weaker than Intel* cores
• Spends saved money on a GPU, to have it bottlenecked
• Knows the value of a dollar: (You know, the 1800X's amazing value for Gaming)
• Amazing emulation: (OK????)
• Wealthy: (The opposite)
• Outstanding multithreading: (6900K is still faster)
• Great resolution: To eliminate the CPU bottleneck

[spartaman64]

14 hours ago, zMeul said:

mate, what price cuts?

i misread some sensationalized articles and we are not sure if its just a micro center promotion or intel actually cut prices 

[done12many2]

Just now, spartaman64 said:

i misread some sensationalized articles and we are not sure if its just a micro center promotion or intel actually cut prices 

 

Yeah as mentioned in too many threads about it, Micro Center was cutting inventory as they do throughout the year and during new releases.

[spartaman64]

Just now, done12many2 said:

 

Yeah as mentioned in too many threads about it, Micro Center was cutting inventory as they do throughout the year and during new releases.

 

ok that makes sense

[alextulu]

https://www.techpowerup.com/231172/amds-ryzen-debut-onwards-to-the-hedt-market-or-the-stumbling-hype-train

 

Quote

Reviews show consensus in that Ryzen is a powerhouse of a processor when it comes to multimedia and encoding workloads, mostly crushing Intel's competition - even in comparisons between chips with an identical number of cores.

Quote

Gaming, however, is another story.

 

So why is it better at multimedia, but worse in gaming?

 

On Intel, Core Parking is disabled by default, but on Ryzen, Core Parking is enabled by default:

 

http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://www.hardware.fr/articles/956-8/retour-smt-mode-high-performance.html

Quote

we looked at an Intel config in X99. In "Balanced" mode, the default value is 100: the Core Parking is indeed disabled!

 

In case of doubt, we realized a "fresh" installation of Windows 10 Anniversary Update on both platforms, and we confirm: on Ryzen, the Core Parking is set to 10%, and on a 6900K to 100%.

 

It seems likely Microsoft has deactivated the Core Parking on the latest generation of Intel processors and has not yet made this change for the brand new Ryzen.

 

Why is this important?

 

Because when encoding, all the cores are always running at 100% load, so Core Parking never happens.

 

In video games, however, that's not the case, and the OS tries to put all the work on as fewer cores as possible, in order to keep some cores parked.

Quote

So we can see the difference: when the SMT is active, the Windows scheduler will try to stack the threads on the available cores, which means to risk saturating the two logical threads of the same core.

Also, for some reason, P-states are changed slower in Balanced mode, than in High Performance mode.

 

[Dylanc1500]

I may be alone in this in thinking this. I see quite a few saying that Intel is scared (not saying I agree). Does anyone else think that, big MAYBE, AMD rushed it out so quickly, which is causing all the current issues with software, due to fear of what Intel is releasing next and they are trying to get out ahead? Just from all the stuff going on, it seems like it could be a possibility. However, that's full of tin foil.