FMA3 bug discovered in (Ry)Zen

[i_build_nanosuits]

Just now, XenosTech said:

I watched all those vids already... Those few people still don't quantify as "the whole tech community" and steve from hardware unboxed frequents adored channel and adds to the discussion in the comments section over  there from time to time

Here, let me quote myself again for your VERY SELECTIVE little mind:

 

6 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

i've seen quite a few videos this week refering to this clueless amd fanboy who never test anything on his own and cherry pick computerbase.de biaised benchmarks to prove his crazy claims...here are two of the videos i remember where his case was discussed...lot of it happening on twitter as well...tech city, tech of tomorrow, bitwit, paul's hardware and hardware unboxed all debunked his silly claims...he clearly is an AMD twit just look at the titles of the videos on his youtube channel...it's just plain funny!

 

[XenosTech]

17 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

Here, let me quote myself again for your VERY SELECTIVE little mind:

 

Sure I have a selective little mind when you're one of the people on the forum who just mindlessly hates on something... This has made my day

 

 

Btw your exact words

[MageTank]

9 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

 

 

i've seen quite a few videos this week refering to this clueless amd fanboy who never test anything on his own and cherry pick hardware.de biaised benchmarks to prove his crazy claims...here are two of the videos i remember where his case was discussed...lot of it happening on twitter as well...tech city, tech of tomorrow and hardware unboxed all debunked his silly claims...the clearly is an AMD twit just look at the titles of the videos on his youtube channel...it's just plain funny!

 

 

 

 

This, watch the whole video:

 

This watch from 22:00 i think my link will start you there already:

 

 

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. This is exactly why I always tell people to get their information from as many sources as possible, even if they conflict with each other. If for some reason, you still walk away with inconclusive data, then test it yourself. Plenty of retailers have return policies that don't even invoke a restocking fee, so people that are curious, but absolutely confused by two tech "personalities" having a difference of opinion, can simply put the debate to rest by testing for themselves.

 

I do find it odd that a youtube channel is simply regurgitating data from another website that isn't their own, in an attempt to prove their point, but then again, so many people in this very forum (myself included at times) do the same thing. This is also another reason why I ask for the testing methodologies to be made known, before I consider a source "credible". I'd like to test it their way, and see how they came to their conclusion. However, just because a reviewer is wrong, doesn't exactly imply intentional deceit. It could simply be a flaw in their methodology. Take Linus for example. Great entertainer, no doubt a knowledgeable guy on a lot of things tech related, but has been a victim of a terrible testing methodology several times now. This "AdoredTV" channel is likely a victim of ComputerBase's awful methodology (or in this case, a completely nonsensical way of comparing hardware). This doesn't exactly make them a joke in my eyes, but it certainly means I will not be taking their word for anything, and will demand more evidence from them before accepting their claims. 

 

TL:DR? Always get multiple sources, and always test for yourself in the end. Don't take the words of any random youtuber as the be all, end all. 

[i_build_nanosuits]

4 minutes ago, MageTank said:

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. This is exactly why I always tell people to get their information from as many sources as possible, even if they conflict with each other. If for some reason, you still walk away with inconclusive data, then test it yourself. Plenty of retailers have return policies that don't even invoke a restocking fee, so people that are curious, but absolutely confused by two tech "personalities" having a difference of opinion, can simply put the debate to rest by testing for themselves.

 

I do find it odd that a youtube channel is simply regurgitating data from another website that isn't their own, in an attempt to prove their point, but then again, so many people in this very forum (myself included at times) do the same thing. This is also another reason why I ask for the testing methodologies to be made known, before I consider a source "credible". I'd like to test it their way, and see how they came to their conclusion. However, just because a reviewer is wrong, doesn't exactly imply intentional deceit. It could simply be a flaw in their methodology. Take Linus for example. Great entertainer, no doubt a knowledgeable guy on a lot of things tech related, but has been a victim of a terrible testing methodology several times now. This "AdoredTV" channel is likely a victim of ComputerBase's awful methodology (or in this case, a completely nonsensical way of comparing hardware). This doesn't exactly make them a joke in my eyes, but it certainly means I will not be taking their word for anything, and will demand more evidence from them before accepting their claims. 

 

TL:DR? Always get multiple sources, and always test for yourself in the end. Don't take the words of any random youtuber as the be all, end all. 

i absolutely agree, and this is why my youtube feed looks like this:

 

[The Sloth]

3 minutes ago, MageTank said:

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. This is exactly why I always tell people to get their information from as many sources as possible, even if they conflict with each other. If for some reason, you still walk away with inconclusive data, then test it yourself. Plenty of retailers have return policies that don't even invoke a restocking fee, so people that are curious, but absolutely confused by two tech "personalities" having a difference of opinion, can simply put the debate to rest by testing for themselves.

 

I do find it odd that a youtube channel is simply regurgitating data from another website that isn't their own, in an attempt to prove their point, but then again, so many people in this very forum (myself included at times) do the same thing. This is also another reason why I ask for the testing methodologies to be made known, before I consider a source "credible". I'd like to test it their way, and see how they came to their conclusion. However, just because a reviewer is wrong, doesn't exactly imply intentional deceit. It could simply be a flaw in their methodology. Take Linus for example. Great entertainer, no doubt a knowledgeable guy on a lot of things tech related, but has been a victim of a terrible testing methodology several times now. This "AdoredTV" channel is likely a victim of ComputerBase's awful methodology (or in this case, a completely nonsensical way of comparing hardware). This doesn't exactly make them a joke in my eyes, but it certainly means I will not be taking their word for anything, and will demand more evidence from them before accepting their claims. 

 

TL:DR? Always get multiple sources, and always test for yourself in the end. Don't take the words of any random youtuber as the be all, end all. 

 

 

yup that's the main point i_build_nanosuits thx for the information, this is what i wanted to see instead of baseless accusation.ryzen is a good cpu for creative work, streaming and light gaming not a gaming cpu, hopefully bugs will be ironed out. thanks again for the information, the detailed post had lots of important information. 

[The Sloth]

Just now, i_build_nanosuits said:

i absolutely agree, and this is why my youtube feed looks like this:

 

 

digital foundry is one of the best channels for reviews especially with all the information they provide ( watch their switch review, it covers everything), i also love all the retro reviews they do.  

[i_build_nanosuits]

Just now, nerdslayer1 said:

digital foundry is one of the best channels for reviews especially with all the information they provide ( watch their switch review, it covers everything), i also love all the retro reviews they do.  

i'm lucky to have a job that allow me to watch ALL the contents these outlets put out..all the time...i work while listening to that stuff...all day...so i have a very good, wide understanding on everything...everytime a new product launch wheter it's a new chipset, a new CPU, new GPU etc. i watch a dozen+ reviews from various outlets about it to get as wide a proposition as possible.

[MageTank]

1 minute ago, nerdslayer1 said:

yup that's the main point i_build_nanosuits thx for the information, this is what i wanted to see instead of baseless accusation.ryzen is a good cpu for creative work, streaming and light gaming not a gaming cpu, hopefully bugs will be ironed out. thanks again for the information, the detailed post had lots of important information. 

The problem with your post is, AMD doesn't advertise it that way. They advertised it as both a gaming CPU and workstation CPU. They compared it's gaming performance against Intel's "non-gaming CPU's" which opened them up to this criticism. Had they advertised it strictly as a multi-threaded workhorse, people would have simply accepted it's gaming prowess as icing on the cake. Instead, they used 4k benchmarks and tried to paint it as this jack of all trades CPU, and further cemented it's role as a "gaming CPU" on their own website by plastering "Pro Gamers" all over the Ryzen page. They even go as far as to use the word "Future Proof" on the Ryzen page.

 

Nobody will deny Ryzen's very compelling price for it's great "lifting" performance, but people need to stop pretending that Ryzen is at the same level as Skylake/Kaby Lake when it comes to gaming. Sure, at higher resolutions where the GPU becomes the bottleneck, Ryzen's deficiencies matter less, but for people that want high refresh rate gaming at lower resolutions, Ryzen won't match what Intel can do, for a similar amount of money. It all depends on what the individual consumer needs. Are they strictly a gamer? Or do they do a little bit of everything with no real emphasis on one specific task? These are the questions people need to ask themselves when currently looking for a CPU.

[The Sloth]

2 minutes ago, MageTank said:

The problem with your post is, AMD doesn't advertise it that way. They advertised it as both a gaming CPU and workstation CPU. They compared it's gaming performance against Intel's "non-gaming CPU's" which opened them up to this criticism. Had they advertised it strictly as a multi-threaded workhorse, people would have simply accepted it's gaming prowess as icing on the cake. Instead, they used 4k benchmarks and tried to paint it as this jack of all trades CPU, and further cemented it's role as a "gaming CPU" on their own website by plastering "Pro Gamers" all over the Ryzen page. They even go as far as to use the word "Future Proof" on the Ryzen page.

 

Nobody will deny Ryzen's very compelling price for it's great "lifting" performance, but people need to stop pretending that Ryzen is at the same level as Skylake/Kaby Lake when it comes to gaming. Sure, at higher resolutions where the GPU becomes the bottleneck, Ryzen's deficiencies matter less, but for people that want high refresh rate gaming at lower resolutions, Ryzen won't match what Intel can do, for a similar amount of money. It all depends on what the individual consumer needs. Are they strictly a gamer? Or do they do a little bit of everything with no real emphasis on one specific task? These are the questions people need to ask themselves when currently looking for a CPU.

 

i know, sadly AMD marketing division sucks.

[i_build_nanosuits]

Just now, MageTank said:

The problem with your post is, AMD doesn't advertise it that way. They advertised it as both a gaming CPU and workstation CPU. They compared it's gaming performance against Intel's "non-gaming CPU's" which opened them up to this criticism. Had they advertised it strictly as a multi-threaded workhorse, people would have simply accepted it's gaming prowess as icing on the cake. Instead, they used 4k benchmarks and tried to paint it as this jack of all trades CPU, and further cemented it's role as a "gaming CPU" on their own website by plastering "Pro Gamers" all over the Ryzen page. They even go as far as to use the word "Future Proof" on the Ryzen page.

...and it's been reported that AMD went as far as strongly suggesting reviewers to test gaming only at 4K...like Linus Sebastian did...why do you think he had those favors of being the only reviewer to be able to shoot inside the ryzen/vega demo machine...he did delivered ONLY 4k gaming benchmarks in his ryzen reviews...AMD also suggested a list of games specificaly to test in the ryzen reviews...you want to know the list of games? watch linus ryzen review.

 

Just now, MageTank said:

Nobody will deny Ryzen's very compelling price for it's great "lifting" performance, but people need to stop pretending that Ryzen is at the same level as Skylake/Kaby Lake when it comes to gaming. Sure, at higher resolutions where the GPU becomes the bottleneck, Ryzen's deficiencies matter less, but for people that want high refresh rate gaming at lower resolutions, Ryzen won't match what Intel can do, for a similar amount of money. It all depends on what the individual consumer needs. Are they strictly a gamer? Or do they do a little bit of everything with no real emphasis on one specific task? These are the questions people need to ask themselves when currently looking for a CPU.

...also, a more capable gaming CPU, even if you don't benefit from it right now, with current games, and current GPU solutions...who is to say in 2-3 years from now when you get a GTX 1270 for 399$ this ryzen CPU will not hold it back? As the games and GPU's evolve CPU has to stretch it's legs, and if you start with a contender that already ''limit'' current higher end graphics solutions...IMHO, it doesn't look too good for the future...

[ARikozuM]

[Sorry if the joke was used already]

 

Does this mean I can blue-screen friends by making them watch Full Metal Alchemist?

[79wjd]

1 hour ago, MageTank said:

a victim of ComputerBase's awful methodology (or in this case, a completely nonsensical way of comparing hardware). 

What was nonsensical about it? When I saw some of the results they looked pretty inconsistent with other results I've seen, but I didn't bother looking further into it.

[Zodiark1593]

21 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

[Sorry if the joke was used already]

 

Does this mean I can blue-screen friends by making them watch Full Metal Alchemist?

Perhaps if they're encoded in h.265, and the player doesn't use hardware acceleration. Even then, I'd wager you'd probably get frame corruption before blue screens, though I admit to not (yet) know the details of this bug. 

 

Edit: assuming the video is h.265, then yes, you could theoretically crash the system with certain players. 

[zMeul]

4 hours ago, ElfFriend said:

So hold on, what you're saying is that ZFS wouldn't work on Ryzen? That's rather unfortunate

I didn't say it won't work

the FMA3 bug poops up in a very particular workload and by the looks of things it can be patched

but right now, it's quite safe to say keep away from ZFS for time being

 

also ... there's no confirmation that Ryzen actually supports the error correction in ECC RAM - if there's no ECC, it won't matter if the FMA3 bug can or can't be fixed

[zMeul]

3 hours ago, valdyrgramr said:

Well, he has sourced himself for credibility.

and in that thread there is a source that supports my claim

[zMeul]

9 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

Ya, maybe post that directly instead of yourself and telling everyone to Google everything?  That's how a debate works, and that's how you strengthen your argument.

in this one particular case, AdoredTV is trash - it's not worth the views

and mostly in trivial cases when this shit should be known

 

AdoredTV does "reviews" using other people's cherry picked work and not using the hardware himself

and he does it for the views and ad-revenue, that's shilling

he caters to a particular AMD audience that's just too stupid/lazy to check facts

Edited March 16, 2017 by zMeul

[zMeul]

Just now, valdyrgramr said:

But, you didn't provide any sources to the matter.  You told them to google everything.  They did and found nothing on what you were arguing.  At least provide credible sources on your part, or there's really no debate.

as I said, AdoredTV is a known waste of the channel in the tech world, banned by most

Steve from Hardware Unboxed goes to his channel and comments?! so what!? one of his most recent videos just trashes AdoredTV's retarded claims that "the review outlets" are doing it wrong

and that's how you go off topic and debate stupid shit like AdoredTV, instead of discussing based on the topic at hand

[zMeul]

2 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

You're missing the entire point.  Link the evidence, or there's no support to your argument.  Making claims doesn't make your argument credible.  Sourcing credible evidence/links does.

I don't need my arguments to be credible all the time, and especially not in AdoredTV's case

shills do not have respect enough from me to go out of my way to argument what I say

 

I do not have a YT channel that feeds me money for the content I post there

I do not do tech reviews

I'm highly interested in the tech and read a lot; and some of things I read, I get back here and discuss

[zMeul]

1 minute ago, valdyrgramr said:

Then there's no credibility.  It's assumed common knowledge, but that's not actual common knowledge.

outside LTT, yeah .. it's common knowledge

even /r/AMD .. for fucks sake, tells people to take everything AdoredTV sais with a salt mine of salt

[zMeul]

2 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

That is not common knowledge, it's assumed common knowledge.  Not everyone uses Reddit.  Common knowledge is knowledge know by nearly everyone, and by definition what you are saying is not known by nearly everyone.  Therefore, it cannot be common knowledge.  You need to directly link your proof.

when you say knowledge and that "knowledge" is based solely on LTT ... that's not knowledge

if you want to be knowledgeable, you go out and read .. a lot; and you also need to distinguish between shit and what's worthwhile 

 

it doesn't make it knowledge when I or anyone else posts a link to a source, you need to go out and read couple of other sources to understand what's going on

when PCPer or Anand sais something doesn't mean it's bulletproof 

[zMeul]

1 minute ago, valdyrgramr said:

You yourself state the following, " /r/AMD " a single part of a single social media site doesn't make it common knowledge.  Then you state that outside of LTT, and again without any direct source to the argument.  Prove it.  You simply saying so is not a credible source.  Link it.

AdoredTV doesn't worth me wasting (more) neurons

so, this is the last I'm willing to discuss the matter

[zMeul]

1 minute ago, valdyrgramr said:

Very well, but you haven't proven your original claim yet.

as I said, I don't need to 

also, someone posted a link to a bitwit/Paul's podcast of sorts couple of pages ago - go see it

[zMeul]

Just now, valdyrgramr said:

You do if you want to have a credible argument on the matter, not a, he said she, said argument.

don't need to / have to

I have and opinion and expressed it - that's it

[Godlygamer23]

22 minutes ago, zMeul said:

I don't need my arguments to be credible all the time[.]

So you're arguing for the sake of arguing, and wasting everyone's time.

[zMeul]

4 minutes ago, Godlygamer23 said:

So you're arguing for the sake of arguing, and wasting everyone's time.

isn't what forums are for?! 

we come here to argue and debate

 

or is this a forum where action figures dolls are exchanged