AMD plans a Zen HEDT platform to combat X99?!

[Drak3]

Just now, manikyath said:

you're right, the socket was bigger than an airfield

T'is the only thing bigger than my dick, your mom, Trump's ego.

 

The joke is like a choose your own adventure! Yay!

[AnonymousGuy]

You drop $1000 on a chip, it needs to be rock solid.  AMD is not capable of accomplishing this, as their massively fucked Ryzen launch has shown, as well as everything they've done for the last 9 years.

[Droidbot]

2 minutes ago, AnonymousGuy said:

You drop $1000 on a chip, it needs to be rock solid.  AMD is not capable of accomplishing this, as their massively fucked Ryzen launch has shown, as well as everything they've done for the last 9 years.

It's not the most solid architecture due to most of the boards being rushed but Ryzen is still bloody good value for workstation machines and giving the 6900K a run for it's money at $500 is amazing value. 

 

Naples will be better, and at $1000, this is going against Xeon-WS, not HEDT

[Dabombinable]

2 hours ago, TheRandomness said:

Well, socket G34 CPUs were MCMs, I thought you were referring to that. Intel isn't that much better though, I mean, have you seen *LGA3647*?

*LGA775*
Conroe and Wolfdale. 2x dual core dies in the 1 package....and some with a 10^oC delta between the die.

[DrMikeNZ]

2 hours ago, AnonymousGuy said:

You drop $1000 on a chip, it needs to be rock solid.  AMD is not capable of accomplishing this, as their massively fucked Ryzen launch has shown, as well as everything they've done for the last 9 years.

X99 was not rock solid. Countless motherboards blew up, many taking the $1000+ CPU with it. All AMD needs to do is not have the VRMs explode, and it will be fine.

[Dabombinable]

4 minutes ago, DrMikeNZ said:

X99 was not rock solid. Countless motherboards blew up, many taking the $1000+ CPU with it. All AMD needs to do is not have the VRMs explode, and it will be fine.

*Looks at FX 9590*

[Speaker1264]

5 hours ago, DeadEyePsycho said:

Well I mean, even for Intel you shouldn't look past the highest 4c/8t i7 when it comes to gaming.

With an i5-3570k at 4.5 GHz I start to lose FPS in some games just when I open a youtube video playing on another monitor.  And I don't think the extra threads of the i7 are enough to compensate for that.  It's even worse when streaming.  Having 8 physical cores is a nice thing, and Intel has been hamstringing the market for years now.  Games may not make good use of 8 cores right now, but that's because they aren't as ubiquitous.  Just like most games didn't make use of 4 cores until they became much more common.  This is like saying 640K of memory is more than anyone will ever need.  That is, until it wasn't.

[Speaker1264]

2 hours ago, Droidbot said:

It's not the most solid architecture due to most of the boards being rushed but Ryzen is still bloody good value for workstation machines and giving the 6900K a run for it's money at $500 is amazing value. 

 

Naples will be better, and at $1000, this is going against Xeon-WS, not HEDT

I think the 1800x is a terrible price/performance comparison at $500 and no cooler.  The 1700 comes with it a cooler, only costs $330 and will overclock to nearly the same speed as the 1800x, sometimes 3.9 Ghz on the stock cooler.  Now that is an amazing value, and I wish reviewers and the like would use the 1700's price/performance ratio when comparing against Intel.  I think it's unfortunate because a lot of reviewers used the 1800x for comparison between AMD and Intel, and I think it's a bad comparison, when you have the 1700 which blows it away in price/performance.

[Dabombinable]

7 minutes ago, Speaker1264 said:

With an i5-3570k at 4.5 GHz I start to lose FPS in some games just when I open a youtube video playing on another monitor.  And I don't think the extra threads of the i7 are enough to compensate for that.  It's even worse when streaming.  Having 8 physical cores is a nice thing, and Intel has been hamstringing the market for years now.  Games may not make good use of 8 cores right now, but that's because they aren't as ubiquitous.  Just like most games didn't make use of 4 cores until they became much more common.  This is like saying 640K of memory is more than anyone will ever need.  That is, until it wasn't.

The extra threads of my 4790K can easily handle Youtube videos...especially when I've dedicated the iGPU to the second screen and thus can make use of GPU acceleration without impacting gaming performance (having 16GB of RAM helps).

[Speaker1264]

14 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

The extra threads of my 4790K can easily handle Youtube videos...especially when I've dedicated the iGPU to the second screen and thus can make use of GPU acceleration without impacting gaming performance (having 16GB of RAM helps).

The iGPU has nothing to do with it.  It's the CPU usage. Chrome or Firefox can hit around 50% cpu before buffering a youtube video, and stabilize around 25-30% after buffering has finished.  With that much CPU usage dedicated to the browser it isn't difficult to max out a core or two, causing a dip in FPS.

[Droidbot]

20 minutes ago, Speaker1264 said:

I think the 1800x is a terrible price/performance comparison at $500 and no cooler.  The 1700 comes with it a cooler, only costs $330 and will overclock to nearly the same speed as the 1800x, sometimes 3.9 Ghz on the stock cooler.  Now that is an amazing value, and I wish reviewers and the like would use the 1700's price/performance ratio when comparing against Intel.  I think it's unfortunate because a lot of reviewers used the 1800x for comparison between AMD and Intel, and I think it's a bad comparison, when you have the 1700 which blows it away in price/performance.

as the flagship I was using it as an example, but the 1700 is amazing value, I agree 

[Dabombinable]

15 minutes ago, Speaker1264 said:

The iGPU has nothing to do with it.  It's the CPU usage. Chrome or Firefox can hit around 50% cpu before buffering a youtube video, and stabilize around 25-30% after buffering has finished.  With that much CPU usage dedicated to the browser it isn't difficult to max out a core or two, causing a dip in FPS.

It does for me. I use the iGPU for its video acceleration, instead of my GTX 970. Also, unless you have something really old-as in from around 2010 and earlier, you will have GPU acceleration enabled and thus the graphics card does most of the lifting (1080p videos see my GTX 970 idling at 165MHz with 25% usage). Also, you get 4 extra threads with an i7, and those are actually more than enough for web browsing/Youtube and other background tasks. Even in CPU bound games as most still use 4 threads at most, or load 1 heavily and lightly load the others. If you ever get the chance to try an i7 you'll see what I mean-it was a night and day improvement over my old i5 4440 when it came to multi tasking while playing games.

[Dabombinable]

@Speaker1264
4790K not missing a beat, and Youtube doing what it should-using the GPU to decode the video (not using the HD4600 at the moment due to the modified P4 cooler):

[Speaker1264]

4 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

@Speaker1264
4790K not missing a beat, and Youtube doing what it should-using the GPU to decode the video (not using the HD4600 at the moment due to the modified P4 cooler):

Well, I figured out Firefox is a total resource hog when watching Youtube videos.  The 25-50% usage I see in Firefox drops to around 30% and down to like 5% once the video is fully buffered while using Chrome (It's difficult to measure cause Chrome is split across like 10 processes).  Still I'm not sure how useful those extra threads are for gaming to be honest.

[Dabombinable]

7 minutes ago, Speaker1264 said:

Well, I figured out Firefox is a total resource hog when watching Youtube videos.  The 25-50% usage I see in Firefox drops to around 30% and down to like 5% once the video is fully buffered while using Chrome (It's difficult to measure cause Chrome is split across like 10 processes).  Still I'm not sure how useful those extra threads are for gaming to be honest.

When your gaming, it gives 4 weaker threads that end up pretty much dedicated to all background tasks, leaving all 4 cores to run your game without being fought over. Something that might help BTW in Firefox and Chrome is h264ify. Unless your GPU/iGPU can handle Google/Youtube's heavy VP9 codec your CPU ends up having to do the work. That is unless you force it to use h264 via the browser extension (for my old laptop with an A8 4555M I see better overall performance while watching Youtube, and on my desktop the GPU is put under an even lighter load)

[themctipers]

33 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

@Speaker1264
4790K not missing a beat, and Youtube doing what it should-using the GPU to decode the video (not using the HD4600 at the moment due to the modified P4 cooler):

How do you do that 

 

I have a 3770k at 4.4ghz and it tanks YouTube while I'm doing light gaming 

[zMeul]

1 hour ago, Speaker1264 said:

Well, I figured out Firefox is a total resource hog when watching Youtube videos.  The 25-50% usage I see in Firefox drops to around 30% and down to like 5% once the video is fully buffered while using Chrome (It's difficult to measure cause Chrome is split across like 10 processes).  Still I'm not sure how useful those extra threads are for gaming to be honest.

if not mistaking, FireFox has WebM/VP9 acceleration disabled by default

 

alternatively, you can use this up to UHD content: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/h264ify/

Edited March 19, 2017 by zMeul

[leadeater]

Well this is just weird, isn't Ryzen 7 already targeted at HEDT? Most of the marketing was comparing it to a 6900K.... Other than PCIe lanes which is a big reason I wont buy it Ryzen 7 is HEDT.

 

If this news is true and not just getting confused with one of the planned server platforms then at least it will solve the PCIe lane issue for me. Also unless the base clocks are significantly lower than the Ryzen 7 offerings it'll be just fine for gaming, some of the people that run dual GPUs and other cards like 10Gb NICs actually appreciate the HEDT platforms and buy them for gaming with sound reasoning behind it.

[Dabombinable]

8 minutes ago, themctipers said:

How do you do that 

 

I have a 3770k at 4.4ghz and it tanks YouTube while I'm doing light gaming 

What's the GPU usage? Also, 16GB of RAM and now barely used page files.

[themctipers]

3 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

What's the GPU usage? Also, 16GB of RAM and now barely used page files.

6-8%

32gb of ram, 2gb paging file so windows won't bitch. 

[Dabombinable]

2 minutes ago, themctipers said:

6-8%

32gb of ram, 2gb paging file so windows won't bitch. 

I think my rig is being contrary AF.

[DrMikeNZ]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

Well this is just weird, isn't Ryzen 7 already targeted at HEDT? Most of the marketing was comparing it to a 6900K.... Other than PCIe lanes which is a big reason I wont buy it Ryzen 7 is HEDT.

If this news is true and not just getting confused with one of the planned server platforms then at least it will solve the PCIe lane issue for me. Also unless the base clocks are significantly lower than the Ryzen 7 offerings it'll be just fine for gaming, some of the people that run dual GPUs and other cards like 10Gb NICs actually appreciate the HEDT platforms and buy them for gaming with sound reasoning behind it.

While the Ryzen 7 CPUs compete with Intel's X99 procesors, the X370 platform does not. AMD need this to expand the markets that Zen can cross into.

Even if this is just a mid-range server platform, that is good enough for me, I have already started planning the budget for it.

[leadeater]

2 minutes ago, DrMikeNZ said:

While the Ryzen 7 CPUs compete with Intel's X99 procesors, the X370 platform does not. AMD need this to expand the markets that Zen can cross into.

Even if this is just a mid-range server platform, that is good enough for me, I have already started planning the budget for it.

Yea I was planning on potentially buying Naples but maybe AMD have thought of a middle ground for us already 

[typographie]

7 hours ago, dizmo said:

Also, I don't really see a huge need for a 16 core consumer CPU.

Well of course the need isn't huge, these are extremely specialized products. But such products still have their place.

 

If we accept that the i7-6900K and i7-6950X have a place, we have to give the same recognition to a 16/32-core CPU as well. Once you get to the point where your workload benefits from having 16-20 logical cores, it would generally benefit from as many cores as you've got.

[Valentyn]

49 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Yea I was planning on potentially buying Naples but maybe AMD have thought of a middle ground for us already 

Unlocked Opterons like in the good ole days? Would be darn nice