recent W10 patch, March15, shows some improvements for Ryzen

[Evanair]

13 minutes ago, MakeAMDGreatAgain said:

I wouldn't say Ryzen is a failure, definitely since it excels bigly in workstation tasks. But for gaming you could argue it, but we'll see from the R5 for budget gaming.

I'm betting Ryzen will be another failure on AMD's part, and I own it.  Once Intel kicks into gear and starts their PR machine up (like they always do a few months after an AMD launch) and squashes AMD, I give it a few years before AMD is the victim of a takeover by Intel.  Then Intel would own the x64 architecture as well as the x86.

 

With ARM now natively supported in a Windows environment, AMD is no longer a necessary evil for Intel to keep the monopoly police away.  
 

Ryzen was rushed, hyped, and failed to deliver on ALL categories it promised.  A 7700k can destroy it in gaming, and in workstation loads, it can be argued that because of the issues surrounding the "infinity fabric" (aka dual processors) and multi core use, that Intel wins out in the end.  With the new launch of the x299 chipset, AMD will die off.  They overplayed their hand and they are going to die because of it.  No company, unless you're name is Apple, can survive this many years of new product failure and survive. 

 

if you want real numbers (and the ones that actually matter for a company) AMD Stock has NOT recovered since launch day of the Ryzen platform.  If you look at any investment report, almost no one is recommending to buy AMD stock.

[jeppouza]

Improvements? 35-45% increase?

 

Sounds like #AMD_Hype_Vol_2

 

Years to launch new CPUs and yet no match for Intel's Extreme series, if this is something, I would say it's sad for us enthusiasts.

 

 

 

[Evanair]

As a followup, Jay2cents just posted a video of 1800x vs 5960x in a head-to-head workstation render.  Intel won by 8-10% margin on equal clockspeed. Intel system can be pushed another 500mhz faster as well.  Not bad for a 3 year old design.  Makes you wonder what Intel will release next when they update to the x299 market.

[zMeul]

44 minutes ago, Jahramika said:

Guess the exerts at PCPer look dumb now. Oh wait the Intel fan base will defend him.

no, PCPer did their job

[MageTank]

2 hours ago, Prysin said:

Because AMD hasnt understood what matters is execution. Their relentless push for overhyping their products is their downfall. Ryzen is a failure, not because of the core performance, but because it is an incomplete product, platform and concept.

Since when did AMD overhype Ryzen? It was the tech media that did that for them, and their rabid fans. They simply rode the hype wave that spawned because of it.

 

Is Ryzen revolutionary? No, not at all. In fact, the only thing special about it is it's price. Is it a failure? Not at all. The CPU market has a whole has become stagnant, so it's not like they actually NEEDED to deliver more than what they did, as even Intel fails to top their older architectures year after year. Ryzen as a platform is strong, and it can be expanded on. I just hope AMD fixes the serious quirks it has in the next revision, before Intel shows what tricks they have under their sleeves.

[Evanair]

1 minute ago, MageTank said:

I just hope AMD fixes the serious quirks it has in the next revision

I hope they don't.  Having only one company make the hardware for systems, both Nvidia for Video and Intel for CPU (afterall, AMD out of business would kill ATI) would be a godsend for programmers.  You would be able to program for one platform and one video platform. 

Hardware might be more stagnant, but software utilization of the chips and design would improve.

[79wjd]

3 minutes ago, MageTank said:

Since when did AMD overhype Ryzen?

Well, Lisa Su calling an R7+Vega system the "dream gaming pc of 2017" didn't exactly help.... 

[Evanair]

1 minute ago, djdwosk97 said:

dream gaming pc of 2017

Maybe she was talking about her dreams?

[Guest Darth Revan]

1 minute ago, Evanair said:

I hope they don't.  Having only one company make the hardware for systems, both Nvidia for Video and Intel for CPU (afterall, AMD out of business would kill ATI) would be a godsend for programmers.  You would be able to program for one platform and one video platform. 

Hardware might be more stagnant, but software utilization of the chips and design would improve.

As much as I hate that thought from a consumer point of view, this would actually be fantastic.

[MageTank]

3 minutes ago, Evanair said:

I hope they don't.  Having only one company make the hardware for systems, both Nvidia for Video and Intel for CPU (afterall, AMD out of business would kill ATI) would be a godsend for programmers.  You would be able to program for one platform and one video platform. 

Hardware might be more stagnant, but software utilization of the chips and design would improve.

Yeah... No. That would be a complete and total disaster for consumers. Not only that, there isn't really an issue in "programming for both" seeing as they tend to support the same instruction sets these days. Intel has SSE and AMD has access to AVX. Also, they said the exact same thing about DX12 when it came out, and how it was going to change gaming and make everything better. Still waiting for that dream to come a reality.

 

It doesn't matter how easy you make it for programmers, if their studios/parent companies force them to rush their products out.

[Evanair]

2 minutes ago, MageTank said:

they said the exact same thing about DX12 when it came out

With one set of hardware, you wouldn't need DX12 to work as it does.  You could move to more how consoles use to work (before 2 different ports) and have each system running much more efficient.  

[MageTank]

1 minute ago, Evanair said:

With one set of hardware, you wouldn't need DX12 to work as it does.  You could move to more how consoles use to work (before 2 different ports) and have each system running much more efficient.  

That was not my point. My point was, people heralded DX12 as the savior of gaming, giving developers even more access to hardware, and potentially bringing slower CPU's to life again. Instead, we got the exact same lazily programmed titles that flubbed the resources of games, performing worse for some  and barely performing the same/slightly better in others. I have yet to see a DX12 title that showed an abundant performance improvement over DX11. If someone knows of a title, I'd appreciate it.

 

It does not matter what you do. You can unify the entire platform, make it one CPU architecture, one GPU architecture, switch everything into a proprietary closed system, and you will still end up with rushed, incomplete products because developers are either lazy, overworked/rushed, or lack the budget to meet their goals. 

 

Oh, and let's humor that dream world of yours. You understand with only one GPU Company (Nvidia), you end up with your hardware being made obsolete on a yearly basis, right? We now see the GTX 960 beating a GTX 780. A card that was barely faster than the GTX 760 at launch, barely matched the 770 during it's lifespan, all of a sudden beating the 780 now? Yeah, that's not a world I want to live in. 

 

You are asking for a stagnant hardware market and anti-consumer prices, to make it easier on programmers that will NEVER have it easy due to the burden of their studio executives. Surely I am not the only one that thinks this sounds silly, right?

[Clanscorpia]

Why do we care about a DX10 benchmark? 

[zMeul]

18 minutes ago, Clanscorpia said:

Why do we care about a DX10 benchmark? 

for the same reason we care about 1080p benchmarking

[Belgarathian]

1 hour ago, Evanair said:

I'm betting Ryzen will be another failure on AMD's part, and I own it.  Once Intel kicks into gear and starts their PR machine up (like they always do a few months after an AMD launch) and squashes AMD, I give it a few years before AMD is the victim of a takeover by Intel.  Then Intel would own the x64 architecture as well as the x86.

 

With ARM now natively supported in a Windows environment, AMD is no longer a necessary evil for Intel to keep the monopoly police away.  
 

Ryzen was rushed, hyped, and failed to deliver on ALL categories it promised.  A 7700k can destroy it in gaming, and in workstation loads, it can be argued that because of the issues surrounding the "infinity fabric" (aka dual processors) and multi core use, that Intel wins out in the end.  With the new launch of the x299 chipset, AMD will die off.  They overplayed their hand and they are going to die because of it.  No company, unless you're name is Apple, can survive this many years of new product failure and survive. 

 

if you want real numbers (and the ones that actually matter for a company) AMD Stock has NOT recovered since launch day of the Ryzen platform.  If you look at any investment report, almost no one is recommending to buy AMD stock.

You've made some bold claims there, can I see your sources? Particularly these investment reports. 

[zMeul]

1 hour ago, Evanair said:

As a followup, Jay2cents just posted a video of 1800x vs 5960x in a head-to-head workstation render.  Intel won by 8-10% margin on equal clockspeed.

percentages mean shit

the intel system was 2min30 faster on a ~25min Premiere workload

 

the new Intel platform is still months away, it will be better? yes! how much? at least 14% based solely on IPC numbers

[zMeul]

Quote

Dota 2 Update - March 20th, 2017
March 20, 2017 - Valve

• Fixed the display of particles in the portrait window.
• Fixed Shadow Fiend's Demon Eater (Arcana) steaming while in the river.
• Fixed Juggernaut's Bladeform Legacy - Origins style hero icons for pre-game and the courier button.
• Improved threading configuration for AMD Ryzen processors.
• Workshop: Increased head slot minimum budget for several heroes.  

 

http://www.dota2.com/news/updates/28296/

[Kobathor]

1 hour ago, Evanair said:

I hope they don't.  Having only one company make the hardware for systems, both Nvidia for Video and Intel for CPU (afterall, AMD out of business would kill ATI) would be a godsend for programmers.  You would be able to program for one platform and one video platform. 

Hardware might be more stagnant, but software utilization of the chips and design would improve.

can't wait for the "NEW GTX 1160 - ONLY $600 MSRP" "i3 8300 - our newest best i3, only $300 *Intel jingle*"

[Taf the Ghost]

AMD is still up 700% from their low LAST YEAR.  Except for the two Tech Bubble periods, AMD is back to about their normal valuation.  Some serious shilling going on here.

 

 

As for Ryzen, Core Parking.  Much of the Scheduler discussion seems to actually be around the Core Parking where Win10 seems to want to constantly shut down Ryzen cores more aggressively than needed.  Considering the design differences between Intel & Ryzen, that's just one of the early bugs to sort out.  Some games will see improvements from that alone, especially in something at the hard-scale of 200+ FPS.  (Up at that range, it's little bottlenecks that have not much to do with the CPUs themselves that cause those differences.)

[Humbug]

valve released a patch for dota2 making the game Ryzen aware

http://www.dota2.com/news/updates/28296/

 

will we see all major devs doing this?

[Clanscorpia]

1 hour ago, zMeul said:

for the same reason we care about 1080p benchmarking

But noone used DX10 anymore

[MageTank]

Just now, Clanscorpia said:

But noone used DX10 anymore

People that play older titles do. Part of the fear with Zen, is it's performance in the back-catalog of games on PC. If we can only hope that it gets better in the future, it means current (and older) titles won't be good later on.

 

Improvement in older API's (and their titles) is still a good thing, no matter how you look at it.

[Clanscorpia]

1 minute ago, MageTank said:

People that play older titles do. Part of the fear with Zen, is it's performance in the back-catalog of games on PC. If we can only hope that it gets better in the future, it means current (and older) titles won't be good later on.

 

Improvement in older API's (and their titles) is still a good thing, no matter how you look at it.

I dont think it should be classified as a big boost for Ryzen though, it was never aimed at old games

[MageTank]

Just now, Clanscorpia said:

I dont think it should be classified as a big boost for Ryzen though, it was never aimed at old games

I fail to see how that matters. Title says "Shows some improvements for Ryzen". An improvement in an older API on Ryzen, fits that description perfectly in my opinion. It's a big boost for Ryzen in those titles (if this trend continues across other DX10 titles, that is). 

 

As much as I like to argue semantics, it's neither here nor there at this point. As consumers, you take any improvement that you can get, no matter how minuscule it might be in the grand scheme of things. 

[zMeul]

7 minutes ago, Clanscorpia said:

But noone used DX10 anymore

ValvE, no!?!?