More likely to hit the 4.2Ghz overclock peak due to better binning, quad channel memory support, 60 usable PCI-E Lanes, and the enhanced features of the enthusiast grade AM4 motherboards (if you care about that). There's also an upgrade path to better enthusiast level AMD processors in case you want to upgrade to something even more heavy duty down the line without having to buy a new motherboard and ram.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
AMD Ryzen Thread: Affordable Core Act
- Thread starter ·feist·
- Start date
More likely to hit the 4.2Ghz overclock peak due to better binning, quad channel memory support, 60 usable PCI-E Lanes, and the enhanced features of the enthusiast grade AM4 motherboards (if you care about that). There's also an upgrade path to better enthusiast level AMD processors in case you want to upgrade to something even more heavy duty down the line without having to buy a new motherboard and ram.
Supposedly the TR4 slot will be supported for 2 generations according to Anandtech. So if you get the 8 core now it may be a nice upgrade path to 32 core later with say 128GB Ram.
--
Just checked out the ASROCK X399 box, my god that socket is big, I've seen the videos, etc, but in real life hahahahahahaha...hahaahahahaha. Giddy, so giddy.
--
Just checked out the ASROCK X399 box, my god that socket is big, I've seen the videos, etc, but in real life hahahahahahaha...hahaahahahaha. Giddy, so giddy.
thelastword
Banned
Yes, as newboi said, for the 64 PCIE lanes, quad channel memory, easier OC'ing and a path to higher end CPU's and features on the x399 platform..The 1900x is the sweetspot for me since it's reasonable at $549.00...on entry...There have been rumors of a 1900-non-x version but I don't know if it will pan out....
I think this will run great for gaming, some content creation + desktop for me......I just built a PC a year and a half ago, so I'm still thinking if I should commit to another so soon, but whatever happens I will build an AMD system in the coming months.
Colbert
Banned
Don't you think the x399 platform is overkill for just 8c/16t? I mean look at the prices for the motherboards. What is your personal use case to be able to fully utilize the 64 PCI lanes anyway?
comshoplesce
Member
Harbinger of War
Member
Ryzen 1600, ASUS ROG STRIX B350-F Gaming and 2x8GB Corsair Vengeance 3000MHz will arrive to me before the end of the next week!
Is this the kit that you're getting? If so, those are the same three parts that I've been looking at as I plan for a Ryzen build near the end of the year. I'm very interested in hearing how everything goes. Especially with the ram, which according to the QVL list should run at 2933. I've heard about how picky AM4 boards can be with high-speed ram so that's my biggest concern going forward.
Yes, that's the one, only the red variant [CMK16GX4M2B3000C15R]. Here in my territory the high speed ram is a bit of a rarity, so I targeted anything between 2933 and 3200.
I got the ram already from a local user who came to the realization that 16gb is too much for his needs. It's still under full warranty [he purchased it just a few weeks ago], and I got it for a really affordable price.
I got the ram already from a local user who came to the realization that 16gb is too much for his needs. It's still under full warranty [he purchased it just a few weeks ago], and I got it for a really affordable price.
Ryzen Threadripper 1950x & Threadripper 1920x Reviews
Threadripper Launchreviews: An overview of the test results for application performance
https://www.3dcenter.org/news/threa...tate-zur-anwendungs-performance-im-ueberblick
I haven't kept up with the lower-end CPUs: how do the quad-core Ryzens perform for gaming compared to the 1600/X or 1700/X?
Because an 8-core Threadripper is basically a "dual-socket" quad-core system in NUMA mode for gaming, since the latency in UMA mode hurts gaming performance.
I would buy a 1700/X instead of the 1900X unless you need the extra PCIe lanes or memory capacity/bandwidth for your non-gaming tasks.
The 1920X should at least perform similar to an overclocked 1600X in games, or the 1950X like an 1800X, rather than the 1900X's overclocked 1500X equivalent.
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
Threadripper 1950X renders (pun intended) Intel's 7900X 12-core obsolete.
Same price, better platform and crushes it in performance.
Same price, better platform and crushes it in performance.
About 4 years they estimate. Basically until maybe new tech like DDR5 or the like launches. They haven't been completely explicit in the timing just they are doing a tock,tock, tock model.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/3155...s-7-all-new-details-revealed-at-ces-2017.html
Yh the reason my upgrade will be Ryzen and with mostly everything I/O related living in the CPU they can more easily do it.
Hopefully with Zen 2 AMD can get those clocks a lot higher.
The only potential thing that current buyers of AM4 boards will be left without is possibly some new USB standard that will arrive in a few years [and judging by the current pace, there will be several of them... they should just say fuck it, and provide PCIE pins inside the USB port]
thelastword
Banned
Well, I don't think it's overkill. I think it's an affordable enough entry point CPU for the platform.... So that may encourage some to consider the HEDT platform as an alternative. The Gigabyte AORUS does not look too bad for an x399 mobo and some of it's features will come in handy for some of my workloads and tinkering later on. SLI, some rendering work and encodes and some sound work...
I guess, there may still be some optimization work needed for threadripper for games including the two memory presets, but performance is not bad....Does pretty well in Tomb Raider, but some games like Dirt Rally don't know what to do with the 32 cores on the 1950x....Not like I'm considering the TR1950x, but when more games start using more threads and with some improvements to x399, I can see Ryzen TR scaling to better perf in games just like regular Ryzen.....I'd personally love to see how game performance scales on the platform with higher clocked memory like the FlareX 3600Mhz tbh and other workloads of course...
All in all, I see your point, since the 1800x is a very viable alternative for gaming and non-gaming workloads as it is...I just see the 1900x as an affordable entry point on a feature rich platform (about +$130 over 1800x's price) for HEDT. It's tempting to say the least, but those mobo prices though
I imagine there will be cheaper alternatives coming along shortly as well?Got my 1700x/X370 Taichi built last night. Haven't been able to test it out on any games yet, just busy with the software installs. I did have problems getting my Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4-3000 to post. Loading the XMP profile would cause fault problems and it would reboot a couple of times until it would finally boot up. 2133MHz was stable though. I updated the BIOS and upon first reboot it posted and booted up right away, so hopefully that was the trick. It was 1:30am at that point so I didn't reboot again to see if it stuck.
I have to say though, that Noctua heat sink is amazing. Getting idle Temps in the 20s, and stable 30s booting to the desktop. It's a great complement to my HAF 932 case, because I can point those dual fans up and let the 230mm top fan just suck out any heat.
Oh and coming from an ancient P6X58D Premium MB, the X370 Taichi is a beauty. So simple and clean in design. I love it.
Can't wait to mess with it a bit more tonight.
I have to say though, that Noctua heat sink is amazing. Getting idle Temps in the 20s, and stable 30s booting to the desktop. It's a great complement to my HAF 932 case, because I can point those dual fans up and let the 230mm top fan just suck out any heat.
Oh and coming from an ancient P6X58D Premium MB, the X370 Taichi is a beauty. So simple and clean in design. I love it.
Can't wait to mess with it a bit more tonight.
How about they fix the issues with dx12 and ryzen first...
Tallshortman
Member
If nothing else zen continues to prove Jim Keller is a genius and arguably the greatest processor engineer in history.
Leading AMD back in one generation with likely far fewer resources than intel is astounding.
Leading AMD back in one generation with likely far fewer resources than intel is astounding.
This is not like Ryzen where there is a (comparatively) small latency penalty for threads communicating across CCXes within the same die. This is significant latency across two dies in UMA mode.I guess, there may still be some optimization work needed for threadripper for games including the two memory presets, but performance is not bad....Does pretty well in Tomb Raider, but some games like Dirt Rally don't know what to do with the 32 cores on the 1950x....Not like I'm considering the TR1950x, but when more games start using more threads and with some improvements to x399, I can see Ryzen TR scaling to better perf in games just like regular Ryzen.....I'd personally love to see how game performance scales on the platform with higher clocked memory like the FlareX 3600Mhz tbh and other workloads of course...
All in all, I see your point, since the 1800x is a very viable alternative for gaming and non-gaming workloads as it is...I just see the 1900x as an affordable entry point on a feature rich platform (about +$130 over 1800x's price) for HEDT. It's tempting to say the least, but those mobo prices though
In NUMA mode (game mode) Windows is basically told that the two dies are two separate CPUs, and my understanding anything not written to explicitly work across multiple CPUs will be restricted to one of them.
I really doubt that there will be much game support for NUMA Nodes.
With a 1700/X you get 4 cores per CCX, and two CCXes total.
With a 1900/X you get 2 cores per CCX, two CCXes per die, and two dies total.
PC Perspective covers this in their review.
However, since it only covers the 12-core 1920X and 16-core 1950X, it does not explain the severity of the issue with the 8-core 1900/X.
A 1920X still has six cores that it can dedicate to a game, and the 1950X has eight. The 1900/X will only have four, so game performance will be like an overclocked
This chart does a good job comparing them.
When communication is contained within a CCX, Ryzen/Threadripper actually have slightly lower latency than the 7700K, and considerably lower latency than the 7900X.
However cross-CCX communication has a big penalty that puts latency higher than the 7900X - even with faster memory.
Cross-die communication is significantly higher than that - similar to a dual-socket Intel system.
And it will be really important to buy faster memory for Threadripper compared to Ryzen.
Here we can see that the cross-CCX latency drops from 143ns to 125ns going from 2400MT/s memory to 3200MT/s. (12.5% - there are diminishing returns above 2666MT/s)
But the cross-die latency drops from over 250ns to ~200ns (20%) which is significant. That brings latency lower than a dual-socket Intel system.
It's just not smart to buy an 8-core Threadripper unless you need the PCIe lanes or memory capacity/bandwidth, and your workload doesn't care about the latency across threads. (games do)
Giving games access to all 8 cores (UMA mode) could result in less consistent or possibly even worse performance than restricting them to 4. (NUMA mode)
Gamers Nexus did some testing back in April:
However I'd wait until the 21st and see what Intel have to announce.
They've put a rush on Coffee Lake for desktops (there will apparently be a v2 launch in Q1 2018) and 6 cores without any kind of CCX (Zen) or mesh topology (X299) should kick everything's ass in pure gaming tests.
I am not dissatisfied with my 1700X system - especially since it has ECC memory while Intel restricts that to Pentiums, i3s, and Xeons - but I do feel like it would have been smarter to wait for the reaction to Ryzen before building a system, rather than buying one.
I'm mostly happy with its performance in games, but there is the occasional title which really seems to need the higher IPC that Intel offers, and that's disappointing.
I'm starting to think that with my next GPU upgrade, I may end up building a separate (Intel) gaming rig and keep this as a dedicated workstation/server.
I would prefer to have a single machine that does everything, but that just doesn't seem to be possible.
Nvidia looking to slide into DMs for real, lol.
1900X should be closer to R5 1400 than R5 1500X in anything <4 cores since it only has 8 MB cache per die.
Feels like it only exists to be cost-optimized for software licensed per core/thread for people that absolutely needs a bunch for PCIe and/or quad channel memory. Anyone else is probably better of with the AM4 8-cores or just spending just a bit extra and getting the much better processors.
Feels like it only exists to be cost-optimized for software licensed per core/thread for people that absolutely needs a bunch for PCIe and/or quad channel memory. Anyone else is probably better of with the AM4 8-cores or just spending just a bit extra and getting the much better processors.
Oh wow, I thought there was no way it would have less than 8MB cache per die. Good catch.
Exactly.
Shadowhaxor
Member
Yeah, that's my concern as well. Threadripper is nice, but a bit overkill for me. Last thing I want is to have my 1700/AM4 and being forced to get a new mobo/proc in the next year if I want to upgrade. Nice to see that AMD has an upgrade path for AM4. I'd love to go TR, but once the price drops that is.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
Well, I've found that my Ryzen 1700x quite easily overclocks and is stable at 4.0 ghz. I ran Prime95 and CPUZ's CPU bench for a while and the temps never went higher than 56C.
Unfortunately, nothing seems to work when it comes to getting my RAM (advertised at 3000mhz) to run higher than 2400 mhz. I decided to order the G.Skill Flare X 3200 that was specifically tested for Ryzen, so hopefully I'll have more luck with that. I'll end up returning one of the kits.
Unfortunately, nothing seems to work when it comes to getting my RAM (advertised at 3000mhz) to run higher than 2400 mhz. I decided to order the G.Skill Flare X 3200 that was specifically tested for Ryzen, so hopefully I'll have more luck with that. I'll end up returning one of the kits.
mordecaii83
Member
This is not like Ryzen where there is a (comparatively) small latency penalty for threads communicating across CCXes within the same die. This is significant latency across two dies in UMA mode.
In NUMA mode (game mode) Windows is basically told that the two dies are two separate CPUs, and my understanding anything not written to explicitly work across multiple CPUs will be restricted to one of them.
I really doubt that there will be much game support for NUMA Nodes.
With a 1700/X you get 4 cores per CCX, and two CCXes total.
With a 1900/X you get 2 cores per CCX, two CCXes per die, and two dies total.
PC Perspective covers this in their review.
However, since it only covers the 12-core 1920X and 16-core 1950X, it does not explain the severity of the issue with the 8-core 1900/X.
A 1920X still has six cores that it can dedicate to a game, and the 1950X has eight. The 1900/X will only have four, so game performance will be like an overclocked1500X1400 non-X.
This chart does a good job comparing them.
When communication is contained within a CCX, Ryzen/Threadripper actually have slightly lower latency than the 7700K, and considerably lower latency than the 7900X.
However cross-CCX communication has a big penalty that puts latency higher than the 7900X - even with faster memory.
Cross-die communication is significantly higher than that - similar to a dual-socket Intel system.
And it will be really important to buy faster memory for Threadripper compared to Ryzen.
Here we can see that the cross-CCX latency drops from 143ns to 125ns going from 2400MT/s memory to 3200MT/s. (12.5% - there are diminishing returns above 2666MT/s)
But the cross-die latency drops from over 250ns to ~200ns (20%) which is significant. That brings latency lower than a dual-socket Intel system.
I was heavily considering getting a 1950x for my rig, but I'm starting to lean towards holding off to see how the 7920x from Intel compares. If multithreaded performance isn't too far behind, I think I'd take the better game performance assuming it can be OC'd to at least 4.4GHz. Gaming is an important part of my rig, but not the whole part or else I'd just settle for a 7700k. I've been rocking a 5820k OC'd to 4.5GHz, so I'm hoping I can get something with at least 4 more cores and a bit higher single-threaded performance.
RAM seems to be a big problem with Ryzen, don't know if it's the chipset or specific MBs. I just built mine last night and was trying to get a pair of 8GB Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4-3000 to post with the XMP profile and couldn't, stable only at 2133MHz. I updated to BIOS 3.0 and upon reboot it posted right away, so hopefully that's a good sign. But those Corsairs were verified to work on the official memory QVL (CMK16GX4M2B3000C15).
But it seems from my research of the above, memory timings are very hit and miss with these CPU with a lot of people.
Does the RAM run at higher speeds if you reduce/remove the CPU overclock? There's a good chance that the 4GHz overclock could be causing this, as none of those changes happen in isolation from one another.
Focus on overclocking the memory first, and then pushing the CPU.
Try setting the memory to 2T, or 1T with geardown enabled (think of it like 1.5T) rather than 1T with geardown disabled.
Got that same kit, only getting 2667, but haven't tried too many timing/voltage combinations yet, probably gonna research more on the weekend and test different profiles.
edit: I feel like I relied almost too much on msg boards and qvl lists, because it feels like I read about people with random ripjaws kits hitting 3200.
Then you'd be kicking yourself when Ryzen 2 comes along with better IPC and overclock limits right after for the socket you already have.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
This is the kit I bought initially:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B014UYPEXE/?tag=neogaf0e-20
Corsair LPX 32GB DRAM 3000MHz C15 Memory Kit for DDR4 Systems
CMK32GX4M2B3000C15
People claim to have got it working at the advertised speed on Ryzen and even my specific board (Asus Crosshair VI Hero), but I'm not having any luck.
Yeah, nothing happens at all if I try to adjust the RAM speed in isolation of the CPU overclock. I'll go into the BIOS and play with the settings (after reading articles, posts, watching YouTube videos, etc.) and nothing seems to be reflected at all once I boot into Windows. Like the settings simply don't take hold. In fact, the only way I can seem to get the memory speed to move at all is by adjusting the BCLK in the BIOS, but I've only been able to get it up to 2400 mhz so far that way. None of the ASUS memory profiles built into the BIOS work at all at changing the speed.
Games so far appear to suffer more of high core to core latencies than lower IPC, and thanks to the mesh replacing the ring bus Skylake-X so far is worse there than Broadwell-E. So for gaming with more cores than 7700k, 6950x and the likes are actually a better fit.
Everybody building new Ryzen systems should update the BIOS as the very first action, all the recent memory compatibility and stability improvements likely aren't in most MBs' stock BIOS yet.
What timings are you using if you don't mind me asking? If mine doesn't hold at 2933, I'll need to try something else and don't want to default to 2133.
Frankfurter
Member
I have that kit on a MSI B350 PC Mate and it works fine at 2933 Mhz. But it's not stable (P95) when I use the XMP settings. I manually set the speed to 2933 Mhz and also set the timings by myself.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
Interesting. Without adjusting BCLK?
Would you tell me what timings and voltage settings you are using? I know I can't expect it to fit exactly with my setup, but might be a good starting point.
Have built with Intel since the jump, but I'm curiously looking at Threadripper. Could somebody explain how things work on AMD side, namely AM4? They usually support their sockets much longer than Intel who makes you buy a new motherboard after 2 CPU releases on a new socket. Is that right?
IcyRhythms
Member
I'm hearing rumblings that for some people there are games that won't launch with TR?
JonnyDBrit
Member
Roughly so. Though AM4 is the Ryzen socket, while Threadripper's is referred to as TR4. AM4 has the pins on the CPU, TR4 has them on the motherboard.
People who jumped at the i7 5960/5820 really won the tech race, ~4 years without a clear upgrade. Skylake-X is a let down. Threadripper is what you can expect from 2x 1800x. Haswell its really where it was at.
I would caution about buying TR for gaming, though.
Nice, appreciate the clarification.
I'm aware of it. I'm currently on Intel's older HEDT platform, X79. My 6 core that came out in 2013 is still relevant even today as we're just now getting past quad core CPUs in the mainstream. I was ok with taking a bit of a hit on strictly gaming performance for an overall better and longer lasting rig.
Quite. Broadwell-E was a mess too. It offered next to no improvement and prices were jacked.
That sounds like it's failing memory training. Make sure the retry count is set to 3 or more. Newer UEFI versions default that setting to 1.
Try gradually increasing the memory speeds. Don't just go straight to 2933. And even try something beyond 2933. Sometimes there is a "memory hole" when overclocking where you can't run a certain kit at some speeds, but it will run at faster speeds.
Try bumping the voltage from 1.35V to 1.40V and see if that helps too. It should still be safe for DDR4. (though overclocking is always done at your own risk)
Make sure that you also have the DRAM VBoot set to match, instead of leaving it on auto.
Make changes gradually and one at a time.
Perhaps. As I said, it would be a dedicated gaming system while I kept this for workstation/server duties due to tasks that scale well, and supporting ECC memory. I have enough storage now that it seems stupid to not be using ECC memory.
It really depends when Volta ships, and how my 1700X performs with whatever card I buy, compared to the 1070 I have now.
Intel seem to be pushing up against scores of 200 in Cinebench ST (higher when overclocked) while Zen is around 165. I'm not expecting a 20-30% improvement from the next generation of AM4 CPUs, and I'm not expecting there to be more cores per CCX (where latency is low) for the mainstream CPUs either.
I'm not saying that the 1700X is bad for games by any means, just that if you want a system solely for playing games, it seems like Intel's mainstream CPUs are still the way to go, and having 6 cores narrows the gap.
I don't feel like I have to rush into anything now though, since it's still a recent platform compared to the i5-2500K I was using before. That was really beginning to struggle in newer games.
That's why I suspect that Coffee Lake has the potential to dominate for gaming, if they have six cores without the CCX, mesh, or similar - just like a 7700K with two more cores. (or Broadwell-E with a newer microarchitecture)
We'll have to wait and see though. It's difficult to predict anything right now.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=238416975&postcount=2936
https://twitter.com/NVIDIAGeForce/status/895746289589039104
·feist·;238416975 said:
https://twitter.com/NVIDIAGeForce/status/895746289589039104
The problem with TR is that, while a monster at multitasking, it's design introduces inherent limitations on gaming task: namely the core to core latency that you can find well explained a few post above. It even has a BIOS setting called game mode, where it changes the cache memory behavior and disables half of the threads, so you are not even-future proofing yourself for when games start to use more than 16 threads. And even though is one thread per-core, it still loses to the 1800x in some cases, which is already compromised in gaming performance when compared to Intel's. And this is without factoring OC, which is much better on Intel's atm.
Unless you require the quad-channel memory, express PCI-E lanes and the other perks of the platform, I would hold on TR for gaming and say that the 1700 is the sweet spot atm. Or go Intel if you want a "future proof" system, but I don't think that any current option can be called that, when they are not much better than a 2014 i7 5960x.
Oh god, I hope that's not true!