AMD Zen Discussion Thread

BloodBath

ZeroThreat wrote: »

The 4core/4thread R3s are competing with Kaby lake I-5s, or are they still clocked too low for that?

Of course they are competing. This is the final nail in the coffin for intels i3 and lower end i5's.

AMD have pretty much clean sweeped the entire cpu market at this stage and some people say Ryzen was a failure :rolleyes:

SickBoy

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

He has a heavy bias in favour of AMD and its worth keeping that in the back of your mind when listening to him.

I look at it that he has a bias against Intel and Nvidia.

Gehad_JoyRider

SickBoy wrote: »

I look at it that he has a bias against Intel and Nvidia.

Yes he has a biased against 2 companies who charge extortionate prices due to monopoly with in an industry.

Who for the past number of years have really done nothing much for their products?

But if you're unable to see that and happy to pay for it well then your part of the problem.
Adored's point is Computing needs to be competitive which it hasn't been for many years and you call it biased?

so imagine how much a 770k would cost if there was no AMD?
Imagine how much 1070 would cost if there's no Radeon.

watch his videos don't think and listen you might get somewhere then!

SickBoy

Gehad_JoyRider wrote: »

Yes he has a biased against 2 companies who charge extortionate prices due to monopoly with in an industry.

Who for the past number of years have really done nothing much for their products?

But if you're unable to see that and happy to pay for it well then your part of the problem.
Adored's point is Computing needs to be competitive which it hasn't been for many years and you call it biased?

so imagine how much a 770k would cost if there was no AMD?
Imagine how much 1070 would cost if there's no Radeon.

watch his videos don't think and listen you might get somewhere then!

Not sure why you're quoting my post there.
I was just making a tongue in cheek response to the post saying he had a heavy bias towards AMD.

I enjoy Jim's videos.

Mr Crispy

He obviously prefers AMD, but to be fair that doesn't stop him bashing them when he thinks they've messed up. I'm not sure how knowledgeable the guy is, but he seems to present his videos as opinion pieces, based on more research done than most TechTubers combined. I find his videos interesting.

Doge

I found the video really interesting also and watched it from start to finish.

Looks like Intels days are numbered if people can get the perception that they still destroy AMD out of their heads.

Doge

If people watch this video of his on Vega, i think it will wash away any claims of "AMD bias".

He just calls it as it is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iaUjU-2Jmc

Cuddlesworth

Doge wrote: »

If people watch this video of his on Vega, i think it will wash away any claims of "AMD bias".

He just calls it as it is.

Its more obvious when the product isn't simply a dud, which Vega is clearly going to be. When the likes of the 1060/480 war was going on(which was only good for the industry) he was overtly heavy in favour of the 480 at the time when in reality it was not the better product. He whined about Vulkan not being used when testing in Doom(a API that was not enabled by default, new and nobody else really uses to this day) and that DX12 games were not tested enough(when games for the most part now are still DX11 or transitioned to DX12). Later after some game and driver updates it got way better in DX11(while the 1060 got much better at DX12). But part of being in that industry is testing the card as it is, not as you assume it could be.

I like him and I like the research he does. But he is biased towards AMD. I am also, I like the products. They age better and I upgrade every couple of years. Threadripper is also of huge interest to me, for the work I do. I wouldn't mind a 32 thread, 256gig machine that I can game on if I want.

I also think other reviewers are biased, some were obviously so when reviewing Ryzen, some not so. I oddly think Linus is probably the least, since he expanded his revenue streams broadly, has a large research staff now and doesn't really seem to care about pissing people off. You can look at that video, but in reality Linus called it months ago that Intel was ****ed for the same reasons.

BloodBath

I don't think Vega will be a dud. The top end RX Vega XTX is going to be at least 20% faster than that FE which will push it near 1080ti levels. I think a good quality 1080ti will still beat it overall but there will be titles that favour Vega. The Vega will be cheaper though.

The air cooled version will compete with the 1080 and the cut down version of this will compete with the 1070.

Rumoured prices are $399 for the cut down 1070 rival, €499 for the full air cooled 1080 rival and $599 for the water cooler version. Add about 5-10% onto that number for Euro pricing.

The 480/580 is a better card than the 1060 as well. It's the price of them because of miners that's making them have lower price/performance atm but they do give more performance overall.

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/73945-gtx-1060-vs-rx-480-updated-review.html

Cuddlesworth

BloodBath wrote: »

I don't think Vega will be a dud. The top end RX Vega XTX is going to be at least 20% faster than that FE which will push it near 1080ti levels. I think a good quality 1080ti will still beat it overall but there will be titles that favour Vega. The Vega will be cheaper though.

The air cooled version will compete with the 1080 and the cut down version of this will compete with the 1070.

Rumoured prices are $399 for the cut down 1070 rival, €499 for the full air cooled 1080 rival and $599 for the water cooler version. Add about 5-10% onto that number for Euro pricing.

The 480/580 is a better card than the 1060 as well. It's the price of them because of miners that's making them have lower price/performance atm but they do give more performance overall.

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/73945-gtx-1060-vs-rx-480-updated-review.html

Really? Vega FE and Vega RX are the same silicon. I really don't know where people are pulling 20% from. And even if it was a 20% increase, its still nowhere near a 1080ti's or Titan XP's performance. And its a big chunk of silicon, not easy to make.

Doom, Vulkan at 4K from Gamers Nexus. AMD's killing ground, the API they all but wrote.
Titan XP - 94 fps
1080ti Ref - 89.7fps
Vega FE + 20% - 77FPS.
1080 Reference - 67.6FPS
Vega FE - 64.2fps.
1070 Ref - 54.7fps

And all of that is ignoring the overclock-ability of the Nvidia cards, the power draw in comparison or the need for AMD's flagship product for 2 generations to require a AIO solution by default. On their best case scenario, they can't come close to Nvidia. In other games, the FE trades blows with the 1070/980ti. This is exactly like the Fury Launch and its not going to be a pretty release.

The 480/580 is a better card now, crypto aside, but at release it was not. And Adored whined about it. I'm not saying it isn't, I'm saying then when the figures say otherwise because of crappy drivers you don't start whining.

god's toy

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Doge wrote: »

Linus called it months ago that Intel was ****ed for the same reasons.

Like the take down he did on last week's wan show about Intel's presentation. Think he's lost some respect for them.

BloodBath

A modded water cooled version of the FE clocked to 1700Mhz core and 1100Mhz on the memory but was using 400w. This is a 16GB card though. An 8GB version should be around 50-60w lower.

Also not all of the GCN 5.0 features are enabled on that FE Vega. The tile based rasterizer for example is not yet enabled and should lower the power consumption and reduce memory overheads. Nvidia have been using it since Maxwell.

It's not unreasonable for the RX Vega XTX to have boost clocks of near 1700Mhz with around 300w power consumption. The board on the water cooled model is rated for 375w which leaves some overclocking headroom.

The architecture itself seems to have no problem with higher clock speeds. This is promising from AMD's own in house coolers. I'd expect aftermarket PCB's to be even higher quality and offer higher clock speeds.

It's down to how low they can get the power consumption though but I have no doubt this line up of cards will be competitive.

Doge

Hadn't even thought about this til now, but I wonder if Apple will make the switch to AMD soon?

Mr Crispy

Think it's already been announced that the new iMacs will use Ryzen.

wotzgoingon

Doge wrote: »

Hadn't even thought about this til now, but I wonder if Apple will make the switch to AMD soon?

Darch Nemesis wrote: »

Think it's already been announced that the new iMacs will use Ryzen.

I think I also heard some Mac's will use Vega GPU's as well.

Mr Crispy

wotzgoingon wrote: »

I think I also heard some Mac's will use Vega GPU's as well.

Actually, maybe that was what I was thinking of.

justsomebloke

Do Apple not have external thunderbolt graphics card docks with 480/580s in them?

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.macrumors.com/2017/06/06/macos-high-sierra-external-gpu-valve/amp/

TerrorFirmer

http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-rma-fraud-on-amazon/

Imagine how furious you'd be if you went to build your new PC and....

ZeroThreat

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-rma-fraud-on-amazon/

Imagine how furious you'd be if you went to build your new PC and....

Maybe someone connected to intel concocted this scheme to harm Ryzen sales

TerrorFirmer

BloodBath wrote: »

Of course they are competing. This is the final nail in the coffin for intels i3 and lower end i5's.

AMD have pretty much clean sweeped the entire cpu market at this stage and some people say Ryzen was a failure :rolleyes:

I don't think many people say it's actually a failure but to many gaming enthuasists, myself included, it is a disappointment in that regard.

My latest build is a 4K machine and I had to rule out Ryzen because it performs closer to an i3 in Fallout 4 and some other games, FO4 in particular was an instant no-no as it's a game I plan putting another 1 or 200 hundred hours into.

Now I know in Fallout 4 it's due to whatever way the game is coded as the FX series were perfectly horrible in that game, despite the game actually liking cores - but it just is what it is and I think there's a lot of teething Ryzen needs to go through before I'd consider it over an i7.

I'm not Intel biased at all, just try to be realistic about these things. For me, i7 = rock solid 60fps stable in every title. Ryzen = perfect 90% of the time but then drops to 45-50fps in certain titles.

As for Vega only pricing will decide if its a dud. Remember what happened to the $399/€399 GTX1070 pricing....

Be nice to see GTX1080 performance at €399 though.

Metric Tensor

I just purchased the parts for a budget office build and I went i3 because of the integrated graphics. (Obviously the Ryzen 3 is not available yet but I would have waited if I thought it worthwhile)

I think intel will continue to shift i3s and Pentiums in "biggish" numbers to serve the office box market because of integrated graphics.

BloodBath

AMD have apu's on the way soon as well. 2-4 ryzen cores with up to 704 stream processors from Vega.

Metric Tensor

That'll change (this part of) the game when it arrives - any idea of the timeline?

BloodBath

Supposed to be Q3-Q4 of this year. I haven't seen any updates on it in a while though. Mobile stuff coming in the same timeline as well.

dazberry

Metric Tensor wrote: »

[snip] because of integrated graphics.

I'm in the process of building an R7 1700, coming from the AM3+ world - on board video connectors meant actual onboard graphics - imagine my confusion in the AM4 world with on board video connectors and one long and three short beeps. Feckin' APUs. Copped it in the end - eventually...

D.

TerrorFirmer

BloodBath wrote: »

AMD have apu's on the way soon as well. 2-4 ryzen cores with up to 704 stream processors from Vega.

Those are going to be super interesting. You'd be able to essentially have tiny mitx gaming machines that will likely offer PS4/XB1 performance at a quarter of the size.

The current APU's are OKish for very light gaming in less intensive titles, but the new models should be literally twice as fast.

Metric Tensor

dazberry wrote: »

- imagine my confusion in the AM4 world with on board video connectors

AMD - the ultimate teasers!

TerrorFirmer

So at some event in Budapest, AMD are allowing users to play testing Rx Vega V GTX1080 on Battlefield 1 MP - but they're not saying which is which.

Users say the one on the left is noticably faster with less spikes - surely if it was Vega they'd be shouting that for the world to see.

I think the setup is supposed to show that Vega and GTX1080 are somewhat on-par, but that's not what users are actually getting from it.

So the thinking now is that it's sort of sitting between the 1070 and 1080.

Some good reading here.

Slutmonkey57b

Not sure I get the point of Vega, going from the previews. No doubt it'll be a price below 1080, but that market is already price insensitive anyway. If you're not winning outright there you're losing.

Personally I'm waiting to see what ryzen laptops come through. If I can get workstation multi core performance with middle of the road games performance I'll only need to buy one machine and a dock instead of 2.

BloodBath

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

Those are going to be super interesting. You'd be able to essentially have tiny mitx gaming machines that will likely offer PS4/XB1 performance at a quarter of the size.

The current APU's are OKish for very light gaming in less intensive titles, but the new models should be literally twice as fast.

If they stuck a little HBM2 on the chip for the gpu as well it would smoke the older ones. I doubt they will though to keep the price down. I can see the mobile stuff going this route though.