AMD Zen processors...Are you interested?

[Fascinate]

playing 3 MMOs at once is cancer

lol well it was just a test, not something i would ever do. But what it does is predict the future a bit, once games start actually using more cores that means this chip is gonna have miles of headroom to do other stuff

- - - Updated - - -

TechPowerUp has an interesting article about the performance of Ryzen's cache design based on research done by hardware.fr.

"... we see that Intel's L1 cache is still leagues ahead from AMD's implementation; that AMD's L2 is overall faster than Intel's, though it does incur on a roughly 2 ns latency penalty; and that AMD's L3 memory is very much behind Intel's in all metrics but L3 cache copies..."





"(Latency) ... is fine in the L1 and L2 caches (32 KB and 512 KB, respectively). However, when moving towards the 1800X's 16 MB L3 cache, the behavior is completely different. Up to 4 MB cache utilization, we see an expected increase in latency; however, latency goes through the roof way before the chip's 16 MB of L3 cache is completely filled. This clearly derives from AMD's Ryzen modularity, with each CCX complex (made up of 4 cores and 8 MB L3 cache, besides all the other duplicated logic) being able to access only 8 MB of L3 cache at any point in time."




This confirms the idea that you can't just take some simple metrics like average IPC and compare Intel and AMD based on that, because the performance varies quite a bit, depending on how well the computational problem fits the architecture.

Just another thing that can be addressed going forward. AMD is going to sell a lot of ryzens, and the developers will have to keep in mind going forward there need to be optimizations on both sides of the fence now

[Deleted]

once games start actually using more cores that means this chip is gonna have miles of headroom to do other stuff

IMHO there's still a bit of uncertainty whether games will (or can) actually utilize 8+ cores at some point though as the underlying problem might not be splittable into that many concurrent tasks.

You're right about doing other stuff simultaneously of course.

[Life-Binder]

once games start actually using more cores

same ol tune


but you're not wrong per se, which is why a fast 6c is the golden middle for gaming between a slower 8c and a really fast 4c .. and if Intel sticks to its monolithic die design then we'll get one without the cross-CCX issues and with low cache latency

- - - Updated - - -

Just another thing that can be addressed going forward.

the design is intentional, because its cheaper for AMD to make their Zens via comboing 2x smaller CCXs (4+4, 3+3, 2+2 etc.), rather than one huge mono design like Intel

they probably view the latency issues as acceptable hit


devs can perhaps manage somewhat better specifically for Zen, but they cant do anything about slowdowns as soon as one CCX talks to the other

[Fascinate]

Its just kind of funny to me where the media has taken this story. CPU's for the most part dont even matter that much for gaming, but it has overtaken everything lol. Even an FX chip can run most games perfectly fine, GPU obviously matters way more in the vast majority of games.

I just loaded up OW and rarely dip below 140 FPS at 1080p ultra with a gtx 1060, i could get the same experience as someone with a 7700k in that game if i decide to go with a fast monitor.

Lets not forget the vast majority of people are on 60hz 1080p screens still, and if they are gaming on those as they should with vsync on, CPU does not even come into the discussion everything is locked at 60.

[Life-Binder]

Zen is obviously aimed at servers and notebooks while clocked at ~3.0-3.3 GHz for max eff and low power draw .. and for professional highly multi-threaded apps

thats its best scenario where it shines fully


games are its worst scenario

[Lanfear1]

Chances are this won't be fixed with a software update since it's an inherent flaw of the cpu's architecture.

Dont they check this stuff before they mass produce? Or they simply found it too late to change architecture

[Life-Binder]

another thing where they beat Intel atm is cooling (granted they also have lower clocks)


for Coffee I hope Intel either improves its thermal paste solution or starts soldering .. or at the least lowers voltage levels on the newer process

I dont want to have to delid Coffee CPUs (or buy a delidded one from silicon lottery) to improve temps by 15-20C

[Barnabas]

Its just kind of funny to me where the media has taken this story. CPU's for the most part dont even matter that much for gaming, but it has overtaken everything lol. Even an FX chip can run most games perfectly fine, GPU obviously matters way more in the vast majority of games.

I just loaded up OW and rarely dip below 140 FPS at 1080p ultra with a gtx 1060, i could get the same experience as someone with a 7700k in that game if i decide to go with a fast monitor.

Lets not forget the vast majority of people are on 60hz 1080p screens still, and if they are gaming on those as they should with vsync on, CPU does not even come into the discussion everything is locked at 60.

Mainly because of people that play games on laptops is how these steam surveys work. It's why you see 1024 vram is still a thing.

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey

[Fascinate]

A lot of games dont care what CPU you have is more the point im trying to make.

And if 140 FPS vs 170 FPS is ryzens worst case scenario, ill take that tradeoff lol.

- - - Updated - - -

Mainly because of people that play games on laptops is how these steam surveys work.

Trust me my dude, most people have 60hz 1080p monitors or lower.....by a HUGE margin. I dont have to look at steam survey to know this.

[Life-Binder]

A lot of games dont care what CPU you have is more the point im trying to make.

shooters and games with more static worlds maybe not

but more CPU-intensive or physics heavy games absolutely do

[Deleted]

Dont they check this stuff before they mass produce? Or they simply found it too late to change architecture

I suppose, it's a design decision balancing performance and cost. You still get a pretty fast 8(16) core CPU for 1/3 of what Intel has to offer.

[Barnabas]

A lot of games dont care what CPU you have is more the point im trying to make.

And if 140 FPS vs 170 FPS is ryzens worst case scenario, ill take that tradeoff lol.

- - - Updated - - -



Trust me my dude, most people have 60hz 1080p monitors or lower.....by a HUGE margin. I dont have to look at steam survey to know this.

Yes on a laptop. Just look at the overall picture. Look at vram popularity. Those are laptop gpus.

[Fascinate]

Yes on a laptop. Just look at the overall picture. Look at vram popularity. Those are laptop gpus.

You dont get what im saying lol, i didnt look at steam survey i just know that most people have 1080 60hz monitors. 144hz panels are getting more popular, but if you took an actual survey of all "gamers" it would be massively in favor of 1080p 60hz monitors something like 90/10.

[Barnabas]

You dont get what im saying lol, i didnt look at steam survey i just know that most people have 1080 60hz monitors. 144hz panels are getting more popular, but if you took an actual survey of all "gamers" it would be massively in favor of 1080p 60hz monitors something like 90/10.

Because for the third time most people play games on laptops. You should look at steam survey since it's the most popular metric for pc gaming.

[Fascinate]

shooters and games with more static worlds maybe not

but more CPU-intensive or physics heavy games absolutely do

Well of course, but most games on the market are far more effected by your GPU than CPU. The way the media went with ryzen is akin to a car being judged entirely on one aspect, but when you are out car shopping do you just see its tow rating or MPG? No you want the whole story, how comfy is it, how are the interior materials, what features come standard etc etc.

You got caught up by the media shitstorm like many have, and are making unfair comparisons for a brand new architecture. Going into this i had ZERO intention of buying an AMD product, in fact if you look at my post history i called ALL of this before any reviews hit, yet i still purchased the 1700 because it is a far better value for money and is the smart purchase to make over intels price competitve product. This coming from someone who games first and foremost on their PC.

- - - Updated - - -

Because for the third time most people play games on laptops. You should look at steam survey since it's the most popular metric for pc gaming.

Actually most laptops are 1366x768 and when i said "gamer" thought it would be pretty obvious i was speaking to a desktop consumer

[Life-Binder]

I disagree, for pure gaming I would not get a Zen at all

but neither would I buy a 7700K now even though its so fast


the only truly good uncompromised choices that make longterm gaming sense for me is 6c Coffee L or Zen 2 (depending on what work is done on it) .. or, if you are really impatient and money is not an issue - Skylake-X in August

[Fascinate]

I disagree, for pure gaming I would not get a Zen at all

but neither would I buy a 7700K now even though its so fast


the only truly good uncompromised choices that make longterm gaming sense for me is 6c Coffee L or Zen 2 (depending on what work is done on it) .. or, if you are really impatient and money is not an issue - Skylake-X in August

The biggest difference between ryzen and a 7700k ive found so far is GTA 5. I guarantee you the GTA 5 devs could go and rewrite a few lines of code and the difference would be more in like with other games we are seeing (~15% or less is what i usually see). Dont discount how new ryzen is, we are still in a beta phase of testing.

[Lillpapps]

Dont discount how new ryzen is, we are still in a beta phase of testing.

Which just helps solidify his opinion that it's not a wise investment to buy the current Zen. Why would you buy a beta product when they most likely will use the data from the beta to improve on their next product (Zen 2) which will still have the same price when it comes out with better performance.

[Fascinate]

Which just helps solidify his opinion that it's not a wise investment to buy the current Zen. Why would you buy a beta product when they most likely will use the data from the beta to improve on their next product (Zen 2) which will still have the same price when it comes out with better performance.

You cant talk about buying a PC with that kind of attitude, if you tell someone to wait for this and wait for that he literally will never have a PC he will be in a perma wait loop.

I had the money from taxes and dont regret my purchase one bit, i will be even more happy down the road when i5's start to struggle in newer titles . ( I came from an i5,this is inevitable with the launch of R5 series being 4c/8 thread)

[Barnabas]

Which just helps solidify his opinion that it's not a wise investment to buy the current Zen. Why would you buy a beta product when they most likely will use the data from the beta to improve on their next product (Zen 2) which will still have the same price when it comes out with better performance.

Because in a month or so most of the problems will be ironed out with it? You want something faster and don't want to invest a lot of money?