Jump to content
Hero
DeadlySniper007

AMD Officially Announces Ryzen. Ryzen 5 Launches April 11th!

Recommended Posts

Insightful. I'm glad it'll be at least another half year before I build my next rig. Plenty of time for this to all settle out.

All my monitors are still 27" 1920x1200 (I prefer 1200 over 1080), but I suppose it is true that it'll be time to start looking into acquiring higher res monitors at some point in the next year or so. I like the 27" size though and think I'll stick with that. Not too big, not too small. Seems just right to me, and avoids the problem of having a monitor that is so big that some of the image is barely in your peripheral vision.

I managed to break my 1920x1200 monitor a couple of years back. I do like that res for desktop use, but for gaming I am a convert to curved 21:9 ultrawide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me Ryzen 5 feels like it will be AMD's bread and butter. Where the R7 failed the R5 could make for a stronger argument in price to performance. However this is all hope and speculation. Its important to keep in mind gaming performance will be about the same if not worse than what was shown for the R7 series.

Edited by DeadlySniper007

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe.  A lot of people seems pretty salty about the 2+2 / 3+3 configuration. All I know is that I'm tired of waiting.  I just want a CPU that will last me as long as my 2500k.  I was this close to buying a 7700k before I heard about Ryzen.  Then I was this close to buying an R7; 8c/16t seemed like it would be great for longevity, plus partnership with Bethesda (I love their games).

Now? Motherboard supply issues and benchmarks that are super inconsistent are pushing me back towards 7700k.  I know computer parts are a picky and particular subject, but sometimes I just wish there was a definitive "this is better than this" :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol I'm in the exact same position as you, so I completely concur with everything you mentioned. I too just want a clear answer as to which cpu is the best. With the 7700k its marvelous in the short term, but with a rejuvenated interest in multi threaded optimization for game engines how long will the 7700k keep up. In a recent Joker video the 7700k was pushed to its limits on Battlefield 1 - nearly maxing out cores and threads on a simple drive through town. For Ryzen the question is how much will game optimizations improve performance and at what point will the chipset be considered mature or stable.

Can you elaborate more on what you mean by the 2+2 / 3+3 configuration?

Edited by DeadlySniper007

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you elaborate more on what you mean by the 2+2 / 3+3 configuration?

Without getting too tech-y, the Ryzen CPUs are not "true" 8/6/4 core CPUs.  The way AMD built them, there are 2 "CPU-Core complexes" (CCX).  Basically they split the CPU die in half.  Each half of the die has half of the cores and its own cache.  The 2 halves are connected by what AMD calls "infinity fabric" (I still don't know exactly what this is).

In the 8-core Ryzen 7 this isn't a big deal.  One CCX still has 4 cores and most programs aren't worried about using more than 4 cores.  The problem comes in with the 4-core (and to a lesser extent the 6-core).  Instead of keeping all 4 cores in a single CCX and having the remainder on the other CCX AMD went with an even split.

Now your 4 core Ryzen will only have 2 cores to work with before it has to start sharing the load across infinity fabric.  Right now the infinity fabric seems to be quite a large bottleneck for heavy load situations.  Many people were hoping AMD would go with 4+0 and 4+2 configurations for the 4 and 6 core.

Was that too tech-y? xD

 

DISCLAIMER:  From what I could gather, these "fake" 8/6/4 cores can still operate each core on its own, and they are still significantly faster than having multiple CPUs.

Edited by Drewgamer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, so the problem that I see is - most of the time those CPUs will work exactly same as a single N core CPU .. but in some rare cases the result of wrong optimization would cause data to be relocated between halves and this would cause micro  freeze in  game or something worse :( ...  evil AMD :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was that too tech-y? xD

xD No no not at all. You actually did a fine job of explaining it. :)

Ah gotcha. I hadn't read up much on the core config specifics (doesn't quite get the dopamine flowing you know? That and I haven't quite settled into the nitty gritty stage yet) Its a shame they had to cut corners.

 The 2 halves are connected by what AMD calls "infinity fabric" (I still don't know exactly what this is).

The infinity fabric is just a superset of HyperTransport (think Intel QuickPath)- a technology to interconnect processors

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, so the problem that I see is - most of the time those CPUs will work exactly same as a single N core CPU .. but in some rare cases the result of wrong optimization would cause data to be relocated between halves and this would cause micro  freeze in  game or something worse :( ...  evil AMD :(

Basically.  I believe most games are heavily single threaded.  These threads can spawn "workers" on other cores to get the job done faster.  On your typical CPU this isn't a big deal, in fact it's really good for the user since a specific task completes quicker.  I think the downside to AMD's implementation of their 8-core CPU is that sometimes these "workers" get spawned on a CPU in the opposite CCX.  This is where the bottleneck / hickup / micro-freeze comes in.  Communication between CCX is much slower than communication between cores.

Now, any program that doesn't effectively use more than 4 cores/8 threads won't notice this since it will fit entirely onto one CCX.  Anything past that will start to feel the effects of the slower "infinity fabric".  Whether that will actually affect anything other than game FPS is beyond me though :P

I think the biggest issue currently is that applications (games specifically) are spawning workers on the opposite CCX even though they haven't fully saturated the CCX they started on.  This SHOULD be fixable with a windows patch, but at this point I think everyone is just playing the guessing game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, any program that doesn't effectively use more than 4 cores/8 threads won't notice this since it will fit entirely onto one CCX.  Anything past that will start to feel the effects of the slower "infinity fabric".  

Unfortunately I have to disagree .. any program could "spawn" on the last available core of CCX .. and potentially this would lead to _all_ children of this program spawned on the opposite side .. irrespective of their number :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately I have to disagree .. any program could "spawn" on the last available core of CCX .. and potentially this would lead to _all_ children of this program spawned on the opposite side .. irrespective of their number :(

The scheduler SHOULD prevent things like that happening by keeping a program's workers on a single CCX.  Now if the program requests more than 4cores/8threads the, yes, you will begin to run into the "issue" mentioned earlier.

Whether it actually does this, or not, I can't say.  I'm not trained enough in thread scheduling and Zen's architecture to have an official position ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×