Ryzen Threadripper 2000 Is Sampling (According To AMD slide)

Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Hilbert Hagedoorn, May 14, 2018.

  1. Cooe

    Cooe Member

    Messages:
    39
    Likes Received:
    17
    GPU:
    AMD R9 Fury X 4GB
    Ahh my bad, I didn't seem to pick up on you specifying that you were talking about overclocking specifically and not Zen+ as a whole; in which case I sincerely apologize, tips hat. And in that case, I'd completely agree; it was a little disappointing. Sadly, that's something entirely out of AMD's hands, and entirely in Global Foundries. For the things AMD actually had control over, I think they absolutely knocked Zen+ right outta the park.

    And I'm well aware that everyone is entitled to their own opinions. That's why I said that "I don't understand" not "everyone who disagrees with me is wrong because my opinion is the correct one; end of story".
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2018
  2. Cooe

    Cooe Member

    Messages:
    39
    Likes Received:
    17
    GPU:
    AMD R9 Fury X 4GB
    This is only true for the 4-core/8-thread 2700/2700K though (and by extension, any/all of the 4c/8t i7's).

    The 4-core/4-thread i5's otoh (even up to the i5-7600K; though obviously these effects are worse the older the chip's gen) already have TERRIBLE all important 1% & .1% fps minimums, with the totally horrid frame-pacing/timing to match; no matter how high you overclock them, how high the overall average fps, or high the display/output resolution is. Having just 4x CPU threads simply isn't enough in this 8-core/thread console world we live in; so for THOSE people, a full system upgrade can make a whole crap-ton of sense. And especially so considering the current prices on used 2nd & 3rd Gen i7's (most esp. for the latter, as if you are gonna go through the process of upgrading your CPU on an old platform, you might as well should get the best chip that your socket can take; aka the i7-3770K).

    Also, in unrelated news, for some reason my quotes aren't showing up as such on the main article page. Any idea's why that would be? Hilbert in particular? Is it because they are only partial quotes? (In the meantime I've just added text to said quotes making it explicit, but that doesn't change the oddness).
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2018
    Fox2232 likes this.
  3. Fox2232

    Fox2232 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    11,810
    Likes Received:
    3,366
    GPU:
    6900XT+AW@240Hz
    I have to agree with this. 1st thing I got for new system was 240Hz FS screen. Not that I expected big improvement over 144Hz non-FS, but there was none with my i5@4,5GHz.
    As I wrote before, quite a few newer games did feel like 40fps even while they did 80+ fps. From this I came to conclusion that stutter I am experiencing is not caused by fps to screen Hz desync and me becoming drastically more sensitive. I used to limit affected games to 72fps and that did help only a bit.

    Moving to 2700X did improve reported fps in games only a bit, but now those games look accordingly. No stutter whatsoever.
    There were other people already mentioning happy experience by moving from i7-2600k to something newer with more threads.

    From this experience, I can say that graphs comparing fps by CPU are bit misleading. Fps is nothing if CPU has no spare cycles to handle all OS needs to handle & all drivers needs to handle.

    I even think that while FX-8350 would deliver lower fps than my i5-2500k, experience would be much better as game would not choke important background processes.
     
    Aura89 and Jagman like this.
  4. Silva

    Silva Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    1,562
    Likes Received:
    705
    GPU:
    Asus RX560 4G
    There's always people who will buy if the performance is there. I just don't have deep pockets, and a conscience for spending too much money.
     

  5. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    5,943
    Likes Received:
    2,309
    GPU:
    HIS R9 290
    That is definitely true, though AMD doesn't tend cater to people who buy "just because". Though, Threadripper does seem to be on the verge of breaking that mold.
     
  6. msroadkill612

    msroadkill612 Active Member

    Messages:
    62
    Likes Received:
    1
    GPU:
    igp
    wavetrex
    "
    And I want to give it more work as well if the power is available, like video encoding (which I do on my main gaming PC), so I don't block my gaming and other activities during the encode. (I used to do that at night while sleeping, but those 4K's take a damn long time!)
    I'd also like to start running some VM's on the new server, to give two of my colleagues"

    Ta for sharing. Sound like you will make it grunt in notime :)

    IMO, a fast nvme raid 0 array would be a powerful resource to add. Even a small, ultrafast storage resource, which sits between expensive ram and cheap slow regular storage, could act as a ram extender for windows swapping, and temp files during processing runs..


    It may defer your next ram upgrade.

    We know swapping is not nice, but the fact is, it can and increasingly does happen, and when it does, an 8GB/s+ resource can make it far more tolerable.

    A fast scratch space, custom formatted for bulk transfers of data, could be used to good effect.
     
  7. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    5,943
    Likes Received:
    2,309
    GPU:
    HIS R9 290
    I don't really see the point of RAID0 with NVMe drives unless your main priority is capacity or sequential read/write speeds. In this context, the primary benefit of NVMe vs SATA or SAS is the very low latency, which RAID would ruin. If you're going to RAID SSDs, you might as well go with SATA or SAS.
    That being said, in most cases, you'd be better off with a single NVMe drive for swapping/paging purposes. The high-end Optane drives have some pretty crazy speeds, so just one of those ought to work just fine.
    Use an OS other than Windows and you don't have to deal with swap spaces :cool:
     
  8. tunejunky

    tunejunky Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,316
    Likes Received:
    477
    GPU:
    RX 6800 RTX 2070
    i could tell you, but then i wouldn't get invited back.
     
  9. Aura89

    Aura89 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    8,177
    Likes Received:
    1,283
    GPU:
    -
    People who actually own Ryzens keep saying this, i wonder when others will listen.
     
  10. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    5,943
    Likes Received:
    2,309
    GPU:
    HIS R9 290
    Unfortunately, personal anecdotes don't count for much. A lot of PC "enthusiasts" care about nothing more than getting the highest number possible, regardless of whether their equipment can actually take advantage of it. There's more to gaming than FPS, and high numbers on paper doesn't mean high numbers in practice.

    In the Linux world, there's a very similar situation, where Nvidia's drivers tend to outperform AMD's/ATI's and Intel's (in terms of FPS). But despite the better numbers, the slower drivers tend to offer a better experience. To my knowledge, the open-source Nvidia drivers feel smooth (and obviously Nvidia is good to use on either Windows or Mac), so it isn't the hardware or the OS that's the problem.


    I have a theory that the "faster" hardware offers a worse experience because of the spacing in between each frame. For example, let's say the chart below is the span of 0.1 seconds, where each bar is a rendered frame:
    Example 1: -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|
    Example 2: ||||||-||---||||----

    In the 2nd example, there are more frames being rendered, but there's no pattern. It's those inconsistencies that hurt the smoothness of the experience.
     

Share This Page