TR Forums

MileageMayVary · Thu Feb 02, 2017 3:12 pm

Vhalidictes wrote:
LostCat wrote:
People buy what they need. I couldn't care less about AVX or VT-d or lanes or whatever, if my games and storage perform well I'm good.

Gen3 PCIe lanes is a fascinating subject. Any guesses how many gen-3 lanes a modern video card needs? Go ahead and guess if you don't already know!

*cough* not alot *cough*

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVI ... ng/24.html

LostCat · Thu Feb 02, 2017 3:13 pm

Vhalidictes wrote:
LostCat wrote:
People buy what they need. I couldn't care less about AVX or VT-d or lanes or whatever, if my games and storage perform well I'm good.

Gen3 PCIe lanes is a fascinating subject. Any guesses how many gen-3 lanes a modern video card needs? Go ahead and guess if you don't already know!

Last I checked about 4 with slightly reduced perf.

(Heh, then I read the article linked above. Yep.)

Vhalidictes · Thu Feb 02, 2017 3:18 pm

LostCat wrote:
Vhalidictes wrote:
LostCat wrote:
People buy what they need. I couldn't care less about AVX or VT-d or lanes or whatever, if my games and storage perform well I'm good.

Gen3 PCIe lanes is a fascinating subject. Any guesses how many gen-3 lanes a modern video card needs? Go ahead and guess if you don't already know!

Last I checked about 4 with slightly reduced perf.

(Heh, then I read the article linked above. Yep.)

Nowadays, if your slot is Gen3 and direct to the CPU, and your card supports it properly, you can get away with 1 lane (!) at about a 25% performance penalty.

I tested this myself on a R7 370 (AKA Radeon HD 7850) since I was curious. YMMV of course.

derFunkenstein · Thu Feb 02, 2017 4:57 pm

There's basically no difference between 2.0 and 3.0 performance in GPU-limited situations. Since 3.0 has twice the bandwidth of 2.0, I'll go with half the lanes (eight).

edit: didnt' realize there was another page to this thread. :lol:

ozzuneoj · Sat Feb 04, 2017 8:47 pm

Apparently the 6 core version exists...

http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-am4-proce ... -flagship/

If this is to be believed.

Also, a leaked "benchmark" that may or may not be real...

http://wccftech.com/amd-ashes-ryzen-4-0-ghz-benchmarks/

Apparently this benchmark is so convoluted that no one can seem to figure out what this compares to, if it is real. Lots of talk of GPU vs CPU mode in this test, as well as the "half-resolution terrain" setting being off in the leaked benchmark and ON in most others that people have done for comparison. None of the big name tech sites that have posted about this have been able to make sense of this, which tells me that its a benchmark that needs some work if its to be taken seriously.

The actual reviews can't come soon enough...

Is TR getting one of these to review?

MileageMayVary · Mon Feb 06, 2017 10:19 am

http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-am4-proce ... -flagship/

I really hope they don't have "pro" parts that's just dumb naming IMO: R7 1600, R7 1600 Pro, R7 1600X?

Obviously the R3, R5, R7 is meant to match up to I3, I5, I7.

Welch · Tue Apr 18, 2017 1:14 am

Wanted to thread Necro so we can all look back at our comments from the not to far past now that we actually know where Ryzen sits.

So I'm glad that 6 core parts exist, although I'd have loved some even cheaper 8c/8t Ryzen parts for well under $200. So glad that ended up not being true still.

But, I'd like to point out that the pricing I listed was so damn close to reality it is scary. $275 isn't far from the $250 for the 1600x when you see they cut out the Wraith cooler.

$399 was DEAD ON for the 1700x and I even predicted the $500 cap on their top end, damn.

I may be off on the R3 though, and time will tell. $150 may be the cap and here is where we will see the 4 core no SMT I believe now. I'd like to think that some of these would do away with a single CCX in favor of a cheap IGP but I don't think that is in the cards. Save those for the APUs.

I'd still love to see some IGP maybe even on motherboards with select A320 boards though. Not sure honestly R3 will be worth it without IGP. It's hard to justify any video card purchase if they pump out 60-80 CPU up to about the $150 range for an R3.

Time will tell. Just died laughing reading people thinking I was crazy for my Ryzen wet dream pricing. It's what I hoped for and AMD delivered. Badass.

derFunkenstein · Tue Apr 18, 2017 8:57 am

you're a veritable genius

Welch · Tue Apr 18, 2017 6:27 pm

derFunkenstein wrote:
you're a veritable genius

LOL, well duuuuh.

Obviously I was wrong by quite a few things in my posts if you read through. I'm just surprised when I saw some people saying that AMD wouldn't make money if they sold their chips at those prices. It's sort of telling of the actual costs of producing an 8 core part as AMD is obviously going to make lots of money so long as the parts sell at these current prices. It sort of pisses me off to see how much Intel has been charging for their 4 core parts. I'm not even mad about their incremental performance gains that were so small between generations. The lack of decently priced 4 core parts just shows how much headroom they have had.

I think it also means that Intel will respond with 8 core parts similarly to AMDs knowing that they can match or even big slightly more expensive knowing they have the IPC advantage. So long as Intel can translate that same or better IPC into an 8 core part and have it communicate properly with each other. Probably not as simple as their original dual core products where they slapped 2 on the same die and called it good, using the FSB to communicate between them.

LostCat · Tue Apr 18, 2017 6:29 pm

Welch wrote:
I'm just surprised when I saw some people saying that AMD wouldn't make money if they sold their chips at those prices.

I still can't really fathom the 'they have to match Intels prices or they'll go out of business' discussion when if they matched Intels prices people would just buy Intel.

Welch · Tue Apr 18, 2017 6:37 pm

LostCat wrote:
Welch wrote:
I'm just surprised when I saw some people saying that AMD wouldn't make money if they sold their chips at those prices.

I still can't really fathom the 'they have to match Intels prices or they'll go out of business' discussion when if they matched Intels prices people would just buy Intel.

Agree. If their product is slightly worse then they have to beat the product in pricing. If it is better in some way (multi-threaded workloads like it is) then it can be priced close to the same or possibly even more. Think about how many businesses use something like the i7-7700k for workstation like tasks, perhaps AutoCAD that can now pickup a 1700 or even splurge for something a little higher end and NOT buy into an Intel E series. Even the people who might benefit from an E series equipped workstation might not go that route because the i7-7700k type option more than good enough in the first place. I see offices like this all of the time. I've only got 3-4 places in town that have an Intel Enthusiast system with ECC RAM, and save for 2 of them, they would have never known the difference between the consumer i7 and E.

AMD didn't price themselves out of the market, Intel has just had a really great 6-7 year ride and that bus is finally coming to it's stop.

TR Forums

Ryzen - No 6 core parts?

Re: Ryzen - No 6 core parts?

Re: Ryzen - No 6 core parts?

Re: Ryzen - No 6 core parts?

Re: Ryzen - No 6 core parts?

Re: Ryzen - No 6 core parts?

Re: Ryzen - No 6 core parts?

Re: Ryzen - No 6 core parts?

Re: Ryzen - No 6 core parts?

Re: Ryzen - No 6 core parts?

Re: Ryzen - No 6 core parts?

Re: Ryzen - No 6 core parts?

Who is online