AMD Zen 2 (Ryzen 3000) - *** NO COMPETITOR HINTING ***

[EsaT]

Not sure if already posted, but seen on Reddit people talking about B350 boards not getting BIOS updates for Zen2, anyone got a source for where this might have come from?

One limiting thing in older motherboards can be size of BIOS chip Flash memory.
Supporting new CPUs needs adding data into BIOS and at some point there's no free space anymore.

 

[Murphy]

Except the testable data still shows IPC and Frequency are incredibly reliable metrics of performance in gaming and even in productivity workloads. It's even in the name, Instructions per Clock. With superscalar you can do multiple instructions per clock, which from what I'm reading is exactly what is being referenced by IPC. So that's the superscalar side of things as a metric of performance. It's not counting scalar performance as it's not considering a single instruction per clock, otherwise everyone would be crowing about Frequency only instead of taking IPC into account.

No it's not, if that was the case a single knights landing core would be 3x better at gaming than a single steamroller core. Instruction per cycle depends entirely on what instruction is being run, if i put five ALU's in a core then it would have a really high IPC, it would be pretty crap at everything else but hey at least I'd have a higher IPC than a processor with a single ALU per core, IPC used to mean something when processors were only capable of working on one data item at a time, benchmarks became a thing because IPC was no longer a reliable way to measure performance.

And no it's not in the name because it depends on what the instruction being run is..

The number of instructions executed per clock is not a constant for a given processor; it depends on how the particular software being run interacts with the processor, and indeed the entire machine, particularly the memory hierarchy. However, certain processor features tend to lead to designs that have higher-than-average IPC values; the presence of multiple arithmetic logic units (an ALU is a processor subsystem that can perform elementary arithmetic and logical operations), and short pipelines. When comparing different instruction sets, a simpler instruction set may lead to a higher IPC figure than an implementation of a more complex instruction set using the same chip technology; however, the more complex instruction set may be able to achieve more useful work with fewer instructions.

....

I gave one of the reasons there's an issue with one of the games I'm working with. It's got a massive issue of linear thread bottlenecking on the primary cpu core used. I wasn't referencing the instructions or I would have referenced problems with instructions. Why try to conflate the two?? I wasn't.

Yea, you were. I said "[IPC] used to mean something, about 30 years ago, when processors weren't superscalar and had multiple pipelines." And you conflated that when you said "Well that's a bit short sighted. If you are running massively multi-threaded workloads sure the EPYC's of this world are great, but gaming is still incredibly IPC and Frequency dependent and many games don't scale past 2-4 cores very well at all."

You're the one who conflated IPC with threads, I've always been talking about Instructions.

 

[Orange Nexus]

Nothing wrong with PUBG.

https://i.imgur.com/PNGvuqY.png

 

[FoxEye]

It used to mean something, about 30 years ago, when processors weren't superscalar and had multiple pipelines.

And what about completely single-threaded workloads, of which there are still many?

I'm not sure what you want to call it, but Intel as of this moment has the advantage in such workloads.

 

[MaXxBoulton]

You at this point.....

class reply.

 

[easyrider]

class reply.

It wasn’t though was it...

 

[Vince]

Pubg is far better experience on high hz monitors. thats a modern game so are many others. ask anyone who plays pubg this way. i do every day with many people ryzens take longer to get in game and generally have quite a lot lower fps. if you play one of the main games and you on a high hz monitor it can be a big detriment. in some instances on pubg the difference at 1080 can be 30 fps over ryzen and a intel cpu. some may not mind that but when you want that performance and not as many drops in fps you currently need a intel cpu for the best experience. ive seen your benchmarks before also benchmarked many of those games you used and many are just plain bs. or single players shill type benchmarks. yet in mp you see big differences. tbh that is the benchmark people doing it wrong or trying to make things look better for one side or the other. as ive said to you before i have a ryzen rig and tested same cards in it. there is big differences in certain games. some the same as a big gpu upgrade.

hopefully new amd cpus at least catch the ipc up then with the right pricing it will make them even better.

I'm still trying to work out who in 2019 is playing at 1080p unless they have old hardware? Who spends thousands on a PC and aspires to play at 1080? Almost everyone I play with (granted most are 35 to 50) is at 1440 or 4k with the exception of a few. A Good example of somebody playing at 1080 is my mate, I built him a machine to play some pubg and csgo on a budget, its a i5 8500 (because i have a few laying around), 8gb ram and a 280x so he plays a 1080p and gets like 85 fps ish on pubg. I have a 1950x vega56 & radeon7 and I play at either 1440 or 4k and get generally 100+ fps. I have played the game on loads of different systems and I just don't see it, there is of course variations, sometimes massive, based on quality of hardware but like for like systems at similar price points, I don't think the people doing the benchmarks have it wrong, I think you very likely have it wrong. I have had intel and amd systems side by side on the same network and currently own an Intel 8500 system myself and don't ever recall a time where I was in a game significantly earlier or massively later than mates on their machines or my intel systems and to be brutal a mate of mine regularly plays on my 6700hq, gtx970 laptop and even that gets into games at a similar time. If you remove a lot of the other possible factors such as your mates mrs streaming netflix on his poorly configured, 10 year old router its likely that there isn't really anything there.

There is one thing we agree on though from a previous post and that's to see what ryzen 3000 brings to the table. I'll personally not be served until later on in the year as i'm not interested in AM4. Will be interesting to see how AM4 performance translates to TR this time around. A 5ghz 32 core monster Threadripper with a 25% ipc bump is the dream.

 

[new boy]

Well... I'm fully on board the hype train. Planning to flog my z97 4790k system a couple of weeks before launch (after seeing the price they still fetch on the recent 4790k upgrade thread) and probably buy a 8c 16t zen2 set up.

They last time I did similar, I sold my gtx970 in preparation of the rx480... which was really stupid Lol, ended up getting a used 980ti instead which in the long run was a good buy at the right time anyway as prices went nuts after.

I need something new and shiney anyway, it's been so long! I think it will be worth it this time. At the very least, should be twice the cores / threads with a small single core increase with fresh warranties and most importantly a new toy to play with for not much outlay.

 

[andy_mk3]

I'm still trying to work out who in 2019 is playing at 1080p

1080p is still the most popular resolution by a long shot. Take a look at the steam hardware survey, over 62% is 1080p and its risen from the previous month.

 

[Vince]

1080p is still the most popular resolution by a long shot. Take a look at the steam hardware survey, over 62% is 1080p and its risen from the previous month.

Problem is are they 1080p because it's a cheap laptop playing indi games or people with new 1080p pc's looking to play AAA titles?

 

[andy_mk3]

Problem is are they 1080p because it's a cheap laptop playing indi games or people with new 1080p pc's looking to play AAA titles?

We get a bit of a skewed view on these forums of what the 'norm' is as many of us are enthusiasts that want top end hardware. The large majority of PC gamers are quite happy rocking a 1060 at 1080p from what I can see, especially being on Facebook groups where you do find more of the 'norm'. 1440p and 4k come at a large premium in hardware costs for smooth gameplay. 1080p is handled very well bit med-end hardware though.

Just from my thoughts and experience, no hard facts of course

 

[new boy]

I think 1080p is still a good spot to be in. Very very light in gpu costs and can still look pretty decent. I have a 1440p monitor, it's lovely, but I'm not sure I would recommend it to everyone, lots of people buy prebuilt machines from Currys with Nvidia x50 tier GPUs, and 1080p is perfect for them.

 

[MaXxBoulton]

I'm still trying to work out who in 2019 is playing at 1080p unless they have old hardware

1080 is still the most populer res in use. The steam hardwear thing tells you what people play at and with what hardwear

 

[Vince]

We get a bit of a skewed view on these forums of what the 'norm' is as many of us are enthusiasts that want top end hardware. The large majority of PC gamers are quite happy rocking a 1060 at 1080p from what I can see, especially being on Facebook groups where you do find more of the 'norm'. 1440p and 4k come at a large premium in hardware costs for smooth gameplay. 1080p is handled very well bit med-end hardware though.

Just from my thoughts and experience, no hard facts of course

This is what i'm talking about, if your aiming for the "norm" at 1080p you buy mid range and budget hardware that will do the job, you do this because you are on a budget and frankly at this level and I have a few mates at this level, they don't give two hoots that they are in the game 10 seconds later than you, they are just thankful that you slapped them together a £300 pc that they can play some games on and join in with the fun. I think what we seem to be talking about here though is a small subset of gamers that are buying enthusiast grade hardware so 2080ti/9900k then running at 1080p 144hz I guess? But what crazy person does that?

 

[~>Dg<~]

Problem is are they 1080p because it's a cheap laptop playing indi games or people with new 1080p pc's looking to play AAA titles?

play a modern game on a modern monitor and get high fps 144 constant is still a challenge on many systems and people dont want fps drops. this is where intels just currently cant be beaten. 1080 on modern games this can still be a challenge nevermind higher res thats why people do it.

pubg for eg modern intel cpu at 1080 high hz panel constant 144 fps constant amd cant do it. period. they can reproduce great performance but in this situation they struggle. its just like any tool you buy. you buy it to do a job. sure your can use other tools to complete the job but why get the wrong tool when you can get the right one in the first place ?

its not just pubg many other MP big games intels hold the higher fps with less drops. thats why people use em.

cant wait till summer to see how well the new chips do. i will upgrade the amd ryzen rig ive got stick one of the new cpus in it.

 

[CuriousTomCat]

I cant really comment because I built my PC in 2009 when 1080p was the resolution people used. I'm going to get back into gaming when Ryzen 3000 and Navi launches but there's no way I'd ever spend more than £300 on a GPU so I can understand why 1080p is still the most common resolution on Steam. However, I'll be aiming for 2160x1200 because of VR. I dont intend to game on a monitor again.

 

[Vince]

play a modern game on a modern monitor and get high fps 144 constant is still a challenge on many systems and people dont want fps drops. this is where intels just currently cant be beaten. 1080 on modern games this can still be a challenge nevermind higher res thats why people do it.

pubg for eg modern intel cpu at 1080 high hz panel constant 144 fps constant amd cant do it. period. they can reproduce great performance but in this situation they struggle. its just like any tool you buy. you buy it to do a job. sure your can use other tools to complete the job but why get the wrong tool when you can get the right one in the first place ?

its not just pubg many other MP big games intels hold the higher fps with less drops. thats why people use em.

cant wait till summer to see how well the new chips do. i will upgrade the amd ryzen rig ive got stick one of the new cpus in it.

That's my point dude, every benchmark says you need a 9900k or similar for 144hz 1080p gaming on pubg if it's even possible at all, so i'm asking who are these people that buy £600 quid cpu's and 1080ti + class gpu's to play pubg at 1080p? They clearly aren't the people buying the mid range 1060 systems above so it's a different demographic all together. I get you are clearly one of the sadists but we must surely be talking of a small subset of people who are rocking £2k systems and playing at 1080p. At what point did the holy grail become a constant 144fps at 1080p? Id rather eat my own face than play at 1080p on a £2k+ system.

My laptop for example I spent high end money so I expect high end resolution and of course most high end 2K plus laptops deliver with 4k ips panels.

https://www.techspot.com/article/1532-pubg-cpu-benchmarks/ - See a random subset of 1080p benchmarks to catch what im trying to say. Random first page landed on and not a cpu on the list right up to 8700k can manage 144fps averages.

 

[new boy]

I guess if you are 100% into one game, and that's all you play and it's a comparative game, then you want an edge. High fps gives you that edge, and 1080p on high end hardware gives you high fps.

 

[~>Dg<~]

well the point is a medium i5 can do that where as a top end amd cant. thats not thousands so its very relative. thats why these amd cpus with better ipc should be similar speeds but with more cores so very attractive if they are priced right and if they have caught up the 15 percent ipc they are behind on intel for gaming.

 

[Vince]

well the point is a medium i5 can do that where as a top end amd cant. thats not thousands so its very relative. thats why these amd cpus with better ipc should be similar speeds but with more cores so very attractive if they are priced right and if they have caught up the 15 percent ipc they are behind on intel for gaming.

I have several medium i5's and as per that benchmark link which was the first one on google and as per my i5 8500 and 6700hq I call rubbish. An i5 8500 with a mid range gpu won't do it, not a hope, I can happily benchmark an i5 with a vega 56 and it simply wouldn't be happening even with vega running a 64 bois and heavily overclocked, I also just did a quick youtube and that same i5 8500, which lets not forget is a £210 6 core 6 thread 4ghz chip paired with a gtx 1060 6gb is pulling around 75fps. So we are then talking expensive hardware as the step up cost from i5 8500 / vega 56 / 1060 6gb is fairly significant and starting to edge on enthusiast K K series and i7+ grade cpu's. By which point that 1080p monitor starts look pretty unattractive.