• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

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

chroniclard said:
Do we even need PCIE 4, let alone 5? What benefits to your average computer user will they give?
Click to expand...
If we start moving to pcie based storage like we are with m.2 then having extra bandwidth frees up lanes for other things.

Increasing the bandwidth of pcie may make multi gpu processing more effective which will allow a general shift towards higher resolutions more cheaply than current cards allow.

I can see a few reasons why we might want to move on and changing from pcie 3 to 4 or 5 isn't the only solution but it certainly is a solution.

The pc will only be as fast as the slowest part. Increasing the speed of the interconnects on which those parts connect is a good thing imo so long as it is done for progress and not to simply force consumers to upgrade to a new board.
 
chroniclard said:
Do we even need PCIE 4, let alone 5? What benefits to your average computer user will they give?
Click to expand...

For the time being, there isn't much benefit to a normal desktop user, and I'm not talking a power user here just someone how has a PC with a GPU installed and an SSD.

The main benefits will come data centre and work station, if you take a current PCI-E 16x 3.0 slot it offers 8.0 GT/s per lane for a total of around 15.8GB/s, PCI-E 4.0 pushes that to 16.0 GT/s per lane, 31.5 GB/s for a 16x slot, and PCI-E 5.0 doubles that again to 32.0 GT/s or 63GB/s for a 16x slot.
That means a PCI-E 5.0 4x slot can transfer the same amount of data per second as the PCI-E 3.0 16x slot, or if you look at it from a total system perspective in an EPYC system with 128 lanes of PCI-E is goes from allowing 126.4 GB/s to 504 GB/s which gives the ability to have many more devices connected to a single server, lowering TCO, power usage, physical space etc.

Some of the projects I have been working with over the last couple of years could have really done with ans much PCI-E bandwidth as possible, and for that reason EPYC, and more specifically Threadripper was amazing at the time as it had the 64 total lanes of PCI-E 3.0 and coming from X99 with only 40/44 was a huge relief and allowed some pretty significant improvements. I am pretty thrilled that 5.0 is coming sooner rather than later, as it will allow some serious increase in density and is going to seriously shrink some of the equipment I work with.
 
Cheers all, saves me googling. :pSounds like it wont really matter to your average user yet but the benefits to higher end workstations or servers could be substantial. :)
 
TrixX said:
Nice opinion. Glad you are willing to throw speculative discussion and critical thinking straight out the window because, err, raisins...
Click to expand...
his response was to those complaining there's gonna be 10 more pages of drivel. don't want drivel? lock the thread until facts are available. where you have 'speculative discussion' - fancy talk for 'opinions being aired' - you will always have drivel or slabbers slabbering - hell even when you're dealing with cold hard facts the BS merchants will still appear. i think it's actually not a bad idea to lock the thread down until facts appear. i have this thread on my watch list and it's easily a week at least since i stopped seeing 'new' info in here - it's either waahhh waahhhh intel are screwed or waahhh waahhh AMD are liars. it's pretty much just the same 'info' going round and round now.....so what point does it currently serve other than to be an echo chamber?
 
Except as shown above we have platform discussions, what's coming, why it's useful, why it's not etc...

The only people stoking the flames are easy and DG on club Intel (even if they proclaim to be looking forward to the Ryzen 3xxx series) and a couple of the other guys reacting to them (whether accurately or otherwise). Outside of that group, it's actually been a relatively interesting and fruitful discussion for those looking to have one.

A simple solution to the problem is if you don't want to be involved or read stuff like that, then unwatch the thread.
 
chroniclard said:
Do we even need PCIE 4, let alone 5? What benefits to your average computer user will they give?
Click to expand...

Phison demoed a PCIe 4 SSD controller transfering data to and from 2TB of flash storage at 4GB/s during CES. Another benetit of PCIE 4 is multiple NVMe SSDs etc.

Most people may not need it but some people would welcome the addition of PCIe 4. Even if 98% of us dont need PCIe 4, that still leaves 2% that do want it. While 2% doesn't seem much, that still accounts for over 100,000 extra processor sales and 100,000 extra motherboard sales of the total 5 million Ryzen processors sold as of October 2018.
 
Last edited:
Distracted said:
5mins in
Click to expand...

Right, I guess I was expecting a bit more to "migrating EPYC chipset to X570" then "migrating EPYC chipset to X570 with a few tweaks and double the power draw".

Unless I'm being monumentally thick and missing something. Perhaps I should go and have a look as to what exactly comprises EPYC's chipset.
 
LePhuronn said:
Right, I guess I was expecting a bit more to "migrating EPYC chipset to X570" then "migrating EPYC chipset to X570 with a few tweaks and double the power draw".

Unless I'm being monumentally thick and missing something. Perhaps I should go and have a look as to what exactly comprises EPYC's chipset.
Click to expand...

EPYC is/uses an SoC, it actually doesn't have a separate dedicated south bridge as everything goes through the CPU, obviously depending on the board vendor depends on how these features are presented on the motherboard.
 
TrixX said:
Except as shown above we have platform discussions, what's coming, why it's useful, why it's not etc...

The only people stoking the flames are easy and DG on club Intel (even if they proclaim to be looking forward to the Ryzen 3xxx series) and a couple of the other guys reacting to them (whether accurately or otherwise). Outside of that group, it's actually been a relatively interesting and fruitful discussion for those looking to have one.

A simple solution to the problem is if you don't want to be involved or read stuff like that, then unwatch the thread.
Click to expand...

look if you cant debate a subject from equal sides why bother ? im interested in these chips will most likely buy one. look at what you just put based on im not bias to a side. you put club intel. dont be one of those guys. im neither club intel or club amd im in the middle dont care who makes what i want to use. the only reason people think like what you wrote is they cant get past brand loyalty or bias. or just cant debate about a topic so use the lowest brain power possible and say intel fanboy or amd fanboy.

there hasnt been much news at all. then again with 6 months to wait i wouldnt expect much yet. the bigger news will come in big events to publicise the new chips and just before launch.

ideally im hoping for 10+ 5ghz chips. at a decent price. i cant see amd getting that done. more like 4.5 max and maybe 50 cheaper or 100 cheaper than intel. who will probably price drop stuff and then have higher hz to make them better gaming chips. going to be interesting.
 
~>Dg<~ said:
look if you cant debate a subject from equal sides why bother ? im interested in these chips will most likely buy one. look at what you just put based on im not bias to a side. you put club intel. dont be one of those guys. im neither club intel or club amd im in the middle dont care who makes what i want to use. the only reason people think like what you wrote is they cant get past brand loyalty or bias. or just cant debate about a topic so use the lowest brain power possible and say intel fanboy or amd fanboy.

there hasnt been much news at all. then again with 6 months to wait i wouldnt expect much yet. the bigger news will come in big events to publicise the new chips and just before launch.

ideally im hoping for 10+ 5ghz chips. at a decent price. i cant see amd getting that done. more like 4.5 max and maybe 50 cheaper or 100 cheaper than intel. who will probably price drop stuff and then have higher hz to make them better gaming chips. going to be interesting.
Click to expand...

AMD have matched Intel's best performance at an unknown clock speed, and its an engineering sample with unfinalized clocks.

With that in mind doesn it matter what the clock speeds are? do you agree it doesn't, they only thing that matters is the performance?
 
humbug said:
AMD have matched Intel's best performance at an unknown clock speed, and its an engineering sample with unfinalized clocks.

With that in mind doesn it matter what the clock speeds are? do you agree it doesn't, they only thing that matters is the performance?
Click to expand...

Yes this is true, but remember once again, so far they have proved it keeps up and even slightly beats intel's 9900K, thats a Coffee Lake chip, AMD said they were building this chip to compete with Ice Lake, and they still have approx 3-4 months to get the performance up, refine the IPC and the clock speeds, still loads more to come yet.
 
Jamin280672 said:
Yes this is true, but remember once again, so far they have proved it keeps up and even slightly beats intel's 9900K, thats a Coffee Lake chip, AMD said they were building this chip to compete with Ice Lake, and they still have approx 3-4 months to get the performance up, refine the IPC and the clock speeds, still loads more to come yet.
Click to expand...

they proven that in cinebench its quicker. dont be making up the rest. previously in cinebench amd had quicker chips. guess what that meant in games ? slower than a 8400. cinebench is just cinebench. not gaming.

as to humbug . i honestly dont know what to say.without making stuff up like many. if they have matched 9900k at cinebench with whatever clock they have vs a stock 9900k erm..im kinda so so. as said above. previous amd chips did this with intel and look how that turned out. plus you can oc the intel more. so its mainly about price now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom