Yeah that is a huge downside to having APUs released nearly a year after their CPU counterparts - a lot of form factors require on-board graphics (or just simply don't require discreet graphics). I think AMD need to do something about this and get the cadence closer together in future.It almost already exists, I've used a few of them, R7 2700E's 45w 2.8GHz base, 4.0GHz boost, it was being tested in place of the MIA 35w i9 9900T until it was recently launched the only issue we had with it was the lack of IGPU for the SFF/1U systems, so it was decided that it had no place in the applications we were looking at.
I fully expect a 25-35w part with 8c/16t soon.
-
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 ***
- Thread starter Jamin280672
- Start date
100% this, I am stuck designing systems with Intel CPU's 80% of the time due to the lack of iGPU in the AMD offerings, I mean if there were more boards out earlier with the Aspeed AST2500 BMC or equivalent in SFF/ITX then it would have been fine, but there isn't. I'm finally getting somewhere now though with both the TR4 boards and the AM4 boards as Tyan and ASROck have boards with the ASpeed 2500 the BMC on it freeing up a PCI-E slot which doesn't sound like a big deal but when you need all the I/O you can get, then it really does help.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,371
- Location
- Dormanstown.
We've just bought in our first AMD APU at work as a test device to try a build on.
Doing my bit for AMD
Doing my bit for AMD
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,486
- Location
- Planet Earth
Have people on this forum just forgotten about the 65W TDP Ryzen 7 2700 and 105W TDP Ryzen 7 2700X boost curves at stock?
The Ryzen 7 2700 was 3.2GHZ~4.1GHZ and the Ryzen 7 2700X was 3.7GHZ~4.3GHZ so they looked much closer than they were. The former was closer to its base clockspeed for most workloads and the latter was closer to its max boost clockspeed.
As balanced a reply as I can make, it depends on what you're playing.
Strategy/maybe single player RPG and anything less "twitchy", sure. There's absolutely no way they can remove the 20ms+ of round trip ping on EVERY input though. Each mouse movement or keypress will have at least that much latency before you see the response. It's not utterly terrible and there's a tonne of games it won't matter one bit. There's a whole lot of stuff it won't work nice with as well though
Yes I said this pages back. Just because their maximum boost clocks are close doesn't mean their real-world sustained clocks will be close. More TDP envelope = higher clocks for longer and across more cores.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,486
- Location
- Planet Earth
It was also the case with the Ryzen 7 1700 and Ryzen 7 1800X too. It makes me wonder though on how much bigger the Zen 2 cores are compared to Zen and Zen+ cores? Its almost like AMD has potentially given up on clockspeeds to focus on IPC and improved AVX2 performance.
I think you'll find you said " It won't happen". That is an assertion, that is different from speculation. I would suggest adding in "may not" rather than "won't". It would reduce the confusion
im 36 though. I bet i have 100ms latency just because of my age!As balanced a reply as I can make, it depends on what you're playing.
Strategy/maybe single player RPG and anything less "twitchy", sure. There's absolutely no way they can remove the 20ms+ of round trip ping on EVERY input though. Each mouse movement or keypress will have at least that much latency before you see the response. It's not utterly terrible and there's a tonne of games it won't matter one bit. There's a whole lot of stuff it won't work nice with as well though
Well if they have, it's the correct move. Higher and higher clock speeds is just an unsustainable model, as Intel demonstrated with Pentium 4. It's even worse these days when power consumption is much more important.
Agree, I shudder to think of this voluntary lagginess.As balanced a reply as I can make, it depends on what you're playing.
Strategy/maybe single player RPG and anything less "twitchy", sure. There's absolutely no way they can remove the 20ms+ of round trip ping on EVERY input though. Each mouse movement or keypress will have at least that much latency before you see the response. It's not utterly terrible and there's a tonne of games it won't matter one bit. There's a whole lot of stuff it won't work nice with as well though
Stadia may be for non-gaming laptops, when there is no alternative.
Excellent chart, can't wait to see gains to be similar going from 1800X -> 2700X -> 3800X
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,486
- Location
- Planet Earth
It also is important for the next generation of APUs. I will be intrigued to see if AMD now has better IPC on average than Intel core for core.
Yes. Yes I did
Overtired and distracted.
Still,the Ryzen 7 3700X looks better value if you don't mind doing some overclocking.
It is a useful chart.
Toms Hardware did another for their Ryzen 5 2600 review.
This is why I got a Ryzen 5 2600 instead of a Ryzen 5 2600X,as the former was significantly cheaper when I bought it,and it at best the Ryzen 5 2600X had 10% higher clockspeeds. The difference between the Ryzen 7 2700X and Ryzen 7 2700 was much higher.
Aww, my poor R7 1700 doesn't go beyond 3.2 GHz most of the time. Still, it is undervolted and probably sits at 1.6 GHz most of the day. 
I wonder whether it'd do 3.6-3.7 GHz all cores at stock voltage but I'm unlikely to need any further single-core grunt from it to be honest. Also the fact that any kind of overclock broke the AMD equivalent of SpeedStep put me off trying....not sure if this is still the case? Worst case scenario, I can whack in a Ryzen 3/4 chip down the line.
I wonder whether it'd do 3.6-3.7 GHz all cores at stock voltage but I'm unlikely to need any further single-core grunt from it to be honest. Also the fact that any kind of overclock broke the AMD equivalent of SpeedStep put me off trying....not sure if this is still the case? Worst case scenario, I can whack in a Ryzen 3/4 chip down the line.
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 5,157
- Location
- South Wales
Hope there's a bunch of good reviews when the chips come out testing different memory speeds, i want to see if it will be worth getting some new gskill kits that are 3600mhz cl14 or 5000mhz cl17.. or if it's just an increase in cost
Newsflash, you can on Ryzen 3000. ...maybe?The 5000mhz cl17 kits....if only you could get that speed on the Ryzen
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 5,157
- Location
- South Wales
16GB kits though, can't see any 2x16GB kits. They supposed to be due Q3, probably for the launch of the new chips.The 5000mhz cl17 kits....if only you could get that speed on the Ryzen