Soldato
- Joined
- 18 May 2010
- Posts
- 12,827
Any particular reason, seems quite fast how do you know the motherboards will support it?
-
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" thread (inc AM4/APU discussion) ***
- Thread starter Boomstick777
- Start date
Any particular reason, seems quite fast how do you know the motherboards will support it?
If it does not, the timings can be manually set. I am going high so that there is a very good chance of 3200 c15 or even c14 or 3000 similarly.
Corsair is another brand that has good compatibility, I have used the vengeance DDR3 sticks in a lot of boards.
These kinds of charts are really annoying because they easily mislead. Taking a multithreaded score and dividing by the number of cores to give a "per core" score is stupid - it just shows that the benchmark doesn't scale 100% per core, it doesn't tell you anything about the CPU. The fact that the 4 core chips have better per-core performance at the same clock than 6/8 core chips in this particular benchmark is meaningless.
With the number of leaks we have now, I think it's safe to say Ryzen is around Kaby Lake IPC or even better on average.
In a sense it does suggest something about the CPU but I agree it can easily mislead. It doesn't necessarily indicate that the benchmark doesn't scale with cores but potentially that the CPU can't scale this particular workload to its full config. These could be explained by the cache stressing nature of this workload, the partitioning of L3 between CCX's, the potentially advantageous core configuration of partially disabled chips (4c/6c - which cores in which of the 2 CCX's), and maybe also communication traffic between CCX's.
Ofcourse, even if true, this could be absolutely meaningless for the general consumer.
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Feb 2011
- Posts
- 5,849
+1 to this, I'm aiming for 3000mhz CAS14, if I have to downclock faster Ram then that will be the case.
From what I have been reading, faster ram and especially tight low timing help Zen
i have kept aside a pair of 2666 cl13 ...also would like to know if there is any ECC support
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Sep 2011
- Posts
- 12,874
- Location
- Surrey
If this your intention I would opt for GSKILL. These guys use the most amount of guardband. Even then, your chances are slim for what you're aiming for.
Are Intel any different to nvidia?
I really hope that the SMT is better than the measly 20-25% increase in throughput that Intel provide. There are SMT solutions out there that can easily better that, AMD can do it also - it doesn't matter if it's there first attempt either. I also have a sneaking suspicion that they will absolutely trounce Intel's SMT in the server chips - lets hope so.
People have been bending over for Intel for years. This is why I never understood the claims from people about Ryzen CPUs being priced just under the 6900K.
It was crazy talk, and now it's been shown to be that. I am very interested to see how Intel change their tactics. I'm expecting a sudden influx of higher core count CPUs.
Intel have had very high core count CPUs for ages now. This is gonna be the kick up the arse I think that finally relegates quad cores to legacy hardware.
It was crazy talk, and now it's been shown to be that. I am very interested to see how Intel change their tactics. I'm expecting a sudden influx of higher core count CPUs.
Intel have had very high core count CPUs for ages now. This is gonna be the kick up the arse I think that finally relegates quad cores to legacy hardware.
I think Intel will inevitably have to respond with short term price cuts. Going longer term - higher core counts for their mainstream platform.
All good. Intel's desktop CPU progression has been pretty uninspiring since the launch of Sandy Bridge. The CPU market has needed a shake up for years.
All good. Intel's desktop CPU progression has been pretty uninspiring since the launch of Sandy Bridge. The CPU market has needed a shake up for years.
. I have some gskill 3200 trident z cas 14. Would advise looking for that. I noticed when ordering that some were cas 14 and some were 15!
1700 is always listed as "65W" so I suspect it has some kind of hard cap that differentiates it from the Xs above it.
Who's providing this pressure to handle more threads in the average computer then.
Office computers will be improved by a hex core? Yer, no, doesn't need more than a bog standard dual core.
No need to ignore! Prime95 takes advantage of Intel AVX2 which uses 256bit operations and Intel executes over 2x256bit units. AMD supports AVX2 operations but executes over 2x128bit units.
see http://www.linleygroup.com/mpr/article.php?id=11666
scroll sown to heading " Modest Floating-Point and SIMD Ambitions" about 2/3 down.
and to "Good for Servers But Not HPC" later on.
Bog standard office computers don't count. Wasn't that obvious to you?
Yeah, mine still does. Paired with an SSD and a GPU capable of decoding H.264 it's still very viable since all of the heavy lifting is done by our server and VM clusters.
No, your post was too ambiguous to believe that, it simply labelled quadcores as obsolete with the word "legacy".
Or their more modern equivalent, Atoms, should they die in the meantime. So long as they get more than 2GB ram. Barely able to run the OS and 1 application like that.