• 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) ***

TaKeN said:
SfFIl57.jpg

4G8zvTS.jpg

Just appeared on Reddit 5 mins ago..
Click to expand...

Those are good scores.... my 4690K @ 4.6Ghz

Single threaded i score 20% higher with 35% higher clock, so the IPC on that RyZen is 15% higher.

image.png
 
Aretak said:
There's barely any premium on fast DDR4 at the moment. The cheapest 16GB 2133MHz kit I can find is around £87, whereas you can get a 3000MHz kit for a fiver more. I paid £75 for a 16GB 3200MHz kit last May though, so prices seem to be really high right now.
Click to expand...

It doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of Skylake and Ryzen based systems won't be shipping with overclocked memory out of the box,but at the maximum official supported memory spec. Even the people I know who have built recent Haswell,Skylake systems(not pre-built systems),have not overclocked them and just ran the RAM at auto settings. I never bothered overclocking RAM either. I am more worried about long-term stability than trying to over tax the memory controller.

The fact of the matter is the kits running at higher clockspeeds will start to add a premium anyway,so all this talk of how one CPU might run certain RAM faster is not relevant to probably like the vast majority of people actually using these systems.

Its great for overclockers and the like,but how much you can overclock the memory controller is not going to determine how successful a CPU will be.

If that was the case AMD would have won the GPU wars now as they have had more memory bandwidth than Nvidia at many card tiers for years.
 
I don't know if anyone else has mentioned this, but I've had experience of the Intel 6950x struggling with high mhz ram . E.g. More than 16gb at more than 3000mhz

So even if Ryzen does struggle with fast ram it might actually be comparable to Intel with that many cores.
 
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
It doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of Skylake and Ryzen based systems won't be shipping with overclocked memory out of the box,but at the maximum official supported memory spec. Even the few people I know who have built recent Haswell and Skylake systems,have not overclocked them and just ran the RAM at auto settings. I never bothered overclocking RAM either. I am more worried about longterm stability than trying to overtax the memory controller.

The fact of the matter is the kits running at clockspeeds will start to add a premium anyway,so all this talk of how one CPU might run certain RAM faster is not relevant to probably like the vast majority of people actually using these systems.
Click to expand...
There's not really any "bother" in "overclocking" your RAM. You go into the UEFI, toggle XMP on and forget about it, so long as you have a half-decent motherboard. I don't see why anybody wouldn't do it when the faster sticks cost no more and have been validated at their XMP speed. It's free performance, and Skylake at least really enjoys faster memory even for gaming purposes, with significant performance gains to be had up to a certain point (around 3000MHz in most cases, though some games such as Fallout 4 just scale up and up). I guess we'll see how Ryzen reacts to having more bandwidth to play with.

As for whether "most" people will do it or whether crappy pre-builts will ship with it, that isn't really something I care enough to even speculate about. It doesn't change the fact that the process is simple and the benefits clear.
 
ubersonic said:
Even when the Athlon XP had it's genitals firmly lodged in the Pentium IV's throat market share was still in Intel's favour, because a lot of consumers will simply always buy Intel, as a result Dell/HP/etc know this and are more likely to spec Intel even if it raises their prices and lowers their performance.
Click to expand...

This is definitely true, but the overall PC market has shifted quite a lot in the last few years. Normal people don't buy desk tops anymore, at least not close to how much they used to. The enthusiast and gamer market on the other hand has grown a bunch. So if all the enthusiasts and gamers start buying AMD it might actually swing.

I just hope that if this all works out it leaves AMD in a strong enough position to keep competing :)
 
Aretak said:
There's not really any "bother" in "overclocking" your RAM. You go into the UEFI, toggle XMP on and forget about it, so long as you have a half-decent motherboard. I don't see why anybody wouldn't do it when the faster sticks cost no more and have been validated at their XMP speed. It's free performance, and Skylake at least really enjoys faster memory even for gaming purposes, with significant performance gains to be had up to a certain point (around 3000MHz in most cases, though some games such as Fallout 4 just scale up and up). I guess we'll see how Ryzen reacts to having more bandwidth to play with.

As for whether "most" people will do it or whether crappy pre-builts will ship with it, that isn't really something I care enough to even speculate about. It doesn't change the fact that the process is simple and the benefits clear.
Click to expand...

It is when you are running critical stuff - you are running the memory controller out of spec and you need to realise even amongst enthusiasts I know,the people on forums are more on the extreme level of tweaking. I have mates who are enthusiasts who run certain applications over days or weeks,which would mean oveclocking the memory controller would not be worth it. I don't overclock memory.

The reason they even bought a Core i7 4790K or a Core i7 6700K is since it guaranteed at stock. If I am spending £200+ on a CPU,if it can't do well out of the box,then its pointless.

I don't know ONE person who has a modern Skylake system who has run RAM out of spec. That is the reality of even many people I know who build PCs.

Some of the people posting here are making out if AMD can't support 3.6GHZ overclocked memory its like the end of the world. It really isn't.

Stock performance out of the box is what will sell Ryzen.

If Ryzen needs more tweaking than Intel to get performance,people will stick with Intel.

Why do you think AMD has gone to the effort of making XFR??

Its an easy way of overclocking,without actually bothering to overclock.

Plus,incessantly worrying about memory clockspeeds,etc is not going to have zero effect on whether Ryzen is successful or not. AMD has had multiple generations where they had far more memory bandwidth than Nvidia,and it means diddly squat if the performance is not there at stock.

Luckily it seems like AMD might have the performance there anyway,so for me whether Intel overclocks 10% better or can run faster RAM is not of any significance to whether I get Ryzen or not. Neither is it for anybody I know who is considering a new build based around it.
 
Frequency is only part of the equation. For any constant IO application, timing delay is equally as important. Just because most users don't bother to even adjust memory settings, does not mean it's not important. It's a little deeper than most understand also is the issue.

Furthermore unless your workload is quite literally critical, running memory "out of spec" is a non issue if the proper stress test routine is used
 
With the rysen cpu-z 1.78 leak it's not clear of the turbo speed during the st and mt test,
The baseclock is identified as 3.450 ghz but we need to see a prinout of per core speeds.
Still snifing at 1900 st is pretty good if it's at 3.7ghz for st. My I5 3570k at 3.8ghz st would get 1650.
If the ryzen can get into the 2100's around 4.0ghz-4.2ghz then i'll be impressed.
 
Davedree said:
With the rysen cpu-z 1.78 leak it's not clear of the turbo speed during the st and mt test,
The baseclock is identified as 3.450 ghz but we need to see a prinout of per core speeds.
Still snifing at 1900 st is pretty good if it's at 3.7ghz for st. My I5 3570k at 3.8ghz st would get 1650.
If the ryzen can get into the 2100's around 4.0ghz-4.2ghz then i'll be impressed.
Click to expand...

Incidentally that Ryzen 6/12 is the 65w non XFR variant that they used.
 
Aretak said:
There's not really any "bother" in "overclocking" your RAM. You go into the UEFI, toggle XMP on and forget about it, so long as you have a half-decent motherboard. I don't see why anybody wouldn't do it when the faster sticks cost no more and have been validated at their XMP speed. It's free performance, and Skylake at least really enjoys faster memory even for gaming purposes, with significant performance gains to be had up to a certain point (around 3000MHz in most cases, though some games such as Fallout 4 just scale up and up). I guess we'll see how Ryzen reacts to having more bandwidth to play with.

As for whether "most" people will do it or whether crappy pre-builts will ship with it, that isn't really something I care enough to even speculate about. It doesn't change the fact that the process is simple and the benefits clear.
Click to expand...

The RAM has been validated to work at that speed but the CPU's memory controller has not. Therefore, the motherboard vendor, using their judgement, applies a higher voltage than may be necessary to the memory controller to try to reduce the risk of instability, particularly with the fastest kits. However, this is not guaranteed to work on your CPU and is not great for longevity.

If you do stability testing yourself you may find you need more or less voltage than the auto defaults depending on the quality of the memory controller.
 
Last edited:
ubersonic said:
Even when the Athlon XP had it's genitals firmly lodged in the Pentium IV's throat market share was still in Intel's favour, because a lot of consumers will simply always buy Intel, as a result Dell/HP/etc know this and are more likely to spec Intel even if it raises their prices and lowers their performance.
Click to expand...
Things are different now Intel have dominated since 2005. If AMD performance is true & not marketing fluff then for the price its a massive game changer Dell\HP etc etc will go with cost as long as the platform is reliable its going to cause Intel massive issues they have been caught sleeping due to their overly greedy tick-tock policy & no AMD competition until now.

Only practical problem is finding Ryzen in stock for months is going to be tough! AMD must be confident otherwise they would be all over the NDA breaking leaks. Intel will wait until launch before they have to adjust prices downwards.
 
IMO AMD are behind some of these leaks, or they are with AMD's blessing, its part of marketing and mindshare.
 
Ryzen CPU is only the first salvo - its more about getting the core done properly. If AMD does well against even £1000 Intel CPUs,it really lifts their status for the second salvo,the Ryzen APUs.

The Ryzen APU will be another kettle of fish - outside the eDRAM parts,AMD still has the edge using DDR3 and much lower IPC cores in any games. Imagine a Ryzen APU which is 4C/8T and with a Polaris or Vega based IGP??

Combine that with the fact Ryzen is an SOC,so that means they can use relatively cheap motherboards,it has potential to be something HP/Dell will want to use,even in a laptop.
 
Well my i5 4690K running at the Ryzen's boost speed of 3.7Ghz scores 1685 in single thread mode, which makes my i5 about 12% slower clock for clock than the Ryzen.

That means it would only have to overclock to 4.2Ghz to make it as fast as my i5 running at 4.5Ghz but with 6 cores and 12 threads!

Impressive....tempting.
 
humbug said:
IMO AMD are behind some of these leaks, or they are with AMD's blessing, its part of marketing and mindshare.
Click to expand...

I think XFR will be a bit of a genius move - its one thing saying if you overclock you get this XYZ improvement,but plenty won't bother if they end up having to stress test it,etc and there is always the thing about running stuff out of spec as it technically invalidates your warranty.

But with XFR,its all within safe parameters determined by AMD,so its literally an easy way for AMD to advertise free performance for non-overclockers in sort of "it won't damage your CPU kind of way".

It also means AMD can advertise the CPUs as being lower power,since the numbers will be with XFR off,but I suspect many will switch on XFR.
 
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
Ryzen CPU is only the first salvo - its more about getting the core done properly. If AMD does well against even £1000 Intel CPUs,it really lifts their status for the second salvo,the Ryzen APUs.

The Ryzen APU will be another kettle of fish - outside the eDRAM parts,AMD still has the edge using DDR3 and much lower IPC cores in any games. Imagine a Ryzen APU which is 4C/8T and with a Polaris or Vega based IGP??

Combine that with the fact Ryzen is an SOC,so that means they can use relatively cheap motherboards,it has potential to be something HP/Dell will want to use,even in a laptop.
Click to expand...

Agreed, if AMD can make a 4c/8t or even better 6c/12t APU with Vega or Polaris IGP they will really be taking the battle to Intel on the notebook market. ZEN has the advantage (like you say) of being an SoC so allowing cheap motherboards, looking at the recent leaks for RyZEN in terms of performance (that are probably true this close to release) they have 65W TDP parts hot on the heals of the 140W TDP intel parts.

Also eDRAM Intel parts are only few and far between in the real world, but looking at how AMD are looking at HBM and the nvme expansion thing on their GPUs i really think AMD are looking to compete with the eDRAM parts :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom