• 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.

Ryzen "2" ?

fowler002 said:
Sorry I asked, it was rude of me to inconvenience you with my questions.
Click to expand...
Four people had already answered your question accurately and you didn't accept the answer. You didn't show the courtesy of even referencing those answers when you posted a further follow up question that was redundant in light of the answers already provided, unless you knew something they didn't. Then when you blatantly and rudely ignore people answering you you get your nose all out of joint when someone is blunt with you.
You sound like my 15 year old son who is also occasionally a whiney entitled little twit who doesn't realize how he affects others with his blind un-researched opinions but we hope to still educate him in manners, listening skills and critical literacy ability.
 
fowler002 said:
I didn’t ignore the answers I simply clarified what my question was, seeing as they didn’t seem to understand the question fully.
Next time I’ll quote every single answer so you and others don’t think I’ve ignored them.........

This forum was better when people simply ignored you rather than coming across as if you’d inconvenienced them.

P.s. I asked again as while the replies suggested spectre can be fixed by updating windows, this particular article suggests you still need to update not just the os

https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/11/16880922/amd-spectre-firmware-updates-ryzen-epyc
Click to expand...

So what you meant was the specific fix for Variant 2 Spectre attacks rather than the Meltdown or Spectre Variant 1 attacks which AMD was either just not vulnerable to or where there could possibly be a weakness (even though no-one has managed to actually exploit it AFAIK) Windows updates have fixed.

In which case no - I cannot see anything that AMD has released or said to suggest that the 2000 series chips are going to be immune to Spectre variant 2 without updating firmware.

If you are in a situation where hackers can gain prolonged physical access to you machine then you would still need to patch to protect from Variant 2 attacks.

I believe it is Zen 2 - the 7nm Chip, is supposed to be natively immune to this class of attack.
 
fowler002 said:
No what I meant was has the recently released apus and the upcoming cpus have fixed from whatever variant without needing any patches(be it os update or hardware), from what you said it doesn’t sound like it. So a simple no or there hasn’t been anything announced would have done.
Click to expand...

So, the answer doesn't just have to answer your question, it has to be worded exactly correct to be framed by the direction and thrust of your particular question? I'm with everyone else on opinion.

"No, I didn't ask for details about which attacks it is vulnerable to, which has been answered to death already. I asked for "a specific yes or no, is there some tiny window of vulnerability related to ANY of the meltdown/spectre bugs" so we can lump it all together and say it's just as bad as Intels issues".
 
Mercutio said:
So, the answer doesn't just have to answer your question, it has to be worded exactly correct to be framed by the direction and thrust of your particular question? I'm with everyone else on opinion.
Click to expand...

I think you're all being a bit unfair on him. I understood what he meant from his first post. He asked if the new AMD chips would have the flaws corrected, and most replied that the OS updates fix the flaws. But didn't ask for an OS fix, because an OS fix means the chip still has the flaw, and that's what he doesn't want. He had to ask several times before someone answered his question
 
Mercutio said:
So, the answer doesn't just have to answer your question, it has to be worded exactly correct to be framed by the direction and thrust of your particular question? I'm with everyone else on opinion.

"No, I didn't ask for details about which attacks it is vulnerable to, which has been answered to death already. I asked for "a specific yes or no, is there some tiny window of vulnerability related to ANY of the meltdown/spectre bugs" so we can lump it all together and say it's just as bad as Intels issues".
Click to expand...

Again sorry I asked a simple question, if I’d known it would have been too inconvenient for everyone on here I wouldn’t have bothered.

I wasn’t asking for an explanation of how the flaws work or anything extra ordinary, simply if the new chips had the flaw fixed(by design and not by a patch). But hoo hum, wouldn’t bother asking these questions anymore.
 
fowler002 said:
Again sorry I asked a simple question, if I’d known it would have been too inconvenient for everyone on here I wouldn’t have bothered.

I wasn’t asking for an explanation of how the flaws work or anything extra ordinary, simply if the new chips had the flaw fixed(by design and not by a patch). But hoo hum, wouldn’t bother asking these questions anymore.
Click to expand...

It's fine but when you're being spoonfed, complaining about the size/shape of the spoon is perhaps being a LITTLE too particular?
Apologies, you appear quite easily "put out". No intention to be aggressive/passive aggressive about it.

But when the answer "well, the AMD chip is still vulnerable to 1 specific type of the whole spectrum of Meltdown/Spectre attacks and is otherwise immune" had a reply along the lines of "so is it vulnerable yes/no?" (paraphrasing)... you... kinda need to expect folks to be a little exasperated. Let's put it behind us and move on :)
 
Last edited:
Mercutio said:
It's fine but when you're being spoonfed, comparing about the size/shape of the spoon is perhaps being a LITTLE too particular?
Apologies, you appear quite easily "put out". No intention to be aggressive/passive aggressive about it.

But when the answer "well, the AMD chip is still vulnerable to 1 specific type of the whole spectrum of Meltdown/Spectre attacks and is otherwise immune" had a reply along the lines of "so is it vulnerable yes/no?" (paraphrasing)... you... kinda need to expect folks to be a little exasperated. Let's put it behind us and move on :)
Click to expand...

How to put this so anyone can understand... the replies DIDN’T answer the question I was asking, is that simple enough or do I have to clarify even further?

But like you said it’s time to forget about it.
 
Last edited:
Vorash said:
I think you're all being a bit unfair on him. I understood what he meant from his first post. He asked if the new AMD chips would have the flaws corrected, and most replied that the OS updates fix the flaws. But didn't ask for an OS fix, because an OS fix means the chip still has the flaw, and that's what he doesn't want. He had to ask several times before someone answered his question
Click to expand...

Not necessarily, i'll put it this way, if the OS needs patching then its the OS which has flaws.

This patch is to fix the same problem with all CPU's and yet all CPU's are different, think about it, with this one its not the CPU's.
 
Last edited:
After my last question prob would be best if I’d just wait till April for the answer, but with the 2600 performance leak how will the 2700/X compare to the 8700K if it has a similar performance hike over the 1700/x? Mainly in terms of gaming.
 
fowler002 said:
After my last question prob would be best if I’d just wait till April for the answer, but with the 2600 performance leak how will the 2700/X compare to the 8700K if it has a similar performance hike over the 1700/x? Mainly in terms of gaming.
Click to expand...

The only meaningful metric will be price.
 
Beren said:
I believe it is Zen 2 - the 7nm Chip, is supposed to be natively immune to this class of attack.
Click to expand...
Yes, Zen 2 will get fixed silicon. The current CPUs and APUs and forthcoming Zen+ (Ryzen 2) CPUs still require OS and microcode fixes (not yet released?).

“We continue to believe that Variant 2 of Spectre is difficult to exploit on AMD processors. However, we are deploying CPU microcode patches that in combination with OS updates provide additional mitigation steps. Longer term, we have included changes in our future processor cores, starting with our Zen 2 design, to further address potential Spectre-like exploits.” - AMD CEO Lisa Su
 
Last edited:
fowler002 said:
After my last question prob would be best if I’d just wait till April for the answer, but with the 2600 performance leak how will the 2700/X compare to the 8700K if it has a similar performance hike over the 1700/x? Mainly in terms of gaming.
Click to expand...

The 1700/x were $329/$399 at release (can't find £ atm). The 8700k is generally at $369.99 in the US.
Going to be tricky...

Depending on your exact metrics the IPC of AMD and Intel is pretty close (It gets complicated as to if SMT counts into IPC or not). The best AMD chip is around 1ghz behind...

If this geekbench 14.5% uplift in single core score for only 200mhz increase is to be believed...
3.6/3.8 (stock clocks for 1600 divided by stock clocks for 2600 to isolate IPC improvements) = 95% is based on IPC improvements so 14.2% of the improvement in score is based only on IPC improvements.

95% of 14.5% = 1.1375%...

Take that IPC uplift and multiply by max clocks, still assuming the base IPC (Ryzen gen 1 vs intel) was equal aaaand:

4.2ghz * 1.1375 = 4.777ghz in Intel speeds (most pessimistic peoples opinions)
4.3ghz * 1.1375 = 4.891ghz in Intel speeds
4.4ghz * 1.1375 = 5.005ghz in Intel speeds (generally the most optimistic peoples opinions)

If it clocks higher...... :eek::eek::eek:

etc...so... it all depends on overclocking headroom the new process gives us.

IF everything works along those metrics, the single thread performance is (at least) AWFULLY close to Intel's. Meantime, Intel gets smashed in multi-core.
Still up in the air and depends totally on 1) Your baseline IPC comparisons 2) The overclocking headroom 3) The reliability of those geekbench scores 4) Price.

Bit too much yet to be nailed down :)

I think my maths is ok there, happy to be corrected.

Edit: Trivia: The more perceptive and "long serving" amongst you may remember this is how AMD caught up/started winning last time. They didn't get clock speed improvements, it was down to IPC gains from a Jim Keller designed chip ;)


Edit2: Aaaaand, I'm kinda looking at it all again, the single core with/without SMT can't really be argued so... it's a good few percent behind, put it back on and 4.2/3/4 might well = 4.2/3/4 in Intel scores too. Still a good bit behind a 5ghz coffeelake...

The geekbench for each (single & multi, vastly different versions though so impossibly hard to compare):

2600 4269 20102
8700k 5945 25897

doesn't remotely add up.


Quick answer: NO CLUE. :D
 
Last edited:
Always thought that if AMD can get there consumer 8 cores on "+" to reach 4.4 or 4.5 then intel has a massive problem.
Why buy a lower cored, hotter and bug ridden intel chip which has a "little" higher single core performance when you can get a nice cool running multi core monster that is not far off in single threaded tasks. Ohh wait, i know... :rolleyes:;)
 
Mercutio said:
The 1700/x were $329/$399 at release (can't find £ atm). The 8700k is generally at $369.99 in the US.
Going to be tricky...

Depending on your exact metrics the IPC of AMD and Intel is pretty close (It gets complicated as to if SMT counts into IPC or not). The best AMD chip is around 1ghz behind...

If this geekbench 14.5% uplift in single core score for only 200mhz increase is to be believed...
3.6/3.8 (stock clocks for 1600 divided by stock clocks for 2600 to isolate IPC improvements) = 95% is based on IPC improvements so 14.2% of the improvement in score is based only on IPC improvements.

95% of 14.5% = 1.1375%...

Take that IPC uplift and multiply by max clocks, still assuming the base IPC (Ryzen gen 1 vs intel) was equal aaaand:

4.2ghz * 1.1375 = 4.777ghz in Intel speeds (most pessimistic peoples opinions)
4.3ghz * 1.1375 = 4.891ghz in Intel speeds
4.4ghz * 1.1375 = 5.005ghz in Intel speeds (generally the most optimistic peoples opinions)

If it clocks higher...... :eek::eek::eek:

etc...so... it all depends on overclocking headroom the new process gives us.

IF everything works along those metrics, the single thread performance is (at least) AWFULLY close to Intel's. Meantime, Intel gets smashed in multi-core.
Still up in the air and depends totally on 1) Your baseline IPC comparisons 2) The overclocking headroom 3) The reliability of those geekbench scores 4) Price.

Bit too much yet to be nailed down :)

I think my maths is ok there, happy to be corrected.

Edit: Trivia: The more perceptive and "long serving" amongst you may remember this is how AMD caught up/started winning last time. They didn't get clock speed improvements, it was down to IPC gains from a Jim Keller designed chip ;)


Edit2: Aaaaand, I'm kinda looking at it all again, the single core with/without SMT can't really be argued so... it's a good few percent behind, put it back on and 4.2/3/4 might well = 4.2/3/4 in Intel scores too. Still a good bit behind a 5ghz coffeelake...

The geekbench for each (single & multi, vastly different versions though so impossibly hard to compare):

2600 4269 20102
8700k 5945 25897

doesn't remotely add up.


Quick answer: NO CLUE. :D
Click to expand...

Could do with a warning at the start to just to jump down to the bottom.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom