Ryzen "2" ?

pandem0nium · 21 Mar 2018 at 17:57

BongoHunter said:
Apologies - what would use use instead?

It's used a lot in my workplace in exactly the same way!

Bit of debate on usage: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/38945/what-is-wrong-with-the-word-performant

Ta!

Edit: spelling / wording!

Sorry, nevermind, I don't want to derail.

Electronic Dave · 21 Mar 2018 at 18:52

Been a great joy reading this thread for many months now and the contributions people have made. I'm looking forward to building a whole new PC this year based around the Ryzen 2X00 series.

After 9 years of a rock solid Phenom II X4 940 and AMD HD4870 system I really think its time I moved on! I've now been getting the odd BSODs in Windows 10 recently due to the old graphics card drivers.

In all the time I've used it I've only upgraded to a SSD and Windows 10 - its been on every single day practically. Sadly my NEC Multisync 24WMGX3 died last month but still reached nine years of great use.

Mercutio · 21 Mar 2018 at 20:01

I thought the Zen+/Pinnacle (paper) launch was today?

Edit: answered my own question, it's 17:00-18:00 San Fran time so midnight here.

Beren · 21 Mar 2018 at 22:01

4K8KW10 said:
No. The 8-core has been on the roadmap regardless of what the Ryzen 7 2700X will put on the table. These 6-core and 8-core processors are a late response to what the original RYzen offered a year ago.

Fair enough - I still think it would be a good strategy for AMD to hold back on the 2800x until intel launch their 8 core chip and then release even a slight clock bump.

sideways14a · 21 Mar 2018 at 22:24

Intel dont seem to concerned about heat and power usage so i totally expect a big highish clocked 8 core from them soon that needs a lot of power and cooling.
AMD prob have a 2800 sitting gathering chips, waiting for that intel chip and they will try and turn up the clocks as needed by the competition.
If intel comes out with a 160w 8 core then amd has a lot of room to bump up the voltage and clocks of a 2800x if they need to.

eddiew · 21 Mar 2018 at 22:30

Beren said:
Fair enough - I still think it would be a good strategy for AMD to hold back on the 2800x until intel launch their 8 core chip and then release even a slight clock bump.

Strikes me that if they held back a 4.6ghz octo-core, then that would give Intel some serious challenges when they launch basically the same thing for 2x the price. Even 4.4 will be so close as to make no difference. Don't have any faith in Intel managing to both increase clocks and cores vs current options.

BongoHunter · 21 Mar 2018 at 23:00

In

sideways14a said:
Intel dont seem to concerned about heat and power usage so i totally expect a big highish clocked 8 core from them soon that needs a lot of power and cooling.
AMD prob have a 2800 sitting gathering chips, waiting for that intel chip and they will try and turn up the clocks as needed by the competition.
If intel comes out with a 160w 8 core then amd has a lot of room to bump up the voltage and clocks of a 2800x if they need to.

If you look at what's available right now from Intel with 8 cores there's the:

Xeon Gold 6134, 3.2GHz, 3.7GHz Turbo, 24.75MB Cache, 130W - which is about £2k

Xeon W-2145, 3.7GHz, 4.5GHz Turbo, 11MB Cache, 140W - which is about £1k

Will be very interesting to see what the next I7 looks like! Worth bearing in mind the Xeons are about 18 months / 2 years or so behind the consumer side architecture - so I would think it's still possible to get out an 8 core i7 at less than 160w

Will be an interesting couple of quarters at least

muon · 21 Mar 2018 at 23:06

sideways14a said:
Intel dont seem to concerned about heat and power usage so i totally expect a big highish clocked 8 core from them soon that needs a lot of power and cooling.
AMD prob have a 2800 sitting gathering chips, waiting for that intel chip and they will try and turn up the clocks as needed by the competition.
If intel comes out with a 160w 8 core then amd has a lot of room to bump up the voltage and clocks of a 2800x if they need to.

We'll see. By overclocking the 2700X we'll be able to see how much headroom there actually is. I suspect not much and hence no 2800X as otherwise they would be ripped for producing a CPU less than 10% faster than the previous generation.

At least with the 2700X they can say it is 10%+ faster than the 1700X.

I reckon Intel have also hit a wall. 8700K clocks on an 8 core chip? No way they can do that at acceptable power consumption. Just leave it to popular overclockers to showcase how they can get really high overclocks under custom water loops whilst consuming 200w+.

sideways14a · 21 Mar 2018 at 23:09

I doubt those Xeons would be suitable for non HEDT environments, can intel get a big 8 core cpu to boost high enough for long enough to keep the single threaded world happy like the 8700k?
The skylake X chips pull in an awful lot of power, wonder how much room that leaves intel with a requirement to keep single threaded tasks fast while competing with a cheep AMD chip using a lot less power.

sideways14a · 21 Mar 2018 at 23:10

Yeah i doubt the 2700 will have a lot of overclock ability, that said 4.5 or 4.6 would be great (hard to see though) and who knows what the new XFR will do when a good water cooler is used and power worries are out the window.

Rroff · 21 Mar 2018 at 23:25

sideways14a said:
I doubt those Xeons would be suitable for non HEDT environments, can intel get a big 8 core cpu to boost high enough for long enough to keep the single threaded world happy like the 8700k?

Can't speak to that specific setup - but I've had a few Xeons to play with over the years from systems my brother has decommissioned at work, etc. and I've had no problems getting the bigger core count, slower MHz as standard, cores upto decent speeds and holding their boost - sometimes takes a bit more effort. I've not tried it with anything newer than Haswell though.

EDIT: On a related note I've an E5420 that is a beast - needs a board the supports a high bus speed but it'll go all the way up stable until you run out of ability to turn it up - shame I only got my hands on it long after those CPUs stop being particularly useful - and spent all its life at 2.5GHz when the chip is good for at least 4.5.

triss · 22 Mar 2018 at 00:53

muon said:
We'll see. By overclocking the 2700X we'll be able to see how much headroom there actually is. I suspect not much and hence no 2800X as otherwise they would be ripped for producing a CPU less than 10% faster than the previous generation.

At least with the 2700X they can say it is 10%+ faster than the 1700X.

I reckon Intel have also hit a wall. 8700K clocks on an 8 core chip? No way they can do that at acceptable power consumption. Just leave it to popular overclockers to showcase how they can get really high overclocks under custom water loops whilst consuming 200w+.

I also think this is the reason we dont see a 2800x atm as the % over the 1800x would be less than what they can claim with the 2700/2700x compared to 1700/1700x

Mercutio · 22 Mar 2018 at 01:36

I was kinda expecting a mass of "real info" after the paper launch? Paper launch was... well, that section of GDC 2108 finished 40 mins ago. Maybe a BIT soon to expect a write up but... some early bits?(!).

Steveocee · 22 Mar 2018 at 08:26

I was hoping to wake up to lots of additional pages of discussion on this but nothing.

bru · 22 Mar 2018 at 09:37

Still no info?

Oh well on a side note then, you gotta love the Intel have taken multiple attempts at getting 10nm to work, but AMD will get 7 nm to work straight out of the gate, brigade.

DragonQ · 22 Mar 2018 at 10:00

BongoHunter said:
In

If you look at what's available right now from Intel with 8 cores there's the:

Xeon Gold 6134, 3.2GHz, 3.7GHz Turbo, 24.75MB Cache, 130W - which is about £2k

Xeon W-2145, 3.7GHz, 4.5GHz Turbo, 11MB Cache, 140W - which is about £1k

Will be very interesting to see what the next I7 looks like! Worth bearing in mind the Xeons are about 18 months / 2 years or so behind the consumer side architecture - so I would think it's still possible to get out an 8 core i7 at less than 160w

Will be an interesting couple of quarters at least

You're forgetting the i7-7820X, which already boosts to 4.3 GHz on up to two cores. $600, 140 W.

Techen · 22 Mar 2018 at 12:58

bru said:
Still no info?

Oh well on a side note then, you gotta love the Intel have taken multiple attempts at getting 10nm to work, but AMD will get 7 nm to work straight out of the gate, brigade.

Is AMD true 7nm though? Also we haven't seen there 7nm cpu yet so hold on there boy.

Let's also not forget that it was ment to go 14nm then 7nm however they've added 12nm between them most likely due to issues with 7nm.

So was there even a paper launch then ??? Can't see any mention of any ryzen

humbug · 22 Mar 2018 at 13:02

Techen said:
Is AMD true 7nm though? Also we haven't seen there 7nm cpu yet so hold on there boy.

Let's also not forget that it was ment to go 14nm then 7nm however they've added 12nm between them most likely due to issues with 7nm.

So was there even a paper launch then ??? Can't see any mention of any ryzen

12nm was supposed to be 14nm+ but its turned into a small shrink instead.

Techen · 22 Mar 2018 at 13:11

humbug said:
12nm was supposed to be 14nm+ but its turned into a small shrink instead.

Wait really? That makes more sense then.

humbug · 22 Mar 2018 at 13:20

No paper launch then? come'on AMD giz a clue....