AMD's Ryzen CPUs (Ryzen/TR/Epyc) & Vega/Polaris GPUs

Discussion in 'Hardware Components and Aftermarket Upgrades' started by Rage Set, Dec 14, 2016.

  1. D2 Ultima

    D2 Ultima Livestreaming Master

    Reputations:
    4,329
    Messages:
    11,798
    Likes Received:
    9,727
    Trophy Points:
    931
    Absolutely they hired someone who knows how to use high core counts on x264 in a professional environment to tweak it for them. I 100% guarantee you that half the time engineers do not understand anything outside of what they work on. They might make the system capable of easy multithreading, but they won't know how to fix programs to use it. Also, I forgot to mention something else: NVENC (new) is only available on W10. W7, if someone manages to make AMD run on it, does not support it. I do not know if W8.1 does or doesn't since Nvidia dropped support for that via drivers outright and I am pretty sure AMD does not care either. Probably a low-impacting downside, but a downside nonetheless.

    I believe 8 cores 16 threads. As I have only an 8 thread chip though, I cannot really properly check as well as I'd like. Maxing a CPU out tends to... not go well when remoting in to others' machines.
    I tried to lock OBS to 24 threads and 20 threads, I didn't try 16 or 12, but in each case it still "overloaded". By overloaded I mean OBS itself reported large amounts of dropped frames in the log file, as well as the resultant stream/video was very choppy.
    I think it's a problem with more than a certain number of allotted threads period. I know the number is above 12, because 5820Ks and 5960Xs worked great.

    No problem, I didn't explain it that well, so I don't mind giving more insight. OBS uses AVX, it triggers AVX offsets on intel chips.

    Lots of nice information here, good to see they improved stuff. Now to see it in practice.

    That's the downfall really, how simple it is. But as long as people just know to get 3600 or a bit slower, sure. The problem I'm seeing is that they're saying 3600MHz cl16, which is single rank territory for out the box. Hopefully 3200 dual rank is plug and play like on intel. RAM prices for non-B-die have fallen so far, it's now $120 for 32GB of 3000MHz cl16, which is about all people need on intel. Getting 3200MHz B-die is $125 for the cheapest 16GB kit. But yeah, in a month we'll all know.

    Yes, lots of good to see. Will be glad to see Intel sweating. We only stand to benefit from it, whichever people buy, which is a good thing.
     
    James D likes this.
  2. hmscott

    hmscott Notebook Nobel Laureate

    Reputations:
    6,131
    Messages:
    19,284
    Likes Received:
    24,024
    Trophy Points:
    931
    GN often goes off the rails when they don't understand something, and then reign it in and say they will test it when they "get it". They should have waited. AdoredTV the same. Wait until the parts and full information are in hand, verify the test parameters and setup with the vendor, then set it up and see if you can duplicate the results - if you can't, don't complain about it - ask the vendor for help setting it up as they have it set up.

    Only when you have taken the time to set up and successfully replicate the setup and test - or fail to replicate it - that you can then go public in a definitive way.

    Also, complaining about Benchmarks or Test Bench configurations that don't represent reality? Really? Of course Benchmarks don't represent real usage, until it does. Benchmarking to test and find the limits of hardware is what it's all about. Right now those settings AMD used may not be practical - but they are valid settings and the results are valid as well, whether they are useful or not right now isn't the point of the test.

    Technology changes, performance increases and capabilities widen - to the point where settings and configuration limits designed to cap capabilities at the limits of the servers - or limits of the feed / clients - can and will change based on improvements over time. Limits can be raised, additional load (post processing) can be added and resolution / FPS / bitrate to the client can be increased as network allows.

    AMD is hitting the limits of the OS to fully utilize the increase in cores / threads, and to use the increase in performance overall in applications that have been designed for much lower core and lower performance hardware. Now that the hardware has much more headroom, of course you are going to start exploring exceeding the established limits by increasing the settings.

    When I'm testing previous configurations with new hardware - more cores, more threads, more throughput, more memory speed, etc - I'll tweak the limit settings to see how far they can be increased before saturating the hardware - and where results degrade.

    That's what AMD did. Took a well established configuration for streaming and widened the load further than the 9900K could support given the simultaneous gaming load, and pushed the 9900K to it's knee's but within the capabilities of the 3900x.

    First AMD shows us that the higher core count 3900x can keep up FPS to FPS with the 9900K in games:
    AMD 3900x vs Intel 9900k Gaming FPS.jpg
    Then AMD shows a "real world - taking streaming to the next level" demonstration of live gaming and streaming (Starting at 28:55) - the settings are valid and details of the settings are given throughout AMD showing the live streaming and results:
    AMD 3900x vs Intel 9900k Gaming FPS - Taking Streaming to the next Level.jpg AMD did nothing wrong by doing that and showing the results. Are the results reproducible? I assume that's how AMD set it up - publishing the settings in the presentation is a big clue that AMD *wants* reviewers to replicate their results. AMD should be ready to be more than helpful to reviewers wanting to replicate the test bench set up.

    And, more to the point. AMD having pushed the limits of OBS settings, pushing the limits of the width of the stream past currently acceptable limits, should be used to encourage further experimentation to develop useful - visible - improvements using the additional performance over and above what 8c/16t CPU's like the 9900k can provide.

    Now we need to listen to the useless bickering over how AMD doesn't have the completely useless RTX features that Nvidia can use to say "but AMD don't have our useless real-time ray-tracing hardware" - currently useful at improving gameplay in Zero games, and not available at all in 99.99999% of available shipping games.

    Ray-tracing shouldn't be considered as a feature for comparison until it's in at least 10 games. What are we at now? 2 current games, and 2 retro-games that had high FPS even on crappy laptops 20 years ago?

    It's a shame that spending a lot of money on hardware for useless ray-tracing smoke and mirrors seems to empower complaints about higher performance and less expensive hardware that doesn't come with that useless feature.

    Hopefully as time goes by and new AMD CPU buyers buy matching Navi 10/20 GPU's over the next year, the ray-tracing noise will subside.

    AMD should have continued to ignore ray-tracing. I hope AMD doesn't waste hardware resources on ray-tracing and continues to do what Nvidia should have done - deliver new higher performance GPU's at the same or better price than the previous generation. Comparing AMD GPU's to AMD GPU's that's what AMD has done. Good AMD. Bad Nvidia. :)

    "Did NVIDIA Win?" Ray Tracing, Ft. Gordon of PC World
    Gamers Nexus
    Published on Jun 11, 2019
    We join Gordon of PC World to talk about the ray tracing marketing battle between AMD & NVIDIA for RX 5700 XT launch.


    Damn Surfer 4 minutes ago
    "The question is if you could have the performance of a 2080 TI w/o the RT for a cheaper price would you choose it? yes please, and that's why we won't get it cause that's what we want."

    flioink 10 minutes ago
    ""Did NVIDIA Win?" They sure made a lot of money from this (currently) useless tech that nobody uses. I'd say that is "winning" even though I personally dislike their scummy anti - consumer practices."

    And, that's really the rub, the fact is that RTX features provide Zero useful value for gaming. In dark areas RTX ON makes things too dark, in bright areas RTX ON washes out or weirds out colors and textures. RTX costs too much in FPS load even if it provided some value.

    The only value RTX provides is a brain block to rational thinking for some people stuck on "but it doesn't have ray-tracing!!"

    Lets see what AMD GPU's releases for the PC when the AMD powered Xbox and PS5 are close to shipping, so that those games can be ported with full features and performance on PC hardware.
     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2019
    bennyg likes this.
  3. Papusan

    Papusan JOKEBOOK's Sucks! Dont waste your $$$ on FILTHY

    Reputations:
    20,753
    Messages:
    22,498
    Likes Received:
    38,681
    Trophy Points:
    931
    Leaked prices for the Asus X570 motherboard strengthens high price levels Sweclockers.com | 11, 2019
    Previous statement by MSI about high prices for motherboards based on the X570 chipset is further strengthened by new leaked price images for the Asus X570 motherboard.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Alleged ASUS AMD X570 Motherboard Price-list Paints a Horror Story Techpowerup.com | June 11, 2019
    FEATURED...
    A reliable source based in Taiwan shared with us the price-list of upcoming AMD Ryzen 3000 X570 chipset motherboards by leading manufacturer ASUS. These MSRP prices in U.S. Dollars paint a grim picture of these boards being significantly pricier than previous-generation motherboards based on the AMD X470 chipset. We already got hints of AMD X570 motherboards being pricey when MSI CEO Charles Chiang, who is known for not mincing his words in public, made it clear that the industry is no longer seeing AMD as a value-alternative second-fiddle brand to Intel, and that AMD will use its performance leadership to command premium pricing for these motherboards, even though across generations, pricing of AMD processors are going to remain flat. The Ryzen 7 3700X, for example, is launching at exactly the same $329 launch price as the Ryzen 7 2700X.

    Even MSI CEO Chiang's statement couldn't prepare us for the prices we're seeing for the ASUS motherboard lineup. The cheapest AMD X570 motherboard from ASUS is the Prime X570-P, which is priced at USD $159.99. Its slightly bolstered twin, the TUF Gaming X570-Plus will go for $169.99. A variant of this exact board with integrated Wi-Fi 6 will be priced at $184.99. This is where things get crazy. The Prime X570-Pro, which is the spiritual-successor of the $150 Prime X470-Pro, will command a whopping $249.99 price-tag, or a $100 (66 percent) increase! The cheapest ROG (Republic of Gamers) product, the ROG Strix X570-F Gaming, will ship with an HEDT-like $299.99 price. This is where the supposed "high-end" segment begins.

    Yeah, Purchase the new Ryzen 3950X and quality board + fill up with good memory won't be cheap. Yees, a major change from AMD.
     
    bennyg, hmscott and tilleroftheearth like this.
  4. hmscott

    hmscott Notebook Nobel Laureate

    Reputations:
    6,131
    Messages:
    19,284
    Likes Received:
    24,024
    Trophy Points:
    931
    Geez man, did you even read the prices and compare existing x470 prices before posting?
    https://www.newegg.com/p/pl?N=100007625 601311650&PageSize=96&order=PRICE

    x470 motherboards are on sale now because the x570 motherboards are just around the corner, but even so there are 8 choices at or below $150, and 20+ higher in price.

    The x470 motherboards were never that cheap. If you want a cheap Ryzen motherboard you get the entry level or mid level models, the A320 and B450 motherboards are cheaper. The B550(?) / A520(?) models will come later.

    There are 6 x470 boards between $150-$200, 11 x470 motherboards from $200-$299, and 3 x470 motherboards $300-$400, one 1 x470 motherboard @ $405.

    There are usually a lot more x470 boards listed, so newegg must have run many of them out of stock before the x570 release.

    The x570 motherboard prices look "normal", not inflated.

    Whether the BOM between the exact same config x470 and x570 is a few dollars more or less, it's insignificant as compared to the bump in performance.

    Intel is far more overpriced, and always has been, it looks like AMD is holding the line on costs, which is great. :)
     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2019
  5. Papusan

    Papusan JOKEBOOK's Sucks! Dont waste your $$$ on FILTHY

    Reputations:
    20,753
    Messages:
    22,498
    Likes Received:
    38,681
    Trophy Points:
    931
    From Sweclockers. And I don't talk about US prices. See from the article... Prime X570-Pro which costs $ 249.99 including VAT. The corresponding motherboard from the previous generation, Prime X470-Pro, cost only $ 150 for launch. This is more like + 60% increase with my math. And I wouldn't pair the Ryzen 3950x with cheap board. Or the old equal one from last year. Neither would I with the new Ryzen 12 cores either.

    Can't you see the change? Other can:) Of course the board being better, but the prices will follow after as well. The old days with much cheaper. Is gone with the wind. Blown away.
     
    Ashtrix, hmscott and tilleroftheearth like this.
  6. hmscott

    hmscott Notebook Nobel Laureate

    Reputations:
    6,131
    Messages:
    19,284
    Likes Received:
    24,024
    Trophy Points:
    931
    This is a "leaked" price list a month before release, why don't we wait for the real deals to show up when the product is released and available before complaining?

    The range of prices you posted for x570 motherboards mirrors the list prices of online listed x470 motherboards.
    Exactly, the high end x470's are also $300 and over, that's just how they are. If there are x570 motherboards priced higher than some Intel HEDT motherboards, they are likely built out with hardware that makes them worth it.

    Especially high end ROG Motherboards, I think all of the ones I've set up have been over $300 and approaching $400 at times. And, that has been the ROG level motherboard price range for 10+ years, probably as long as they have been available.

    If there are instances of price gouging by vendors for their most desirable models, it's to be expected at launch as the retailers will / would gouge further - the hardware vendors are learning to price their most desirable wares appropriately at launch so they get the benefit of the high prices exchanged, and if that happens I don't think it's unique to x570.

    I've also noticed in the past that popular motherboards models will jump in price between generations - taking advantage of the good will generated that the model name evokes, but then a new model also comes out to take over the previous price point.

    You can be taken in by the vendor when relying on the "model name" from generation to generation to pick your motherboard, check out all the models spec's around your price range - and then compare features / value against the now price-inflated model name you (and everyone else) liked from the last generation.

    Don't buy the price-inflated x570 models, instead find better value for features models - maybe new model / vendors with the configuration you want and at a price you can afford.

    There's no need to overpay for an x570 motherboard!

    As always wait for the excitement at launch go down a bit, and wait for prices to drop - or find a more reasonably priced alternative to your #1 choice - sometimes there are as good or better alternatives that sit ignored with better pricing, just because some particular model(s) get hyped up by the media doesn't mean they are the best.

    Also, wait for testing, wait for reviewers to pull apart the top 10-20 x570 motherboards and rate them for performance and value.

    This is just the time to *not* buy based on the highest price - don't get suckered in to thinking if it's the most expensive it must be the best.

    Additionally, the AMD i9 3900x and 3950x are different animals requiring power power and power thermal cooling, likely not supported on cheap x470's or cheap x570's. You'll need to find out which high-end full power x470 and x570 motherboards are recommended as supporting those 2 top tier AMD i9 3900x and 3950x. The CPU's are $499 and $749, I wouldn't be surprised to find that the motherboards that support them costing $250-$500+,
     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2019
    Papusan likes this.
  7. Papusan

    Papusan JOKEBOOK's Sucks! Dont waste your $$$ on FILTHY

    Reputations:
    20,753
    Messages:
    22,498
    Likes Received:
    38,681
    Trophy Points:
    931
    I’m not against expensive boards if they are worth the prices. Neither from Intel and AMD.

    I take notice what MSI’s Ceo said. I expect he has first hand info what will come. And he won’t be alone put higher prices when everything is out.

    But yeah, we won’t see the fully picture before most is pushed out and prices is/are put in stone:)

    Edid. Regarding high prices. I saw an article about that Apple has gone bananas with prices. But as long people buy it anyway this madness will continue. Only when people say enough is enough we will see a change.
     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2019
  8. hmscott

    hmscott Notebook Nobel Laureate

    Reputations:
    6,131
    Messages:
    19,284
    Likes Received:
    24,024
    Trophy Points:
    931
    Well, not so much put in stone as put online with a price to sell. ;)

    Additionally, the AMD i9 3900x and 3950x are different animals requiring much more power and thermal cooling, likely not supported on cheap x470's or cheap x570's.

    We will need to find out which high-end full power x470 and x570 motherboards are recommended as supporting those 2 top tier AMD i9 3900x and 3950x.

    Those AMD 3900x / 3950x CPU's are $499 and $749, I wouldn't be surprised to find that the motherboards that support them cost $250 - $500+.

    We can still shop around, wait for reviews to tell us which are really delivering reliable power as promised, then decide which one to shop for - and wait for your chance to pick one up - and hope it's not been price jacked by the seller.

    If you don't like the price of an x570 motherboard don't buy it. If they sit on the shelf and don't sell then the vendor / seller will need to rethink their pricing strategies.

    The best time to price shop for x570 motherboards for the 3900x / 3950x might be around the time the x670 and Ryzen 4 is to be announced.
    Also, again a journalist gets it wrong; btarunr is talking about AMD getting the profits from high priced motherboards. That's wrong.

    AMD sells the x570 chipset at the same price no matter which motherboard it is built into. That same x570 chipset is used throughout the whole lineup of x570 motherboards. If the cost of the motherboard varies and gives more profit then that profit goes to the motherboard maker, not AMD. btarunr needs to stop blaming AMD.

    Discuss (87 Comments)

    Metroid Posted on Jun 11th 2019, 3:10
    "If the cheapest asus x570 motherboard is $160 then I consider it okay. The cheapest asus x470 I can find around is $132. The only issue here is that stupid fan.
    https://www.newegg.com/asus-tuf-x470-plus-gaming/p/N82E16813119107
    ASUS TUF X470-Plus Gaming = $132
    ASUS Prime X570-P = $160 "

    Tomorrow Posted on Jun 11th 2019, 3:24
    "Indeed. These prices are mostly what i expected them to be. The only suprise here is the Formula at 700$. For what i ask? Waterblock? Aorus Xtreme is supposed to be 600$ and by the looks of it has more features, better connectivity and massively better VRM than Formula.

    On the low end im actually surprised. I feared no X570 board will be under 200$ but if ASUS has some models under that the others will definitely have such models too because historically ASUS has been more expensive with their motherboards than others."

    Metroid Posted on Jun 11th 2019, 3:28
    "If Asus itself is starting at $160 then I might consider it, there might be worthy cheaper x570 motherboards after all, at the moment i'm eyeing that asrock b450M-pro for $80.
    https://www.newegg.com/p/N82E16813157843 "
    https://www.asrock.com/mb/AMD/B450M Pro4/#Overview
    Amazon

    kanecvr Posted on Jun 11th 2019, 13:44
    "We're talking about Asus here. Overpriced has been their middle name for a good few years now. I'll probably be going with whichever manufacturer provides a good quality vrm setup, decent bios and good price/performance ratio. That means Asrock, Biostar or Gigabyte."
     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2019
    ajc9988 and Papusan like this.
  9. hmscott

    hmscott Notebook Nobel Laureate

    Reputations:
    6,131
    Messages:
    19,284
    Likes Received:
    24,024
    Trophy Points:
    931
    Here is a nicely done shorter 15 minute version covering the best parts of the E3 2019 AMD Ryzen / Navi / Games announcements:

    AMD Next Horizon Gaming at E3 2019 in 15 minutes
    Engadget
    Published on Jun 11, 2019
    The biggest announcements from AMD at this year's show.


    The new Ryzen 2 / Zen+ Ryzen + Radeon APU models were left out of the main AMD Presentation, check out the video below for discussion of how cheap and plentiful these will be on B450 / B350 at a great price with improved coolers.
    ryzen with radeon 3200G and 3400G.jpg

    Lots more AMD E3 2019 topics discussed, they've got good advice on a number of related topics, don't preorder, wait for testing, nows the time to buy previous generation Ryzen + Radeon as well as used CPU's, Motherboards, GPU's, etc all coming up now and after teh Ryzen 3 / Navi products start hitting the shelves. It's a great time to build Ryzen / Navi / Vega / RX / APU computers. :)

    ...Is it 'The ONE'...!? (3950X & Zen 2 Discussion Ft. Wendell)
    Tech YES City
    Published on Jun 11, 2019
    Wendell and I just finished watching the AMD Next Horizon Gaming event, where Dr. Lisa Su announced all the new Ryzen 3000 CPUs. This stack also includes the new $749 Ryzen 9 3950X - though with a release date staggered 2 months after the July 7th Launch of the 3900X, and also what I consider the 'value king' of the stack, the Ryzen 7 3700X - is it even worth waiting for the 16 core? Especially if you are a gamer? Let's discuss.
     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2019
  10. ajc9988

    ajc9988 Death by a thousand paper cuts

    Reputations:
    1,449
    Messages:
    5,470
    Likes Received:
    7,788
    Trophy Points:
    681
    I will address this a bit with my response to hmscott's response. On W7, there are community "drivers" that would allow for the install of AMD's chipset drivers for my X399 while turning off the "not supported" notification in W7. So it can run. It is a matter of making it run well and allowing for driver support that is key.

    For the dual rank, I think they will have decent support. If they are claiming SR drop in 4200+ support (suggesting an auto-trigger to go to 2:1 mode; the one-click high speed, which that one click might be going from 1:1 to 2:1 in bios, who knows), then I do think DR will work better this round. For four DIMMs, official support drops from 3200MHz down to 2666. That's fine, but it should make people aware that going that route may not be the best option if shooting for the highest ram timings (also daisy chain latency and issues with 4 dimms drives down how far you can go with that on dual channel).

    And GN did say that they were told pretty much all sets tested up to 4000 were pretty much drop in by MB vendors. So, cheap ram should be viable this round, getting rid of the complaint of needing high priced ram, which is good considering B-die is dead (Samsung stopped producing a little while ago).

    As to Intel on desktop, I say Intel is letting it happen, but it is almost like the John Wick line of "John Wick will come for you and you will do nothing because you can do nothing." That is with the desktop being Vigo's son.
    [​IMG]
    Intel just wasn't prepared for AMD to come back after Bulldozer (understandably). But Jim Keller worked his magic. Now, with the lag of using the main tech in APUs, AMD just will not make a lot of headway on mobile for awhile. Intel, as I pointed out, is doing 10nm there first, then to servers, because that is where the money is. Every percent of market share there hurts Intel more than just giving up desktop to AMD (especially the DIY build your own market where, according to MindFactory's sales Zen 1 had like 3 months or so at 2:1 sales, then Zen+ had around 2:1 sales since around last fall, so 8-9 months, and now Zen 2 dropping, Intel will lose in the DIY market, but has OEMs as a saving grace, which is where the majority of sales are, even though mind share is with DIY and enthusiasts). For mobile, if AMD would be able to start putting the newest GPU on the APU, even with the CPU core lagging one gen behind starting with Zen 2, I really think they could make more headroom, and that they will need to as Intel releasing better GPUs starts next year (we see it a little with Ice Lake-U, but...).

    Also, at the beginning of May, Lisa Su said their entire mainstream stack has 50% margins on each CPU or higher! That means that AMD will be more profitable. They also increased R&D from around $100M in 2014 and 2015 (2014 was higher than that, 2015 was in the $93M or $94M range, cannot remember) to $140M in 2017 and 2018. A 40% increase in R&D is nothing to snuff at. This is why I have hope for them, as they should be able to use that to help bring the GPU side back up, while still driving on the CPU side (here's hoping the Zen 2 does well and AMD pours tens of millions more into R&D moving forward, as well as cultivating relationships like they did with Apple, Sony, Microsoft, and Cray (now owned by HPE)).

    But, as I mentioned to Papusan, Intel's only 2-3 years away from chiplets using 2.5D and 3D integration as well. But, counterpoint, TSMC was able to increase clocks while Intel had clock regression on 10nm. So, there is a chance Intel got an IPC uplift (the testing for 18%, in the footnotes, said not all mitigations were used when calculating 18% IPC from skylake to ice lake, and they did change the L2 cache size around Skylake-X, although I forgot if they incorporated that into mainstream Coffee Lake/R chips or not), the question is how much. But, we won't be able to test that (Ian Cuttress at Anand said he was going to test the IPC claims when products were ready for market). The speed regression was mentioned in the TechYesCity video hmscott posted above.

    Even with the higher IPC on Zen 2, you still need around a 4.5-4.6GHz all core clock to be around Intel's 9900K at 5GHz all core, and that still varies by task and we don't know how the AMD chips OC. I mentioned some posts back, not sure if you saw them, that Intel also started the OC protection warranty again for $30 for a one time chip replacement and created their own auto-OC software that will overclock and stress test it for you up to a pre-defined thermal load, then back it off a couple hundred MHz. Manual tuning will still be best, but that means any owners worried about OCing now can use Intel's utility and gain that performance while keeping their warranty intact. That puts pressure on AMD needing some good OCing for the high end enthusiasts in the DIY segment. But, AMD also gives 50% more cores at the same price point, so there is that (only applicable if multitasking heavier or having apps that can scale on cores). It's a very interesting time in PCs. And I haven't even touched on the server side.

    Not going to address RTX here. But, AMD has been more upfront on how they have done their internal testing this time than ever before. AMD didn't use the AVX512 optimizations on the server presentation, but we've already discussed market availability of the Intel 56-core chips and the power consumption, and the single digit performance difference, etc. No need to rehash.

    They did say no MCE on Intel for any of the tests, that not all mitigations were applied which helped Intel's desktop chips to have higher performance, that they didn't include testing with the new MS scheduler, which sandbagged themselves, etc.

    For OBS, you may have a point for REVIEWERS, but D2 isn't a reviewer, nor does Jim at AdoredTV often review hardware, although his new website does (so that may change overall). Because of that, speaking of past behavior on his part and asking for skepticism is fine, and the community asking for more information because we cannot figure out how it was done is fine. Reviewers have a direct channel to the vendor so that they can, and arguably should, reach out to figure it out. But considering the internetz does not has channelz, it is perfectly acceptable for them to question it and ask how it was done.

    D2 even pointed out that x264 was preferred for color rendering, etc. So, getting the documentation and helping the streaming community do better, along with heading towards needing a single system instead of doing video capture or buying a second graphics card or etc. is something that would help. It isn't saying it is impossible, necessarily, it is trying to figure out HOW.

    AMD evidently did some work on it. But, not just reviewers need to know how it was done. If AMD and reviewers know, that is great, but having a quick start guide for OBS settings for use of slow/er in OBS would help the community significantly. As mentioned, OBS does use AVX. AMD greatly improved being able to do an AVX 256-bit instruction set in a single cycle, IIRC (see Ian Cuttress's Anand article discussing AVX changes). That did likely contribute to the increased capabilities (along with the 50% more cores). But it isn't necessarily wrong for us to speculate.

    Now, AMD took the criticism seen on Reddit and other places and incorporated it in their tech day press event so that reviewers could pass the answers along to consumers. That is AWESOME! Now, here is one more thing they need to pass along the info or publish on their own. Regardless if Intel got sandbagged on performance in the comparison (which would be misleading), NO ONE thinks Intel could do slow while playing such a demanding title and get 60 frames on the streaming side. So, even if they botched Intel's settings, who cares. They still achieved a hell of a feat with the 60FPS streaming, and we want to know how, mainly because it ISN'T currently possible, and that WOULD be a selling point. D2 even talked about the problems they had setting up streaming on Intel's 18-core parts. If there is a work around to increase streaming settings on these 12-core and 16-core parts, people with the Intel platforms would love to know as well, which then you would be comparing it to 7960X/7980XE/9960X/9980XE, and regardless of their performance, AMD is giving you that at less than half of the Intel core count costs, meaning AMD still wins.

    So this isn't something to get defensive about. It's more that this sort of skepticism should be expected from the community at large. It isn't a bad thing, just something that needs explained. And since reviewers are embargoed until July 7th, AMD has a choice: 1) say nothing and let this continue, or 2) just give the information to a reviewer, like GN which was critical about it, and let them play with those settings on existing hardware to give the performance on Intel's HEDT with those settings (in other words, allow them exclusive content before release without breaking embargo, which turns around their skepticism and lets the community see what was going on), while also allowing them to get the Intel comparison charts and testing done now so that once they get their sample and start testing, it is easier for them to show on day one coverage. Personally, I would go with the second option, especially since GN does regular testing of streaming (one of the few outlets). They have standardized their tests, so if they need to make changes to their methodology, giving that info to them now, quick, fast, and in a hurry is necessary so that they can update that methodology, otherwise they may not get that performance, you have last minute back and forths between them and the vendor, etc. Compounding headaches. GN also often admits when their statements or comments are wrong, so hitting them up now would be a good way to address it.

    And they have high level settings published. Now, if it is really plug and go, that would be amazing. But as D2 pointed out, above 8c/16t, it takes a little more manipulation of settings, and those are what the community is after. I guarantee he would try them out with our friends with 7980XEs just to see if and how they work on those. If they work, then you will have a person that is awesome at streaming and very active in the online community also vouching for it (even if the Intel chips don't hit the same as the AMD chips, which will leave some skepticism, it will be partly resolved now, then fully on the published reviews after embargo lifts, which will help drive sales at that point). This is the community engagement part that AMD is working on, and that Intel is working on with some of their recent hires. Overall, there is a HUGE opportunity here. Let's see if AMD takes it.

    As I have said, AMD has shown us something new, and people are interested in it because there are benefits to it. But, inquiring minds....

    There is another problem on MB pricing: the US/China trade war. Many companies are having to re-source components, are moving factories to other countries, etc. That is impacting the pricing. Don't want to go too deep into the politics of it here, but it is something to mention.

    Waiting for the 12-core and 16-core reviews to understand power draw, along with Buildzoid's analysis of the VRM. That will tell us which X470 boards are good for which chips at stock and overclocking, along with X570, as he is good at telling where the mark is for what level of board is needed for water OC, air, LN2, etc. He is pretty forthcoming and blunt in his analysis.

    When he looked at 2700/X overclocking on B450, he primarily recommended boards in the $170-190 range for the PCB quality, the VRM characteristics, and other board features. I'm sure he will do it again.

    We all are seeing prices climb insanely. It is nuts. There are many reasons why, but I definitely agree with you that it is people buying it at those prices that keeps the prices going up. I ranted about that a year ago on these forums, primarily in regards to the Nvidia 2000 series pricing. My point was that regardless of if competition is present, if consumers will pay it, they will just price it higher and higher. Now, if we look at AMD's high end CPU pricing, you see that a little, MB pricing you see a lot (after they saw the sales of the MSI Godlike last gen, now we have $600-1000 for flagship board costs, proving that they will continue raising prices if enough people buy), and GPU pricing, where AMD isn't trying to significantly undercut anymore (which, to be fair, why should they when even when they were ahead a decade ago, people still bought the Nvidia cards over them).

    People will need to say enough is enough AND ACT COLLECTIVELY to not buy certain products in order to force prices down. But, there also needs pressure elsewhere, like on the US gov't regarding ignorant trade policies that are harming consumers globally and shaking up established manufacturing and supply chains because the US realized that it was losing its grasp on the global economic hegemony. I digress.
     
    hmscott likes this.
Loading...

Share This Page