# AMD Ryzen 3000 "Zen 2" BIOS Analysis Reveals New Options for Overclocking & Tweaking



## btarunr (Mar 22, 2019)

AMD will launch its 3rd generation Ryzen 3000 Socket AM4 desktop processors in 2019, with a product unveiling expected mid-year, likely on the sidelines of Computex 2019. AMD is keeping its promise of making these chips backwards compatible with existing Socket AM4 motherboards. To that effect, motherboard vendors such as ASUS and MSI began rolling out BIOS updates with AGESA-Combo 0.0.7.x microcode, which adds initial support for the platform to run and validate engineering samples of the upcoming "Zen 2" chips. 

At CES 2019, AMD unveiled more technical details and a prototype of a 3rd generation Ryzen socket AM4 processor. The company confirmed that it will implement a multi-chip module (MCM) design even for their mainstream-desktop processor, in which it will use one or two 7 nm "Zen 2" CPU core chiplets, which talk to a 14 nm I/O controller die over Infinity Fabric. The two biggest components of the IO die are the PCI-Express root complex, and the all-important dual-channel DDR4 memory controller. We bring you never before reported details of this memory controller.





AMD has two big reasons to take the MCM route for even its mainstream desktop platform. The first is that it lets them mix-and-match silicon production technologies. AMD bean-counters reckon that it's more economical to build only those components on a shrunk 7 nanometer production process, which can benefit from the shrink; namely the CPU cores. Other components like the memory controller can continue to be built on existing 14 nm technologies, which by now are highly mature (= cost-efficient). AMD is also competing with other companies for its share of 7 nanometer allocation at TSMC.

The 14 nm I/O controller die could, in theory, be sourced from GlobalFoundries to honor the wafer-supply agreement. The second big reason is the economics of downscaling. AMD is expected to increase CPU core counts beyond 8 and cramming 12-16 cores on a single 7 nm slab will make carving out cheaper SKUs by disabling cores costly, because AMD isn't always harvesting dies with faulty cores. These mid-range SKUs sell in higher volumes, and beyond a point AMD is forced to disable perfectly functional cores. It makes more sense to build 8-core or 6-core chiplets, and on SKUs with 8 cores or fewer, physically deploy only one chiplet. This way AMD is maximizing its utilization of precious 7 nm wafers. 



 

The downside of this approach is the memory controller is no longer physically integrated with the processor cores. The 3rd generation Ryzen processor (and all other Zen 2 CPUs), hence have an "integrated-discrete" memory controller. The memory controller is physically located inside the processor, but is not on the same piece of silicon as the CPU cores. AMD isn't the first to come up with such a contraption. Intel's 1st generation Core "Clarkdale" processor took a similar route, with CPU cores on a 32 nm die, and the memory controller plus an integrated GPU on a separate 45 nm die. 

Intel used its Quick Path Interconnect (QPI), which was cutting-edge at the time. AMD is tapping into Infinity Fabric, its latest high-bandwidth scalable interconnect that's heavily implemented on "Zen" and "Vega" product lines. We have learned that with "Matisse," AMD will be introducing a new version of Infinity Fabric that offers twice the bandwidth compared to the first generation, or up to 100 GB/s. AMD needs this because a single I/O controller die must now interface with up to two 8-core CPU dies, and up to 64 cores in their "EPYC" server line SKU.

Our resident Ryzen Memory Guru Yuri "1usmus" Bubliy took a really close look at one of these BIOS updates with AGESA 0.0.7.x and found several new controls and options that will be exclusive to "Matisse," and possibly the next-generation Ryzen Threadripper processors. AMD has changed the CBS section title from "Zen Common Options" to "Valhalla Common Options." We have seen this codename on the web quite a bit over the past few days, associated with "Zen 2." We have learned that "Valhalla" could be the codename of the platform consisting of a 3rd generation Ryzen "Matisse" AM4 processor and its companion AMD 500-series chipset based motherboard, specifically the successor to X470 which is being developed in-house by AMD as opposed to sourcing from ASMedia. 

When doing serious memory overclocking, it can happen that the Infinity Fabric can't handle the increased memory speed. Remember, Infinity Fabric runs at a frequency synchronized to memory. For example, with DDR-3200 memory (which runs at 1600 MHz), Infinity Fabric will operate at 1600 MHz. This is the default of Zen, Zen+ and also Zen 2. Unlike earlier generations, the new BIOS offers UCLK options for "Auto", "UCLK==MEMCLK" and "UCLK==MEMCLK/2". The last option is new and will come in handy when overclocking your memory, to achieve stability, but at the cost of some Infinity Fabric bandwidth.

Precision Boost Overdrive will receive more fine-grained control at the BIOS level, and AMD is making significant changes to this feature to make the boost setting more flexible and improve the algorithm. Early adopters of AGESA Combo 0.0.7.x on AMD 400-series chipset motherboards noticed that PBO broke or became buggy on their machines. This is because of poor integration of the new PBO algorithm with the existing one compatible with "Pinnacle Ridge." AMD also implemented "Core Watchdog", a feature that resets the system in case address or data errors destabilize the machine.

The "Matisse" processor will also provide users with finer control over active cores. Since the AM4 package has two 8-core chiplets, you will have the option to disable an entire chiplet, or adjust the core-count in decrements of 2, since each 8-core chiplet consists of two 4-core CCX (compute complexes), much like existing AMD designs. At the chiplet-level you can dial down core counts from 4+4 to 3+3, 2+2, and 1+1, but never asymmetrically, such as 4+0 (which was possible on first-generation Zen). AMD is synchronizing CCX core counts for optimal utilization of L3 cache and memory access. For the 64-core Threadripper that has eight 8-core chiplets, you will be able to disable chiplets as long as you have at least two chiplets enabled. 

CAKE, or "coherent AMD socket extender" received an additional setting, namely "CAKE CRC performance Bounds". AMD is implementing IFOP (Infinity Fabric On Package,) or the non-socketed version of IF, in three places on the "Matisse" MCM. The I/O controller die has 100 GB/s IFOP links to each of the two 8-core chiplets, and another 100 GB/s IFOP link connects the two chiplets to each other. For multi-socket implementations of "Zen 2," AMD will provide NUMA node controls, namely "NUMA nodes per socket," with options including "NPS0", "NPS1", "NPS2", "NPS4" and "Auto".

With "Zen 2," AMD is introducing a couple of major new DCT-level features. The first one is called "DRAM Map Inversion," with options including "Disabled", "Enabled" and "Auto". The motherboard vendor description of this option goes like "Properly utilize the parallelism within a channel and DRAM device. Bits that flip more frequently should be used to map resources of greater parallelism within the system." Another is "DRAM Post Package Repair," with options including "Enabled", "Disabled", and "Auto." This new special mode (which is a JEDEC standard) lets the memory manufacturer increase DRAM yields by selectively disabling bad memory cells, to replace them automatically with working ones from a spare area, similar to how storage devices map out bad sectors. We're not sure why such a feature is being exposed to end-users, especially from the client-segment. Perhaps it will be removed on production motherboards.

We've also come across an interesting option related to the I/O controller that lets you select PCI-Express generation up to "Gen 4.0". This could indicate some existing 400-series chipset motherboards could receive PCI-Express Gen 4.0, given that we're examining a 400-series chipset motherboard's firmware. We've heard through credible sources that AMD's PCIe Gen 4.0 implementation involves the use of external re-driver devices on the motherboard. These don't come cheap. Texas Instruments sells Gen 3.0 redrivers for $1.5 a piece in 1,000-unit reel quantities. Motherboard vendors will have to fork out quite at least $15-20 on socket AM4 motherboards with Gen 4.0 slots, given that you need 20 of these redrivers, one per lane. We've come across several other common controls, including "RCD Parity" and "Memory MBIST" (a new memory self-test program). 

One of the firmware setup program pages is titled "SoC Miscellaneous Control," and includes the following settings, many of which are industry-standard: 
DRAM Address Command Parity Retry
Max Parity Error Replay
Write CRC Enable
DRAM Write CRC Enable and Retry Limit
Max Write CRC Error Replay
Disable Memory Error Injection
DRAM UECC Retry
ACPI Settings:
o ACPI SRAT L3 Cache As NUMA Domain
o ACPI SLIT Distance Control
o ACPI SLIT remote relative distance
o ACPI SLIT virtual distance
o ACPI SLIT same socket distance
o ACPI SLIT remote socket distance
o ACPI SLIT local SLink distance
o ACPI SLIT remote SLink distance
o ACPI SLIT local inter-SLink distance
o ACPI SLIT remote inter-SLink distance
CLDO_VDDP Control
Efficiency Mode
Package Power Limit Control
DF C-states
Fixed SOC P-state
CPPC
4-link xGMI max speed
3-link xGMI max speed

All in all, AMD Ryzen "Matisse" promises to give advanced and enthusiast users a treasure-chest of tuning options. Thanks again to Yuri "1usmus" Bubliy, who contributed significantly to this article.

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## londiste (Mar 22, 2019)

> Unlike earlier generations, the new BIOS offers UCLK options for "Auto", "UCLK==MEMCLK" and "UCLK==MEMCLK/2". The last option is new and will come in handy when overclocking your memory, to achieve stability, but at the cost of some Infinity Fabric bandwidth.


So, this is not exactly untied from memory clock as AMD said previously. IF clock is still tied to MEMCLK but they added the divider to handle higher memory clocks.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Mar 22, 2019)

Mainstream threadripper


----------



## R0H1T (Mar 22, 2019)

londiste said:


> this is not exactly untied from memory clock as AMD said previously


They've never said that


----------



## londiste (Mar 22, 2019)

R0H1T said:


> They've never said that


They didn't? It was reported in a lot of places. Just assumptions, then, I suppose.


----------



## R0H1T (Mar 22, 2019)

Speculation more than anything else, AMD haven't disclosed much about Ryzen 3xxx anywhere let alone such technical details.


----------



## Rabit (Mar 22, 2019)

If they add DRAM Post Package Repair  for consumers I will  be interested, sometimes you can get faulty sticks on second hand market cheap if for example from 16gb stick you get workingh 15gb is still win


----------



## 1usmus (Mar 22, 2019)

I can provide more information in April, when the new bios will be published


----------



## HwGeek (Mar 22, 2019)

Asus support got back to me regarding the PBO bug in latest bios with AGESA 0070(Asus Prime X470 Pro), there is new bios now version 4602 with AGESA 0072 and PBO works + the Scalar option is back .
It should appear on official download page soon.
https://www.overclock.net/forum/11-...470-pro-issues-successes-40.html#post27902884


----------



## phill (Mar 22, 2019)

Really looking forward to seeing these new AMD CPUs come out..


----------



## BoMbY (Mar 22, 2019)

The connection between the CPU-Dies must be a AM4-only thing then, because it makes no sense on EPYC?


----------



## s3thra (Mar 22, 2019)

I'm looking forward to these chips very much. I have a 2600 on a B450 board currently, so hopefully the rumors are true and the next "midrange" 3600 (or whatever it will be called) is an 8 core chip. 6 -> 8 cores for hopefully around about the same price is a very nice upgrade and improvement in my book.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Mar 22, 2019)

The re-drivers aren't needed for the first x16 slot, as it's close enough to the CPU socket. However, they would be needed for all other slots to operate at PCIe 4.0 speeds.


----------



## damric (Mar 22, 2019)

These look like a lot of fun to tune. Can't wait.


----------



## 1stn00b (Mar 22, 2019)

I think they might have changed the chiplets placement on die since CES 2019 by looking how EPYC 3000 Embedded looks :







https://www.congatec.com/en/products/com-express-type7/conga-b7e3.html

They even list there 12 and 16 core models but no 6 core :
AMD EPYC™ Embedded 3000 Model 3451 (16 x 2.1 GHz, 32MB L3 cache, 100W) 
AMD EPYC™ Embedded 3000 Model 3401 (16 x 1.85 GHz, 32MB L3 cache, 85W) 
AMD EPYC™ Embedded 3000 Model 3351 (12 x 1.90 GHz, 32MB L3 cache, 80W)  (12 x 2.0 GHz, 32MB L3 cache, 65W) 
AMD EPYC™ Embedded 3000 Model 3255 (8 x 2.5 GHz, 32MB L3 cache, 55W) 
AMD EPYC™ Embedded 3000 Model 3251 (8 x 2.5 GHz, 16MB L3 cache, 55W) 
AMD EPYC™ Embedded 3000 Model 3201 (8 x 1.5 GHz, 16MB L3 cache, 30W) 
AMD EPYC™ Embedded 3000 Model 3151 (4 x 2.7 GHz, 16MB L3 cache, 45W) 
AMD EPYC™ Embedded 3000 Model 3101 (4 x 2.1 GHz, 8MB L3 cache, 35W) 

Probably the I/O die got smaller so the 2 chiplets can be placed top and bottom of it


----------



## IceShroom (Mar 22, 2019)

1stn00b said:


> I think they might have changed the chiplets placement on die since CES 2019 by looking how EPYC 3000 Embedded looks :
> 
> View attachment 119289View attachment 119290
> 
> ...


EPYC Embedde 3000 is based on Zen architecture, not Zen2.
All Zen/Zen+ have single die.


----------



## Tartaros (Mar 22, 2019)

The 3255 it's quite sexy for a laptop. And mine needs an upgrade.


----------



## Imsochobo (Mar 22, 2019)

IceShroom said:


> EPYC Embedde 3000 is based on Zen architecture, not Zen2.
> All Zen/Zen+ have single die.



I think it'd still be a dualdie for the 16 core ?


----------



## IceShroom (Mar 22, 2019)

Imsochobo said:


> I think it'd still be a dualdie for the 16 core ?


When I replied the comment, the comment has only single die 8 core ones.
Yes.
EPYC Embedded 3000 comes 8 core with single die, and 16 with two die.


----------



## Super XP (Mar 22, 2019)

There's one thing I read about a couple weeks ago about AMDs use of Infinity Fabric 2. The author claimed reliable sources close to AMD said that Infinity Fabric 2 may have a fixed speed (A very high speed) and not tied to the Integrated Memory Controller Speed. Or something of that nature. 

He further explained that AMD may take this approach to help eliminate most or all latency issues found in ZEN and ZEN+. This was based on ZEN2 engineering sample testing. So it seems AMD isn't testing out various methods to determine what works best. I assume. 

Speculation of course, but that's what I read. If I can locate that link I'll share it.


----------



## junglist724 (Mar 22, 2019)

1stn00b said:


> I think they might have changed the chiplets placement on die since CES 2019 by looking how EPYC 3000 Embedded looks :
> 
> View attachment 119289View attachment 119290
> 
> ...



Epyc embedded 3000 is 14nm 1st gen Zen and was released over a year ago. These are just Ryzen 1000 series dies that have all 32 pci-e lanes working. The 12 and 16 core models are just like current threadrippers with 2 active dies, except epyc 3000 has no dummy dies on the package. The 3000 has nothing to do with what gen the product is. 1st gen Epyc is already Epyc 7000.


----------



## Bruno Vieira (Mar 22, 2019)

btarunr said:


> since each 8-core chiplet consists of two 4-core CCX (compute complexes), much like existing AMD designs


Was this confirmed? Maybe they moved to 8-core ccx


----------



## kapone32 (Mar 22, 2019)

Super XP said:


> There's one thing I read about a couple weeks ago about AMDs use of Infinity Fabric 2. The author claimed reliable sources close to AMD said that Infinity Fabric 2 may have a fixed speed (A very high speed) and not tied to the Integrated Memory Controller Speed. Or something of that nature.
> 
> He further explained that AMD may take this approach to help eliminate most or all latency issues found in ZEN and ZEN+. This was based on ZEN2 engineering sample testing. So it seems AMD isn't testing out various methods to determine what works best. I assume.
> 
> Speculation of course, but that's what I read. If I can locate that link I'll share it.



If that is true it could make the 2990WX's successor the fastest TR4 CPU.


----------



## dicktracy (Mar 22, 2019)

Doesn’t sound like it’ll do well for gaming :/ more glue and more latency bottleneck


----------



## cucker tarlson (Mar 22, 2019)

dicktracy said:


> Doesn’t sound like it’ll do well for gaming :/ more glue and more latency bottleneck


will depend on IF speed and latency,wouldn't write it off just yet.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Mar 22, 2019)

londiste said:


> So, this is not exactly untied from memory clock as AMD said previously. IF clock is still tied to MEMCLK but they added the divider to handle higher memory clocks.


Seam's like the best of both worlds to me, overclock both together or ram alone, or auto , win win.



junglist724 said:


> Epyc embedded 3000 is 14nm 1st gen Zen and was released over a year ago. These are just Ryzen 1000 series dies that have all 32 pci-e lanes working. The 12 and 16 core models are just like current threadrippers with 2 active dies, except epyc 3000 has no dummy dies on the package. The 3000  has nothing to do with what gen the product is. 1st gen Epyc is already Epyc 7000.


The embedded market segment and naming is completely seperate from consumer and the pro domain, Epyc 3000 embedded was gen 1 but consumer ryzen 3000 out soon certainly is not 1st gen zen.

the write up below in the linked site states what this chip is , Snowy owl

"COM Express Type 7 Basic module with AMD embedded EPYC 3451 (Snowy Owl) 16 core / 32 threads processor with 2.15GHz up to 3.0GHz core frequency, 32MB L3 cache and 2666MT/s DDR4 SODIMM memory interface for up to 96GB. TDP 100W "


----------



## londiste (Mar 22, 2019)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> Seam's like the best of both worlds to me, overclock both together or ram alone, or auto , win win.


Given the settings in the article, the settings are UCLK = MEMCLK, UCLK = MEMCLK/2 and Auto will most likely make it switch from first to second at some frequency.
Not saying it is not good or not an improvement.


----------



## nemesis.ie (Mar 22, 2019)

Could it be those memory divider options are only in there for 1xxx and 2xxx CPUs and if there is 3xxx model popped in, it runs async to the RAM and may have a separate option for setting its speed? Or it could be fixed not exposed to the user too maybe.


----------



## Super XP (Mar 22, 2019)

kapone32 said:


> If that is true it could make the 2990WX's successor the fastest TR4 CPU.


I am still looking for that link to the info but can't remember which website lol,
Well if you think about it, if AMD is taking this approach as described by TPU, Infinity Fabric 2 can't be the same speed as the Integrated Memory Controller if it wants to achieve that very high speed frequency of 100 GB/s. If for example IF2 is tied to the memory controller speed, ZEN2 WILL face a huge Latency Penalty. IMO

The original Infinity Fabric was tied to the memory controller for this reason. Personally I don't think simply doubling the bandwidth of Infinity Fabric from the original ZEN is going to be enough to fully offset latency issues. They need more than 100 GB/s IMO. 
Example, a system using DDR4-2133 would have the entire SDF (Scalable Data Fabric) plane operating at 1066 MHz. This is a fundamental design choice made by AMD in order to eliminate clock-domain latency. This time around it ain't possible unless AMD jacks up the DDR4 memory speed to well over 4500-5000+? if they plan on IF2 running at the DDR4 speed. 

Who knows really, all I can say is AMD is VERY well aware of the ZEN+ and ZEN latency issues. Hopefully they've they've resolved it for the official ZEN2 launch.


----------



## Metroid (Mar 22, 2019)

fast your seatbelts trolls, this train will wreck anything 16 miles per second in mid july. Intel soon to be massacred. The best protest you can ever do against intel is to buy a ryzen 3xxx series cpu.


----------



## timta2 (Mar 23, 2019)

Metroid said:


> fast your seatbelts trolls, this train will wreck anything 16 miles per second in mid july. Intel soon to be massacred. The best protest you can ever do against intel is to buy a ryzen 3xxx series cpu.



Which is interesting, because your post is the first to come across as trollish in this thread.


----------



## Manoa (Mar 23, 2019)

yhe, it does sounds like they again trying to "fix" a latency problem with speed, but the true is I have DDR3 and it gives me 20-25 giga speed and nothing is remotely limited by speed and I have only a dual channel, people with 4 channels show that it gived them nothing (outside bechmarks), what good will 100 giga do if nothing is limited by speed anyway? but math checks out: more cores, if they all working could probably use more speed from memory but this is only good for the programs that do large data sets on many cores at the same time, games on the other hand don't :x it is whay core 2 duo was mutch faster per clock for games: fast access to large L2 cache (6 mega in 15 clocks) and even to this day nothing beats it at that (haswell, which is pretty much the same cores intel using today with latest generations (only with DDR4 controller) has 30 clocks penalty for access to his 8 mega cache, so to compensate for this very high latency, intel added a 256K dedicated cache (which is 12 clocks) in the hope that it will help (it probably does, for smaller data sets of corse).

if the IF still has big latency, this are a processors that are going to be good for heavy duty things with large data sets, you will can play games on them but probably not as high performance as intel (round 2 of low 1080p performance on zen).

but this is all theories nothing is know right now, and I also hope that outside the increase speed the latency this time will also be good.

it strange but seems to me that all industry is going in the same direction: DDR4 higher latency than DDR3, haswell processors more latency over core 2 duo, AMD more latency in cache and memory etc
funny thing is that up to 2008 the trend was reverse: they both intel and AMD developed integrated memory controllers with nahaylem and phenom


----------



## Melvis (Mar 23, 2019)

Yep I see my MSI Pro Carbon has indeed got an Update for the new CPU's, will I upgrade to one? no I dont think so just yet, 2700x has plenty of horse power for what I do and play.


----------



## Deleted member 172152 (Mar 23, 2019)

What I'm wondering now is this: What should I upgrade when zen 2 arrives? For streaming+gaming I'm running into a few performance issues in-game at higher stream settings.

1) just the 2700x to 3700x 12-core
2) the processor AND my x470 k4
3) processor, motherboard and my 32gb 3200c16 ram

I did keep all options in mind when building my pc, but I'm just not sure what will limit performance and stability with zen 2, especially if any extra features are limited to x570 and my ram isn't 100% stable on my current mobo just yet, about 99% (resets if there's a software failure because the bios isn't too keen on it and ryzen master is keeping it at 3200).

Hopefully a bios update and a new processor will solve my ram stability issues at least, cause it turns out the k4 actually has built-in rgb lighting and it looks awesome in my pc!


----------



## ZoneDymo (Mar 23, 2019)

Give it to me already so I can finally build a new PC!!!


----------



## NC37 (Mar 23, 2019)

I wonder if all the AM4 chipsets will handle Infinity Fabric 2. I assume so since it'll be in the CPU and not restricted to the board. However, I can't help but remember back to the AM2 days. You could use more advanced CPUs on the older socket but you'd get a big performance hit and loss of features. I remember doing this and the difference between the stock HyperTransport 1.0 and the later upgrades on better chipsets was huge. Going from AM2-AM3+ was a visible performance gain. To the point it was silly to use them on older boards. You kinda had to upgrade those boards to get your moneys' worth.


----------



## HwGeek (Mar 23, 2019)

https://wccftech.com/asus-x570-motherboards-next-gen-amd-ryzen-3000-cpus-leak-out/
I think that now MB's Vendor's know the potential in AM4 boards and they will make even more models with great futures.
*P.S- why no single Gigabyte board got the new Bios?*


----------



## olymind1 (Mar 23, 2019)

I'm wondering what would be faster: 1x8 core with cache, or 2x4 core with twice the cache of  a single chiplet. In the case of the cache isn't damaged at manufacture of course.

AMD could sell all the broken cores/chiplets, and we could buy them cheaply. Everybody wins.


----------



## HwGeek (Mar 23, 2019)

thought the same, they gonna have so many chiplets to bin from and make any combination they like, same thought on TR3, what if they use 8 chiplets with 4 best active cores+ added cache?


----------



## Manoa (Mar 23, 2019)

NC37 said:


> I wonder if all the AM4 chipsets will handle Infinity Fabric 2. I assume so since it'll be in the CPU and not restricted to the board. However, I can't help but remember back to the AM2 days. You could use more advanced CPUs on the older socket but you'd get a big performance hit and loss of features. I remember doing this and the difference between the stock HyperTransport 1.0 and the later upgrades on better chipsets was huge. Going from AM2-AM3+ was a visible performance gain. To the point it was silly to use them on older boards. You kinda had to upgrade those boards to get your moneys' worth.



it can be the oposite too, wolfdale on P35 was significantly faster than on P45, but this is very different thing


----------



## jigar2speed (Mar 23, 2019)

dicktracy said:


> Doesn’t sound like it’ll do well for gaming :/ more glue and more latency bottleneck



They were looking forward to making it the slowest CPU in AMD history, you just figured it out first. /s


----------



## Manoa (Mar 23, 2019)

lel, it was faildozer job


----------



## sergionography (Mar 23, 2019)

Manoa said:


> yhe, it does sounds like they again trying to "fix" a latency problem with speed, but the true is I have DDR3 and it gives me 20-25 giga speed and nothing is remotely limited by speed and I have only a dual channel, people with 4 channels show that it gived them nothing (outside bechmarks), what good will 100 giga do if nothing is limited by speed anyway? but math checks out: more cores, if they all working could probably use more speed from memory but this is only good for the programs that do large data sets on many cores at the same time, games on the other hand don't :x it is whay core 2 duo was mutch faster per clock for games: fast access to large L2 cache (6 mega in 15 clocks) and even to this day nothing beats it at that (haswell, which is pretty much the same cores intel using today with latest generations (only with DDR4 controller) has 30 clocks penalty for access to his 8 mega cache, so to compensate for this very high latency, intel added a 256K dedicated cache (which is 12 clocks) in the hope that it will help (it probably does, for smaller data sets of corse).
> 
> if the IF still has big latency, this are a processors that are going to be good for heavy duty things with large data sets, you will can play games on them but probably not as high performance as intel (round 2 of low 1080p performance on zen).
> 
> ...












Check this out if you haven't already. Its perhaps one of my favourite break downs on cache memory. And in regards to zen/zen+ watch at 23min. But in short, the latency issues are not as bad as people think if you actually look at this from the right perspective. Basically you would need to look at zen as having 8mb L3 cache per ccx rather than 16mb total L3 cache per chip. Often times its not as big of an issue because data from main memory is copied to the L1 and L2 cache only(inclusive cache), and L3 cache working only when data is evicted from L2 cache. When L3 cache is filled; the ccx goes back to main memory rather than the other ccx L3 cache. Normally thats ok because the L3 cache works more to support the L2 which is local to each core so the performance impact is hardly a big deal especially when the OS scheduler is aware of the memory configuration. 


Also in response to some of the other comments in this thread; I'm not exactly sure this has anything to do with gaming performance compared to intel, that is more due to the slight single core advantage intel has on the super high clocked models, but otherwise we see AMD ryzen doing rather excellent on multicore performance which is, in theory, where you would expect to see a shortcoming.

With the latency and cross migration issues being highlighted however; we can now speculate on what AMD can do to offset the issues and how an IO die fits into all of this:
1. An IO can simply work as a scheduler that stores data addresses to ensure no redundancy takes place when you have multiple cores and data migration, so even if the latency is higher, the communication remains streamlined and manageable. When you have 4 chips on a module like in threadripper; each memory controller would need to connect with 3 other chips via different IF links, which is probably why according to the test in the video we see the latency inline with main memory which indicates resorting to main memory rather than other ccx directly. This implementation would still be NUMA but would work much better than previous iterations of MCM allowing for some level of L3 utilization/sharing across all chiplets without always resorting to main memory.

2. The IO chip can also include the memory controller rather than just IF interconnects and schedulers. This would mean the chiplet complex wont really need a NUMA configuration and the latencies would be normalized across all chiplets. I can see this having some drawbacks/trade-off's but also much cost effectiveness in terms of the chiplet design. This implementation is most likely the case because AMD already showed a 1 chiplet cpu that had the IO chip as well; which gives the impression that a single chiplet cannot function without the IO chip. 

3. AMD can double L3 cache and retain the higher modularity aspect per ccx. This retains the older challenges but gives a larger buffer before needing to reach out to main memory or other CCX L3. 

4.  make L3 cache shared between 2 ccx on each chiplet and add complexity in design in case of a one ccx zen2 implementation (unless a one ccx design retains the same L3 cache size). However we already saw the zen apu(2400g) having 4mb l3 cache for the 1 ccx it has rather than 8mb so perhaps this is not a big concern for AMD. This implementation can be used to pair 2 ccx's together without needing to redesign the whole ccx into an 8 core; giving one bigger pool of L3 cache per 8 cores. This means apps using up to 8 cores would naturally be less effected by any latency issues of cross chip/cross core migration etc. Do note though that I'm ignorant of much of the finer technicalities here so id love some input on this area and whether shared L3 cache local to all 8 cores in 2 ccx's is even possible without major redesign or using IF links. 

5. AMD could combine aspects from all the above which would practically minimize most or all issues related to latency. One thing that we can however count on for sure is that the IO chip does a better job connecting the ccx's and chiplets together without resorting to main memory; otherwise AMD would've stuck to the old design. One thing I do worry about is if other drawbacks get introduced in case the IO has a unified memory controller for all chips that would fix old problems of cross migration by offering consistent latencies, but in turn increase latencies when an application exceeds all L3 cache and is running on system memory as well.


----------



## RoutedScripter (Mar 23, 2019)

> This new special mode (which is a JEDEC standard) lets the memory manufacturer increase DRAM yields by selectively disabling bad memory cells, to replace them automatically with working ones from a spare area, similar to how storage devices map out bad sectors. We're not sure why such a feature is being exposed to end-users, especially from the client-segment. Perhaps it will be removed on production motherboards.



Nothing for us dirty consumer pesants.

Isn't this exactly the feature that everyone wants so you can disable bad memory cells and pass memtest and continue using the PC for some more time. Long overdue.
Should be some kind of a setting to select which lets you select which cell, in HEX or otherwise (you'd need to look at the manual for the map of cell IDs), unless it has some onboard-chip/logic which figures that out.


----------



## Metroid (Mar 23, 2019)

Hugh Mungus said:


> What I'm wondering now is this: What should I upgrade when zen 2 arrives? For streaming+gaming I'm running into a few performance issues in-game at higher stream settings.
> 
> 1) just the 2700x to 3700x 12-core
> 2) the processor AND my x470 k4
> 3) processor, motherboard and my 32gb 3200c16 ram



I would update only the processor for now, faster than 2700x and will likely use 20% less electricity plus 4 cores, 8 to 12.


----------



## Jism (Mar 24, 2019)

Super XP said:


> There's one thing I read about a couple weeks ago about AMDs use of Infinity Fabric 2. The author claimed reliable sources close to AMD said that Infinity Fabric 2 may have a fixed speed (A very high speed) and not tied to the Integrated Memory Controller Speed. Or something of that nature.
> 
> He further explained that AMD may take this approach to help eliminate most or all latency issues found in ZEN and ZEN+. This was based on ZEN2 engineering sample testing. So it seems AMD isn't testing out various methods to determine what works best. I assume.
> 
> Speculation of course, but that's what I read. If I can locate that link I'll share it.



That's what the above article states. Twice the bandwidth IF offers now, which is a good thing and required since the memory is going straight through the chiplet.


----------



## efikkan (Mar 24, 2019)

ZoneDymo said:


> Give it to me already so I can finally build a new PC!!!


Really? While we all want things to release as soon as possible, I always wait a couple of months or so to see if there are any obvious problems, and to find a solid motherboard with good reviews.


----------



## Super XP (Mar 25, 2019)

People have a huge misconception when comparing Ryzen to Intel. I keep hearing this nonsense about Ryzen can't perform in high end gaming. Seriously utter Nonsense.  

My setup does 1440p Ultra High Quality Settings and I'm between 70 to 144 FPS on all my games including Metro 2033 and Metro Last Light. On a RX580 8GB GPU and a Ryzen 7 1700X. 
My RX 580 will most likely be replaced by Navi, depending on its price to performance. 

But enough with the "Intel is better in Gaming" nonsense.


----------



## R0H1T (Mar 25, 2019)

For high end/res gaming GPU is always more important than CPU, that is not to say you pair a Pentium with 2080Ti but the difference between an i5/i7 is negligible so is 2700x & most Intel counterparts. The obvious exception being OCed CPU but even there you need to go above 5GHz to see a noticeable difference in gaming.


----------



## Vayra86 (Mar 25, 2019)

Super XP said:


> People have a huge misconception when comparing Ryzen to Intel. I keep hearing this nonsense about Ryzen can't perform in high end gaming. Seriously utter Nonsense.
> 
> My setup does 1440p Ultra High Quality Settings and I'm between 70 to 144 FPS on all my games including Metro 2033 and Metro Last Light. On a RX580 8GB GPU and a Ryzen 7 1700X.
> My RX 580 will most likely be replaced by Navi, depending on its price to performance.
> ...



Its not a misconception and there is a metric ton of data available for you to enjoy that underlines major gaps between Core and Zen at high refresh. What you are saying is that a clockspeed gap of 600-800mhz makes no difference... it does. Both in min and max FPS, and both matter a lot for high refresh rate gaming. In your example you are completely GPU limited, you are playing shooters at 1440p high settings. You are 'between 70 and 144'... that says just about nothing.


----------



## Deleted member 172152 (Mar 25, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> Its not a misconception and there is a metric ton of data available for you to enjoy that underlines major gaps between Core and Zen at high refresh. What you are saying is that a clockspeed gap of 600-800mhz makes no difference... it does. Both in min and max FPS, and both matter a lot for high refresh rate gaming. In your example you are completely GPU limited, you are playing shooters at 1440p high settings. You are 'between 70 and 144'... that says just about nothing.


As a 2700x owner I agree. I seem to run into cpu bottlenecks before a gpu bottleneck even at 4k sometimes where a 9900k is just fine with a 2080 ti instead of a radeon vii and when streaming I essentially only have 4 cores to play with, dropping just cause 3 framerates from 80s to 60s or 100s to 80s depending on the area, so both corecount AND clockspeed are important nowadays for gaming. Will definitely get a 12-core 5ghz 3700x just for streaming, but it will also increase framerates when only gaming by a considerable margin.


----------



## sergionography (Mar 25, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> Its not a misconception and there is a metric ton of data available for you to enjoy that underlines major gaps between Core and Zen at high refresh. What you are saying is that a clockspeed gap of 600-800mhz makes no difference... it does. Both in min and max FPS, and both matter a lot for high refresh rate gaming. In your example you are completely GPU limited, you are playing shooters at 1440p high settings. You are 'between 70 and 144'... that says just about nothing.


Yes that's true, but it matters most when pumping extremely high frame rates often over 150-160 where the CPU becomes the bottleneck
As you move down to the 100fps range the differences become much less worthwhile especially in 1440p or 4k. The only way you will see 1440p or 4k showing a bigger difference is if the GPU can basically run the game with ease and max it out to where the CPU starts to become the bottleneck. Though its important to note that this gap widens rather gradually as you move to higher FPS so that's another aspect people tend to ignore. its not like a cutoff where the load shifts to the CPU and that the higher IPC advantage suddenly appears.  
But to address your main point, yes 700mhz is not a small amount by any means. Thats 16% higher than 2700x (4.3ghz) and on an extremely refined 14++++++ process that can sustain high clock speeds closer to advertised max. Also account for the other 4-5% IPC advantage that intel still has, and there you have at least a 20% single thread/per core advantage.


----------



## Super XP (Mar 25, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> Its not a misconception and there is a metric ton of data available for you to enjoy that underlines major gaps between Core and Zen at high refresh. What you are saying is that a clockspeed gap of 600-800mhz makes no difference... it does. Both in min and max FPS, and both matter a lot for high refresh rate gaming. In your example you are completely GPU limited, you are playing shooters at 1440p high settings. You are 'between 70 and 144'... that says just about nothing.


*No what I am saying is you have a many people claiming you can't game on Ryzen CPUs Period.*
So I made a clear point that you can, regardless of Refresh Rate, regardless if its 1080p, 1440p or 2160p. What ever is possible on Intel CPUs are possible on Ryzen CPUs. You may not get identical frame rates, but surely they are more than playable on Ryzen CPUs. That is the Misconception I am talking about. I can care less about metric ton of data available, because I speak of facts.

I took myself as an example, because *people (Intel Fanboys) called me a liar* in a couple other forums for claiming my particular setup (1700X & RX 580 8GB) was incapable of running 1440p even at moderate to low picture quality settings.  When I told them I averaged around 70 to 144 FPS on Ultra High Settings, the trolling started of course.
NOW Do you see the utter nonsense being spread across the internet?


----------



## Deleted member 172152 (Mar 25, 2019)

Super XP said:


> *No what I am saying is you have a many people claiming you can't game on Ryzen CPUs Period.*
> So I made a clear point that you can, regardless of Refresh Rate, regardless if its 1080p, 1440p or 2160p. What ever is possible on Intel CPUs are possible on Ryzen CPUs. You may not get identical frame rates, but surely they are more than playable on Ryzen CPUs. That is the Misconception I am talking about. I can care less about metric ton of data available, because I speak of facts.
> 
> I took myself as an example, because *people (Intel Fanboys) called me a liar* in a couple other forums for claiming my particular setup (1700X & RX 580 8GB) was incapable of running 1440p even at moderate to low picture quality settings.  When I told them I averaged around 70 to 144 FPS on Ultra High Settings, the trolling started of course.
> NOW Do you now see the utter nonsense being spread across the internet?


Was a bit random though. Maybe lead with that next time?


----------



## Super XP (Mar 25, 2019)

Hugh Mungus said:


> Was a bit random though. Maybe lead with that next time?


I didn't want to sound like I was complaining. lol
You probably know this site, quite popular to compare stuff. 
UserBenchmark


----------



## Vayra86 (Mar 25, 2019)

Super XP said:


> *No what I am saying is you have a many people claiming you can't game on Ryzen CPUs Period.*
> So I made a clear point that you can, regardless of Refresh Rate, regardless if its 1080p, 1440p or 2160p. What ever is possible on Intel CPUs are possible on Ryzen CPUs. You may not get identical frame rates, but surely they are more than playable on Ryzen CPUs. That is the Misconception I am talking about. I can care less about metric ton of data available, because I speak of facts.
> 
> I took myself as an example, because *people (Intel Fanboys) called me a liar* in a couple other forums for claiming my particular setup (1700X & RX 580 8GB) was incapable of running 1440p even at moderate to low picture quality settings.  When I told them I averaged around 70 to 144 FPS on Ultra High Settings, the trolling started of course.
> NOW Do you see the utter nonsense being spread across the internet?



People say a lot of things, but I can't say the common thing is 'you can't game on Ryzen period'... sorry to burst your bubble. I dó remember a fierce rumor when the 7700K was released that Ryzen offered 'better minimums' and 'better frame pacing'. Not supported by actual data though. After that the bench-dust settled and people concluded that at anything over 60 FPS, Ryzen 1 was not ideal, being limited by clocks and requiring fast memory to really extract performance. Ryzen 1.5 marginally improved on this. I personally expect the next iteration to destroy Intel's gaming dominance in terms of performance, closing the gap and offering more of everything on top. Ironically half of that has to do with Intel's performance gain grinding to a complete halt.

The reason you may see that alot is because of the places you visit, enthusiast forums and especially gamers will favor Intel. Don't mistake a niche for mainstream. In mainstream, people barely have an idea what they want, and if someone they trust tells them Ryzen is good, they go with it, just as they would go with someone telling them Intel's the way.

There is also of course the brand awareness, that is overall a bit higher for Intel. Uphill battle sure, but not the way you put it.

But another thing. There are _also_ examples, and they are not few and far between, where you actually need that fast Intel CPU _with an OC._ This goes for games like Total War, many strategy games that go towards endgame, but also builder/survival games with huge worlds and any (older) title that leans heavily on single thread. MMO's are another good example of games that really like every Mhz you throw at them. It pays off bigtime and Ryzen actually does fall short - it will dive under 60 FPS faster and more readily. This is further exaggerated by the problem of the last decade, which is that GPUs have progressively become faster every gen with as much as 30%; while CPU performance stagnated entirely on single thread. This increases the need for a top-end CPU to support fast GPUs.



sergionography said:


> Yes that's true, but it matters most when pumping extremely high frame rates often over 150-160 where the CPU becomes the bottleneck
> As you move down to the 100fps range the differences become much less worthwhile especially in 1440p or 4k. The only way you will see 1440p or 4k showing a bigger difference is if the GPU can basically run the game with ease and max it out to where the CPU starts to become the bottleneck. Though its important to note that this gap widens rather gradually as you move to higher FPS so that's another aspect people tend to ignore. its not like a cutoff where the load shifts to the CPU and that the higher IPC advantage suddenly appears.
> But to address your main point, yes 700mhz is not a small amount by any means. Thats 16% higher than 2700x (4.3ghz) and on an extremely refined 14++++++ process that can sustain high clock speeds closer to advertised max. Also account for the other 4-5% IPC advantage that intel still has, and there you have at least a 20% single thread/per core advantage.



Another aspect people tend to forget is that you also get higher FPS across the board out of your GPU at _all_ levels of performance. Its minor, but its there. While your average FPS may well be above 100, the minimums never are, and having a lot headroom counts in those situations where the FPS takes a nosedive. This effect gets greater with faster GPUs - so even at 4K you will see an advantage from more CPU grunt.


----------



## Remarc (Mar 25, 2019)

Manoa said:


> funny thing is that up to 2008 the trend was reverse: they both intel and AMD developed integrated memory controllers with nahaylem and phenom


amd has first imc was in athlon64 (s754)


----------



## Super XP (Mar 26, 2019)

Remarc said:


> amd has first imc was in athlon64 (s754)


With the more popular version on S939.
Socket 754 was a weird one though, like it was a test for the 1st CPU to integrate the Memory Controller. Or the budget socket which serves people quite well due to the lower prices.
*



			Socket 754
		
Click to expand...

*


> was the original *socket* for *AMD's* Athlon 64 desktop processors. Due to the introduction of newer *socket* layouts (i.e. *Socket 939*, *Socket* 940 and*Socket* AM2), *Socket 754* became the more "budget-minded" *socket* for use with *AMD* Athlon 64 or Sempron processors.


----------



## evilhf (Mar 26, 2019)

I have a R5 1600X @ 4ghz / Vega 56, and I get 160 ~ 220 fps in 1080p very low graphics in the game Quake Champions ....
Vega 56 has 70% usage, while my cpu has 50 ~ 60 usage.
I want to get 240fps constant for sync and low inputlag with my 240hz monitor.
I am hopeful that this zen2 R7 3700X will push millions of data to my Vega, and I can get 240fps fluid!


----------



## londiste (Mar 26, 2019)

Super XP said:


> With the more popular version on S939.
> Socket 754 was a weird one though, like it was a test for the 1st CPU to integrate the Memory Controller. Or the budget socket which serves people quite well due to the lower prices.


Socket s754 and s939 were for mainsteam and enthusiast processors respectively. There was no real technical difference other than HT speed and faster processor models for 939. For some reason s754 did not turn out too well...


----------



## efikkan (Mar 26, 2019)

londiste said:


> Socket s754 and s939 were for mainsteam and enthusiast processors respectively. There was no real technical difference other than HT speed and faster processor models for 939. For some reason s754 did not turn out too well...


You forgot the biggest difference; dual channel memory.

Socket 754 didn't have an appealing selection of processors after socket 939 arrived.


----------



## Super XP (Mar 26, 2019)

efikkan said:


> You forgot the biggest difference; dual channel memory.
> 
> Socket 754 didn't have an appealing selection of processors after socket 939 arrived.


Oh I forget about that one, think s754 was Single Channel correct?

Anyhow, since we are on the topic of ZEN2, I found this rather silly image off Google Images when I searched.



And Found This too. What can we confirm about this one? Is there any truth to it. The interesting part is that the PCIe will be on each chiplet it seems and with a 100-150 GB/s for Infinity Fabric 2.


----------



## Crackong (Mar 27, 2019)

Super XP said:


> I didn't want to sound like I was complaining. lol
> You probably know this site, quite popular to compare stuff.
> UserBenchmark



No you are not complaining.
It is the same thing as " Nvidia has STABLE graphics driver".
And something like:
" Memory problems on Intel platform? Memory problem.
  Memory problems on AMD platform? AMD problem. "

These kind of misconceptions are floating around and never seems to stop.


----------



## londiste (Mar 27, 2019)

efikkan said:


> You forgot the biggest difference; dual channel memory.


You are right, I did forget that. I had the nagging feeling that I was not remembering something important 



Super XP said:


> And Found This too. What can we confirm about this one? Is there any truth to it. The interesting part is that the PCIe will be on each chiplet it seems and with a 100-150 GB/s for Infinity Fabric 2.
> View attachment 119584


IO die:
- DDR4 controllers, IF2 are confirmed.
- Latency issues are claimed to be resolved, we will have to see.
- IF2 is tied to memory clock but it does have divider now.

Chiplet:
- IF2 yes.
- 4 cores per CCX, not 8.
- PCI-e per CCX is unlikely.

Edit:
The first image is messy and there are too many IF links. 5 links per die? I would expect them to still go with three.


----------



## nemesis.ie (Mar 27, 2019)

It could also be that the divider option is only there as an addition in the new AGESA; for Ryzen 1xxx and 2xxx chips and that it will be untied if a 3xxx CPU (i.e. with an I/O die) is installed, perhaps? 

I don't see why they would need to have it tied if there is a cache in the I/O chip.  It could be for latency/sync reasons I suppose...


----------



## londiste (Mar 27, 2019)

nemesis.ie said:


> It could also be that the divider option is only there as an addition in the new AGESA; for Ryzen 1xxx and 2xxx chips and that it will be untied if a 3xxx CPU (i.e. with an I/O die) is installed, perhaps?


These new AGESAs are out and the setting has not been seen to apply to Ryzen 1000/2000 AFAIK. The assumption it is meant for the newly added 3000 series seems to be appropriate.


----------



## junglist724 (Mar 27, 2019)

cucker tarlson said:


> will depend on IF speed and latency,wouldn't write it off just yet.


Zen 2 infinity fabric is supposed to be 2.3x faster, it also has a lot more cache and improved branch prediction/prefetch.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Mar 27, 2019)

junglist724 said:


> Zen 2 infinity fabric is supposed to be 2.3x faster, it also has a lot more cache and improved branch prediction/prefetch.


we'll see what we see once it's reviewed, "supposed to be 2.3x faster" means little coming from amd slides,or any company's word of mouth to be honest.
I don't think sheer bandwidth numbers will do the trick here if they mean more latency at the same time.
they've got 15% to make up to 8600k/9600k in gaming performance,they're not gonna do that with going 8c->12c and 4.2GHz->4.7/4.8GHz


----------



## Badelhas (Mar 27, 2019)

I am anxiously waiting for Ryzen 2 to arrive to finally upgrade from my old Intel 2500K @4.8Ghz... I hope it lives to ours expectations!


----------



## efikkan (Mar 27, 2019)

cucker tarlson said:


> we'll see what we see once it's reviewed, "supposed to be 2.3x faster" means little coming from amd slides,or any company's word of mouth to be honest.
> 
> I don't think sheer bandwidth numbers will do the trick here if they mean more latency at the same time.
> 
> they've got 15% to make up to 8600k/9600k in gaming performance,they're not gonna do that with going 8c->12c and 4.2GHz->4.7/4.8GHz


Yeah, these estimates are usually edge-cases, putting the new product in the best possible light, and as always, good reviews will reveal the true performance.

Different workloads have different performance characteristics, and therefore also different effects from architectural improvements. Zen 2 offer several improvements, including front-end changes, doubling of float throughput(AVX workloads), and more. Gaming performance will probably not benefit a lot from improvements in Infinity Fabric, nothing from the increased float throughput, perhaps some from cache improvements, but a lot from frond-end changes (if they are substantial). For branching heavy code like gaming, front-end changes can sometimes even help more than the average performance gain.

There is one important performance characteristic about gaming performance though; the CPU just needs to be fast enough not to bottleneck the GPU, so scaling forever here is actually pointless. We see it clearly with Skylake-based CPUs; for every 100 MHz beyond 4 GHz, the gains are decreasing. And even some of the lower clocked Coffee Lakes do very well vs. higher clocked Zen+ in gaming. But this is actually good news for AMD, as they don't have to be completely on par with Intel to do a good job. I would say if they get the performance gap in gaming down to 2-3% it will be perfectly fine for normal enthusiasts, but if it's in the range of 8-10%, then combining these CPUs with an expensive GPU will quickly be a waste of money.

One quick note on core count. When Zen 2 arrives, I expect we get another wave of "but this have more cores, so it must be better (in the long run)". For synchronous workloads like gaming, more cores will not compensate for slower cores, and that's not going to change anytime soon.


----------



## nemesis.ie (Mar 28, 2019)

Improvements in RAM speed (and maybe latency is also better) may also help, again with diminishing returns, of course.


----------



## David Fallaha (May 7, 2019)

Memory timings and latency on both Ryzen and Skylake X have massive massive real life effects, esp if you can get your timings very tight

Do a little Google searching, you’ll find it’s up to 20-30% in some games, esp min FPS 



Manoa said:


> yhe, it does sounds like they again trying to "fix" a latency problem with speed, but the true is I have DDR3 and it gives me 20-25 giga speed and nothing is remotely limited by speed and I have only a dual channel, people with 4 channels show that it gived them nothing (outside bechmarks), what good will 100 giga do if nothing is limited by speed anyway? but math checks out: more cores, if they all working could probably use more speed from memory but this is only good for the programs that do large data sets on many cores at the same time, games on the other hand don't :x it is whay core 2 duo was mutch faster per clock for games: fast access to large L2 cache (6 mega in 15 clocks) and even to this day nothing beats it at that (haswell, which is pretty much the same cores intel using today with latest generations (only with DDR4 controller) has 30 clocks penalty for access to his 8 mega cache, so to compensate for this very high latency, intel added a 256K dedicated cache (which is 12 clocks) in the hope that it will help (it probably does, for smaller data sets of corse).
> 
> if the IF still has big latency, this are a processors that are going to be good for heavy duty things with large data sets, you will can play games on them but probably not as high performance as intel (round 2 of low 1080p performance on zen).
> 
> ...


----------



## LED (May 20, 2019)

HwGeek said:


> https://wccftech.com/asus-x570-motherboards-next-gen-amd-ryzen-3000-cpus-leak-out/
> I think that now MB's Vendor's know the potential in AM4 boards and they will make even more models with great futures.
> *P.S- why no single Gigabyte board got the new Bios?*











						GIGABYTE Announces BIOS Updates For Next Gen. AMD Ryzen CPUs | News - GIGABYTE Global
					

Taipei, Taiwan, May 17th, 2019 – GIGABYTE TECHNOLOGY Co. Ltd, a leading manufacturer of motherboards and graphics cards, has released BIOS updates for...




					www.gigabyte.com
				












						Gigabyte's Latest BIOS For Existing X470 and B450 Motherboards Enables PCIe 4.0 Support When Running AMD's Ryzen 3000 CPUs
					

Gigabyte's existing motherboards have opened support for PCIe Gen 4 with the latest BIOS when paired with AMD Ryzen 3000 CPUs.




					wccftech.com


----------



## nemesis.ie (May 20, 2019)

IMO they might be wise to wait until it gets a bit more testing, the 0.0.7.2 for my Taichi Ultimate is an utter disaster.

I see 1.0.0.1 or 2 appearing on other boards, so I think folks should wait for that one at least.


----------

