Monday, March 27th 2017
AMD Ryzen 12-Core, 24-Thread CPU Surges on SiSoftware Sandra
In an interesting report that would give some credence to reports of AMD's take on the HEDT market, it would seem that some Ryzen chips with 12 Cores and 24 Threads are making the rounds. Having an entire platform built for a single processor would have always beenludicrous; now, AMD seems to be readying a true competitor to Intel's X99 and its supposed successor, X299 (though AMD does have an advantage in naming, if its upcoming X399 platform really does ship with that naming scheme.)
The CPU itself is an engineering sample, coded 2D2701A9UC9F4_32/27_N. Videocardz did a pretty god job on explaining what the nomenclature means, but for now, we do know this sample seems to be running at 2.7 GHz Base, and 3.2 GHz Boost clocks (not too shabby for a 12-core part, but a little on the anemic side when compared to previous reports on a 16-Core chip from AMD that would run at 3.1 GHz Base and 3.6 GHz Boost clocks.) What seems strange is the program's report on the available cache. 8x 8 MB is more than double what we would be expecting, considering that these 12-core parts probably make use of a die with 3 CCX's with 4x cores each, which feature 8 MB per CCX. So, 3 CCX's = 3x 8 MB, not 8x 8 MB, but this can probably be attributed to a software bug, considering the engineering-sample status of the chip.
Source:
Videocardz
72 Comments on AMD Ryzen 12-Core, 24-Thread CPU Surges on SiSoftware Sandra
This "We must upgrade because it's there!" mentality is needless and wasteful. Upgrade when you need/want to do something your current setup can't do.
usually statements made by people with no understanding of the situation technology is in.
Enthusiasts were questioning why only 4Gb or Ram, when it should/ could have had moar.
i guess you didn't look at my specs, either.
What i said essentially is an i7 7700k looses most if not all of its lead at 4K ,soon all.
But the i7 is the best 1080p gaming CPU.
Your problem with an 8350 is that you're throwing the equivilant of an i3 at 4k games because the cores are suffocating while attempting to share workloads through bottlenecked pipelines. When you throw big boy monolithic cores at games they don't show significant improvement beyond 4 cores, even at 4k.
Also, you all keep making it sound like the only thing 64-bit x86 extensions did was extend memory space but, people are forgetting that it also calls for additional CPU registers beyond what x86 alone calls for. There are cases where using 64-bit can get you more performance and it's mainly due to those extra CPU registers.
think different software devs will have too because for 10x the compute density pure frenquency cant be used so both teams on x86 and everyone on everything else is going multi core.
ive over 168 processes running right now as default for me, if i added a game, even giving it priority,, other stuff still needs to be done and would be done.
(additionally, I am someone who does like 7 things at once. 30 tabs in chrome/opera, ripping 3 movies, moving files, 6 other programs and windows open at once. and playing a game or something...still don't need more than 4 cores yet. There are times i wish i had more but the overall hit to productivity would blow.)
Don't really care what you say i only have like 10 programs that are multi threaded i use regularly and its not worth loosing 20% single thread. Web browsing, Teracopy, 90-99% of all my games (all the games i regularly play are single), OS, Explorer, photos, PDF, Office, Any downloaded program that is written by an independent coder...basically everything is single thread. I won't bother making my desktop more than 4 cores until I get a 8 or 12 core thats within 90% single thread. It'll cost me way to much time. Again go read IBMs stupid on rapid response times. Loosing single thread murders snappiness of your system. I get far more stuff done on my desktop vs my 4.4Ghz 1560v3 Xeon.
Almost all day to day stuff is single thread dependent...thats a fact.
Go read this.
jlelliotton.blogspot.com/p/the-economic-value-of-rapid-response.html
I'm looking at the future you and this debate are in my past as is dual cores.
If this guy wants to spend $1000 for 500 mhz he MAY get (remember the chip was tested at 5.2...doesn't mean that it will hit 5.7 with tolerable voltages...which 1.55 isn't already...) he can. We did our part.
Now, let's take this off topic silliness elsewhere (anyone bet the dude will respond???). :)
Lets get the facts right, people. It's actually cheaper than many high end water loop prices.
You are going to want something in the ballpark of this... www.ldcooling.com/shop/ld-pc-v2-115v-usa/88-ld-pc-v2-115v-usa-phase-change.html
Apologies if this is continuing off topic, saw that post was left so...answered it. :)
It's inevitable cooling doesn't help that much and down clocking or death comes earlier.
chilly1 units used to run ~$500 way back in the day, the tech to machine the block is now far more accessible and could easily be done for this price by hand.
I certainly like my cores to be as fast as possible but also certainly as many as possible.
Having said this, I just want to point out that having 4 cores does not always mean 3 cores being idle, quite the opposite so if one like to do 10 things at once as you say, have a 10 core would benefit running single core code even for you. This means for me that i don't need to shut things down when gaming because they can run in each and every core that are free while the game runs at the other cores being available. I certainly need all 8 cores, I will never ever go back, even rather having 16. If we are talking about ryzen cores, they are not slow ones.
Just my 2 cents