Nothing but another made up story from wttftech.

wttftech"Oh, AMD announced to Host Financial Analyst Day on May 16, 2017. Let's just say we have some insider information about it. This would break the internet. Suckers will buy it as they did it before. They always forget we disseminate junk."

Source

its a meeting how to keep consumers high on the hype train so their stock doenst drop below a dollar again.

No, it isn't a meeting aimed at consumers and probably it won't have the "language" adequate for consumers. The name should be very obvious - Financial Analyst Day.

It's a meeting with investors & financial analysts where AMD updates the roadmap, as they have done previously, with technical details at a minimum and no bling bling for consumers.

DeathtoGnomesits a meeting how to keep consumers high on the hype train so their stock doenst drop below a dollar again.

I concur with you. Why talk about Ryzen2 when you haven't fixed your Ryzen1 issues yet? Ryzen1 blows for gaming specifically because of the huge CCX-to-CCX latency in all current Ryzen CPUs. There is no way they can fix this problem, and they'll never gonna fix it. Optimizing for it is a lot of work and it's not worth it at this point.
Modern game workloads are made up of thousands of simultaneous interdependent threads that share data and migrate across CPU cores all the time. Having a cross CCX latency that is 3 times as high as Ryzen/Kaby Lake core-to-core latency is just extremely inefficient for this type of workloads.

Why the hell did they release 2-CCX CPUs? Why release 8 and 6 core CPUs for a market that doesn't need more than 4-core CPUs? 99.9% of games are console ports. Those games are made to run on crappy 8-cores Jaguar CPUs.
They could've release higher clocked single CCX quad cores that would have performed roughly as well as Kaby Lake quads in both gaming and general workloads.

They shot themselves in the foot and now they're back hyping again. What a sleazy company full of sleazy people and unqualified retards (Kadouri).

How do you report trolls in these forums?

LE: Found it.

T1beriuHow do you report trolls in these forums?

LE: Found it.

I don't take anything seriously when it comes from 117 year olds :D

G33k2Fr34kI concur with you. Why talk about Ryzen2 when you haven't fixed your Ryzen1 issues yet? Ryzen1 blows for gaming .........

Sounds of man walking into old wild west saloon and piano stops playing... only the sounds of the creaky doors swinging on uninformed hinges.

My PC most vehemently disagrees with you. A 1080ti with a Ryzen at 3.9Ghz is so smooth it makes me giggle.

HTCSuggest you try using a Ryzen in several games: then you'll be able to have an informed opinion about this. Right now, you're trashing Ryzen without having tried it out yet.

Do you know someone who has one? If so, try having that person let you play with it for a while so you can experience it for yourself. After, if you still feel the same way, then you can trash Ryzen all you want.

As for the topic @ hand, i'm concerned that nVidia seems to have caught AMD with it's pants down because their Ti and Xp performs better then AMD thought it would, which would cause the Fury problems to repeat themselves: increase core / boost clocks in order to compete @ the expense of thermals and overclocking headroom.

You don't need to try it out to know how it performs. Anyhow, let's hope they release a single CCX high clocked quad core this year, which they could've done last year. That's right! AMD could've released a quad core Ryzen last year. The only reason it took 'em another year to release Ryzen is because they opted to fabricate a 2-CCX chip and their interconnect technology wasn't ready at the time.

So in short, AMD could've had a 3.8GHZ to 4.0GHz base frequency 4-core CPU for many months now that would've been roughly 15% to 20% faster than the R5 1500X (pretty close to the 7700K) in non-gaming workloads, and as fast as Kaby Lake in games, in addition to being a good overclocker.

G33k2Fr34kYou don't need to try it out to know how it performs. Anyhow, let's hope they release a single CCX high clocked quad core this year, which they could've done last year. That's right! AMD could've released a quad core Ryzen last year. The only reason it took 'em another year to release Ryzen is because they opted to fabricate a 2-CCX chip and their interconnect technology wasn't ready at the time.

So in short, AMD could've had a 3.8GHZ to 4.0GHz base frequency quad core CPU now that would've been roughly 15% to 20% faster than the 1500X (pretty close to the 7700K) in non-gaming workloads, and as fast as Kaby Lake in games, in addition to being a good overclocker.

I suggest you send your CV to AMD as you seem to know better. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

I have issued a warning. I would also, like to let everyone know not to tell other members their IQ is low due to buying anything. Carry on, but let's be civil and remember if you can't get your point across without an insult then move on.

the54thvoidSounds of man walking into old wild west saloon and piano stops playing... only the sounds of the creaky doors swinging on uninformed hinges.

My PC most vehemently disagrees with you. A 1080ti with a Ryzen at 3.9Ghz is so smooth it makes me giggle.

but as it was "told to me", its "unstable"

the too-long-awaited Vega

That's an understatement. I've been sitting on a 1440p, 144hz, freesync monitor for *TWO YEARS* waiting on a single AMD gpu to push it.

I wonder if anyone else in the same boat felt like AMD was taunting us with the 580....

DeathtoGnomesits a meeting how to keep consumers high on the hype train so their stock doenst drop below a dollar again.

Yeah, every review of Ryzen and AMD's recent financial results disagree with you. You'd have to a massive fanboy not to say that Ryzen isn't doing well.

TBH AMD seem to have shot themselves in the foot with Ryzen just the same way they did with PD/BD... They decided to go for some stupid non-standard architecture in hopes of getting better artificial performance in certain regards and then dropping the ball when it comes to actual practical performance. Just like with FX, AMD are getting sales, but intel undeniably (apart from the [insert expletives here] IHS/TIM issues) have a better engineered chip. Several of my friends just skipped ryzen all together when it launched, instead going for the Pentium G4560 which is way cheaper, and when you have NVenc and VCE available to you for live encoding, is really no worse in actual gaming workloads whether streaming or not.

When you look at a lot of the reviews, they clearly agree with the above statements regarding CCX-CCX latencies and even a very general engineering approach to the system in question would quite clearly hint that the design is inherently flawed for the realistic workloads. The optimisation for it is basically going to be isolating interdependent threads to one CCX, but in that case why would anyone who is not going to spam CPU based rendering tasks on their system ever consider getting more than a single CCX quad core... And heaven forbid AMD decide to make the quads 2-CCX...

I would very much have liked to get an all AMD rig in the next year or so, but the chances of it happening are beginning to look more and more slim, especially with how disappointing the OGL performance of AMDs cards has been. On top of all the patchiness in AMDs approach to the memory compatibility on Ryzen. I really just want a computer that works, and so far neither intel or nvidia have let me down in this regard, but I have doubts as to whether AMD would hold up to my expectations.

GorbazTheDragonTBH AMD seem to have shot themselves in the foot with Ryzen just the same way they did with PD/BD... They decided to go for some stupid non-standard architecture in hopes of getting better artificial performance in certain regards and then dropping the ball when it comes to actual practical performance. Just like with FX, AMD are getting sales, but intel undeniably (apart from the [insert expletives here] IHS/TIM issues) have a better engineered chip. Several of my friends just skipped ryzen all together when it launched, instead going for the Pentium G4560 which is way cheaper, and when you have NVenc and VCE available to you for live encoding, is really no worse in actual gaming workloads whether streaming or not.

When you look at a lot of the reviews, they clearly agree with the above statements regarding CCX-CCX latencies and even a very general engineering approach to the system in question would quite clearly hint that the design is inherently flawed for the realistic workloads. The optimisation for it is basically going to be isolating interdependent threads to one CCX, but in that case why would anyone who is not going to spam CPU based rendering tasks on their system ever consider getting more than a single CCX quad core... And heaven forbid AMD decide to make the quads 2-CCX...

I would very much have liked to get an all AMD rig in the next year or so, but the chances of it happening are beginning to look more and more slim, especially with how disappointing the OGL performance of AMDs cards has been. On top of all the patchiness in AMDs approach to the memory compatibility on Ryzen. I really just want a computer that works, and so far neither intel or nvidia have let me down in this regard, but I have doubts as to whether AMD would hold up to my expectations.

My sentiments exactly. Take a look at ARSTehcnica's review of Ryzen R5 CPUs. The charts include results for the 7700K and R5 1500X both at 3.5GHz. In general tests, the 1500X gets dangerously close to the 7700K at 3.5GHz, beating it in a some tests. In games, on the other hand, the 1500X does very poorly compared to the 3.5GHz 7700K.
This just shows how bad Ryzen is for game workloads and how good it could've been had AMD released a single CCX quad core and clocked it competitively.

here's the link:
arstechnica.com/gadgets/2017/05/amd-ryzen-5-review-1600x/2/

GorbazTheDragonThey decided to go for some stupid non-standard architecture

They sold all their fabs, they will never win the Ghz battles ever again. It's all they can do now. Or hope that somebody else can beat Intel in fab.

BasardThey sold all their fabs, they will never win the Ghz battles ever again. It's all they can do now. Or hope that somebody else can beat Intel in fab.

It has nothing to do with the fabs...

The architecture itself seems to be, just like with the CMT archs, inherently flawed for basically all practical usage scenarios, at least as far as gaming is concerned.