AMD Ryzen 12-Core, 24-Thread CPU Surges on SiSoftware Sandra

[alucasa]

On desktop, it's bare minimum.

Server side though? People still run on 256mb ram with stripped down unix on the cheap.

 

[lexluthermiester]

4gb ram and 32bit cpu I highly doubt that this is even usable for anyone these days.

You would be very incorrect. Most mobile devices are still 32bit and run perfectly well. The only real tangible advantage to going 64bit is the RAM factor for getting passed 4GB without some form of PAE. Running software in 32bit mode is, in most cases, more efficient than running 64bit. Anytime power envelopes are a constraint it is better to run 32bit. Phones, tablets, servers all run better this way. And the interesting thing about servers is that it is often more efficient to run 32bit with PAE enabled to reach passed 4GB of RAM than to run 64bit. It depends on the conditions of the operation needs. There is nothing wrong or inferior with running 32bit software.

 

[idx]

You would be very incorrect. Most mobile devices are still 32bit and run perfectly well. The only real tangible advantage to going 64bit is the RAM factor for getting passed 4GB without some form of PAE. Running software in 32bit mode is, in most cases, more efficient than running 64bit. Anytime power envelopes are a constraint it is better to run 32bit. Phones, tablets, servers all run better this way. And the interesting thing about servers is that it is often more efficient to run 32bit with PAE enabled to reach passed 4GB of RAM than to run 64bit. It depends on the conditions of the operation needs. There is nothing wrong or inferior with running 32bit software.

I'm talking about desktops ( you really want a 32bit/4gb ram pc in 2017? ). And I'm aware that some mobile phones and some servers are still 32bit, however since ARM V8 (2014) almost all the newly released high-end phones (or the ones that uses the newer ARM chips) are all 64bit.

 

[alucasa]

32bit and 4gb are the default setup in middle Asia.

 

[lexluthermiester]

I'm talking about desktops ( you really want a 32bit/4gb ram pc in 2017? ).

Why not? For a ton of people that suits their needs perfectly. The only market that wants/needs 64bit are gamers and power users. No one else really NEEDS it. I have a PC that came with a 32bit version of Windows and 3GB of RAM. It does everything asked of it and very well. Why use 64bit when it's not needed?

And I'm aware that some mobile phones and some servers are still 32bit, however since ARM V8 (2014) almost all the newly released high-end phones (or the ones that uses the newer ARM chips) are all 64bit.

Also very incorrect. Most non-Apple ARM CPU's being made today are still 32bit. That is changing, but it's not a necessity, so the change is happening slowly.

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.

 

[Dippyskoodlez]

can an iphone play crisis, no

And for the likes of me gaming at 4k that statement is total shit(go read up) , the 7700k is without doubt the best pure gaming cpu IF your at 1080p and by and large only play dx11 era games , welcome to the future yo,
the futures full of cores and im sorry mate, but theres feck all you dual and quad core loving crazy people can do about it, well you could get into retro gaming from here on in.

so an intel and apple fanboy , wow who knew they existed.

oh and amd know about raw clocks , my old cpu can still game at 5ghz (im sure ryzen(2,3) will get there)
and they certaintly have an eye on that IPC crown to put in the cupboard with the pawned on efficiency cup and the innovation cup as well as the price performance cup

don't pretend 4k needs a fancy cpu, my 5820k is lucky to peak 50% ever.

What is it that hurts you when someone want more than 4 cores ? I just dont get it.





I also still recall intel saying "consumer DO NOT need more than 4GB ram, 32bit systems are here to stay...". That was when AMD started pushing for 64bit instructions ( right now it is in every single intel x64 CPU btw).

and i remember a lot of amd fanbois and amd propaganda saying you don't need more than 4gb vram when the fury came out.

usually statements made by people with no understanding of the situation technology is in.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

don't pretend 4k needs a fancy cpu, my 5820k is lucky to peak 50% ever.



and i remember a lot of amd fanbois and amd propaganda saying you don't need more than 4gb vram when the fury came out.

usually statements made by people with no understanding of the situation technology is in.

Don't miss quote me i game at 4k ,i know. But my reply was relative to the 1080p gaming situation and it's irrelevance to the likes of me , I'm off to play gtaV an old dx11 era game that does like cores

 

[Caring1]

and i remember a lot of amd fanbois and amd propaganda saying you don't need more than 4gb vram when the fury came out.
usually statements made by people with no understanding of the situation technology is in.

That's not how I remember it.
Enthusiasts were questioning why only 4Gb or Ram, when it should/ could have had moar.

 

[Dippyskoodlez]

Don't miss quote me i game at 4k ,i know. But my reply was relative to the 1080p gaming situation and it's irrelevance to the likes of me , I'm off to play gtaV an old dx11 era game that does like cores

im curious how i misquote a literal copy paste quote.

i guess you didn't look at my specs, either.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

im curious how i misquote a literal copy paste quote.

i guess you didn't look at my specs, either.

Then re read the post you comment on when did i say all or any games need more CPU ,they could and some do.
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.

 

[Dippyskoodlez]

Then re read the post you comment on when did i say all or any games need more CPU ,they could and some do.
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.

I've found Mhz is actually going to be generally superior in almost every single game I play regularly. I'm hurting for speed, not bonus cores.

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.

 

[Aquinus]

Why not? For a ton of people that suits their needs perfectly. The only market that wants/needs 64bit are gamers and power users. No one else really NEEDS it. I have a PC that came with a 32bit version of Windows and 3GB of RAM. It does everything asked of it and very well. Why use 64bit when it's not needed?

I work with people who mainly deal with using a browser, Slack, and MS Office and you would be surprised at how many people with even 8GB are now starting to run out of memory. When I left my last job, everyone with 4GB machines was starting to complain about performance because they were at least 1GB deep into swap. When I dev on my laptop, I use anywhere between 8 and 12GB of ram and the majority of that is Chrome. Now, I'm a power user but, if I'm constantly using north of 8GB on my 16GB laptop and regular users are occasionally hitting swap with 8GB is definitely a sign that not a single person where I work could tolerate 4GB with what they do.

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.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

so im sat here chilling and i see this all software is single threaded chant yet again about Us kids, consider this , all software is written to use library's and extensions etc and these and in general all software is single op and processor utilising , all software Has been written upto a few years ago to leverage few cores because thats what we had.
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.

 

[HopelesslyFaithful]

so im sat here chilling and i see this all software is single threaded chant yet again about Us kids, consider this , all software is written to use library's and extensions etc and these and in general all software is single op and processor utilising , all software Has been written upto a few years ago to leverage few cores because thats what we had.
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.

The only time I max my 4 core is AV/AM since they finally threaded that crap and it isn't 100% maxed either just sporadically.

(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.
http://jlelliotton.blogspot.com/p/the-economic-value-of-rapid-response.html

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

Make me, i agreed that most things are single threaded now sooioo.
I'm looking at the future you and this debate are in my past as is dual cores.

 

[EarthDog]

Leads horse to water.... doesn't care if he drinks it.

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???).

 

[Dippyskoodlez]

Leads horse to water.... doesn't care if he drinks it.

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???).

Single phase is at most $500 even if you buy the tools to build it yourself.(source: i did this just out of HS)


Lets get the facts right, people. It's actually cheaper than many high end water loop prices.

 

[Tatty_Two]

OK, having deleted almost a page worth of off topic bickering (some posts were just deleted because of quotes), lets get back on topic, no more off topic discussions/ego trips/insults/baiting etc, any more and you will be gone from this thread....... thank you.

 

[EarthDog]

Single phase is at most $500 even if you buy the tools to build it yourself.(source: i did this just out of HS)


Lets get the facts right, people. It's actually cheaper than many high end water loop prices.

the person linked paid $1000 bud. I doubt a $500 unit would work (as well). Both amd cpus and intel cpus at that clockspeed put out some serious heat.

You are going to want something in the ballpark of this... http://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.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

the person linked paid $1000 bud. I doubt a $500 unit would work (as well). Both amd cpus and intel cpus at that clockspeed put out some serious heat.

You are going to want something in the ballpark of this... http://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.

I've electron migrated deathed a few CPUs over time high clocks kill quicker.
It's inevitable cooling doesn't help that much and down clocking or death comes earlier.

 

[Dippyskoodlez]

the person linked paid $1000 bud. I doubt a $500 unit would work (as well). Both amd cpus and intel cpus at that clockspeed put out some serious heat.

You are going to want something in the ballpark of this... http://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.

premades are essentially nonexistent at this point in time and getting the proper performance requires a technicians touch as the device must be tuned for your heatload or you will destroy the compressor.

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.

 

[midnite]

The only time I max my 4 core is AV/AM since they finally threaded that crap and it isn't 100% maxed either just sporadically.

(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.
http://jlelliotton.blogspot.com/p/the-economic-value-of-rapid-response.html

If I am to have only 4 cores, i rather have 4 quick ones than 4 slow ones. The thing is, the ryzen 8 cores are not slow and I easily choose to have 8 fast cores compared to 4 slightly faster.
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

 

[noel_fs]

You know this as a matter of fact, or are you just making assumptions? If each core complex is four cores, wouldn't it make more sense to use three CCX's with four cores each, going by your logic?

Its not like that, when they make a cpu some cores simply doesnt work or have a poorly performance so they just disable the core, make it symmetric disabling other spoilt cores and you are good to go, and recycling cpus that shouldnt go to trash. Btw Intel does it aswell.