AMD Talks Improved Ryzen Memory Support, Ryzen 3, and Game Optimization

[evernessince]

if you are on a budget with light gaming or no gaming i3 7100 in the same price is much better bargain ,it has higher single core performance and has a gpu , office and other apps will run faster .

Um, Ryzen runs office and pretty much any other app better. Single core performance doesn't mean much when Ryzen has more cores, more cache, and a better platform. Not to mention you can overclock any Ryzen processor out of the box.

you really twist things up , in order for an amd's r3 to reach the same clock as intel's i3 you will need to overclock it using a b350 motherboard and ending up paying more and ending up with 10% lower performance for single core. b350 motherboards cost more than an intel's h110 mobo

Intel doesn't have a 10% single thread gain over Ryzen. The number you are using is *maybe if you take the launch numbers and don't excluding outlying games that had poor performance that have already been fixed like ashes of the singularity. In reality it's more like 5% in games. This doesn't take into account that Ryzen beats Intel in many single threaded office and productivity apps because it has vastly more cache. FYI getting a 20% overclock on nearly any Ryzen processor is easy and that's free performance. The included cooler is good enough to handle it. Sure, the B350 motherboards cost a bit more but you are getting much more features. Let's be honest, Intel's H110 chipset sucks and is VERY limited. It is intended for barebones systems and you'd be lucky to find a decent power delivery system on them. Don't expect to run any decent GPU on them either, I've tried to run GPUs that draw power from the PCIe slot on multiple and they all eventually had issues under stress that weren't present on higher end boards.

If you are on a tight budget and only want to light game I wouldn't recommend you buy an i3, I'd say go buy any used PC. It isn't worth it to overpay for Intel's latest that does zero for you only to be locked into a platform with no upgrade path and low performance. If you absolutely had to the G4560 is a FAR better choice than any current i3 as you get similar performance for half the price. Of course it's likely that AMD will have an answer either with it's R3 lineup or it's new APUs featuring Radeon graphics, which are far better than intel's.

 

[mnemo_05]

what year is it? people still use dual-cores? damn! smart phone and other devices run multi-core and someone is fighting for a dual-core for office use? LMAO

I hope AMD really improve this line-up and stick with the AM4 for a few years unlike intel's strategy which new procs must be used with new boards to get the most of the mediocre improvement.

 

[notb]

Um, Ryzen runs office and pretty much any other app better.

Not true for virtually any job that can't utilize more than 4 threads, e.g. many tasks in Photoshop.
Remember this is not an artificial limit or a result of programmers being lazy. They've already worked hard to utilize 2-3 cores in processes that are basically single-threaded.

As for Office, Excel is the only relevant applications here (with long and heavy enough jobs to make a difference). As I've said earlier: it's about the proportions of VBA and native calculations in a file.

Single core performance doesn't mean much when Ryzen has more cores, more cache, and a better platform. Not to mention you can overclock any Ryzen processor out of the box.

Single-core performance means exactly what the name says. It's always be very important.
At this point Ryzen is a way more modern architecture, so it's close on single-thread front. We'll see what happens when Intel launches new architecture and new process node.

 

[kruk]

Not true for virtually any job that can't utilize more than 4 threads.

You are making it look like people run a single program at a time on their PCs. Well, they don't, welcome to 2017. You might have a mail client, antivirus, firewall, browser, music player, torrent, etc. opened along your desired program and they will all do things at the same time. Your dual core Pentium will suffer and quadcore Ryzen 3 will suffer less, making it a much better option for everyday use even if the total platform costs slightly more.

 

[meirb111]

Intel doesn't have a 10% single thread gain over Ryzen. The number you are using is *maybe if you take the launch numbers and don't excluding outlying games that had poor performance that have already been fixed like ashes of the singularity. In reality it's more like 5% in games. This doesn't take into account that Ryzen beats Intel in many single threaded office and productivity apps because it has vastly more cache. FYI getting a 20% overclock on nearly any Ryzen processor is easy and that's free performance. The included cooler is good enough to handle it. Sure, the B350 motherboards cost a bit more but you are getting much more features. Let's be honest, Intel's H110 chipset sucks and is VERY limited. It is intended for barebones systems and you'd be lucky to find a decent power delivery system on them. Don't expect to run any decent GPU on them either, I've tried to run GPUs that draw power from the PCIe slot on multiple and they all eventually had issues under stress that weren't present on higher end boards.

If you are on a tight budget and only want to light game I wouldn't recommend you buy an i3, I'd say go buy any used PC. It isn't worth it to overpay for Intel's latest that does zero for you only to be locked into a platform with no upgrade path and low performance. If you absolutely had to the G4560 is a FAR better choice than any current i3 as you get similar performance for half the price. Of course it's likely that AMD will have an answer either with it's R3 lineup or it's new APUs featuring Radeon graphics, which are far better than intel's.

really easy 20% on ryzen ? if your base clock is 3.5GHz so 20% is to reach 4.2GHz ,most ryzen cpu can't go higher than 4GHz ,how is that easy?
games are not the way to test true power of a cpu. single core is very important for most users the workload is 25% when you have 4 cores. i have a lot of web pages with scripts that overload the cpu to 25% (1 core full workload) and makes everything slow.

 

[notb]

You are making it look like people run a single program at a time on their PCs. Well, they don't, welcome to 2017. You might have a mail client, antivirus, firewall, browser, music player, torrent, etc. opened along your desired program and they will all do things at the same time. Your dual core Pentium will suffer and quadcore Ryzen 3 will suffer less, making it a much better option for everyday use even if the total platform costs slightly more.

I don't see how 2017 differs from 2007 in this regard. I had basically the same stuff running 10 years ago (maybe sans Steam).
At the moment I'm on a PC with 7-year-old CPU (fairly weak even by 2010 standards, a Pentium E5400 - 2 cores). Everything I need is running: 3 cloud storage apps, firefox, excel, music player, steam, antivir, ccleaner and possibly a dozen more. CPU load? 7-10%.

 

[efikkan]

Um, Ryzen runs office and pretty much any other app better. Single core performance doesn't mean much when Ryzen has more cores, more cache, and a better platform. Not to mention you can overclock any Ryzen processor out of the box.

No, even Intel's quad cores beat Ryzen 7 1800X in workloads like office applications, photoshop, web browsing and more.

Overclocking is a silly argument, when the alternatives overclock much better.

Intel doesn't have a 10% single thread gain over Ryzen. The number you are using is *maybe if you take the launch numbers and don't excluding outlying games that had poor performance that have already been fixed like ashes of the singularity. In reality it's more like 5% in games…

Actually, in reality Intel have >20% better performance per core. But in theory Ryzen have more ALUs, it's a "better" superscalar and should have much more throughput than Intel. With the right mix of integer and float it should achieve >33% more throughput. But Intel have a much better prefetcher, and better AVX support (which helps some applications). Ryzen is simply not able to feed it's execution ports well enough.

Rendering in games typically iterates a long list of objects, invoking a number of functions on each one. This causes cache misses, which stalls the CPU. Overclocking the CPU or using faster memory doesn't help, since the penalty is a time constant. The only way to improve this is to reduce the cache misses, and a better prefetcher makes a difference.

As always, real world performance matters, not theoretical figures. An i7-6800K beats Ryzen 7 1800X in most use cases, even though it only have six cores. Better cores is always better than more cores.

 

[Grings]

So this reassures that current early adopters are sort of Beta Testers?

"AMD confirmed that its AGESA update for May improves DDR4 memory compatibility, although it also stressed on the need for motherboard manufacturers to improve their board designs in the future, with more PCB layers and better copper traces between the DIMM slots and the SoC socket."

4 layer pcb's struggle getting ddr4 over 3000ish speeds reliably, they (mobo mfr's) knew this from Skylake boards

 

[Caring1]

4 layer pcb's struggle getting ddr4 over 3000ish speeds reliably, they (mobo mfr's) knew this from Skylake boards

I believe Asrock has 8 layers.

 

[Ramin Rostami]

now ryzen support gskill 4300 mhz ram

self ryzen calculated for 6500 mhz ram and 5 , 1080 graphic card !!!!!
they put limit on motherboard for ram above 2400 mhz = high latency and price

 

[Imsochobo]

i don't want a G4560 (no avx2 for x265 encoding) but for office usage that a winner for now. amd didn't messed the entire intel lineup ,they left the lower segment to be ruled by intel the G4560 is the smartest move intel made.adding Hyper-threading in the same price is step forward for lower segment.

our users complain about I5's for office use....
we buy I7 laptops exclusively (quadcore HT low clock and or quadcore no HT)
I5 desktops...

users using excel, web browsing and meetings still complain that they're slow for office use... I think the time is right..

 

[notb]

our users complain about I5's for office use....
we buy I7 laptops exclusively (quadcore HT low clock and or quadcore no HT)
I5 desktops...

users using excel, web browsing and meetings still complain that they're slow for office use... I think the time is right..

Laptops feel slow because of poor single-thread, not the small number of threads. This is exactly the reason why AMD basically vanished from office desktops.

As for laptops, most Intel-based models use the -U series of CPUs, which are all 2C/4T (from i3 to i7) - just the clocks differ. So the i7-7600U (2,8GHz -> 3,9GHz turbo) is pretty brisk, but the i3-7100U (2,4 GHz, no turbo) isn't.

The -H models have 4 cores (with or without HT), but they're designed for gaming/workstation laptops that are meant to challenge desktop performance.

 

[r9]

Laptops feel slow because of poor single-thread, not the small number of threads. This is exactly the reason why AMD basically vanished from office desktops.

As for laptops, most Intel-based models use the -U series of CPUs, which are all 2C/4T (from i3 to i7) - just the clocks differ. So the i7-7600U (2,8GHz -> 3,9GHz turbo) is pretty brisk, but the i3-7100U (2,4 GHz, no turbo) isn't.

The -H models have 4 cores (with or without HT), but they're designed for gaming/workstation laptops that are meant to challenge desktop performance.

Laptops feel slower because they are.
Heat dissipation and battery life dictate how much speed you can pack.
Corporate laptops are different story with all the security like drive encryption, heavy AV, web filters firewalls and other stuff that provable makes more of a difference that having a i5 or i7.

 

[medi01]

It's 2017, dual core CPUs are... uh...
AMD has about 4-7% smaller single thread IPC than Kaby Lake.
However, we should not forget that in multi threaded scenarios it achieves higher IPC (perhaps due to the way its cache works).

Now, if someone doesn't run anything that pushes PC to its limits, it doesn't matter. But if not, I want to see those "single threaded apps" he/she runs. If it is notepad, ok, my Z80 would still be ok for you, and if it is Excel, let me surprise you:
https://fastexcel.wordpress.com/201...tion-speed-by-changing-the-number-of-threads/


Ryzen has another hidden bonus: socket is there to stay until 2020, so upgrading to a superior CPU later on is an option, unlike with Intel.

 

[notb]

Laptops feel slower because they are.
Heat dissipation and battery life dictate how much speed you can pack.
Corporate laptops are different story with all the security like drive encryption, heavy AV, web filters firewalls and other stuff that provable makes more of a difference that having a i5 or i7.

Yet, i7-7500U and 7600U are common in high-end mobile machines and are clearly good enough for tasks that these laptops are designed for.

For me, the main issue here is that computers are full of software garbage. Gamers run so much pointless stuff (like the huge, blinking apps for OC or GPU optimization), I'm not surprised they need 4 cores to do anything.

It's 2017, dual core CPUs are... uh...

I'm really looking forward to your comment when AMD releases 2C Ryzen.

Ryzen has another hidden bonus: socket is there to stay until 2020, so upgrading to a superior CPU later on is an option, unlike with Intel.

AMD has told us multiple times that AM4 will be supported for N years (N varies over time...).
AFAIK they've never said that it'll be the main socket or that i'll offer full compatibility. Or did they? Can you link something useful?

Also, just the fact that you'll still be able to run a 2020 Ryzen on your motherboard doesn't mean you'll want to do that.
Since Ryzen is a SoC, it'll age faster than Intel CPUs (only feature-wise, because it has a safe margin of performance).

 

[r9]

I'm reading about %80 yields.
Looks like selling anything below R7 is a waste, disabling working cores just to cover the market.
I wish they made separate silicon for the quad cores.
Provable we would get higher clock lower consumption and cheaper to make processor.

 

[Slizzo]

It's 2017, dual core CPUs are... uh...
AMD has about 4-7% smaller single thread IPC than Kaby Lake.
However, we should not forget that in multi threaded scenarios it achieves higher IPC (perhaps due to the way its cache works).

Now, if someone doesn't run anything that pushes PC to its limits, it doesn't matter. But if not, I want to see those "single threaded apps" he/she runs. If it is notepad, ok, my Z80 would still be ok for you, and if it is Excel, let me surprise you:
https://fastexcel.wordpress.com/201...tion-speed-by-changing-the-number-of-threads/


Ryzen has another hidden bonus: socket is there to stay until 2020, so upgrading to a superior CPU later on is an option, unlike with Intel.

Just here to say the following:

Just because the socket stays around, doesn't necessarily mean that the chipsets will support all the same processors. This is only a cost savings measure (you can rely on sockets, and therefore, connections from socket to other chips and ports on the motherboard to remain the same).

Re: Socket 775, 2011 (yeah, two versions, but same pin-out).

 

[bencrutz]

Just here to say the following:

Just because the socket stays around, doesn't necessarily mean that the chipsets will support all the same processors. This is only a cost savings measure (you can rely on sockets, and therefore, connections from socket to other chips and ports on the motherboard to remain the same).

Re: Socket 775, 2011 (yeah, two versions, but same pin-out).

though you should aslo note that ryzen is more of SoC, completely different from 775 processors

 

[Slizzo]

though you should aslo note that ryzen is more of SoC, completely different from 775 processors

True, but that's not the case for the 2011/V3 socket.

 

[notb]

though you should aslo note that ryzen is more of SoC, completely different from 775 processors

Which, by principle, should make things even worse.

 

[bencrutz]

True, but that's not the case for the 2011/V3 socket.

well, clearly AMD had different strategy on socket longevity compared to intel

Which, by principle, should make things even worse.

care to elaborate?

 

[Vayra86]

if i would make the comparison with a 64$ g4560 vs r3 120$ than amd's really lose big time. and as i said in my first post for light gaming or no gaming.

About Ryzen and lower segment... that to me sounds the same as thinking Ryzen 5/7 as workstation chips when in reality, they are not, they are mainstream chips. Different product.

The fact is AMD has three main segments now to push Ryzen cores into, and they have already been vocal about two of them, but we are still missing one.
We have Ryzen 3/5/7 for mainstream > high end
We have Threadripper for workstation/HEDT

Aaaand... drum roll. We have APU's, just like Intel's i3, that are, will be, and always have been cost effective all-in-one solutions, the kind of solution AMD will target i3 with. Ryzen IS NOT THAT. But you did figure out it has no IGP, good job, you're getting there. Slowly.

The day AMD will make 'one processor to rule them all' only exists in fantasy.

 

[meirb111]

It's 2017, dual core CPUs are... uh...
AMD has about 4-7% smaller single thread IPC than Kaby Lake.
However, we should not forget that in multi threaded scenarios it achieves higher IPC (perhaps due to the way its cache works).

Now, if someone doesn't run anything that pushes PC to its limits, it doesn't matter. But if not, I want to see those "single threaded apps" he/she runs. If it is notepad, ok, my Z80 would still be ok for you, and if it is Excel, let me surprise you:
https://fastexcel.wordpress.com/201...tion-speed-by-changing-the-number-of-threads/


Ryzen has another hidden bonus: socket is there to stay until 2020, so upgrading to a superior CPU later on is an option, unlike with Intel.

tell that to software engineers that are still writing dual core or single core threaded apps and games, that didn't change much in 2017,you can buy a car that drives 300kmh but there are only few roads to use it.

 

[medi01]

tell that to software engineers that are still writing dual core...

Yeh, ses writing "dual core threaded apps", will tell them (and bigfoot, why not) when I meet them (or him/her).

 

[notb]

tell that to software engineers that are still writing dual core or single core threaded apps and games,

After this comment I kind of doubt you understand software multi-threading... (@medi01 was confirmed earlier )
Algorithms can be classified as either single-threaded (serial) or multi-threaded (parallel).

If a piece of software is relying heavily on parallel algorithms, it will most likely run on as many threads as it can access.
If it's relying on serial algorithms, it can only be "forced" to do few of them at the same time by very time-consuming and difficult optimization.

I find Photoshop to be a great example (but it's true for other photo-editing programs as well). In Photoshop some things are parallel and some aren't.
Many recognition/editing algorithms are single-threaded. Why? Because what happens to a pixel relies on what happened to those next to it. It's single-threaded by definition.
Photoshop manages to utilize 3-4 threads by forcing multi-threading, e.g. when you run "auto-adjust" it'll process few single-threaded, independent operations (e.g. brightening and distortion correction) at the same time. As a result, it'll use few threads. But more likely 4 than 16. It's obvious that this kind of "optimization" is limited.
Additional threads are put to use when you run batch processing. Photoshop runs a session of each file processed and easily utilizes all available cores.