Possible Listings of AMD Ryzen 9 3800X, Ryzen 7 3700X, Ryzen 5 3600X Surface in Online Stores

[notb]

First off, ECC isn't a security feature, it's a data integrity feature, unless everything I've ever read about it is wrong.

Well, maybe it's a broader definition of "security" than people here may be used to. Sorry. Risk management comes out once in a while.

Unless you mean security from hardware failure??

Yeah, I meant "security" as the general idea of mitigating risk.

An airbag protects you in an accident, ECC corrects hardware data errors should they occur.

What if airbags are designed on a computer without ECC and we're so unlucky that the simulation data got corrupted or lost?
I know this may sound funny, but that's what risk management is usually about: mitigating the risk of very rare but significant events.

Yes, corruption/instability stemming from a class of RAM errors that ECC targets is very rare. But it can happen and we have a technology that makes it few orders of magnitude less likely. So this technology became a standard in production systems.

I'm pretty sure ECC will work properly on Ryzen if a motherboard supports it, and not if it doesn't.

OK, you may be sure. I'm pretty sure it won't. These are just opinions.

I was speaking from a PoV of an enterprise, so the party actually interested in ECC memory.
The system has to officially support ECC, i.e. someone has to take responsibility. And that's the whole point: responsibility.

Maybe Ryzen today can work in ECC mode, we don't know that. And honestly, do we really know whether Threadripper, EPYC or Xeon support ECC properly? No, we don't.
But one CPU has an "ECC validated" sticker and one doesn't. And that sticker changes everything.

ECC is normally only used in applications where downtime is unacceptable, like data centers, mission critical (like maybe military, medical, perhaps ATC and possibly AI driving?) applications, as it's more expensive than non-ECC, even though once upon a time, ECC was the norm (if I remember my computer history right).

No, ECC is required in virtually all production systems in large enterprises.

Also, you have a very military understanding of something being "mission critical" (gaming much? ;-)).
A mission critical system is any system essential for an organization to perform its core tasks.
For example the system responsible for selling products is "mission critical", because selling is the most important activity in a company. The database that holds client or sales data is critical as well.
If your company designs fans on CAD workstations, they may also be considered "production" and "mission critical", i.e. it's very unlikely this job will be given to ordinary office desktops - even if they're fast enough.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Well, maybe it's a broader definition of "security" than people here may be used to. Sorry.

There a difference between data integrity/redundancy/reliability and data security. You clearly do not work in business level IT or you would understand that distinction.

 

[ratirt]

OK, you may be sure. I'm pretty sure it won't. These are just opinions.

I was speaking from a PoV of an enterprise, so the party actually interested in ECC memory.
The system has to officially support ECC, i.e. someone has to take responsibility. And that's the whole point: responsibility.

Maybe Ryzen today can work in ECC mode, we don't know that. And honestly, do we really know whether Threadripper, EPYC or Xeon support ECC properly? No, we don't.
But one CPU has an "ECC validated" sticker and one doesn't. And that sticker changes everything.

I don't understand why you keep arguing about this. The threadripper is validated and supports ECC and you can see it on the AMD webpage. So whenever a company decides about they need ECC they can go with this. Xeon and TR support ECC correctly for sure. So as Ryzen and it has been stated and confirmed by the AMD company that they do and yet you keep saying we don't know or it doesn't.

 

[notb]

So as Ryzen and it has been stated and confirmed by the AMD company that they do and yet you keep saying we don't know or it doesn't.

So show me the document from AMD that says Ryzen supports ECC. I'm sure this is not a problem since you're so certain.

 

[ratirt]

So show me the document from AMD that says Ryzen supports ECC. I'm sure this is not a problem since you're so certain.

I don't know if there is a document. I'm referring to Papermaster's and Lisa SU's information about Ryzen CPUs and ECC support. Ryzen TR has this information on the AMD's webpage that it supports ECC. I don't think two head members of AMD would lie about ECC support for Ryzen processors.

 

[notb]

I don't know if there is a document. I'm referring to Papermaster's and Lisa SU's information about Ryzen CPUs and ECC support. Ryzen TR has this information on the AMD's webpage that it supports ECC. I don't think two head members of AMD would lie about ECC support for Ryzen processors.

OK. So give a link to an interview or a slideshow. That will be enough.

 

[ratirt]

OK. So give a link to an interview or a slideshow. That will be enough.

I already did. Previously but I guess you didn't bother to read it.
For starters read about TR on the AMD's webpage. It clearly states that Ryzen TR supports ECC memory as a feature.

 

[Redwoodz]

OK. So give a link to an interview or a slideshow. That will be enough.

Do you really belive AMD does not support ECC or are you just trolling. Either way you are done.

 

[0x6A7232]

Predicted response: that's AsRock's website, not AMD's, therefore not valid.

 

[londiste]

That is Ryzen Pro, competing with (workstation) Xeons which also have ECC support.
It is a separate product segment.

 

[R0H1T]

Pro APUs i.e. Raven Ridge, for the regular non IGP variants ASrock supports ECC according to that list.

Another set of results from an ES chip ~ https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/SpeedTest/697865/AMD-Eng-Sample--2D3212BGMCWH2-3734-N

 

[0x6A7232]

Looks like the APU specs are in (supposedly) - the Ryzen 3000 APU is a Zen+ 12nm optical shrink of 14nm - the "Ryzen 3 3200G comes with 3.60 GHz nominal clock-speed and 4.00 GHz maximum Precision Boost frequency; while the Ryzen 5(?) 3400G ships with 3.70 GHz clock speeds along with 4.20 GHz max Precision Boost".

AMD Ryzen "Picasso" APU Clock Speeds Revealed

AMD is giving finishing touches to its Ryzen 3000 "Picasso" family of APUs, and Thai PC enthusiast TUM_APISAK has details on their CPU clock speeds. The Ryzen 3 3200G comes with 3.60 GHz nominal clock-speed and 4.00 GHz maximum Precision Boost frequency; while the Ryzen 5(?) 3400G ships with...

www.techpowerup.com

 

[EarthDog]

Looks like the APU specs are in (supposedly) - the Ryzen 3000 APU is a Zen+ 12nm optical shrink of 14nm - the "Ryzen 3 3200G comes with 3.60 GHz nominal clock-speed and 4.00 GHz maximum Precision Boost frequency; while the Ryzen 5(?) 3400G ships with 3.70 GHz clock speeds along with 4.20 GHz max Precision Boost".

AMD Ryzen "Picasso" APU Clock Speeds Revealed

AMD is giving finishing touches to its Ryzen 3000 "Picasso" family of APUs, and Thai PC enthusiast TUM_APISAK has details on their CPU clock speeds. The Ryzen 3 3200G comes with 3.60 GHz nominal clock-speed and 4.00 GHz maximum Precision Boost frequency; while the Ryzen 5(?) 3400G ships with...

www.techpowerup.com

What does that have to do with this? Its not even Zen2...

 

[notb]

Yeah, I forgot about this lovely discussion. :/

I already did. Previously but I guess you didn't bother to read it.
For starters read about TR on the AMD's webpage. It clearly states that Ryzen TR supports ECC memory as a feature.

OK. You gave a link to a Reddit discussion.
ECC support is not mentioned in specs. So is the whole "Ryzen supports ECC" internet gag based on this?

Call me Intel fanboy or whatever you want. This is not how a major listed CPU manufacturer should do business.

Pro APUs i.e. Raven Ridge, for the regular non IGP variants ASrock supports ECC according to that list.

Quite a few Pentium, Celeron and Atom processors support ECC (officially, i.e. are validated), so we shouldn't be shocked that APUs do as well. These CPUs are running many enterprise products.

That is Ryzen Pro, competing with (workstation) Xeons which also have ECC support.
It is a separate product segment.

This is all quite weird.
AMD doesn't call any Ryzen ECC-validated (Pro or not). Suddenly some mobo makers list Ryzen Pro as supporting ECC.

Would it be possible that AMD made a mistake on their website? They paid for validation and forgot to tell us?
Mess. :/

 

[ratirt]

Yeah, I forgot about this lovely discussion. :/

OK. You gave a link to a Reddit discussion.
ECC support is not mentioned in specs. So is the whole "Ryzen supports ECC" internet gag based on this?
View attachment 123179

It's not this one but whatever suit you bro
Anyway it is supported and it works. Deal with it

 

[0x6A7232]

It would be helpful to know what exactly is the procedure for being officially ECC validated, and WHO does the validation. If it is, for example, done by a body that was founded or controlled by Intel, this would explain AMD not bothering. Sort of like how nVidia came up with their own requirements for "3D accelerator" and it just so conveniently matched them being the first (forget about all the others that came before). Does anyone know who validates ECC, and what the requirements are? Or is it just as meaningless as the company doing internal testing and slapping a label on, which can mean different things depending on which company it is?

Also, if you have a mobo claiming ECC support, validated or not, you have a case for a lawsuit if it doesn't actually. This leans in favor of ECC being supported for all intents and purposes, as long as the mobo OEM clearly states support.

If you guys haven't seen this, watch (among other goodies, 4,278 Cinebench on 16-core @4.2GHz, 12-core boosting to 5GHz, so 16-core 5GHz boost part likely)

 

[Berfs1]

And AMD does not state Ryzens support ECC, does it?

AMD doesn't disable ECC, but it doesn't mean it works as it should. It's just there.

Like the RNG in Excavator?

You don't understand enterprise computing - I've told you that many times.
ECC has to be validated to make sense. Just like helmets and ropes are certified/attested/rated to be used in a construction zone. It doesn't mean non-rated helmets don't protect your head.
What's the point of an untested security feature?

Without them it means you can't really expect ECC to work. And no one is liable when it stops.
That's the whole point of certification. It is important not in the 99% of time a feature works, but in the 1% time it doesn't.
Certified ECC systems sometimes don't work properly, just like a certified airbag doesn't always save your life in a crash. But until someone gives you a guarantee that an airbag should work in a particular way, it's just a small bomb with a baloon. WTF would you willingly put a bomb in your car?

First of all: they aren't graphs. A graph is a graphical representation of information, for that you need things like properly described axes. There's no horizontal axis in your case - maybe you assumed/checked it is time - the viewer doesn't know. In one of the photos you've missed the vertical axis as well.
Second: I was talking about the way you've shared this - as photos made with a smartphone. Why?
Also this:

And that's all pretty objective and obvious. I could now start making fun of your forecasting, but as you see - I don't. I'm in "nice mode" today. But it may change tomorrow, so weight your words carefully. ;-)

Intel has a very enterprise-oriented approach, with all features being pretty well documented. They ride on an image of being a solid enterprise partner. They can't afford to put ECC in CPUs that may not support it properly.
AMD has a different target client structure and they can afford not to properly describe what features a product has. We had a nice discussion about this lately in the NVENC thread (with AMD you don't know what features are supported by GPU, there's no documentation).

Honestly, I think you guys even like it. I think you like being forced to test and search and ask on forums instead of just checking in the datasheet.
But assuming AMD is hoping for a larger share of business clients, they'll have to really focus on more than just performance.

Wanna tell me my prediction was wrong now?

 

[gronetwork]

AMD Ryzen 7 3800X has been benchmarked on Geekbench 4 with the Windows 64-bit operating system and it seems that it could easily beat the beast of Intel, i.e the Intel Core i7-9700K processor. For the moment, the chip would generate 17% more power. However there is only one result currently. We will have to be patient to see if the difference is confirmed during the next weeks.

AMD Ryzen 7 3800X vs Intel Core i7-9700K

Comparison between AMD Ryzen 7 3800X and Intel Core i7-9700K with the specifications of the processors, the number of cores, threads, cache memory, also the...

gadgetversus.com