Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AMD Ryzen 9 5900X + Ryzen 9 5950X Dominate On Linux

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #71
    Originally posted by atomsymbol View Post

    In my opinion, the "Bulldozer blunder" is actually a testament to poor support for concurrency in many mainstream programming languages. If AMD was explicitly saying that in order to take advantage of the 8 threads in Bulldozer CPUs developers have to avoid using C/C++/Java/etc as the main programming language, then Bulldozer might have had outperformed Intel's quad-core CPUs in a number of applications.
    Yup exactly. If many people were using Rust/Haskell/Scala/Go than it would have been a different story (doing concurrency in those languages is much easier than C/C++/Rust)

    Comment


    • #72
      Originally posted by MadeUpName View Post

      I was curious about this so I just checked my local vendor. All stores have 10+ units. Lets see how long they can hold out.
      I checked again at the end of the day with this vendor and all stores and online sold out. So that didn't last long. Next question is how fast can AMD resupply them. I live in Vancouver which is one of North America's and Canada's busiest port so if AMD has stock sitting in a warehouse this is a likely place for it. I will check in over the next few days and see if they are able to restock.

      Comment


      • #73
        Originally posted by slotdime View Post
        All AMD cpus were tested with @3600 Mhz DDR 4 ram, where stock ram specification is 3200 Mhz
        This won't change a thing. Even Zen2 was proven to be not RAM speed dependent anymore. Except for Tensorflow tasks where it may indeed give a little bit of downstep.

        Comment


        • #74
          Originally posted by birdie View Post
          Everything as expected however I am not a fan that AMD has OC'ed their CPUs to the absolute limit this time around in order to beat Intel at 1080p by a few percent and by doing so worsened their thermals quite a lot. It would be nice to see all these CPUs with TDP being lowered by 5-20% - that could make them a lot more power efficient and cooler.

          https://tpucdn.com/review/amd-ryzen-...emperature.png (75C under load FFS).

          Also, and I know I've repeated it a dozen times already but I don't understand why AMD has the right (and not only that people somehow find a justification for that) to increase their prices so much. Intel used to release new substantially faster CPU architectures without doing this: Sandy Bridge, Haswell, Sky Lake were all a lot faster than previous generation CPUs without price hikes and in certain cases even cost substantially less than their predecessors, e.g. the Intel Core i5-2500K was released for $216 while the Intel Core i7-920 cost $305.

          People keep saying that $50 is practically nothing, only AMD has decided to start the lineup with the 5600X which costs $300, vs the 3600 which costs $200. It's not a $50 price hike, it's a $100/50%(!) price hike. Intel would have been decimated by the internet mob if they had ever attempted to be sneaky like this. I don't give a damn about the X suffix because it doesn't change anything and it's just a marketing differentiation. There's no 5600 CPU for $250.

          Lastly, AMD is playing a monopoly card and it's just ugly. They force people to buy the 5900X/5950X CPUs because both the 3600/3700X were the most popular models for the Ryzen 3000 series, while for this generation, the 5800X is the worst (!) investment in terms of the bang for the buck. Margins decide everything not only for Intel and NVIDIA, as AMD has happily joined the "we'll rip you off because we are the fastest" club. I'm quite appalled by all of this.
          I just want to show my support as I agree 100% with your analysis and judgment on this topic. People don't seem to get that as a customer we expect to get more value over time which usually translates into more performance for the same price. And I see no such added value with Zen 3 here as we get more performance for an unproportional higher price, especially with the entry-level 5600X.

          People just need to stop to adjust their expectations to what Intel offered in the past with their incremental increases of 5-10% each generation (which lead to stagnation over the past decade). The increase in performance AMD delivers here is nothing outstanding but the minimum I expect of a new generation. I also consider it a failure of the entire tech press to not be more critical on the value topic, as I consider the new pricing to be a slap into the face of the loyal AMD fan base. We don't want AMD to turn into the new Intel/Nvidia in terms of their greediness (even though the market forces drive them into this direction). Also I've been burned by their broken promise with X370 (which won't get Ryzen 5000 support), too many headaches with the overhyped MSI B450 Tomahawk and the bad silicon quality of my former Ryzen 2600 sample. No, thank you. I hope they will invest all that money people seem to happily throw at them into better validation / bug fixing of their next platform. People will also raise their expectations for them being the market leader now, hence no more pampering over B550-like failures to deliver chipsets with a modern feature set on time, the X570 chipset fan debacle or similar engineering disasters.
          Last edited by ms178; 06 November 2020, 07:04 AM.

          Comment


          • #75
            Originally posted by mdedetrich View Post

            Yup exactly. If many people were using Rust/Haskell/Scala/Go than it would have been a different story (doing concurrency in those languages is much easier than C/C++/Rust)
            Around 2013 I bought an AMD FX8350 - it beat the intel i7 3770K in parallel tasks like gcc, fem and cfd (e.g. openfoam).
            But price wise it was 30% less as far as i can remember. Up to a few month ago I was still using it with a 5700XT GPU. Games with good multicore implementation didn't suffer that much with this cpu (e.g. SOTTR). I was getting around 50 -60 fps @1080p high settings. Considering that it is supposed to be a bad gaming cpu which already was years past its zenith.

            Yes bulldozer and vishera had very bad IPC performance but multicore was not that bad and on par with more expensive intels at that time. Efficiency was bad too but I think AMD was on the higher nm node afaik.

            When I had bought it I thought Multicore gameing will come 1-2 years later as it is now. I have underestimated the, lets call it "lazyness", of Gamesstudios to implement proper Multithreading engines and using (Mantle), DX12 and Vulkan as soon as possible. The intel "only-singlecore-is-important" Paradigm contributed as well.

            Now im running on an AMD 3600XT and it is a very nice performing CPU. Whilst also owning a X570 MoBo means that at least I can upgrade to a 5X00 CPU with more cores if the 3600XT will be too slow. So for now I will be save at least for the next 5 years. And I havent spend any premium budget.

            Last edited by CochainComplex; 06 November 2020, 05:48 AM.

            Comment


            • #76
              Originally posted by birdie View Post

              And you base it on what? Gut feelings? Does it even matter if the 5600 is coming or not? AMD is not willing to sell it for at least the first three months which means they are here to make a killing, not cater to price-conscious - their motto of the past which suddenly has evaporated into the thin air. Again, how quickly the tables have turned and how forigiving AMD fans have become to their idol. What's bad for Intel and NVIDIA is just fine if it's AMD. FML.

              "To answer me" - you haven't given any answer. You've cleverly avoided the issue by suggesting that you know the future. Now let's imagine for a second AMD will never release the 5600. What then? What will your excuses be for this blatant rip-off?
              If you are only interested in budget CPUs, then fine. Buy a budget CPU. There are plenty of them available. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

              The facts show that these new AMD CPUs are still better value for the money than their competition from Intel, which is why it's so hard for you to convince anyone during these rants. It'd be a lot different if the prices for AMD were actually higher than Intel, or the performance wasn't as good. In fact, normally you pay a price premium for having the fastest option available. The fact that they are still slightly better deals than Intel even while having the performance crown by such a margin just goes to show that they are still being sold at a good value, comparatively speaking.

              Anyway, right now AMD is limited by their manufacturing capacity and are selling every single CPU they can make so they'd have to be total morons not to prioritize their higher margin products first, ahead of the lower end budget chips. That's just how capitalism works.
              Last edited by smitty3268; 06 November 2020, 05:26 AM.

              Comment


              • #77
                Originally posted by discordian View Post

                AMD should license some GPU cores from NVidia or Intel, for an kickass APU without horrendous drivers.
                How would different cores help the drivers. Beyond that AMD is improving the drivers, especially in Linux, every other week just about. I’d say they are working pretty hard on driver quality. That doesn’t mean they are perfect and there is still missing support, it just means I’ve seen real progress this year.

                I don’t want to say driver issues are a thing of the past but things have changed significantly over the past 5 years.

                Comment


                • #78
                  Originally posted by birdie View Post

                  It's $50 only if you're blind or prefer not to see facts and they are quite different than $50.

                  3600 $200 -> 5600X $300, a $100/50% price increase.
                  3700X $330 -> 5800X $450, a $120/36% price increase.

                  But it's all fine because it's AMD and they are allowed to do what Intel and AMD have always been criticised for.

                  And then some time later AMD will introduce the 6600X at $350 and the 6800X at $500 and suddenly midrange CPUs become as expensive as an entire console and again that will be "fine" because AMD offers the best, right? Why the fuck Intel didn't raise prices despite advancing their CPUs for a decade?

                  The Intel Core i5 2500 - $205.
                  The Intel Core i5 6500 - $192.

                  The 6500 is much faster, so Intel could have charged top dollar for the CPU, yet they didn't. AMD raising prices - "ah, it's OK, they've beaten the competition". Guess what AMD didn't have a single competitive CPU from 2005 up to 2018. By all accounts Intel should have steadily made their CPUs a LOT more expensive. And in single threaded performance they've only beaten Intel in 2020.

                  Fuck it. AMD fans logic is something totally twisted.
                  Just today I've heard another totally imbecilic excuse: but it's COVID! Yeah, right, COVID is responsible for the pricing.
                  I dont get the Intel shills now coming with price-charts after the last bastion max. Singelthread performance was crushed.The AMD price is still very fair and AMD pushed the CPU market back to affordable with Zen.
                  Before it was a decade of: "lets wait 3 gens and buy the last gen" to get something affordable which justifies aboriginal cost for a complete new system.
                  Haven't you seen the increase of more interest of buying a new CPU+Mobo combo?
                  5 Years back a lot of comments in youtube techchannels were like:
                  " Dont waste your money on a new CPU just buy a newer GPU"...

                  or "hey I'm still on my intel i7 2xyz - its aging very well"

                  ...no it is not aging very well - there was just no significant performance uplift on newer gen CPU's in the last few years.

                  As written by torsionbar28 the i7-6950X 10C of 4 years ago cost around 1700$
                  Passmark multicore HDET

                  intel i7-6950X - 17K Pts - 1700$ (2016)
                  AMD 3960X - 55k Pts - 1350$ (2020)
                  AMD 3970X - 66k Pts - 1850$ (2020)

                  2016 to 2020 almost 3.5x Performance - considering a constant price point

                  intel i7-3970X - 8.5K Pts - 999$ (2012)*
                  Xeon E5-4620 v3 - 10.7k Pts - 1660$ (2012)*
                  intel i7-6950X - 17k Pts - 1700$ (2016)

                  2012 to 2016 1.6x up....

                  (*one might mention here that the most expensive intel HEDT Lineup CPU 2012 was 999$ and 4 years later 1700$ without shifting to the Workstation (Xeon) category but for the fairness of comparsion I have selected a Workstation CPU which equals the premium price tag 4 years later)

                  "intel decade" around 12% performance increase per year per dollar. (in total 60% up)
                  "amd zen era" around 37% performance increase per year per dollar. (in total 252% up)

                  So STOP SPREADING false information

                  ...intel never increased the price.... yada yada
                  Last edited by CochainComplex; 06 November 2020, 06:19 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #79

                    What is going on with birdie here is most likely he had not enough money for Intel i9 and had to purchase 3700X instead. His desire was not fulfilled and now he comes to virtually every AMD-related topic and projects his disappointment by emotional, baseless bullshit comments. That's all really. Don't believe me? Just look at his main arguments from neutral, purely logic point of view:

                    I am not a fan that AMD has OC'ed their CPUs to the absolute limit this time around in order to beat Intel at 1080p by a few percent and by doing so worsened their thermals quite a lot
                    Thermals are actually a little better, than previous gen, though practically equal. Also, Ryzens being maxed out directly from the factory almost universally accepted as a pro of the product, which makes it more user-friendly for average user.

                    I don't understand why AMD has the right (and not only that people somehow find a justification for that) to increase their prices so much.
                    Pure emotional stand. The one fanboys take often.

                    without price hikes and in certain cases even cost substantially less than their predecessors, e.g. the Intel Core i5-2500K was released for $216 while the Intel Core i7-920 cost $305
                    First, i5 and i7 are different tiers. 2500K should be compared with 655K, which had exactly the same 216$ MSRP. Just imagine for a second - basing your pro-Intel position on the fact, that i5 is cheaper than i7 - effin LOL. Second, technological and economical desktop landscape 9 years ago was a lot different from recent times.

                    People keep saying that $50 is practically nothing, only AMD has decided to start the lineup with the 5600X which costs $300, vs the 3600 which costs $200. It's not a $50 price hike, it's a $100/50%(!) price hike
                    It's 100$ increase if we are comparing 6-core line entry price at the launch. Not the same thing as comparison with predecessor. Not that I am fan of raising the prices, but it is a misrepresentation of the situation. 3600 should be compared with hypothetical 5600 non-X for price increase for this particular price. We most likely will be able to do that in several months.

                    Intel would have been decimated by the internet mob if they had ever attempted to be sneaky like this
                    Intel historically has done other consumer-value damaging stuff. Like introducing i9 branding to mainstream desktop, which lead to R9 brand, which lead to this 500$+ segment in general, which has risen lower tier price levels as well. Intel also tend to increase price by a bit over the years, even if we compare MSRPs adjusted to the inflation. Point being no company is a saint, but somehow Intel is better, because reasons.

                    Lastly, AMD is playing a monopoly card and it's just ugly
                    No. They are playing better product card. AMD is far away from monopoly.

                    Many 10th generation Intel CPUs are better in terms of value per dollar than AMD offerings
                    No, actually 5000 series has equal value at worst and better value typically when comparing with competing intel parts. This generalized comparison is non-sense. Lower tier parts and last gen parts always have better value. That is how industry works. So yeah, Intel i5 may have a better value than R7/9 etc. - it proves nothing regarding 5000 series.

                    I ran RX 5600 XT for four months but I had to replace it with NVIDIA's due to poor AMD drivers both for Linux and Windows. The NVIDIA GPU has been 100% stable and bug-free for me so far unlike the AMD GPU with which I had issues with suspend, fans monitoring, and general system stability
                    Bringing GPU into CPU discussion to emphasize how AMD is worse - typical Intel/NVIDIA fanboy strategy. WCCFTECH comments level stuff... Also, NVIDIA drivers are literally not bug free, have you even looked and NVIDIA forum issue topic? Of course not, NVIDIA makes magical perfect product, just like Apple.

                    AMD has the most devoted fanbase for some reasons
                    If you are not a fanboy, you really should not care who has most devoted fanbase. Yeah, I understand, "your team" is loosing, so you must defend Intel by some illogical arguments. I get it. Just do it minimally, please, like 1 post in AMD topic, not a whole series of shitposts.

                    the same CPUs which cost company the same
                    No proof for that whatsoever. Just a regular bullshit form birdie, based on nothing, designed to express Intel fanboyism.


                    Birdie:
                    you haven't given any answer. You've cleverly avoided the issue by suggesting that you know the future.
                    Also birdie:
                    And then some time later AMD will introduce the 6600X at $350 and the 6800X at $500 and suddenly midrange CPUs become as expensive as an entire console
                    To summarize: aside his personal opinion on things, all arguments he made are either factually incorrect or deliberately misrepresented to express how Intel is better than AMD. I let you decide if that is a stuff fanboys do...

                    PS. On the other hand, maybe he is not Intel fanboy, just low IQ person. This would explain the lack of understanding how economy works and some toxic behavior against linux users (his regular "linux users bad, how dare they criticize closed source" and stuff).

                    Comment


                    • #80
                      Originally posted by drakonas777 View Post
                      On the other hand, maybe he is not Intel fanboy, just low IQ person. This would explain the lack of understanding how economy works and some toxic behavior against linux users (his regular "linux users bad, how dare they criticize closed source" and stuff).
                      One might use the not so appropriate term "idiot" to summerize this behaviour.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X