Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

AMD 2nd Gen Ryzen Processors Launched and Benchmarked (hothardware.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the new-and-improved dept.

MojoKid writes: AMD launched its 2nd Generation Ryzen processors today, based on a refined update to the company's Zen architecture, dubbed Zen+. The chips offer higher clocks, lower latencies, and a more intelligent Precision Boost 2 algorithm that improves performance, system responsiveness, and power efficiency characteristics. These new CPUs still leverage the existing AM4 infrastructure and are compatible with the same socket, chipsets, and motherboards as AMD's first-generation products, with a BIOS/UEFI update.

There are four processors arriving today, AMD's Ryzen 7 2700X, the Ryzen 7 2700, the Ryzen 5 2600X, and the Ryzen 5 2600. Ryzen 7 chips are still 8-core CPUs with 20MB of cache but now top out at 4.3GHz, while Ryzen 5 chips offer 6 cores with 19MB of cache and peak at 4.2GHz. AMD claims 2nd Gen Ryzen processors offer reductions in L1, L2, and L3 cache latencies of approximately 13%, 34%, and 16%, respectively. Memory latency is reportedly reduced by about 11% and all of those improvements result in an approximate 3% increase in IPC (instructions per clock). The processors now also have official support for faster DDR4-2933 memory as well. In the benchmarks, 2nd Gen Ryzen CPUs outpaced AMD's first gen chips across the board with better single and multithreaded performance, closing the gap even further versus Intel, often with better or similar performance at lower price points. AMD 2nd Gen Ryzen processors, and new X470 chipset motherboards that support them, are available starting today and the CPUs range from $199 to $299.

106 comments

  1. Bringing competition back to the market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I hope AMD can keep this ball rolling.

    1. Re: Bringing competition back to the market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correction, you meant singular. Ball.

    2. Re:Bringing competition back to the market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It would be nice to see a return to the Athlon days when AMD chips were strong competitors. From a quick skimming of the benchmarks, it looks like for gamers and average users, there's no real benefit to the Intel chips performance wise and they cost around $100 more. If I were AMD, I would be pounding that fact hard in the press.

    3. Re:Bringing competition back to the market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The benchmarks are being run before the patches that fixed Intel's shit security. Check out the Anandtech one for something a bit more realistic.

    4. Re: Bringing competition back to the market by aliquis · · Score: 2

      Plenty of benefits for Intel chips precisely for gaming.
      That's were they are leading.

      Rather than putting it like you do the truth is that you don't need the fastest cpu unless you have a beast of a graphics card or run at settings to maximize frames per second. Because you'll be gpu limited anyway.

      But if you aren't then Intel have a lead in games.

    5. Re: Bringing competition back to the market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Plenty of benefits for Intel chips precisely for gaming.
      That's were they are leading.

      Rather than putting it like you do the truth is that you don't need the fastest cpu unless you have a beast of a graphics card or run at settings to maximize frames per second. Because you'll be gpu limited anyway.

      But if you aren't then Intel have a lead in games.

      Actually, if you turn on XFR2 and if you apply the meltdown patches on Intel (which will be automatically done w/ Windows updates), the AMD processors are now faster for gaming.

      Check out Anandtech article here: https://www.anandtech.com/show/12625/amd-second-generation-ryzen-7-2700x-2700-ryzen-5-2600x-2600

      The AMD 2700X absolutely kills the top of the line Intel in gaming.

    6. Re:Bringing competition back to the market by MachineShedFred · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The "Athlon" days when AMD was ahead in performance was also when Intel had their head wedged so far up their ass they had to cut in switchback trails to find it. The Pentium 4 architecture was fucking horrible, and had the albatross of Rambus around it's neck. When they corrected that, they blasted right back in front and stayed there.

      The good news for AMD: It appears that Intel once again has their head wedged so far up their ass that the suction from extraction just might kill them. If AMD was ever to give Intel another crotch-punch in benchmarking, now's the time.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    7. Re: Bringing competition back to the market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anatech's results look wrong and significantly exceeds AMD's own claims. Ignore the Intel results and spectre patching issues. Their Ryzen 2xxx results are much better than others. It's like they've confused an OC run with a stock run. And considering their review is very unfinished (there's placeholders for missing tables and whole text sections and a "asdf"... , It seems likely that they've made a mistake.

      Quite a disappointing effort from them given their usual quality.

    8. Re:Bringing competition back to the market by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The Pentium 4 architecture was fucking horrible, and had the albatross of Rambus around it's neck.

      Intel also had most of their best people working on Itanium, and only the B-team working on x86.

      Once the Athlon iceberg had sunk the "Itanic", Intel put the A-team back to work on x86.

    9. Re:Bringing competition back to the market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      You know jack shit about this.

    10. Re:Bringing competition back to the market by ckatko · · Score: 1

      I like my AMD but you need to be more specific.

      Because Intel's patches only have large impacts on tiny code thats run super often, that saves it's state. Network packet handlers in servers.

      On games, if you lose 2%, you've still got a CPU 382% faster than the highest AMD CPU, for like, $180.

      Again, I'm posting from an FX-8370. But get your facts straight.

    11. Re:Bringing competition back to the market by ravenshrike · · Score: 2

      Well, that and they froze AMD out of the market entirely so they had no revenue stream to commit to R&D. Combined with the fact they pushed for their own foundry too early and AMD was fucked.

    12. Re:Bringing competition back to the market by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 5, Informative

      It is a bit more complex like that, the performance leadership changed a few times.
      At first, the Pentium 4 was badly outclassed, unless you bought the really expensive RDRAM memory from Rambus.

      Then Intel released the Northwood series with support for DDR RAM and eventually two memory channels, which helped the bandwidth-hungry Pentium 4 architecture a lot. I guiess that is what you meant with "blasting in front" and for a while, the reworked Pentium 4 was in fact faster than AMD's Athlon XP.

      Enter the Athlon 64. For a while, AMD was leading the race again, the Pentium 4 had run into a clock speed limit Intel had not foreseen (that was the age of the extremely hot running Prescott).

      In 2006, Intel countered with the Core 2, which brought them in front again for several years. AMDs efforts in that time varied between "inferior" and "competitive but not ahead" (Phenom II). AMD kept itself afloat with aggressive pricing, at the expense of meager financial results.

      Now there is the Ryzen, which started out competitive a year ago and appears to win over Intel with the new models. We seem to be back in a new "Athlon age" which pleases me no end as someone who dislikes Intel's business methods. I hasten to add that this is not meant to disparage Intel's engineering team:
      Their processors are pretty good, at worst there has been a bit of stagnation lately. It just seems that AMD can do even better these days :)

       

      --
      C - the footgun of programming languages
    13. Re:Bringing competition back to the market by Highdude702 · · Score: 2

      Sorry but your reply is just flat out incorrect. https://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen...

      Maybe 400% faster than YOUR amd CPU.. but not even close to that much difference on mine(R7-1700 overclocked) and damn sure not more than zen+.

    14. Re: Bringing competition back to the market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty much everyone tested with the meltdown patches. You're thinking of the spectre microcode updates, however it's not clear if the AMD tests used the spectre microcode updates either given amd only released them to vendors 10 days ago. And yes I know that anadtech said they applied them, but they also said they were using the latest bios revision, which is verifiably incorrect, and honestly, that Anadtech article is a half finished mess they should be ashamed of.

    15. Re:Bringing competition back to the market by Megol · · Score: 1

      382%? And you talk about facts?

    16. Re:Bringing competition back to the market by Megol · · Score: 1

      You think Intel only had two teams? The P4 had incredibly skilled people working on it but the project started with some assumptions that turned out wrong in the end. Out of order execution could be improved and it could be made deeper/wider without excessive power draw. Process improvements didn't make a true speed-demon the best performing design.

    17. Re:Bringing competition back to the market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hopefully we won't have to deal with Intel crippling compilers to make sure they run worse on non-Intel processors by disabling all optimizations even if the processor supports it like they did before to make AMD look bad. Or start making deals with vendors to lock AMD out.

      Those 2 things effectively robbed AMD of billions in revenue which cost them lots of RND and set them back compared to what they could have had.

      Hopefully Intel can actually try a legit competition instead.

      Overall though, I know Intel could crush AMD if they really wanted to but Intel can't allow AMD to close shop because they are their only thing keeping them from being labeled a monopoly. They want AMD hobbled but still healthy enough to look like competition. Hope to one day see Intel being the one on the rope and actually having to fight for a change.

    18. Re: Bringing competition back to the market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anadtech gimped the i7-8700k with the worst CPU cooler in the test (it's a 70mm fan with only @14cfm, on a cooler meant for 3ru server chassis, the vendor is short on details but I doubt it's pc2015d compliant). God knows who thought that would be fair, it was probably thermally throttling a lot.

    19. Re: Bringing competition back to the market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those figures are likely to change if they use a better cooler on the i7-8700k, have a look at it, it's a bad joke to use that on the i7-8700k. It's like they were trying to bias the results.

    20. Re:Bringing competition back to the market by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 1

      Right now it looks like AMD are real competition, not just pretend competition. To change that within less than several years, Intel would have to come up with a surprise like the Core architecture back in the day. They had a team in Israel doing further work based on the old Pentium 3 architecture, and it paid off big time.

      Considering deals with vendors to lock AMD out, AMD already won a lawsuit against Intel over that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_and_Intel_Antitrust_Lawsuit.
      Back then, the penalty seemed insufficient as compensation for the damage, but I wonder how the courts would deal with a repeat offender?

      --
      C - the footgun of programming languages
    21. Re:Bringing competition back to the market by Khyber · · Score: 3, Informative

      Bullshit. I have a Ryzen 5 1400 and an i3-7320, both have identical GPUs. The i3 got the patches the other day and GTAV went from a solid 60FPS at 1440x900 to not being able to average 45.

      Guess you forgot all the modern GTA games are mad CPU drivers versus GPU.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    22. Re:Bringing competition back to the market by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Hopefully we won't have to deal with Intel crippling compilers to make sure they run worse on non-Intel processors by disabling all optimizations even if the processor supports it like they did before to make AMD look bad. Or start making deals with vendors to lock AMD out.

      Intel never stopped doing this; their compilers produce code and their libraries execute code based on the manufacturer and model rather than the feature flags. The court only required that Intel admit this in their documentation.

    23. Re: Bringing competition back to the market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And at that point you are getting such high frame rates that it doesn't matter anyway

    24. Re: Bringing competition back to the market by aliquis · · Score: 1

      No, they unlikely aren't.

      I know a bunch of people speculate completely out of their asses that that would be the reason Anandtech results are different to most others but that's likely the case because any serious tester would use the latest Windows update, BIOS and drivers.

      You just claim that out of nothing. You shouldn't do that. You don't know that's the case. Just a bunch of idiots claim that like if it was the truth.

      https://www.sweclockers.com/te...
      720p medium GTX 1080Ti:
      BF1: 8700K 25% better avg. 19% better 1% low.
      Witcher 3: 8700K 21% better avg. 14% better 1% low.
      Fallout 4: 8700K 18% better avg. 17% better 1% low.
      Total War: Warhammer II: 8700K 17% better avg. 19% better 1% low.
      Farcry 5: 8700K: 17% better avg. 18% better 1% low.

      Anandtech is investigating why their results are different. Their 8700K results for GTA V seem to be higher than their earlier ones so it don't seem to be an issue with this specific run and maybe ASUS Crosshair VII Hero with G.Skill SniperX 2933 MHz with the AMD Ryzen 7 2700X simply run amazingly well. Or their results using 8700K is poor both now and before because they use only Crucial Ballistix 2666 MHz RAM and a Silverstone AR10-115XS cooler for the i7 8700K. Or some firmware or driver on the ASRock Z370 Gaming i7 board make it run bad.
      I haven't compared the Anandtech results with similar machines with the same games and settings from some other reviewer so I can't tell if the Anandtech results are different from theirs.

      If the memory kit AnandTech used for the 8700K is the Crucial Ballistix Sport then it don't seem to be on the QVL of the motherboard, they also used 4x8 GB there vs 2x8 GB on the Ryzen platform and four memory modules is more demanding for the memory controller so that combined with the motherboard in question may mean they have poor memory performance on the Intel system. They also use a 3U rackmount / small form factor CPU cooler which is just 79 mm high, 88 mm wide which use a 70 mm fan. Then again the Ryzen used the stock cooler so I guess it's completely fair to use a more simplistic cooler for the purpose and they spec what they use but it may not be perfect for the board.

      The AMD board mean-while used G.Skill SniperX 2933 MHz and 2x8 GB of them instead.

      Anyway the AnandTech result is an outliner. It's not the normal result. The normal result even with these stupidly run gaming benchmarks which may not be tuned for lowest GPU vs CPU load is that the Intel chip win. Sweclockers test use "medium" settings which may lower the demand on the CPU but most likely "definitely" lower the demand on the GPU resulting in more frames and a higher chance the CPU is the limiting factor. And there as you can see above in those games the 8700K is 17-25% faster which is more in line with what you could expect.

      The IPC for non-AVX/FPU work-loads seem similar for the two chips but the typical 1 core turbo of the 8700K is 4.7 GHz where's the one thread turbo of the Ryzen 7 2700X seem to end up being 4.35 GHz, the all core turbo of the 8700K is 4.3 GHz whereas the all threads turbo of the Ryzen 7 2700X in some older review was 3.9 GHz but maybe it's closer to 4 GHz on X470? Regardless it's lower. Meaning lower performance / core. Also Intel have 256 bit FPUs vs the 128 bit ones on the Ryzen plus Intel still have a bit lower memory latency for whatever difference that make. The latencies to difference caches and for sharing data between cores varies so that become hard to compare.
      In this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
      which is great because it show GPU load too you can see that GPU utilization isn't at 100% meaning the CPU is the one holding the performance of these games back but you can also see that the CPU utilization is very low meaning lots of threads / cores are unutilized and performance like are held back by t

    25. Re: Bringing competition back to the market by aliquis · · Score: 1

      It definitely matter to me.

      There exist 120, 144, 165, 200 and 240 Hz monitors.

      Ryzen 7 2700X doesn't necessarily run the game at 100+ FPS average.
      Even less so low. Meaning it won't keep up with the monitor.

      That may also be true for the 8700K but I never make the claim that the limits of the 8700K in gaming is irrelevant. I'd say they are.

      But on average as far as I know the 8700K run games better than the Ryzen 7 2700X.

      The 40 fps 4K Ultra benchmarks I consider pretty irrelevant for judging the CPU performance. Even if Ryzen would happen to be 0.5 FPS faster by chance or memory controller or whatever. The low GPU demand benchmarks is the relevant ones because that let the CPU be the limiting factor and you can actually see which one can execute the game code faster. And that in most tests will be the 8700K.

      If you look at game benchmarks with the Ryzen 5 2600X and the Ryzen 7 2700X they will most likely be very similar with a slight lead for the Ryzen 7 2700X which clock a little bit higher. The extra 2 cores isn't of much use right now.

      The game code optimized and compiled for the Intel platform, the higher clock of the Intel chip, the lower memory latency and the more powerful FPU of it however do matter.

  2. BIOS update required by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been looking at building a new machine for a few months now. What's turned me off from an AMD build is that -- from the sounds of it -- I would need to buy (or borrow) an older AM4 CPU just to flash the latest BIOS to the motherboard.

    In the past I've always built "budget" machines due to financial constraints, and this was not an issue. I'd this just how it goes if you want the latest and greatest? Didn't appear to be an issue for Intel.

    With all the cash saved on an AMD build, I could buy a nicer video card. :-)

    1. Re:BIOS update required by AvitarX · · Score: 2

      The motherboards in general should be better about that now.

      Also, AMD was sending free CPUs for that purpose of you ended up unlucky.

      Still hoops to jump through.

      Anything with the new chioset will definitely work.

      As would anything coming with a recent firmware.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    2. Re:BIOS update required by Tough+Love · · Score: 2

      from the sounds of it -- I would need to buy (or borrow) an older AM4 CPU just to flash the latest BIOS to the motherboard.

      I don't know why you would think that. I have build two Ryzen machines recently, an R 1700 in a Gigabyte AB350 and an R 1600 in a MSI X370 MB. I did not reflash either until after completing the install.

      You will need that GPU because there is otherwise no graphics, not even VGA. That is, except for the new R 2200/2400G parts that reportedly turn in better GPU performance than some low end PCI GPUs. With current sky-high GPU prices, I can see some builders going that route just to wait out the GPU shortage, maybe end the drought with Navi.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    3. Re: BIOS update required by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Buy asus motherboards, bios can be upgraded from usb drive with no cpu in socket

    4. Re:BIOS update required by butzwonker · · Score: 1

      Don't save money with the motherboard. I've got a b350 MSI Tomahawk this January and dearly regret it. The forums are full with stories from people who bricked their machine with UEFI updates, and I'm not even sure it will support future chips. :(

    5. Re:BIOS update required by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 2

      What's turned me off from an AMD build is that -- from the sounds of it -- I would need to buy (or borrow) an older AM4 CPU just to flash the latest BIOS to the motherboard.

      If you buy an used motherboard, then yes. Maybe even if you buy new specimen of an older model (but then I would demand that the dealer flashes the latest bios for me).

      When in doubt, get one of the new motherboards from the 4xx series. Those should be up to date with the processor support for 2nd generation Ryzen.

      --
      C - the footgun of programming languages
    6. Re:BIOS update required by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      Firmware supporting zen+ has been available for about 4 months now, any motherboard bought off shelfs today should be compatable with any AM4 processor available. Unless ofcourse you buy a motherboard that has been very unpopular since the start, and the store bought a bunch last year.. Chances are slim that you will still find one without updated firmware.

    7. Re:BIOS update required by Khyber · · Score: 1

      I'm looking at a Radeon 560 for $140. GPU prices started dropping the moment that Ethereum ASIC got announced and people got scared their GPU rigs would become useless. There is a glut of cards on craigslist right now.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    8. Re:BIOS update required by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Good call. Miners want the newest, most power-efficient cards, hence we can look forward to a continuing shortage of Vega 64s and a glut of used 460/480s. But it hasn't really happened yet from what I can see, your $140 for a used 560 is ok, but hardly a legendary deal. Maybe stick in that 2400G while waiting for the situation to change, and when it does, swap it out into a homework station for your sister while treating yourself to an 8 core Ryzen 2 and a decent 3 year old GPU for cheap.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  3. DDR4-3600 by DivineKnight · · Score: 1

    Call me when they get "official support" for this.

    1. Re:DDR4-3600 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you serious or just stupid? It is hard to tell but since this is /. I will assume the latter.

    2. Re:DDR4-3600 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Check out the conditions for "officially supported" memory speeds from the motherboard manufacturers sites for the x470 boards. Either they have not updated the sites, or even the 2933 support is mostly just speculation. Who wants to use one, single rank stick of memory with their APU? I'm still hoping that the memory manufacturers would release 2933 single rank sticks and that all the motherboard manufacturers would at least support dual channel single rank configuration at the speed. ECC-support seems to be also in the wind.

    3. Re: DDR4-3600 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you delusional? I am running 4 single rank sticks (32gb total) of ddr4-3000 at 3066 on my ryzen 1600 no problem. Officially this is way out of supported land, but gives me nice performance boost without cpu overclock due to the memory interleaving . The only reason I had to set manual timings instead of using XMP is that the sticks are from different manufacturers and their latencies donâ(TM)t match, and the crappy asus bios is not picking up one consistently.

  4. This advertisement brought to you by AMD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does this need to read so much like an advertisement?

    1. Re: This advertisement brought to you by AMD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you can't say something nice...

    2. Re: This advertisement brought to you by AMD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      then u should suckle upon mine DAMN balls

    3. Re:This advertisement brought to you by AMD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like that the benchmarks compare AMD's new product against itself. I understand that it will be awhile before there are some reasonable user benchmarks. However, the benchmark here:

      http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-8700K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-7-2700X/3937vs3958

      Indicates that for the same price point, there is still a major performance hit. I've heard the argument that "the Ryzen really overclocks well". Maybe so, but if AMD expects that they can make a dent in Intel's dominance, they better expect that most users use stock clocks.

    4. Re: This advertisement brought to you by AMD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bought a Ryzen 1700 when it launched. 8 cores, sixteen threads, 65 watts. The only reason I am not day one ordering a 2700x is because my 1700 is already fast enough single thread and crushes any multithread tasks I throw at it.

      TBH, My old fx8120 was already OP 99% of the time, but sometimes ya gotta get a new toy anyway. Plus no meltdown risk if you are still an inteller.

    5. Re: This advertisement brought to you by AMD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I went with the slightly slower 1600 for my home server. While it spends a lot of time on idle at very low power, having the grunt when I need it means it can manage multiple remote backups while streaming media to my living room. It's great, and I've been really pleased with it.

      Full specs: AMD Ryzen 5 1600, AB350N-Gaming WIFI-CF, 16GB ECC RAM, USB3.1, running Linux Mint off a Samsung 840 Pro SSD. Build price (excluding file storage, 2 x 6TB WD Red HDDs) in the UK, including a very nice SilverStone case came to just over 500 pounds.

    6. Re: This advertisement brought to you by AMD by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 1

      I always found upgrading for something like 20% more performance in a CPU a waste of money. Make it twice the performance of the old one, then you have a significant and worthwhile improvement.

      In that sense, I think the Ryzen 2000 series is not really for people who already have a CPU from the Ryzen 1000 series. It is for people who are still sitting on a Bulldozer or Sandy Bridge system and looking for something new.

      --
      C - the footgun of programming languages
    7. Re: This advertisement brought to you by AMD by webnut77 · · Score: 1

      case came to just over 500 pounds.

      I'll bet the shipping costs were quite expensive. :-(

    8. Re: This advertisement brought to you by AMD by Khyber · · Score: 1

      I went with the 1400, it's basically a cold version of the FX-9370 I was running.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    9. Re: This advertisement brought to you by AMD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could spec list - sounds a lot like my server:
      AB350N-wifi, 2x16GB RAM with ECC, Samsung SSD, Raven Ridge 2400G and an additional 4TB HDD, in a Silverstone case.
      Mageia Linux, headless server for now - perhaps with a 4k screen one day, that Mobo is the only mini itx (or uATX board for that matter) with official HDMI2.0 support.

      I can't get the ecc confirmed though, memtest86 doesn't see it, nor does Linux...
      Since memtest86 ran to completion over the standard 5? runs, I figured it should be okay.

      The board and cpu need the latest bios (I got a an older board and needed a cpu of the A8 series to update the bios) and some kernel boot options, alongside the latest kernel.

      Today, I hope to set a new uptime record, my last record with this machine is 7 days.

      Yeah, not really happy, I've had uptimes beyond 650 days.
      The first weeks, I got a max of 3 days...
      Serves me right for breaking the rule I tend to recommend to others : never buy stuff that's too newly on the market, wait until it's about 3 to 6 months old /available...

      aRTee

  5. ..and are free of backdoors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd buy one right away.

    1. Re: ..and are free of backdoors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still haven't patched the PSP and chipset vulnerabilities.

  6. Is Windows 7 supported? by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I have zero plans to let Microsoft's spyware, Windows 10, on my systems.

    1. Re:Is Windows 7 supported? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You could run Windows 7 in a virtual machine and even use GPU pass-through to play games (but you'd need two GPUs to pull this off).

    2. Re:Is Windows 7 supported? by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you actually gave a damn about Microsoft spying on you then you wouldn't be using Microsoft products because (surprise!) they all spy on you.

      The most common excuse for not using Linux is lazy users that insist on 100% feature parity.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    3. Re:Is Windows 7 supported? by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      Ah, yes, a VM would work.

      How's the performance of GPU pass through for 3D graphics / games? (This is the first time I've heard of it.)

    4. Re:Is Windows 7 supported? by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 4, Informative

      For anyone interested, found this article about GPU passthrough, Linux, and Windows:

      GPU passthrough: gaming on Windows on Linux

    5. Re:Is Windows 7 supported? by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1, Redundant

      Are you seriously thinking MS didn't inject any new spying or similar code into one of their numerous W7 updates since 2009?

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    6. Re:Is Windows 7 supported? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      If you're doing it right, the GPU is dedicated to the VM. This has been a thing for a few years now - Intel calls it VT-d, AMD calls theirs AMD-Vi.

      Most hypervisors that aren't ancient also support it, but your mileage may vary with GPUs made by twats that specifically disable this in their firmware in order to get you to buy a much more expensive version of the same card (Nvidia)

    7. Re:Is Windows 7 supported? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hear Linux works wonderfully.

    8. Re:Is Windows 7 supported? by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      I have zero plans to let Microsoft's spyware, Windows 10, on my systems.

      Better... Linux supported, runs like a dream. Except of course for those pre-week 24 segfaulting parts, which AMD rma'd without fuss. Sent the new part with a nicer cooler too, with programmable LEDs :)

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    9. Re: Is Windows 7 supported? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A fear-mongering , paranoid faggot like you shouldn't be on a computer anyways. Go watch Alex Jones instead.

    10. Re:Is Windows 7 supported? by ckatko · · Score: 0

      Its still going to be a serious hit to modern games.

      Just because the GPU passes through, doesn't mean the CPU doesn't take a hit. Unless, perhaps, with some sort of ultra-thin OS "dedicated VM host" instead of hosting on Linux or Windows.

      There are various benchmarks and stats to read online if you're so inclined.

    11. Re:Is Windows 7 supported? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I've noticed that AMD's GPUs now only support Windows 7 and Windows 10. They dropped support for 8.1! The last good version before the spyware came in...

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    12. Re:Is Windows 7 supported? by MrL0G1C · · Score: 2

      My excuse is that I'm a gamer that doesn't want to spend endless hours trying to get games to work rather than simply playing them. Using an OS should not be hard work.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    13. Re:Is Windows 7 supported? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Actually, if you're using KVM with hardware with the appropriate extensions, your cpu hit is almost negligible. Expect something in the 2-5% range.

    14. Re: Is Windows 7 supported? by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      Stay classy! /s

    15. Re:Is Windows 7 supported? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've dabbled in Debian, Ubuntu, Suse, RH for over a decade. Not as a developer, just a user who wants to buy stuff and read the news.

      I encounter crashes and hangs all the time. I want feature parity as in.... Less bugs.

    16. Re:Is Windows 7 supported? by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      Mr. Logic. Here is some logic you may want to think about. You may have to learn something, to use something thats new(to you). Unless youre planning on using PCIE Passthrough, gaming on linux isnt hard at all considering most games for linux come from steam. The main reason people want to switch to linux is because windows has pissed them off, be it crashes, spying, forced upgrades, you name it microsoft has pissed off hundreds of users with it. Considering the upsides you get with linux, Stability, Security(providing youre not a complete idiot) and last but most important... It does what you tell it to!! -- thats the main advantage imo. So, every now and then you may have to work(I know, nobody wants to work to better their self) and learn something, to make life easier and better in the long run.

    17. Re:Is Windows 7 supported? by MrL0G1C · · Score: 2

      I just watched a video benchmarking Linux wine vs windows in VM and the benchmarker couldn't get some of the benchmarks to work and had to do what sounds like a lot of research to get the stuff working that did work.

      Unlike my windows games (win7 - updates individually picked) where I download a game and play it 99% of the time without any difficulty. My windows machine doesn't crash any more than a Linux machine, it doesn't force down updates and I haven't allowed the spyware updates.

      I'm a gamer, I want to play games, lots of games, mostly indie games, without hassle and without being severely restricted. Linux just isn't ready for that.

      I've done enough mucking around trying to get software working for one lifetime, it's not fun it's frustrating and with games+linux often it's just going to be a dead-end which is even worse.

      " but most important... It does what you tell it to!! "

      So long as that's not "play my games".

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    18. Re:Is Windows 7 supported? by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      You muddied wine with playing games on Linux. Steam has thousands of games that have native Linux support. No wine no vm. There are tons of Indy games available for the platform. You're correct in most likely not playing AAA games on Linux. However with PCIE Passthrough once you get it setup, it's done it's just like having Windows desktop on bare metal. Also once microsoft no longer supports Windows 7 what will you do? How do you plan to play the latest and greatest games then? And just because one YouTube content creator couldn't Linux doesn't mean it's hard for someone that has half a brain and knows how to use google. My point originally was for people not to complain about abuse when there are other options. I got tired of the Microsoft abuse years ago, I decided it was time to make Linux my full time OS.

    19. Re:Is Windows 7 supported? by webnut77 · · Score: 1

      and I haven't allowed the spyware updates.

      Last I heard, Microsoft was bundling all the spyware updates with the security updates. Is this not true?

    20. Re:Is Windows 7 supported? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HA HA HA HA HA. Just stop, really. Either you don't game, or haven't gamed on windows to know the difference. Not only do many, many titles not support linux. The gameplay is shite. laggy, input lag, screen lag. I love linux, and use it every day. I hope some day it works well, but so far, it is a distant second to windows when it comes to gaming. Even Steam couldn't keep it from being a steaming pile when they made the SteamOS.

    21. Re:Is Windows 7 supported? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "How's the performance of GPU pass through for 3D graphics / games?"

      If you're going the RemoteFX route, utter shit for 'modern' Windows now days compared to Win 7/Server 2008R2. Literally halved performance because of some Microsoft fuckery.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    22. Re:Is Windows 7 supported? by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      And for every game with native Linux support there are 10 games without including most of the 2000+ games I own.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    23. Re:Is Windows 7 supported? by spth · · Score: 1

      The situation depends a lot on which games you like. For me, GNU/Linux is sufficient for gaming these days. I like transport simulations (such as Train Fever (AFAIR it was initially Windows-only, but that was a long time ago) and Transport Fever, historic grand strategy games (such as the Hearts of Iron, Europa Universalis, Victoria and Crusader Kings series, economy/city builders, especially, when they have an interesting transport system (such as Cities: Skylines, Widelands). Round-based fantasy strategy games, especially those with a complex magic system (such as Dominions 3, 4) It has been years since I used Windows for games (when I was playing Overlord II a few years ago - I haven't played it in a while, but it got ported to GNU/Linux since).

    24. Re:Is Windows 7 supported? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ignoramus. Windows _sucks_ for games, especially Windows 10, which never stops doing shit in the background which saps resources until it decides that you'll have to interrupt your gaming for updates and a reboot.

      Gameplay is WAY shittier, and laggier. Only ignorant asshats use Windows.

    25. Re:Is Windows 7 supported? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those of doing autocad in XenDesktop or Vmware Horizon beg to differ. GPU acceleration in VM is pretty mature and very fast these days.

    26. Re:Is Windows 7 supported? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't game through RDP. You do it through vdi which is quite fast provided you have the right hardware.

    27. Re:Is Windows 7 supported? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      We were doing it in VM between 'machines' and VDI and RDP both got halved on GRID GPUs when switching from 7/2008R2 to Windows10.

      Literal halving in any benchmark you could throw at it under any configuration.

      Microsoft did something with video memory access in a virtual environment and fucked a lot of good things up.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    28. Re:Is Windows 7 supported? by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      Only 2 out of the last 11 games I played and liked are listed as working with Linux and there's a good chance they won't run without some faffing about. Whereas it's rare that I have problems with win games - I typically don't play new releases until I think they're bug-fixed.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
  7. How sweet by jwhyche · · Score: 3

    I'm in the market for a new cpu. AMD's timing couldn't be more perfect.

    --
    I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    1. Re:How sweet by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Really liking AMD's offerings too. Great CPUs, great chipsets and a socket that won't be obsolete in a few months.

      For a workstation I'd save up for a Threadripper though. It's not just the threads, it's the fact that you get so many more PCIe lanes. Loads of PCIe lanes effectively future proofs you because you will have enough expansion capability to add that 30GB/sec SSD or USB 4.0 controller. Also the IOMMU support is good so you can run Windows in a VM with near native GPU performance on a Linux host.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:How sweet by omnichad · · Score: 1

      AMD's timing couldn't be more perfect.

      You're not kidding. I planned out a new PC build yesterday (Thursday) and ordered all the parts. It wasn't until today that I realized that my "order confirmation" email from Micro Center was a pre-order. And that explained why I couldn't find any benchmark results.

    3. Re:How sweet by jwhyche · · Score: 2

      I planned out a new PC build yesterday

      Ahh, nothing like the thrill and the dread on first power up of a new build. Lovingly you put all the parts in, rechecking everything. Then you flip the switch and ..... nothing. After a few frantic moments of rechecking everything you realize it would work better if you plugged the damn thing in.

      For a workstation I'd save up for a Threadripper though. It's not just the threads, it's the fact that you get so many more PCIe lanes

      I was disappointed by the number of pci-e lanes in this chip. Good call on the future expansion capability.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    4. Re:How sweet by jwhyche · · Score: 2

      Loads of PCIe lanes

      64 PCIe lanes.....

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
  8. Re:Is Windows 7 still supported? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Windows 7 End of Extended Support: January 14, 2020.

    IMO, if you're already planning to use Windows 7 after Jan 14 2020, then it's time to turn in your geek card.

  9. Walking Back Expectations by mentil · · Score: 1, Informative

    Anyone remember this image from just a few months ago? AMD was throwing stones at Intel's 'mere' 8% average annual IPC improvements, implying they would do much better than that. And then they drop a chip with 3% better IPC than last year's. Hard not to feel disappointed. When the best thing a review can say is "it's faster than last year's chip in every benchmark" that's damning with faint praise.

    I still think I'm gonna wait to build a new rig until PCIe 4.0 mobos are out. AMD and Intel are dragging their heels hard on that one, PCIe 5.0 might be out first.

    --
    Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    1. Re:Walking Back Expectations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good on ya. Waiting for next year's technology has proven to be a real money saving strategy over and over again. You'll just keep using your Pentium 4 forever.

    2. Re:Walking Back Expectations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AMD have repeatedly said (from about 9 months ago) that Zen+ would only be a modest improvements gained from the die shrink, and that there are no significant changes to the Zen micro-architecture.

      Slightly more substantial improvements are likely with the Zen 2 based chips next year, which will be based an a 7nm foundry technology (broadly equivalent, but slightly ahead of the 10nm foundry technology that Intel is currently struggling with right now).

    3. Re:Walking Back Expectations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone remember this image from just a few months ago? AMD was throwing stones at Intel's 'mere' 8% average annual IPC improvements, implying they would do much better than that. And then they drop a chip with 3% better IPC than last year's. Hard not to feel disappointed. When the best thing a review can say is "it's faster than last year's chip in every benchmark" that's damning with faint praise.

      I still think I'm gonna wait to build a new rig until PCIe 4.0 mobos are out. AMD and Intel are dragging their heels hard on that one, PCIe 5.0 might be out first.

      3% better IPC, sure. However, IPC is not everything. When combined with other optimizations, that translates to 16% better performance. I think they hit their mark and then some.

    4. Re:Walking Back Expectations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only, that's not really the truth. Depending on your workload the 2k series could gain you quite a lot more than 3%. IPC isn't everything.

      The big thing here is that it's a node shrink. A known architecture with some improvements on a smaller node. Next step, Ryzen 2 is the one to keep your eyes on.

    5. Re:Walking Back Expectations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It says CAGR, not 8% IPC. They hit 10% CAGR.

      Source: https://www.anandtech.com/show/12625/amd-second-generation-ryzen-7-2700x-2700-ryzen-5-2600x-2600/4

  10. Fixed, or not fixed? by AbRASiON · · Score: 0

    https://bugzilla.kernel.org/sh...

    1. Re:Fixed, or not fixed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Add to that the kernel patches we need to carry until they fix spectre if that's even possible. I know it's hard to exploit but it is nevertheless a hardware design error. The excuse that some branch prediction feature can't be forgone is bullshit. It's a flaw and it needs to be fixed in hardware. They can continue to produce flawed hardware for those that want the extra performance and don't give a shit about quality but those products need to be clearly labelled that way. And even that assumes no performance hit from the kernel patches so in reality we get hit either way anyway. Correctness is a thing that has value and I'm not going to buy a CPU with known defects. Fuck AMD. Not necessarily with powdered glass and bow resin like Intel but this is deceptive. Tell us when your shit is fixed. Until then, shut the fuck up.

    2. Re:Fixed, or not fixed? by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Fixed.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    3. Re:Fixed, or not fixed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spectre was only made public in January, you can't expect CPU mfrs to turn on a dime. These new chips have been in the works for years.

    4. Re:Fixed, or not fixed? by AbRASiON · · Score: 1

      Yep great moderation AMD fans / losers. This is a very, very relevant ongoing issue with the Ryzen series which is NOT resolved.
      Children.

  11. amd compensated this site.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they used slower ram on the intel systems....

    they downplayed the importance of single-threaded performance... especially important for gaming and applications like photoshop.

    they left off coffee lake i3 which would have beat the charts on a price/performance basis.

    fuck off, hothw.

    1. Re:amd compensated this site.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      coffee lake i3 lol, noone looks at performance benchmarks to see what a 10 year old chip with the new core architecture will do, noone cares that u can buy a computer for 300$, here's ill save u some time, next year's i3 will run similar to this year's i3 with about 5-10% perf gain. there happy? ... now the i7 with 2-4 additional cores over older quad cores, that's what interests people. Chances are if you're buying an i3 you are not in the "enthuthiast" crowd whom these benchmarks are for

  12. Sad :(... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... that I can't buy these.

    Investing in a 4000 to 6000 euro costing computer only to then have it owned by amdflaws is not my idea of a good investment.

    Sorry Electronic Industry... but you'll have to wait a while and produce better/more secure electronics if you want to get my money ! ;) :(

    1. Re:Sad :(... by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      4000 euros? what kind of "supercomputer" are you trying to build? If a new Ryzen system costs you more than $1000 USD total(no GPU) you did something wrong. I even was able to get NVMe drive and 3466MT/s ram with my expensive at the time motherboard and cpu, and it costed $800 only thing i didnt buy was a case and PSU so even with those $1200 tops unless you go with some crazy shit for "looks" in which case dont complain about cost.

    2. Re:Sad :(... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      amdflaws was a scam to manipulate the stock market

  13. Hopefully create competition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One thing lacking with PC's has been really good competition in the CPU market. I am definitely more interested in a AMD PC then a ARM PC. Now if we can only get PC makers to offer more AMD based PC's which will give us all more choices.

    1. Re:Hopefully create competition by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1

      >> if we can only get PC makers to offer more AMD based PC's which will give us all more choices

      I wonder if you wrote that as AC so no one would make you turn in your geek card. Real Slashdotters don't work with "PC Makers" (unless its for the day job that provides the health care) - we always build our own.