Slashdot Mirror
AMD 2nd Gen Ryzen Processors Launched and Benchmarked (hothardware.com)
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.
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.
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.
For anyone interested, found this article about GPU passthrough, Linux, and Windows:
GPU passthrough: gaming on Windows on Linux
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)
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.
You know jack shit about this.
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
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.