Quote (DCSS @ Dec 4 2018 06:52pm)

Imagine being Jim Keller right now, one of the chief architects behind Ryzen who is now the current senior VP over at Intel. You have to go toe to toe and slay the beast you constructed. It's got to be a weird experience.

Quote (zell1luk @ Dec 4 2018 06:53pm)

I guess I thought avx played a part in a lot of console ports for some reason

Quote (DCSS @ Dec 4 2018 06:31pm)

They want to do the kinda tick tock improvement roadmap like intel used to with zen+ zen 2, but yeah the naming doesn't match how Intel did it at all. Zen+ should have been like R7 1790 etc. for that, and then Zen 2/Zen 2+ be 27xx.

AVX isn't for games, it's for high precision scientific workloads. I sure don't know of any games that make use of even AVX-256 instructions, which Ryzen already handles without any performance malus, let alone the newer AVX-512 instructions which I would expect better for in Ryzen 2 or Ryzen 2+ anyway since they have the licenses required to implement it as well as the engineering talent to make it happen.

Quote (zell1luk @ Dec 4 2018 05:48pm)

If these are true (primarily the prices), Intel just went out of business.
The prices honestly seem too low. If they are really going to have an APU with 20 SM's that are at least as good as the current ones, that's going to be crazy for budget builders. If that ends up be 7nm Vega/Navi, I think the market for low end GPU's is gone (good for Nvidia I guess?)

/e one criticsism, why not just have R9 3800 and 3800x (keep it consistent with the other tiers). Would this also mean that Threadripper will now start at 16 cores instead of 8?

Quote (yupitsmeh @ Dec 4 2018 09:18pm)

this will be interesting for sure, chiplet design might pay off





are you sure some games arent using avx not 512 ofc

Quote (DCSS @ Dec 4 2018 08:31pm)

Can't think of any specific examples, might be some games that have it as an option but definitely not as a requirement, at least on pc... Anyway it's not worth worrying over ryzen avx support, it will be there when it's needed.

Quote (yupitsmeh @ Dec 4 2018 09:49pm)

think avx where they will improve on their ipc
engines and code i believe use it which is prolly why older intel excels pass ryzen on some games using those
which is why avx offset does affect clocks on certain games there is many topics/discussions all over on this

I do remember couple games patching to remove avx which did help both intel and amd get more performance

i'm excited for zen 3000
I could get more cores with getting more single core ipc which is why I went 8700k
hopefully it all works out great

Quote (DCSS @ Dec 4 2018 08:56pm)

I don't think simply implementing a newer version of avx would be heralded as an ipc increase. That's something few people would see or use. It would also result in a much greater than 13% uplift in avx-512 workloads, and Ryzen already executed avx-256 instructions without any performance loss, so I hope not.

8700k is probably going to be matched by a $99 cpu with an overclock, that is pretty dire for intel.

Quote (yupitsmeh @ Dec 4 2018 10:00pm)

maybe next tier up on that
but 512 is where they do need to compete also which with chiplet design can be passed down to consumer line if they go that route
wonder if dual channel will starve these though ccxs fighting for a channel