Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

AMD Ryzen 3000 announced

anandtech.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 347 posts

Re: AMD Ryzen 3000 announced

#151

Post by lm28469 »

tmd83 wrote: post #105

I'm really looking forward to this. But one issue with current AMD cpu is that you have to buy a desktop GPU even when you are not doing any kind of gaming and such. I know intel iGPU haven't been terribly good but for work they are good enough and is one less part and cheaper to boot. For same performance a Ryzen 3rd gen + gpu might still be cheaper but the price advantage gets reduced. I haven't really seen that me…

You can get a cheap passive gpu, most don't even need power from the PSU. Something like a nvidia GT 710 or 730.

Re: AMD Ryzen 3000 announced

#152

Post by alkonaut »

zelon88 wrote: post #106
TheOperator wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also with CPU performance starting to taper off I think people need to also start think of their computers as longer term investments. I think the 8 core makes sense. Even my phone has 8 cores now...

I've been hearing this for a long time, but the "taper" isn't really a taper in all markets. In consumer markets, yes the taper is very real. Infact I bet you could take one $500 machine off the shelf of Wal-Mart every year for the past 5 years and benchmark them all within 15% of each other overall. But it isn't really visible when money is no object. If it's not the cores getting faster it's the core-count going up…

Also for at least one part of high perf computing, gaming, the trend has been that more cores now actually count in modern engines. Couple of years ago you wanted a couple of cores but single thread perf was the big thing. Now some modern game engines scale very well beyond 4 cores. Presumably they have shifted to some sort of work-item based system instead of having fixed threads for subsystems (rendering, AI, ...).

So upgrading from a 4 to 8 core a few years back was expensive and mostly not worth it for gaming, whereas now it might actually give the huge speedup the core count would indicate (Obviously for gaming this just means moving the bottleneck, but still)

Re: AMD Ryzen 3000 announced

#153

Post by njepa »

jdietrich wrote: post #143
tmd83 wrote: post #105

I'm really looking forward to this. But one issue with current AMD cpu is that you have to buy a desktop GPU even when you are not doing any kind of gaming and such. I know intel iGPU haven't been terribly good but for work they are good enough and is one less part and cheaper to boot. For same performance a Ryzen 3rd gen + gpu might still be cheaper but the price advantage gets reduced. I haven't really seen that me…

>But one issue with current AMD cpu is that you have to buy a desktop GPU even when you are not doing any kind of gaming and such. AMD just aren't selling many CPUs to business desktop system integrators, partly due to dubious tactics by Intel to keep them out of the market. If you sell most of your CPUs to enthusiasts, it just doesn't make sense to squander die area on a crappy iGPU. Gamers obviously want a fast GPU…

That is probably true, but if I am buying a GPU for hundreds of dollars I don't care as much about the cost of the CPU. I think AMD needs to do something if they want to fulfill the potential of Ryzen. (Removing or minimizing the role of the chipset might be interesting for example).

Re: AMD Ryzen 3000 announced

#154

Post by makomk »

sq_ wrote: post #9
klingonopera wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't that be the domain of ThreadRipper?

Using PCPartPicker as a reference [0], it looks like ThreadRipper bottomed out at 8c/16t with the 1900X. So I guess there's general overlap between Ryzen and TR in AMDs lineup there? [0] https://pcpartpicker.com/products/cpu/#s=63

Somewhat, though bear in mind that even the 1900X ThreadRipper has 4 memory channels and a ridiculous number of PCIe lanes whereas Ryzen is 2 channel and has much less PCIe.

Re: AMD Ryzen 3000 announced

#155

Post by chupasaurus »

beenBoutIT wrote: post #90
shmerl wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish they had a slightly cheaper option without a cooler. I already have a good air cooler from Noctua.

Ditto. I end up not buying their X chips because I don't want to pay for another high end cooler that I'm not going to use.

In my country stores are selling OEM Ryzen CPUs for the same price as BOX versions.

Re: AMD Ryzen 3000 announced

#156

Post by sascha_sl »

tmd83 wrote: post #105

I'm really looking forward to this. But one issue with current AMD cpu is that you have to buy a desktop GPU even when you are not doing any kind of gaming and such. I know intel iGPU haven't been terribly good but for work they are good enough and is one less part and cheaper to boot. For same performance a Ryzen 3rd gen + gpu might still be cheaper but the price advantage gets reduced. I haven't really seen that me…

There's always the 2200G and the 2400G, I'd expect those to get refreshed within the next year too.

Re: AMD Ryzen 3000 announced

#157

Post by avar »

ubercow13 wrote: post #111
WC3w6pXxgGd wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What will you be doing that will actually use 24 threads?

make -j24

Having 24 threads doesn't mean that -j24 is the sweet spot. I have a machine 56 thread Xenon machine for building git.git, and I find that with its sockets/threads-per-core/threads-per-socket of 2/2/14 the sweet spot is closer to sockets*threads-per-socket = -j28.

Things speed up rather linearly up to -j28, but once I get past -j28 (say -j32) it levels off, and -j56 starts being counterproductive.

Same thing with the 160 thread POWER8 machine I have access to. That one runs 8 threads per core, and CPU-limited -jN tops out at around -j20.

All of this is very worflow and CPU specific, but generally speaking don't blindly trust what things like "htop" show you as the number of available CPUs, under the hood many of them aren't "real".

Re: AMD Ryzen 3000 announced

#158

Post by justaj »

lm28469 wrote: post #151
tmd83 wrote: post #105

I'm really looking forward to this. But one issue with current AMD cpu is that you have to buy a desktop GPU even when you are not doing any kind of gaming and such. I know intel iGPU haven't been terribly good but for work they are good enough and is one less part and cheaper to boot. For same performance a Ryzen 3rd gen + gpu might still be cheaper but the price advantage gets reduced. I haven't really seen that me…

You can get a cheap passive gpu, most don't even need power from the PSU. Something like a nvidia GT 710 or 730.

Is there anything similar but from AMD? As a Linux user I'd rather not buy nVidia.

Re: AMD Ryzen 3000 announced

#159

Post by gigatexal »

avar wrote: post #157
ubercow13 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

make -j24

Having 24 threads doesn't mean that -j24 is the sweet spot. I have a machine 56 thread Xenon machine for building git.git, and I find that with its sockets/threads-per-core/threads-per-socket of 2/2/14 the sweet spot is closer to sockets*threads-per-socket = -j28. Things speed up rather linearly up to -j28, but once I get past -j28 (say -j32) it levels off, and -j56 starts being counterproductive. Same thing with the…

And on architectures like EPYC you run into NUMA issues and having to pin things to certain cores, right?

Re: AMD Ryzen 3000 announced

#160

Post by jpgvm »

njepa wrote: post #153
jdietrich wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>But one issue with current AMD cpu is that you have to buy a desktop GPU even when you are not doing any kind of gaming and such. AMD just aren't selling many CPUs to business desktop system integrators, partly due to dubious tactics by Intel to keep them out of the market. If you sell most of your CPUs to enthusiasts, it just doesn't make sense to squander die area on a crappy iGPU. Gamers obviously want a fast GPU…

That is probably true, but if I am buying a GPU for hundreds of dollars I don't care as much about the cost of the CPU. I think AMD needs to do something if they want to fulfill the potential of Ryzen. (Removing or minimizing the role of the chipset might be interesting for example).

Not necessarily. For instance if your target is 1080p gaming you can do that on a budget with an RX 570 or RX 580 + a reasonably priced Ryzen 7 chip. This market isn't at all competitive for Intel because it's price conscious and iGPUs aren't anywhere near up to to task.

The only market that doesn't care about CPU price is the market that doesn't care about price at all. i.e people building systems with i9-9900K or X299 platform + RTX 2080 TIs.

Post reply on HN