Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:
Germany 08/31
Chicago, IL USA, IL 10/19

Regularly scheduled events

User information for NewMaxx

Real Name NewMaxx   
Search for:
 
Sort results:   Ascending Descending
Limit results:
 
 
 
Nickname None given.
Email Concealed by request
Description
Homepage http://
Signed On Jul 4, 2007, 21:44
Total Comments 1222 (Pro)
User ID 41686
 
User comment history
< Newer [ 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 ] Older >


News Comments > AMD Ryzen Reviews
84. Re: AMD Ryzen Reviews Mar 4, 2017, 15:47 NewMaxx
 
Simon Says wrote on Mar 3, 2017, 16:37:
Well... this explains a lot... Botched rushed release... I'll wait until these issues are fixed then take a look at it again, still, if these are true, its a BIG BLUNDER on AMD's part.

AMD has the intention of fixing many of the problems by the time R5 comes out but I don't expect a fully mature product until the refresh. That being said, the 6/12 chips should be excellent, but IMHO the 4/8 chips will be underwhelming due to the halving of cache because of how they designed this chip (heavier reliance on cache to compensate for lower memory performance). Of course, less die space given to cache has its benefits in TDP and overclocking, but it also means they can be looser with binning, so I don't see it (4/8) as a compelling product. Nevertheless on the whole I see Ryzen as a pretty solid undertaking, not a blunder by any means.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > AMD Ryzen Reviews
83. Re: AMD Ryzen Reviews Mar 4, 2017, 15:38 NewMaxx
 
Dev wrote on Mar 4, 2017, 09:37:
I'm in a similar boat. BUT, fortunately I found out there's a PCIE bus adapter that you can use m.2 drives with, with zero loss in performance (since there's no controller chip slowing things, just a direct bus interface).
So I'm looking at putting the Samsung 960 pro or evo into my older system.
Note: Only thing you miss out on is BOOTING to the m.2 (since it's mobo support that's needed). However, you can work around that, including by sticking a usb boot sector on a thumbdrive into a USB port that then boots the m.2

All true, just keep in mind there are different kinds of M.2 cards and slot types. For the drives you want to make sure to get NVME over SATA as you don't get the benefits of avoiding a SATA controller otherwise (higher sequential speeds, much higher I/O operations, lower latencies, less CPU overhead, etc). The two you mention are NVME, I'm just pointing that out for other people. Of course, NVME drives are expensive as hell, with Intel's 600p being the cheapest but not very great. Keep in mind M.2 drives have the tendency to overheat and will throttle when they do so - so consider your cooling situation with regard to the PCI-e slot.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > AMD Ryzen Reviews
82. Re: AMD Ryzen Reviews Mar 4, 2017, 15:36 NewMaxx
 
Dev wrote on Mar 4, 2017, 09:49:
Microcenter sells CPUs at a loss figuring they are drawing you in to buy the other parts there, which is why they don't sell them online at that price.
But if you are near one, you are set!

Yes, that's true, I mention that in another one of my posts. Keep in mind you can get the cost down (online) to that with intelligent buying via combo deals, promo codes, and rebates. I picked up my 6700K over Black Friday for $299 (when Microcenter had it for $259, along with $30 off a motherboard combination) with a $129 motherboard; however, there was a $22 combo, a $15 rebate on the motherboard, and $25 off with a VCO promotion. So I ended up paying $367 which still beat the Microcenter combo, AND I didn't have to pay tax.

(P.S. I paid $123 for 32GB of DDR4 then, too, thanks to a 5% mobile coupon and a 16GB RAM kit on sale for $64.99 - again no tax, and MC couldn't match that; voila, <$500 total)
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Wildlands PC Details
4. Re: Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Wildlands PC Details Mar 3, 2017, 23:36 NewMaxx
 
I ran both betas with Very High settings (with some annoying effects disabled) at 1080p with my GTX 1080 and 6700K @ 4.4 with 32GB of RAM, on a SSD RAID-0. Anything more suffered too much in performance terms...which is pretty crazy. It's certainly possible to get high FPS most of the time but even that was only acceptable by my standards.  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > AMD Ryzen Reviews
73. Re: AMD Ryzen Reviews Mar 3, 2017, 07:50 NewMaxx
 
Ozmodan wrote on Mar 3, 2017, 07:23:
Well I was in Microcenter yesterday and they had two systems side by side, both identical except for processors, neither overclocked. One a 1800x the other an I7-770k. Tried both, there was no difference in gameplay at all, in fact the AMD actually seemed a bit faster in spots. If you open a bunch of other apps the Intel systems became slower significantly. I usually have 4 or 5 other apps running even when gaming. So for me the AMD just owns the Intel I7 in this scenario.

I just do not overclock anymore. It is just a good way to ruin your computer. I build a lot of systems for people and have seen more people burn up their system overclocking them even water cooled rigs.

I appreciate your subjective viewpoint. It's surprisingly relevant when you're choosing a component.

As far as overclocking is concerned, you've touched a nerve for me. The vast majority of people (including review sites) don't know how to overclock. I'll give an example of a PC I built two years ago for a friend. 4690K, moderate air cooling ($40 range). I pushed the voltage and speed as far as it would go until it hit my limits - <90C with newest Prime95 (AVX) on Blend and Small, and once it passed 12 hours of those I dropped it a multiplier (100 MHz) and left it there. Ended up being 4.4 GHz at 1.185V - fantastic results, infinitely stable, no potential damage with 10 years of running.

The problem is you have people saying, for example, a 6700K can do 4.8 on good air with such and such voltage (let's say 1.4V), and they tell you NOT to test with AVX Prime because it "kills CPUs and is no longer relevant." These guys drop 1k+ a year on computers and have a new CPU before your head can finish spinning. You follow this line and you end up with a charred failure after 1-2 years because you hit throttling temps when x264 encoding a few months after you got it. I've actually, literally, seen pros say that "just use it in your system until it BSODs" as a stability test. These are the people who are ruining overclocking.

Don't listen to them. They're full of shit. Keep your voltage low, temps low, and pass the hardest test under the sun, then drop another 100 MHz from there to be on the safe side. You'll be fine. P.S., for Ryzen 8/16, that means <4.0 most likely.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > AMD Ryzen Reviews
67. Re: AMD Ryzen Reviews Mar 3, 2017, 01:34 NewMaxx
 
Slick wrote on Mar 3, 2017, 01:14:
So the 65w part can draw up to the same limits as the 95w parts? I believe this is around 120w?

It's weird calling it a 65w part, other than it's just underclocked out of the box...

I am interested in power draw, would like to know if the 1700 and the 1700x draw the same power if they're both OC'd to 4ghz, also that 4ghz is indeed achievable with proper cooling on a 1700

Intel and AMD have always determined TDP differently but even then thermal is different than power. Power can definitely spike beyond 120W, in fact the "levels" tend to be ~140W and ~200W since the motherboard's design is also important. All else being equal, yes, a 65W design has similar limits to a 95W design. However there's binning (quality of the silicon) and efficiency (higher voltage allows higher clocks without noise, higher voltage means more heat, more heat reduces efficiency), so you have diminishing returns on top of the SKUs (tiers). There's a ton of reasons to have different SKUs that I won't go into here, but evidence is that the 6/12 chips will have the same cache layout as the 8/16, which means higher TDP per core relative to clock but higher performance relative to that ratio.

An average 1700 will probably be binned lower and require higher voltage (and more power, plus heat) than a 1700X to hit the same speeds, but the diminishing returns on a 8/16 chip means that the 1700X and 1800X don't offer a whole lot more. This is due to the fact that the more cores you have, the more severe a penalty you have for increasing clocks. You can see this exhibited in mobile design (where you have lower raw clock speeds and often a configuration with separate "fast" and "slow" cores). I could go on but, anyway, from an overclocking and value standpoint, the 1700 is the way to go. Unless you're talking the R5 6/12 cores; that's a different story.

This comment was edited on Mar 3, 2017, 01:44.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > AMD Ryzen Reviews
65. Re: AMD Ryzen Reviews Mar 3, 2017, 00:35 NewMaxx
 
Slick wrote on Mar 2, 2017, 23:57:
I read this entire thread, and I'm surprised that no one has answered what I'd have thought to be the most important questions:

1) is the 1700x/1800x worth the markup compared to the 1700, with regards to stable overclocking?

2) what's the deal with the 1700 being a 65w part, and the 1700x/1800x being 95w parts? is the 1700 really limited in OCing?

Basically, can we all get away with just a 1700 and still manually OC to get performance equivalent or near a 1800x? That's the $329/$499 question!

1) No.

2) TDP doesn't really mean much. For example, one review showed the 1700X doubled power usage by going to 4.0 GHz. It's a measure of thermal output only, and even then it's measured differently. Also the 1600X (a 6/12 part) is a 95W TDP part. It's essentially meaningless.

1700 for manual OC is probably the way to go, yeah.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > AMD Ryzen Reviews
63. Re: AMD Ryzen Reviews Mar 2, 2017, 23:09 NewMaxx
 
https://goo.gl/ZX33Wh

https://goo.gl/ITQxLx

https://goo.gl/FH4uP3 (one of many) "A weak memory controller on Ryzen could also be to blame for the lower than expected gaming scores."

Showed too much of my hand: it's already known in review circles that AMD is planning a microcode update and BIOS update
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > AMD Ryzen Reviews
60. Re: AMD Ryzen Reviews Mar 2, 2017, 20:43 NewMaxx
 
eRe4s3r wrote on Mar 2, 2017, 20:29:
Where you reading these AMD statements? (out of curiosity) more importantly, do we know when R5 releases and at what prices?

R5 was expected for Q2 although usually it's the latter end of the stated period. The 6/12 chips are cut-down 8/16 (same cache layout) so that limits their ability to bin as finely, meaning they delayed it to get the R7 sales out the door (which clearly worked). As for pricing, the 6/12 are slated to compete with the traditional i5 range and then some ($209-259). As far as my other statements, I probably showed too much of my hand, but if you read through the reviews you'll see there's BIOS updates coming for better memory support and likely a microcode to fix any lingering memory latency issues.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > AMD Ryzen Reviews
59. Re: AMD Ryzen Reviews Mar 2, 2017, 20:32 NewMaxx
 
eRe4s3r wrote on Mar 2, 2017, 20:27:
Meh, reviews should show what people who buy the matching mainboard / cpu should expect right now. Insofar they show reality. Imo R5, and more importantly, response from INTEL will be the far more interesting things to watch for future proofing..

Agreed. Keep in mind you can get a 7600K + MSI M5 for $335 right now while even the cheapest Ryzen (R7) setup with similar motherboard features is $500+. I got my 6700K + 32GB DDR4 + Z170 (again with the perks) for <$500 a few months ago. The question of value is still relevant, and it's relevant now. I agree the 6/12 with kinks worked out and more motherboard selection (plus hopefully price stabilization) will make it more clear-cut. I wouldn't expect miracles until the refresh, though, and that's likely a ways out.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > AMD Ryzen Reviews
56. Re: AMD Ryzen Reviews Mar 2, 2017, 20:26 NewMaxx
 
HorrorScope wrote on Mar 2, 2017, 20:01:
Update I was reading on a subject of reviews with wildly differentiating game results. Leading candidate as to why? Different MB's and the consensus think that bodes well for Ryzen once they are all figured out and updated. Will keep an eye out on that, if it matches the 7700K or say within 5'ish percent, then all the rest and possible better future proofing come into play, maybe.

Yes, BIOS updates and microcode updates will help quite a bit. There's also a refresh in the works that should really do well. I've been saying wait for the 6/12 for a while now since by the time it's launched most of this stuff will be worked out, and it'll be a great value, especially for overclockers.

As far as gaming performance goes...future games, esp. DX12-only ones (optimized), will benefit from 6+ core/threads which will help Ryzen a bit especially in VR. It's likely Intel will maintain the overall gaming edge, though, at least if all you're doing is gaming.

For those giving various data from various views: just keep in mind, AMD's stock tanked today because of perceived poor gaming performance. It's definitely an issue. AMD already said (prior to launch) it was releasing a microcode update and BIOS update to fix a lot of the memory latency and cache issues.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > AMD Ryzen Reviews
47. Re: AMD Ryzen Reviews Mar 2, 2017, 18:08 NewMaxx
 
RedEye9 wrote on Mar 2, 2017, 17:54:
it looks that the Ryzen Integrated Memory Controller has been excellently tuned as it turned in great scores.

AMD has already admitted issues with it that will be fixed in future microcode updates as well as "Zen 2." Some places you can see it are in 1080p gaming and the VR latencies, but it shows up most prominently with memory latencies. Also, [H] still said it had a deficit in comparison to Skylake. Keep in mind they weren't able to really push it in that review, and we're still lacking comparison to Intel for other memory features.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > AMD Ryzen Reviews
43. Re: AMD Ryzen Reviews Mar 2, 2017, 17:26 NewMaxx
 
CJ_Parker wrote on Mar 2, 2017, 16:36:
Dude, why hold back? Just tell it like it is. What you really mean is an AMD PEASANT!



No, really, if you're somebody who works a lot with Photoshop, does a lot of video editing, games and streams, even does some business on your PC, it's a good chip. Anybody with real cash will likely go Apple or higher-end Intel for that, though. Especially since you often don't need a discrete GPU for that and your tasks will be very memory bandwidth-sensitive. Likewise ECC is a requirement for servers. Keep in mind AMD will release higher end stuff and a refresh (Zen 2?) to cover all those areas. A budget gamer, also, is looking at Intel. So it's a bit of a middle-ground, albeit again I think the 6/12 with good cooling will be the best value in future terms.

Given the cost of the R7 chips I wouldn't call them peasants at all, more of a gentry.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Game Developers Choice Awards
14. Re: Game Developers Choice Awards Mar 2, 2017, 16:22 NewMaxx
 
Total-Khaos wrote on Mar 2, 2017, 15:26:
I fail to see the innovation in creating procedural planets and lifeforms with the small number of variations discovered thus far for each one. They are all too similar -- great ideas, sure, but they were executed very poorly.

I can't help but agree. Minecraft, for its time, was considered innovative, and in many ways it was. After that we had tons of games with procedural aspects, we had endless crafting and survival, exploration, etc. No Man's Sky is not even evolutionary let alone revolutionary.

The crazy thing is we have tons of quality indie games out there and many are innovative. Even those that are along the same lines are more innovate than NMS...so yeah, doesn't make much sense.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > AMD Ryzen Reviews
39. Re: AMD Ryzen Reviews Mar 2, 2017, 14:57 NewMaxx
 
Ozmodan wrote on Mar 2, 2017, 14:20:
All the naysayers crack me up.

http://www.legitreviews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/thief-ryzen-1800x.jpg

That being said, you're arguing a case of a more robust system usage. I agree with you on that...the problem is, Ryzen has a notoriously weak memory controller which makes it pretty impractical for a serious machine; no ECC, no quad, no 8xDIMM, no high-speed DDR4, etc. Still, Ryzen is the best for a budget creator (a term I've used before on here in Ryzen threads) who needs more from their machine, but pure gamers or more serious workstation users will still be going Intel. However, Zen 2/refresh is already on the horizon and should fix these issues, plus future games will be better optimized for 6+ cores/threads, especially VR and especially with DX12. It makes a compelling case for the 6/12 for a moderate overclocking gamer. For someone gaming and encoding, this Ryzen is still great, too. Also I tend to agree that this will be interesting for the mobile case.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > AMD Ryzen Reviews
38. Re: AMD Ryzen Reviews Mar 2, 2017, 14:47 NewMaxx
 
Agent-Zero wrote on Mar 2, 2017, 14:17:
if thats the most current and up to date competition, thats surprising because they are usually in that range of price

im talking about comparable products - newest AMD vs newest Intel.. thats the point im trying to make

will there be any value to AMD or will intel drop their price to compete and edge them out

thats the real question

The 7600K is the newest i5 and traditionally Intel's i5s have been in the $209-239 range. They have never been $300 chips. The 2500K, the most famous of all, launched at $216. The 4670K, $227. Etc. I'm not trying to be a dick and I'm not trying to single you out, I'm just stating the facts. If you're talking i7, which have been $300+ chips, then the direct competition is the Ryzen 1700 with the 1700X/1800X being up against Intel's 6-cores, which IMHO is a different comparison all-together.

Intel has dropped their new chips in price a bit but I wouldn't jump to conclusions because Kaby Lake is basically Skylake with higher clocks and we saw the same sale prices for the latter over Black Friday and 2016 holidays as we're seeing now. Microcenter has always undercut standard online prices a bit (to get you into their stores) but quite frankly something like a 7600K + MSI M5 combo for $335 (current) is more than a good value versus the current Ryzen stock, at least for a budget gaming machine.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Game Developers Choice Awards
10. Re: Game Developers Choice Awards Mar 2, 2017, 14:38 NewMaxx
 
Firewatch was good. A lot of people were pissed because it seemed like it was going to offer more freedom - both in choice and in exploration. Others thought it cost too much for what it offered (and I may have leaned a bit into that camp). That being said, I thought it was a pretty good example of what a tight narrative should be like for a budget/indie game.  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > AMD Ryzen Reviews
25. Re: AMD Ryzen Reviews Mar 2, 2017, 12:52 NewMaxx
 
Agent-Zero wrote on Mar 2, 2017, 10:55:
the real question for gamers is how the $259 6-core will compare to the $300 i5 model

The 7600K is $199 at Microcenter right now, was $219 at Fry's, and has been relegated to $239 status at Amazon (going down during sales). Not sure where you get the $300 figure.

That being said, in gaming the 7600K fares okay against Ryzen in the 1080p and VR space. Moving forward it's ideal to have 6+ cores or threads so 4/4 might become limiting (making the Ryzen 6/12 an interesting choice), although much can be made up with IPC and raw clock speed. Still, in most games and with overclocking considerations the i5 will be hard to beat. For a pure budget gaming machine it will likely still be the best bet.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > AMD Ryzen Reviews
22. Re: AMD Ryzen Reviews Mar 2, 2017, 12:47 NewMaxx
 
eRe4s3r wrote on Mar 2, 2017, 11:47:
In theory the R5s should have higher boost speeds, because they don't need as much cooling. IN practice, it depends on how the binning works

The 6/12 chips are cut-down 8/16 since they share the same cache layout (which means they can't bin them down hard at all), however the 1600X also has the same TDP as the 1700X. That latter point doesn't really mean much in practice beyond the fact you won't have the same headroom you'd expect on many of those "budget" Intel overclockers. They should still overclock better and may be a better value on the whole depending on your needs.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > AMD Ryzen Reviews
21. Re: AMD Ryzen Reviews Mar 2, 2017, 12:42 NewMaxx
 
eRe4s3r wrote on Mar 2, 2017, 11:07:
Someone explain to me what is going on here please. That memory latency is not making sense to me, and if that is a true measurement then AMD has released a TOTALLY broken memory controller.

The memory controller has been long-known to be terrible (check my earlier posts on here about Ryzen's IMC) but that is something they can fix moving forward. It's why you don't see ECC support, quad-channel support, 8xDIMM support, or even fast dual-channel DDR4 support. No doubt a cost-saving feature as well as some tech incompetence (although their GPU division tends to make excellent memory controllers) and it will hurt in many places - mostly gaming (1080p) and a bit on VR latencies. Plus, of course, in many other areans.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
1222 Comments. 62 pages. Viewing page 14.
< Newer [ 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 ] Older >


footer

Blue's News logo