Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Dasa

AMD Zen

Recommended Posts

Nah, it doesn't have vega GPU. Why would I want glorified RX480 (4GB WTF). I have 6GB GTX1060

Edited by Jeruselem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah, it doesn't have vega GPU. Why would I want glorified RX480 (4GB WTF). I have 6GB GTX1060

I didn't say you wanted it... You posted about the laptop earlier in the thread though... so I got you the vid.

 

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the size of the box, looks like there's a motherboard in there ...

There is actually! They sent them out with Gigabyte B350 ITX motherboards. 2 CPUs, 1 cup motherboard.

AMD's Athlon processors making a comeback as ultra-budget Raven Ridge APUs

 

With the current first generation Ryzen chips lowest price somewhere around $100, AMD could be bring the Athlon name back to fill in the sub-$100 market and compete with Intel’s Pentium and Celeron processors. As such, you shouldn’t expect any particularly capable performance from the integrated graphics, which will likely be capable of smooth video playback and little else more visually-intensive.

 

For AMD, a cheaper Athlon offering could mark a complete product stack alongside their Ryzen CPUs and Raven Ridge APUs. It makes sense now that AMD's processors are a little more established at the high-end for AMD to attempt to pull away some market share from Intel’s dominant low-end processors - which have been left largely unchallenged for some time thanks to the stunted launch of AMD’s Bristol Ridge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2200G 2400G review

https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=9&hl=en&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=pl&sp=nmt4&tl=en&u=https://pclab.pl/art76962.html&usg=ALkJrhjeyDnuRrgDmyXMhcTO2bP-ZCeNNQ

 

looks like they oc to 3.9GHz ok at which point 2200G is a tad slower than the 1200 and 2400G is a bit slower than the 1500x

igp performance is below the nvidia 1030gt in most games but not all

 

2200G $139au

2400G $235au

 

for its price the 2200G does fairly well once overclocked assuming your happy to game at 720p

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-5-2400g-zen-vega-cpu-gpu,5467-8.html

Overclocking with AMD's Ryzen Master utility is simple. The execution cores responded readily to our efforts, and the Ryzen 5 2400G floated up to 4 GHz with a 1.4V vCore setting. We also adjusted the VDDCR SoC voltage, which is a single rail that feeds the uncore and graphics domains, to 1.25V. That allowed us to dial in an easy 1555 MHz graphics clock rate and push the memory up to DDR4-3200 with 14-14-14-34 timings.

A Noctua NH-U12S SE-AM4 cooler helped us circumvent thermal challenges (we measured 75°C under the AIDA CPU/GPU stress test).

 

unfortunately the people looking to get a cheap cpu\igp like this probably wont be looking to spend the extra cash on expensive ram and cooling so in a typical usage scenario it will be much slower

Edited by Dasa
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5HDOlfyEGkpNVvzE.jpg

 

new mb chipset with lower power use wonder how much difference it makes as some reviews have showed amd having higher idle power use

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be the CPU for sure. The process node just isn't that capable. Architecturally it may be limited too but that 14nm LPP from samsung just can't get there. The 12nm that they've made from that node will afford them 10%+ performance according to AMD So if we don't see Ryzen 2000 series chips not reaching 4.5GHz... that would be disappointing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some folks got the top end i9 to 6Ghz (on LN2 that is) which uses 14nm. Sounds like an architecture issue to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some folks got the top end i9 to 6Ghz (on LN2 that is) which uses 14nm. Sounds like an architecture issue to me.

Yeah Intel's 14nm process is the best in the business, it's just much better than other manufacturers process. AMD hopes that GF's 7nm will match Intel's 10nm+ for performance.

 

AMD To Release Ryzen V1000 SoC To Take on Intel Gemini Lake

 

2017 has been the year of the rise of AMD in everything regarding processors. From entry-level up-to enthusiast class with Threadripper and Epyc. With Ryzen 2000G just launching and the Zen+ updates in April. They do not stop there, you can now add to that an SoC development, as the low-power embedded market was still left untouched, meet the Ryzen V1000.

 

The AdvenTech website is showing a motherboard that holds an AMD Ryzen Embedded V1000-processor, the preliminary product page for a SOM-5871 has been pulled btw but was showing the embedded R-Series SoC line based on the same a Zen Core already, the AMD V1000 SoC. So what exactly is the V1000 SoC you might wonder?

 

The V1000 is actually based on Raven Ridge, but developed under what you guys might remember us posting back in 2016 already, the AMD R-Series "Horned Owl" and G-Series “Banded Kestrel.” These two parts are big updates to AMD’s embedded SoC line. When we go back to the Advantech SOM-5871 product page we can see product specifications listed as the AMD V1000 supports a core/thread of “2/4/8.” This means dual, quad and octa-core likely with threaded SKUS as well.

 

This SoC series will see 1MB or 2MB cache with TDPs in the 12 to 54 Watt ranges. Being a SoC it has a built-in I/O chipset. The clock frequencies have not been listed but much like the Ryzen 5 2400G it should get a Vega GPU with 11 compute units including H.265 decode and encode and VP9 decode and Ultra HD support. An earlier leaked iBase Mini-ITX revealed the Vega and CPU core count as well as the up to 32GB of dual-channel DDR4-2400/3200 with optional ECC. the AdvenTech page has been showing.

 

^ that's cool I guess.

AMD Ryzen 2600 Benchmark Spotted

 

And yes you can deduct anything and pretty much everything from that, including a 3.4 GHz base clock and a 3.8 GHz turbo. The new leak was spotted at GeekBench and seem to be interesting as it shows that exact same product code, the single core score returns a 4269 points and the multicore score now sees 20102 points. So let's call that a ~10% performance increase. Obviously, we will still need to learn if the new Ryzen 2000 series can tweak higher compared to its predecessor.

 

Now I know, it's not much to look at and Geekbench most definitely is not definitive and all saying, but I made the following comparison. BTW I assume the Ryzen 2600 is a non 'X' model much like a Ryzen 1600, and as such compared based on that being the fairest baseline. Note, the L 1/2/3 caches on the original Ryzen 5 1600 entry seems to be messed up, for the Ryzen 5 2600 they seem spot on. Also, the Insyde Software BIOS for Ryzen 5 2600 might seem weird, but that is a UEFI Firmware & Engineering Services Provider, indicating this test was using an engineering sample motherboard.

 

Benchmark graph in the link.

Edited by SceptreCore

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+200MHz clock bumps

Little disappointing.

 

However soldered IHS should help the OC crowd a bit.

 

It'll be better but not really worth upgrading to if already on Ryzen 1.

 

Zen2 will be when we see if it has legs or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+200MHz clock bumps

Little disappointing.

 

However soldered IHS should help the OC crowd a bit.

 

It'll be better but not really worth upgrading to if already on Ryzen 1.

 

Zen2 will be when we see if it has legs or not.

Well... we don't know what that's going to do for top end overclocking frequencies. Obviously AMD don't want to show their hand just yet. A modest 5% bump over the Ryzen 1000 isn't too bad for just just base frequencies. Most hardware reviews are just the base clocks first and so it'll make the graphs look better at least. Then there's the small arch improvements and the Precision Boost 2 for better turbo clocks. Just need to wait and see when they launch what is actually bringing the improvements and what's not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the first post in the guru3d link by "Nebula":

 

Ryzen 2600 vs 1600:
Single Core: 3,8 : 3,6 GHz = 1,055 The turbo core clock is about 5,5% higher.
Scores (Single Core) 4269 : 3636 Points = 1,174 The score is about 17,4% higher.
Multi Core: 3,4 : 3,2 GHz = 1,062 The base clock is about 6,25% higher.
Scores (Multi Core) 20102 : 17773 Points = 1,131 The score is about 13,1% higher.

if you count 17,4 - 5,5 you have about performance increase for the single core.
if you count 11,3 - 6,25 you have about 5,06% performance increase.

So were looking at 5-13% IPC increase and for all of us better overclockability, so with 4,2-4,4GHz we should look at about 8-17% performance increase with lower/or same wattage.

And I think if they optimize it a little bit more, we could even get a little bit more performance and higher clocks, so it could be a banger.^^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

one thing that could really boost that is if they can oc the memory higher than 3200 assuming the fabric is still linked

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

one thing that could really boost that is if they can oc the memory higher than 3200 assuming the fabric is still linked

I don't see why the fabric wouldn't be linked. The die is the same from server to desktop. Zen has been really impressive.. but we just have to remember it's still in its infancy.

 

Rumour has it that my might contract TSMC to fabricate Zen 2 on the 7nm node. Vega will be pushed though this year on 7nm at Glofo to "clean the pipe" as they say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X 8-Core 2nd Gen Ryzen Processor Leaks With 4.2GHz Turbo Clock - Hot Hardware

 

Ryzen 7 2700X, unofficial details have leaked to the web by way of a couple of Futuremark 3DMark benchmark runs. Where the leaked benchmarks differ is in reporting the turbo clock. Both entries show the Ryzen 7 2700X as being an 8-core/16-thread processor with a 3.7GHz clockspeed, 16MB of L3 cache, and a 95W TDP.

 

Ryzen_2_2700X_3DMark.jpg

 

The core counts, cache, and TDP are all the same as the Ryzen 7 1700X. However, the base clock on the Ryzen 7 2700X is 300MHz faster, so there is an automatic speed bump without even factoring in architecture optimizations. As for the turbo clock, one of the listings indicates 4.1GHz and the other shows 4.2GHz. So, which is correct?

 

Potentially both of them. One possibility is that AMD set the turbo clock at 4.1GHz, with a 100MHz XFR (eXtended Frequency Range) that would bump the chip to 4.2GHz on occasion. And of course the other possibility is that one or both listings are flat out wrong—benchmarks sometimes have trouble properly identifying vitals of unreleased processors. That seems less likely here, with Ryzen 2 now only weeks away. But who knows.

Edited by SceptreCore

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The core counts, cache, and TDP are all the same as the Ryzen 7 1700X. However, the base clock on the Ryzen 7 2700X is 300MHz faster, so there is an automatic speed bump without even factoring in architecture optimizations.

I'm not sure there will be any architectural changes. The only thing mentioned so far is an improved Precision Boost. Will help with maintining the higher clock speeds but not IPC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×