New Processor Choice

[KungFuJosh]

I'm deciding on which way to go with my system update. UserBenchmark claims the Ryzen is meh compared to either of the Intel chips, but there's trade-offs either way regarding the hardware that goes with AMD vs. Intel. There's no longer any price benefit either. Only the i7 is slightly less.

Ryzen 9 3900XT vs. i7-10700K vs. i9-10900K.

What do you think?

Thanks,
Josh

[brucehoult]

Impossible to say for sure without knowing your use-case. But it would be hard to separate them.

Most people would never notice a difference either between 8, 10 or 12 cores or between 4.7, 5.1, or 5.2 GHz turbo speeds by just using the machine -- you'd need a stopwatch to separate them, which is more about geek points than any actual need. Compared to 4 cores, sure that would be noticeable. Or compared to 32 cores (which I have in my work machine). But not among themselves.

The biggest difference is probably the 32 MB of L3 cache in the AMD compared to the 16 or 20 MB in the Intel chips.

[KaneTW]

Pretty much 0 reason to go with Intel nowadays, for almost any use case.

[coppice]

For a time I liked the idea of using Intel so I had access to the AVX-512 instruction set for development work. However, Intel have made such a mess of AVX-512 it doesn't seem to be worth bothering with right now.

[brucehoult]

For a time I liked the idea of using Intel so I had access to the AVX-512 instruction set for development work. However, Intel have made such a mess of AVX-512 it doesn't seem to be worth bothering with right now.

None of the listed choices support AVX-512.

And in most cases, if you actually use AVX-512 then the processor clock is slowed by so much for so long that it's simply not worth it unless you did some really serious processing with the AVX-512.

[coppice]

For a time I liked the idea of using Intel so I had access to the AVX-512 instruction set for development work. However, Intel have made such a mess of AVX-512 it doesn't seem to be worth bothering with right now.

None of the listed choices support AVX-512.

Really? I thought they'd put at least one of the AVX512 subsets into anything called an i9.

And in most cases, if you actually use AVX-512 then the processor clock is slowed by so much for so long that it's simply not worth it unless you did some really serious processing with the AVX-512.

Yep, that's why its currently a waste of time for most people. From tests I've seen even code which is really serious about using AVX512 isn't really getting a boost from it.

[brucehoult]

For a time I liked the idea of using Intel so I had access to the AVX-512 instruction set for development work. However, Intel have made such a mess of AVX-512 it doesn't seem to be worth bothering with right now.

None of the listed choices support AVX-512.

Really? I thought they'd put at least one of the AVX512 subsets into anything called an i9.

Nope.  i9-10900X has AVX-512, but  i9-10900K doesn't.

[tom66]

Have a Ryzen 7 3800X and can highly recommend it.  However, you will not get much from overclocking it, if that is something that bothers you.  I had stability issues at 4.4GHz when stock turbo is 4.2GHz.

[0db]

I wish more software was x86 independent. Probably the next gen of Fujitsu A64FX will contribute to wipe out x86 once for all.

As for me, choose[ Ryzen9-3800XT, i7-10700K, i9-10900K ] ---> Ryzen9-3800XT

[KungFuJosh]

Pretty much 0 reason to go with Intel nowadays, for almost any use case.

Why do you believe this? I'd love some examples. UserBenchmark still puts Intel fairly consistently above AMD. There's also no price benefit, the Ryzen costs more than the i7 which outperforms it.

I like the idea of the PCIe 4.0 support, but it will be a LONG time before I get anything that actually benefits from it...and Gigabyte's Z490 boards have the hardware to support it in the future.

[KungFuJosh]

My uses are mostly creative. Web and graphic design, photography, video production, audio production. For example, the Adobe suite, Vegas Pro, Presonus Studio One, Samplitude, kicad, Capture One Pro, Visio, etc... The other stuff I do won't care about the upgrade, and the only game I play is Rocksmith.

My current system is based around an i7-5820K with 32GB of RAM. I'm just swapping the chip, board, and power supply (and a new AIO cooler).

Thanks,
Josh

[NiHaoMike]

I wish more software was x86 independent. Probably the next gen of Fujitsu A64FX will contribute to wipe out x86 once for all.

Only if an affordable version of it becomes widely available. That was the main reason AMD was successful with their 64 bit architecture - make it affordable so it can gain market share. (The other big reason was working with GCC developers to get a supported compiler before launch.)

[coppice]

Really? I thought they'd put at least one of the AVX512 subsets into anything called an i9.

Nope.  i9-10900X has AVX-512, but  i9-10900K doesn't.

Intel really has trashed any meaning to what an i3, i5, i7 or i9 means. They need to either clean up or giveup those names.

[Marco]

I wish more software was x86 independent. Probably the next gen of Fujitsu A64FX will contribute to wipe out x86 once for all.

It's designed for very wide vector processing, not for the pointer chasing in shitty javascript code which the majority of servers require nowadays. Now x86 isn't specifically designed for that either, but it's a nice middle of the road architecture and apart from Apple's chips ARM can't compete there.

[coppice]

I wish more software was x86 independent. Probably the next gen of Fujitsu A64FX will contribute to wipe out x86 once for all.

It's designed for very wide vector processing, not for the pointer chasing in shitty javascript code which the majority of servers require nowadays. Now x86 isn't specifically designed for that either, but it's a nice middle of the road architecture and apart from Apple's chips ARM can't compete there.

The A64FX is specifically an HPC chip, and is much more like a Xeon Phi than a Xeon. It requires HBM2 memory, and other exotic stuff, that aren't going to be a good fit for high volume products. Maybe Fujitsu will produce more broadly applicable derivatives, but the A64FX looks like its only going to fit one product type.

[bd139]

Do not buy anything now. New ryzens coming out very soon.

But use case is important. I can think of better choices than all of them for all workloads.

[bd139]

Pretty much 0 reason to go with Intel nowadays, for almost any use case.

Why do you believe this? I'd love some examples. UserBenchmark still puts Intel fairly consistently above AMD. There's also no price benefit, the Ryzen costs more than the i7 which outperforms it.

I like the idea of the PCIe 4.0 support, but it will be a LONG time before I get anything that actually benefits from it...and Gigabyte's Z490 boards have the hardware to support it in the future.

Single thread is the only reason to run intel and you pay through the nose for that. Multiple thread Intel is dead on cost/compute/power consumption. Single thread may be ending with AMD zen3.

Even ARM stuff (preview data centre/compute) I’ve played with is fairly close to Xeon Gold SKUs and has better core scalability. Intel are quite frankly fucked there.

[wraper]

Pretty much 0 reason to go with Intel nowadays, for almost any use case.

Why do you believe this? I'd love some examples. UserBenchmark still puts Intel fairly consistently above AMD.

Userbenchmark is a joke, especially the last revision of how score is calculated. You literally can get i3 with higher scores than i9, not to say 8+ core Ryzen.
Unknown Owner and Team

Last proof of UserBenchmark’s lowest credibility is a mysterious unidentified ownership. Mystically, they don’t even possess specific team to represent them in internet to explain why things went wrong with them. In About page you won’t even find their names or corporate structure. Totally anonymous CPUPro user is the only source of their justification

[olkipukki]

Ryzen 9 3800XT vs. i7-10700K vs. i9-10900K.

What do you think?

Do you mean 'Ryzen 9 3800XT' (as above) or 'Ryzen 9 3900XT' as mentioned in the poll? 

[olkipukki]

Do not buy anything now. New ryzens coming out very soon.

When these due? Doubt we will see early than Nov/Dec, recently we have XT Zen2 updates.

If OP cannot wait, perhaps save money on CPU now, and spend $$$ on a proper MB and memory that gives confidence in upcoming Zen3 CPUs later.
https://www.amd.com/en/chipsets/x570

Also, SSD must if HDD still in a place.

As per OP's software list, I think Vegas Pro and some Adobe will utilise many cores, everything else still depends on a single-thread...
So, cheaper 3600X(T) beats to the dust i7-5820K with significant performance improvement.

[bd139]

Yep I’m running a 3600X at the moment on a B550 board. Drop zen3 in later and done. I did have a 3700X but due to some hardware shuffling I worked out 3600X had better ROI.

Another thing with intel is the longevity of the socket and board combo isn’t good.

[olkipukki]

Probably the next gen of Fujitsu A64FX will contribute to wipe out x86 once for all.

Sure, once Fujitsu will start pricing A64FX in Zimbabwean dollars instead of US, everybody can afford these then 

[KungFuJosh]

Do not buy anything now. New ryzens coming out very soon.

But use case is important. I can think of better choices than all of them for all workloads.

I listed most of my uses above. The 4000 series sounds interesting, but the 3900XT is already overpriced. I'm not spending more than $500 on the CPU. If they release it at the same price, sure I'd get it instead if I go that way.

[bd139]

Yeah forget the XT suffix. Not worth it. They seem to be premium selected/tested variants. Next gen is where it’s at.

[KungFuJosh]

Pretty much 0 reason to go with Intel nowadays, for almost any use case.

Why do you believe this? I'd love some examples. UserBenchmark still puts Intel fairly consistently above AMD.

Userbenchmark is a joke, especially the last revision of how score is calculated. You literally can get i3 with higher scores than i9, not to say 8+ core Ryzen.
Unknown Owner and Team

Last proof of UserBenchmark’s lowest credibility is a mysterious unidentified ownership. Mystically, they don’t even possess specific team to represent them in internet to explain why things went wrong with them. In About page you won’t even find their names or corporate structure. Totally anonymous CPUPro user is the only source of their justification

If you think userbenchmark is a joke, do you have an alternative comparison site? I don't care about their opinion articles. I look at the statistics based on computers that were actually tested. In many cases, the AMD chips score higher in some sections, even if their overall score is lower.

The lack of team identity doesn't prove anything. The absence of proof isn't proof.

Their scores also point out that there's not such an amazing improvement going from the i5 10600K to the i9 10900K, so they shit on Intel too. They also link to methods to test the scores for yourself and compare to their ratings. It seems less biased to me than any other site, especially any social media outlets (this one included). I could be wrong, they could be assholes with an agenda, it just doesn't seem like it.

[wraper]

If you think userbenchmark is a joke, do you have an alternative comparison site? I don't care about their opinion articles. I look at the statistics based on computers that were actually tested. In many cases, the AMD chips score higher in some sections, even if their overall score is lower.

The lack of team identity doesn't prove anything. The absence of proof isn't proof.

It's one of the red flags. As to why it's a complete joke:

Previously, Userbenchmark weighed single-core performance as 40% of the score, quad-core as 50%, and multi-core as 10%. However, due to the "unrealistic" scores of many-core CPUs like Ryzen 3000, Userbenchmark changed their weighing system to 40% single-core, 58% quad-core, and 2% multi-core.

As of more credible benchmarks, say passmark, or benchmarks on review websites when you can see more details for particular tasks. Say Gamer Nexus https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/3589-best-cpus-of-2020-so-far-gaming-production-overclocking-budget

[KungFuJosh]

Do not buy anything now. New ryzens coming out very soon.

When these due? Doubt we will see early than Nov/Dec, recently we have XT Zen2 updates.

If OP cannot wait, perhaps save money on CPU now, and spend $$$ on a proper MB and memory that gives confidence in upcoming Zen3 CPUs later.
https://www.amd.com/en/chipsets/x570

Also, SSD must if HDD still in a place.

As per OP's software list, I think Vegas Pro and some Adobe will utilise many cores, everything else still depends on a single-thread...
So, cheaper 3600X(T) beats to the dust i7-5820K with significant performance improvement.

My board budget is about $300. I was looking at the ASUS ROG Strix X570-E, but I'm open to suggestions if somebody knows of a nicer X570 board around that price (or so). If I go the Intel route, it will likely be with the GIGABYTE Z490 VISION D, which I prefer over the ASUS specs, and much prefer the Gigabyte i/o panel.

My system drive is a 970 Pro M2 SSD drive. My audio drive is a 850 Pro SSD. I also have about 10 more TBs in a SSHD and HDD for other storage needs. I'll be okay.

I like the idea of using the same board with the next gen chip, which will be an option with either brand of processor. Intel's next gen chip will (allegedly) support PCIe 4.0 and still use LGA 1200 sockets. I don't care about video cards, this also affects SSD drives in M2 slots (for example). Whether I go with a Z490 board, or a X570 board, it doesn't really matter. Even if both brands next release works on these boards, they will also be releasing newer chipsets with whatever improvements come with them. Both brands are likely to release new chips in Q4 2020, or Q1 2021. I don't need the lastest chip, it's obviously been a while considering my 5th gen "enthusiast" chip still performs well.

Thanks,
Josh

[wraper]

I don't see any point in X570 unless you have a specific needs such as using multiple NVMe PCI-E 4.0 SSD or sorts of. B550 will work just as good, also has PCI-4.0, and does not need any active chipset cooling with crappy small fan.

[bd139]

Completely agree. Mine is a silent build so that was a design choice for me as well.

[KungFuJosh]

If you think userbenchmark is a joke, do you have an alternative comparison site? I don't care about their opinion articles. I look at the statistics based on computers that were actually tested. In many cases, the AMD chips score higher in some sections, even if their overall score is lower.

The lack of team identity doesn't prove anything. The absence of proof isn't proof.

It's one of the red flags. As to why it's a complete joke:

Previously, Userbenchmark weighed single-core performance as 40% of the score, quad-core as 50%, and multi-core as 10%. However, due to the "unrealistic" scores of many-core CPUs like Ryzen 3000, Userbenchmark changed their weighing system to 40% single-core, 58% quad-core, and 2% multi-core.

As of more credible benchmarks, say passmark, or benchmarks on review websites when you can see more details for particular tasks. Say Gamer Nexus https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/3589-best-cpus-of-2020-so-far-gaming-production-overclocking-budget

That is interesting. But the site you linked agrees. It actually ranked the i5-10600K the best for stock gaming, including all the chips I mentioned in the poll, which is consistent with userbenchmark...

However, I'm not a PC gamer, and it appears that the 3900X is slightly better than the intel choices at a few tasks...but when it comes to the overclocking CPU benchmarks, intel is on top again. I think it's funny that that site wants me to buy the i5 instead. I like the idea of saving a few bucks. These chips seem to average each other out into a boring stalemate.

I think what it really comes down to is, that these chips are all really close in performance, and when you remove the brand loyalty bias, it barely makes any difference based on the chip alone...and with my preference towards the Z490 board, I may go in that direction if nobody has a good X570 suggestion to compete with it.

Thanks,
Josh

[KungFuJosh]

I don't see any point in X570 unless you have a specific needs such as using multiple NVMe PCI-E 4.0 SSD or sorts of. B550 will work just as good, also has PCI-4.0, and does not need any active chipset cooling with crappy small fan.

That's also interesting, but I do plan on eventually having multiple NVMe PCIe 4 drives. Plus I'm not worried about fans, I use a big ass Corsair 540 High Airflow ATX Cube Case. But the AMD chipset being a heat issue gives another point to the intel board.

[wraper]

It actually ranked the i5-10600K the best for stock gaming, including all the chips I mentioned in the poll, which is consistent with userbenchmark.

If you actually looked into it, it was with overclocked cache and only in a particular game. Stock 10600k is about 15 positions below. And nope it's not the best CPU for gaming. For some games 6 cores are below optimal. As for almost any other tasks besides games, AMD is leading a big time. And even in games AMD is only slightly behind and Intel advantage ceases to exist at resolutions above 1080p, and especially 4k since CPU is no longer a bottleneck.

[KungFuJosh]

If you actually looked into it, it was with overclocked cache and only in a particular game. Stock 10600k is about 15 positions below. And nope it's not the best CPU for gaming. For some games 6 cores are below optimal. As for almost any other tasks besides games, AMD is leading a big time. And even in games AMD is only slightly behind and Intel advantage ceases to exist at resolutions above 1080p, and especially 4k since CPU is no longer a bottleneck.

They ranked it the best, not me. But don't worry, I still don't want the i5.

[wraper]

They ranked it the best, not me. But don't worry, I still don't want the i5.

Best choice for gaming when overclocked and considering price, that's what they say.

[olkipukki]

My board budget is about $300. I was looking at the ASUS ROG Strix X570-E, but I'm open to suggestions if somebody knows of a nicer X570 board around that price (or so). If I go the Intel route, it will likely be with the GIGABYTE Z490 VISION D, which I prefer over the ASUS specs, and much prefer the Gigabyte i/o panel.

I got ASUS Pro WS X570-ACE over a year ago, paid a premium to rid off LEDs and all "flashy" stuff 
May be a better choice since then, and also depends from your personal preferences and needs.

[NiHaoMike]

If you think userbenchmark is a joke, do you have an alternative comparison site? I don't care about their opinion articles. I look at the statistics based on computers that were actually tested. In many cases, the AMD chips score higher in some sections, even if their overall score is lower.

The lack of team identity doesn't prove anything. The absence of proof isn't proof.

Their scores also point out that there's not such an amazing improvement going from the i5 10600K to the i9 10900K, so they shit on Intel too. They also link to methods to test the scores for yourself and compare to their ratings. It seems less biased to me than any other site, especially any social media outlets (this one included). I could be wrong, they could be assholes with an agenda, it just doesn't seem like it.

Phoronix is a big benchmark site that includes many real world applications, but it's been a while since I last checked them. I would suggest looking closer at benchmarks where the program used to test was compiled with an open source compiler like GCC or LLVM, since Intel's CC is rumored to intentionally disable optimizations for AMD. (Not sure if that's still the case but it would be easy to say that it certainly won't be optimized for AMD, since that would require knowledge of the inner workings and such optimization effort would not benefit Intel.)

[KungFuJosh]

My board budget is about $300. I was looking at the ASUS ROG Strix X570-E, but I'm open to suggestions if somebody knows of a nicer X570 board around that price (or so). If I go the Intel route, it will likely be with the GIGABYTE Z490 VISION D, which I prefer over the ASUS specs, and much prefer the Gigabyte i/o panel.

I got ASUS Pro WS X570-ACE over a year ago, paid a premium to rid off LEDs and all "flashy" stuff 
May be a better choice since then, and also depends from your personal preferences and needs.

Wow, that's still expensive for some reason. My board requirements include USB 3.2 gen 2, AX wifi (if it has wifi), multiple M.2 PCIe slots, I prefer a couple USB 2.0 ports for a couple specific devices, I prefer no PS-2 ports (but can get over it), Thunderbolt 3 would also be nice, but 4 is coming out soon and can be added later, so not a big deal either way... The gigabyte board I mentioned above basically covers everything including support for PCIe 4. They do have a B550 VISION D version that's interesting, but once again, compromising more things.

Thanks,
Josh

[NiHaoMike]

Wow, that's still expensive for some reason. My board requirements include USB 3.2 gen 2, AX wifi (if it has wifi), multiple M.2 PCIe slots, I prefer a couple USB 2.0 ports for a couple specific devices, I prefer no PS-2 ports (but can get over it), Thunderbolt 3 would also be nice, but 4 is coming out soon and can be added later, so not a big deal either way... The gigabyte board I mentioned above basically covers everything including support for PCIe 4. They do have a B550 VISION D version that's interesting, but once again, compromising more things.

USB 3.2, Wifi, and extra M.2 slots can all be added with PCIe cards. Thunderbolt seems to require support in the BIOS so you cant just plug in any Thunderbolt card and expect it to work (maybe things have changed since I last checked).

I suggest adding Wifi using a Wifi to Ethernet adapter external to the PC, since directly behind the PC is usually not the optimal location for the adapter. Also, you can share the adapter with other devices in the same room.

[bd139]

Screw WiFi for desktops. Run some Ethernet. 200% less painful and it’s not going anywhere.

[KungFuJosh]

USB 3.2, Wifi, and extra M.2 slots can all be added with PCIe cards. Thunderbolt seems to require support in the BIOS so you cant just plug in any Thunderbolt card and expect it to work (maybe things have changed since I last checked).

I suggest adding Wifi using a Wifi to Ethernet adapter external to the PC, since directly behind the PC is usually not the optimal location for the adapter. Also, you can share the adapter with other devices in the same room.

The boards, and the PCIe ax adapter I already have, use an external antenna. Behind the computer isn't a problem, because it's not relevant. I also have a PCIe M.2 card now because the M.2 slot on my current MB was outdated.

I use ethernet anyway, but I like having the wifi option, and use bluetooth from the wifi card. I want faster ethernet also...and I want to avoid adding extra cards when I can. It doesn't make sense to pay extra for cards (or have to power them) when nice motherboards exist with everything I want.

It basically works out to $260 MB + $300 in PCIe cards vs. just a $300 MB.

[KungFuJosh]

Hmmmm... The MSI PRESTIGE X570 CREATION is more than I wanted to spend, but damn that thing has some nice stuff going on.


EDIT: Now I think I'm leaning towards this board with either the 3600XT or 3900XT...and the 3900XT doesn't seem to give remotely enough performance increase to excuse the cost difference.

[bd139]

3700X is a good midpoint.

[KungFuJosh]

3700X is a good midpoint.

It's kinda stupid, but it bothers me that it's a year older than the others.

[wraper]

3700X is a good midpoint.

It's kinda stupid, but it bothers me that it's a year older than the others.

3900XT is not really an upgrade over 3900X, there is 1-2% difference in performance.

[bd139]

3700X is a good midpoint.

It's kinda stupid, but it bothers me that it's a year older than the others.

They're all the same age. The selection and grading is all that is changed.

[KungFuJosh]

They're all the same age. The selection and grading is all that is changed.

Sure, but the release dates. The release dates! 

[KungFuJosh]

It's kinda stupid, but it bothers me that it's a year older than the others.

3900XT is not really an upgrade over 3900, there is 1-2% difference in performance.

According to everybody's favorite site, it's only 2% overall between the 3600XT and 3900XT: https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-Ryzen-5-3600XT-vs-AMD-Ryzen-9-3900XT/m1211585vsm1202614

...besides the "nice to haves" section. But isn't that more server related than anything I would actually benefit from?

And what about their claims about lag? Is the 3300X really something worth considering?

[KaneTW]

As other people mentioned, userbench is a worthless site.

If you need the extra cores (many different simultaneous apps, parallel computations like compilation, simulations, ...), get the 3900XT. Otherwise pick something with suitably few cores.

[KungFuJosh]

As other people mentioned, userbench is a worthless site.

If you need the extra cores (many different simultaneous apps, parallel computations like compilation, simulations, ...), get the 3900XT. Otherwise pick something with suitably few cores.

Perhaps, but what you said is consistent with what userbench said...as is most of what everybody else said after saying they don't like userbench either. 🤷‍♂️

[wraper]

According to everybody's favorite site, it's only 2% overall between the 3600XT and 3900XT: https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-Ryzen-5-3600XT-vs-AMD-Ryzen-9-3900XT/m1211585vsm1202614

These 1-2% are according to real tests in all kinds of tasks. There is virtually no difference between CPUs with X and XT suffixes.

According to everybody's favorite site, it's only 2% overall between the 3600XT and 3900XT

And that's why I said that userbenchmark is a joke.

[KungFuJosh]

And that's why I said that userbenchmark is a joke.

Opinions are cute and all, but I like data better. Passmark says similar results: https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/AMD-Ryzen-5-3600XT-vs-AMD-Ryzen-9-3900XT/3781vs3778

Multi core stuff is better on the 3900XT, and passmark says the 3600XT is better on single core. That's along the lines of the data userbench says. https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-Ryzen-5-3600XT-vs-AMD-Ryzen-9-3900XT/m1211585vsm1202614


Is passmark also a joke?


Here's yet another one: https://www.cpu-monkey.com/en/compare_cpu-amd_ryzen_5_3600xt-1610-vs-amd_ryzen_9_3900xt-1608

On single core stuff, not much of a difference.

[olkipukki]

3300X really something worth considering?

You want spend $300+ on MB and $100+ on CPU? 

...it's only 2% overall between the 3600XT and 3900XT

If you don't know how and where use available cores, probably you don't need these 

In worst case, you will wait 2x longer on 3600 vs 3900 for Vegas Pro render output...

[KungFuJosh]

3300X really something worth considering?

You want spend $300+ on MB and $100+ on CPU? 

Yes, to waste less money in case the newer processors come out, which could be as soon as next month.
 

...it's only 2% overall between the 3600XT and 3900XT

If you don't know how and where use available cores, probably you don't need these 

In worst case, you will wait 2x longer on 3600 vs 3900 for Vegas Pro render output...

I do know. But I also know that most of my apps won't benefit. Maybe 2 or 3, part of the time. When I render in Vegas Pro, I walk away and do something else. I don't want to sit there doing nothing, whether it's 10 minutes or 20 minutes (or hours). Single thread speed will be more noticeable more of the time.

Right now I'm leaning towards the ASUS ROG X570 Crosshair VIII Hero, and the 3900X... but if the X670 stuff comes out next month (like some sites have speculated), then I'd rather have that if it's close at all in price (though I would probably wind up waiting a couple months for the firmwares to be sorted out). Of course, none of this being patient stuff will mean anything if my current board dies (I'm hoping it's just the PSU).

From the majority of the research I've done, it seems like now is a terrible time to buy anything. The main reason I'm leaning towards AMD is because of the security issues with Intel over the past few years, and it doesn't seem like everything has been sorted out yet.

Thanks,
Josh

[Mr. Scram]

AMD currently provides much better bang for buck and in almost all cases superior performance full stop. Intel is really busy juggling the numbers to make it look okay but they're in a full panic and have every reason to. B550 seems to be the sensible option. A lot less power hungry but performance doesn't really suffer. I'd advise to stop looking at comparison sites and artificial benchmarks and at actual benchmarks of the programs you expect to use and care about.

[KungFuJosh]

AMD currently provides much better bang for buck and in almost all cases superior performance full stop. Intel is really busy juggling the numbers to make it look okay but they're in a full panic and have every reason to. B550 seems to be the sensible option. A lot less power hungry but performance doesn't really suffer. I'd advise to stop looking at comparison sites and artificial benchmarks and at actual benchmarks of the programs you expect to use and care about.

Both sides of the CPU brand loyalists say the same thing, just swap the order of the brand names. The benchmarks I typically look at are (supposedly) based on real world build averages. I'm definitely not interested in older generation boards. If I go AMD, it will be X570 or X670. Better boards = longer usable life + better performance. I'm not going to skimp on that. I like the old saying "buy cheap, buy twice."

[Mr. Scram]

Both sides of the CPU brand loyalists say the same thing, just swap the order of the brand names. The benchmarks I typically look at are (supposedly) based on real world build averages. I'm definitely not interested in older generation boards. If I go AMD, it will be X570 or X670. Better boards = longer usable life + better performance. I'm not going to skimp on that. I like the old saying "buy cheap, buy twice."

B550 isn't an old generation, it's actually the most recent. The performance of X570 comes at a price. They needed to hit the market when they did but the chips aren't as frugal as they should because AMD was forced to roll their own. X570 being better isn't as clear cut as you seem to assume. B550 is more well rounded. X670 might improve things as it's more traditionally produced by others but performance is all speculation at this point. Look at actual benchmarks of the programs you're interested in, not useless aggregate scores. Real world performance is what you'll end up dealing with.

I don't give a shit about petty brand turf wars. I've bought and recommended Intel for a long time but currently AMD is the way to go. You can find people to back up any twisted view but most people acknowledge AMD is currently kicking ass and Intel is in a panic. Take the good advice of various people in this thread or don't. I doubt anyone ultimately really cares.

[KungFuJosh]

Both sides of the CPU brand loyalists say the same thing, just swap the order of the brand names. The benchmarks I typically look at are (supposedly) based on real world build averages. I'm definitely not interested in older generation boards. If I go AMD, it will be X570 or X670. Better boards = longer usable life + better performance. I'm not going to skimp on that. I like the old saying "buy cheap, buy twice."

B550 isn't an old generation, it's actually the most recent. The performance of X570 comes at a price. They needed to hit the market when they did but the chips aren't as frugal as they should because AMD was forced to roll their own. X570 being better isn't as clear cut as you seem to assume. B550 is more well rounded. X670 might improve things as it's more traditionally produced by others but performance is all speculation at this point. Look at actual benchmarks of the programs you're interested in, not useless aggregate scores. Real world performance is what you'll end up dealing with.

I don't give a shit about petty brand turf wars. I've bought and recommended Intel for a long time but currently AMD is the way to go. You can find people to back up any twisted view but most people acknowledge AMD is currently kicking ass and Intel is in a panic. Take the good advice of various people in this thread or don't. I doubt anyone ultimately really cares.

B550 has a gen 3 chipset link, and X570 has gen 4. Why would I want to buy a crippled motherboard? Am I missing something there? SSD performance will make a bigger difference than most of these CPUs will.

Let's be honest, I'm coming from an i7 5820K. Any of these CPUs will be a welcome improvement.

As I said previously, I'm most likely getting the Ryzen 3900X based on the opinions here, the stats, and the security issues with Intel. If I don't get that, it will be because either the 4900X came out, or I buy something cheaper to wait until the 4900X comes out.

[Halcyon]

Pretty much 0 reason to go with Intel nowadays, for almost any use case.

Depends what you are running. There are still some compatibility issues with some Linux or FreeBSD versions.

You also have a much larger selection of motherboards in the Intel-based market, particularly when you're looking at higher-end consumer and enterprise gear.

Having been bitten several times by "general AMD instability and failures" in the past for both CPU and GPU products, I find it hard to trust their products as a whole. As for speed, it has always been a cat and mouse game between Intel and AMD.

[westfw]

If you don't know how and where use available cores, probably you don't need these

The applications one uses will either know (and benefit), or not, right?  MY personal knowledge probably doesn't matter.

I like the old saying "buy cheap, buy twice."

Indeed.  I've always bought systems that were a bit behind the curve, and thus much cheaper.
Spending $1500 every 3 years is likely to make me a lot happier than spending $5k every 10 years!Especially since the non-CPU components tend to go obsolete nearly as fast, making "I'll just upgrade the slow component" pretty useless.
The first step is realizing that you don't NEED to have the fastest thing around.  (Unless you have a specific need where differences DO matter.  In which case you need a benchmark for THAT application.)

[wraper]

B550 has a gen 3 chipset link, and X570 has gen 4. Why would I want to buy a crippled motherboard? Am I missing something there? SSD performance will make a bigger difference than most of these CPUs will.

Do you not understand that the vast majority of PCI-E lines come from CPU directly? PCI-E 4.0 from chipset matters only if you actually have use for it, and in 99% of cases you don't. And unless you do something very specific, gen 4 instead of gen 3 NVMe SSD won't make any difference in performance, not to say you have gen 4 on B550 motherboards to begin with.

[0db]

Depends what you are running. There are still some compatibility issues with some Linux or FreeBSD versions.

I can confirm this for the HUAWEI MateBook D14 laptop.

It's based on AMD Ryzen 5 3500U. It works perfectly with Windows10 Pro, but it has some issue with Arch and Gentoo when you just "clone" the root partition from an intel-x86/32bit slice.

Rare event, but for certain job tasks you could be ::mandatorily:: requested to use "Windows10 Pro Workstation" which is only targeted to Xeon CPUs, and I have just found that you can run it only if you have Intel Xeon. On starting up it checks the CPU and refuses to continue if test fails.

For this reason I will for sure buy a Lenovo P1/Xeon laptop.

[wraper]

Pretty much 0 reason to go with Intel nowadays, for almost any use case.

Depends what you are running. There are still some compatibility issues with some Linux or FreeBSD versions.

You also have a much larger selection of motherboards in the Intel-based market, particularly when you're looking at higher-end consumer and enterprise gear.

Having been bitten several times by "general AMD instability and failures" in the past for both CPU and GPU products, I find it hard to trust their products as a whole. As for speed, it has always been a cat and mouse game between Intel and AMD.

Funny to hear since AMD GPUs on Linux are the least problematic

[BravoV]

Desktop class machine with ECC memory only with Ryzen, thats what I'm using. 

[wraper]

Rare event, but for certain job tasks you could be ::mandatorily:: requested to use "Windows10 Pro Workstation" which is only targeted to Xeon CPUs, and I have just found that you can run it only if you have Intel Xeon. On starting up it checks the CPU and refuses to continue if test fails.

For this reason I will for sure buy a Lenovo P1/Xeon laptop.

This is simply not true. People use Windows10 Pro Workstations with AMD Threadripper just fine. Also there is nothing I can google about it not running on lower end CPUs, nor there is anything about such requirements on it's purchasing page.
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/p/windows-10-pro-for-workstations/dg7gmgf0dw9s

System Requirements
Required processor   1GHz processor or faster
Required memory   1GB RAM for 32-bit; 2GB for 64-bit
Required hard disk space   Up to 20GB available
Required video card   800 x 600 screen resolution or higher. DirectX 9 graphics processor with WDDM driver
Required connectivity   Internet access (fees may apply)
Other system requirements   Microsoft account required for some features. Watching DVDs requires separate playback software
Additional system requirements   You must accept the enclosed License Terms, also at microsoft.com/useterms
Activation required • Single license • 32 and 64-bits included on USB 3.0 media

[0db]

This is simply not true. People use Windows10 Pro Workstations with AMD Threadripper just fine

Here Windows 10 Pro for Workstations was delivered as a part of the "Fall Creators" Update. We got an offer only for Intel Xeon and we purchased it, and then found we cannot just "move" to AMD Opteron/Threadripper because the OS checked for the processor and didn't complete the start up procedure if it doesn't find a XEON CPU.

Probably you need a second license or something to fix it. But how can you "practically" get it?

[bd139]

You can use the pro for workstations license key with normal windows 10 pro retail media AFAIK.

[Mr. Scram]

B550 has a gen 3 chipset link, and X570 has gen 4. Why would I want to buy a crippled motherboard? Am I missing something there? SSD performance will make a bigger difference than most of these CPUs will.

Let's be honest, I'm coming from an i7 5820K. Any of these CPUs will be a welcome improvement.

As I said previously, I'm most likely getting the Ryzen 3900X based on the opinions here, the stats, and the security issues with Intel. If I don't get that, it will be because either the 4900X came out, or I buy something cheaper to wait until the 4900X comes out.

What do you mean by "gen 3" and "gen 4"? PCie I assume? That's not correct. B550 has PCIe 4.0. AMD's site states "AMD’s B550 chipset enables PCIe® 4.0 compatibility for NVMe storage and graphics on mainstream motherboards, giving you confidence that your system won’t go obsolete before its time."

I'm not sure why you ask for help as you seem to be mostly operating on preconceived and honestly not very well researched notions. As with electronics the devil is in the details and it's a little more complicated than "higher number good". Buy a $300 X570 board if that tickles you the right way. It'll probably be fine.

Not that PCIe 4 is likely to really matter anyway. We've seen exactly the same discussions when PCIe 3 was introduced and people endlessly argued over whether PCIe 3 was required over PCIe 3. It was years before anyone saw any tangible real world benefit, long after those first systems were obsolete. This time around the benefits will be even less tangible as it's a case of diminishing returns. Then again, it's better to be stuck with it and by now you don't need to compromise that much to have it.

[Mr. Scram]

Depends what you are running. There are still some compatibility issues with some Linux or FreeBSD versions.

You also have a much larger selection of motherboards in the Intel-based market, particularly when you're looking at higher-end consumer and enterprise gear.

Having been bitten several times by "general AMD instability and failures" in the past for both CPU and GPU products, I find it hard to trust their products as a whole. As for speed, it has always been a cat and mouse game between Intel and AMD.

Last you stated this we concluded you couldn't back that assessment up with anything more tangible than "experience". Do you have more to go on this time?

[KungFuJosh]

Pretty much 0 reason to go with Intel nowadays, for almost any use case.

Depends what you are running. There are still some compatibility issues with some Linux or FreeBSD versions.

You also have a much larger selection of motherboards in the Intel-based market, particularly when you're looking at higher-end consumer and enterprise gear.

Having been bitten several times by "general AMD instability and failures" in the past for both CPU and GPU products, I find it hard to trust their products as a whole. As for speed, it has always been a cat and mouse game between Intel and AMD.

This is absolutely true. The motherboard options for Intel are much better, and better priced.

AMD stability is a concern for me, but I'm hoping it's better now, because Intel security is also a concern for me.

Thanks,
Josh

[KungFuJosh]

What do you mean by "gen 3" and "gen 4"? PCie I assume? That's not correct. B550 has PCIe 4.0. AMD's site states "AMD’s B550 chipset enables PCIe® 4.0 compatibility for NVMe storage and graphics on mainstream motherboards, giving you confidence that your system won’t go obsolete before its time."

I'm not sure why you ask for help as you seem to be mostly operating on preconceived and honestly not very well researched notions. As with electronics the devil is in the details and it's a little more complicated than "higher number good". Buy a $300 X570 board if that tickles you the right way. It'll probably be fine.

Not that PCIe 4 is likely to really matter anyway. We've seen exactly the same discussions when PCIe 3 was introduced and people endlessly argued over whether PCIe 3 was required over PCIe 3. It was years before anyone saw any tangible real world benefit, long after those first systems were obsolete. This time around the benefits will be even less tangible as it's a case of diminishing returns. Then again, it's better to be stuck with it and by now you don't need to compromise that much to have it.

For somebody insulting my research, you know little of what you're talking about. B550 was introduced as a budget alternative to the superior X570 boards. If you want to understand the differences, try reading any article comparing the two: https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/3582-amd-chipset-differences-b550-vs-x570-b450-x470-zen-3

I've had my current system for over 5 years running great, because I wasn't a cheap ass with the motherboard or other options. In less than a few years I'll be running this system off of multiple PCIe 4.0 M.2 drives. The X570 will do that better. The X670 will do any of it better.

When somebody asks for opinions/experiences with a thing, they don't have to agree with your OPINION on the thing. I don't agree with you, get over it.

Thanks,
Josh

[bd139]

I'm with Mr Scram here.

Honestly you should start with the workload and work back. I haven't heard a single mention of workload yet. B550 is fine for perhaps 95% of use cases. The last 5% probably ain't worth paying for unless you have dick size problems or are paid for the difference in turnaround.

Just a point on storage as well. Unless you are streaming constantly to and from disk, it's 100% academic. Buy more RAM and use the OS cache. The further you push the storage problem up the cache hierarchy the better. So big CPU cache (my 3600X has 35Mb of it) and lots of RAM (64Gb here) and a reasonable read-optimised PCI-E gen 4 SSD (Samsung 970 EVO Plus here) is not going to have any realistic performance difference over latest PCI and storage unless you're blowing the entire cache away regularly. The RAM is connected to the CPU the same on both boards.

Edit: also it's not cost effective to have all your storage at tier 1 like this. Keep your working set there and the rest on cheaper SSDs or even rust if you're a neckbeard.

[KungFuJosh]

If you don't know how and where use available cores, probably you don't need these

The applications one uses will either know (and benefit), or not, right?  MY personal knowledge probably doesn't matter.

lol, that's also true.

I like the old saying "buy cheap, buy twice."

Indeed.  I've always bought systems that were a bit behind the curve, and thus much cheaper.
Spending $1500 every 3 years is likely to make me a lot happier than spending $5k every 10 years!Especially since the non-CPU components tend to go obsolete nearly as fast, making "I'll just upgrade the slow component" pretty useless.
The first step is realizing that you don't NEED to have the fastest thing around.  (Unless you have a specific need where differences DO matter.  In which case you need a benchmark for THAT application.)

Sure, but I'm only going to be spending about $1000 or so, and it's been over 5 years since the last time I upgraded. I guess I'm ahead of the curve, right?

That budget includes a new PSU, new AIO water cooler, CPU, and motherboard. I just purchased a Seasonic Platinum SSR-750PX PSU, and I'll probably get a Corsair H115i cooler.

I completely agree about not needing the fastest, which is I why I won't consider AMD threadripper or Intel X-series. The reason I'm concerned with the timing regarding the zen3 / X670 crap is that chances are they will be nearly the same in price, or very close. I'm sure there will be $500 or less Ryzen 4X00X chips, and plenty of choices for X670 boards under $400. The same thing happens EVERY generation with intel. The processors change, the prices are usually the same.


If I don't wait for the next gen chips, I will get either one of the following:

Ryzen 9 3900X and ASUS ROG X570 Crosshair VIII Hero ($760 total)

vs

i9-10900K and either the
GIGABYTE Z490 VISION D or ASUS ProART Z490-CREATOR 10G ($810 to $830 total)


I like both of the Intel boards better, and both are cheaper than the AMD board. The price difference isn't significant enough between those options to be a factor either. The Gigabyte Z490 board does support PCIe 4.0, though I would need to wait until the next generation CPU to have support for it.

Thanks,
Josh

[bd139]

Ryzen has a fuck load more cache (70Mb vs 20Mb). Sold.

[KungFuJosh]

I'm with Mr Scram here.

Honestly you should start with the workload and work back. I haven't heard a single mention of workload yet. B550 is fine for perhaps 95% of use cases. The last 5% probably ain't worth paying for unless you have dick size problems or are paid for the difference in turnaround.

Just a point on storage as well. Unless you are streaming constantly to and from disk, it's 100% academic. Buy more RAM and use the OS cache. The further you push the storage problem up the cache hierarchy the better. So big CPU cache (my 3600X has 35Mb of it) and lots of RAM (64Gb here) and a reasonable read-optimised PCI-E gen 4 SSD (Samsung 970 EVO Plus here) is not going to have any realistic performance difference over latest PCI and storage unless you're blowing the entire cache away regularly. The RAM is connected to the CPU the same on both boards.

Edit: also it's not cost effective to have all your storage at tier 1 like this. Keep your working set there and the rest on cheaper SSDs or even rust if you're a neckbeard.

Why are you guys harping on about the motherboards so much? You're talking about a $60 difference here. 60 fucking dollars. I could save $80 and buy a superior Intel based board if I was that worried about the motherboard budget.

My system drive is the Samsung 970 PRO M.2, and currently I have 32GB of ram. I'm under no illusion that the 970 Pro will still be amazing 4 years from now. I'll have 2 drives at that level. System drive, and my audio drive (for lower latency recording). Currently my audio drive is SSD on SATA. I'd obviously prefer it be PCIe. Beyond that everything will still be run on SATA.

lol, I had to look up neckbeard. I learned a new word! Thanks.

[wraper]

Sure, but I'm only going to be spending about $1000 or so

It's a pretty tight budget so blowing almost third of this money on a very expensive motherboard which does not make any difference is insane IMHO.

[wraper]

I could save $80 and buy a superior Intel based board if I was that worried about the motherboard budget.

Dunno where you got this strange idea but intel boards are more expensive than AMD for the same feature set.

[MK14]

What about voting option(7). WAIT A BIT.
Wait a few weeks (timing unknown precisely), for the new AMD cpus to come out, which are rumoured to be up to 17% faster, hopefully at the same price.
Assuming people don't have initial problems with them (best to watch at first, and see), it might be the best option for someone, about to upgrade to a new system.

[KungFuJosh]

Sure, but I'm only going to be spending about $1000 or so

It's a pretty tight budget so blowing almost third of this money on a very expensive motherboard which does not make any difference is insane IMHO.

Seriously? Did you not see how any of the boards I like fit in my budget with the best chip options? If you understand how math works, spending less on the motherboard means my budget lowers, not that I get a better chip. You want me to spend $60 less on a board, so I can buy the 3900XT for $80 more instead of the 3900X? How does that make sense to you?

It's not just the PCIe4 that I want. I like the i/o panels, slot options, USB 3.2gen2 etc... Y'all are missing the point. If I drop the board budget then it will cost me MORE in PCIe cards to make up the difference. FFS, move on.

[KungFuJosh]

I could save $80 and buy a superior Intel based board if I was that worried about the motherboard budget.

Dunno where you got this strange idea but intel boards are more expensive than AMD for the same feature set.

Perhaps you should look at the boards I listed as my options. The Intel boards are both better, and cheaper.

[MK14]

Seriously?

Did you start this thread to get ideas and opinions/advice, or to start a fight ?

[Halcyon]

Pretty much 0 reason to go with Intel nowadays, for almost any use case.

Depends what you are running. There are still some compatibility issues with some Linux or FreeBSD versions.

You also have a much larger selection of motherboards in the Intel-based market, particularly when you're looking at higher-end consumer and enterprise gear.

Having been bitten several times by "general AMD instability and failures" in the past for both CPU and GPU products, I find it hard to trust their products as a whole. As for speed, it has always been a cat and mouse game between Intel and AMD.

Funny to hear since AMD GPUs on Linux are the least problematic

Whilst more compatible generally, I've had many more AMD GPUs simply fail due to heat related issues than NVIDIA. That being said, Nvidia support on Linux has vastly improved even in the last 12 months. I currently run Ubuntu with an Nvidia Quadro T2000 and it's been absolutely perfect right out of the box.

[KungFuJosh]

What about voting option(7). WAIT A BIT.
Wait a few weeks (timing unknown precisely), for the new AMD cpus to come out, which are rumoured to be up to 17% faster, hopefully at the same price.
Assuming people don't have initial problems with them (best to watch at first, and see), it might be the best option for someone, about to upgrade to a new system.

Exactly! This is what I said above. This is the reason I'm hesitating to buy anything now. Some sites think September will see the release of the new toys. The question is whether or not my current system lives long enough. I'm hoping my issue is really the PSU, but I won't know until I replace it. Either way, I'm using it as a reason to upgrade.

Thanks,
Josh

[KungFuJosh]

Seriously?

Did you start this thread to get ideas and opinions/advice, or to start a fight ?

The thread is titled "New Processor Choice" - because I wanted to hear about processor experience with new gen stuff. I didn't ask for people to harp about their opinions on motherboards I'm not interested in. I think this concept I'm going for is known as "staying on topic."

When somebody disagrees with an opinion, about an off-topic thing that the OP stated over and over again that they're not interested in, it's not that anybody is trying to start a fight. It's that somebody sharing their unsolicited opinion is too dense to understand that they're not being helpful.

[wraper]

I could save $80 and buy a superior Intel based board if I was that worried about the motherboard budget.

Dunno where you got this strange idea but intel boards are more expensive than AMD for the same feature set.

Perhaps you should look at the boards I listed as my options. The Intel boards are both better, and cheaper.

You took a few of the most ridiculous motherboards and declared that Intel motherboards are cheaper  . None of those Intel boards offer PCI-E 4.0 which you care so much about and which is present even on cheapest B550 boards for $80. Not to say on chipset IC level like X570. I dare to say that Z490 is more crippled that B550  . Nor do I see any features on those Intel boards which are better than on AMD boards of the same price.

[MK14]

The thread is titled "New Processor Choice" - because I wanted to hear about processor experience with new gen stuff. I didn't ask for people to harp about their opinions on motherboards I'm not interested in. I think this concept I'm going for is known as "staying on topic."

When somebody disagrees with an opinion, about an off-topic thing that the OP stated over and over again that they're not interested in, it's not that anybody is trying to start a fight. It's that somebody sharing their unsolicited opinion is too dense to understand that they're not being helpful.

I don't blame you as such. When a thread is about something on the lines of "Which programming language is best", or "Which is the best car to get". There are often, lots of heated opinions.

Although the thread is solely about cpu choice, the other factors, such as motherboards, soon become deciding factors as well.

Also, Intel vs AMD, is often a common arguing point on technically related websites.

I suspect there is no real firm 100% answers. It just depends on so many different factors (and opinions).

On the point of motherboards, I suspect you need a good one, so you get good VRMs, to support a power hungry 12 core (3900X) cpu, or Intel equivalent.

[MK14]

Back on topic. For most things, most people will do, most of the time, an 8 core 3700X is fast/good enough.
But, the price increase to get a full 12 cores (3900X), has become so relatively small (12 cores, use to cost a huge fortune), that it could well be worth it. Even if it only occasionally helps you, speed wise.
In the UK, it is little more than a £100, to go from an 8 core (3700X), to the 3900X. I would imagine, that equates to around $100 to $135 more, in the US.

[wraper]

I suspect you need a good one, so you get good VRMs, to support a power hungry 12 core (3900X) cpu, or Intel equivalent.

The thing is, 12 core AMD is not power hungry at all. It consumes less power than 6 core intel. Ryzen 9 3900x TDP is 105W but measly 6 core i5-10600K TDP is 125W.

[MK14]

I suspect you need a good one, so you get good VRMs, to support a power hungry 12 core (3900X) cpu, or Intel equivalent.

The thing is, 12 core AMD is not power hungry at all. It consumes less power than 6 core intel. Ryzen 9 3900x TDP is 105W but measly 6 core i5-10600K TDP is 125W.

Speaking from memory. The VRMs on the Zen AMD motherboards, are under a huge amount of stress (electrically speaking). Because of the rather low output voltages, and yet very high currents, that they need to produce. The relatively low power ratings of the cpus, don't do the hard work, modern VRMs have to endure, justice.

Also, the 105W for the 12 core, is a fair bit higher, than the 65W of the 8 Core (3700X), if I remember, correctly.

[wraper]

Speaking from memory. The VRMs on the Zen AMD motherboards, are under a huge amount of stress (electrically speaking). Because of the rather low output voltages, and yet very high currents, that they need to produce. The relatively low power ratings of the cpus, don't do the hard work, modern VRMs have to endure, justice.

Also, the 105W for the 12 core, is a fair bit higher, than the 65W of the 8 Core (3700X), if I remember, correctly.

You probably shouldn't put 3900x on the cheapest motherboards in $60-90 range although it will work. FWIW This $60 A320 mobo supports 16 core 3950X
https://www.amazon.com/ASRock-Compatible-Motherboard-A320M-HDV-R4-0/dp/B07MNSP7PB.
https://www.asrock.com/MB/AMD/A320M-HDV%20R4.0/index.asp#CPU
EDIT: it actually costs $50 in shops where I live.
But somewhere at $120+ you should be safe enough, especially without overclocking. But it's worth to check what you are buying of course. Even at the same price you can get VRM significantly better or worse than average.

[0db]

The IT guy here has just bought a dozen new workstations for the new tasks planned for September.
And they are all HP Z4 Workstation (4th gen) based on Intel Xeon W-2123 Quad Core.

I guess he must have no love for AMD 

[MK14]

The IT guy here has just bought a dozen new workstations for the new tasks planned for September.
And they are all HP Z4 Workstation (4th gen) based on Intel Xeon W-2123 Quad Core.

I guess he must have no love for AMD 

I don't think he has much love for Intel, either. Not at 4 cores for a workstation, that is.
That chip can take up to 512 Gb (apparently) of memory, maybe that is why. Some applications need huge amounts of memory.

[wraper]

About Intel and AMD motherboard price difference. Here are two enthusiast series boards, as similar as you can possibly get, and price is... the same.
ASUS ROG Strix X570-E Gaming https://www.newegg.com/asus-rog-strix-x570-e-gaming/p/N82E16813119111
ASUS ROG Strix Z490-E Gaming https://www.newegg.com/asus-rog-strix-z490-e-gaming/p/N82E16813119268

[0db]

I don't think he has much love for Intel, either. Not at 4 cores for a workstation, that is.
That chip can take up to 512 Gb (apparently) of memory, maybe that is why. Some applications need huge amounts of memory.

Yes, probably that's the reason. He said there is 64Gbyte of ram on each workstation.

My colleagues are going to have a brand new workstation with Xeon and a lot of ram, lot of whistles and bells, but IT guy seems to have no upgrade for me, thus it looks I will likely stay with 4Gbyte of ram on a Wolfdale Pentium Dual Core E6600 for still a long while.

That means they don't waste a penny if they haven't already planned to exploit the hardware to the bones.

So, I am not competent, but it looks weird to me that they don't consider Amd.

[olkipukki]

The IT guy here has just bought a dozen new workstations for the new tasks planned for September.
And they are all HP Z4 Workstation (4th gen) based on Intel Xeon W-2123 Quad Core.

Did IT guy bought for a huge discount or HP give him a free pass to any golf club in the world? 

There must be a reason why stick with 3+ years old CPU these days 

[bd139]

HPE only sell you rancid old shit.

[olkipukki]

About Intel and AMD motherboard price difference. Here are two enthusiast series boards, as similar as you can possibly get, and price is... the same.
ASUS ROG Strix X570-E Gaming https://www.newegg.com/asus-rog-strix-x570-e-gaming/p/N82E16813119111
ASUS ROG Strix Z490-E Gaming https://www.newegg.com/asus-rog-strix-z490-e-gaming/p/N82E16813119268

AMD - In stock. Limit 5 per customer.
Intel - In stock. Limit 2 per customer.

 

[olkipukki]

... but it looks weird to me that they don't consider Amd.

Actually, can you buy any AMD-based workstation?

[KungFuJosh]

You took a few of the most ridiculous motherboards and declared that Intel motherboards are cheaper  . None of those Intel boards offer PCI-E 4.0 which you care so much about and which is present even on cheapest B550 boards for $80. Not to say on chipset IC level like X570. I dare to say that Z490 is more crippled that B550  . Nor do I see any features on those Intel boards which are better than on AMD boards of the same price.

All of the Gigabyte Z490 boards have PCIe 4.0 hardware, and will be functional/compatible with 11th gen Intel chips, which will (finally) support PCIe 4.0.

Back on topic. For most things, most people will do, most of the time, an 8 core 3700X is fast/good enough.
But, the price increase to get a full 12 cores (3900X), has become so relatively small (12 cores, use to cost a huge fortune), that it could well be worth it. Even if it only occasionally helps you, speed wise.
In the UK, it is little more than a £100, to go from an 8 core (3700X), to the 3900X. I would imagine, that equates to around $100 to $135 more, in the US.

I was impatient and picked up the 3900X today for $400 locally. I've got 15 days to return it if something nicer poops up.

About Intel and AMD motherboard price difference. Here are two enthusiast series boards, as similar as you can possibly get, and price is... the same.
ASUS ROG Strix X570-E Gaming https://www.newegg.com/asus-rog-strix-x570-e-gaming/p/N82E16813119111
ASUS ROG Strix Z490-E Gaming https://www.newegg.com/asus-rog-strix-z490-e-gaming/p/N82E16813119268

Both of those boards are just okay. I like the I/O panel better on the AMD version (which was my backup plan). I don't know why they made a shittier version for the Intel chip. Maybe the processors can't handle as many USB 3.2 ports or something? Either way, it's annoying. I/O panel is a big deal for me in MB choice.

I actually like the I/O panel on the MSI MPG X570 GAMING PLUS much better than most of the boards, and it's only $170, which is nice. I've already got an AX200 PCIe card, but I didn't want to use it. I might go this way and be lazy about it. I dunno. I like MSI a lot, and my current board is an MSI, but I haven't been a big fan of their BIOS updates.

Thanks,
Josh

[KaneTW]

Pretty much 0 reason to go with Intel nowadays, for almost any use case.

Depends what you are running. There are still some compatibility issues with some Linux or FreeBSD versions.

You also have a much larger selection of motherboards in the Intel-based market, particularly when you're looking at higher-end consumer and enterprise gear.

Having been bitten several times by "general AMD instability and failures" in the past for both CPU and GPU products, I find it hard to trust their products as a whole. As for speed, it has always been a cat and mouse game between Intel and AMD.

I've never seen any compatibility issues on either Windows or Linux with both a Threadripper 1950X and a 3900X. In fact, I chose AMD specifically for the second system due to superior VFIO support for Linux-based virtualization.

Motherboard selection? What feature set were you looking for? I've been pretty happy with the feature set of the offered AMD motherboards, so I can't say I particularly cared about that.

AMD has been rock-stable for 2.5 years on my 1950X machine. And at that time, AMD was the only vendor offering ECC and good performance for a non-insane price. Intel still doesn't.

I don't really care for the brand. I care for features and price/performance, and AMD delivers handily right now.

[KaneTW]

... but it looks weird to me that they don't consider Amd.

Actually, can you buy any AMD-based workstation?

Yes, there's even certified ones by now: https://www.lenovo.com/us/en/thinkstation-p620

[0db]

Actually, can you buy any AMD-based workstation?

not sure if has already got it (or if he ever will get it), but before the covid lockdown, a friend in the UK bought and AMD Ryzen Threadripper Viz Workstations from these guys.

[bd139]

Lenovo P620.

[KaneTW]

I don't think he has much love for Intel, either. Not at 4 cores for a workstation, that is.
That chip can take up to 512 Gb (apparently) of memory, maybe that is why. Some applications need huge amounts of memory.

Yes, probably that's the reason. He said there is 64Gbyte of ram on each workstation.

My colleagues are going to have a brand new workstation with Xeon and a lot of ram, lot of whistles and bells, but IT guy seems to have no upgrade for me, thus it looks I will likely stay with 4Gbyte of ram on a Wolfdale Pentium Dual Core E6600 for still a long while.

That means they don't waste a penny if they haven't already planned to exploit the hardware to the bones.

So, I am not competent, but it looks weird to me that they don't consider Amd.

AMD supports up to 128GB (limited by unregistered RAM) on their Ryzen workstations, 256GB on regular Threadripper (again unregistered), and 2TB on Threadripper Pro/EPYC (registered). All ECC.

[0db]

HPE only sell you rancid old shit.

Well, unbelievable but yesterday I saw two boxed HP XW8600 workstations.
How old are they? There is written "Windows Seven" on the box 

The best explanation is they were laying somewhere in some warehouse, and at some point for some unintelligible reason some manager thought to make them a better use, so they got sold for a ridiculous price, for sure a something like a tenth of the price for a HP Z4 Workstation.

... I don't understand the IT-world 

[bd139]

Want to check out the NHS here. They buy a 2000 desktop machines for a local health trust then leave them in storage because HP says windows 10 isn’t officially supported on them. Three years later they pay someone to dispose of them. Immediately they end up at a stock auction and then on eBay where they sell them with windows 10 installed. 

The orchestrator of this fuck up gets promoted.

Don’t get me started on the IT industry. Software is the day job. I’m only here to keep me sane 

[olkipukki]

Yes, there's even certified ones by now: https://www.lenovo.com/us/en/thinkstation-p620

Lenovo P620.

Not so quick, "Available this fall" 

Looks like took three generations until they have started to manufacture these...

[olkipukki]

AMD supports up to 128GB (limited by unregistered RAM) on their Ryzen workstations, 256GB on regular Threadripper (again unregistered), and 2TB on Threadripper Pro/EPYC (registered). All ECC.

EPYC - 4TB per CPU 

[Halcyon]

Pretty much 0 reason to go with Intel nowadays, for almost any use case.

Depends what you are running. There are still some compatibility issues with some Linux or FreeBSD versions.

You also have a much larger selection of motherboards in the Intel-based market, particularly when you're looking at higher-end consumer and enterprise gear.

Having been bitten several times by "general AMD instability and failures" in the past for both CPU and GPU products, I find it hard to trust their products as a whole. As for speed, it has always been a cat and mouse game between Intel and AMD.

I've never seen any compatibility issues on either Windows or Linux with both a Threadripper 1950X and a 3900X. In fact, I chose AMD specifically for the second system due to superior VFIO support for Linux-based virtualization.

Motherboard selection? What feature set were you looking for? I've been pretty happy with the feature set of the offered AMD motherboards, so I can't say I particularly cared about that.

AMD has been rock-stable for 2.5 years on my 1950X machine. And at that time, AMD was the only vendor offering ECC and good performance for a non-insane price. Intel still doesn't.

I don't really care for the brand. I care for features and price/performance, and AMD delivers handily right now.

That doesn't mean issues don't exist just because you haven't come across them. As I said, it depends on your use-case and what you're going to be running. If you're just wanting to run a bog standard Windows 10 machine or mainstream Linux distro with a current kernel version, you'll be fine.

As for motherboard selection, you only need to look at what most brands are offering. If you have a look at my favourite board manufacturer, Supermicro, of the 63 desktop/workstation boards they offer, none of them are AMD-based. You see a similar trend with consumer-grade gear, for example, Gigabyte have 524 Intel boards in their "Ultra Durable" consumer range or 149 with AMD support. Of course, it depends on what your requirements are, but you do have a wider choice when it comes to Intel-based motherboards. This may or may not impact you.

As for performance, this again comes down to use-case and what your workflow looks like. Most users, including power users such as myself don't require the latest and fastest CPU. For the most part it sits mostly idle. GPU capabilities and fast access to storage is far more important (for me).

If you like AMD and it ticks all the boxes, that's perfectly fine. I was just sharing my experiences over the years and as I said, it's a game of cat and mouse. At one point in time, AMD will be ahead of performance until Intel catches up, rinse and repeat. But there are other considerations to buying/building a PC than performance. The old saying: "Performance, Price, Stability/Longevity - Pick two" is very applicable in most cases.

[olkipukki]

As for motherboard selection, you only need to look at what most brands are offering. If you have a look at my favourite board manufacturer, Supermicro, of the 63 desktop/workstation boards they offer, none of them are AMD-based.

Well.. what happened to H11 series?

Yes, EPYCs only, but can qualify for Workstation 

[rrinker]

 A few months ago I built two new machines using AMD. I uses ASrock X570 Pro4 motherboards - X570 chipset and none of the idiotic flashing RGB crap all over it, and best of all - it's $170.

[MK14]

Back on topic. For most things, most people will do, most of the time, an 8 core 3700X is fast/good enough.
But, the price increase to get a full 12 cores (3900X), has become so relatively small (12 cores, use to cost a huge fortune), that it could well be worth it. Even if it only occasionally helps you, speed wise.
In the UK, it is little more than a £100, to go from an 8 core (3700X), to the 3900X. I would imagine, that equates to around $100 to $135 more, in the US.

I was impatient and picked up the 3900X today for $400 locally. I've got 15 days to return it if something nicer poops up.

You could well have made the best/right choice there. The real-life speed improvement, may well only be a small amount. It is best to NOT buy the latest AMD processor, just/immediately after its release, as problems (not necessarily big ones), can and do crop up.
You may have to wait a while, for suitable motherboards, which have the correct bios updates (if necessary), to support the new cpus, when they arrive.
The new trend of AMD charging a fair bit more, for the XT versions, rather than the X versions (e.g. 3900XT vs 3900X), makes me suspicious that when the new processors first arrive. There will be a price penalty, which may not be worth it, and later (not that much later), the price could settle, to the same price level it is now.
Also, there can be shortages of new processors, when they have just been newly released, which again could have messed you up.

In theory, if/when better AMD cpus come out, they will work (until your socket type eventually gets outdated, perhaps in 12 months time), in your system. So, you could upgrade to the latest/best cpu, and sell your old one.

In reality, the 3900X is so powerful, I don't think you really can go wrong with it. 12 cores, is going to be good for a long time. Most people, are still on 2 or 4 cores. Even 8 cores, is still fairly/somewhat rare. Possibly a modest improvement in single thread performance, is a possibility, with the new cpus, when they arrive.

As time goes on, more and more software, will be able to use all 12 cores, usefully. Unfortunately, there are limits to how much software can use so many cores, because of various factors (Amdahl's law  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl%27s_law  ), but also how difficult/expensive it is to write software which does a good/best job on all 12 cores.
Because relatively few people, have lots of cores, and all these difficulties with creating software that is that powerful, that it can use lots of cores, well. You are not likely to see that much software, which does use it well.
But games, are a promising source of software that does, because they tend to use game engines. So if the game engines can/do use all the cores, usefully, then that could work out well.
Anyway, games depend a lot on the graphics card, which is a completely different ball game, and not part of this thread topic, so we can leave discussing that for another day.

[Mr. Scram]

For somebody insulting my research, you know little of what you're talking about. B550 was introduced as a budget alternative to the superior X570 boards. If you want to understand the differences, try reading any article comparing the two: https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/3582-amd-chipset-differences-b550-vs-x570-b450-x470-zen-3

I've had my current system for over 5 years running great, because I wasn't a cheap ass with the motherboard or other options. In less than a few years I'll be running this system off of multiple PCIe 4.0 M.2 drives. The X570 will do that better. The X670 will do any of it better.

When somebody asks for opinions/experiences with a thing, they don't have to agree with your OPINION on the thing. I don't agree with you, get over it.

Thanks,
Josh

I don't give a shit whether you agree or not. It does irk me when people ask for advice and work hard to ignore sound advice given based on assumptions or lack of some basic research.

B550 was introduced to be a cheaper alternative to X570. That was the marketing pitch. It's far from a budget chipset as it's reasonably well featured and they didn't cut the parts out you want. What I was getting is that X570 isn't an ideal chipset. Because suppliers couldn't get a PCIe 4 chipset done in time AMD was forced to roll its own. It's much hotter and power hungry than other chipsets. X670 seems slated to improve that situation but the fact is that X570 is so hot it requires active cooling. It's cutting edge, but that edge cuts both ways. The good comes with a fair chunk of bad. Meanwhile, B550 is a newer and much more traditional and arguably mature chipset. Performance isn't worse in the key places and longevity is less questionable. I do not care what you spend your money on and whether it ends up suiting your needs as it has no consequences for me, but understanding the nuances a bit better will likely improve your chances of picking what suits you, whatever you end up with.

[Mr. Scram]

That doesn't mean issues don't exist just because you haven't come across them. As I said, it depends on your use-case and what you're going to be running. If you're just wanting to run a bog standard Windows 10 machine or mainstream Linux distro with a current kernel version, you'll be fine.

As for motherboard selection, you only need to look at what most brands are offering. If you have a look at my favourite board manufacturer, Supermicro, of the 63 desktop/workstation boards they offer, none of them are AMD-based. You see a similar trend with consumer-grade gear, for example, Gigabyte have 524 Intel boards in their "Ultra Durable" consumer range or 149 with AMD support. Of course, it depends on what your requirements are, but you do have a wider choice when it comes to Intel-based motherboards. This may or may not impact you.

As for performance, this again comes down to use-case and what your workflow looks like. Most users, including power users such as myself don't require the latest and fastest CPU. For the most part it sits mostly idle. GPU capabilities and fast access to storage is far more important (for me).

If you like AMD and it ticks all the boxes, that's perfectly fine. I was just sharing my experiences over the years and as I said, it's a game of cat and mouse. At one point in time, AMD will be ahead of performance until Intel catches up, rinse and repeat. But there are other considerations to buying/building a PC than performance. The old saying: "Performance, Price, Stability/Longevity - Pick two" is very applicable in most cases.

That's a huge pile of FUD but still nothing tangible. Believe me, I'd love something tangible.

[KungFuJosh]

B550 was introduced to be a cheaper alternative to X570. That was the marketing pitch. It's far from a budget chipset as it's reasonably well featured and they didn't cut the parts out you want. What I was getting is that X570 isn't an ideal chipset. Because suppliers couldn't get a PCIe 4 chipset done in time AMD was forced to roll its own. It's much hotter and power hungry than other chipsets. X670 seems slated to improve that situation but the fact is that X570 is so hot it requires active cooling. It's cutting edge, but that edge cuts both ways. The good comes with a fair chunk of bad. Meanwhile, B550 is a newer and much more traditional and arguably mature chipset. Performance isn't worse in the key places and longevity is less questionable. I do not care what you spend your money on and whether it ends up suiting your needs as it has no consequences for me, but understanding the nuances a bit better will likely improve your chances of picking what suits you, whatever you end up with.

Okay, neckbeard. 

That's all fine and dandy. B550 is a perfectly fine chipset, but not what's best for me.

[Doctorandus_P]

 3 weeks ago my 12 year old dualcore died and now I'm typing this on an AMD E-350 with a passmark rating of 750.

I'm not much into the "fastest", or "most expensive". At most I am considering a 3600 (Not the X version). It's probably much more processor then I'll need for the coming 5 years, and it has the best performance to price ratio.

For short time a 3400G would probable be enough for me.

I am confused about the B550 chipset. The mobo's often have 6 sata connectors, while the B450 usually has no more then 4. I like many sata connectors, even though 4 + one (or 2) M.2 for a reasonably fast NVMe will be enough.

The confusion starts that all mobo's I've seen with B550 have monitor connectors on them (HDMI, Displayport, etc) but they apparently do not support the 3000G series processors.

This led me to have a peek at the newest 4000 range, but AMD does not sell these processors to consumers, only to OEM's. You can find them in laptops and in barebones with "NUC" form factor.
What I really like about the 4000G series is that they support the latest displayport (5k @ 120Hz video output) combined with decent CPU performance (Upto a passmark rating of 20000).

Without the 4000G series I probably already would have bought a new PC by now, as using a box with a 750 passmark rating really sucks double plus hard.

[MK14]

This led me to have a peek at the newest 4000 range, but AMD does not sell these processors to consumers, only to OEM's.

There does seem to be misunderstandings, as regards how things work. My understanding, is that, when the new process node is first released, of a particular new (generation) type. It is at its most expensive (cost to manufacture the chips).
So, AMD (making apparently sensible business decisions), allocate the first release chips, to be the high value/profit things, such as high core count, (e.g. 3900X 12 core) cpus, with relatively premium prices.
Some time later (e.g. 12 months), that chip manufacturing process, has matured a fair bit, many of the processing problems have been solved and the cost has (usually) come down, to a significantly lower price.
They (NOT AMD, TSMC) are also, more able to have/obtain the bulk machines which allow them to make more of those chips (with that process), faster, cheaper and in larger quantity.
So, their less profitable chips, such as APUs, can then be manufactured, and sold, much more profitably.

tl;dr
I expect they will sell those chips to consumers. It is just that they haven't been released yet. The exact timings, so that big bulk OEM computer manufacturers have already been able to obtain those APUs, is probably some kind of marketing/business decision, made by AMD. Perhaps because they consider such sales to be very important to AMD, and maybe because those sales can support a partly higher price at this time.

At the end of the day, the latest/best (desktop, not threadripper) AMD cpus, when they arrive (in coming weeks, maybe). Will have something like 16+ cores, at around £800+/$800+, when they finally release the new (non-APU) chips. The 16 core versions, may take longer to release, than the lower core count members of the new/upcoming cpus.

Whereas, the new APUs, when (if) they arrive for consumers, will probably be more like £100+/$100+, for the lower end APUs. Which are a lot less money/profit for AMD, so I can understand, why they time things, the way they do. Also, the APU's built in graphics processor, takes up a fair bit of silicon area, which also needs time to develop and increases the raw chip costs.

[Halcyon]

That doesn't mean issues don't exist just because you haven't come across them. As I said, it depends on your use-case and what you're going to be running. If you're just wanting to run a bog standard Windows 10 machine or mainstream Linux distro with a current kernel version, you'll be fine.

As for motherboard selection, you only need to look at what most brands are offering. If you have a look at my favourite board manufacturer, Supermicro, of the 63 desktop/workstation boards they offer, none of them are AMD-based. You see a similar trend with consumer-grade gear, for example, Gigabyte have 524 Intel boards in their "Ultra Durable" consumer range or 149 with AMD support. Of course, it depends on what your requirements are, but you do have a wider choice when it comes to Intel-based motherboards. This may or may not impact you.

As for performance, this again comes down to use-case and what your workflow looks like. Most users, including power users such as myself don't require the latest and fastest CPU. For the most part it sits mostly idle. GPU capabilities and fast access to storage is far more important (for me).

If you like AMD and it ticks all the boxes, that's perfectly fine. I was just sharing my experiences over the years and as I said, it's a game of cat and mouse. At one point in time, AMD will be ahead of performance until Intel catches up, rinse and repeat. But there are other considerations to buying/building a PC than performance. The old saying: "Performance, Price, Stability/Longevity - Pick two" is very applicable in most cases.

That's a huge pile of FUD but still nothing tangible. Believe me, I'd love something tangible.

I tend not to listen to misinformation spread about by unverified sources, I prefer to research and test things for myself.

Unfortunately this is just like the Apple vs. PC, iOS vs. Android, Sony vs. Nintendo arguments. There is no point in arguing which one is "the best" because such a concept doesn't exist. All that matters is what suits a particular use case. AMD could come out with the fastest, cheapest, lowest power processor on the planet, yet there will still be situations where it may be unsuitable.

To argue about such a thing is stupid. To be brand-loyal is stupid. First-hand experience is invaluable, but still do your own homework and draw your own conclusions. Above all else, if you find yourself being wrong about something, wear it as a badge of honour as you've just improved your knowledge about something.

[BravoV]

AMD could come out with the fastest, cheapest, lowest power processor on the planet, yet there will still be situations where it may be unsuitable.

I'm in the middle of looking for a new laptop, I have no brand loyalty, its interesting to hear a real life example where AMD is unsuitable, just one example please.

[bd139]

I tend not to listen to misinformation spread about by unverified sources, I prefer to research and test things for myself.

Some of us have somewhat vast experience in this space which spans more than a single data point. Today I am debugging what appears to be a bug specific to a certain target node with a certain stepping of Intel Xeon Platinum. We have a deadlock which only occurs on that CPU and stepping. This is a top end HPE box. We don't get those days on the ass end AMD sockets...

[MK14]

To be brand-loyal is stupid.

Ok, let's go with that for a second.

my favourite board manufacturer, Supermicro, of the 63 desktop/workstation boards they offer, none of them are AMD-based.

Well that seconds used up then 

I tend not to listen to misinformation spread about by unverified sources

Talking of which (where you seemed to say, Supermicro don't sell AMD stuff/motherboards)...
The following link, seems to discuss a range of Supermicro AMD motherboards (as part of those systems, I.e. you said " Supermicro, of the 63 desktop/workstation boards they offer, none of them are AMD-based").

https://www.supermicro.com/en/products/aplus/solutions/SP3

and, specifically, this lists some of their AMD motherboards (current ones):
https://www.supermicro.com/en/products/motherboards?pro=gen%3DH11

EDIT: On further reflection, I have changed my mind. I had, at least partly mis-understood (mis-read), the original post(s).

[MK14]

To argue about such a thing is stupid. To be brand-loyal is stupid. First-hand experience is invaluable, but still do your own homework and draw your own conclusions.

You're right!

Ideally, I try and do exactly that. Intel is still a powerful force to be reckoned with. Comparing (benchmarks, and other information/deciding factors), between Intel and AMD, is still very interesting, and provides useful information, when deciding what to buy/recommend.

Also, as you said/hinted in an earlier post. In a few years down the line, Intel could well be in the lead again. It is NOT a one-horse race (at least not yet    ).

[bd139]

my favourite board manufacturer, Supermicro, of the 63 desktop/workstation boards they offer, none of them are AMD-based.

Well that seconds used up then 

Didn't see that comment. I know a guy with a couple of thousand Supermicro H11's     

[Halcyon]

Really MK14? You wasted all that time and energy and achieved exactly nothing.

Allow me to retort...

Having a "favourite" of something doesn't equal being loyal to a particular brand. If Supermicro went to shit, I'd drop them in a heartbeat. However, my use case is affordable, reasonably high-end and reliable workstations and servers. Supermicro fits the bill. If I had stupid amounts of money to spend, I'd be looking at IBM or Dell. You might have a favourite chocolate, but what if it changed and you didn't like it anymore? Would you keep buying it or recommending it to others? No, of course not. You're suggesting I'm being a hypocrite, which is the furthest from the truth.

Secondly, I never said that Supermicro don't sell AMD-based boards, they absolutely do and have for a long time. What I said was out of their current range of desktop/workstation boards, none of them were AMD based. If you have a look at their server boards, yes, they absolutely have models which support AMD processors, but I didn't include it since it's not what the OP was asking and is completely irrelevant to the conversation. But since you raised it, of their current range of 219 server motherboards listed on their website, only 33 support AMD CPUs.

I'll accept your apology by way of you amending your post ;-)

[MK14]

I'll accept your apology by way of you amending your post ;-)

I'll amend it, if I agree with what you say.

I DON'T.
I will leave it at that.

My comments were a technical discussion. I'm not getting into an argument with a mod.

[Halcyon]

I'll accept your apology by way of you amending your post ;-)

I'll amend it, if I agree with what you say.

I DON'T.
I will leave it at that.

Brilliant example of independent thinking. For that you should be commended. But in future, it does help if you actually read carefully before posting a reply, particularly when context is important. After all, you may as well have recommended Cyrix processors as an alternative (which I wouldn't necessarily disagree with).

[MK14]

Really MK14? You wasted all that time and energy and achieved exactly nothing.

Allow me to retort...

Having a "favourite" of something doesn't equal being loyal to a particular brand. If Supermicro went to shit, I'd drop them in a heartbeat. However, my use case is affordable, reasonably high-end and reliable workstations and servers. Supermicro fits the bill. If I had stupid amounts of money to spend, I'd be looking at IBM or Dell. You might have a favourite chocolate, but what if it changed and you didn't like it anymore? Would you keep buying it or recommending it to others? No, of course not. You're suggesting I'm being a hypocrite, which is the furthest from the truth.

Secondly, I never said that Supermicro don't sell AMD-based boards, they absolutely do and have for a long time. What I said was out of their current range of desktop/workstation boards, none of them were AMD based. If you have a look at their server boards, yes, they absolutely have models which support AMD processors, but I didn't include it since it's not what the OP was asking and is completely irrelevant to the conversation. But since you raised it, of their current range of 219 server motherboards listed on their website, only 33 support AMD CPUs.

I'll accept your apology by way of you amending your post ;-)

I understand what you are saying, and I think I understand why you think you are correct!
But, I still DON'T agree.

My explanation, would be way, way too long, and damaging to this thread, so I'd prefer to leave it out.

But, a very quick summery/tl;dr. Counting the available motherboards, of a particular type, is not a good way of measuring the qualities, merits and capabilities of different manufacturers.
It would be like me saying there are 100's of varieties of Linux versions out their, but only one Windows 10 Home edition. It isn't a good measure of windows vs Linux.
Desktop motherboards (which are really workstation/server/professional cpu based, such as Xeon), are not a market area, that AMD has decided to exploit, much or at all, yet. As regards their latest cpus. But that doesn't mean there is anything wrong with AMD.
AMD decided, instead, to create their Threadripper series, as a kind of workstation come desktop, entry into the market place. Which is part of the reason why.
I'd better stop, or my post(s), will get too large.

[Halcyon]

My explanation, would be way, way too long, and damaging to this thread, so I'd prefer to leave it out.

Well that lasted only a few seconds. ;-)

But, a very quick summery/tl;dr. Counting the available motherboards, of a particular type, is not a good way of measuring the qualities, merits and capabilities of different manufacturers.
It would be like me saying there are 100's of varieties of Linux versions out their, but only one Windows 10 Home edition. It isn't a good measure of windows vs Linux.
Desktop motherboards (which are really workstation/server/professional cpu based, such as Xeon), are not a market area, that AMD has decided to exploit, much or at all, yet. As regards their latest cpus. But that doesn't mean there is anything wrong with AMD.
AMD decided, instead, to create their Threadripper series, as a kind of workstation come desktop, entry into the market place. Which is part of the reason why.
I'd better stop, or my post(s), will get too large.

Yep, you are right. It has absolutely nothing to do with what I was saying, but you are right. I don't disagree with anything you said there.

[MK14]

I'll accept your apology by way of you amending your post ;-)

I think (although I partly try not to do this), I am ending up being a bit (or more), of an AMD fan boy. I try to also consider Intel, arm and others. Sorry, if I've come across as being too argumentative.

EDIT: I do have one (big to me), complaint about the current, latest and upcoming, high core count, AMD cpus. The 12 core and 16 core, don't have any form of inbuilt integrated graphics. This is a problem, if I want to have a computer, e.g. for electronics work, or serious computer activities. Which needs more than the 4 cores (currently) available on their APUs, so that the bigger 12 or 16 core cpus, are desired.
The problem with adding a graphics card, is that they tend to waste lots of electricity, can cost a lot (because the bitcoin miners can make graphics cards excessively expensive and/or hard to obtain). It is also a waste if such a computer is not going to be used to play games. They can also be noisy, if they have fans.
I.e. a non-gaming, home based computer.
(I do know, you can get cheap, low power consumption, simple, passively cooled graphics cards, but tend to get greedy, and want something better. Human nature I guess).
But, when/if they release 8 core APUs, I guess those will be good enough for such roles. since 8 cores, is still pretty powerful and decent, for most normal activities.

[olkipukki]

AMD decided, instead, to create their Threadripper series, as a kind of workstation come desktop, entry into the market place.

AMD defined only recently what is AMD workstation class CPU - AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO. Everything else either gamer or enthusiast stuff.

Before that, the definition was water down and up to MB manufactures to define that...

[MK14]

AMD decided, instead, to create their Threadripper series, as a kind of workstation come desktop, entry into the market place.

AMD defined only recently what is AMD workstation class CPU - AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO. Everything else either gamer or enthusiast stuff.

Before that, the definition was water down and up to MB manufactures to define that...

I guess they are addressing, part of what we were discussing earlier, as regards Supermicro, and 'workstation' boards. If that does or doesn't include Supermicro, in the future, I don't know.

If it means the Threadripper PROs, will formally include support for ECC memory, then I'm all for that!
I know some motherboards and AMD cpus, allowed ECC support, but I don't think it was formally acknowledged (by AMD, officially), on their cheaper, non-server (Epyc) cpus.

[olkipukki]

Don't forget about a new socket (yes, again!) and 8-channels memory.

Hopefully, RDIMM will be in use rather than UDIMM...

[MK14]

Don't forget about a new socket (yes, again!) and 8-channels memory.

Hopefully, RDIMM will be in use rather than UDIMM...

It has got RDIMM, as well. I was just reading about it (after your post about it). See here:
https://www.zdnet.com/article/amd-takes-on-intels-xeon-chips-with-threadripper-pro-3000wx/

Yes, 8 channels of memory, rather than the 4, which the existing threadripper has. Should be a big  (or reasonable) improvement. For people, who use them as very powerful workhorses, with giant applications, consuming huge amounts of memory bandwidth/horse-power.

[BravoV]

A bit off topic on CPU selection, but still related imo, my latest acquisition, an octa-cores laptop, Asus Zephyrus G14, and this is the 1st time in my life, that my laptop's cpu has the same core counts as my desktop machine. 

Not sure in desktop, workstation or server fronts, but in laptop's front, AMD surely destroy Intel, cmiiw.

[NiHaoMike]

I do have one (big to me), complaint about the current, latest and upcoming, high core count, AMD cpus. The 12 core and 16 core, don't have any form of inbuilt integrated graphics. This is a problem, if I want to have a computer, e.g. for electronics work, or serious computer activities. Which needs more than the 4 cores (currently) available on their APUs, so that the bigger 12 or 16 core cpus, are desired.
The problem with adding a graphics card, is that they tend to waste lots of electricity, can cost a lot (because the bitcoin miners can make graphics cards excessively expensive and/or hard to obtain). It is also a waste if such a computer is not going to be used to play games. They can also be noisy, if they have fans.
I.e. a non-gaming, home based computer.
(I do know, you can get cheap, low power consumption, simple, passively cooled graphics cards, but tend to get greedy, and want something better. Human nature I guess).
But, when/if they release 8 core APUs, I guess those will be good enough for such roles. since 8 cores, is still pretty powerful and decent, for most normal activities.

To be fair, high end Intel CPUs don't have integrated graphics either. There's just not much market for a really fast CPU but low end graphics outside of servers. Of which, have you considered a used server?

But when a GTX 1650 is only $120, why complain? It will even handle advanced 1080p to 4K upscaling with ease.
https://www.newegg.com/gigabyte-geforce-gtx-1650-gv-n1650ixoc-4gd/p/N82E16814932300
Or you can go for a GTX 1030 for $90 but I call that silly when you lose a lot of graphics performance for a small savings.
https://www.newegg.com/msi-geforce-gt-1030-gt-1030-2gh-lp-oc/p/N82E16814137140

[olkipukki]

I know some motherboards and AMD cpus, allowed ECC support, but I don't think it was formally acknowledged (by AMD, officially), on their cheaper, non-server (Epyc) cpus.

I would suggest to be quiet about that, sometimes works as a red rag to a bull 

[MK14]

To be fair, high end Intel CPUs don't have integrated graphics either. There's just not much market for a really fast CPU but low end graphics outside of servers. Of which, have you considered a used server?

But when a GTX 1650 is only $120, why complain? It will even handle advanced 1080p to 4K upscaling with ease.
https://www.newegg.com/gigabyte-geforce-gtx-1650-gv-n1650ixoc-4gd/p/N82E16814932300
Or you can go for a GTX 1030 for $90 but I call that silly when you lose a lot of graphics performance for a small savings.
https://www.newegg.com/msi-geforce-gt-1030-gt-1030-2gh-lp-oc/p/N82E16814137140

You're right, Intel are similar, at the higher ends (core counts).
The increasing use/availability of 4K modes on monitors/TVs, and increase in graphics use on so much software, these days. Means that even non-gaming PCs, may still benefit, from having decent graphics capabilities.

I think the upcoming (hopefully), 8 core APUs, will solve all these problems, in one go. 8 cores is enough to be considered to be fairly powerful, and its inbuilt graphics, powerful enough for 4K, even if some graphics processing is required.

8 cores is kind of a sweet spot at the moment. Fast enough, for most software, and yet cheap enough, to not be considered excessive. It is gradually becoming the new norm, which quad core use to be.

[KungFuJosh]

Unfortunately this is just like the Apple vs. PC, iOS vs. Android, Sony vs. Nintendo arguments.

Pardon me sir, but I believe you mean Sony vs. Xbox, Nintendo is for children.

[KungFuJosh]

A bit off topic on CPU selection, but still related imo, my latest acquisition, an octa-cores laptop, Asus Zephyrus G14, and this is the 1st time in my life, that my laptop's cpu has the same core counts as my desktop machine. 

Not sure in desktop, workstation or server fronts, but in laptop's front, AMD surely destroy Intel, cmiiw.

Weird coincidence! I was just looking at those laptops for my wife (after I recover from my upgrade). How do you like it?

[KungFuJosh]

I wound up going with the ASUS ROG X570 Crosshair VIII Hero (Wi-Fi). I just couldn't argue with that sexy back(panel).

I'm looking forward to seeing how well that runs with the 3900X.

Thanks,
Josh

[MK14]

I wound up going with the ASUS ROG X570 Crosshair VIII Hero (Wi-Fi). I just couldn't argue with that sexy back(panel).

I'm looking forward to seeing how well that runs with the 3900X.

Thanks,
Josh

Well done! It looks really nice. I'm feeling very jealous, now.
So many USB ports, and modern/high spec ones, at that, for many of them.
With well designed/sized VRMs (I would suspect, on such a motherboard), it should give you many trouble free years and longer, of computing.

[BravoV]

A bit off topic on CPU selection, but still related imo, my latest acquisition, an octa-cores laptop, Asus Zephyrus G14, and this is the 1st time in my life, that my laptop's cpu has the same core counts as my desktop machine. 

Not sure in desktop, workstation or server fronts, but in laptop's front, AMD surely destroy Intel, cmiiw.

Weird coincidence! I was just looking at those laptops for my wife (after I recover from my upgrade). How do you like it?

Just feel surreal with 8 cores / 16 threads cpu on laptop, and mine has been upgraded to 40GB of RAM, as I do VMs intensively.

So far no complain, it uses magnesium chassis, not those plasticity cheap feel case, and what I most valued is, it can be charged thru USB C plug (PD), although slower charge rate compared using it's own power adapter (3hrs vs 1 hrs), but when in mobile mode, this ability is really handy, as I can use the same charger for my phone and/or from power-bank, or in the car thru cigarette usb plug. 

Dunno about your wife, if its just for casual browsing, office and normal avg. joe/jane's usage, this machine is overkill imo.

[KungFuJosh]

Dunno about your wife, if its just for casual browsing, office and normal avg. joe/jane's usage, this machine is overkill imo.

Awesome. My wife also does web design, graphic design, video editing, and some photography. She'll definitely benefit from it. Plus even Best Buy has a version with the 4900HS, RTX2060, 1TB SSD, 16GB RAM, etc... for $1400. By the time I buy it, maybe it will be even cheaper. ...and it's already cheaper than the MSI Intel based laptops I was looking at for her previously.

[bd139]

Ooh that's pretty nicely priced as well.

[BravoV]

Dunno about your wife, if its just for casual browsing, office and normal avg. joe/jane's usage, this machine is overkill imo.

Awesome. My wife also does web design, graphic design, video editing, and some photography. She'll definitely benefit from it. Plus even Best Buy has a version with the 4900HS, RTX2060, 1TB SSD, 16GB RAM, etc... for $1400. By the time I buy it, maybe it will be even cheaper. ...and it's already cheaper than the MSI Intel based laptops I was looking at for her previously.

As RAM price now is falling like a rock, just fill up to 32GB for her, she will definitely will love it as her big RAM requirement, also it uses 3200Mhz SODIMM DDR4 RAM which is quite cheap nowadays compared to few years ago.

If that is case of her normal usage, then I recommend it, as 14" sized feel not too small, yet not too bulky like 15" laptop.

[BravoV]

I wound up going with the ASUS ROG X570 Crosshair VIII Hero (Wi-Fi). I just couldn't argue with that sexy back(panel).

I'm looking forward to seeing how well that runs with the 3900X.

Thanks,
Josh

You should consider ECC memory too to accompany that mobo. 

[KungFuJosh]

I wound up going with the ASUS ROG X570 Crosshair VIII Hero (Wi-Fi). I just couldn't argue with that sexy back(panel).

I'm looking forward to seeing how well that runs with the 3900X.

Thanks,
Josh

You should consider ECC memory too to accompany that mobo. 

Haha, I am. I'm hoping my 32GB (total) of DDR4 2400 will be good enough for now considering the cost...especially because I want to switch to 32GB modules. Any recommendations for 32GB ECC modules that won't require a second mortgage?

[bd139]

Look at Crucial memory modules. Their ECC is affordable.

[coppice]

Look at Crucial memory modules. Their ECC is affordable.

That means nothing. Everything is affordable if you are rich enough.

[bd139]

If cost is a problem you’re not buying ECC.

I don’t use it in my desktop. Because cost is a problem. My non-ECC complement was £300 which hurts bad enough already.

[BravoV]

I wound up going with the ASUS ROG X570 Crosshair VIII Hero (Wi-Fi). I just couldn't argue with that sexy back(panel).

I'm looking forward to seeing how well that runs with the 3900X.

Thanks,
Josh

You should consider ECC memory too to accompany that mobo. 

Haha, I am. I'm hoping my 32GB (total) of DDR4 2400 will be good enough for now considering the cost...especially because I want to switch to 32GB modules. Any recommendations for 32GB ECC modules that won't require a second mortgage?

Yeah, they're quite pricey. 

Currently I'm at 32GB only, use two sticks of 16GB. But mine are the rare breed using legendary but discontinued Samsung B-die chips. They're rated at 2400Mhz, but even without touching at voltage at all like VDDR, stays at stock 1.2V, I can simply can push to 2933MHz without any effort at all while using the 2400's timing. I'm lazy to squeeze more as don't want to waste countless hours or nights just tweaking for more speed. Maybe one day when I have times and energy to spend to try to hit say at 3200 with CL like 15, maybe that will be enough for me.

I did a pointless rant on overclocking my ecc -> HERE 

Managed to deliberately inducing ram error, by running the ram below 1.2V  while still can boot properly, and had successfully captured the "corrected" bit flips twice on linux using rasdaemon.

Photo of my Samsung B-die ECC. 

[rrinker]

 For those concerned about upgrading - AMD has already confirmed that the Ryzen 3 (the 5000 series) will once again use the AM4 socket, so no new socket. They aren't like Intel with a new socket for each generation of CPU. The only real limitation on some older AMD motherboards is the BIOS capacity, there just isn't enough memory to store all the possible CPUs, so most manufactures have cut off support of newer chips on older boards. It's still the same physical socket though.
 Zen 3 is still a bit off, so if you are buying today wondering about the next one after that - please. I keep my systems for a rather long time - this one replaced a machine that was nearly 8 years old. I didn't go extreme, it's just a Ryzen 5 3600, but it is way faster than the old Xeon it replaced, and 2 more cores to boot. I still have room to grow if need be, with a different CPU, and I didn't even use the fastest memory, though I do have 32GB as 2x16, leaving me with 2 open DIMM slots as well.

[KungFuJosh]

Yeah, I just looked. There's almost nothing great available, and what is available, costs literally twice as much as non-ECC. $180 and up for 64GB (2x32) non-ECC, or 32GB (1x32) ECC...

Like I said, I hope my ram works for now.

EDIT: The interesting thing is that it doesn't make much of a difference in price whether I do 4x16 or 2x32 to get 64gb. That's kinda convenient.

[KungFuJosh]

Here's a more important question. Are the mods able to swap the 3300X and 3700X positions so the poll looks like a middle finger?

[Halcyon]

Here's a more important question. Are the mods able to swap the 3300X and 3700X positions so the poll looks like a middle finger?

No, not without resetting the stats anyway.

[0db]

I don't understand the IT-world, part #2 

Today the IT guy here is going to replace a couple of these GPUs with something more powerful - he said - and ... emm emm "You look at the K4000? yours for 50 bucks, buddy. I have many HP Z440 to fix today, and I am underpaid for that"

He shouldn't sell corporate stuff in any underground way, but apparently the manager knows about it and nobody cares.

Anyway, what do you think, guys, about the "old" NVIDIA Quadro K4000 ?

[brucehoult]

Top card in 2013. No doubt an entry level card would beat it now.

At least it only uses 80W not a couple of hundred. That's something.

[bd139]

I don't understand the IT-world, part #2 

Today the IT guy here is going to replace a couple of these GPUs with something more powerful - he said - and ... emm emm "You look at the K4000? yours for 50 bucks, buddy. I have many HP Z440 to fix today, and I am underpaid for that"

He shouldn't sell corporate stuff in any underground way, but apparently the manager knows about it and nobody cares.

Anyway, what do you think, guys, about the "old" NVIDIA Quadro K4000 ?

It's normal to skip dive shit. I do it.

Take it, sell it for twice that 

[0db]

Thanks guys 

At least it only uses 80W not a couple of hundred. That's something.

I took a coffee with the IT-guy, and talking about GPUs vs power consumption he said "well, buddy, I also have some Maxwell-2014 K2200, they only eat 68 Watt. Do you want one? it's yours for 100 bucks, buddy"

100 euro [ K2200 Maxwell-2014, 68Watt TDP, 4Gbyte VRAM, 1439 Gflop/s ]
050 euro [ K4000 Kepler-2013, 80Watt TDP, 3Gbyte VRAM, 1244 Gflop/s ]

Both are DirectX v12, OpenGL v4.6, and they look they can be put in the same basket, I am not an expert by any mean, just I don't notice so great differences: ought I infer that is just the less power consumption that justifies more money in his pockets?... Or is there any hidden (for instance Linux better compatibility) reason for this?

I don't actually know if and how much Linux and these two GPUs are friends 

[MK14]

Does he think you don't know much about such cards, and he is 'trying it on', and trying to make as much money from you, by selling any junk stuff he can get his hands on ?

I've seen cards like that, simply included with computer purchases, for little or no, extra cost. Making me suspect they are worth little (in real terms, even if they are sometimes for sale, for larger amounts), and have a number of possible problems. Such as potential lack of modern video output connectors, not supporting modern, higher resolutions, not supporting better games, possibly slightly patchy Linux support issues, relative slowness, compared to modern graphics cards.
I'd aim for 15W, and no more than 25W, if I was trying to get a passively cooled 2D usage, graphics card. Ideally, I prefer to get cpus, with built in integrated graphics, if there is no requirement to play fast/modern games on the machine and/or use the graphics chips for powerful computations.

EDIT:  E.g. The following costs around £55 brand new, uses a maximum of 50 watts (probably a lot less, during normal 2D useage). Has HDMI/DVI and Display port connectors on it, and seems to support up to 4K output resolution. (  https://www.scan.co.uk/products/sapphire-amd-radeon-rx-550-pulse-oc-2gb-gddr5-graphics-card  ).

https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/radeon-rx-550.c2947

I.e. Probably better in most respects, is brand new, modern, and for almost half the money, of the 100 Euro deal you had on offer. Probably uses a fraction of the electricity, and can support modern resolutions/connectors/compatibility, and to a limited extent, games.

There are probably better examples, because I chose the example quickly.

[KungFuJosh]

I've got the 3900X setup with the Crosshair VIII Hero board. So far it's really nice, but I'm not blown away by the speed yet. I'll see how it goes as I get more work done.

I really like the motherboard a lot. The bios is awesome. My previous MSI board was really nice, but I was never a fan of the bios. With the Asus, it was funny. I was trying to update the bios to the latest version, and it didn't like the file on the flash drive. I finally used the internet option from bios, and it worked fine. I guess it's less work than having to download stuff ahead of time. +1 for laziness.

The one thing I'll say I don't like, Asus included a really shitty antenna for the wifi. the base that holds the antenna is a flimsy piece of shit, and it never worked. I have my Gigabyte antenna connected for now, and it's a much nicer design.

I'm still waiting for the new liquid cooler, I've got it running with the stock cooler for now...and my old PSU. 50C idle isn't horrible for a stock cooler.

[brucehoult]

I've got the 3900X setup with the Crosshair VIII Hero board. So far it's really nice, but I'm not blown away by the speed yet.

Well, yeah.

You said you're coming from an i7-5820K, which is is a Haswell 6 core 3.6 GHz turbo so something with 4.6 turbo is going to be barely noticeable -- and the differences between the CPUs you originally listed would be really imperceptible in general use.

Gains since Sandy Bridge have been very minor. Mostly just more cores and the availability of lower TDP parts that still have excellent performance e.g. my 15W i7-8650U NUC is almost always faster than a 65W i7-6700, but a little slower under heavy load than a 90W i7-6700K.

[KungFuJosh]

I've got the 3900X setup with the Crosshair VIII Hero board. So far it's really nice, but I'm not blown away by the speed yet.

Well, yeah.

You said you're coming from an i7-5820K, which is is a Haswell 6 core 3.6 GHz turbo so something with 4.6 turbo is going to be barely noticeable -- and the differences between the CPUs you originally listed would be really imperceptible in general use.

Gains since Sandy Bridge have been very minor. Mostly just more cores and the availability of lower TDP parts that still have excellent performance e.g. my 15W i7-8650U NUC is almost always faster than a 65W i7-6700, but a little slower under heavy load than a 90W i7-6700K.

Benchmarks claim the 3900X should still see around 30% improvement even in single core. I dunno. What's killing me right now is I hate hearing the CPU fan...unfortunately the new liquid cooler won't be here until next week.

[wraper]

What's killing me right now is I hate hearing the CPU fan...unfortunately the new liquid cooler won't be here until next week.

How about adjusting fan speed settings in BIOS? Also liquid coolers are neither better at cooling than good air coolers, neither more more silent. At the same price point air coolers offer better performance. Box cooler which comes with 3900x is pretty decent already.

[KungFuJosh]

What's killing me right now is I hate hearing the CPU fan...unfortunately the new liquid cooler won't be here until next week.

How about adjusting fan speed settings in BIOS? Also liquid coolers are neither better at cooling than good air coolers, neither more more silent. At the same price point air coolers offer better performance. Box cooler which comes with 3900x is pretty decent already.

I would have to just set it at max, and I have thought about doing that. What annoys me is the inconsistency of the noise level. If it was the same all the time, it would be easy to ignore.

I never heard my previous liquid cooler running. It was very quiet. I'm hoping the new one is too. I bought a Corsair instead, because apparently the new version of the Enermax I had supposedly leaks.

Currently not a problem with the air conditioner running tho.

[wraper]

I would have to just set it at max

Why? Fans on CPU coolers usually have quite high max RPM, way above what's needed even under heavy load.

What annoys me is the inconsistency of the noise level. If it was the same all the time, it would be easy to ignore.

If sound (fan speed) fluctuates rapidly, it means that fan settings are not adequate.

[MK14]

If sound (fan speed) fluctuates rapidly, it means that fan settings are not adequate.

The OP seems to mention a 30% loss in expected benchmark performance. Is the heatsnk on properly, or is the processor getting too hot, throttling back the performance (by say 30% when benchmarking), and making lots of fan noise, in a futile attempt to cool the cpu, if it isn't making good thermal contact with the cpu.
I wonder what the cpu temperature readings are, idling and under load ?

[bd139]

You have to set the fans up properly so there is some positive air pressure. It's not as easy as it looks. Check list:

1. Get a case that has more holes than not holes in it (I like the fractal design meshify as they are wind tunnels) and has a separate shroud for power supply.
2. Front to back airflow for all fans.
3. More fans at the front than the back and fill every position possible with 120mm or larger fans and run them slow.
4. No cables all over the shit. Do a tidy job.
5. Use a big bastard heatsink and fan on the CPU and skip watercooling. Totally not worth it.
6. Set the fans, at least on ASRock on silent and set the sensors to CPU temp.
7. Grab some decent heatsink compound (anything arctic silver does the job)

Testing it with prime95 and using openhardwaremonitor to watch the temperatures. If you establish an issue, go research and fix it

This is a picture of inside my old build as an example with Ryzen 7 3700X in it. I have a newer one with different board, SSD, RAM config and CPU since I built that. Case, fans, HSF and GPU are same though. The heatsink on this weighs a kilogram (Be quiet dark rock slim)

This build is almost 100% silent even with CPU flat out and maintains 65oC CPU temp.

[0db]

@bd139
which is the product name and model of your case?
it really looks interesting and compact 

[KungFuJosh]

I would have to just set it at max

Why? Fans on CPU coolers usually have quite high max RPM, way above what's needed even under heavy load.

What annoys me is the inconsistency of the noise level. If it was the same all the time, it would be easy to ignore.

If sound (fan speed) fluctuates rapidly, it means that fan settings are not adequate.

It's not rapid, it's just inconsistent. I know I'm really ridiculous, but it annoys me.

[bd139]

@bd139
which is the product name and model of your case?
it really looks interesting and compact 

Fractal Design Meshify C Mini. Favourite case so far and they're not overly expensive.

Pictures of mine here: https://imgur.com/a/LNRvCpH

Product link: https://www.fractal-design.com/products/cases/meshify/meshify-c-mini-dark-tempered-glass/black/

[wraper]

It's not rapid, it's just inconsistent. I know I'm really ridiculous, but it annoys me.

If you can notice the change, it should be happening fast enough. In any case, this does not sound right. Unless you run some stress tests or heavy all core benchmarks, there should be no fan noise at all. And even under tests, only barely noticeable noise. As MK14 said, it could be not only an issue with fan settings but also a physical issue. It's hard to assemble stock AMD cooler improperly but I would not exclude that. Also if some small piece of debris got in between of CPU and cooler, it will totally ruin the heat transfer since there will be a gap between CPU and cooler and thermal paste will not fix that.
Also I would verify if it's really CPU cooler and not that tiny chipset fan.

[bd139]

If it's the stock AMD cooler with the provided sticky blob this is not unusual. First thing I do when I get a new Ryzen is sell the stock cooler on ebay 

[wraper]

If it's the stock AMD cooler with the provided sticky blob this is not unusual. First thing I do when I get a new Ryzen is sell the stock cooler on ebay 

What sticky blob? Wraith Prism comes with a fairly decent thermal paste applied.

[bd139]

The wraith ones are 50/50. Sometimes it's badly applied or the base of the cooler is warped or it has been stored somewhere too hot and goes brittle or it was done on a Friday. They silk-screen it on in the factory by hand.

Edit: this comes from our hardware dude at a local shop I know who has built about 50 of the machines so far and from discovering my first one was slightly warped

[KungFuJosh]

The OP seems to mention a 30% loss in expected benchmark performance. Is the heatsnk on properly, or is the processor getting too hot, throttling back the performance (by say 30% when benchmarking), and making lots of fan noise, in a futile attempt to cool the cpu, if it isn't making good thermal contact with the cpu.
I wonder what the cpu temperature readings are, idling and under load ?

You have to set the fans up properly so there is some positive air pressure. It's not as easy as it looks. Check list:

1. Get a case that has more holes than not holes in it (I like the fractal design meshify as they are wind tunnels) and has a separate shroud for power supply.
2. Front to back airflow for all fans.
3. More fans at the front than the back and fill every position possible with 120mm or larger fans and run them slow.
4. No cables all over the shit. Do a tidy job.
5. Use a big bastard heatsink and fan on the CPU and skip watercooling. Totally not worth it.
6. Set the fans, at least on ASRock on silent and set the sensors to CPU temp.
7. Grab some decent heatsink compound (anything arctic silver does the job)

Testing it with prime95 and using openhardwaremonitor to watch the temperatures. If you establish an issue, go research and fix it

This is a picture of inside my old build as an example with Ryzen 7 3700X in it. I have a newer one with different board, SSD, RAM config and CPU since I built that. Case, fans, HSF and GPU are same though. The heatsink on this weighs a kilogram (Be quiet dark rock slim)

This build is almost 100% silent even with CPU flat out and maintains 65oC CPU temp.

To answer both of you, I've been building computers since the early 1990s, I've got a pretty good idea of what I'm doing.

My idle CPU temp in windows is showing 40C right now in ROG AI bullshit, and goes up to around 52C with a not insane load, with a bunch of browser windows open on 3 monitors running video on two of them, plus a surveillance program monitoring cameras. Motherboard temp staying fairly consistent at 32C. It's pretty damn good for a stock cooler. In fact, I also opened photoshop, and it's still not going above 52C. Mostly fluctuating in the high 40s.

My case is awesome. It's the Corsair Carbide Air 540 High Airflow ATX Cube Case. All the power shit, and external drives are separated from the board and components to keep a better air flow on what matters, and yes, of course the case fans are flowing from front to back. 3 140mm fans. Which are never noisy. I will eventually add a 3rd fan to the front, but I'm in no rush.

My only noise issue is the CPU cooler fan. It stands out because the rest of the computer is very quiet. Don't worry, I have a giant tube of Arctic Silver 5 for when the liquid cooler arrives.

Photo of the current build with stock cooler attached.

Thanks,
Josh

[olkipukki]

My only noise issue is the CPU cooler fan.

Just buy a proper CPU fan and forget about that noise 

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/general-computing/21-or-amdintel-under-same-hood/msg2737878/

[bd139]

Holy crap! Added to the furniture shopping list 

[wraper]

To answer both of you, I've been building computers since the early 1990s, I've got a pretty good idea of what I'm doing.
...
My only noise issue is the CPU cooler fan. It stands out because the rest of the computer is very quiet. Don't worry, I have a giant tube of Arctic Silver 5 for when the liquid cooler arrives.

Then why cannot you simply adjust bios settings and not complain about CPU fan noise? Wraith Prism apparently can go up to about 3700 RPM which obviously is noisy. It does not mean it should run at such RPM. IMHO optimum is to run CPU fan at about 700 RPM below 60^oC and gradually increase it's speed till about 75^oC. This way cooling is adequate and it basically always stays silent.

[wraper]

My only noise issue is the CPU cooler fan.

Just buy a proper CPU fan and forget about that noise 

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/general-computing/21-or-amdintel-under-same-hood/msg2737878/

It is a proper CPU fan. It's a PEBKAC.

[KungFuJosh]

Then why cannot you simply adjust bios settings and not complain about CPU fan noise? Wraith Prism apparently can go up to about 3700 RPM which obviously is noisy. It does not mean it should run at such RPM. IMHO optimum is to run CPU fan at about 700 RPM below 60^oC and gradually increase it's speed till about 75^oC. This way cooling is adequate and it basically always stays silent.

I ordered the H115i Platinum at the same time I ordered the other parts. They sent it from a farther warehouse. I have no interest in relying on a stock fan, though it works a lot better than expected.

My only noise issue is the CPU cooler fan.

Just buy a proper CPU fan and forget about that noise 

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/general-computing/21-or-amdintel-under-same-hood/msg2737878/

It is a proper CPU fan. It's a PEBKAC.

You are! My ears working well is not a problem. I'm not going to disable the fans ability to change speed because I hate the noise.

[wraper]

You are! My ears working well is not a problem. I'm not going to disable the fans ability to change speed because I hate the noise.

Who said you should disable any ability?  . Talk about experience of putting computers together, yeah.  There should be at least 3 predefined factory profiles and manual way to adjust fan speed ramp. Motherboard has no way to know what type of CPU cooler you have and how fan reacts to PWM. It's just some default setting which keeps fan speed on higher side.
EDIT: Actually some more expensive motherboards have fan autotuning feature and your likely is one of them. But you should run fan auto-calibration in bios yourself.
EDIT2: And if you are not keen to adjust bios settings, I guess your RAM probably runs at 2133 MHz.

[wraper]

The wraith ones are 50/50. Sometimes it's badly applied or the base of the cooler is warped or it has been stored somewhere too hot and goes brittle or it was done on a Friday. They silk-screen it on in the factory by hand.

Edit: this comes from our hardware dude at a local shop I know who has built about 50 of the machines so far and from discovering my first one was slightly warped

They all are Wraith. 5 types of currently supplied. From small fully aluminium Stealth to quite beefy Prism.

[KungFuJosh]

Who said you should disable any ability?  . Talk about experience of putting computers together, yeah.  There should be at least 3 predefined factory profiles and manual way to adjust fan speed ramp. Motherboard has no way to know what type of CPU cooler you have and how fan reacts to PWM. It's just some default setting which keeps fan speed on higher side.
EDIT: Actually some more expensive motherboards have fan autotuning feature and your likely is one of them. But you should run fan auto-calibration in bios yourself.
EDIT2: And if you are not keen to adjust bios settings, I guess your RAM probably runs at 2133 MHz.

You clearly don't get it. I don't want ANY AUDIBLE CHANGE TO THE FAN. That means that it would have to be set to a specific speed, and not change. But I'm not an idiot, so I'm not going to do that. I already tweaked the profile with the tuner in the bios. I also have my ram set to 2400. 

[bd139]

The wraith ones are 50/50. Sometimes it's badly applied or the base of the cooler is warped or it has been stored somewhere too hot and goes brittle or it was done on a Friday. They silk-screen it on in the factory by hand.

Edit: this comes from our hardware dude at a local shop I know who has built about 50 of the machines so far and from discovering my first one was slightly warped

They all are Wraith. 5 types of currently supplied. From small fully aluminium Stealth to quite beefy Prism.

Yeah they all come off the same line though. Cooler Master make them.

[wraper]

ou clearly don't get it. I don't want ANY AUDIBLE CHANGE TO THE FAN. That means that it would have to be set to a specific speed, and not change. But I'm not an idiot, so I'm not going to do that. I already tweaked the profile with the tuner in the bios.

You clearly don't understand what I said. And don't understand how fan settings work. You probably didn't even go into advanced settings, and stay in EZ mode for dummies. If you properly adjust settings you won't notice the change and most likely won't even hear it. Usually there is even response speed setting. Say you can set that speed ramp happens within 30 seconds gradually, thus becomes not noticeable.

I also have my ram set to 2400

Which BTW sucks and severely affects performance. $380 motherboard and RAM running @ 2400 MHz , LOL  .

[wraper]

Yeah they all come off the same line though. Cooler Master make them.

Nah, there are several suppliers for sure, and coolers are vastly different. Say wraith spire can come from CM or Delta (with annoying motor noise), fans even have different blade count.

[KungFuJosh]

ou clearly don't get it. I don't want ANY AUDIBLE CHANGE TO THE FAN. That means that it would have to be set to a specific speed, and not change. But I'm not an idiot, so I'm not going to do that. I already tweaked the profile with the tuner in the bios.

You clearly don't understand what I said. And don't understand how fan settings work. You probably didn't even go into advanced settings, and stay in EZ mode for dummies. If you properly adjust settings you won't notice the change and most likely won't even hear it. Usually there is even response speed setting. Say you can set that speed ramp happens within 30 seconds gradually, thus becomes not noticeable.

I also have my ram set to 2400

Which BTW sucks and severely affects performance. $380 motherboard and RAM running @ 2400 MHz , LOL  .

You're the dumbest neckbeard I've seen on here. If the fan speed changes, it's an audible change, unless you leave the max speed too low. I can hear it change, maybe you wouldn't, I don't care.

I still have the ram at 2400 because new memory is expensive. I'll get faster ram eventually, but for now, this works, and I don't give a flying fuck about impressing you.

[MK14]

Fans (heatsinks) of this type (fanless, all/fully passive), are completely silent.

https://www.silverstonetek.com/product.php?area=en&pid=347

You can either get one which supports your cpus TDP wattage, or get a slightly less powerful cpu, like a 3700X (TDP drops to 65 Watts, from the 3900X's 105 Watts), or lower the cpus TDP setting (they are often programmable within certain ranges, these days).

[wraper]

You're the dumbest neckbeard I've seen on here.

I can say this about you. Probably not dumbest but close to that.

If the fan speed changes, it's an audible change, unless you leave the max speed too low. I can hear it change, maybe you wouldn't, I don't care.

Adequate fan speed primarily depends on actual CPU temperature. Not simply if you can hear the fan or not. With decent CPU cooler you normally don't need such fan speeds when it becomes significantly audible, certainly not under light loads such as internet browsing or watching video. And as I said, when speed change happens over prolonged time, it's not that noticeable and certainly less annoying unlike when the same change happens over a second or two.

I still have the ram at 2400 because new memory is expensive.

Says someone who blown $380 on mobo instead of $120-150 mobo which would work just as good + better RAM or whatever else.

[KungFuJosh]

Says someone who blown $380 on mobo instead of $120-150 mobo which would work just as good + better RAM or whatever else.

You're what Russia would call a useless idiot.

[KungFuJosh]

Fans (heatsinks) of this type (fanless, all/fully passive), are completely silent.

https://www.silverstonetek.com/product.php?area=en&pid=347

You can either get one which supports your cpus TDP wattage, or get a slightly less powerful cpu, like a 3700X (TDP drops to 65 Watts, from the 3900X's 105 Watts), or lower the cpus TDP setting (they are often programmable within certain ranges, these days).

Sure I could do that, or I could get some of the silent fans from Noctua, or specific fans from Corsair too. But none of that matters since I'm just waiting for the liquid cooler I already ordered, which will get to me on Tuesday. I'm not gonna put any kind of effort into my impatience. I'd leave the air conditioner running straight until Tuesday, but I don't wanna piss off my wife toooooo much.

[brucehoult]

I've got the 3900X setup with the Crosshair VIII Hero board. So far it's really nice, but I'm not blown away by the speed yet.

Well, yeah.

You said you're coming from an i7-5820K, which is is a Haswell 6 core 3.6 GHz turbo so something with 4.6 turbo is going to be barely noticeable -- and the differences between the CPUs you originally listed would be really imperceptible in general use.

Gains since Sandy Bridge have been very minor. Mostly just more cores and the availability of lower TDP parts that still have excellent performance e.g. my 15W i7-8650U NUC is almost always faster than a 65W i7-6700, but a little slower under heavy load than a 90W i7-6700K.

Benchmarks claim the 3900X should still see around 30% improvement even in single core. I dunno. What's killing me right now is I hate hearing the CPU fan...unfortunately the new liquid cooler won't be here until next week.

Right.

So something that takes 1.0 seconds on the old one might take 0.77 seconds on the new one. Or something that takes a minute on the old one might take 46 seconds on the new one.

You are unlikely to notice such a difference without a stopwatch or sitting the two machines next to each other.

[brucehoult]

What's killing me right now is I hate hearing the CPU fan...unfortunately the new liquid cooler won't be here until next week.

How about adjusting fan speed settings in BIOS? Also liquid coolers are neither better at cooling than good air coolers, neither more more silent. At the same price point air coolers offer better performance. Box cooler which comes with 3900x is pretty decent already.

I disagree with this.

Water coolers allow the use of much larger and lower speed fans on a large radiator.

I've got a Corsair Hydro Series H100-110 all-in-one water cooler on my 32 core ThreadRipper 2990wx. It's my first water cooler and by far the quietest computer I've ever owned (especially under full load pulling 375W from the wall) other than the ones that didn't have a fan or hard disk at all.

I was very pleasantly surprised.

[MK14]

Right.

So something that takes 1.0 seconds on the old one might take 0.77 seconds on the new one. Or something that takes a minute on the old one might take 46 seconds on the new one.

You are unlikely to notice such a difference without a stopwatch or sitting the two machines next to each other.

That does matter (improve things), in some cases.
E.g. Games and/or Virtual reality and/or emulating an older computer system, where you want it to run, say x100 times faster, rather than just x70 times faster. E.g. Z80 C/PM emulator.

I.e. The cpu speed could be needed, to keep your modern game, at the correct frame rate, even when being jumped/attacked by lots of monsters/players.

So, if the latest cpu, gives a frame rate of 60 fps, but the slower/old processor can only achieve 41 fps, with the same graphics card. That does matter. There are many other possible examples.

[brucehoult]

Right.

So something that takes 1.0 seconds on the old one might take 0.77 seconds on the new one. Or something that takes a minute on the old one might take 46 seconds on the new one.

You are unlikely to notice such a difference without a stopwatch or sitting the two machines next to each other.

That does matter (improve things), in some cases.
E.g. Games and/or Virtual reality and/or emulating an older computer system, where you want it to run, say x100 times faster, rather than just x70 times faster. E.g. Z80 C/PM emulator.

A 16 MHz 68000 or 80386 can emulate a 1 Mhz 6502 or 4 MHz Z80 machine at full speed, no problems.

A 3+ GHz modern machine doesn't even notice such a task.

So, if the latest cpu, gives a frame rate of 60 fps, but the slower/old processor can only achieve 41 fps, with the same graphics card. That does matter. There are many other possible examples.

30% faster would be 46 FPS vs 60 FPS, not 41.

But in any case game FPS seldom varies much at all with different CPUs, it's all in the GPU.

If you're trying to optimize game performance then spending your money on a 12 core CPU was probably the wrong approach.

[KungFuJosh]

Water coolers allow the use of much larger and lower speed fans on a large radiator.

I've got a Corsair Hydro Series H100-110 all-in-one water cooler on my 32 core ThreadRipper 2990wx. It's my first water cooler and by far the quietest computer I've ever owned (especially under full load pulling 375W from the wall) other than the ones that didn't have a fan or hard disk at all.

I was very pleasantly surprised.

I totally agree! My previous system was dead quiet with the liquid cooler. I'm sure it will be much quieter when then new liquid cooler comes in.

If you're trying to optimize game performance then spending your money on a 12 core CPU was probably the wrong approach.

Not at all, I don't really play games (except Rocksmith sometimes, and that doesn't care at all). I'm hoping to see improved rendering times in video editing, and hopefully some other apps that benefit from the extra cores.

[MK14]

A 16 MHz 68000 or 80386 can emulate a 1 Mhz 6502 or 4 MHz Z80 machine at full speed, no problems.

A 3+ GHz modern machine doesn't even notice such a task.

True. But some emulators are simple/inefficiently written and/or (puns accidental) logic simulator types, coping with ancient discrete logic cpus (e.g. TTL). This can result in poor performance of the emulator, hence the want/need of a faster cpu, usually single thread performance wise.

30% faster would be 46 FPS vs 60 FPS, not 41.

But in any case game FPS seldom varies much at all with different CPUs, it's all in the GPU.

You're right, I did a poor job, with the frame rate estimation.
Too off-topic and OP not interested, so I'll keep it short. As well as the GPU (which is usually the primary factor dictating FPS), the cpu can affect frame rate, especially with some games. So, if too low a FPS is making the gaming experience bad for a particular player. As well as getting a very powerful gaming card, they may also need to get a very fast (especially single thread performance, but enough cores (6+ I guess) with some games as well), cpu. Otherwise, the frame rate can dip, and the picture breaks up (distorts/lags/looks like a slide show), in a way, which annoys some gamers.

[0db]

A 16 MHz 68000 or 80386 can emulate a 1 Mhz 6502 or 4 MHz Z80 machine at full speed, no problems.
A 3+ GHz modern machine doesn't even notice such a task.

A Ryzen5 (6 Cores) @3600 MHz with 32GB 3200MHz DDR4 and Samsung Pro NVMe SSD is not enough to emulate a MIPS R4K@150Mhz system, and you feel the result as "very slow".

[0db]

The binary dynamic translators like Qemu *may* help.

[brucehoult]

A 16 MHz 68000 or 80386 can emulate a 1 Mhz 6502 or 4 MHz Z80 machine at full speed, no problems.
A 3+ GHz modern machine doesn't even notice such a task.

A Ryzen5 (6 Cores) @3600 MHz with 32GB 3200MHz DDR4 and Samsung Pro NVMe SSD is not enough to emulate a MIPS R4K@150Mhz system, and you feel the result as "very slow".

That's pretty poor.

My 4.2 GHz ThreadRipper and 4.2 GHz i7-8650U both do full-system emulation of 64 bit RISC-V in qemu at a speed that feels very similar to if I set the clock speed on my HiFive Unleashed down to 800 MHz (instead of its usual 1.4 GHz)

My own (with Michael Clarke) "RV8" RISC-V emulator runs RISC-V code at the equivalent of around 3 GHz on the same machines. Saly though it's had no work done it it for three years and is more a proof of concept than a useful product. (I'm working on changing that)

[0db]

That's pretty poor.

It's a Mame project. Lot of people complain about its slowness.
Which is the trick to speed-up the emulation of RISC-V CPUs?
Have you spent time on QEMU? And improved it specifically for RISC-V?

[brucehoult]

That's pretty poor.

It's a Mame project. Lot of people complain about its slowness.
Which is the trick to speed-up the emulation of RISC-V CPUs?

Mostly RISC-V is easy to emulate fast because it doesn't have condition codes. It's always a real b*tch to emulate condition codes between CPU families because they're never quite the same. But MIPS should be the same for that.

Have you spent time on QEMU? And improved it specifically for RISC-V?

I've done quite a lot of work on Spike (very slow ~100 to 200 MIPS interpretive RISC-V reference emulator) but not much on qemu. I submitted a few small bugfixes back in January 2017 when compressed instruction support was first being implemented. I think I just did those in an email thread, not even a proper pull request e.g. see https://github.com/qemu/qemu/commit/a52a1ca0666f0ff92e322007ca0beea29cad34b4

[NiHaoMike]

Generally, old computer emulators not only have to emulate the CPU but also the peripherals, in some cases they have to emulate old analog audio hardware in such a way as to sound "correct".

[Mattjd]

For a time I liked the idea of using Intel so I had access to the AVX-512 instruction set for development work. However, Intel have made such a mess of AVX-512 it doesn't seem to be worth bothering with right now.

I haven't made it through the entire thread but have you see this?


https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/hpc/How-To-Use-MKL-with-AMD-Ryzen-and-Threadripper-CPU-s-Effectively-for-Python-Numpy-And-Other-Applications-1637/


AVX-512 wont be enabled but you do get some of the AVX2 instructions.

[coppice]

For a time I liked the idea of using Intel so I had access to the AVX-512 instruction set for development work. However, Intel have made such a mess of AVX-512 it doesn't seem to be worth bothering with right now.

I haven't made it through the entire thread but have you see this?


https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/hpc/How-To-Use-MKL-with-AMD-Ryzen-and-Threadripper-CPU-s-Effectively-for-Python-Numpy-And-Other-Applications-1637/


AVX-512 wont be enabled but you do get some of the AVX2 instructions.

I think the recent AMD chips all fully support AVX2. AVX2 has been around for a long time. It certainly should be supported now.

[Mattjd]

For a time I liked the idea of using Intel so I had access to the AVX-512 instruction set for development work. However, Intel have made such a mess of AVX-512 it doesn't seem to be worth bothering with right now.

I haven't made it through the entire thread but have you see this?


https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/hpc/How-To-Use-MKL-with-AMD-Ryzen-and-Threadripper-CPU-s-Effectively-for-Python-Numpy-And-Other-Applications-1637/


AVX-512 wont be enabled but you do get some of the AVX2 instructions.

I think the recent AMD chips all fully support AVX2. AVX2 has been around for a long time. It certainly should be supported now.

It has been, but for the longest time if you were using AMD and was using the Intel MKL instead of say openBLAS you saw you huge performance drops because Intel was checking if you were a "Geniune Intel CPU" and then going down a different code path, basically blocking AVX2 instructions and other optimizations.


https://www.extremetech.com/computing/302650-how-to-bypass-matlab-cripple-amd-ryzen-threadripper-cpus

I got friends at The MathWorks who helped pushed the fix for this into core Matlab so AMD users aren't getting screwed out of their money due to TMW using Intel MKL.

[coppice]

It has been, but for the longest time if you were using AMD and was using the Intel MKL instead of say openBLAS you saw you huge performance drops because Intel was checking if you were a "Geniune Intel CPU" and then going down a different code path, basically blocking AVX2 instructions and other optimizations.


https://www.extremetech.com/computing/302650-how-to-bypass-matlab-cripple-amd-ryzen-threadripper-cpus

I got friends at The MathWorks who helped pushed the fix for this into core Matlab so AMD users aren't getting screwed out of their money due to TMW using Intel MKL.

Intel have been playing those tricks for years, not just with AVX2. They did it with some of the older instruction set enhancements too.

[KungFuJosh]

I got the H115i Platinum cooler today. It's dead quiet, and the chip average temperatures are down by at least 10 degrees C.

[NiHaoMike]

It has been, but for the longest time if you were using AMD and was using the Intel MKL instead of say openBLAS you saw you huge performance drops because Intel was checking if you were a "Geniune Intel CPU" and then going down a different code path, basically blocking AVX2 instructions and other optimizations.

https://www.extremetech.com/computing/302650-how-to-bypass-matlab-cripple-amd-ryzen-threadripper-cpus

I got friends at The MathWorks who helped pushed the fix for this into core Matlab so AMD users aren't getting screwed out of their money due to TMW using Intel MKL.

Intel have been playing those tricks for years, not just with AVX2. They did it with some of the older instruction set enhancements too.

As AMD gains market share, I wonder if Intel's "tricks" end up backfiring when benchmarks start to show open source compilers like GCC greatly outperforming Intel CC.

I also wonder if the kernel can be patched to intercept and spoof requests to identify the CPU, such that it would be difficult or impossible for the application to tell that it's being spoofed. I suppose it's not as straightforward as it might seem since I haven't heard of any distros specifically "tuned" for AMD in that way.

[KungFuJosh]

Hmmm. Interesting results so far. AVS Video Converter did benefit from the extra threads. But so far I'm not impressed with Vegas Pro's performance. I upped the max threads to 24 in the settings, and it's still taking about 1 hour and 45 minutes to render an 8 minute 4K video.