6 ms·
AMD Ryzen 9000 Series processors are ready to deliver world class gaming
- akira2501 2y agoIs the Intel "silicon degradation" problem real? Is there any chance this is also around the corner for AMD?
- Nereuxofficial 2y agoTo answer the first question: Yes and Intel has confirmed it. It should be fixed now but too high voltages can damage CPUs permanently so it probably means a lot of warrabty claims See https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/intel-cpu-instability-crashing-bug-includes-65w-and-higher-skus-intel-says-damage-is-irreversible-no-planned-recall https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/intel-cpu-in... The problem is unlikely to be around the corner for AMD since they do not have to supply as much voltage to their chips as as Intel to keep up since they are - at least when it comes to x86 chips - currently leading in performance and power efficiency
- MaKey 2y agoIt is not fixed as Intel hasn't published their microcode update, which is lowering the voltages, yet.
- stingraycharles 2y agoWhich will likely affect performance as well, right? As I understood it, they were too ambitious with pushing performance using higher voltages, which now needs to be reduced using a microcode update?
- thyristan 2y agoEither performance or stability/reliability. Or even both. At higher frequencies (during a frequency boost phase for example) signal quality in the digital signals degrades, because the "stable 1" or "stable 0" plateau is shortened and the "maybe 1 or 0" phase in between stays the same. So a signal that is supposed to be as rectangular as possible gets smushed down towards a sinus, and then smushed even further towards lower amplitudes. One measure against this is of course better (faster) transistors, such that the "maybe" phase is shorter, but that only works by replacing the hardware. The other measure, which you can do during runtime, is to increase the signal amplitude by increasing the voltage. Then even a degraded signal close to the transistors' maximum switching frequency gets over the "stable 1" and "stable 0" thresholds fast enough. With a lower supply voltage you can thus not clock the CPU as high as before which is important in boost phases during high load. Which would decrease peak performance in standard desktop and server workloads, and decrease overall performance in compute-intensive workloads. Or if you still clock it as high as before, signal quality will be lessened, increasing the probability of bit errors, lessening system stability and reliability of results. Which direction intel will pick for this firmware upgrade, degraded-performance, degraded-stability or degraded-both, I don't know, I guess we'll see.
- viraptor 2y agoMaybe. I don't think anyone had information yet regarding the details. The extra power may have been just pure waste, rather than a performance improvement. Unless I missed a real investigation posted somewhere?
- noverify 2y ago> for AMD since they do not have to supply as much voltage to their chips ... unless you're using EXPO/XMP. I would really recommend people who run automatically overclocked memory taking a closer look at how much voltage the motherboard is pushing into your CPU, especially into the SoC. Some motherboards just push the voltages to the absolute permitted maximum; ASUS is particularly bad at this. I run lower RAM frequencies than my system is capable of because I haven't seen much performance improvement above 5600 "MHz", and it can be made to run at almost stock voltages. It definitely causes faster silicon degradation; the question is how fast it will kill the processor. Both Intel and AMD have shown us that it can happen very quickly, not in the course of several decades as we've assumed for the longest time.
- rowanG077 2y agoIt's pretty unlikely that it's around the corner. Intel uses their own foundry and designs and AMD uses their own designs with TSMC as the foundry. If it's a foundry issue then Apple would be in hot water right now since they use the cutting edge. So I think AMD is in the clear.
- stingraycharles 2y agoIt’s not a foundry issue, it’s a “how far can we push voltage for better performance to compensate for older architectures” problem. That’s why it can be resolved using a microcode update.
- rowanG077 2y agoHow far you can push the voltage is definitely foundry technology dependent. If Intel foundry internally specced a voltage that actually damages a chip I would say it IS a foundry issue.
- willis936 2y agoVia oxidation is a foundry issue. >Intel also confirmed a rumored issue with via oxidation in its 7nm node, but said those issues were corrected in 2023 and didn't contribute to the failures. Do you trust Intel to not lie about a widespread unfixable problem? https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/intel-finally-announces-a-solution-for-cpu-crashing-errors-claims-elevated-voltages-are-the-root-cause-fix-coming-by-mid-august https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/intel-finall...
- tyingq 2y agoIt seems new to me that the safety margins are so narrow that a microcode bug can result in voltages that physically damage the CPU. Assuming that's mostly driven by the current small feature sizes and high clock rates, that would mean everyone has this risk.
- the8472 2y agoToasting CPUs via overclocking and overvolting has been possible for a long time. Back in the day they didn't even have thermal throttling. It just used to be jumpers and dip switches, then the BIOS before some of it moved into the CPU itself.
- tyingq 2y agoI'd consider that to be one more driver (bios/software selectable jumpers) in addition to increasingly small features and high clock rates. Rather than something that refutes the situation is new.
- JonChesterfield 2y agoSilicon chips degrading under high temperature and voltage is very well known. "Overclocking" was (is?) the game of deliberately turning CPU frequency up to get better performance, and turning voltage up to get stable performance, while trying to keep the chip cool enough for this to broadly work out. If you push the envelope a bit hard the stable overclock becomes unstable over time and turning down the voltage and frequency can make it stable again. That behaviour is pretty well documented. Happens to memory too. When you draw more current - i.e. make the chip do work - the voltage drops. "Load line calibration" was introduced as a way to crank the applied voltage up as the chip worked harder to offset this. Alternatively phrased, if you set the voltage so that it works well under load, it's kind of set too high for idle, so LLC gives a way to decrease idle voltage. There was some discussion at the time about the wisdom of this. The voltage rings when you change it (overshoots), and it's not that clear whether high voltage at idle matters very much (since the chip is cooler then). I remember reading a bunch of articles, then some materials science books, then turning off LLC in the bios as probably a misfeature. The current Intel problem is they've built a reputation on being the fastest and the most reliable CPU. Then they lost fastest to chiplets at AMD, so adjusted to "fastest single core". They really didn't want to lose that too, and CPU's run faster when you push more voltage through them, so that's what they did. --- "Intel silicon degradation" currently refers to people noticing that desktop processors from the last couple of generations were degrading, despite not being overclocked. Some finger pointing there, Intel encourages motherboards to set fairly aggressive out of the box controls because it looks good under review. Also some more recent reports that mobile chips have the same behaviour. At a guess, the desktop ones have the voltage too high and the mobile ones are running at much higher temperature. Some reports are mentioning LLC which would be personally satisfying if it turns out to be the root cause. I'm waiting to see if reports of degradation start to emerge on the Xeon line. Intel is claiming there's no risk of that but they're made out of the same magic sand and under really heavy competitive pressure from the Epyc chips. They've also got rather high power consumption relative to previous generations. As to whether the same thing will hit AMD - probably not. If you take one of their chips and push the voltage up, yeah, it'll have the same degradation over time. But they're not running out of the box at the edge of feasible to try to cope with the competition because chiplets are winning the day. Also AMD doesn't have the gilded reputation of Intel to rely upon if reliability comes under question. The incentives are pointing in the opposite direction.
- JonChesterfield 2y agoI really like that the CPUs from the last few rounds have a mini-GPU on board. This is a 16 core, 4.3GHz base processor, with pcie 5. It's going to work really nicely for misc software dev. The onboard GPU probably can't do gaming in satisfactory fashion but it'll drive a bunch of monitors just fine.
- Filligree 2y agoSatisfactory in particular is one of the more scalable games, and should work just fine. ;-)
- dwattttt 2y agoWith a 1.0 release in a month!
- ThatPlayer 2y ago> it'll drive a bunch of monitors just fine. I wish AMD would tell me how many monitors. Intel's Ark will tell me a 14700K's iGPU supports 4 monitors. AMD's specs for the 8700G supports 4 monitors [0]. But their new 9900X [1] and older 7900X do not mention how many displays are supported. It seems to be left off their GPUs too [2] [0] https://www.amd.com/en/products/processors/desktops/ryzen/8000-series/amd-ryzen-7-8700g.html https://www.amd.com/en/products/processors/desktops/ryzen/80... [1] https://www.amd.com/en/products/processors/desktops/ryzen/9000-series/amd-ryzen-9-9900x.html https://www.amd.com/en/products/processors/desktops/ryzen/90... [2] https://www.amd.com/en/products/graphics/desktops/radeon/7000-series/amd-radeon-rx-7900xt.html https://www.amd.com/en/products/graphics/desktops/radeon/700...
- consp 2y agoIsn't this related to mainboard/gpu board implementation? Maybe they do not like to get ahead of the vendors.
- viraptor 2y agoThe rest of the system may limit the number of outputs in various ways, but the chip itself has its own maximum. It's important information which shouldn't be omitted. And the external factors shouldn't matter here. In the same way they say 170W and not hide it because you may not have a good enough cooler to reach that power draw.
- laylower 2y agoI'm rooting for AMD. Their 3D architecture was brilliant for desktops. Re intel, I've followed this quite a bit. The intel problem is important enough to wipe out their stock, letting 18,000 ppl go and extending their warranty to two years. The PR side of things is truly awful. I wouldn't quote Toms hardware on this... This is a full account https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6vQlvefGxk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6vQlvefGxk
- jerrygenser 2y agoLove gamersnexus humor. The coupon code on their video: THISISFINE
- irusensei 2y agoA lot of people root for AMD. I heard recently the Internet in general loves AMD and gives the company a lot of good will even through their failures or their products are somewhat inferior. Maybe it's because they posed themselves as selling products for the people, more competitive prices, support for open source operating systems and so on. Or maybe just because they were the underdog in the industry.
- Tuna-Fish 2y agoAMD CPUs are currently clearly superior to Intel, across the board. AMD consumer GPUs are substantially inferior to NVidia, and can only sell at such low prices that AMD has trouble getting any margins from them. Hopefully they have better products next gen, NV really needs competition.
- Const-me 2y agoHere’s a summary. Ryzen 5 9600X: 6 Zen 5 cores, 32 MB L3 cache, 65W TDP, available Aug 8 Ryzen 7 9700X: 8 Zen 5 cores, 32 MB L3 cache, 65W TDP, available Aug 8 Ryzen 9 9900X: 12 Zen 5 cores, 64 MB L3 cache, 120W TDP, available Aug 15 Ryzen 9 9950X: 16 Zen 5 cores, 64 MB L3 cache, 170W TDP, available Aug 15 All models support dual-channel DDR5, the speed is DDR5-5600 when 2 modules are installed, DDR5-3600 when 4 modules are installed. They all support ECC memory, with the caveat that it requires motherboard support.
- jsheard 2y ago> the speed is DDR5-5600 when 2 modules are installed That's the conservative JEDEC-compliant speed, but if you want to go for maximum performance they are saying to aim for DDR5-6400 this time, up from DDR5-6000 on the previous generation. https://www.techpowerup.com/324023/ddr5-6400-confirmed-as-sweetspot-speed-of-ryzen-9000-zen-5-desktop-processors https://www.techpowerup.com/324023/ddr5-6400-confirmed-as-sw... That speed is likely only attainable with 2 modules installed, but with 96GB (2x48GB) kits available now that's not much of a limitation for most people.
- bravetraveler 2y agoWith enough time sunk into it, these numbers are more... suggestions, anyway. My system has a 7950X3D and four sticks at DDR5-6600. The module density, board trace topology, and luck-of-the-draw on IMC/SOC can matter a fair bit. Tuning voltages/timings can make up differences. Also remember the infinity fabric clocks and such being somewhat paired
- martiuk 2y agoIs this with the EXPO profiles, or are they running at the JEDEC transfer rate?
- bravetraveler 2y agoThis is indeed with EXPO! There were great strides made with firmware revisions in the last year or so. I do have to make a point to boost the supporting IMC/SOC voltages before enabling that, or I can get a bit wedged. The profile voltages (and clocks/timings) for the sticks themselves work fine - just the board/CPU itself needs some care.
- nexle 2y agoMSRP comparison with 7000 series: 7600: $229, 9600X: $279 7700: $329, 9700X: $359 7900X: $549, 9900X: $499 7950X: $699, 9950X: $649 (using non-X variant for 7600 & 7700 since they have same 65W TDP)
- hu3 2y agoSome speculate that Intel's recent failure is partially to blame for AMD's price bump.
- nfriedly 2y agoThe prices all decreased if you compare X variant to X variant. The 7600X launched at $299, and the 7700X launched at $399.
- hu3 2y agomy bad, indeed. I thought my parent commenter had launch price for both sides. The speculation on price bump did indeed happen when intel problem was widespread recently.
- stoobs 2y agoInteresting, the R9's are cheaper than the previous gen. Hmmmm, that makes an upgrade tempting...
- reassembled 2y agoIs there a reason why a few AMD motherboards have Thunderbolt 4 on them but most do not? I believe I’ve only seen it on the workstation class boards, I could be wrong though. Is there a reason why it’s not more broadly available on AMD mobos?
- inhumantsar 2y agoThunderbolt isn't an open standard and Intel holds the rights to it.
- kcb 2y agoThe next generation of motherboards is supposed to make USB 4 standard. Those are coming some time after the CPU release though.
- geor9e 2y agoJust wondering - What would thunderbolt be used for on a desktop? External SSD transfers? I am shopping for a new gaming PC build and didn't think to consider it. I have it on my laptop for one-cable docking.
- prettyStandard 2y agoIve used it to swap my GPU between my desktop and laptop. My desktop is more of a server, and my laptop is more of a workstation. Having the option is nice.
- nothercastle 2y agoAnyone know how much GPU you need to bottleneck at a 9600x? Will it take a full 4090 without a performance impact? Or does it start to be a problem with a 4080 or 4070super.
- Fire-Dragon-DoL 2y agoI wonder if the 9700 end up being better for gaming due to the way lower tdp while already having 8 cores, the requirements for cooling drop substantially so overclocking could be used to boost single core which could be more useful