It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
Dark_art_: Following post 689 , this is probably not the place since it's not gaming related but may trigger someone interest...


Someone with a Ryzen laptop may eventually be able to dig into and find some more performance on the CPU...
I noticed this with userbenchmarks, the difference between 2133, and 3000 xmp ( on 4 ddr 4 8 gb sticks ) is about 0,25 average on a whole... 3,6 averag normal and 3,85 with xmp though this does not seem huge, in their scoring mechanisme it actually is quite the difference

using a non xmp set at for example 3200 actually lowers the score,while of course getting more points for faster ram. Never got around using that memory calculation tool that gives you the xmp figures at the highest speed possible for your system.

i do understand that for the same amount of power the difference between 2133 and 3000 can be quite high

still i am actually changing mem back to 2133 tomorrow for my next prolonged gaming period, in the end that extra speed is only good for a couple more fps and maybe some other minor benefits
avatar
Dark_art_: After playing a little with the Ryzen system, found something interesting, maybe because I wasn't aware and never seen anything about it on the internet. The power limit set by the motherboard does include the RAM power as well. We all know Ryzen love more and faster memory but not in all case scenario.

What this means? On a freshly installed Windows, with nothing more than 1 stick of RAM, a gt710 and a sata SSD attached, the idle power consumption is ~35W with the RAM set to 2133MT/s. Setting the RAM to 3000MT/s, the idle power jumps to ~43W. This means the jump in frequency needed~ 8W, wich actually is quite big in % and is one of the reasons OEM only fit 1 stick of slower memory on many laptops.
You could always test the "sweet spot" frequency 2666MHz. The reason being : 2133 -> 2666 = a 533MHz jump but you may see only a 2-3w increase from that as both remain a relatively low voltage of 1.2v. But 2666 -> 3200 = the next 533MHz jump may shoot up another 5-8w increase as RAM above 2933 speeds tends to need 1.35v. Thanks for posting this stuff though. I don't own a Ryzen (yet) but it's interesting to read how it works under the hood in a way that a lot of "professional critic" reviews never test for, for future reference.
Post edited May 05, 2020 by AB2012
https://www.pcgamer.com/amd-ryzen-4000-zen-3-motherboard-compatibility/
I guess AMD motherboards aren't as future-proof as they used to be...

My last AMD CPU was an AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+, so I'm kind of used to it (having intel) ever since. I have an i7-6700 since 2016, but I can't imagine upgrading for at least the next 4 years.
Post edited May 07, 2020 by teceem
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-3-3300x/

"Ryzen 3 3300X achieves framerates that are neck-to-neck with Ryzen 5 3600 and 3600X. The Ryzen 7 3700X is only 4% faster at 1080p, and Ryzen 9 3900X is 5% faster. If you're planning on 1440p gaming, then the Ryzen 3 3300X further still convincing, because at higher resolution the bottleneck shifts from the CPU to the GPU. Here the difference to the higher-end Zen 2 processors is almost negligible, only Intel's CPUs can make a difference. For example, the Core i9-9900K can deliver 3% higher frames at 1440p, and the 9900KS gets 5% more—at much higher cost of course. If you're building a gaming rig then I'd strongly recommend looking at the 3300X, as its low cost lets you spend more money for the graphics card, which will net you higher FPS in the end."
avatar
PainOfSalvation: https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-3-3300x/

"Ryzen 3 3300X achieves framerates that are neck-to-neck with Ryzen 5 3600 and 3600X. The Ryzen 7 3700X is only 4% faster at 1080p, and Ryzen 9 3900X is 5% faster. If you're planning on 1440p gaming, then the Ryzen 3 3300X further still convincing, because at higher resolution the bottleneck shifts from the CPU to the GPU. Here the difference to the higher-end Zen 2 processors is almost negligible, only Intel's CPUs can make a difference. For example, the Core i9-9900K can deliver 3% higher frames at 1440p, and the 9900KS gets 5% more—at much higher cost of course. If you're building a gaming rig then I'd strongly recommend looking at the 3300X, as its low cost lets you spend more money for the graphics card, which will net you higher FPS in the end."
And what if you play "CPU-intensive" games... or use your PC for other purposes? Ah whatever, I'd rather read a review that doesn't have the "average gamer" in mind.
avatar
teceem: And what if you play "CPU-intensive" games... or use your PC for other purposes? Ah whatever, I'd rather read a review that doesn't have the "average gamer" in mind.
The fact that CPU doesn't stutter even at most CPU demanding games nowdays tells a lot. Also, there are lot of us here who play older games (and not the newest ones), where single core performance matters more than core count.

If you've checked the review you could see it's not only gaming related - from pages 5 to 13 it's various test and benchmarks: Synthetic benchmarks, rendering, software & game development, web browser performance, science & research, office & productivity, server & workstation, compression & encryption and media encoding.
Gaming test are from page 14 to 17.

If i was looking to buy the CPU now, Ryzen 3 3300X 3.8 - 4.3GHz 4 cores / 8 threads would be enough. For the price of $120/120€ it's really good value and budget option.
I just think AMD made a mistake for not releasing it sooner since the Zen 3 4xxx series of CPUs are coming in Q4 2020. (just a few months away) with higher IPC and clock speeds.
avatar
PainOfSalvation: The fact that CPU doesn't stutter even at most CPU demanding games nowdays tells a lot. Also, there are lot of us here who play older games (and not the newest ones), where single core performance matters more than core count.
Is there an 8-core on the (current) market that doesn't have enough single core performance for those old games that need that?

avatar
PainOfSalvation: If you've checked the review you could see it's not only gaming related - from pages 5 to 13 it's various test and benchmarks: Synthetic benchmarks, rendering, software & game development, web browser performance, science & research, office & productivity, server & workstation, compression & encryption and media encoding.
Gaming test are from page 14 to 17.
I guess you're right... but I still don't like this "commercial writing". At least they didn't say how it makes a wholesome happy for the entire family. ;-)
Post edited May 07, 2020 by teceem
avatar
teceem: And what if you play "CPU-intensive" games... or use your PC for other purposes? Ah whatever, I'd rather read a review that doesn't have the "average gamer" in mind.
avatar
PainOfSalvation: The fact that CPU doesn't stutter even at most CPU demanding games nowdays tells a lot. Also, there are lot of us here who play older games (and not the newest ones), where single core performance matters more than core count.

If you've checked the review you could see it's not only gaming related - from pages 5 to 13 it's various test and benchmarks: Synthetic benchmarks, rendering, software & game development, web browser performance, science & research, office & productivity, server & workstation, compression & encryption and media encoding.
Gaming test are from page 14 to 17.

If i was looking to buy the CPU now, Ryzen 3 3300X 3.8 - 4.3GHz 4 cores / 8 threads would be enough. For the price of $120/120€ it's really good value and budget option.
I just think AMD made a mistake for not releasing it sooner since the Zen 3 4xxx series of CPUs are coming in Q4 2020. (just a few months away) with higher IPC and clock speeds.
This takes me back to when I purchase my 4790K close to 6 years ago I cam from a core 2 Quad Q6600 and it was a huge boost in performance. What I am getting at is that anyone who is on a budget and needs an upgrade the 3300x will do very nicely for those users. If I was still on my Q6600 even now I would get a Ryzen 3 3300x if was on a budget.
avatar
PainOfSalvation: https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-3-3300x/

"Ryzen 3 3300X achieves framerates that are neck-to-neck with Ryzen 5 3600 and 3600X. The Ryzen 7 3700X is only 4% faster at 1080p, and Ryzen 9 3900X is 5% faster. If you're planning on 1440p gaming, then the Ryzen 3 3300X further still convincing, because at higher resolution the bottleneck shifts from the CPU to the GPU. Here the difference to the higher-end Zen 2 processors is almost negligible, only Intel's CPUs can make a difference. For example, the Core i9-9900K can deliver 3% higher frames at 1440p, and the 9900KS gets 5% more—at much higher cost of course. If you're building a gaming rig then I'd strongly recommend looking at the 3300X, as its low cost lets you spend more money for the graphics card, which will net you higher FPS in the end."
avatar
teceem: And what if you play "CPU-intensive" games... or use your PC for other purposes? Ah whatever, I'd rather read a review that doesn't have the "average gamer" in mind.
If your not the average gamer it would be silly to look at something different then top tier stuff, not to be insulting but you should know that by now or am i wrong?

And thb the only thing that comes to mind right now is a hardware test done by hardware unboxed testing an 9th gen i3 against the r5 2600. The i3 turned out to be in several games the better cpu though not by much the r5 won with great fortitude in games demanding more from the cpu such as open world or grand/massive strat games
avatar
Radiance1979: If your not the average gamer it would be silly to look at something different then top tier stuff, not to be insulting but you should know that by now or am i wrong?
You're wrong. I am an individual. I buy, upgrade and use my computer for individual purposes and reasons. Average, hardcore, casual, or whatever gamer are labels that are created by marketing departments.

"I am an individual!" might sound like a cliché; even Monty Python joked about it! (yeah, it's an awesome sketch / part of a movie) But isn't the importance of a PC in ones life a highly personal thing? And what about other variables, like e.g. income (a big one)? Etc. Etc.

For example, if someone played only point & click adventures, made between 1985 and 1999, would you consider them "average gamers"? Probably not... so should they buy "top tier stuff"! That doesn't make sense!
(I'm not talking about myself here)

My point: don't be a marketing shill!
Post edited May 07, 2020 by teceem
Well i could not expect less from someone coming from down the river....

my apologies
avatar
Radiance1979: Well i could not expect less from someone coming from down the river....

my apologies
I don't know what you mean. I'm from the planet Ogo, part of an intellectual elite, most of the time busy subjugating the barbarian hordes on Pluto.... and oh yeah, computer software/hardware is a side-hobby of mine. ;-)
avatar
AB2012: You could always test the "sweet spot" frequency 2666MHz. The reason being : 2133 -> 2666 = a 533MHz jump but you may see only a 2-3w increase from that as both remain a relatively low voltage of 1.2v. But 2666 -> 3200 = the next 533MHz jump may shoot up another 5-8w increase as RAM above 2933 speeds tends to need 1.35v. Thanks for posting this stuff though. I don't own a Ryzen (yet) but it's interesting to read how it works under the hood in a way that a lot of "professional critic" reviews never test for, for future reference.
I did test it, power scale pretty much linearly with the increase in frequency. Also test below 2133 wich made no difference to power. Just used 2133 and 3000 because that what's the motherboard defaults to and made things easier.

The funny thing is my RAM use 1.2Volts up until the 3000MT/s, wich use 1.35v but modern technology is so awsome that it don't make a big jump in power. That was somehow expected as the CPU do pretty much the same, I can overclock it to 4.2GHz and make it stick to that frequency all the time but idle power usage won't change. Power usage don't change with frequency, only load and voltage.
avatar
Fender_178: This takes me back to when I purchase my 4790K close to 6 years ago I cam from a core 2 Quad Q6600 and it was a huge boost in performance. What I am getting at is that anyone who is on a budget and needs an upgrade the 3300x will do very nicely for those users. If I was still on my Q6600 even now I would get a Ryzen 3 3300x if was on a budget.
I still own a Q6600 and the jump to a i5 after Sandy Bridge (i5 2400 and abobe) was way bigger than the jump from the i5 to the 6 core Ryzen. The Q6600 is a terrible CPU for today's standards, slow, suggish, hot and power hungry but was awsome back in the day :D
avatar
PainOfSalvation: The fact that CPU doesn't stutter even at most CPU demanding games nowdays tells a lot. Also, there are lot of us here who play older games (and not the newest ones), where single core performance matters more than core count.
avatar
teceem: Is there any CPU on the (current) market that doesn't have enough single core performance for those old games that need that?
Let me correct that for you :P

Forget the Excavator Athlons, those don't count as CPU's...
Post edited May 08, 2020 by Dark_art_
avatar
teceem: https://www.pcgamer.com/amd-ryzen-4000-zen-3-motherboard-compatibility/
I guess AMD motherboards aren't as future-proof as they used to be...
IIRC AMD doesn't officially support/ guarantee 3000 series on 370/350 either. It's up to motherboard vendor to support them via BIOS (and almost all have, sometimes due to memory limitations they've had to drop support for 'rare' chips like Bristol Ridge as a balance). Lack of official support from AMD doesn't necessarily mean they won't work.

As an owner of an x370 board I'm not holding my breath for a 4000 series compatible BIOS though. Gigabyte has been pretty decent supporting up to 3000 series, but it'c clearly getting difficult supporting so many chips in old boards.

avatar
Dark_art_: The funny thing is my RAM use 1.2Volts up until the 3000MT/s, wich use 1.5v but modern technology is so awsome that it don't make a big jump in power. That was somehow expected as the CPU do pretty much the same, I can overclock it to 4.2GHz and make it stick to that frequency all the time but idle power usage won't change. Power usage don't change with frequency, only load and voltage.
1.5V at 3000MHz? That's either awful RAM or way too much voltage being supplied. Should be 1.35V

I still own a Q6600 and the jump to a i5 after Sandy Bridge (i5 2400 and abobe) was way bigger than the jump from the i5 to the 6 core Ryzen.
That's the difference between buying at the tail end of Moore's Law and after Moore's Law broke down completely. You wouldn't have much of a jump from an equivalent Intel chip either.

The jump from Core original (core2/4) to Nehalem then to Sandy Bridge were back when Intel were doing actual generational shifts with +XX% IPC gains. They haven't had one of those on desktop for... 8 years now? and have actually had IPC regression (from Broadwell 5775C*, also some from security mitigations with variable results for how much), masked by frequency gains. And the 10nm chips that have had an IPC gain in the double digits are core and frequency limited to use in laptops.

*Bit of a special case since it was very much frequency limited, and it had a lot of EDRAM to compensate that 'artificially' boosted IPC. AMD also had IPC regression from Phenom to Bulldozer (or was it Steamroller? always forget what the first iteration was), for that matter, and for far less reason. Then again AMD also got a staggering 54% IPC gain from Zen(1), which was definitely generational.
avatar
Phasmid: 1.5V at 3000MHz? That's either awful RAM or way too much voltage being supplied. Should be 1.35V
Yeah, 1.35 was what I mean. The RAM is nothing special (Gskill 3000 el-chepo) but it can do 3600 @ 1.35v...