Ryzen 9 5950X - All Hail The King!

Out of all those options, I don't think you're going to notice the difference as part of the "User Experience". The differences will only be noticed during benchmarking.
 
Space_Ranger said:
Out of all those options, I don't think you're going to notice the difference as part of the "User Experience". The differences will only be noticed during benchmarking.
Click to expand...
Possibly not in games, though the unboxed video showed a nice min frame improvement. The big win may be when I do some of my 500GB data processing workloads for work. It’s constantly shifting data into and out of ram and the extra bandwidth may make a difference. I don’t normally get to try different ram speeds without also changing processor, so I can’t say for certain though.
 
Endgame said:
The big win may be when I do some of my 500GB data processing workloads for work. It’s constantly shifting data into and out of ram and the extra bandwidth may make a difference.
Click to expand...
This sounds like storage speed would be the big differentiator though. I mean, you can get >500GB of RAM, but not on a desktop platform, right?

So you're going to have to load that stuff, and generally speaking, that's going to be the slowest part. Even striping across four PCIe 4.0 x4 NVMe drives isn't going to feed the CPU fast enough. If anything, I'd want even more RAM!
 
LazyGamer said:
This sounds like storage speed would be the big differentiator though. I mean, you can get >500GB of RAM, but not on a desktop platform, right?

So you're going to have to load that stuff, and generally speaking, that's going to be the slowest part. Even striping across four PCIe 4.0 x4 NVMe drives isn't going to feed the CPU fast enough. If anything, I'd want even more RAM!
Click to expand...
Without going off into the weeds to much, in this particular case I’m generating time series data in memory and uploading it for scale testing. The initial data load off disk is <1GB, and I try to touch disk as little as possible. When I’m really doing full testing, I generate and upload ~100TB of data / day on a 128 core server with 2 TB of ram, but it’s nice to have some personal hardware I can experiment with, as I only have specific windows of time I can use the servers. My normal development hosts are 8 core, 32 GB ram VMs running 7 year old Xeons. they just don’t have enough memory for some things I want to test (I have to use ZRam at times) and the CPUs aren’t exactly setting the world on fire either.

more ram would be great, and I would build a threadripper for this if it wasn’t coming out of my pocket. In all honesty, 75% of the time the host will be running Boinc, 20% I’ll be gaming on it, and probably <5% I’ll be using it for work.
 
Last edited:
Dan_D said:
Overly dramatic. It was never this dramatic when Intel was doing the same or worse to AMD. Something Intel's been doing for most of the last two and a half decades or so. Intel is always judged by a different standard than AMD. When AMD is up, people applaud from the rafters while making excuses for them when they are down. People root for them like they are some blue collar, champion of the people and an underdog fighting the good fight. In reality, almost none of these perceptions align with reality.

That said, we pretty much knew what was going to happen.
Click to expand...
I dont know about that Dan. I saw plenty of Intel Crushing AMD hype back in the day as well. I just think this is normal when someone is overtaken after years of riding their coat tails.
 
Eduardo_Domingot said:
I dont know about that Dan. I saw plenty of Intel Crushing AMD hype back in the day as well. I just think this is normal when someone is overtaken after years of riding their coat tails.
Click to expand...

I'm going to largely disagree with that aside from one exception. For most of the last 25 years, Intel has dominated AMD. The only period of time where this wasn't so was the Athlon 64/FX days, where AMD decisively beat Intel at everything but video encoding and editing tasks. Where we saw hype over Intel crushing AMD was right after that period as Intel had been backseat bitch to AMD for the previous five years. Intel's Core 2 crushed AMD's offerings and did so quite harshly. There was a lot of that commentary during that period.

That's pretty much it. After that, most "pro-Intel" sounding conversations sounded less like hype and more like the status quo.
 
Dan_D said:
I'm going to largely disagree with that aside from one exception. For most of the last 25 years, Intel has dominated AMD. The only period of time where this wasn't so was the Athlon 64/FX days, where AMD decisively beat Intel at everything but video encoding and editing tasks. Where we saw hype over Intel crushing AMD was right after that period as Intel had been backseat bitch to AMD for the previous five years. Intel's Core 2 crushed AMD's offerings and did so quite harshly. There was a lot of that commentary during that period.

That's pretty much it. After that, most "pro-Intel" sounding conversations sounded less like hype and more like the status quo.
Click to expand...
AMD did beat intel to the GHZ race, and K7 was faster than the P4
 
Stoly said:
AMD did beat intel to the GHZ race, and K7 was faster than the P4
Click to expand...
Intel had, for reasons I'll probably read about decades from now, committed to a string of stupids:
  • They decided that P6 wasn't good enough
  • They decided that longer CPU pipelines and lower FP performance was a good thing
  • They decided to get in bed with RAMBUS
K7 was AMDs 'big break'; It was also unaffordable and ran on a string of trash platforms. AMD wasn't decidedly in the lead, that is, faster enough and stable enough, until the X2s hit. Like the 5000-series today, AMD CPUs were both wider and faster, and it made very little sense to buy Intel, especially in a time when CPUs were still a bottleneck for daily tasks!

And that lasted right up until Intel dusted off the P6. First as a mobile option (meaning everything that the Pentium IV wasn't) as the Pentium M / Core Solo / Duo, and then with the dramatically boosted Core 2, AMDs party was over. And then AMD did nearly the exact same thing with Bulldozer, but for a decade...
 
LazyGamer said:
Intel had, for reasons I'll probably read about decades from now, committed to a string of stupids:
  • They decided that P6 wasn't good enough
  • They decided that longer CPU pipelines and lower FP performance was a good thing
  • They decided to get in bed with RAMBUS
K7 was AMDs 'big break'; It was also unaffordable and ran on a string of trash platforms. AMD wasn't decidedly in the lead, that is, faster enough and stable enough, until the X2s hit. Like the 5000-series today, AMD CPUs were both wider and faster, and it made very little sense to buy Intel, especially in a time when CPUs were still a bottleneck for daily tasks!

And that lasted right up until Intel dusted off the P6. First as a mobile option (meaning everything that the Pentium IV wasn't) as the Pentium M / Core Solo / Duo, and then with the dramatically boosted Core 2, AMDs party was over. And then AMD did nearly the exact same thing with Bulldozer, but for a decade...
Click to expand...
I wouldn't call the nforce2 platform trash. even the Via platform was quite capable.

nforce2 was the reason me and many of my friends switched to AMD. Funny thing that nforce was "born" on the Xbox1 on intel.
 
Stoly said:
I wouldn't call the nforce2 platform trash.
Click to expand...
Didn't say that, but that was significantly later. K7 launched with Slot A, after Intel's Slot 1. I don't have fond memories of golden orbs ;)

Nvidia was the bright spot of the platform. Aside from the occasional Marvell chipset driver woes, they were more or less rock solid in my experience.
Stoly said:
even the Via platform was quite capable.
Click to expand...
And that's where I get off this bus 😂

VIA had me running back to Intel Pentium IVs for a spell for a desktop that didn't crash, ...just because...

True some of their chipsets were great, and some mostly just didn't work. Drivers were terrible... not that that was a great time for drivers for anyone, but VIAs were notably bad. I'm quite glad that AMD didn't decide to partner with them again for Ryzen, though perhaps the VIA audio solutions would have been nice to see again.

At least chipsets are more or less a solved problem today. About the only nut AMD hasn't really cracked at scale is Thunderbolt, but since that isn't really 'new' technology (it's PCIe with provisions for other signaling like USB and DisplayPort), that's more a matter of just deciding to do it. And at some point they need to start putting some basic form of GPU on all their CPU dies, or perhaps that cache die if they're going to keep doing chiplets.
 
Stoly said:
AMD did beat intel to the GHZ race, and K7 was faster than the P4
Click to expand...

Yes it did. But, those CPU's ran on absolutely terrible motherboards. We had stacks of motherboards with fried VRM's at the service center I worked at doing warranty repairs. I also mentioned the Athlon 64's being faster than the P4. Well, excluding video editing. Even then, many of the boards were trash.

LazyGamer said:
Intel had, for reasons I'll probably read about decades from now, committed to a string of stupids:
  • They decided that P6 wasn't good enough
  • They decided that longer CPU pipelines and lower FP performance was a good thing
  • They decided to get in bed with RAMBUS
K7 was AMDs 'big break'; It was also unaffordable and ran on a string of trash platforms. AMD wasn't decidedly in the lead, that is, faster enough and stable enough, until the X2s hit. Like the 5000-series today, AMD CPUs were both wider and faster, and it made very little sense to buy Intel, especially in a time when CPUs were still a bottleneck for daily tasks!

And that lasted right up until Intel dusted off the P6. First as a mobile option (meaning everything that the Pentium IV wasn't) as the Pentium M / Core Solo / Duo, and then with the dramatically boosted Core 2, AMDs party was over. And then AMD did nearly the exact same thing with Bulldozer, but for a decade...
Click to expand...

Well said. Having said that, I consider AMD the outright victor during the Athlon 64/X2 days from a performance standpoint. Aside from video editing and encoding tasks, Intel got beat at everything. You did have to be more careful about what board you chose, but ultimately, AMD had a lot going for it. Earlier efforts were faster here and there, but the original Athlon ran on a crap platform.
 
Dan_D said:
Yes it did. But, those CPU's ran on absolutely terrible motherboards. We had stacks of motherboards with fried VRM's at the service center I worked at doing warranty repairs. I also mentioned the Athlon 64's being faster than the P4. Well, excluding video editing. Even then, many of the boards were trash.
Click to expand...
I didn't have that issue at all with T-Bird Motherboards. The computer shop I was working at during the Athlon days was selling the Asus A7N8X Deluxe. We were selling anywhere from 25 to 50 / month and we didn't have very many we had to RMA. I still have 2 that are functional in my parts pile, one with a 1.4ghz T-Bird and one with a Duron.
 
Endgame said:
I didn't have that issue at all with T-Bird Motherboards. The computer shop I was working at during the Athlon days was selling the Asus A7N8X Deluxe. We were selling anywhere from 25 to 50 / month and we didn't have very many we had to RMA. I still have 2 that are functional in my parts pile, one with a 1.4ghz T-Bird and one with a Duron.
Click to expand...

For every good board like that, there were many that were absolute garbage.
 
Brian_B said:
Well you could say that about anything really.
Click to expand...

Not really. On the Intel side, you could pretty much grab any board with a given chipset in those days and you'd probably have been fine.
 
Dan_D said:
Not really. On the Intel side, you could pretty much grab any board with a given chipset in those days and you'd probably have been fine.
Click to expand...
We had a pretty big string of AOpen RMAs around the socketed P3 750 days due to bad / bulging caps. I also recall servicing a number of fairly terrible Biostar boards from another shop one town over. For the most part, though, we avoided selling any MB in the true “value” segment which really avoided most of the problems.
 
Endgame said:
We had a pretty big string of AOpen RMAs around the socketed P3 750 days due to bad / bulging caps. I also recall servicing a number of fairly terrible Biostar boards from another shop one town over. For the most part, though, we avoided selling any MB in the true “value” segment which really avoided most of the problems.
Click to expand...

The capacitor issue had nothing to do with design or brands. It was an industry wide problem. ASUS, ABIT, EPoX, GIGABYTE, Apple, Dell, and everyone else had to replace motherboards due to the capacitor issues. I saw it on video cards as well as motherboards too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Become a Patron!
Back
Top