AMD Makes 2nd Gen Ryzen Processors Official With Availability Starting Next Week (hothardware.com) 63
MojoKid writes: Today AMD announced official details regarding its new mainstream second-generation Ryzen family of processors. Pricing and detailed specs show some compelling new alternatives from AMD and a refined family of chips to give Intel even more competition, especially considering price point. These new AMD CPUs are all based on the 12nm Zen+ architecture and, at least initially, include four SKUs. The Ryzen 7 family features 8 cores and 16 threads along with 20MB of cache. Ryzen 7 2700 (65W) has a base clock of 3.2GHz and a turbo frequency of 4.1GHz. The top-of-the-line Ryzen 7 2700X (105W) ups the stakes with clocks of 3.7GHz and 4.3GHz respectively. The new Ryzen 5 family features six physical cores capable of executing 12 threads and 19MB of cache. The Ryzen 5 2600 (65W) has a base clock of 3.4GHz and a max boost frequency of 3.9GHz. The Ryzen 5 2600X (95W) ups those speeds to 3.6GHz and 4.2GHz respectively. AMD says that the Ryzen 5 2600, Ryzen 5 2600X, Ryzen 7 2700 and Ryzen 2700X will be available starting April 19th, priced at $199, $229, $299 and $329 respectively.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds the same (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Close to what they have now but slightly improved and on a more advanced manufacturing process. Just as AMD said they would be.
No renaming.
If the leaked benchmarks are to be believed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: If the leaked benchmarks are to be believed (Score:4, Funny)
They [AMD] never hold up in real world tests
like Meltdown, for example.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
but all shipping parts are vulnerable to spectre and the followons. It's hard for me to justify buying a CPU, given that they remain worth feeding power for ~5 years and a spectre fix is expected in ~1yr. I'd hate to be a CPU company right now.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no SPECTRE fix coming. There is only hardware level SPECTRE mitigation. A full SPECTRE fix would require dropping out of order execution entirely. That ain't happening except for maybe the most secure of systems.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes there are! Meltdown is due to Intel design decisions and can easily be fixed in hardware.
Current and older Intel systems can only be fixed by making the OS do more work - but that can be a fix too in that one can't abuse the Meltdown bug for anything. Not sure if current designs actually do enough for this to be true though, it would be easier to allow some information exposure in which case I'd agree that it's only mitigated but to a large degree.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
On current processors, I believe that you are correct. But there is nothing inherent in out of order execution that implies any SPECTRE mode capability. You just need *much* better isolation that is possible on current hardware.
In proof of this claim, imagine that you divide the chip into totally isolated processes that communicate via UDP. They don't share memory at all. When a fork in execution is seen coming, you send a message to two different processes to start working on one branch of the problem.
Spectre (Score:2)
but all shipping parts are vulnerable to spectre and the followons.
Remember that they are 2 different vulnerabilities named "spectre".
Spectre variant1 affects AMD as it affects virtually any CPU under the sun that does speculative execution.
But relatively to the other vulnerability, it's much more moderate, it's the CPU speculatively access data to which the current process HAS access anyway. (e.g.: getting pass a size check and reading from another array of the same thread).
There are very few corner case where a thread should not read data to which is normally has access
Re: (Score:3)
It's a nice incremental bump, but I'm not so sure it's worth upgrading if you already have a Ryzen 7. At any rate, I've been quite happy with my 1700. If I hadn't already upgraded to that, though (and was going to upgrade from an old system) I wouldn't hesitate to pull the trigger, thoughI might save up a bit more and go for a Threadripper.
Re: (Score:2)
I have a Dell Precision m6300 and have periodically used it as the daily computer. Browsing, writing code, writing text, playing simple games, watching videos etc. The main limitation of the machine is the HDD which will probably be switched to an SDD soon.
That machine is 10 years old. The main limitations are the I/O hardware: the LCD screen isn't too good when used to modern bright IPS panels, the keyboard while very good for its time doesn't have the feel of a modern quality keyboard and the touchpad is
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not so sure it's worth upgrading if you already have a Ryzen 7.
True, but it's a no-brainer vs Intel for a new build.
AVX512 (Score:4, Interesting)
One thing that might give Intel an edge is the upcoming AVX-512 extensions in the next cycle of processors. It'll allow two more registers for vector operations, along with a bunch more opcodes. It doesn't accelerate all operations, but what it does accelerate usually gets a pretty good speed boost. There's an HPC blogger that benchmarked the heck out of a couple of SSE/AVX/AVX2 chips, and each successive part increased some SPEC operations by 20-40%. Video encoding in particular got a good 30% boost from generation to generation - much more of a boost than the CPU optimizations alone.
Of course, AMD could clone these features, but they've been lagging in support for AVX. The Ryzen parts have half the AVX registers of the Intel chips. Sometimes they can make up for it through sheer parallelism, but not for every workload.
Re: (Score:1)
Nope, leaving AVX at 128-bit is how they control power consumption (65W) vs a similar Intel with 256-bit AVX (95W). They made that choice consciously. Intel heavily downclocks CPU when 256-bit and 512-bit AVX is used, so the gain is not that big.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if Intel still cheats and uses a special compiler that favours their chips in secret, underhanded ways. You know, like they use to do.
Yes, Intel still does this both with their compiler and libraries. The only requirement from the court was that Intel say that they do this in their documentation.
Re: (Score:3)
If you're doing something parallel enough that vectorization speeds it up, you might as well do it on a GPU instead. Even an integrated GPU is much faster than vector instructions.
Re: (Score:1)
new benchmark from the el chupacabra tech review site and burrito surfaced yesterday with an x470 motherboard but with 3200MHz RAM.
2700x is ahead of the 8700k is all cases.
The "leaked" benchmarks were on an x370 motherboard with the minimum compatibility for the 2700x.
Relevant to slashdot posters... (Score:2)
But have they fixed this yet? Their second bug in Linux?
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/sh... [kernel.org]
Re: (Score:1)
But have they fixed this yet? Their second bug in Linux?
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/sh... [kernel.org]
Yes.
I saw some of the posts complaining (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Some are getting less. It actually doesn't impact me but it does reduce my confidence using it on my next FreeNAS machine.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Nope.
If they did, they wouldn't have held back the information that Intel is just as susceptible to the ASMedia bugs as AMD is. That Israeli con-job was an Intel-sponsored hit-job from start to end, there is no doubt about it. Just look at the material, including the interview Arstechnica did with them. Look at how they twist all over the place to avoid saying "Intel" for instance, and add to that all the other weird stuff in the "story". It just doesn't add up, unless you add "Intel" to the mix. If you ins
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
stop shelling for intel
Re: (Score:1)
stop shelling for intel
yes, I agree.
its easy to fix, though; just type 'exit'.