AMD teases Ryzen 9000 performance ahead of July 31 launch, details B850 and B840 chipsets

[phxrider]

16GB just isn't enough anymore and the fact that even laptops that are easily disassembled come with soldered on memory is a big FU. AMD mobile chips and their marriage to LPDDR5 makes me rage everytime I see it. I have 7 ryzen systems in my lab and non of my laptops are AMD. I keep wanting to buy the minisform v3 but the keyboard is offensively bad. It comes with 32gigs so I can forgive the lack of replaceable memory, but the keyboard is so bad.

I have a Minisforum V3. The keyboard isn't bad at all. Have you actually tried one, or are you just getting that from online? I can type better on mine than any of the regular keyboards we have at work (except for maybe the Logitech).

 

[yRaz]

I have a Minisforum V3. The keyboard isn't bad at all. Have you actually tried one, or are you just getting that from online? I can type better on mine than any of the regular keyboards we have at work (except for maybe the Logitech).

I never met a type cover I got along with. Even if it is the best type cover ever made I doubt it's better than the worst keyboard I've ever used. But the real deal breaker with the type cover is that it doesn't "hold" the screen in position. I often sit crouch in bed with my laptop on my, well, lap, but it's holding the screen above my knees and perpendicular to my eyes. That's 90% of how I use my laptops. If I sit at a desk I just use a dock.

So it's less about the type cover being a type cover, I'm sure I could learn to live with it. It's more about using the keyboard body as an anchor point to hold the screen

 

[mbk34]

Do people ever use the full power of their CPU? I suspect mine sits quietly at 10% all the time. Unless you do video editing for a living or play AAA game titles AND have a top end CPU then what's really the point of all this increased processing power? Bragging rights?

 

[phxrider]

I never met a type cover I got along with. Even if it is the best type cover ever made I doubt it's better than the worst keyboard I've ever used. But the real deal breaker with the type cover is that it doesn't "hold" the screen in position. I often sit crouch in bed with my laptop on my, well, lap, but it's holding the screen above my knees and perpendicular to my eyes. That's 90% of how I use my laptops. If I sit at a desk I just use a dock.

So it's less about the type cover being a type cover, I'm sure I could learn to live with it. It's more about using the keyboard body as an anchor point to hold the screen

Yeah, there are pros and cons to that format. I find it to be less comfortable than a standard laptop on the lap with a quick test, but over time I end up preferring it due to the heat being in the part that doesn't sit right on my legs.

 

[BbN48]

Do people ever use the full power of their CPU? I suspect mine sits quietly at 10% all the time. Unless you do video editing for a living or play AAA game titles AND have a top end CPU then what's really the point of all this increased processing power? Bragging rights?

Uh, yes, people use their powerful cpus for things requiring powerful cpus. Of course there's always some people who buy more powerful hardware than they really need, like you apparently, but there's plenty of use cases. Gaming being the most obvious example. If you're someone who always plays the latest games, you'll often run into being gpu locked or cpu locked.

 

[mbk34]

Uh, yes, people use their powerful cpus for things requiring powerful cpus. Of course there's always some people who buy more powerful hardware than they really need, like you apparently, but there's plenty of use cases. Gaming being the most obvious example. If you're someone who always plays the latest games, you'll often run into being gpu locked or cpu locked.

I have a very, middle of the road, AMD 7600 system. I don't think AMD produce a lower model CPU. I used to work in software development and still produce arcade games for fun. A 20K line program will compile in about 0.5 sec. A side project I'm currently working on is a real time video analysis program that identifies objects as they appear on camera but even this doesn't get past 12% utilisation. I just find it hard to believe that people need more CPU power.

Even the 7600, the lowest model in the previous 7000 range, won't bottleneck a 4080 Super in gaming yet these new CPUs are faster and have more cores. What is it that you do that requires so much processing power?

 

[B5S46M]

Do people ever use the full power of their CPU? I suspect mine sits quietly at 10% all the time. Unless you do video editing for a living or play AAA game titles AND have a top end CPU then what's really the point of all this increased processing power? Bragging rights?

YES! These CPUs are actually way too slow for what I do at work: CFD. And consumer CPUs also don't have enough memory bandwidth. Even with with Threadripper Pro CPUs you can actually saturate the memory I/O if you have too many cores even with 8 channels of DDR5. That's why multi-node HPC clusters with EPYC CPUs are needed. 32 cores is where we start. It is not uncommon to use 1000s of cores to solve more complex physics, with jobs often solving for hours if not days or even longer.

 

[mbk34]

YES! These CPUs are actually way too slow for what I do at work: CFD. And consumer CPUs also don't have enough memory bandwidth. Even with with Threadripper Pro CPUs you can actually saturate the memory I/O if you have too many cores even with 8 channels of DDR5. That's why multi-node HPC clusters with EPYC CPUs are needed. 32 cores is where we start. It is not uncommon to use 1000s of cores to solve more complex physics, with jobs often solving for hours if not days or even longer.

If you need 1000's of cores then you wouldn't be looking at CPUs for PCs so I'm not sure how valid your argument is here. Actually, if you're looking for 1000's of cores, then you shouldn't be using CPU's at all but should perhaps look at utilising GPU acceleration. You'd find it a lot faster and cheaper.

Just because you use the equivalent of a super computer at work doesn't explain why our PCs need such fast processors. I'm guessing a little bit I presume the CFD you talk about is Computational Fluid Dynamics and not Cat Food Delivery or Communists For Democracy.

 

[BbN48]

I have a very, middle of the road, AMD 7600 system. I don't think AMD produce a lower model CPU. I used to work in software development and still produce arcade games for fun. A 20K line program will compile in about 0.5 sec. A side project I'm currently working on is a real time video analysis program that identifies objects as they appear on camera but even this doesn't get past 12% utilisation. I just find it hard to believe that people need more CPU power.

Even the 7600, the lowest model in the previous 7000 range, won't bottleneck a 4080 Super in gaming yet these new CPUs are faster and have more cores. What is it that you do that requires so much processing power?

I don't need a super CPU currently. So I don't buy one. But I do like having one that's really snappy in general use. I'm happy with my 5600x.

 

[B5S46M]

If you need 1000's of cores then you wouldn't be looking at CPUs for PCs so I'm not sure how valid your argument is here. Actually, if you're looking for 1000's of cores, then you shouldn't be using CPU's at all but should perhaps look at utilising GPU acceleration. You'd find it a lot faster and cheaper.

Just because you use the equivalent of a super computer at work doesn't explain why our PCs need such fast processors. I'm guessing a little bit I presume the CFD you talk about is Computational Fluid Dynamics and not Cat Food Delivery or Communists For Democracy.

CPUs share platforms. If I need faster cores for work, it will trickle down to consumer grade hardware. Sometimes the consumer stuff gets released first, needing to be faster to support what the professional chips will use. Not everyone can afford to go with server grade hardware. Many small companies cannot. Faster CPUs in HPDE will continue to be a need. And as far as GPUs go. No they are not faster for Computational Fluid Dynamics workloads. Don't believe the marketing hype. Nobody uses GPUs for something like ANSYS Fluent, except for simple corner cases. Rocky, yes. Fluent, or similar with anything more than simple air flow, no. The code is many years behind in development.

Also, cloud computing is extremely expensive. Our 64 core workstations have a 2 month ROI.

 

[JuanDegr]

Because of badly optimized BI apps I am always in need of higher single core performance. Like waiting for Non-MT Knime nodes to finish crunching or even as a poweruser in Excel, which runs as fast as the core it runs on. Yes, that ist my excuse

 

[mxfalcon54]

Even if the mobile chips are better, the platforms they're in are worse. I particularly hate how all AMD mobile systems have soldered on memory LPDDR5. I won't argue that the chips are better but the implementation is atrocious. This is particularly annoying that if you want a laptop with more than 16GB of ram you almost always have to get a performance model with a dGPU.


16GB just isn't enough anymore and the fact that even laptops that are easily disassembled come with soldered on memory is a big FU. AMD mobile chips and their marriage to LPDDR5 makes me rage everytime I see it. I have 7 ryzen systems in my lab and non of my laptops are AMD. I keep wanting to buy the minisform v3 but the keyboard is offensively bad. It comes with 32gigs so I can forgive the lack of replaceable memory, but the keyboard is so bad.

Buying a ryzen laptop with the idea that you're going to keep it for several years is impossible.

Are you intentionally spreading misinformation? I bought a HP laptop with a Ryzen 5000 series mobile cpu almost 3 years ago that had 2 m.2 slots and 2 dimm slots and it was only about $500.

 

[phxrider]

CPUs share platforms. If I need faster cores for work, it will trickle down to consumer grade hardware.

Faster/newer cores ALWAYS come to consumer grade hardware first and they still perform better than the data center stuff even after the tech trickles to them. Data center / server CPUs excel at extreme multithreaded work due to having more cores (sometimes a LOT more), but they are also focused on reliability and power consumption, and don't run as hard or scale up in frequency like desktop CPUs. They can't touch desktop CPUs in per-core performance.

 

[phxrider]

I don't need a super CPU currently. So I don't buy one. But I do like having one that's really snappy in general use. I'm happy with my 5600x.

My brother is poor, so I built him a cheap computer with a 5600G... later I donated him one of my 6800XTs so he could play games, and then got him a 5600x so it could use PCIe 4. Every time I use it, I am pleasantly surprised at how snappy it is, and it runs games very well.

 

[BbN48]

My brother is poor, so I built him a cheap computer with a 5600G... later I donated him one of my 6800XTs so he could play games, and then got him a 5600x so it could use PCIe 4. Every time I use it, I am pleasantly surprised at how snappy it is, and it runs games very well.

The 5600x has been excellent value for money. Absolutely no micro-lag/stuttering, ever. Before this I had a i5-2500k, which was also pretty amazing for its time.

 

[yRaz]

Are you intentionally spreading misinformation? I bought a HP laptop with a Ryzen 5000 series mobile cpu almost 3 years ago that had 2 m.2 slots and 2 dimm slots and it was only about $500.

I would totally buy a 5000 series with LPDDR5