AMD's forthcoming/new PC architecture - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: djsb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 10, 2016, 07:14:26 pm
content: I cant wait until I can buy a new AMD AM4 socket based motherboard and install a new Zen based summit ridge cpu into it. I really don't want to start a flame war or get into a big argument about AMD vs Intel. I just feel eager to try out AMD's new technology in my new PC build. It's been 9 years since my last PC was built and I hope it's worth the wait. What are your thoughts?PS My current PC uses an Intel Core 2 Duo CPU and the PC before that used an AMD 486DX CPU. So ANYTHING will probably be a vast improvement on what I'm using now.

author: RGB255_0_0
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 10, 2016, 07:24:34 pm
content: I wouldn't wait to build/buy a PC now with the assumption that AMD will come out with something better than what Intel have out. Most of the guesses are that Zen won't even be as fast as Ivy Bridge but at least it won't be as shit as what they have now.AMD's marketing is some of the worst in the industry, especially for GPUs.If you have something like Bloomfield circa 2009 then it's probably not going to be a huge change except SATA 3 (native not some third party crap) and PCIe 3.0/NVMe support.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 10, 2016, 07:51:53 pm
content: What is that you are after? Brand? Performance? Power eficency? Just change? Value?

author: raptor1956
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 10, 2016, 07:56:45 pm
content: Hard to avoid the partisan flame war thing but AMD is pretty much dead as far as I'm concerned. They had a good run until the multi core processors and since then Intel has owned and dominated AMD. But, worse, AMD is no longer a manufacturer of anything as they farm out production to whomever so they are a shrinking entity and the trend line for that invariably leads to extinction.It's sad to because AMD provided a worthwhile competitor to Intel and kept them honest -- that's no longer the case. Of course, Intel is no longer the juggernaut they once were as they have never managed to carve out a profitable slice of the smaller/cheaper ARM range market. Part of that problem is Intel was and is used to high margins on the core uP products for desktop, workstations, and laptops but that market has been in decline for a decade and continues to decline.I once worked for IBM in there micro-electronics division and up to the early 80's they were a major player in semiconductors -- since then they began a slow decline and have pretty much sold off there production capacity and are in talks to complete that work.So, AMD is not alone in there slide towards oblivion!Brian

author: whitevamp
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 10, 2016, 08:12:30 pm
content: AMD's CPU's have gone down hill and i doubt anything that they come out with will be as good as a Intel.I have all ways used AMD CPU's but the next one i build will be Intel.there bulldozer platform was a joke, it was not any better then there Phenom II X6 platform.( well very marginally, not worth the cost of upgrading. )no flame war intended just saying, my IMHO

author: RGB255_0_0
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 10, 2016, 08:15:42 pm
content: Quote from: whitevamp on September 10, 2016, 08:12:30 pmBulldozer was so bad Microsoft had to make a patch so Windows could properly use it.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 10, 2016, 08:22:20 pm
content: Quote from: raptor1956 on September 10, 2016, 07:56:45 pmAs well as pretty much everyone in GPU and ARM CPU (except cortex M) market, only Samsung comes to mind when thinking about who have own manufacturing capabilities.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 10, 2016, 08:31:58 pm
content: Considering that first Zen CPUs should appear at the end of this year, I don't see why one couldn't wait a couple of months if not in hurry for replacing an old PC.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 10, 2016, 08:54:16 pm
content: Quote from: whitevamp on September 10, 2016, 08:12:30 pmAMD was never on a hill. I tried AMD CPUs several times in the past decades to save cost but I have never seen a PC with an AMD CPU survive as a workstation in a work environment. At some point I had a bunch of AMD fanboy co-workers which all wanted to have AMD machines when the boss went through a PC upgrade cycle. A couple of months later the PCs got replaced by Dells because the AMDs machines just had too many issues. Some of my co-workers still wheren't convinced AMD was a poor choice because their PCs at home worked OK. Then I asked: how long is your PC at home on per day? Maybe 2 or 3 hours playing a game, reading e-mail and browse some websites? The PC at the office has to work for at least 9 hours and open & close many files and run several demanding applications. Huge difference.

author: RGB255_0_0
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 10, 2016, 09:10:39 pm
content: AMD's Opterons were amazing and forced Intel to go back to the Pentium 3 architecture and develop the Core line. Opterons were gaining huge traction in the server market and were more efficient to Intel's CPUs at the time, which were very hot and power hungry under the various Pentium 4 lines.It wasn't until Intel developed the Core line that AMD couldn't scale: they sold their Dresden fab and other assets to IBM or Global Foundries, can't remember exactly.But AMD had a great time until they bought ATi and I think they thought APUs would dominate as mobiles (laptops) were beginning to outsell desktops. That worked somewhat as HP and some others were big buyers of AMD CPUs but Intel had the money and AMD rarely had profitable quarters.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 10, 2016, 09:11:39 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on September 10, 2016, 08:54:16 pmBulid PCs from some shitty components, then blame AMD, common story. In my experience I had issues with both. And the single CPU which had ever died, was intel i7-3820.Edit: so reading that again. That company bought/built some shitty PCs, then replaced withDELL. They could just buyAMD based Dellor another good brand PCs as well.

author: whitevamp
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 10, 2016, 09:11:53 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on September 10, 2016, 08:54:16 pmi have a K62 500, and a 5600 and i use them for my webserver and a streaming media server, the 5600 i run 10 VM's on it and they both run 24X7X365, and dont have any issues.my main comp im on right now maby gets rebooted once a month, and its my gamming rig. AMD Phenom II X6 1090T ( yes its a couply yrs old, now and not much of a gamming rig now.)

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 10, 2016, 09:40:36 pm
content: Quote from: wraper on September 10, 2016, 09:11:39 pmWell my co-workers had a say in the choice of components so I guess they didn't go for the cheapest crap. BTW in my experience AMD based Dell machines also sucked and AFAIK Dell currently doesn't even have AMD based machines. Dell is pretty good at designing reliable workstations but if even Dell can't get it right then what else is out there? Sure you are right that many AMD systems are build from bottom-of-the-barrel components / chipsets and AMD is not to blame 100% but still the problem remains. IMHO the problems are also partly due to the much lower quantities sold so the design effort that goes into the CPU and various components (chipset) has to be less to be profitable (a downward spiral). For starters AMD should have made their own chipsets like Intel does and test them thourougly so they didn't had to rely on third parties.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 10, 2016, 09:46:15 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on September 10, 2016, 09:40:36 pmAnd AFAIK yes they do.http://www.dell.com/us/p/desktops#!facets=135390~0~22697643,135390~0~21800234,135390~0~21800235,135390~0~24262736,135390~0~21800233&p=1&sort=-price

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 10, 2016, 09:48:31 pm
content: @evb149:Early last year I bought a Dell Tower 5810 with a Xeon E5 CPU. It is insanely quiet (I had to get used to the absence of noise from a PC) and there isn't even a fan on the CPU itself. I'll admit this isn't a cheap PC though.

author: RGB255_0_0
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 10, 2016, 09:49:10 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on September 10, 2016, 09:40:36 pmMeh. Nforce 2 chipset was the best chipset I've ever used. Maybe I have different viewpoint to you, but as an enthusiast the different options provide faster innovation.Intel not allowing Nvidia to continue making chipsets stifles innovation and forces people to be compliant to Intel's schedules.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 10, 2016, 09:54:12 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on September 10, 2016, 09:40:36 pmMost of the intermittent problems that appear right away usually are related to RAM incompatibility. Changing RAM model, motherboard model or CPU model, likely will solve it. The difference between branded PC and custom built PC is that combination of components in branded PC were tested to work. If you build by yourself, it's up to your luck. RAM issues are very annoying and hard to trace. You may have BSOD once in a week or two and RAM tests won't show any issue. At the same time none of the components are faulty, they just don't work together.BTW AMD makes their own chipsets since bought ATI and there are no 3rd party chipsets for many years.EDIT: for accuracy of the facts, some new motherboards on nforce 630a chipset are still available but why the hell it is still sold, it's 9 years old chipset. The last Nvidia chipset for AMD was released in 2009EDIT2: Likely Asrock got worldwide stock of nforce 630a, it's in their blood to make some weirdo products with obsolete chipsets. On the other hand, I had much less problems if any with Asrock products unlike with Gigabyte which can be incompatible with just about everything, including PSU and have some weird issues.

author: Kuro
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 10, 2016, 09:58:34 pm
content: I am also looking to update my old Sandy Bridge i7. Was planning on an 8-core Intel, but prices are a bit stiff, and not budging. I almost resigned to a 6-core when I learned about Zen.So now I am trying to be patient. I am looking for single thread performance in Intel's ballpark, but with over 4 cores, at much lower prices than Intel's 'enthusiast' range. I never knew 'enthusiast' was synonymous to 'rich'

author: RGB255_0_0
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 10, 2016, 10:07:18 pm
content: I still have nightmares using VIA chipsets

author: raptor1956
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 10, 2016, 10:21:10 pm
content: Quote from: wraper on September 10, 2016, 08:22:20 pmMost of the others that farm out production have done so all along -- AMD used to be a manufacturer and the history of these things is that companies that first begin to farm out production with the plan that they will continue to develop and just contract for production almost always go out of business and often not long after they close there production facilities. It's the history of how these things go.IBM is still in business and making billions but they are no longer the principal driver of the industry. In the late 80's, during the period where IBM and Microsoft were embroiled in the OS/2 thing, a reporter asked Bill Gates about his relationship with IBM and Bill said "IBM is irrelevant!" As an IBMer at the time that quote really stung and more so because I knew Gates was right!Brian

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 10, 2016, 10:39:08 pm
content: Quote from: raptor1956 on September 10, 2016, 10:21:10 pmNowadays it's financially nonviable to have own production facilities unless you can load them to 100%, also it is very financially demanding and you need to keep them at the edge of technology otherwise your products won't be competitive. Developing smaller fabrication nodes becomes more expensive with each generation. The only reason why Intel can keep their own production is because they are very big.QuoteThe history is that who haven't done so, is out of business a long time ago. Even Texas instruments couldn't keep up with fabless companies in mobile ARM market and is completely out of that business. IBM even paid $1.5 billion to Globalfoundries, just so they take away their failing fabs. They are source of losses, not income. It's a bloodbath.

author: raptor1956
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 10, 2016, 11:11:38 pm
content: It's all about cost and cost is more than labor. ARM chips in particular are driven by cost and while Intel can demand and get more than $100USD for a single uP what's the cost of a typical ARM processor? Intel can't compete there either.The major FAB's that produce them are running 24/7, but so are almost all FAB's -- the only way to cover the multi-billion in capital cost is to utilize the equipment 24/7 and almost all FAB's do this. But, like many things in production, the 1st world is at a disadvantage to the developing world because the pay scale is higher and the workplace safety and pollution controls add cost that companies in other parts of the world don't have to deal with.This is all part of a bigger picture and although it makes sense to the bean counter types to close domestic production and move where it's cheaper, but we've seen that model before and the end result is the disappearance of the domestic companies that outsource. In the mid 60's the USA produced about 95% of the worlds TV sets but by the mid 60's the big TV makers, wanting to cut cost on products that were very labor intensive as TV's of the day were owing to the discrete components that they were made of, and they began to outsource to Japan. Within a decade Japan owned the market and by the early 80's there were almost no TV's being made in the USA and the companies that moved production to Japan were also history -- replaced by Sony etc. The US makers of TV's had bad timing with this move as the move towards integration, pioneered by Ti and a few others in the semiconductor business dramatically lowered the cost of TV set production independent of labor costs. The Japanese benefited from those advances and the US companies were, by then, on to something else.So, it's a more complicated picture than simply continuing or discontinuing domestic production but the end result has been demonstrated before and will/is happening again!Brian

author: StillTrying
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 10, 2016, 11:14:17 pm
content: QuoteI hate to be the spelling officer, but do you always spell gaming that way.http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=gamming

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 10, 2016, 11:29:02 pm
content: Quote from: raptor1956 on September 10, 2016, 11:11:38 pmThis is not about first and third world or domestic production. Silicon manufacturing in not about workforce cost at all, unlike things like PCB assembly. Not a single globalfoundries fab is located in China, and the only Asian fabs are located in Singapore which have a very expensive workforce BTW.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GlobalFoundriesThe issue is, be you small, big or super big manufacturer, you will need to pay the same amount of money to develop new technologies. And if you are not as big as intel, it becomes so large part of your revenue that you just cannot keep up with the newest technology. And if you cannot keep up with newest technology, then fabless competitor products will outperform you (as they can use the newest technology available) and your business will go down to the drain.

author: whitevamp
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 10, 2016, 11:43:00 pm
content: Quote from: StillTrying on September 10, 2016, 11:14:17 pmno it was a double tap

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 10, 2016, 11:55:13 pm
content: QuoteYou are not alone: i'm on 10-yr cycle as well. Slightly different from your strategy, I buy workstations and hold onto them for a long time. and they seem to hold their performance for home use really well. and I would recommend this strategy to anyone.You can even buy workstations that are 1 or 2 generations earlier (mine is 3 generations old vs. its contemporaries). and they are incredibly cheap: current generation workstations are 2k+, previous generation lga2011 workstations can be had for 1k; 2 generation old lga1366 workstations are half of that....So I am not sure if buying new chip works out well, vs. buying proven high-end machines.Hope it helps.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 11, 2016, 12:05:11 am
content: QuoteIt is about environmental costs. There is an article from Gardner in the 1990s that laid the case for the rise of guys like TSMC. 20 years later, IBM confirmed it.One report I read said that there are over a thousand chemicals involved in the production, of which only a handful have known toxicology studies. The difficulties IBM faced in poughkeepsie nailed the workers' fate there.

author: helius
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 11, 2016, 12:18:07 am
content: Outsourcing fab lines is the only way the semiconductor industry can advance. Most every modern MCU or FPGA is produced with contract fab, even if the vendor has its own fab capability (as TI does).Even Intel outsources some Atom production to TSMC.I can name various chip makers who failed because they thought it would be cool to operate their own fab. Simply a stupid idea and a losing proposition.

author: raptor1956
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 11, 2016, 12:35:31 am
content: Quote from: blueskull on September 10, 2016, 11:27:23 pmAMD played a role in the building of the GF site in Malta NY but to the best of my knowledge they have little day-to-day say in what GF is doing. It was, in fact, right about the time GF Malta was under construction that AMD bowed out of making things.Brian

author: raptor1956
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 11, 2016, 12:57:48 am
content: Quote from: wraper on September 10, 2016, 11:29:02 pmLabor cost are not the driver as you point out, in fact many of the processors Apple uses is made by Samsung in Austin Texas. But, Samsung is a Korean company and most "MOST" of there production is in the far east.There are advantages to being able to pick and chose where to have you stuff made not only to control cost but to go with whomever is the best at that time. But, since everyone else is doing that you may lose out because all FAB's have limited capacity and not everyone can get there stuff made there.There is "IS" a first world third world dynamic at work here as the price one can charge for components is constantly being pushed down which has benefits but also introduces problems. Qimonda, which used to have a FAB near Richmond Virginia went out of business in the US about 2010 and shuttered there doors -- I know because I was part of a team that removed some of the equipment and installed it elsewhere, RFAB (Ti). During the final years the writing was on the wall as they could not compete, on price, with the likes of Hynixs et al.The cost issue is more than labor -- I mentioned this before!And you are right that the huge cost of a modern FAB, now about $6B with immersion litho tools over $80M each, makes many western bean counter types with quarterly report mindsets quick to suggest that they should let others do it. It makes sense in a quarterly report kind of way but as happened with the US TV makers when you let someone else do it they will. Before long the companies that picked up the torch have the market and the old guy just dies.There are parallels to the explorers in Spain and Portugal that once dominated things but they were displaced when they became less bold. It never made bean counter sense for the US to go to the Moon but our efforts to go there marked the high water mark of the US power and prowess in the world. You either play along or you are left watching on the sidelines as others pass you by.Brian

author: rdl
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 11, 2016, 01:03:00 am
content: Quote from: blueskull on September 10, 2016, 11:58:29 pmI'm concerned about Microsoft getting their greedy, thieving fingers into the hardware side of things. That is a very bad thing. I'm also not a fan of Intel'sNSA enablersprivacy compromisers such as IME, and whatever else they have going on, running out of control in the background even when the computer is "turned off".Maybe this is something AMD could use to their advantage. Maybe not. Gamers are big PC users and used to be all about cheap performance, not big Microsoft supporters and AMD did well, but these days gamers seem to all be Microsoft/Steam fanboys, drooling and frothing at the mouth over the next new version of DirectX.I haven't much hope for future PC use where Microsoft is involved. To me, they have become something to be avoided at any cost. Maybe Intel also.

author: Ampera
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 11, 2016, 02:28:13 am
content: In my opinion AMD's ONE AND ONLY saving grace and the ONLY reason they are being sold is that up until a point their price to performance rips Intel a new one, but once you get to the 300 Dollar i7 chips, AMD has nothing in their consumer range to compete, and their server/workstation range isn't a whole load better.I have to say, AMD's power to heat output is better than any space heater I have ever had.At this point the CPU market has stagnated a bit in my opinion. AMD is waiting for whenever GF can get their plants to make smaller tech chips, and Intel is sitting on their bums pushing out moderate architecture improvements every so often.The GPU market is a strange story. AMD has capable GPUs, and some of them can rip the teeth off an NVidia chip, but that is all you can say. NVidia isn't far behind, and tends to have the more capable technologies built in like CUDA and other rendering options, making it VERY appealing to gamers, while AMD chips make decent workstation chips, and has been the favorite GPU for Bitcoin (Now litecoin) miners for years.Intel's iGPUs can't compete with anything. They are if you are sad enough to get one in a laptop, have nothing else, or you just really don't need anything else. They don't have the best gaming support, and they tend to suck at compatibility and drivers.In summary AMD is the poor man's option. Not only are the chips cheaper, the boards are too, and older standards like DDR3 mean you can buy cheaper RAM. Don't get me wrong their CPUs aren't worthless, and I would take AMD over some equally priced Intel chips, but the advantage ends short. They tend to always have space heaters in the GPU industry and CPU. For GPUs they deliver strong performance, but that is all they deliver, nothing much more.Intel is sitting and just pushing out a new round of chips every so often to keep the money flowing. They aren't under and threat nor pressure in the desktop market, and aren't feeling of AMD's Burn (Punny)Their GPUs are just intergrated GPUs, about as good as AMD's APUs. At about the i5 - i7 range they blow AMD to the wayside, and they are quite happily staying there.ARM has no hold on the SERIOUS desktop market, and very minor hold in any laptops. The x86_x64 systems are too high in performance to compete with ARM, being the Acorn RISC Machine, RISC being thekiller here. RISC is simple to perform, and can do a lot of small operations quickly, having a higher number of MIPS than related CISC systems, but x86's CISC build allows it to run more complicated instructions without abandoning much in the way of instructions per second. They will always have a hold in portables and at this point will NEVER be dethroned by anyone else unless something groundbreaking happens.Rant over, no hate please, real comments/corrections only.

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 11, 2016, 02:43:57 am
content: Most of this thread..

author: David Hess
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 11, 2016, 04:49:35 am
content: Quote from: RGB255_0_0 on September 10, 2016, 09:49:10 pmI will not say that the nForce2 chipset was the worst ever, but it was close for me when we evaluated them for industrial use. It has a buggy ATA controller, buggy ethernet, PCI timing violations, interrupt issues, etc.. And not only did nVidia refuse to fix the problems through their drivers, but they would not allow others to either. That was the last nVidia product I bought; the company is scum. Of all of the systems I have going back to when the nForce2 was produced, it is only the other systems which have survived until today.As far as AMD goes, I'm still using a Phenom 940 which replaced my Intel P4 2.4C which was almost the last non-Xeon system Intel allowed to support ECC. Back when the Phenom 940 was produced, the Intel premium for ECC was $1000+. It is lower now but still $100s of dollars and that is with an Intel processor which is significantly slower and more expensive than the AMD alternative. If you want something faster, then that doubles the price or more again.Ever wonder why Intel only supports ECC at the very lowest end (now) and with Xeons? Market segmentation is a wonderful thing if you can get away with it. And if consumer desktops do not need ECC according to Intel's marketing, then why do they allow it on the lowest end non-Xeon processors now?

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 11, 2016, 05:49:23 am
content: Intel is doing quite well,Check this out...http://www.lattepanda.com/Intel Atom Quad core 1.8ghz2gb ram32gb onboard flashuSD slotWiFiBTBuilt in ATMega for hardware hacking/interfaceComes with fully copy of window 10 home (not embedded)Price... US$109(or $79 without windows 10, or $139 with 4GB/64GB)

author: Karel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 11, 2016, 06:22:13 am
content: Quote from: evb149 on September 10, 2016, 09:41:01 pmThis. Imagine a world where desktop pc's are locked devices like tablets or smartphones and no use of "standard" components.

author: David Hess
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 11, 2016, 07:13:08 am
content: Quote from: blueskull on September 11, 2016, 05:10:56 amThere are lots of expensive Intel options anyway.Sure, all of the Xeon processors have always supported ECC but in order to use them with ECC, you also need the server south bridge and those motherboard are more expensive than the AMD alternatives.QuoteThis is a relatively new development but with these, AMD actually has cheaper ECC supporting designs with comparable or greater performance.QuoteFor dedicated use, the AMD AM1 platform also supports ECC and at a lower cost yet. The processor and motherboard are less than $100. If I was building NAS or big internet appliance, this is what I would use even if I had to add more network and storage ports.Unfortunately none of the AMD FM processors support ECC.QuoteWhich is part of how Intel enforces market segmentation. AMD cannot afford to play this game.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 11, 2016, 03:06:19 pm
content: Quote from: TwoOfFive on September 11, 2016, 02:28:13 amI agree. In the past (10 to 20 years ago) you could buy a new CPU every year and it would be significantly faster than the old one. Nowadays you'll have to spend a lot of money to buy a PC which is faster than the PC you bought 5 years ago. From tests with my worst case usage scenarios my 'old' i7-950 is only 20% slower than the Xeon E5 I currently have.

author: Karel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 11, 2016, 03:41:12 pm
content: At home, my Phenom II X6 1055T (6x 2800 MHz) CPU on an Asus M4A87TD/USB3 (AMD 870) motherboard is still performing well today.I choose it because for me, a higher number of cpu-cores is more important than cpu-speed per core.(When compiling software, "make" uses the available cores very effectively.)So far I can't find an excuse to replace it for something better.

author: radar_macgyver
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 11, 2016, 09:16:52 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on September 10, 2016, 08:54:16 pm[root@router ~]# cat /proc/cpuinfoprocessor : 0vendor_id : AuthenticAMDcpu family : 15model : 39model name : AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 4000+...[root@router ~]# uptime15:04:51 up 517 days, 5:25, 2 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00This is a linux box that serves as our workgroup router. It routes about 30-50 GB per day, including multiple VPNs. Most of our older servers are AMD as well (Sun Fire hardware), but don't have long uptimes since I try to not let the kernel get too far out of date. Newer servers are Intel (Supermicro hardware), mostly because they offer better performance per watt.I'd love to see how Zen performs real-world as well, ECC memory without the Xeon pricetag is tempting.

author: TerraHertz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 12, 2016, 12:38:14 am
content: Regarding platform reliability, and DRAM being ECC or not, there's a factor everyone should know about but I suspect isn't widely known.Google row hammer exploit. Lots of hits.20160508http://googleprojectzero.blogspot.com.au/2015/03/exploiting-dram-rowhammer-bug-to-gain.html20160811Remember the 'rowhammer' bug where an attacker can trigger arbitrary bit flips in a system's physicalmemory? Some researchers figured out how to use it to break into a virtual machine, by renting anotherVM hosted on the same server:https://techxplore.com/news/2016-08-hacking-technique-imperceptibly-memory-virtual.htmlObviously, that kind of flakiness in DRAM isn't going to help system stability.The PCs I use commonly are far behind the bleeding edge, since they are all discards or obsoleted wholesaler stock. But I recently upgraded the DRAM in the best two to ECC, after reading about Rowhammer. Not that they were noticeably unstable, so I can't say it's made any difference.Quote from: evb149 on September 10, 2016, 09:41:01 pmThis is my primary concern with Intel. It's reached a point where I don't care at all about Intel performance stats, I just flatly refuse to be a customer of theirs now or ever again, while their CPU/system architecture is like something out of 1984 or a Kafka novel. The HW/FW has more backdoors than front doors, more secret dungeons with chains, than open rooms. UEFI, SMM, IME and more... Intel and MS can take a hike. Apple too. Ha ha, removing the headphone jack... inevitable progression of the same insane locked-box philosophy.If AMD had any sense, they'd be marketing their products as an open alternative to Intel's bullsh*t. Or maybe they aren't so pure themselves? Anyone know if AMD has that same disease, just we don't hear of it?

author: amspire
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 12, 2016, 02:03:47 am
content: Quote from: Karel on September 11, 2016, 03:41:12 pmI have used a number of of AMD CPUs including the 1055T and the FX 8320 and have found them extremely reliable for all-day workstation and server (24/7) usage as long as you watch the CPU temperature - the stock coolers are not always adequate but with 3rd party coolers, it is not hard to keep below 60degC. Go over 70 degC and you will have crashes and reliability problems.At home, I have been using Athlon 4850A 2.4GHz dual core 45W cpu's continuously since 2008 without a problem. It is not fast but a single 4850e CPU has still been adequate for a Proxmox server running 3 Linux Virtual servers and 3 OpenVZ containers without any speed issues on any of the virtual servers. They have never given me any reason to upgrade. I have a spare 4850e+MB but I have never needed it. Never hangs and so I only shut down when we have power cuts or really bad electrical storms.The AMD 8 core CPUs are great as long as you are not doing a lot of floating point - the Intel processors are much better for floating point. My current workstation uses an overclocked FX 8320 for the reason that I had a 2010 era MSI 890GSX board lying around plus ram, supply, etc from obsolete PCs. It has been a very solid PC for 2 years now and it is currently running with 32G ram and an old nVidia 580 GPU. The 8 cores are brilliant for running many virtual machines concurrently. I have had it running a Linux server and eight Windows 7 VMs to test out some networking ideas without any problems.If I wanted a top of the line system, I would go Intel but for a mid range PC, there is just no issue with AMD in terms of reliability. It comes down to a price and a running cost trade-off.

author: magetoo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 12, 2016, 02:21:38 am
content: It's an excuse to be optimistic at least.There was apparently a leaked benchmark that made the news recently, of a Zen CPU running at 1.4 GHz; the speculation has been that in testing an engineering sample this was made public by mistake. Scaling the numbers up, itseems to indicatethat clock for clock, they're still a fair bit behind Intel, but of course we're talking about benchmark figures of unknown provenance, of hardware that might not be representative of the final product.I'm hoping the new platform means they're catching up enough to keep Intel honest if nothing else.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 12, 2016, 07:32:32 am
content: Quote from: magetoo on September 12, 2016, 02:21:38 amThat "leaked" benchmark have zero credibility frankly and has more chances being fake than true.

author: SteveyG
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 12, 2016, 11:14:35 am
content: Quote from: amspire on September 12, 2016, 02:03:47 amIt makes me laugh that there are comments over reliability. There are no reliability or stability issues, and AFAIK, it is still better value for money to build/buy an AMD rig at the expense of increased power consumption. Obviously once you exceed AMDs top performing CPU there is no other option but to use Intel CPUs.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 13, 2016, 12:39:48 am
content: Huawei announced today that they are going into the server market.That should present an interesting challenge to Intel, rather than HP/Dell. Huawei is unlikely to enter the US market en-mass, and not likely to make a big dent in Europe either, regardless of its products. So HP/Dell should be safe.However, given its capability to develop chips, coupled with the export ban of Phi, Huawei is likely to get into the high-end server chip business itself, or get help from the chinese government - the latest supercomputer is powered by a chinese chip (I think it is MIC), reportedly. If Huawei were to industrialize that, it could spell trouble for the Phi / Intel.On that note, imagine how much faster it would be running your Windows 95 on a Phi-powered desktop,

author: Srbel
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 13, 2016, 06:09:38 am
content: Quote from: blueskull on September 13, 2016, 01:02:21 amHa! A person who was a system engineer for an M-84 tanks said that from multiple sources in different armies (he does a lot of modifications for various tanks around the world) he heard that Huawei military communication equipment, that is sold to foreign armies, is used to spy on them.

author: StuUK
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 13, 2016, 08:04:31 am
content: Quote from: blueskull on September 13, 2016, 01:02:21 amLOL!

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 13, 2016, 09:50:01 am
content: Quotepeople actually believe in that?

author: System Error Message
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 14, 2016, 12:40:07 am
content: gone are the days where people inspect chips, do packet sniffing and verify products. Its not surprising that huawei spies on others, they are a chinese company after all. Most notably products from china and US are have backdoors in them and spy on others for example: cisco, dlink, tplink. The companies themselves cant stop it because the backdoors are inserted through infiltration(like an NSA being employee of cisco) and shipping interception (US) and govt pressure (china). I've seen backdoors in intercepted products as well like some getting a router from supplier with a backdoor whiles others dont from other sources.My advice on whether or not to buy a new PC for this AMD architecture or not mainly depends on your needs and location. In some countries products are heavily inflated making this pointless.Look at their advantages and disadvantages. For AMD's bulldozer architecture, even though it consisted of 8 small cores and 4 big modules it is still faster than a quad core i7 for tasks that doesnt involve those big modules, like running apache web server for example. Look at your budget and get whats best for it. Do you need the raw computing power that intel provides? Do you need more cache and are running larger code that doesnt do much SSE or floats? Many factors to consider on the CPU itself including the power use for your target (talking about TDP not your bills).Second thing to do is look at the platform itself. AMD uses realtek chipset which makes for lower footprint but at the cost of more of the load being done on CPU. Take this into account with your budget if it means purchasing a sound card or NIC depending on your use and requirements. Theres also the available busses and features like PCIe thunderbolt, available PCIe lanes, how many native sata ports and so on.I've had issues with failed intel boards before but not with AMD. Realtek is a pain and windows is terrible when it comes to exotic hardware like SFP+ cards that were used in datacenters, installing AMD GPU drivers on windows server causes hanging. OS and software you will run is an important consideration too. Havent had an AMD board that didnt work using the power button trick whereas i have some intel boards that will not work which appear sound. I do wish AMD would stop using pins and start using flat contacts for both CPU and board.regardless i doubt both intel and AMD have something that compares to my router even for the price. It runs a 36 core CPU that is a general purpose CPU(not specialised like ARM or MIPS). It doesnt have SSE to give that high flops count for x86 but UK's fastest internet doesnt register any CPU usage on it (not hardware acceleration either). Theres a dev system of it that has 8 of these 36 core CPUs stuffed into in 2 rack units on the same board. It uses a mesh grid for the bus compared to intel's point to point links for multi CPU communication.Im not fond of modems or certain communication devices because of their lack of usefulness which is why i prefer SFP. When you actually start delving into network security you find all sorts of things that big sites do such as google and facebook appearing on your blacklist for intrusion attempt. With a modem you end up with a useless device once you change your network or upgrade.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 14, 2016, 01:03:48 am
content: I wasn't a believer of multi-core cpus until I started to run windows 7 on a dual xeon machine (8 cores, and then 16 threads). the beauty of those machines is their ability to sustain performance under heavy load. they aren't that fast on single core performance but their performance doesn't deteriorate as fast when you have to do multiple things at the same time.I have seen some 16 core / 32 thread machines and wouldn't mind upgrading to them, if my 10-yr dual xeon machine couldn't keep up.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 14, 2016, 10:56:36 am
content: Having used CPUs from 8086 to todays Xeon, I would say that a minimum setup would be a 4 core, 8 thread CPU capabable of speedstep, and with 6gb memory and ssd as system disk. For most people that should work as a daily driver.

author: rrinker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 14, 2016, 02:41:35 pm
content: Minimum setup for what? Ex in-laws are still using the Core2 Duo (first gen dual core, no hyperthreading, no turbo boost) and it suits them just fine, all they do is surf the web and email. It has 4GB RAM and runs Win7 just fine.My new workbench machine is a current gen I3, dual core with hyperthreading, though I do have 16GB RAM and an SSD. No discrete GPU, but it does fine in the 3D view of the CAD program I use for my other hobby of model railroading. Same exact machine but with an 802.11ac card on the motherboard and 8GB RAM is the one my GF uses, but all she really does on it is email and Facebook games. The one she was using was my old C2D (second gen) machine, I just wanted to build a new very small (mini-itx cube) machine that used less power.

author: rdl
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 14, 2016, 06:00:29 pm
content: Yeah really. This computer is a C2D also 3.0 GHz and 2 GB of RAM. I put it together back in 2008. It runs Windows 7 fine, gets my email, and gets me on the internet. Does plenty of other stuff too, but no need to discuss that...I have a little Brix back on my workbench. It's small enough to hold in one hand and is probably an even better computer than this one, but I don't use it as much.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 14, 2016, 09:31:58 pm
content: I retired one server two years ago and will be retiring the next one soon. E2180 and x3040, 4gb, ssd. Opening up the browser is OK but running things like mplab x, coide or CCS takes a few seconds to get to the editors.CCS is still a chore but mplab x and coide are fairly quick.Just don't want to wait.

author: Syntax_Error
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 14, 2016, 09:36:32 pm
content: Maybe leave them running idle then? I use a 2nd gen core I3 2.1GHz with 6GB ram in a laptop, integrated graphics and all, and I can run those programs with no issues, with PDFs open and chrome open (with adblock on and flash turned off).I do have an SSD and it made a world of difference for general usage, but I find the load/startup time for programs to be inconsequential. What matters is performance once they are open and resources loaded/committed.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 14, 2016, 10:17:08 pm
content: "Maybe leave them running idle then?"Insufficiently environmentally friendly for me.Practically, there are 6 desktops / servers and two laptops running in my house so tough to run them constantly 24x7.

author: helius
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 14, 2016, 10:53:18 pm
content: Presumably MPLAB X doesn't use much energy when the machine is in sleep.

author: botcrusher
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 14, 2016, 11:18:33 pm
content: While I've found myself flocking to the Intel Banner since AMD came out with the rather underperforming flagship 5Ghz chip, it does honestly look like AMD is going to clean house in the Entry to Mid level market with Zen. If they will release chips that can compete on the high end level? I have no idea.Anyways, given that you've been using a Core 2 for this long, a Zen chip will quite likely suit your needs wonderfully. The notion I've seen a few times in this thread that barely anything in a zen based machine will would be an upgrade over a C2D is frankly fanboying and absurd.

author: SteveyG
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 15, 2016, 07:43:12 am
content: Quote from: botcrusher on September 14, 2016, 11:18:33 pmAFAIK they are not targeting the high end market, but supposedly you'll get better cost/performance up to around the £200 mark which should capture the majority of users' requirements.I'm hoping they bring out a CPU that is highly clocked, video rendering from Adobe seems to favour faster CPU speed over number of cores. Other than that, basically any CPU would do for my usual PC usage.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 15, 2016, 11:26:21 am
content: "video rendering from Adobe seems to favour faster CPU speed over number of core"I'm surprised by that. I have seen considerably longer time under premier with hyperthreading off.If anything, imaging processing is where parallel processing excels.

author: SteveyG
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 15, 2016, 11:39:27 am
content: It depends heavily on the codec used and if you use CUDA, but in my case it's true, in fact render times were longer from a E5 12 core Xeon (24 threads) than my i7 8 core.

author: RGB255_0_0
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 15, 2016, 11:40:42 am
content: Adobe is poor at using more than 4-6C/T.https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Adobe-Premiere-Pro-CC-Multi-Core-Performance-698/

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 17, 2016, 11:08:17 am
content: QuoteWindows 7 boot-up time:E2180, hhd, 4gb: 45 seconds;E2180, ssd, 4gb: 40 seconds;W3690, m.2 ssd, 12gb: 15 seconds.Highly unscientific, however.I don't think ram makes much of a difference here.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 17, 2016, 11:14:29 am
content: The E2180 struggles to even do the basic things, like watching youtube and running a couple IDEs compiling in the background. you see the video and audio starts to stutter, with average load in the 50 - 70%, and the cursor becomes a little big jerky.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 17, 2016, 09:40:53 pm
content: the particular board had a faux pcie16x (with keys in it to run just 8x) and an unused pciex4 slot, so I took a gtx 750 and chopped off a few pins to make it the only 4x pcie gtx 750.plug it in the e2180 server and tried a few games.1) skyrim / civilization v: barely playable. about 10-12fps, at times choppy.2) some old dos games (testdrive, f117, etc.): all playable.not bad for a worthless pc.

author: System Error Message
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 18, 2016, 03:52:38 am
content: you didnt have to chop part of the board off. You could make your PCIe slot open or you could use a 4x to 16x PCIe extender.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 18, 2016, 07:22:28 am
content: Quote from: dannyf on September 17, 2016, 11:08:17 amI'm running a fairly old machine with aSupermicro X8SIL-Fmotherboard Intel X3430 CPU (2.40GHz, 4 cores, 4 threads) with 8GB RAM and running Windows 7. My boot up time is 13.4 seconds to the login screen (initialising all the hardware devices and hardware RAID actually takes longer than the OS boot process). My install of Windows 7 is by no means "new" either; my last format and reinstall was March 2015.It handles multitasking very well with reasonable good performance rendering video up to 4K. I have had no reason to upgrade it yet.That said, I'd be keen to see what AMD come up with but I won't hold my breath. I gave up on AMD back in the days of the K6 debacle and since then, I haven't been able to find an AMD processor which balances performance and price (let alone reliability) when compared to Intel's CPUs.

author: David Hess
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 18, 2016, 07:43:43 am
content: Quote from: Halcyon on September 18, 2016, 07:22:28 amWhat was the K6 debacle? I would still be using my K6 boards for BSD network appliances if they had not all failed when the embedded lithium cells died.On the K6-3, AMD had yield issues because of a lack of redundancy in the large third level cache.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 18, 2016, 07:55:46 am
content: Quote from: David Hess on September 18, 2016, 07:43:43 amI don't recall exactly the issues that I had but I had one of the original AMD K6 CPUs and it was flakey as hell. Locking up was a common issue (and it was largely down to it not playing well with some motherboard chipsets). I think the original K6 or K6-II's even burnt out if the CPU fan failed and it just overheated to a crisp. I guess those were the most serious issues, the rest were just software that were eventually patched. AMD just left a sour taste in everyone's mouth around that era.Many might remember this famous video:

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 18, 2016, 08:50:59 am
content: Quote from: Halcyon on September 18, 2016, 07:55:46 amAnd the issue was in crappy motherboards, not CPU. Intel CPU throttled by itself, AMD had a thermal sensor built in, but it was task for the motherboard to throttle it. Motherboards in the video, obviously, had not implemented it properly. Anyway not the issue since K8.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 18, 2016, 09:19:42 am
content: Quote from: wraper on September 18, 2016, 08:50:59 amI'd argue that it wasn't just the motherboards that were crappy, but the CPU itself as well. I've never known an Intel CPU to "self destruct" like that no matter what board it was used on. Worst case scenario, it just hard locked and refused anymore instructions. Surely this is the most rudimentary of protection?

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 18, 2016, 09:39:54 am
content: Quote from: Halcyon on September 18, 2016, 09:19:42 amIf the motherboard was made properly, CPU would never self destruct because of this. In later CPUs, overheat protection was built into the CPU, as motherboard manufacturers couldn't be bothered to make their products properly.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 18, 2016, 09:59:20 am
content: Quote from: wraper on September 18, 2016, 09:39:54 amI don't accept that at all. If I was designing a product which was made to be used with other products, I wouldn't be solely relying on protection mechanisms of the other devices. Thermal protection has been a standard feature of most x86 processors. For a CPU to turn into a smoking mess is to me completely unacceptable, regardless of how shitty or which Shenzhen market the motherboard came from. By all means, refuse to boot, lock up, throw up general protection faults or kernel panics, but to literally crash and burn? Nope, not good enough, especially from a company as large as AMD.A CPU is an integral part of a system, just like the power supply. The AMD K6 CPU's weren't meant to suffer from the fault on purpose, it was a design error in the CPUs where the thermal protection simply failed and all it took was a cheap, seized up fan to cause it to fail.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 18, 2016, 10:10:11 am
content: Quote from: Halcyon on September 18, 2016, 09:59:20 amBS, unless you are talking about last 10 years. The fact is that intel implemented motherboard independent thermal protection earlier than AMD.QuoteYou still can do this with modern if it supplies wrong voltages.QuoteBS again, it had built in thermal sensor in the die, but relied on the motherboard to suspend the clock, there was no "design error".

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 18, 2016, 10:26:42 am
content: You may call BS wraper, but as far as I know, Intel have had thermal protection since the Celeron, that makes it a lot longer than the 10 years ago youquotedguessed.At the end of the day, AMD was known for its reliability issues back then and the thermal issue didn't help them. If you don't remember that, you either aren't old enough or chose to ignore it because you were/are an AMD fan boy.I guess my expectations are higher than yours. But if my CPU and motherboard sustained physical damage because of a $10 fan, I would be very upset.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 18, 2016, 11:17:31 am
content: Quote from: Halcyon on September 18, 2016, 10:26:42 amEDIT: what made you think I was meaning Intel particularly? AMD and Intel were not the only suppliers of x86 back in the day.Quote from: wraper on September 18, 2016, 10:10:11 amQuote from: Halcyon on September 18, 2016, 09:59:20 amI don't see how "since Celeron" is "most x86 processors".https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CeleronQuotehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athlon_64QuoteSo yeah, AMD has this for 13 years.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 18, 2016, 11:29:26 am
content: Quotemuch tougher to cut that slot open on the motherboard. Chopping off the video card is much easier. Plus, there is actually minimum performance difference with the board in x16 and x4 mode.

author: Kuro
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 18, 2016, 12:07:34 pm
content: Quote from: wraper on September 18, 2016, 11:17:31 amNow there's a trip to memory lane. Cyrix cpu's. In those days AMD, Intel and Cyrix and some others actually worked all on the same socket.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 18, 2016, 01:45:56 pm
content: Don't forget the IBM made X86 line, they are rare, but they were made and used in quite a few applications. I have a old Pentium IIRC that was IBM made, with an integrated tiny heatsink and fan on it, in a nice ceramic package.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 18, 2016, 09:05:47 pm
content: Wraper, now you're simply back-peddling. I won't bother to address your latest comments, I think I've made my point quite clear in that I think it's simply not good enough that AMD chose not to handle thermal overload independently of the motherboard back in the day. No matter which way you look at it, it caused many people problems and it really tarnished the AMD brand. You seem to think that it's OK, and that's fine. I guess I just have higher standards. If you asked anyone who had half a clue about IT back in the 1990's and 2000's, the term "reliable" didn't go hand-in-hand with the AMD brand name.Quote from: Kuro on September 18, 2016, 12:07:34 pmI remember owning a machine with a Cyrix CPU, I think it was the 6x86 133MHz chip. I found them to be quite stable however performance was poorer compared to the Intel's and AMD's of the day.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 18, 2016, 09:47:11 pm
content: Quote from: Halcyon on September 18, 2016, 09:05:47 pmNo, it's something wrong with your understanding what was meant.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 18, 2016, 10:03:45 pm
content: For accuracy of the facts, googling suggests that pentium 2http://www.dexsilicium.com/Intel_Pentium2.pdfand pentium 3 only had diode for temp sensing, no internal throttling. Over-temperature protection was up to the motherboard. Therefore what you wrote about "since celeron" seem to be BS either. AMD had temp sensing diode since Socket A appeared (in 1999). EDIT: stand corrected, read the spec and if temperature exceeds ~135oC cpu is held in stopped state.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 19, 2016, 01:16:01 am
content: Quote from: wraper on September 18, 2016, 10:03:45 pmNot bullshit at all.Intel introduced it in the processors from the sixth generation (686) CPU's.Straight from Intel's System Programming Guide:Section 14.5.1 Catastrophic Shutdown DetectorP6 family processors introduced a thermal sensor that acts as a catastrophic shutdown detector. This catastrophic shutdown detector was also implemented in Pentium 4, Intel Xeon and Pentium M processors. It is always enabled. When processor core temperature reaches a factory preset level, the sensor trips and processor execution is halted until after the next reset cycle.The mechanism is builtin to the processor, not under the control of BIOS and not dependent on other sensor outside the processor.P6 processors included the Celeron, Pentium Pro, PII and PIII CPUs.