It's still early. The consumer market is being targeted not the prosumer market. I think zen+ / Naples / zen fx will hit that market.
Notice: Page may contain affiliate links for which we may earn a small commission through services like Amazon Affiliates or Skimlinks.
I am not going to comment on the above directly for two more days.
What I will offer is that if you look at bespoke systems you will see two divergent paths. First, you will see a path on many review sites with multiple GPUs, many SSDs and etc. Second, when you look at the majority of systems they have one GPU, are dominated by sub $500 CPUs, and have 1-4 HDD/ SSD at most. This is similar to cars where Road & Track may show the BMW M3 but the most popular 3-series cars are the less expensive smaller engine cars.
The server world is slightly different. The most common drive configuration in a 24-bay chassis is 24 filled bays. There are tons of 1-2 disk servers.
In terms of platform implications, my personal opinion is that Ryzen for low-cost compute (e.g. render farms, compile servers and etc.) is going to be fabulous.
What I will offer is that if you look at bespoke systems you will see two divergent paths. First, you will see a path on many review sites with multiple GPUs, many SSDs and etc. Second, when you look at the majority of systems they have one GPU, are dominated by sub $500 CPUs, and have 1-4 HDD/ SSD at most. This is similar to cars where Road & Track may show the BMW M3 but the most popular 3-series cars are the less expensive smaller engine cars.
The server world is slightly different. The most common drive configuration in a 24-bay chassis is 24 filled bays. There are tons of 1-2 disk servers.
In terms of platform implications, my personal opinion is that Ryzen for low-cost compute (e.g. render farms, compile servers and etc.) is going to be fabulous.
There is your problem. The Ci7 6900K is NOT a typical competing Desktop Processor, it is a workstation-prosumer part derived from the Xeon E5 platform with a hefty price tag to match, yet AMD is comparing desktop Ryzen to it. Its solid from a compute and price-performance perspective and makes Ryzen looks good as a CPU, but you're forgetting the I/O difference, which should be obvious, because if you're comparing the AM4 Ryzen against the LGA 2011-3 Ci7 6900K, you're also comparing a desktop platform against a highly expansive Server-first platform. And for that matter, for the price tag of a single Ci7 6900K, you can probably fit a Dual Xeon E5 2620v4 platform with twice the expandability, if that is what you need.
These two ugly Ci7 models got the distinction of being the only two Processors in the entire LGA 2011-3 lineup that does not provide the full 40 PCIe Lanes, and forces Motherboards manufacturers to include details about which Slots are limited or can't be used with these handicapped models. Is still the classic Intel market segmentation... There is a reason why I like more the Xeon E5 1620v4 to the Ci7 6800K.
PLX chips are rather expensive since they got purchased by Avago. If you saw the price of LGA 1151 Motherboards that uses the PLX 8747, you should have figured out that they aren't a great idea. If you need PCIe Lanes, LGA 2011-3 is better that attemping to turbocharge a desktop platform like LGA 1151 or AM4 with the PLX 8747, as you don't need the extra latency, complexity and price of a wide PCIe Switch.
Because the Xeon E5 1620v4 cost the same than Ryzen 7 1700, yet provides the full Broadwell-E feature set minus Multiprocessor (From a feature set perspective, is better than the handicapped Ci7 6800K, if you don't mind losing 2 Cores). If you need tons of RAM or PCIe Bandwidth, the Xeon E5 1620v4 provides at the same price point than the Ryzen 7 1700 the entry level to a more expansive platform than AM4.
I didn't even talked about price-performance, just scalability. I already know that in price-performance the Ryzen 7 1700 utterly destroys the Xeon E5 1620v4, but that was not my point.
We don't know what price ranges Naples will aim to or if it will have prosumer viable parts. It would need entry level high Frequency models to be comparable to Xeons E5 1600, as the cheaper Xeon E5 2600 series got the Cores but with very low Frequency. The question is: How much more expensive than the current Ryzen 7 1700 would be the closest equivalent to a 3 GHz 8C/16T based on the Naples platform, so I can go wild with expansion?
AM4 provides LGA 1151 comparable features, which makes sense as they're both desktop platforms. So far, the only HEDT-only feature that you're getting in AM4 is more than 4C in a desktop platform.
An important exception will be if AM4 Ryzen supports AVIC and PCIe ACS, which is why I am interesed in them, since in Intel they're currently HEDT only (And even the HEDT Ci7s have them, thanks to their Xeon E5 heritage). They're rather useful for my niche.
I never suggested 16x/16x at any point and already know that usually there are no tangible benefits. I specifically mentioned the 8x/8x/8x/8x/8x arrangement (5 PCIe Slots coming directly from the Processor) for a reason.
For virtualization scenarios where you use Passthrough with multiple PCIe Cards, like you would for a multiseat computer or an all-in-one Workstation, the more slots and lanes, the better. If they come from the Processor itself, even better, because you're cutting latency compared to if they were in the Chipset or had to go through a PCIe Switch. LGA 2011-3 is ahead of AM4 on that, and Skylake-E was supposed to be slighty better.
AM4 doesn't allows you to grow in parallel as much as LGA 2011-3 does. Its sad because it has the affordable CPU horsepower to do so (And if I had money, chances are I would purchase a Ryzen). But, since AMD likes to compare their desktop platform with Intel HEDT, may as well mention that the I/O capabilities is not on the same level...
http://www.shahrsakhtafzar.com/fa/review/cpu/11652-amd-ryzen-7-1700x-review?showall=1&limitstart
First public benchmarks of the 1700X published
First public benchmarks of the 1700X published
I already know the Broadwell-E dies: The Intel Xeon E5 v4 Review: Testing Broadwell-EP With Demanding Server Workloads Intel Broadwell-EP Architecture, Models & Pricing
You have 3 versions, the 10C LLC, the 15C MCC, and 24C HCC. The HEDT Ci7s probably all uses the LLC one, but so does a lot of Xeons E5 models. Doesn't it looks to you like they must be the same thing with a different name, since they can't be anything else? How can you argue that they aren't derived from Xeons?
You seem to be forgetting an essencial thing about how market segmentation works. An one-size-fits-all die gets designed, then they disable features adjusting to the target market and create several SKUs. This at times gets soo ridiculous that you can't even get a single model with all the features of a fully functional die (Closest thing for a full LCC die would be throw in Unlocked Multiplier on a 10C Xeon E5). Broadwell-E was designed as a Server-first product, then for market segmentation purposes heavily mutilated so Intel can provide a Ci7 6800K crippled from 12 PCIe Lanes, RDIMM, ECC, and Multiprocessor support.
The HEDT Ci7s platform is entirely derived from Xeons E5, they are not a primary product, more of an afterthough. The same can be said about Xeons E3, which are consumer-first Core i5/i7 dies with ECC support. Heck, Intel didn't even bothered to butcher APICv and PCIe ACS support from HEDT Core i7s, which no LGA 1150/1155/1151 Processor has (Including Xeons E3).
Do you think that HEDT Ci7s only works on X99? Check again: Supermicro | Products | Motherboards | Xeon® Boards | X10SRA-F
And the viceversa also works:
ASRock > X99 Taichi
Intel CPUs: Xeon E5 vs. Core i7
Its not even funny that a X99 Motherboard has in its CPU Support List several times more Xeons E5 that HEDT Core i7s. I wouldn't be surprised if the C612 and X99 Chipsets are based on identical silicon. Again, the entire HEDT Core i7s platform is Xeon E5 derived. It may not be intended that you mix and match these, but you can and it works.
If consumer doesn't need Quad Channel or 40 PCIe Lanes, then how you can consider it a desktop product when it should be at the bare least prosumer? You said it yourself, consumer doesn't need it, then it ain't a typical consumer product. Is not that consumer needs 8C either, but it they are affordable, I'l take them.
Ryzen has 24 PCIe Lanes, but 4 are for the Chipset (As Intel DMI), so you get effectively 20 (LGA 2011-3 would have 44 for the same reason). The 8x/8x/4x arrangement is better than what you can do in LGA 1151 with 16 (8x/4x/4x) because you could use SLI (Which requires 8x at minimum, it doesn't work with 4x) and a PCIe NVMe SSD simultaneously, all attached to the Processor.
The 16x/8x arrangement would be extremely limited and mediocre at best, because as you said, 16x PCIe Bandwidth has no real life performance benefits, and getting one less slot for it is not a good idea. Besides, that would only work on a Ryzen SoC with no Chipset...
You missed that PLX was purchased by Avago, and prices increased two or three times: Business side of PLX acquisition: Impediment to NVMe everywhere
Nf200 was buggy as hell. I recall a guy from the Xen mailing list with an EVGA Classified SR-2 (Dual LGA 1366) that had all the PCIe Slots behind Nf200 switches and it took him quite a while to get Passthrough working in his setup due to something not quite standard compliant than the Nf200 did. PLX at least works...
The Ci7 6800K for less than the Xeon E5 1620v4? Really? Where? The Ci7 6800K cost 410 U$D Amazon.com: Intel Boxed Core i7-6800K Processor (15M Cache, up to 3.60 GHz) FC-LGA14A 3.4 6 BX80671I76800K: Computers & Accessories compared to the Xeon E5 1620v4 320 U$D Amazon.com: Intel Corp. BX80660E51620V4 Xeon Processor E5-1620 v4: Computers & Accessories Actually, the Ci7 6800K used to be more expensive, say thanks to the Ryzen hype.
For price and features, the Xeon E5 1620v4 is THE entry level Processor to LGA 2011-3, not the 6800K. The only thing where it is inferior to the Ci7 5820K (Haswell-E, thus lower IPC) or the 6800K is in the amount of Cores, but alas, you're also spending 120 U$D less or so than those, and it is not crippled in the other Server platform features. Oh, and you can use it in any X99 Motherboard. I usually like to compare the E5 1620v4 to the Core i7 6700K/7700K since it cost less than those, you get less MHzs/IPC, but have the broad I/O of LGA 2011-3. You pick where your priorities lies at.
Not everyone overclocks, and if you want ECC RAM for maximum stability, chances are that you were not intending to overclock anyways.
Fun fact: The Ci7 6850K and the Ci7 6900K are nearly identical to the Xeon E5 1650v4 and 1660v4, respectively. They cost nearly the same, works as drop-in replacements in the same Motherboards, and have most of the same features. Difference is Xeons supporting RDIMM and ECC while Ci7s have the Unlocked Multiplier. If I had money to purchase any of these, I would always go Xeon. The 6800K does not have a Xeon counterpart, maybe because Intel doesn't want to handicap them for market segmentation...
Intel® Product Specification Comparison
Intel® Product Specification Comparison
I can't wait to see the official reviews. The last AMD desktop processor I purchased had to have been a decade ago with a X2 socket 939 chip.
As long as they didn't totally screw up on stuff like IMMOU (ECC would be nice too) I will be picking one up to try to redo my 2-user PC. I did it with a E5-2676V3 but the single core speed was a bit too low and I wasn't going to spend 1K+ on a cpu. The pcie lane issue shouldn't be too bad for me. Running at 8x/8x won't make enough difference to worry about.
As long as they didn't totally screw up on stuff like IMMOU (ECC would be nice too) I will be picking one up to try to redo my 2-user PC. I did it with a E5-2676V3 but the single core speed was a bit too low and I wasn't going to spend 1K+ on a cpu. The pcie lane issue shouldn't be too bad for me. Running at 8x/8x won't make enough difference to worry about.
Got my 1700/B350 setup running windows right now. It runs good so far with a fresh install. I did a bit of an overclock to 3.8Ghz (Almost 3.9) on all cores.
At 3.3Ghz it was 1476cb vs 1709cb at 3.8Ghz
Another interesting thing. my OC is done with stock voltage according to the Ryzen software.
At 3.3Ghz it was 1476cb vs 1709cb at 3.8Ghz
Another interesting thing. my OC is done with stock voltage according to the Ryzen software.
Last edited: