[HN Gopher] AMD Announces 7950X3D, 7900X3D Upto 128MB L3 Cache
___________________________________________________________________
AMD Announces 7950X3D, 7900X3D Upto 128MB L3 Cache
Author : nitinreddy88
Score : 126 points
Date : 2023-01-05 14:46 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.anandtech.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.anandtech.com)
| Sakos wrote:
| I was looking forward to hearing about the next x3D CPUs and I'm
| relieved to hear they're finally coming. I'm excited about the
| benchmarks after seeing how capable the previous one was.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| castratikron wrote:
| I'm hoping someday there will be an embedded Linux processor with
| this much cache. 128MB on-die SRAM means the PCB would no longer
| need separate DRAM. The complexity of the board routing would
| also go down. That much RAM ought to be enough for a lot of
| embedded applications.
| diarmuidc wrote:
| There are SOCs available with the DRAM on top already. eg
| https://www.microchip.com/en-us/products/microcontrollers-an...
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| Basically every smartphone ARM SoC for over 10 years now.
|
| Some Raspberry PI SoCs also had the RAM soldered on top.
| rektide wrote:
| If you just want to reduce board complexity (what a
| hobbyost/maker/homebuilder dream that would be), there's lots
| of package-on-package and system-in-package offerings already!
|
| AllWinner V3s, S3. Theres a SAMA5D2 SiP. Bouffalo BL808
| (featured on the Pine Ox64). There's a lot a lot more. I think
| there's a couple with even more memory too.
|
| Intel's Lakefield, with Foveros stacking, was an amazing chip
| with 1+4 cores and on chip ram. High speed too, 4266MHz, back
| in 2020 when that was pretty fast. This is more for
| MID/ultrabooks, but wow what a chip, just epic: add power and
| away you go. Ok not really but not dealing with routing (and
| procuring!) highspeed ram is very nice.
|
| Intels been doing such a good pushing interesting nice things
| in embedded, but the adoption has been not great. The Quark
| chips, powering the awesome Edison module, had nice oomph &
| Edison was so well integrated, such an easy to use & so
| featureful small Linux system... wifi & bt well well well
| before RPi.
|
| It would be fun to see DRAM-less computers but I more imagined
| them being big systems with a couple GB of sram. There's
| definitely potential for low end too though!
| LeifCarrotson wrote:
| The economics don't work out. Why would you avoid something as
| trivial as board routing, as cheap as $2 per gigabyte DRAM, and
| as performance-enhancing as having gigabytes of main memory,
| just to use a 128 MB on-die (or on-package) SRAM (at a price of
| ~$500/GB?)?
|
| The main distinction between application processors that can
| run Linux and microcontrollers that use onboard RAM (and often
| Flash) is that the former have an MMU. It's attractive to
| imagine that your SBC might only need something as simple as a
| DIP-packaged Atmega for an Arduino, and I can imagine a system-
| on-module - actually, saying that, I think several exist, ex.
| this i.MX6 device with a 148-pin quad-flat "SOM" with 512 MB of
| DDR3L and 512 MB of Flash:
|
| https://www.seeedstudio.com/NPi-i-MX6ULL-Dev-Board-Industria...
|
| Whether you consider that Seeed branded metallic QFP (which
| obviously contains discrete DRAM, Flash, and an iMX6) to be a
| single package, while a comparably-sized piece of FR4 with a
| BGA package for each of the application processor, DRAM, and
| Flash on mezzanine or Compute-module style SODIMM edge
| connectors would not satisfy your desire for an embedded Linux
| processor with less routing complexity, I don't know. They
| build SOMs for people who don't want to pay for 8 layers and
| BGA fanout all the time.
|
| I don't think there are enough applications for embedded
| systems that need 128M of onboard SRAM that won't support the
| power budget, size, complexity, and cost of a few GB of DRAM.
| zymhan wrote:
| > Why would you avoid something as trivial
|
| L3 cache is orders of magnitude faster than using RAM.
|
| You're talking a maximum of 50GB/s for DDR5, versus 1500GB/s
| for L3 cache
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_interface_bit_rates#Dy.
| ..
|
| https://meterpreter.org/amd-ryzen-9-7900x-benchmark-
| zen-4-im...
|
| It's a paradigm-shifting increase in processing speed when
| you don't need to hit RAM.
| zX41ZdbW wrote:
| + totally agree with that.
|
| There is a use case when you can improve performance by
| keeping compressed (LZ4) data in RAM and decompressing by
| small blocks that fit in cache. This is demonstrated by
| ClickHouse[1][2] - the whole data processing after
| decompression fits in cache, and compression saves the RAM
| bandwidth.
|
| [1] https://presentations.clickhouse.com/meetup53/optimizat
| ions/ [2] https://github.com/ClickHouse/ClickHouse
| sylware wrote:
| On a "3nm" process, how much die real estate for 8GB/16GB of
| sram presuming we are in a fantasy world with massive dies?
| sroussey wrote:
| No change. SRAM got almost no process improvements compared
| to 5nm. And 5nm had minimal compared to 7nm. So 3nm has
| "3nm"-class small transistors and 7nm class SRAM.
| sylware wrote:
| Ok, there is no change.
|
| But how much die real estate for 8GB/16GB of sram in such
| fantasy world?
| wtallis wrote:
| Going based on AMD's first generation V-Cache (TSMC 7nm),
| you could get 1GB of SRAM onto a die slightly larger than
| a top of the line NVIDIA GPU. 2GB would be too large to
| fab as a single die. Or you could spend several million
| to get a Cerebras Wafer Scale Engine 2 with 40GB of SRAM
| in aggregate and a ton of AI compute power all on one
| wafer.
| sylware wrote:
| ok.
|
| Then 8GB sram with a modern CPU, Zen4 for instance, is a
| die of ~ 9 top-of-the-line GPUs dies.
|
| And now, with 3D? ... mmmmmh...
|
| What is the size of the apple M2 die already?
| daemin wrote:
| Might be worth taking a look at the announced Intel Xeon MAX
| chips then. I watched a video on it last night and these new
| server CPUs have a boatload of memory on the chip and can
| actually run without needing external DRAM.
| redox99 wrote:
| That would be incredibly inefficient. The price difference of
| such a 128MB L3 + 0GB DRAM, compared to let's say 128MB L3 +
| 2GB DRAM would be quite small, and in practice the performance
| would be much much higher because realistically in your 128+0
| setup you'll be wasting easily half of that on the OS or
| libraries data that isn't actually needed at the moment,
| whereas having DRAM you can actually use the whole 128MB of L3
| for things that need to be fast.
|
| It's also extremely niche to have a workload that requires such
| high CPU performance, but that it would fit including a linux
| OS in 128MB. Usually something like that is FPGA or DSP
| territory.
|
| I think what you want is a cheap ARM CPU with DRAM stacked on
| top of it on the same package (which exists).
| packetlost wrote:
| The Pine64 Ox64 has a Bouffalo Labs BL808 with 64MB of pSRAM
| for $6-8 and an MMU. It's already got sorta-working Linux build
| for it.
| castratikron wrote:
| Now that's what I'm talking about. Very cool, thank you.
| sylware wrote:
| I want to build my DYO usb keyboard, that including 64bits
| RISC-V assembly coding of the keyboard firmware.
|
| I have been lurking on the Ox64 for while but I need a few
| more green lights:
|
| - Is the boot rom enough to fully init the SOC? Aka, I don't
| need to run extra code I would need to include in my keyboard
| firmware on the sdcard.
|
| - The hardware programming manual misses the USB2 controller
| with its DMA programming. Even with some SDK example, you
| would need the hardware programming manual to understand
| properly how all that works.
|
| - I want to run my keyboard firmware directly from the sdcard
| slot, and that directly on the 64bits risc-v core, possible?
| (no 32bits risc-v core).
| packetlost wrote:
| The SDCard is not listed as a supported boot target, though
| you could almost certainly build a small bootloader that's
| stored in the qSPI flash and then load the rest of your
| code into RAM from there.
|
| I'm not the _most_ familiar with it, but I believe all
| hardware init (setting clock source, initialing USB, GPIO,
| etc.) is handled by the flashable firmware of which there
| are open source SDKs for.
| sylware wrote:
| Then, it means I would need to flash my keyboard
| firmware, or a SDcard loader firmware.
|
| I guess this is a "standard" flashing protocol over usb,
| enabled by the right button pressed at power on (plugging
| the USB cable). Would I need to including the flashing
| support code into my keyboard/SDcard loader firmware or
| is it handled separately by a different piece of
| hardware?
|
| Any specs on the format of the firmware image, to know
| which core will run the real boot code?
|
| Erk... soooo many questions in the wrong news :(
| packetlost wrote:
| I'm not sure you could flash over USB either without
| significant work. There's no UART <-> USB device on the
| Ox64, so you need to use an external one connected to
| some GPIO pins. You could _maybe_ build a DFU mode
| yourself, but I 'm somewhat skeptical it would work
| (though it might be possible, there's 3 cores in the
| thing). Despite there being not one, but TWO USB ports on
| the Ox64, neither are used for flashing. The micro USB
| type B connector is only used for power delivery and the
| USB-c is primarily intended for being a host device, ie.
| for plugging in a camera module.
|
| Edit: to clarify, there's a bug in the bootrom that
| prevents the initialization of the USB device. Newer
| revisions of the Ox64 _may_ fix this.
| sylware wrote:
| Then:
|
| - how do you run anything with that board if you cannot
| flash anything, I don't understand?
|
| - I cannot use it as usb keyboard controller because of a
| bootrom bug? (power/data via usb-c)
|
| Now I am confused.
| packetlost wrote:
| You can flash it, but you need to use GPIO pins and UART
| to do so.
|
| The bootrom bug only prevents you from flashing via the
| on-board USB-c port. You can use a separate USB <-> UART
| device plugged into GPIO pins to boot/flash.
| sylware wrote:
| How such a massive bug could slip thru?
|
| This is weird.
|
| If resellers with stocks know that, they will send back
| the boards and ask for a refund.
| packetlost wrote:
| I'm told it's a bug in the chip from the upstream
| supplier (BL808 by Bouffalo Lab), so there's not much
| they can do. IMO it's not a huge deal, and like I said,
| you can both flash with UART over GPIO pins or implement
| a bootloader yourself
| formerly_proven wrote:
| The buried lede of these is that they have asymmetric L3 cache.
| One CCD gets the 3D V-cache stacked on top, the other doesn't.
| That's almost certainly how AMD managed to solve the thermal and
| clock issues of the 5800X3D - they didn't. The 3D CCD will run
| hot (at low power) with lower clocks and the non-3D CCD is
| responsible for reaching the advertised boost clocks.
|
| Note how the 7800X3D, a single CCD SKU, has an advertised maximum
| clock of 5 GHz, compared to the 5.6/5.7 of the two dual CCD SKUs
| (the 7700X below it advertises 5.4 GHz). Don't expect the 3D
| cached-cores to exceed 5 GHz on those other parts.
|
| This means that the performance profile of the two CCDs is _very_
| different. Not "P vs E core" different, but still significant.
| If you run (most) games, you want to put all their threads on the
| first CCD. If you run (most other) lightly threaded workloads,
| you'd often want the other, non-3D CCD.
|
| This seems like a rather significant scheduling nightmare to me.
| ip26 wrote:
| That doesn't make sense. On the 5000 series, we saw 3D was
| worth ~20% performance uplift, clock for clock, in the right
| workloads.
|
| A 5GHz CCD with +20% would then be only barely faster than a
| 5.7GHz CCD with no 3D, at which point the pairing you suggest
| makes little sense.
|
| Besides, 5800X3D attained 5.6GHz so there's no big reason to
| think 7000X3D would be capped at 5GHz.
| doikor wrote:
| AMD said their drivers/software should handle it. Basically
| working with Microsoft to get the Windows scheduler make the
| correct decision. No clue how it would work with Linux though.
|
| Intel did similar work with E/P cores.
| csdvrx wrote:
| > Intel did similar work with E/P cores.
|
| Indeed, that's Lakefield as seen in the Intel Core i5-L16G7.
|
| The Scheduler changes (in Windows 11 at least) make it
| extremely pleasant to use on the Lenovo X1 Fold, even if
| there're some drivers problems (fortunately easy to fix:
| https://csdvrx.github.io/ )
| irishjohnnie wrote:
| I believe it is both a scheduling and memory allocation/loading
| issue. It is interesting that caches are NUMA but main memory
| is not.
| moonchild wrote:
| amd cache has been numa for a long time now
| Night_Thastus wrote:
| Modern schedulers like Window's multilevel feedback queue and
| Linux's CFS (Completely Fair Scheduler) have advanced a lot in
| the last decade.
|
| It would be annoying for kernal developers to make an exception
| for individual processors like this, but it's totally doable to
| make the scheduler handle this case.
| formerly_proven wrote:
| Unlike P/E cores you can't handle this generically, because
| the performance delta is workload-dependent. For E cores you
| can more or less just punt "background tasks" on them and
| pull tasks that are using a significant amount of CPU to the
| P cores.
|
| With X3D vs non-X3D cores which one is going to be faster
| depends on the workload. Most games benefit (sometimes
| drastically so), a lot of other stuff doesn't / is slower
| roughly in proportion to the clock reduction - just look at
| the 5800X and 5800X3D of the prior generation to see how
| split the benchmarks are; virtually every synthetic benchmark
| and most intensive things - compiling, encoding, running JS
| and other interpeters - suffer, games win.
|
| I suppose a good heuristic for desktop users would be to pin
| processes using the GPU to the X3D cores.
| mlyle wrote:
| I don't think it's quite as bad as you're saying, because
| reaching to the other chiplet for L3 isn't terrible in
| latency compared to hitting "close" L3. So probably the
| higher boost cores win overall in either case.
| deagle50 wrote:
| This is a good point. If the cores in the non-stacked CCD
| miss in local L3, it's still quicker to ask the stacked
| CCD instead of going to RAM. But GP's question is valid,
| how do you prefer the non-stacked CCD for certain high-
| intensity tasks without hardcoding their names/IDs?
| AndrewDavis wrote:
| I'd love to see a benchmark with the 3d vcache ccd cores
| disabled and benched against the non 3d part it is based
| on with one ccd disabled.
|
| Would be interesting to see at comparable clocks what the
| performance uplift of hitting the huge cache more often
| on the other ccd vs hitting main memory.
| wtallis wrote:
| _Can_ it actually hit the cache on the other chiplet? I
| thought that Zen 's L3 caches were somewhat private to
| the local CCX/CCD, such that threads running on one
| chiplet have no way to cause new data to be prefetched or
| spilled in to someone else's L3.
| feffe wrote:
| Can the CPU cores in a CCD access the L3 cache of another CCD
| with higher latency? If so the CCD without extra cache may
| still get a performance boost.
|
| I know there has been such designs in the past but I don't know
| how it works in the Ryzen CPUs.
| hajile wrote:
| Speed of cache between CCDs has always been much worse than
| within one CCD.
|
| At the same time, that latency is still peanuts compared to
| hitting main RAM.
|
| The die with the cache probably has better latency (provided
| the cache doesn't connect through the IO die), but lower
| clocks making it better with memory limited workloads.
|
| The other die will be better at non memory bound work, but
| should still be much better than normal at memory bound tasks
| too. I suppose it remains to be seen if lower latency and
| lower clocks beats higher latency and higher clocks, but I
| suspect 10% higher clocks won't compensate enough for cache
| hits being several times faster.
| emn13 wrote:
| 400Mhz off a 5.4Ghz clock is a little less than a 10% drop.
| While it'd be a shame if the scheduler used the "wrong" core,
| if that's the kind of price for a misjudgement, I don't expect
| it to be all that impactful in practice. IIRC published results
| from the 5800x3d also showed that quite a few workloads did
| have a small benefit from the larger l3 - not enough to make it
| worth it financially, but enough to roughly compensate for the
| lost frequency. The set of workloads where you'll see the full
| proportional slowdown due to the clockfrequency, with zero
| compensation from increased L3 is likely to be fairly small.
|
| All in all, this sounds more like a technically really
| interesting challenge, rather than a high-stakes bet. Even a
| "bad" scheduler probably won't do much harm.
|
| Realistic worst case, quite a few workloads that might have
| benefited from the new cache don't... but probably aren't hurt
| much either.
| morjom wrote:
| so the article says 128MB but in the later slides they say 144MB.
| Is the 16MB difference L2 then?
| neogodless wrote:
| Correct - a lot of the slides show L2 + L3 total cache size.
| throwaway0x7E6 wrote:
| imagine the UPS
| neogodless wrote:
| These are 120W CPUs. I'm not sure what your comment is supposed
| to communicate.
| 8jy89hui wrote:
| I think this person is referencing the game Factorio which is
| known to benefit from more cache. (UPS = updates per second)
| neogodless wrote:
| Ah ha! Thanks for the clarification!
|
| Good thing UPS is a unique acronym that isn't used
| elsewhere when discussing computers :)
|
| AAAAA
|
| (anti-"ambiguous acronym" advocates anonymous)
| Havoc wrote:
| Neat. Really struggling to justify any sort of upgrade my side to
| be honest though. 3700x is still plenty fast. Maybe when 4K
| gaming is a bit more mainstream...
| CyberDildonics wrote:
| Why would a different CPU help render a game at a higher
| resolution?
| Havoc wrote:
| Above comment of mine was made with a full system upgrade in
| mind.
|
| But for games cpu can improve game performance, especially
| when the single core perf is upgraded
| mrtranscendence wrote:
| I'm running a 5800x and a 3080 Ti, primarily for gaming and a
| bit of machine learning (for everything else I use a Mac). As I
| game at 4K there are definitely scenarios where upgrading would
| be helpful; games like Cyberpunk, A Plague Tale: Requiem, or
| The Callisto Protocol don't run particularly well on my setup.
| And ray tracing in general can be a challenge.
|
| Of course, 4/5s of what I play are indies that would run on a
| potato, so it's probably not worth upgrading. I nevertheless
| probably will build a new computer later on in the year, and a
| 4080 / 5800x3D combo is awfully tempting ...
| metadat wrote:
| Is this workload really CPU bound at all?
| mrtranscendence wrote:
| Not usually, but it can be, particularly when ray tracing
| is added to the mix. Of the three games I mentioned The
| Callisto Protocol is very much CPU limited (though more so
| with more powerful GPUs).
| Havoc wrote:
| Does 5800x to 3D make sense? Sounds like a lot of money for a
| small jump.
| Teever wrote:
| It depends on how much a used 5800x goes for on
| marketplace/ebay.
| scns wrote:
| It is still the cheapest jump you can make in that
| position. Other jumps need new mobo + CPU + RAM (AMD) or
| new mobo + CPU (Intel).
| mrtranscendence wrote:
| Oops. I meant 7800x3D.
| peteri wrote:
| The 7950X3D looks interesting, but I think the cache is on one
| CCD so it might only boost to 5GHz and the other CCD boosts to
| 5.7 as it doesn't have the cache.
|
| Going to need to wait for bench marks.
| britneybitch wrote:
| "3D" means that components are physically stacked more than one
| layer thick, right? Is there any public info about how heat
| dissipation is handled?
| Arrath wrote:
| > Is there any public info about how heat dissipation is
| handled?
|
| By pulling the chips back to 120w, it looks like!
| dlivingston wrote:
| I think primarily it refers to the cache being physically
| located above the CPU die, yes.
|
| It's worth noting that AMD also uses FinFET transistors, which
| are physically 3-D [0, 1] (compared to MOSFET transistors,
| which are planar / 2-D).
|
| [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fin_field-effect_transistor
|
| [1]: https://www.amd.com/en/press-releases/amd-
| demonstrates-2016j...
| adgjlsfhk1 wrote:
| Yeah. They put cache on top of the cores. Heat dissipation is
| handled by lowering the TDP a little and the fact that the
| cache doesn't produce much heat.
| britneybitch wrote:
| That makes sense. I imagined cores stacked on top of cores
| for some reason. Stacking cache does seem simpler.
| alberth wrote:
| Server chip.
|
| The 7950X3D makes for a phenomenal server chip (perf/cost).
|
| Do any cloud providers beyond OVH/Hetzner offer these "desktop"
| class chips available for hosting use cases?
| salusinarduis wrote:
| Question for people that read deep into these things. What is the
| best CPU for the linker stage of compiling? I would assume these
| high performing single core "gaming" CPUs would do well, but I
| must admit I care a lot about power efficiency as well. I have a
| 3900x and love that CPU for nearly everything but waiting on
| optimized builds.
| redox99 wrote:
| i9 13900k or r9 7950x. As far as I remember the compile
| benchmarks were worse on the 5800x3d than the 5800x.
|
| 7950x is more efficient than 13900k, so that's your answer.
| Idle usage ryzen is often worse than intel though, so pick your
| poison.
| db48x wrote:
| /me sighs. I need to come up with an excuse to upgrade...
| didgetmaster wrote:
| Same here. I just upgraded to a 5950X last year (I try to go at
| least 3 years between upgrades) but I am salivating already.
|
| I fully expected my data management software to be much faster
| on the new hardware since it uses multi-threading to make use
| of all those wonderful cores, but it blew me away just how fast
| it is. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVICKCkWMZE
|
| I might have to bite the bullet later this year if the 7950X3D
| benchmarks look really good once it releases.
| _zoltan_ wrote:
| I'm also on a 5950x and I need to find a reason to upgrade
| :))
| nevi-me wrote:
| Imagine the 9950x, that can be a good reason to want to
| upgrade them.
|
| I'm on a 3900x and 2070 Super. I mostly reduced using the
| desktop when I got the M1 and M1 Pro devices. I now use it
| remotely from another room in the house. I'll hold out
| despite the temptations, and only update in 2-3 more years
| from now.
| daemin wrote:
| I'm on a 5950x as well but I'll be sticking with it for many
| years to come as it's still one of the most efficient chips
| out there - source: Gamer's Nexus benchmark videos.
| yellow_lead wrote:
| Nice demo. I use my 3950x for compiling our c++ project, and
| I'm pretty happy with the speeds when using all the threads
| as well.
| ohgodplsno wrote:
| Here's an excuse not to upgrade:
|
| holy fuck it's horribly expensive these days.
| yellow_lead wrote:
| If it's something you use for work, the time saved could be
| justified if you have to compile or do something CPU-heavy
| often
| pca006132 wrote:
| I have a 20 core CPU (13600), it is already much faster in
| compiling large programs: it took me ~15mins to build linux
| kernel. Even if some future CPU can speed up the task by
| say 3X, I still have to wait for 5mins, and will be
| distracted. Perhaps the difference would be larger for
| tasks that are much more time consuming than this, say 3
| days vs 1 day.
| dinvlad wrote:
| Word is, the current top of the line chips can already
| compile it in 1 minute (!)
| tkinom wrote:
| About right, did it two years ago with 2 Sockets,
| 128Cores (64 core per socket), 256 Threads 2 Epyc
| Motherboard with 1TB DDR4. Build Kernel < 90 seconds.
| Should be faster nowadays....
| ohgodplsno wrote:
| Unfortunately, it is hard, especially at an individual
| scale to say "I'm going to save up these $4000 over the
| next year and a half in productivity". Doubly so if you're
| just salaried and your pay will come, whether you use the
| shitty company laptop that takes 15 minutes to build or
| your crazy home rig.
|
| I'd love for me to be able to just run all my builds on
| full blast on a 24 core beast at home, but if your
| interests also include games, you're looking at multiple
| thousands just to upgrade. Needless to say, my apartment,
| family, vacations and a dozen other things are well above
| in the priority list.
| wpm wrote:
| I upgraded to an X670E platform back in October.
| CPU+Mobo+RAM ran me up to $750 with a bundle from
| Microcenter (essentially, I got the RAM for free), and I
| reused my case and power supply. To upgrade to a "24 core
| beast", as close as you can get with the 7000 series is
| the 7950X (16C/32T), which I can get on Amazon for $550,
| minus the aftermarket price for my 7700X (and possibly my
| old rig, which was a Z170 intel platform). Even if I kept
| my old processor, a top of the AMD line rig costs about
| $1250, memory capacity not withstanding. Of course, that
| says nothing about the additional electricity costs, and
| I understand that my prices are not obtainable in most of
| the world unfortunately, but I think $4000 is a stretch
| unless you needed a load of RAM (it'd be about $600 to
| max out my motherboard to 128GB).
| ohgodplsno wrote:
| Assuming you do not get deals:
|
| * $500 for a CPU (7800X starts at $450)
|
| * $60 for a cooler because the Wraith Prism is shit.
|
| * $200 for a motherboard, maybe $100 if you want to try
| to cheap out and get something that might have unstable
| voltages, shit PCIe bandwidth or no NVMe slots, etc.
|
| * $200 for 32GB of quality DDR5-4800 (or 5600 if you want
| to be fancy), and that's easily used up these days.
|
| * $200 for a quality 750W power supply
|
| * $100 for a case with good enough airflow, assuming you
| don't already have one.
|
| * $200+ for at least 1TB of NVMe storage, easily much
| more
|
| So, assuming a new build that didn't get incremental
| upgrades in the past, building a new, powerful PC these
| days is going to run you $1500. Without even picking any
| top of the line stuff. Guess what didn't get included in
| there ? GPUs with their bloody ridiculous prices. If
| you're going with NVidia, this 4000 generation is a waste
| if you're buying anything but the 4090. You could
| absolutely buy a 4080 (or rather a 4070Ti), or a 4070,
| but they're such a horrible deal in terms of
| price/performance. And that's going to cost you at the
| absolute least $800 (for a 4070, which is a dogshit
| card). Or you can try to find a series 3000, but that's
| also going to run you $1000+. If you're going with AMD,
| your problems are similar, for cards that are really
| subpar. As for Intel, well, let's just say an A770 with
| your high end CPU might cause a few bottlenecks here and
| there.
|
| So, yes, if you're lucky enough to find deals _and_ to
| have stuff that you can still use from an old, recent
| rig, sure, building a new PC isn't _that_ expensive. If
| you have to do major upgrades, you're looking at multiple
| thousands. Pulling that much money out in one go for
| something that is ultimately not extremely necessary is
| something that can only be afforded by a very small
| percentage of people.
| kyriakos wrote:
| 7800x has an integrated GPU. If you are just coding,
| don't gaming or ML it's more than sufficient for day to
| day workstation use.
| Nullabillity wrote:
| You don't need to upgrade everything at once. Yes, modern
| high-end GPUs are ridiculously expensive. But my
| $200-5-years-ago RX480 is also still holding up just
| fine. It's still more expensive than it ought to be, but
| I can find it used for around $80 these days.
|
| And if you already have an older rig... just bring it
| over from that.
| RandomTisk wrote:
| Ugly motherboards with 99% of desired featureset: Somewhat
| almost reasonable prices.
|
| Pretty motherboards with 110% of desired featureset: Insert
| Fresh Kidney and/or Lung
| kitsunesoba wrote:
| My biggest gripe with most lowend-to-midrange motherboards
| is that they practically always have disappointing rear
| I/O, which is ridiculous to me particularly on mATX/ATX
| boards, because part of the point of having a desktop
| instead of a laptop is to have a ton of ports and little to
| no need for hubs/docks/etc.
|
| So I tend to end up buying something on the higher end even
| if I'm not using all the board's features. My current tower
| uses an ASUS ProArt X570 Creator.
| Semaphor wrote:
| I feel like nowadays you pay extra for your board not to
| have Gamer-RGB
| doikor wrote:
| It is the same for cases. Often the model with a solid
| side panel (no window) now costs more.
| Semaphor wrote:
| IME it's more that the ugly ones with a window or mesh go
| on sale all the time :/
| helf wrote:
| That's why I still use a ~15 year old Supermicro server
| chassis with desktop foot kit on it lol. I've upgraded
| the innards 2 or 3 times so far. Has 8 hotswap bays, tons
| of room. no fucking RGB or "windows" or any of that
| bullshit.
|
| I just built an i9-13900K replaced the LGA1366 2P board
| in it. It's an astounding performance bump, to mildly put
| it lol. I plan on using this chassis with this setup for
| probably another 5-10 years before upgrading again.
| csdvrx wrote:
| > Has 8 hotswap bays, tons of room
|
| refs?
| cesarb wrote:
| The board having Gamer-RGB should not be a problem as
| long as you can disable it on the BIOS. It would be like
| any other "extra" hardware your board has that you don't
| use (for instance, extra headers for front panel USB
| ports you don't have, or more SATA ports than you need).
|
| The case having a transparent side panel, on the other
| hand...
| bastardoperator wrote:
| I've trained myself to look at the cost from a different
| perspective. If I spend 5K on a monster rig once every 3
| years, the cost is around 1600 dollars per year. I'm spending
| approx 130 dollars a month or 4.35 dollars a day to drive a
| Rolls Royce.
|
| 4.35 a day isn't cheap, but I was spending more than that on
| starbucks everyday. So I stopped spending 10 dollars a day at
| Starbucks and opted for the rolls royce. I have a nicer rig,
| I'm healthier not drinking starbucks, and I'm saving a little
| money even if we factor in electricity costs.
| neogodless wrote:
| The AM5 motherboards are currently pricey, but overall if you
| don't buy bleeding edge, it's not unreasonable (in my
| opinion).
|
| My last build: MSI MAG X570 $200, Ryzen 9 5900X $400, G.Skill
| 2x16GB DDR4 3600Mhz CL16 $165, Samsung 980 Pro 1TB $150 =
| $915
|
| That's not a budget build by any means, but it's also not
| crazy when compared to previous builds in that tier over the
| past 15 years.
| didgetmaster wrote:
| The younger generation of programmers seem to think that a
| $1000 computer is crazy expensive these days. How spoiled
| we have become! When I built my first computer 30 years
| ago, the components cost just over $2K (and the components
| you wished you could afford were closer to $3K) and that is
| not inflation adjusted.
|
| That wasn't the first computer I owned, just the first one
| I built. I am sure some really old timers remember the ones
| that cost more that $5K.
| matwood wrote:
| Exactly. I see $1k for all that as a steal. I remember
| spending a lot of money on LVD SCSI in one machine I
| built to do anything to speed up disk access.
| sroussey wrote:
| Wasn't the original Mac like $2.5k ($7k inflation
| adjusted)?
|
| For the base model.
| mrtranscendence wrote:
| I feel like CPU prices aren't particularly bad right now.
| GPUs are awful, though, with prices going up much faster than
| even our currently high inflation, and price to performance
| ratios that have barely budged since last generation. I
| suspect we'll see AIB 4060s for sale at or above the $600
| mark.
|
| I've seen a bit of apologia for this, claiming that costs
| have risen so of course prices would increase as well. But
| prices are going up so much faster than inflation that I'm
| not sure that passes the sniff test. We should see 4080s for
| $850-$900, not $1200.
|
| All of this just in time for 30-series supplies to dwindle
| ... new 3080s are back up to the $1k mark. Sigh.
| fassssst wrote:
| Excited to see massive performance improvements in desktop
| hardware again. 7950X3D + an RTX 4090 + a PCIe 5 SSD will be
| quite the system for programming, machine learning, video
| editing, music production, gaming...
| photoGrant wrote:
| I'm on a 3970x, 3090 and nvme-pcie-4 x 4 (raid 0), 256gb ram...
| I haven't found a need to upgrade, or have reached this systems
| potential by any stretch. especially for video editing, music
| production and photography and compiling...
|
| I dunno the only direction I care for at the moment is TDP
| howinteresting wrote:
| Individual cores on the 7950x are roughly twice as fast as
| what you have. If your work isn't massively multithreaded,
| then a 7950x will likely perform quite a bit better than a
| Threadripper 3970x. (Though of course you won't be able to
| get more than 128GB RAM.)
|
| This is with clamping down TDP on the 7950x to roughly 110W.
| It's an absolute beast.
| skirmish wrote:
| Keep in mind that 128 GB barely works on AM5 (basically,
| EXPO/XMP doesn't, only regular JEDEC speeds, i.e. 4800
| MT/s) [1] 2 sticks of RAM up to 64 GB is the fully
| functional maximum.
|
| [1] https://old.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/xzj69v/is_anyone_
| runni...
| karamanolev wrote:
| Are you saying that 2x32GB is the max that allows for
| EXPO/XMP? I'm thinking about building a system like that
| and this is critical. Do you have any better resources
| that explore this more and test out different
| configurations?
| ciupicri wrote:
| Besides more RAM, 3970x also has proper ECC support.
| flumpcakes wrote:
| And more PCIe lanes, compared to the consumer platforms
| with a measly 20/24 (which is basically one GPU and one
| NVMe full bandwidth).
| burnte wrote:
| I'm on a 5800X with a 3080ti and 64GB, also PCIe 4.0 SSDs. I
| built in in 2019 then upgraded the CPU a year ago from a
| 3600x to the 5800x and it's so insanely fast for everything I
| do, including VMs, compiles, transcodes, etc. Nutty
| performance. The past few years have had amazing performance
| boosts.
| kyriakos wrote:
| AMD sticking to one socket (AM4) for multiple generations
| was a great move for end users. I am also on 3600x and just
| yesterday was looking to order a 5800x since the prices
| have dropped a lot and the performance gain is around 50%
| just by upgrading one component.
| nickjj wrote:
| I'm on a 7+ year old workstation with an i5-4460 (quad core,
| no HT) 3.2ghz, 16gb memory, first gen SSD and I also don't
| feel the need to upgrade.
|
| All of the web apps I build inside of Docker with WSL 2
| reload in a few dozen milliseconds at most. I can edit 1080p
| video without any delay and raw rendering speed doesn't
| matter because for batch jobs I do them overnight.
|
| Writing to disk is fast and my internet is fast. Things feel
| super snappy. I've been building computers from parts since
| about 1998, I think this is the longest I ever went without
| an upgrade.
| TacticalCoder wrote:
| > Writing to disk is fast and my internet is fast. Things
| feel super snappy. I've been building computers from parts
| since about 1998, I think this is the longest I ever went
| without an upgrade.
|
| I did like you: rocking a Core i7-6700 from, what, 2015 up
| until early 2022. 16 GB of RAM, NVMe PCI 3.0 x4 SSD, the
| first Samsung ones. I basically build that machine around
| one of the first Asus mobo to offer a NVMe M.2 slot.
|
| It was and still is an amazing machine. I gave it to my
| wife and I'm now using an AMD 3700X since about a year
| and... I'll be changing it for a 7700X in the coming weeks
| (hopefully).
|
| The 3700X is definitely faster than my trusty old 6th gen
| core i7 but Zen 4 is too good to be true so I'm upgrading.
|
| All this to say: you can stay with the same system for
| seven years then upgrade twice in less than 12 months!
| FloatArtifact wrote:
| When fully utilizing NVMe storage raid array are you maxing
| out CPU?
| photoGrant wrote:
| Not even close!
| doublepg23 wrote:
| I'm on a 5950X and AMD 6600 and getting stutters on Fedora 37
| with my two 4K displays. The weirdest thing is this wasn't an
| issue with my Intel NUC with measly 6th gen Iris graphics :(
| Queue29 wrote:
| Xorg or Wayland? I've got a RX6400 that runs 2 4k displays
| just fine - Ubuntu + Wayland
| theLiminator wrote:
| Quite tempted to make that exact upgrade myself, I'm still on a
| 3770k + 1070 gtx (which was an upgrade from a gtx 670).
|
| I've been holding out for a long time.
|
| Can't wait for my code to compile 10x faster and game at 10x
| the fps.
| Arrath wrote:
| > 7950X3D + an RTX 4090 + a PCIe 5 SSD will be quite the system
| for programming
|
| Agreed, but not for testing, please. Too much stuff out there
| already seems to be designed for or tested on what might as
| well be supercomputers like the above, and then get shipped out
| to run on Grandma's 7 year old <Misc Manufacturer> laptop.
| lopkeny12ko wrote:
| This is an odd take. Why _shouldn 't_ software benchmarks be
| showcased with the best available hardware? How am I supposed
| to reason about MySQL performance results taken from a run-
| of-the-mill dual-core machine from 2015?
| Arrath wrote:
| I'm not talking about benchmarks, I'm talking about average
| end user experience.
| unregistereddev wrote:
| I think they intended to refer to software development QA,
| not benchmarking. I do agree with the sentiment that
| consumer software should generally be usable on 10 year old
| hardware. "Generally" carries a lot of weight here, because
| intensive applications like CAD will always be laggy on old
| hardware.
| integricho wrote:
| it's meant for the multitude of electron crapware that's
| being shoveled down our throat.
| pawelduda wrote:
| Replace MySQL with any client-side app
| kitsunesoba wrote:
| The same thing happens with displays. Designers and devs are
| using things like high-end Dell Ultrasharps, LG UltraFines,
| the integrated screens in MacBook Pros, iMac 27"
| displays/Studio Displays, Pro Display XDRs, etc but in
| reality a huge number of the screens in use are things like
| those terrible 1366x766 TN panels that dominated budget
| 10"-17" laptops for over a decade. I'm fairly confident the
| low-contrast flat design trend that's been going for a while
| now wouldn't have been a thing if it were a requirement for
| UIs to be usable and reasonably good looking on a crappy $250
| Walmart special Dell Inspiron from 2012.
| WithinReason wrote:
| I understand the first 2, but where does a PCIe 5 SSD make a
| difference? Video editing?
| nightski wrote:
| We are already seeing SSDs with _over_ double the read speed
| and ~70% more write speed. You don 't see how that could make
| a difference? Even with 128GB of RAM on a workstation there
| are a lot of data sets that do not fit.
| WithinReason wrote:
| For training neural networks faster? I doubt SSD->RAM
| speeds are a bottleneck there. Are you reading training
| data faster than 6GB/s during training?
| nightski wrote:
| You don't even need to get to that complex of a scenario.
| Just running simple database queries would benefit from
| this.
| WithinReason wrote:
| Sure, I can see it being useful for servers, just not for
| 99% of home users.
| [deleted]
| jerrysievert wrote:
| moving from spinning rust to SSD was a huge improvement
| in day to day life. i still see lag (on my very fast
| machines) opening programs or loading data on my laptop
| that would be highly improved by doubling the speed of
| the hard drive. and i'm not even counting compiling or
| things that we might do that is different than other
| users.
| adgjlsfhk1 wrote:
| That's because SSDs had way lower latency. Upping the
| pcie gen will speed up sequential reads which were
| already really fast, but won't speed up random reads (or
| reduce latency) at all.
| Tostino wrote:
| It could allow for more parallelism (deeper queue depth)
| with those reads though
| jeffbee wrote:
| Full-access database queries? Indexed queries are going
| to randomly read blocks and PCIe 5 doesn't help. The only
| way I've perceived improvements from SSD linear access >
| 4GB/s is when doing gigantic ETL jobs that were not CPU-
| limited. Unfortunately a lot of ETL jobs _are_ CPU
| limited and some of the formats I work with are too
| intensive on the compute side to benefit from faster
| storage (like GeoJSON, ugh). Formats that are more CPU-
| friendly also tend to be smaller, making the storage less
| relevant.
|
| I think for general use most desktop and workstation
| users are going to get more benefits from faster random
| access and won't notice very high linear access speeds. I
| have two recent SSDs and one of them has a median access
| time of 12us and the other has a median of 30us. Even
| though the latter has gaudy benchmark numbers, can stream
| at many GB/s and can ultimately hit almost a million
| IOPS, higher-level application benchmarks lead me to
| prefer the former because random access waiting time is
| more important.
| nightski wrote:
| I was mainly talking about my usage patterns, not every
| desktop or workstation user. I work with a lot of data
| daily.
|
| Something more general might be game asset load speed.
| Those are often sequential reads. They put a ton of
| engineering effort into the latest consoles simply to
| improve that one thing.
| wtallis wrote:
| > They put a ton of engineering effort into the latest
| consoles simply to improve that one thing.
|
| Most of that effort was to ensure the processors could
| actually ingest data at the speeds that off the shelf
| SSDs could deliver it. The Xbox Series X shipped with
| what was a _low-end_ NVMe SSD at the time, and the PS5
| used a custom SSD controller primarily so they could hit
| their performance targets using older, slower flash
| memory rather than being constrained by the supply of the
| faster flash that was just reaching the market at that
| time.
|
| And there are still hardly any games that even make a
| serious attempt to use the available storage performance.
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-01-05 23:00 UTC)