Discussion in 'AMD x86 CPUs and chipsets' started by Skramit, Nov 7, 2019.
Oh man, i want 2.5Gb now. 1Gb certainly does limit the internal transfers
Only 2.5Gb, rookie numbers. 10G SFP+ or nothing .
Your graphics card doesn't work without it..... as she holds up a network card? or is it a sound card?
The annoying thing with 2.5GbE at the moment, is that many 10GbE switches don't support it. I'm in this situation right now, I have a file server with dual 10GBE DAC, and 10GbE NIC's or integrated in my PCs, but my switch won't negotiate 2.5GbE on the RJ45 ports at all (only 1 or 10) and even with 1/2.5/5/10GbE transceivers, it won't negotiate 2.5g unless it is manually configured at both ends. This means my 2.5G access point will only run at 1GbE on a 10GbE port, it's very frustrating. The speed of 2.5Gb is alright, ~ 300MB/s, but really when you're copying RAID/SSD/NVME to SSD/NVME, it's pretty shit imo. Segwaying to 10GbE via 2.5G just feels like a waste of time. Since most things are internet based, outside of server I just don't think enough people care to drive the market, both for pricing and tech.
Probably won't happen until consumers get access to 10Gb internet.
And that wont happen here for at least... Oh... 100 years or so. Gotta pay off that NBN fail first.
I really don't understand the 2.5G, why not just go 10G and be done with it, the hardware is already available and the more people use it the cheaper it gets. 2.5G is just a half measure. We should also be moving toward fibre and get rid of copper, it's expensive, slow and power hungry.
Agreed, it's not even a stop gap measure though, it's just a number to put on the box that most people won't even utilise. There was a short run of 10GbE motherboards, but it's a lot of money for something few people use. Maybe once more/most devices have 2.5G it will drive the thirst for 10GbE.
2.5GbE is fine for regular users.
2.5GbE is fine to feed a Wifi6 router (although there are some that come with 10GbE sockets for those already on 10GbE).
10GbE is more of the domain of backbones, servers etc.
Very few home users will have a disk array on a NAS that will max out 5GbE. Even if you do, it won't be by much.
Not every thing needs 10GbE. Your printer, your TV, etc will do fine with 1Gb or 2.5GbE. Most users don't need more than 2.5GbE.. 2.5GbE is faster than the fastest magnetic disk. So unless your RAID configuration involving more than 4 disks, you won't be maxing out 2.5Gb ever. More importantly, there really isn't any task 2.5GbE can't do. Editing 4k video directly off your NAS is entirely possible at 2.5GbE.
Hence why pretty much every new motherboard comes with 2.5Gb installed other than say A520 boards.
10GbE can't really use existing cable infrastructure. Cables that have been installed when buildings and what not were built 30 or even 40 years ago.
If you upgrade your users to 10GbE then your back bones will need to go to 40GbE or faster.
There is a huge thermal cost, 10 times 2.5GbE.
There is a huge financial cost, 10 times 2.5GbE.
2.5GbE takes nothing away from 10GbE. 2.5GbE takes away from 1GbE. 2.5GbE WILL REPLACE 1GbE, NOT 10GbE.
Half measure? its 2.5times faster than 1GbE. So if your coming from 1GbE, a more than doubling of performance isn't nothing to be sneezed at. Its also the speed most magnetic disks can read/write at, and most SSD's will write at once they have filled up their cache. The only time that isn't true is if your running large raids, or 970PRO or optane ssds or raids of ssd's.
10GbE is already in the market place and has been for ~20 years. Its gotten cheaper but not by much. 10GbE just isn't going to become super cheap in the near term. You know what became a thing, bonded 1GbE links.
Fibre doesn't suit many types of installations. Again, cost. Particularly when 2.5GbE is still faster than what most people will get from even fiber to the home plans.
I don't get people complaining about people not getting 10GbE. If you want 10GbE, pay for 10GbE, its widely available and cheaper than its ever been. Don't argue that other people who don't need it should also pay for it. Honestly how many 10GbE points do you need in your home anyway? 1 link between your main PC and the NAS. Fine, do that. The proliferation of 2.5Gb an 5Gb has been enabling further 10Gb roll out. Because there are now chipsets that run at faster than 1gbE, designs are now being optimized for faster than 1GbE.
2.5GbE was really borne out of Wifi6. Because Wifi6 is now so fast, you are better off using it rather than 1GbE in nearly all applications. Hence why 1GbE is dead. Dead as 10Mbps is.
If there was no 2.5GbE, there would be NO cabled ethernet on items. Just Wifi.
And just to break us out of the networking discussion...
I just put my old AM3 Phenom II X6 cooler on my Ryzen rig, so I can put the wraith on the 5900x. I though no worries, its got heatpipes, it ran a125w CPU. Should be fine with a 65w CPU.
Man, its one noisy cooler. AMD has made huge progress on this front.
Maybe it needs some lube?
I'm up in the air about cooling.
Little annoyed at AMD dropping coolers.
No way in hell I'll resort to an aio. Don't like tower coolers.
I've got a 360 custom loop in the cupboard, but don't really want to go that route either. It makes my case so damn heavy that I prolapse my back when I have to move it. (Corsair 800D)
I'm hoping the wraith will do the job.
Presumably coolers will ship on the non x models, same way intel have been doing it for a while now with regular and k version chips
The Ryzen Wraith cooler is and excellent cooler it has twice as many heatpipes compared to the old AM3 ones, and is a much larger fin design, and has a much larger fan.
Its an excellent design. MITX are all designed to work with them, which is lovely, because Intel MITX gave me nothing but troubles, (and 4790ks stock heatsink was insufficient to run them at stock speed).
So will non-x models, with coolers, be cheaper than x models without coolers?
Maybe. I have adjusted the fan profile which has helped. But its not nearly as good as the wrait that came with my 3700x.
the cooler that came with the 3700x was fantastic.
ran 36-40 idle, and 55-60 in games, very decent for a stock cooler.
never overclocked on it, as switched to custom loop, but used the stock cooler for best part of 6 months prior to doing so!
AFAIK Coolermaster designed and built the AMD stock coolers/
My inner cynic thinks that yes there is an element of the cooler cost in the price of the processor they can get away selling the X chips that have no cooler as some kind of binning thing by saying that even though the non-X processors come with a cooler they are cheaper because binning and other vaguely marketing reasons. Alternatively they can just let the community start that rumour and then not say otherwise.
yer, whats a diffused chip really cost ? even if its $250 a chiplet with a IO die, it lets them slice the market up rather nicely
not blaming them, they've got the goodies we all want.
Probably more like us$50 (plus cooler/box costs on top). Any higher and the us$99 ryzen 3100 wouldn't exist given how good yields are at tsmc not going to be many dies so defective half had to be disabled...
I think that the raw profit margin on the chip itself is probably pretty high once you sell it as a CPU. If you figure out the sunk cost of the entire package (i.e. Zen 3) then I am not so sure the margin is still going to appear as that high a percentage. Using Zen 2 as a benchmark, the 3600 has one CCD with one core disabled per CCX. Both the 3300 and the 3100 could be operating on one CCD with only one good CCX. I guess that is one way to keep your yield percentage high. The reality is pretty high to me that these are being subsidised effectively by the 3950X and 3900X. Ironically I am running on stock cooling for the first time in a long time because I just haven't made my mind up on what to do there. I have the Wraith Prism which seems to be an adequate cooler at stock configuration but as soon as I try to push anything it is time to go home. I don't really object to the removal of the cooler in the package and I also don't really object to the no price reduction.
Slight correction yes the 3300x operates on one ccx (hence the enthusiest interest as no cross ccx latency) but the 3100 operates on both ccx. My point would be while I'd expect the 3100 to be lower margins it's still going to be sold at a manafacturing profit, it wouldn't exist otherwise they'd just keep selling a part like the 2500x. As you say the sunk cost, the R&D is huge in the hundreds of millions. That's probably why the cheaper parts like the 3300x/3100 don't come until later once the sunk cost is paid off, and in this gen AMD has gone another step and further restricted what parts are avaliable at launch to just the premium in each tier.
According to AdoredTVs website a Zen 2 chiplet costs roughly:
Edit, seeing Zen 3 is the same node and it's a pretty mature node now I'd imagine the costs are a little less now even though the Zen 3 chiplet is a redesign. We know the IO die is exactly the same as well so cost is probably the same seeing it's 14nm and a very mature node.
Down the page is more about coolers and packaging: