AMD Zen / Ryzen 1-2-3XXX serie tråden

[G]

Halvtullete spekulasjon fra meg: Kommer de til å hoppe over PCIe 5.0 og gå rett for PCIe 6.0? Siden det helst har vært AMD som har vært i bresjen for PCIe 4.0, så kanskje PCIe 6.0-ryktet passer i denne tråden?

https://www.guru3d.com/news-story/pcie-6-specification-finalized-in-2021-and-4-times-faster-than-pcie-4.html

For ordensskyld, det står ingenting i artikkel om noe hoppe bukk over PCIe 5.0. Var kun en tanke som jeg lekte med.

Computex ser ut til å evt. bli av den digitale sorten i 2020, om den kommer i stand, september 2020 er det det de postulerer i artikkel?

Quote

COMPUTEX Online 2D Exhibition. - The new online platform will be launched on September 28 to display and promote exhibitors' products and services.

https://www.guru3d.com/news-story/organization-taitra-cancels-2020-computex.html

 

Interessant fra HWInfo:

Quote

Motherboard manufacturers will always tweak anything processor related to become a bit faster compared to the competition, and well, just as a feature to offer the best performing motherboard. And as such, they can apply a trick. The HWInfo tool now introduces Power Reporting Deviation.

Hele:

Spoiler

Motherboard manufacturers will always tweak anything processor related to become a bit faster compared to the competition, and well, just as a feature to offer the best performing motherboard. And as such, they can apply a trick. The HWInfo tool now introduces Power Reporting Deviation.

Power Reporting Deviation is a new feature available on AMD Ryzen CPUs that tells how much the CPU telemetry seen by the CPU differs from real world (expected) data. This value has a useful meaning only under full CPU load and values around 100% (95 - 105 %) mean the telemetry is working correctly. On systems with a higher deviation under full load this means the CPU thinks it's working at lower or higher power than expected for the given SKU, hence out of specification. This is usually caused by the mainboard vendor (often intentionally) providing wrong calibration data in BIOS (AGESA) to fool the CPU to run at a higher power than the limit for the SKU.

The Stilt (overclocker) wrote a piece on understanding all this, which we'll show below:

Ryzen CPUs for AM4 platform rely on external, motherboard sourced telemetry to determine their power consumption. The voltage, current and power telemetry is provided to the processor by the motherboard VRM controller through the AMD SVI2 interface. This information is consumed by the processors power management co-processor, that is responsible for adjusting the operating parameters of the CPU and ensuring, that neither the CPU SKU, platform or infrastructure specific limits are being violated.

The weakness of this method is, that the telemetry essentially uses an undefined scale for the current (and hence power) measurements. This means that the motherboard VRM controller will send an integer between 0 - 255 to the CPU, and based the reference value known by the co-processor firmwares, this integer is converted to a figure, that represents a physical current drawn by the CPU. Based on the accurately known current flow and the voltage, it is possible to calculate to CPU power draw in Watts (V * I).

The reference value mentioned earlier is generally different for each of the motherboard make and model, unless there are boards which have an identical power circuitry. Because of that, it is on the motherboard manufacturers responsibility to find the correct value for their motherboard design through the means of calibration, and then to declare it properly in AGESA, during the bios compile time. In case the motherboard design specific, correct value differs greatly from the declared value, there will be a bias in the power consumption seen by the CPU. In case the declared value is greater than the actual value, the power consumption seen by the CPU is greater than it actually is. Likewise, if the declared value would be an understatement... the CPU would think it consumes less power than it actually does.

Since at least two of the largest motherboard manufacturers, still insist on using this exploit to gain an advantage over their competitors despite being constantly asked and told not to, we thought it would be only fair to allow the consumers to see if their boards are doing something they're not supposed to do. The issue with using this exploit is, that it messes up the power management of the CPU and potentially also decreases its lifespan because it is running the CPU outside the spec, in some cases by a vast margin. Also, it can cause issues when this exploit goes undetected by a hardware reviewer, since both the performance and the sofware based power consumption figures will be affected by it.

For example, if we take a Ryzen 7 3700X CPU that has 65W TDP and 88W default power limit (PPT), and use it on a board which has declared only 60% of its actual telemetry reference current, we'll end up with effective power limit of ~ 147W (88 / 0.6) despite running at stock settings (i.e. without enabling manual overclocking or AMD PBO). While the 3700X SKU used in this example typically cannot even reach this kind of a power draw before running into the other limiters and limitations, the fact remains that the CPU is running far outside the spec without the user even acknowledging it. This exploit can also cause additional cost and work to the consumer, who starts wondering about the abnormally high CPU temperatures and starts troubleshooting the issue initially by remounting the cooling and usually, eventually by purchasing a better CPU cooler(s).

HWiNFO will display "Power Reporting Deviation" metric under the CPUs enhanced sensors. The displayed figure is a percentage, with 100.0% being the completely unbiased baseline. When the motherboard manufacturer has both properly calibrated and declared the reference value, the reported figure should be pretty close to 100% under a stable, near-full-load scenario. A ballpark for a threshold, where the readings become suspicious is around ±5%. So, if you see an average value that is significantly lower than ~ 95% there is most likely intentional biasing going on. Obviously, the figure can be greater than 100%, but for the obvious reasons it rarely is

As stated before, this metric is only valid during a relatively stable near-full-load condition. That is due to the typical measurement accuracy of the VRM controller telemetry, and also due to the highly advanced and fast power management on Ryzen CPUs, that not only result in extremely low idle, but also in extremely rapidly changing power consumption. A suggested workload to get a stable and reproducable deviation metric is Cinebench R20 NT, with the HWiNFO sample rate set to less or equal to 1000ms.

As of now, outside of certain MSI motherboards, the biasing isn't end-user controllable. In case there is clear evidence of biasing taking place on certain motherboards or their bios versions, please contact the manufacturer and ask them to remove the telemetry biasing from the bios. The biasing can be implemented in different ways, it can be tied to a specific setting(s) (known as an "auto-rule") in the bios or be fixed in a certain bios version or in all available bios versions.

Here is an practical example recorded on MSI X570 Godlike motherboard, using the most recent 1.93 beta-bios version.
For this bios version MSI has declared 280A reference current, when the correct value that produces near 100% result (i.e. no deviation) and also a matching power draw compared to other boards (same CPU and workload) is 300A. This means that the board allows 7.14% (300/280) higher power draw for the CPU than AMD specifications state. Compared to the worst violators (up to 50%) this is minor infraction, so MSI deserves a benefit of a doubt whenever this is intentional or a honest error.

With the proper 300A setting, the average HWiNFO "CPU Power Reporting Deviation" during Cinebench R20 NT is 99.2%.
With this setting, the average CPU core frequency is 4027.4MHz, power consumption seen by the CPU 140.964W (of 142W limit) and peak CPU temperature of 73°C.

With 225A setting (75% of the actual), the average HWiNFO "Power Reporting Deviation" during Cinebench R20 NT is 75.3%.
With this setting, the average CPU core frequency is 4103.5MHz, power consumption seen by the CPU 125.241W (of 142W limit) and peak CPU temperature of 80°C.

With 150A setting (50% of the actual), the average HWiNFO "Power Reporting Deviation" during Cinebench R20 NT is 50.2%. With this setting, the average CPU core frequency is 4106.6MHz, power consumption seen by the CPU 91.553W (of 142W limit) and peak CPU temperature of 79°C. This setting is already limited by maximum voltage allowed by the silicon fitness (FIT), so there were pretty much no addition performance gains, or ill-effects for that matter to be had.

I'd like to stress that despite this exploit is essentially made possible by something AMD has included in the specification, the use of this exploit is not something AMD condones with, let alone promotes.
Instead they have rather actively put pressure on the motherboard manufacturers, who have been caught using this exploit.

In short: Some motherboard manufacturers intentionally declare an incorrect (too small) motherboard specific reference value in AGESA. Since AM4 Ryzen CPUs rely on telemetry sourced from the motherboard VRM to determine their power consumption, declaring an incorrect reference value will affect the power consumption seen by the CPU. For instance, if the motherboard manufacturer would declare 50% of the correct value, the CPU would think it consumes half the power than it actually does. In this case, the CPU would allow itself to consume twice the power of its set power limits, even when at stock. It allows the CPU to clock higher due to the effectively lifted power limits however, it also makes the CPU to run hotter and potentially negatively affects its life-span, same ways as overclocking does. The difference compared to overclocking or using AMD PBO, is that this is done completely clandestine and that in the past, there has been no way for most of the end-users to detect it, or react to it.

Update: AMD posted a response.

"We are aware of the reports claiming that select motherboards may be under-reporting certain power telemetry data that could alter the performance and/or behavior of AMD Ryzen processors under certain conditions. We are looking into the accuracy of these reports. 

"We want to be clear with our customers: AMD Ryzen processors contain a diverse array of internal safeguards that operate independently of external data sources. These safeguards enforce the safety and reliability of the processor during stock operation. Based on our initial assessment, we do not believe that altering external telemetry in the manner described by those public reports would have a material impact on the longevity or safety of a user's processor."

https://www.guru3d.com/news-story/hwinfo-application-beta-introduces-power-reporting-deviation-sensorcpu-lifespan-reducing-mobo-enhancements.html

 

Hvordan sammenlikner dette B-Die kit'et fra G.Skill seg med 16GBx2 3200 CAS 14 B-Die kit'et? Hva havner en på CAS dersom 4400 kit'et kjørte på 3200 Mhz?

Quote

G.Skill are excited to release a series of high-speed, low-latency memory kits, up to DDR4-4400 CL17-18-18-38 32GB (16GBx2). 

G.SKILL is releasing new extreme-speed DDR4 memory kits that push 16GB and 8GB modules up to DDR4-4400 with a low latency of CL17-18-18-38 across the board, under the Trident Z Royal family. Upgrading specifications across all three fronts of memory frequency speed, module capacity, and low memory latency, these specifications are engineered with Samsung B-die ICs and designed for the latest Intel Z490 platform to achieve higher performance for gaming and content creation. <snip>

https://www.guru3d.com/news-story/g-skill-pushes-ddr4-4400-cl17-memory-kits-with-high-capacity-16gb-modules.html

Endret 13. juni 2020 av G

[Nizzen]

38 minutes ago, G said:

Halvtullete spekulasjon fra meg: Kommer de til å hoppe over PCIe 5.0 og gå rett for PCIe 6.0? Siden det helst har vært AMD som har vært i bresjen for PCIe 4.0, så kanskje PCIe 6.0-ryktet passer i denne tråden?

https://www.guru3d.com/news-story/pcie-6-specification-finalized-in-2021-and-4-times-faster-than-pcie-4.html

For ordensskyld, det står ingenting i artikkel om noe hoppe bukk over PCIe 5.0. Var kun en tanke som jeg lekte med.

Computex ser ut til å evt. bli av den digitale sorten i 2020, om den kommer i stand, september 2020 er det det de postulerer i artikkel?

https://www.guru3d.com/news-story/organization-taitra-cancels-2020-computex.html

 

Interessant fra HWInfo:

Hele:

  Reveal hidden contents

Motherboard manufacturers will always tweak anything processor related to become a bit faster compared to the competition, and well, just as a feature to offer the best performing motherboard. And as such, they can apply a trick. The HWInfo tool now introduces Power Reporting Deviation.

Power Reporting Deviation is a new feature available on AMD Ryzen CPUs that tells how much the CPU telemetry seen by the CPU differs from real world (expected) data. This value has a useful meaning only under full CPU load and values around 100% (95 - 105 %) mean the telemetry is working correctly. On systems with a higher deviation under full load this means the CPU thinks it's working at lower or higher power than expected for the given SKU, hence out of specification. This is usually caused by the mainboard vendor (often intentionally) providing wrong calibration data in BIOS (AGESA) to fool the CPU to run at a higher power than the limit for the SKU.

The Stilt (overclocker) wrote a piece on understanding all this, which we'll show below:

Ryzen CPUs for AM4 platform rely on external, motherboard sourced telemetry to determine their power consumption. The voltage, current and power telemetry is provided to the processor by the motherboard VRM controller through the AMD SVI2 interface. This information is consumed by the processors power management co-processor, that is responsible for adjusting the operating parameters of the CPU and ensuring, that neither the CPU SKU, platform or infrastructure specific limits are being violated.

The weakness of this method is, that the telemetry essentially uses an undefined scale for the current (and hence power) measurements. This means that the motherboard VRM controller will send an integer between 0 - 255 to the CPU, and based the reference value known by the co-processor firmwares, this integer is converted to a figure, that represents a physical current drawn by the CPU. Based on the accurately known current flow and the voltage, it is possible to calculate to CPU power draw in Watts (V * I).

The reference value mentioned earlier is generally different for each of the motherboard make and model, unless there are boards which have an identical power circuitry. Because of that, it is on the motherboard manufacturers responsibility to find the correct value for their motherboard design through the means of calibration, and then to declare it properly in AGESA, during the bios compile time. In case the motherboard design specific, correct value differs greatly from the declared value, there will be a bias in the power consumption seen by the CPU. In case the declared value is greater than the actual value, the power consumption seen by the CPU is greater than it actually is. Likewise, if the declared value would be an understatement... the CPU would think it consumes less power than it actually does.

Since at least two of the largest motherboard manufacturers, still insist on using this exploit to gain an advantage over their competitors despite being constantly asked and told not to, we thought it would be only fair to allow the consumers to see if their boards are doing something they're not supposed to do. The issue with using this exploit is, that it messes up the power management of the CPU and potentially also decreases its lifespan because it is running the CPU outside the spec, in some cases by a vast margin. Also, it can cause issues when this exploit goes undetected by a hardware reviewer, since both the performance and the sofware based power consumption figures will be affected by it.

For example, if we take a Ryzen 7 3700X CPU that has 65W TDP and 88W default power limit (PPT), and use it on a board which has declared only 60% of its actual telemetry reference current, we'll end up with effective power limit of ~ 147W (88 / 0.6) despite running at stock settings (i.e. without enabling manual overclocking or AMD PBO). While the 3700X SKU used in this example typically cannot even reach this kind of a power draw before running into the other limiters and limitations, the fact remains that the CPU is running far outside the spec without the user even acknowledging it. This exploit can also cause additional cost and work to the consumer, who starts wondering about the abnormally high CPU temperatures and starts troubleshooting the issue initially by remounting the cooling and usually, eventually by purchasing a better CPU cooler(s).

HWiNFO will display "Power Reporting Deviation" metric under the CPUs enhanced sensors. The displayed figure is a percentage, with 100.0% being the completely unbiased baseline. When the motherboard manufacturer has both properly calibrated and declared the reference value, the reported figure should be pretty close to 100% under a stable, near-full-load scenario. A ballpark for a threshold, where the readings become suspicious is around ±5%. So, if you see an average value that is significantly lower than ~ 95% there is most likely intentional biasing going on. Obviously, the figure can be greater than 100%, but for the obvious reasons it rarely is

As stated before, this metric is only valid during a relatively stable near-full-load condition. That is due to the typical measurement accuracy of the VRM controller telemetry, and also due to the highly advanced and fast power management on Ryzen CPUs, that not only result in extremely low idle, but also in extremely rapidly changing power consumption. A suggested workload to get a stable and reproducable deviation metric is Cinebench R20 NT, with the HWiNFO sample rate set to less or equal to 1000ms.

As of now, outside of certain MSI motherboards, the biasing isn't end-user controllable. In case there is clear evidence of biasing taking place on certain motherboards or their bios versions, please contact the manufacturer and ask them to remove the telemetry biasing from the bios. The biasing can be implemented in different ways, it can be tied to a specific setting(s) (known as an "auto-rule") in the bios or be fixed in a certain bios version or in all available bios versions.

Here is an practical example recorded on MSI X570 Godlike motherboard, using the most recent 1.93 beta-bios version.
For this bios version MSI has declared 280A reference current, when the correct value that produces near 100% result (i.e. no deviation) and also a matching power draw compared to other boards (same CPU and workload) is 300A. This means that the board allows 7.14% (300/280) higher power draw for the CPU than AMD specifications state. Compared to the worst violators (up to 50%) this is minor infraction, so MSI deserves a benefit of a doubt whenever this is intentional or a honest error.

With the proper 300A setting, the average HWiNFO "CPU Power Reporting Deviation" during Cinebench R20 NT is 99.2%.
With this setting, the average CPU core frequency is 4027.4MHz, power consumption seen by the CPU 140.964W (of 142W limit) and peak CPU temperature of 73°C.

With 225A setting (75% of the actual), the average HWiNFO "Power Reporting Deviation" during Cinebench R20 NT is 75.3%.
With this setting, the average CPU core frequency is 4103.5MHz, power consumption seen by the CPU 125.241W (of 142W limit) and peak CPU temperature of 80°C.

With 150A setting (50% of the actual), the average HWiNFO "Power Reporting Deviation" during Cinebench R20 NT is 50.2%. With this setting, the average CPU core frequency is 4106.6MHz, power consumption seen by the CPU 91.553W (of 142W limit) and peak CPU temperature of 79°C. This setting is already limited by maximum voltage allowed by the silicon fitness (FIT), so there were pretty much no addition performance gains, or ill-effects for that matter to be had.

I'd like to stress that despite this exploit is essentially made possible by something AMD has included in the specification, the use of this exploit is not something AMD condones with, let alone promotes.
Instead they have rather actively put pressure on the motherboard manufacturers, who have been caught using this exploit.

In short: Some motherboard manufacturers intentionally declare an incorrect (too small) motherboard specific reference value in AGESA. Since AM4 Ryzen CPUs rely on telemetry sourced from the motherboard VRM to determine their power consumption, declaring an incorrect reference value will affect the power consumption seen by the CPU. For instance, if the motherboard manufacturer would declare 50% of the correct value, the CPU would think it consumes half the power than it actually does. In this case, the CPU would allow itself to consume twice the power of its set power limits, even when at stock. It allows the CPU to clock higher due to the effectively lifted power limits however, it also makes the CPU to run hotter and potentially negatively affects its life-span, same ways as overclocking does. The difference compared to overclocking or using AMD PBO, is that this is done completely clandestine and that in the past, there has been no way for most of the end-users to detect it, or react to it.

Update: AMD posted a response.

"We are aware of the reports claiming that select motherboards may be under-reporting certain power telemetry data that could alter the performance and/or behavior of AMD Ryzen processors under certain conditions. We are looking into the accuracy of these reports. 

"We want to be clear with our customers: AMD Ryzen processors contain a diverse array of internal safeguards that operate independently of external data sources. These safeguards enforce the safety and reliability of the processor during stock operation. Based on our initial assessment, we do not believe that altering external telemetry in the manner described by those public reports would have a material impact on the longevity or safety of a user's processor."

https://www.guru3d.com/news-story/hwinfo-application-beta-introduces-power-reporting-deviation-sensorcpu-lifespan-reducing-mobo-enhancements.html

 

Hvordan sammenlikner dette B-Die kit'et fra G.Skill seg med 16GBx2 3200 CAS 14 B-Die kit'et? Hva havner en på CAS dersom 4400 kit'et kjørte på 3200 Mhz?

https://www.guru3d.com/news-story/g-skill-pushes-ddr4-4400-cl17-memory-kits-with-high-capacity-16gb-modules.html

All B-die er så og si samme "dritten"
CPU imc og ram pcb har kanskje mest å si i disse dager med VELDIG gode hovedkort som Asus Apex

Rammen setter man jo som man selv vil/klarer.

Endret 13. juni 2020 av Nizzen

[Knutgrus]

G skrev (39 minutter siden):

Halvtullete spekulasjon fra meg: Kommer de til å hoppe over PCIe 5.0 og gå rett for PCIe 6.0? Siden det helst har vært AMD som har vært i bresjen for PCIe 4.0, så kanskje PCIe 6.0-ryktet passer i denne tråden?

https://www.guru3d.com/news-story/pcie-6-specification-finalized-in-2021-and-4-times-faster-than-pcie-4.html

For ordensskyld, det står ingenting i artikkel om noe hoppe bukk over PCIe 5.0. Var kun en tanke som jeg lekte med.

PCIe 4 spec finalization var i oktober 2017. Produkter kom ikke før i 2019?

PCIe 5 spec finalization var i mai 2019. Ingenting tilgjengelig i overskuelig fremtid.

PCIe 3 var med oss aaaalt for lenge!

[Nizzen]

11 minutes ago, Knutgrus said:

PCIe 4 spec finalization var i oktober 2017. Produkter kom ikke før i 2019?

PCIe 5 spec finalization var i mai 2019. Ingenting tilgjengelig i overskuelig fremtid.

PCIe 3 var med oss aaaalt for lenge!

Pci-e 3.0 kom i bruk med x79? mener jeg på. Selv da var det rimelig ubrukelig. Måtte kjøre en patch fil i windows for at den skulle kjøre pci-e 3.0.  Selv om GTX 680 støttet 3.0, så gav det ikke noe gevinst før man kjørte 3-way sli og i nesten 4k oppløsning  Tok lang tid før 3.0 gav noe forbedring i annet enn ssder i raid-0 som jeg kjørte på den tiden. Høyere sekvensiell lese -og skrivehastighet var alt jeg fikk

Endret 13. juni 2020 av Nizzen

[Theo343]

6 hours ago, Knutgrus said:

PCIe 4 spec finalization var i oktober 2017. Produkter kom ikke før i 2019?

PCIe 5 spec finalization var i mai 2019. Ingenting tilgjengelig i overskuelig fremtid.

PCIe 3 var med oss aaaalt for lenge!

Jepp, PCIe4 ble kraftig forsinkelt pga. problemer.

[Knutgrus]

Var det ikke rykter om å skippe 4? Eller husker jeg feil?

Det trengs uansett tid for å komme med produkter så snart standarden er satt. Klager ikke på det  Men er det lov til å håpe på nvme med 20 GB/s +++ i 2023?

[Nizzen]

1 minute ago, Knutgrus said:

Var det ikke rykter om å skippe 4? Eller husker jeg feil?

Det trengs uansett tid for å komme med produkter så snart standarden er satt. Klager ikke på det  Men er det lov til å håpe på nvme med 20 GB/s +++ i 2023?

Hva skal du med så høy sekvensiell ytelse? Like teit som å ha en 128 core cpu til å spille CS go....

Høy 4k random read @ QD=1 derimot

Endret 14. juni 2020 av Nizzen

[Knutgrus]

Duuuuh! 4 i raid 0 og skrike sjekk ut bench-numberrrzzzz!!!!

Med det ene kommer det andre  

Men det var ment med en undertone sarkasme  

[G]

15 hours ago, Nizzen said:

All B-die er så og si samme "dritten"
CPU imc og ram pcb har kanskje mest å si i disse dager med VELDIG gode hovedkort som Asus Apex

Rammen setter man jo som man selv vil/klarer.

Men du ga ros til G.Skill og anbefalte B-Die sommer 2019, før Zen2 var sluppet i markedet. Det var vel det eneste som dugde med antatte erfaringer i fra Intel-universet, men så får man vel ikke så mye glede av B-Die på AMD, regner med at det er dette du mener?

 

Obs, ny chipset driver ute til ihvertfall ROG Crosshair VIII Hero (WiFi), sjekket i USA. Ble litt usikker når filnavnet bærer 550. Release notes gjorde meg heller ikke klokere. Kanskje sjekke Norge, U.K. elns.:

Quote

Version 2.04.09.131

2020/06/11

50.21 MBytes

AMD Chipset Driver V2.04.09.131 for Windows 10 64-bit

 

Endret 14. juni 2020 av G

[ExcaliBuR]

G skrev (3 timer siden):

Obs, ny chipset driver ute til ihvertfall ROG Crosshair VIII Hero (WiFi), sjekket i USA. Ble litt usikker når filnavnet bærer 550. Release notes gjorde meg heller ikke klokere. Kanskje sjekke Norge, U.K. elns.:

Er nok bare de som ligger hos AMD allerede., evt. faktisk forrige ref. versjonsnr. hos Asus.

[G]

1 hour ago, ExcaliBuR said:

Er nok bare de som ligger hos AMD allerede., evt. faktisk forrige ref. versjonsnr. hos Asus.

Versjonsnummer er nyere hos AMD ja. Takker for bidraget ditt 

Edit:

Nesten tech-jesusen sin beste kommentar:

 

Endret 14. juni 2020 av G

[Theo343]

Siden chipsettvifta har blitt lat og ikke orker mer enn 3200rpm for tia uten å protestere høylytt følger jeg spent med på temperaturen om dagen. Fra kjølige dager til de varmeste dagene nå har idle steget fra 53 til 60, men fortsatt godt innafor med vifta helt i idle.

[Simen1]

AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT and Ryzen 9 3900XT Listed on Amazon with a shipping Date

3600XT with Wraith Spire, max boost 4.5 GHz, available July 7, price 284,84 EUR (VAT incl.)

3900XT without cooler, max boost 4.7 GHz available July 7, price 569,69 EUR (VAT incl.)

Dette er italienske priser og Italia har 22% VAT på elektronikk. Konvertert til NOK og justert for VAT-forskjellen blir det hhv 3200 og 6400 kr. Altså hhv 20 og 28% høyere enn de eksisterende 3600X box og 3900X box.

[MrMarbles]

Simen1 skrev (8 minutter siden):

AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT and Ryzen 9 3900XT Listed on Amazon with a shipping Date

3600XT with Wraith Spire, max boost 4.5 GHz, available July 7, price 284,84 EUR (VAT incl.)

3900XT without cooler, max boost 4.7 GHz available July 7, price 569,69 EUR (VAT incl.)

Dette er italienske priser og Italia har 22% VAT på elektronikk. Konvertert til NOK og justert for VAT-forskjellen blir det hhv 3200 og 6400 kr. Altså hhv 20 og 28% høyere enn de eksisterende 3600X box og 3900X box.

Vil heller tippe prisene blir satt etter dollaren. Men spørs jo selvfølgelig hvor de norske distributørene handler fra.

[scuderia]

6 minutes ago, MrMarbles said:

Vil heller tippe prisene blir satt etter dollaren. Men spørs jo selvfølgelig hvor de norske distributørene handler fra.

Alt blir satt etter dollar uansett om det er Italia eller Norge. Eneste kommentar er at Italia har ganske høye hw priser generelt

[Simen1]

Jeg vil tippe Norge, Italia og resten av Europa handler i euro fra AMD siden AMD priser både i dollar og euro (for hvert sitt marked). Rent fysisk produseres de i Asia og sendes sikkert ut tidlig nok til at både Norske og Italienske nettbutikker har de på lager på lanseringsdagen.

[MrMarbles]

Vil uansett tippe at de prisene ikke er realistisk på sikt. 284 Euro er farlig nært 3700X (308EUR). Tenker da spesielt på Ryzen 5 3600XT. Prisen er langt over hva Ryzen 5 3600X koster i dag (tenker da på hos Amazon i Italia). 

At det er day1 priser og de vil holde seg der i kanskje en måned blir nok tilfelle, men tviler på at de blir liggende så høyt i lang tid.

[Simen1]

Ja, det er nok bare veiledende. Når førstekjøperne har fått sitt så faller det i rykk og napp.

[Mala]

Har fått i oppgave å sette sammen én  maskin, budsjett 15k. Det skal spilles på denne og jeg er i grunn lite oppdatert etter jeg selv handlet meg maskin for noen år tilbake. Nevøene mine spiller litt forskjellig, men Fortnite, GTAV og COD/WArzone er populært. 1440p 144hz skjerm,mus og kabinett er i boks.  Så da trenger man bare resten ?

Jeg kikket litt i "Den perfekte PC-pakke" tråden og den The  Alchemist pakken ser tilsynelatende ganske så grei ut.

Hovedkort: MSI B450M Mortar Max
Prosessor: AMD Ryzen 7 3700X
Skjermkort: XFX Radeon RX 5700 XT Thicc II 8GB
Minne: Corsair Vengeance LPX 3000MHz CL15 16GB

SSD: Adata XPG SX8200 Pro 1TB

Strømforsyning: EVGA GQ 650W

Noen som tenker noe sånn ved første øyekast? Finnes det bedre hovedkort, eller kanskje ett nvidia kort i stedet for AMD?  RAM? Jeg har NULL erfaring med ryzen bygg når det er sagt.

[Nizzen]

1 hour ago, Mala said:

Har fått i oppgave å sette sammen én  maskin, budsjett 15k. Det skal spilles på denne og jeg er i grunn lite oppdatert etter jeg selv handlet meg maskin for noen år tilbake. Nevøene mine spiller litt forskjellig, men Fortnite, GTAV og COD/WArzone er populært. 1440p 144hz skjerm,mus og kabinett er i boks.  Så da trenger man bare resten ?

Jeg kikket litt i "Den perfekte PC-pakke" tråden og den The  Alchemist pakken ser tilsynelatende ganske så grei ut.

Hovedkort: MSI B450M Mortar Max
Prosessor: AMD Ryzen 7  
Skjermkort: XFX Radeon RX 5700 XT Thicc II 8GB
Minne: Corsair Vengeance LPX 3000MHz CL15 16GB

SSD: Adata XPG SX8200 Pro 1TB

Strømforsyning: EVGA GQ 650W

Noen som tenker noe sånn ved første øyekast? Finnes det bedre hovedkort, eller kanskje ett nvidia kort i stedet for AMD?  RAM? Jeg har NULL erfaring med ryzen bygg når det er sagt.

Hvis du vil ha MEST mulig fps i spill for pengene, så ville jeg ha byttet ut Adata sx8200pro med den billigste sata/nvme ssden i den størrelsen. Deretter ville jeg vurdert 10700kf cpu dette 2060 super skjermkortet 
https://www.elkjop.no/product/data/pc-komponenter/grafikkort/46939/pny-geforce-rtx-2060-super-twin-fan-grafikkort-8g?utm_id=Pricecomparison2989_5_False&utm_medium=Pricecomparison

Denne rammen: https://www.proshop.no/RAM/GSkill-RipjawsV-DDR4-3600-C18-DC-16GB/2818599
Hovedkort: Gigabyte Z490M 

Ser det er litt dumt å anbefale Intel i en AMD tråd da, men jeg står for det uansett

Endret 15. juni 2020 av Nizzen