- May 22, 2015
- 6,905 (4.05/day)
|Processor||Intel i5-6600k (AMD Ryzen5 3600 in a box, waiting for a mobo)|
|Motherboard||ASRock Z170 Extreme7+|
|Cooling||Arctic Cooling Freezer i11|
|Memory||2x16GB DDR4 3600 G.Skill Ripjaws V (@3200)|
|Video Card(s)||EVGA GTX 1060 SC|
|Storage||500GB Samsung 970 EVO, 500GB Samsung 850 EVO, 1TB Crucial MX300 and 3TB Seagate|
|Audio Device(s)||Audioquest Dragonfly Red :D|
|Power Supply||Seasonic 620W M12|
|Mouse||Logitech G502 Proteus Core|
|Software||Arch Linux + Win10|
From what I've read, AMD consciously compromised on the memory performance front to get the product out. My guess is they'll enable faster DDR for this generation and come up with an improved solution in the next iteration.And calling the interconnect Infinite Fabric is like putting race stripe on a car and expecting it to go faster.
Something is not adding up here. From the information that was floating around it sounded like the Infinite Fabric is the bottleneck due to threads moving between CCX.
But with AMD releasing that statement that nothing wrong with the Windows scheduler it looks like that bus is the bottleneck in all scenarios.
And its sounds like all the memory issues are related to the bus being in sync with the memory.
Looks like a huge overlook on AMD side.
But I'm willing to bet they will offer significant IPC improvement on Zen 2.0 and it will be largely due to addressing the bus speed.
But this compromise is just like when we "compromise" and buy whatever CPU we can, even if we know a better one is just around the corner. If we'd wait for the perfect CPU, we'd never buy anything. The same as AMD, if they wanted to fix everything, they'd never release. Because once fixed, the bottleneck would simply move somewhere else, and once that was fixed the bottleneck would move again and so on.