AMD Ryzen (Summit Ridge) Benchmarks Thread (use new thread)

[HiroThreading]

Apple is 100% shifting to AMD...

Sent from HTC 10
(Opinions are own)

Highly doubtful.

There's not even any support for AMD CPU instructions in macOS (makes it basically impossible to install macOS on an AMD Hacintosh).

 

[Nebojsha]

Highly doubtful.

There's not even any support for AMD CPU instructions in macOS (makes it basically impossible to install macOS on an AMD Hacintosh).

????

Sent fra min SM-G928F via Tapatalk

 

[BeepBeep2]

Highly doubtful.

There's not even any support for AMD CPU instructions in macOS (makes it basically impossible to install macOS on an AMD Hacintosh).

"Basically impossible"
http://amd-osx.com/download.html

 

[HiroThreading]

"Basically impossible"
http://amd-osx.com/download.html

Go ahead and try install macOS on an AMD platform, then come back and message me.

Or better yet, why don't you go to tonymacx86 forums and survey how many Hackintosh enthusiasts run AMD platforms.

 

[BeepBeep2]

Go ahead and try install macOS on an AMD platform, then come back and message me.

Or better yet, why don't you go to tonymacx86 forums and survey how many Hackintosh enthusiasts run AMD platforms.

Regardless of how many hackintosh enthusiasts run AMD platforms or how easy it is to install, I don't think Apple would have any trouble switching to AMD CPUs.

I have better things to do right now than to attempt to install macOS on AMD plaforms

 

[Nothingness]

There's not even any support for AMD CPU instructions in macOS (makes it basically impossible to install macOS on an AMD Hacintosh).

That just means Apple has not compiled in AMD support in their public releases, that's all.

 

[cytg111]

Go ahead and try install macOS on an AMD platform, then come back and message me.

Or better yet, why don't you go to tonymacx86 forums and survey how many Hackintosh enthusiasts run AMD platforms.

I fail to see the correlation between a handful of enthusiasts struggling with a steep DIY-hackintosh curve and Apple having an actual issue with targeting AMD hardware with their OS.

edit : too slow it seems. agree with ^ and ^^

 

[HiroThreading]

Regardless of how many hackintosh enthusiasts run AMD platforms or how easy it is to install, I don't think Apple would have any trouble switching to AMD CPUs.

I have better things to do right now than to attempt to install macOS on AMD plaforms

Installing macOS on unsupported hardware -- or even slightly supported hardware (e.g. some Broadcom network adapters, some AMD/Nvidia GPUs, most sound cards and so on) -- is an abslutely nightmare and major PITA.

That's why I said "basically impossible".

That just means Apple has not compiled in AMD support in their public releases, that's all.

Apple implements support for future/unannounced hardware in macOS' kernel in their OS updates (often way in advance for beta OS releases for their Xcode developers). Support is often written in for hardware that never even makes it to a finalised Apple product. For example, my R9 290X runs with little issue in OS X El Capitan, even though it never shipped in an Apple product. Heck, I think even Fiji is supported by macOS.

EDIT:

I fail to see the correlation between a handful of enthusiasts struggling with a steep DIY-hackintosh curve and Apple having an actual issue with targeting AMD hardware with their OS.

edit : too slow it seems. agree with ^ and ^^

Two things: Firstly, there's a hardware/software compatibility issue. You seriously need to understand that macOS' spectrum of support for hardware is a tiny fraction of Windows'.

Secondly: it's Apple. Their obsession and approach to brand perception is infamous in this industry.

I'm not saying it's impossible, but it is highly doubtful that Apple will jump to AMD.

 

[cytg111]

And we are saying no. .. Building OSX to support another x86 CPU brand would not break the bank for Apple.

 

[majord]

That s what some people call a "comparison", a 6950X/4GHz yield the same score, so that s way more than 4.2GHz, the 3.21GHz displayed on the pic is just fraudulous to say the least, but since it please a certain public why not...

Yes, it certainly looks like a poor 'comparison' judging by that. From what I can tell (From scrolling through that terrirble sandra results browser + looking at the confidence level data), a 6900K should be upper 400's @ stock.

Still, I would fully expect Zen Will suffer in this synthetic bench, (as does SB/IVB vs HSW + ) given IIRC it makes heavy use of AVX2.

 

[Veradun]

So basically you're saying that as Apple usually includes support for future/unannounced hardware (i.e. Zen) in macOS' kernel updates you should be able to leverage those updates to install MacOS on current and different hardware (i.e. FXsomething)?

:>

 

[Glo.]

I will clear something about Apple and AMD. Yes, for GPUs its easy to track the DeviceID's for the GPUs, in the kexts. But its almost impossible to track the CPUs in the OS.

Also, Ryzen compatibility will not make magically FX-series compatibility apparent. The Ryzen compatibility can be in the OS for some time already. But its extremely hard to spot/find.

 

[Nothingness]

Apple implements support for future/unannounced hardware in macOS' kernel in their OS updates (often way in advance for beta OS releases for their Xcode developers). Support is often written in for hardware that never even makes it to a finalised Apple product. For example, my R9 290X runs with little issue in OS X El Capitan, even though it never shipped in an Apple product. Heck, I think even Fiji is supported by macOS.

So what? Do you really think adding support for a new X86 CPU in MacOS is difficult? That thing even runs on ARM...

If AMD CPU proves to be good, I have very little doubt Apple has already demo-ed it to Intel to put pressure on them

 

[HiroThreading]

I will clear something about Apple and AMD. Yes, for GPUs its easy to track the DeviceID's for the GPUs, in the kexts. But its almost impossible to track the CPUs in the OS.

Also, Ryzen compatibility will not make magically FX-series compatibility apparent. The Ryzen compatibility can be in the OS for some time already. But its extremely hard to spot/find.

Yep.

Also, it's not just a problem with the OS, itself but also issues with things like bootloaders and EFI configs too.

Would it be impossible for Apple? Of course not. They're basically the world's most wealthy company. But something that cytg needs to explain is: what incentive is there for Apple to switch from Intel to AMD?

So basically you're saying that as Apple usually includes support for future/unannounced hardware (i.e. Zen) in macOS' kernel updates you should be able to leverage those updates to install MacOS on current and different hardware (i.e. FXsomething)?

:>

Maybe.

As Glo. said, for GPUs (and generally most devices connected over a PCIE or SATA bus) it's fairly easy to track what is and isn't supported by macOS in kexts (kernel extensions).

CPU support (e.g. Support for CPU instructions like SSE, AVX, turbo, sleep states and so on) is a lot harder to track.

I think the easiest giveaway for Apple not moving to the AMD platform is a lack of support for AMD chipsets/PCH in their kexts.

 

[DrMrLordX]

IBM still has a huge hand in developing their HP process at Albany.

The IBM fab acquisitions may have made (and/or make) major changes in GF's success. Their is an apparent increase in their core competence.

BTW unsure of what happened to GF 14XM but wasn't that the 14nm process they cancelled when they announced 14nm LPP and 22FDX? They may or may not have also licensed 14nm LPE which would basically replace 14XM?

 

[HiroThreading]

So what? Do you really think adding support for a new X86 CPU in MacOS is difficult? That thing even runs on ARM...

If AMD CPU proves to be good, I have very little doubt Apple has already demo-ed it to Intel to put pressure on them

See my post above. Very little is impossible for Apple, given its huge cash reserves. But Apple only does things if they have strong incentives or sees large potential growth in projects. Otherwise they play things very very safe.

Also, macOS (formerly OS X) is x86 only.

It's actually iOS that is able to be emulated on x86 platforms. Also, although Apple uses the ARM ISA for its A-series chips, iOS is not compatible with ARM chips from the likes of Qualcomm or MediaTek. That's not how chips work, guys.

Anyway, like I said earlier in this thread (or maybe it was another Zen thread), I'm really hoping Ryzen is a good product. Intel needs a good kick up the backside in the consumer CPU space.

 

[Glo.]

As Glo. said, for GPUs (and generally most devices connected over a PCIE or SATA bus) it's fairly easy to track what is and isn't supported by macOS in kexts (kernel extensions).

CPU support (e.g. Support for CPU instructions like SSE, AVX, turbo, sleep states and so on) is a lot harder to track.

I think the easiest giveaway for Apple not moving to the AMD platform is a lack of support for AMD chipsets/PCH in their kexts.

People are reporting they found Raven Ridge traces in the kexts. So yes, Apparently Apple is working on AMD hardware in their computers. It may be just for experiments, it may be something more. Only future will tell.

 

[cytg111]

...

AMD's Zen is x86 (and x64 too), just like Intel? Not sure you are aware of this.
For 99.9999% of workloads, Intel and AMD are interchangeable, same ISA, same extentions, same .....

 

[Nothingness]

Also, macOS (formerly OS X) is x86 only.

No it isn't.

It's actually iOS that is able to be emulated on x86 platforms. Also, although Apple uses the ARM ISA for its A-series chips, iOS is not compatible with ARM chips from the likes of Qualcomm or MediaTek. That's not how chips work, guys.

Oh yes please teach me how chips work

 

[HiroThreading]

AMD's Zen is x86 (and x64 too), just like Intel? Not sure you are aware of this.

Really? Do you have a link for this??

To think: I've been following Anandtech for over a decade, and this is the first time someone mentioned this.


Ok, the sarcasm is getting tiring. Come on man, there's no need to lower the conversation with statements like that.

For 99.9999% of workloads, Intel and AMD are interchangeable, same ISA, same extentions, same .....

...in a Windows context.

Yes they both feature the same ISA, but some CPU instructions need to be specifically supported by Microsoft's kernel (e.g. Intel C/S sleep and power saving modes).

 

[HiroThreading]

No it isn't.

You're going to have to expound your thoughts.

I am obviously talking about macOS and OS X well after the PowerPC transition.

Have you got macOS running on an ARM platform?

Oh yes please teach me how chips work

Such drama.

My point was that you can't simply take iOS 10, for example, and run it on say a RaspberryPi or device such as the Pixel.

I.e.
Just because:
Apple A-series = ARMv8 ISA
And:
Qualcomm Snapdragon = ARMv8 ISA

Does not imply:
Apple A-series = Snapdragon.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Apple cares about mobile more than real desktop/workstation SKUs and so we will have to see what AMD brings in that department.

 

[AtenRa]

Really? Do you have a link for this??

To think: I've been following Anandtech for over a decade, and this is the first time someone mentioned this.

AMD ZEN and Intel Core CPUs are x86/x64 compatible, means they can run the same Operating System (Windows/Linux x86/x64 etc ). If ZEN wasnt x86/x64 it wouldnt be compatible with Windows x86/x64.
latest OSx is x86/x64 compatible, means both Intel and AMD x86/x64 compatible CPUs can run this operating system.

Yes they both feature the same ISA, but some CPU instructions need to be specifically supported by Microsoft's kernel (e.g. Intel C/S sleep and power saving modes).

You dont need both the CPU AND Operating System to support all the ISAs, Core 2 Duo can run Windows 10 and Skylake Core i7 6700K can run Wndows XP (if you have the drivers).

 

[HiroThreading]

AMD ZEN and Intel Core CPUs are x86/x64 compatible, means they can run the same Operating System (Windows/Linux x86/x64 etc ). If ZEN wasnt x86/x64 it wouldnt be compatible with Windows x86/x64.
latest OSx is x86/x64 compatible, means both Intel and AMD x86/x64 compatible CPUs can run this operating system.

Thanks, but I was being sarcastic.

I've been following Anandtech, and sites like Tech Report, Beyond3D and Real World Tech for over decade. I know that Intel and AMD CPUs are both x86 and x86-64 compatible.

I find it pretty lamentable that a fellow tech enthusiast would even question if someone knew that AMD and Intel CPUs were both x86. It really takes away from the sense of community here, IMO.

You dont need both the CPU AND Operating System to support all the ISAs, Core 2 Duo can run Windows 10 and Skylake Core i7 6700K can run Wndows XP (if you have the drivers).

Yes I obviously get all that. But what I'm saying is that some CPU designs support instructions or extensions to the x86 ISA (e.g. SSE3, 3DNow!, SSE4.1, AVX2 and so on, as well as features such as power saving states and turbo modes) which need to be specifically supported by the operating system in order to be enabled. Most of these extensions are also not compatible with CPUs from rival vendors (as was originally the case with AMD64 before Intel licensed the tech from AMD).

So you can't develop an OS platform solely around Intel CPUs, support all their features, and then suddenly port it all to an AMD CPU platform and expect things to run perfectly. Things like turbo and sleep-states wouldn't work for example, and extensions such as AES or AVX2 may not be enabled, leading to performance issues. Beyond that there would be driver compatibility questions for all the system busses and perhaps even questions over compiler optimisation.

Could Apple solve these problems? Yes, of course they could. I never said they couldn't.

I simply take the position that they choose not to because they do not see enough of an incentive to change CPU vendors from Intel to AMD.

Anyway, I'm done with this thread. The discussion is getting a bit pissy, and this is supposed to be a thread about AMD's Zen -- which I look forward to seeing more info on.

 

[bjt2]

Thanks, but I was being sarcastic.

I've been following Anandtech, and sites like Tech Report, Beyond3D and Real World Tech for over decade. I know that Intel and AMD CPUs are both x86 and x86-64 compatible.

I find it pretty lamentable that a fellow tech enthusiast would even question if someone knew that AMD and Intel CPUs were both x86. It really takes away from the sense of community here, IMO.



Yes I obviously get all that. But what I'm saying is that some CPU designs support instructions or extensions to the x86 ISA (e.g. SSE3, 3DNow!, SSE4.1, AVX2 and so on, as well as features such as power saving states and turbo modes) which need to be specifically supported by the operating system in order to be enabled. Most of these extensions are also not compatible with CPUs from rival vendors (as was originally the case with AMD64 before Intel licensed the tech from AMD).

So you can't develop an OS platform solely around Intel CPUs, support all their features, and then suddenly port it all to an AMD CPU platform and expect things to run perfectly. Things like turbo and sleep-states wouldn't work for example, and extensions such as AES or AVX2 may not be enabled, leading to performance issues. Beyond that there would be driver compatibility questions for all the system busses and perhaps even questions over compiler optimisation.

Could Apple solve these problems? Yes, of course they could. I never said they couldn't.

I simply take the position that they choose not to because they do not see enough of an incentive to change CPU vendors from Intel to AMD.

Anyway, I'm done with this thread. The discussion is getting a bit pissy, and this is supposed to be a thread about AMD's Zen -- which I look forward to seeing more info on.

AVX(2) etc, task switch etc are ISA things. And INTEL and AMD are PERFECTLY compatible. The only thing different is virtualization. What you are saying is a matter of processor and chipset drivers. You may not have proper energy saving working, but the OS will boot and work... Obviously Apple must develop such drivers for AMD CPUs and chipsets, but the basic functionalities are fully compatible...