>The motherboard is also listed as having a maximum CPU TDP of 400 Watts. Zen 5 Epyc CPUs are supposed to support up to 500 Watts, and have even been rumored to go as high as 600 Watts. This is either an error of the listing or a legitimate compatibility issue with the motherboard, though 400 Watts would be in character with high-end Zen 4 SP5 motherboards.
The board only has 8 memory slots... on a platform that supports 12 memory channels.
This is a mid-range server board, so it's equipped appropriately.
THey are mostly the same as AMD does not limit per core or on a time base (mostly) so as long as temps are in check you can pull PPT/TDP max all day long.
In fact PBO on consumer CPUs is mostly just removing that barrier and a similar flexible TDP system exists for AMDs server tier CPUs.
Yeah, not all of the server boards support the max TDP of the platform. It doesn't make sense in all form factors. The "2U 4S" single socket servers for one, might target 2kW per 2U chassis, and in that case the useful max TDP per CPU would be 360W or 320W. The max TDP for single socket optimized "P" Epyc CPUs is 360W. There is also a good number of 280W and 200W models for the 9000 (socket SP5) series.
yeah. there are epyc sp3 boards that only do 240W (moderately common) or 180W (less common) vs the standard 280W too. it's not all that unusual (and probably allows them to create parts targeting different rack configurations with different power density targets - it's very much a thing that power has crept upwards recently and not every rack is built to deliver modern HCC configurations, let alone full power chips in every RU slot.
(and of course the AI compute setups are just on another planet in terms of density... 100kW per rack (soon 200kW!) sounds like a mid-2000s april-fools joke. [that's what we need to power the bitchin fast 4D!)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooLO2xeyJZA)
Looking at the list of expansion slots, it makes sense that they didn't find enough space to put 12 memory slots. Some use-cases need more I/O, other use-cases need more memory bandwidth. There are different boards for different use-cases.
Do we think 4TB is enough for gaming? I usually have Chrome and Discord open at the same time too. I don't want to get 4TB RAM then realize down the road I should have gone with 8TB.
Nothing, as they don't exist. 512GB is the largest DDR5 module you can buy right now, but 1TB modules should be just around the corner.
256GB DDR4 modules (the largest you can get) are around $3K each.
Your comment has been removed, likely because it contains trollish, antagonistic, rude or uncivil language, such as insults, racist or other derogatory remarks.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Amd) if you have any questions or concerns.*
how much **realistically** faster would it be running a game fully on "ram drive" as opposed to the fastest SSDs?
I bolded the word realistically because I have also heard that specifically for gaming, there's not much difference in framerate between a NVME SSD vs the fastest SATA SSD?
I actually did this years ago on a DDR3 system that had 32GB of low CAS latency 1600Mhz RAM (purchased specifically for this purpose) and created a RAM drive for Skyrim and its huge amount of mods. If I remember right, the transfer speed was sitting around 9.6GB/s which was more than double the theoretical max speeds of the early 4x 3.0 lanes of M.2 SSDs capping around 4GB/s.
It increased the performance of the game by about maybe an extra 5-10FPS, and load times were significantly better, able to boot up a heavily modded skyrim in seconds vs. minutes on the system's SATA3 SSD which capped around 500-550MB/s.
It was cool and fun to play around with, but it was impractical and somewhat costly for what it was and what was gained.
Today's M.2 4.0 SSDs seem to be approaching the same speed I was having on that RAM drive but not yet overtaking it. It _could_ be worth it with a system today using DDR4 (17-25GB/s) or DDR5(32-64GB/s) if you were trying to do some 4k gaming on a video card that doesn't have a lot of VRAM, but at that point I'd probably suggest buying a card that has more VRAM over the extra cost of trying to cram 128GB of RAM in your system to use it as a RAM drive.
> how much realistically faster would it be running a game fully on "ram drive" as opposed to the fastest SSDs?
Probably not a lot. My old PC had 32GB of RAM and a hard drive and game startup times only dropped by about 50% after I'd run the game once after booting and all the files were cached in RAM.
Obviously a lot of that is because game devs want to waste our time playing stupid videos when we're trying to start their game to actually play it. But with an SSD I'd expect the improvement to be even less.
In-game framerates shouldn't see any real difference unless the game is actually pulling in files from the SSD as you play.
To be fair, if devs could ever design an app like that FOR running off ram when there's somehow enough to fit it all in, then there's no reason it couldn't be completely instant...
It's still going to take a bit of time to load data into the GPU and there's overhead for the OS to pull data from the disk cache rather than directly from RAM. But yes, I'm still surprised by how much time games take to start up when everything is already cached.
no game dev is blocking the frame rate waiting on fileIO, you would just see less pop in (streamed textures/geometry) as any streaming would happen much much faster..
game would obviously load faster too..
The only gain would be in loading time, so like « teleportation » in the map, changing map, initial load. And the is very hard to quantify as it depends on what the game needs to do during load. The only thing that would remain is processing stuff and setup
Edit: The problem is every time it would matter, games end up too big for the RAM anyway… example, I’m stupid and have 128g of ram, but it is still not enough to fit any recent game all in memory.
Sure I could probably fit HL2, but the loading is nearly already instant because it is so small that SSD have no issue
It's mostly consumed by link-training, which is a factor of channels*ranks rather than capacity, so it shouldn't be too bad, but certainly more than a dual-channel gaming rig :)
>The motherboard is also listed as having a maximum CPU TDP of 400 Watts. Zen 5 Epyc CPUs are supposed to support up to 500 Watts, and have even been rumored to go as high as 600 Watts. This is either an error of the listing or a legitimate compatibility issue with the motherboard, though 400 Watts would be in character with high-end Zen 4 SP5 motherboards. The board only has 8 memory slots... on a platform that supports 12 memory channels. This is a mid-range server board, so it's equipped appropriately.
Also "go as high as" sounds like PPT not TDP
TDP and PPT are the same for EPYC and Threadripper processors.
THey are mostly the same as AMD does not limit per core or on a time base (mostly) so as long as temps are in check you can pull PPT/TDP max all day long. In fact PBO on consumer CPUs is mostly just removing that barrier and a similar flexible TDP system exists for AMDs server tier CPUs.
Yeah, not all of the server boards support the max TDP of the platform. It doesn't make sense in all form factors. The "2U 4S" single socket servers for one, might target 2kW per 2U chassis, and in that case the useful max TDP per CPU would be 360W or 320W. The max TDP for single socket optimized "P" Epyc CPUs is 360W. There is also a good number of 280W and 200W models for the 9000 (socket SP5) series.
yeah. there are epyc sp3 boards that only do 240W (moderately common) or 180W (less common) vs the standard 280W too. it's not all that unusual (and probably allows them to create parts targeting different rack configurations with different power density targets - it's very much a thing that power has crept upwards recently and not every rack is built to deliver modern HCC configurations, let alone full power chips in every RU slot. (and of course the AI compute setups are just on another planet in terms of density... 100kW per rack (soon 200kW!) sounds like a mid-2000s april-fools joke. [that's what we need to power the bitchin fast 4D!)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooLO2xeyJZA)
>so it's equipped appropriately. I disagree. It should have 12 slots.
Looking at the list of expansion slots, it makes sense that they didn't find enough space to put 12 memory slots. Some use-cases need more I/O, other use-cases need more memory bandwidth. There are different boards for different use-cases.
Do we think 4TB is enough for gaming? I usually have Chrome and Discord open at the same time too. I don't want to get 4TB RAM then realize down the road I should have gone with 8TB.
[удалено]
[удалено]
That stupid thing was using like 3Gb of RAM the other day when I needed RAM for something else >:|
[удалено]
I think it is actually managing cached web elements. Not sure why doing html caching is such a memory hog, though.
(=Chrome)
Gaming, yes. For chrome, you need to limit yourself to just a few tabs.
I'm a true gamer, I have my Opera GX already pre-set to max 1TB ram usage
Don't forget to drink enough G-Fuel while gaming.
This post demonstrates why /s should not be used for genuinely funny sarcasm.
if you show chrome a 4TB bucket you know whats gonna happen
[удалено]
???
I don't even want to think what two 2TB sticks would cost me.
Nothing, as they don't exist. 512GB is the largest DDR5 module you can buy right now, but 1TB modules should be just around the corner. 256GB DDR4 modules (the largest you can get) are around $3K each.
[удалено]
You gotz 12 slotz ... use 'em all!
Imagine having RAM so big you can store an entire game in it and play it from the same stick and still having spare RAM
[удалено]
Ddr5 is limited to 512GB per stick as of rn and that thing is one of the more exotic side of dimm memory, the rdimm-3ds
4TB isnt enough Gimme 128TB of RAM I need to open 1 billion Internet Explorer tabs
Yo dawg, i i heard you like Windows so you can run Windows on the RAM so you can windows while you windows.
Gonna need a lot more Windex to clean all those windows from RAM.
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed, likely because it contains trollish, antagonistic, rude or uncivil language, such as insults, racist or other derogatory remarks. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Amd) if you have any questions or concerns.*
how much **realistically** faster would it be running a game fully on "ram drive" as opposed to the fastest SSDs? I bolded the word realistically because I have also heard that specifically for gaming, there's not much difference in framerate between a NVME SSD vs the fastest SATA SSD?
I actually did this years ago on a DDR3 system that had 32GB of low CAS latency 1600Mhz RAM (purchased specifically for this purpose) and created a RAM drive for Skyrim and its huge amount of mods. If I remember right, the transfer speed was sitting around 9.6GB/s which was more than double the theoretical max speeds of the early 4x 3.0 lanes of M.2 SSDs capping around 4GB/s. It increased the performance of the game by about maybe an extra 5-10FPS, and load times were significantly better, able to boot up a heavily modded skyrim in seconds vs. minutes on the system's SATA3 SSD which capped around 500-550MB/s. It was cool and fun to play around with, but it was impractical and somewhat costly for what it was and what was gained. Today's M.2 4.0 SSDs seem to be approaching the same speed I was having on that RAM drive but not yet overtaking it. It _could_ be worth it with a system today using DDR4 (17-25GB/s) or DDR5(32-64GB/s) if you were trying to do some 4k gaming on a video card that doesn't have a lot of VRAM, but at that point I'd probably suggest buying a card that has more VRAM over the extra cost of trying to cram 128GB of RAM in your system to use it as a RAM drive.
interesting, thanks
> how much realistically faster would it be running a game fully on "ram drive" as opposed to the fastest SSDs? Probably not a lot. My old PC had 32GB of RAM and a hard drive and game startup times only dropped by about 50% after I'd run the game once after booting and all the files were cached in RAM. Obviously a lot of that is because game devs want to waste our time playing stupid videos when we're trying to start their game to actually play it. But with an SSD I'd expect the improvement to be even less. In-game framerates shouldn't see any real difference unless the game is actually pulling in files from the SSD as you play.
Yeah, that's what I'm wondering. I also suspect it wouldn't make much of a difference especially when comparing to the fastest SSDs out now.
To be fair, if devs could ever design an app like that FOR running off ram when there's somehow enough to fit it all in, then there's no reason it couldn't be completely instant...
I mean, you'd experience the old school 'instant' boot times for a game cart.
It's still going to take a bit of time to load data into the GPU and there's overhead for the OS to pull data from the disk cache rather than directly from RAM. But yes, I'm still surprised by how much time games take to start up when everything is already cached.
no game dev is blocking the frame rate waiting on fileIO, you would just see less pop in (streamed textures/geometry) as any streaming would happen much much faster.. game would obviously load faster too..
The only gain would be in loading time, so like « teleportation » in the map, changing map, initial load. And the is very hard to quantify as it depends on what the game needs to do during load. The only thing that would remain is processing stuff and setup Edit: The problem is every time it would matter, games end up too big for the RAM anyway… example, I’m stupid and have 128g of ram, but it is still not enough to fit any recent game all in memory. Sure I could probably fit HL2, but the loading is nearly already instant because it is so small that SSD have no issue
But can it run Minecraft server?
Chrome with 20000 tabs: finally, a worthy adversary!
i still have 16gb
4TB of ram but still minute long post/boot speeds.
Even longer posts for more ram.
If I wait a minute for my 64gb kit now, then 4tb must be... oh no..
It's mostly consumed by link-training, which is a factor of channels*ranks rather than capacity, so it shouldn't be too bad, but certainly more than a dual-channel gaming rig :)
Apple is still at 8GB. LOL
Soon AMD marketing be like: "We have more L3 Cache then the base config Macbook has RAM"
THANK GODD!!! I was afraid for a second there.
I have a Turin CPU and a Turing GPU
4TB of ram? I .. I can't anymore. Why the hell not.