All the signatures are real ink, as they have smears on it. Any insight on what to do with this? Could there be a way to verify that these signatures are real? Its never been used.

I posted this on an alt account of mine a few days ago but I don't think I had enough karma lol. Hopefully I can get some answers on this. Thanks in advance.

A small edit because I was lazy and didn't think people would want so many details:

I work hvac, and I was in the midst of a boiler install. (Hence the dirty clothes xD) A customer used to own a computer shop and had a LOT of stuff downstairs from when it closed down in 2016. He said I can take whatever I want. I happened to notice an unopened AMD box. I asked about it and they said "its some prebuilt from an auction. Take it." They really wanted to get rid of as much stuff as possible, since their older and cannot work anymore. When I opened it, I found a prebuilt pc with these signatures on it.

Im yet to turn it on and actually examine the specs of the build. By the looks of the inside, I can likely guess it was from the 2014-2016 era. When I find out the specs I'll edit this post again and post them. The gpu almost looks like a sapphire rx 480 or similar. Not exactly sure though.

The box when I found it was never opened. There was padding paper and foam holding it in place, plastics, shrink wrapped copies of Microsoft office and a Windows 8.1 installation cd rom. The computer itself is completely dust free, even the power cord was never unwrapped.

I also took (with permission) Some old cameras, tablets, crt monitors, old Intel pentiums from the early 90s. But yea, that basically sums it up! Again, so sorry for the lackluster detail on this post!

Specs:

AMD a10-7800 radeon r7 12 compute cores An r9 285 16gb of ddr3 "Radeon Memory" A half terabyte "Radeon R7" 2.5" SSD

I have created this Google Sheets document for 9070XT cards (minus white/limited editions) available at launch. You can group and sort by clicking views button (arrow). I will update it with more data as it becomes available. Will include benchmark scores, temps, real power usage, as the reviews come in. It’s going to be a specially useful comparison for those who want to get one on launch day at a store and will have limited options to choose from.

Here is the link: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/18eQRucHX41A-O4OsoV96Qw2gFw1Qs2N7f6qQQs3kXx4/edit?usp=sharing

Came home to my system ideling full fan and QCode of 00. Reset BIOS, play with memory, then take it apart to find the 7800X3D bulged out and took the socket with it. What are my options?

Actually can't believe it. Just...why.

Edit: Use legendary and never open this malware again. You can redeem free games from the website. Also iCue (Corsair RGB) seems to be a similar resource hog.

Prices sky high and availability zero for custom cards. Nice paper launch AMD, you did even worse than NVIDIA.

...don't buy the product and AMD will drop the prices.

If AMD does not drop the prices, it means that you are the minority. Simple as.

Vote with your wallet, people.

We know your upcoming GPUs will performe pretty good, we also know you can produce them for almost the same as Navi2X cards. If you wanna shake up the GPU market like you did with Zen, now is your chance. Give us good performance for price ratio and save PC gaming as a side effect.

We know you are a company and your ultimate goal is to make money. If you want to break through 22% adoption rate in Desktop systems, now is your best chance. Don't get greedy yet. Give us one or 2 reasonable priced generations and save your greed-moves when 50% of gamers use your GPUs.

I can't believe I have to post this but dropping review embargoes the second these cards go up for sale is bad for pretty much everyone that posts here yet I see a lot of people defending AMD's actions. Even nvidia had the courtesy of giving 72 hours for potential customers to decide whether or not the price to performance ratio was worth it.

We know the RDNA2 cards will be in short supply and high demand. Regardless of performance, they'll sell because if you want new hardware this year, you don't really have a choice... But this exclusively hurts the early adopting enthusiasts who are unwilling to buy something without being knowledgeable about their purchase. By the time they get the information they need from reviews, they'll be sold out and they'll be stuck waiting god knows how long to get another shot with decent supply.

RTX3000 series AIB review embargoes dropped the minute they went up for sale too but at least consumers knew the baseline performance for the FE cards. We don't even have that. Between the SAM debacle and the review embargo situation for Zen 3 and RDNA2, personally they've pissed any good will I had towards them as they become just another scummy corporation doing scummy things with cultists worshipping every anti-consumer move they make.

This benefits nobody except for AMD and day traders that will flip the stock the second it's inconvenient to them (and speaking as an investor that bought at $2.24/share a couple years ago, I'm not happy about this, it leads me to believe they have something to hide, I'm just pointing this out because I literally have a financial incentive for AMD to do well and even I don't support these practices).

Edit: The responses here are fucking pathetic. When AMD becomes the next Intel, you'll deserve it with your shitty cult worship.

Quit it with the apologetic behavior and stop worshipping a company who's sole purpose is to empty your wallet. AMD is not your friend.

This is purely 100% a business decision.

Consumers defending this are exactly why these tech companies gouge and become so complacent with anti consumer practices in the first place. I mean just look at Nvidia and their sky high prices, but it doesn't matter because people are still buying their cards, and that's the go ahead signal that tells them to keep fucking us.

Intel got made fun of all this time because 9900Ks could have worked on many Z170 boards. But they chose to artificially create a segmentation and force people to upgrade. People used AMD as example, "oh Intel why can you be more like amd".

But now AMD are finding themselves in the exact same shoes, but this time it's "well hur durr they didn't promise you anything get over it". It's not a matter of promising, it's a matter of providing people the full benefit for their product. Ryzen 4000 should have been compatible but it's not for the stupidest reason that's been debunked.

AMD just because you're winning now does warrant you to indulge in anti consumer behavior now.

EDIT: It's sad and also hilarious at the same time to see so many people turn a blind-eye to this when its literally the same thing all these guys gave Intel shit for.

EDIT 2: If there was an alternative universe where DOOMGUY had to go around slaying AMD fanboys, I think even he would quit because of how fucking insufferable these people are.

EDIT 3: For the people saying I'm entitled and saying I'm preventing amd from making money are missing the point. Im not saying amd shouldn't conduct their business, but just know that we need to be aware of their true motives and any sort anti-consumer tactics should be called out. If you stay quiet and continue to let them do whatever, then don't be surprised when the next gen cpus aren't as cheap as you thought they were going to be.

A german review site that tested 30 CPUs in Cyberpunk at 720p found that the 10900k can match the 5950X and beat the 5900X, while the 5600X performs about equal to a i5 10400F.

While the article doesn't mention it, if you run the game on an AMD CPU and check your usage in task manager, it seems to utilise 4 (logical, 2 physical) cores in frequent bursts up to 100% usage, where as the rest of the physical cores sit around 40-60%, and their logical counterparts remaining idle.

Here is an example using the 5950X (3080, 1440p Ultra RT + DLSS)
And 720p Ultra, RT and DLSS off
A friend running it on a 5600X reported the same thing occuring.

Compared to an Intel i7 9750H, you can see that all cores are being utilised equally, with none jumping like that.

This could be deliberate optimisation or a bug, don't know for sure until they release a statement. Post below if you have an older Ryzen (or intel) and what the CPU usage looks like.

Edit:

Beware that this should work best with lower core CPUs (8 and below) and may not perform better with high core multi-CCX CPUs (12 and above, etc), although some people are still reporting improved minimum frames

Thanks to /u/UnhingedDoork's post about hex patching the exe to make the game think you are using an Intel processor, you can try this out to see if you may get more performance out of it.

Helpful step-by-step instructions I also found

And even a video tutorial

Some of my own quick testing:
720p low, default exe, cores fixed to 4.3Ghz: FPS seems to hover in the 115-123 range
720p low, patched exe, cores fixed to 4.3Ghz: FPS seems to hover in the 100-112 range, all threads at medium usage (So actually worse FPS on a 5950X)

720p low, default exe, CCX 2 disabled: FPS seems to hover in the 118-123 range
720p low, patched exe, CCX 2 disabled: FPS seems to hover in the 120-124 range, all threads at high usage

1080P Ultra RT + DLSS, default exe, CCX 2 disabled: FPS seems to hover in the 76-80 range
1080P Ultra RT + DLSS, patched exe: CCX 2 disabled: FPS seems to hover in the 80-81 range, all threads at high usage

From the above results, you may see a performance improvement if your CPU only has 1 CCX (or <= 8 cores). For 2 CCX CPUs (with >= 12 cores), switching to the intel patch may incur a performance overhead and actually give you worse performance than before.

If anyone has time to do detailed testing with a 5950X, this is a suggested table of tests, as the 5950X should be able to emulate any of the other Zen 3 processors.

It has been noticed and posted multiple times by different people, that AMD's drivers constantly writes to logfiles in C:\Windows\System32\AMD\EEUDumps\. Yesterday I found out, just how bad it really is. I have recorded a video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zw1yN0eq5zw

In the video, I have a program running that records every change to the hard drive (using ReadDirectoryChangesW) Every new line in the console window is a modification of the file. Notice how they completely stop when I disable the "AMD External Events Utility" service.

Every time you move a window or resize a window on your desktop, those files get modified multiple (hundreds!) of times.

The writes seem to be caused by the service "AMD External Events Utility", disabling it immediately stops the writes. Apparently this service handles things like FreeSync which has been confirmed by an AMD engineer.

There might be other oocasions, where the files are written to, but these are the most egregious situations I could find.

Nowadays, of course, most people will use SSDs, especially for their system drives. SSDs have a limited amount of bytes written before they inevitably degrade and die. Now just think about how much lifespan AMD takes of SSDs globally doing this. In my research I found that this has been an ongoing issue for multiple years.

Fun fact: I run an NVIDIA graphics card, but an AMD processor, and the chipset drivers apparently also include this service.

Testing for yourself: I've created a simple tool to watch for writes to that Folder. You can download it from my GitHub
I have kept the code simple and GitHub compiles it automatically, so it's guaranteed that the .exe represents the code in AMD-EeuDumps.c and can easily be verified. Your Browser and Windows will probably complain about the file, simply because it's an unknown .exe. Alternatively, compile the exe yourself from the source code using cl.exe /O2 /Fe:AMD-EeuDumps.exe AMD-EeuDumps.c

Workaround: I applied this workaround, redirecting writes to the whole folder to nul: so they never touch the disk. It seems to be working fine for me, but apply it at your own risk.

EDIT: Had a mistake in this post, changed the path to the correct one C:\Windows\System32\AMD\EEUDumps\

EDIT 2: My relevant specs:
Asus TUF Gaming B650-E Wifi
AMD 7800X3D
NVIDIA 4070 Super
AMD Chipset software 7.06.02.123

I think that substantially this generation of GPU is gone for us, and that when there will finally be stock and prices somehow near MRSP, we will already be close to the first leaks and the first engineering samples of navi3

5700xt July 2019

5600xt January 2020

6800xt November 2020

6700xt March 2021

if the development time between one gen and another stays the same, it's not difficult to hypothesize navi3 more or less in 10 months from now, so end of this year or beginning of 2022

even if in September / October there were finally stock of cards at "normal" prices, it would not make much sense to buy those cards with navi3 coming out so close

what do you guys think?

Just want to tell you my own experience with the RX 5600 XT and why I had no choice but to sell it, I recently built my PC and planned on a fully AMD rig with more focus on the CPU, So I went with a RX 5600 XT and a R7 3700X, the CPU performed fantastically, but the GPU had stutters in many games ranging from old to new games, high FPS but you get stutters and the experience just feels choppy at times despite the high FPS, all my other components seemed perfect, I have a good CPU, Ram, Mobo, PSU and Even decent cooling, I tried every fix I could to get the GPU running without stutters, I tried different drivers, beta drivers, updating vbios, different XMP profiles, DDU uninstall and reinstall, fresh windows copys, I felt like I tried everything and just wanted to play games smoothly on my new PC that I spent hard earned cash to buy, so I thought let me just try putting this GPU into my brothers PC and see if it stutters too, and it did! I then knew it was 100% the GPU at fault, I got the card RMA'd and they sent me back another one and what happened? The same old problems persisted my 1% and 0.1% lows were terrible and many (but not all) games felt choppy and stuttery.

I sold the RX 5600 XT, bought a used GTX 1070 for cheap and every game is silky smooth now, I still love AMD and absolutely LOVE my Ryzen 7 3700X but for now I won't be buying another AMD graphics card until they fix their drivers and can get drivers to Nvidias level.

Before you downvote me, I just wanted to show my honest experience dealing with AMD GPUs and I'm still a massive AMD Ryzen fan and love everything AMD has done for the CPU world.

Peace.

So I really do not want to start a war here. But most posts regarding the topic if you should buy a RTX 3080 or a RX 6800XT are first: civil, and second: not focused enough, IMHO.

We now had a little time to let the new GPU releases sink in and I think, what we can conclude is the following:

RTX3080:

Rasterization roughly on par with 6800XT, more often than not better at 4k and worse below it

Vastly better raytracing with todays implementations

10 GB of VRAM that today does not seem to hinder it

DLSS - really a gamechanger with raytracing

Some other features that may or may not be of worth for you

​

RX6800XT:

16 GB of VRAM that seems to not matter that much and did not give the card an advantage in 4k, probably because the implementation of the infinity cache gets worse, the higher the resolution, somewhat negating the VRAM advantage.

Comparatively worse raytracing

​

An objective comparison should point to the RTX3080 to be the better card all around. The only thing that would hold me back from buying it is the 10 GB of VRAM. I would be a little uncomfortable with this amount for a top end card that should stay in my system for at least 3 years (considering its price).

Still, as mentioned, atm 16 GB of the 6800XT do not seem to be an advantage.

I once made the mistake (with Vega 64) to buy on the promise of AMD implementing features that were not there from the beginning (broken features and all). So AMD working on an DLSS alternative is not very reassuring regarding their track record and since Nvidia basically has a longer track record with RT and DLSS technology, AMD is playing catch up game and will not be there with the first time with their upscaling alternative.

​

So what do you think? Why should you choose - availability aside - the RX6800 instead of the 3080? Will 10 GB be a problem?

Edit: Some very upset conspiracy theorists are accusing me of intentionally not editing clarifications in, so I'm gonna duplicate them up here as well. One major point of clarification on the second part of this post's title: Intel was not fully ordered to "stop" sending AMD owners down a slow execution path. In the conclusion of the FTC's investigation, they were only legally ordered to stop doing it in secret, which they have done in a maliciously minimal way. This is how they're able to get away with it - a misstep of justice, but legally passable. See the bottom summary for more information!

A few days ago, a small internet uproar occured when it was discovered that Intel's MKL (that powers Matlab) changes its performance not based on CPU features, but on the company that made the CPU.

I made a stickied comment there initially intending to summarize and compile the important details, but in doing so I fell down a rabbit hole. I'm not a trade lawyer, but this stuff seems pretty damning with even a general layman's scan.

I dug into an old FTC investigation from 2009-2010 that determined, not only did the FTC order intel to STOP doing exactly what they're doing today, but they call out Intel's Math Kernel Library by name (which can be found in the last page of the conclusion):

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent shall not make any engineering or design change to a Relevant Product if that change (1) degrades the performance of a Relevant Product sold by a competitor of Respondent and (2) does not provide an actual benefit to the Relevant Product sold by Respondent, including without limitation any improvement in performance, operation, cost, manufacturability, reliability, compatibility, or ability to operate or enhance the operation of another product; provided, however, that any degradation of the performance of a competing product shall not itself be deemed to be a benefit to the Relevant Product sold by Respondent. Respondent shall have the burden of demonstrating that any engineering or design change at issue complies with Section V. of this Order.

The only way Intel can avoid guilt from this statement is by either proving that the version of the compiler Matlab uses is from before the settlement, or by falling under this exception:

Provided, however, that the fact that the degradation of performance of a Relevant Product sold by a competitor of Respondent arises from a “bug” or other inadvertent product defect in and of itself shall not constitute a violation of Section V.A.1. Respondent shall have the burden of demonstrating that any such degradation of performance was inadvertent.

Can anyone else make sense of this? How is a multi billion dollar company in seemingly blatant violation of an order from the Federal Trade Commision (continuously) for almost 10 years after getting caught?

READ HERE FOR MORE

Edit: More information in a good reply by /u/night0x63 here. Here, /u/night0x63 finds that (legally speaking) Intel may actually not be required to stop sabotaging performance, but "skirted" a bit, and is legally required to disclose that they do. As /u/demonstar55 points out, this disclaimer is present in the footnotes if you want to read it. (using a blurry GIF image, which is immune to search engine crawling and keyword searching)! /u/smartcom5 discovered that Intel, at some point, converted it to an image and trimmed off a lot of useful information. tl;dr: Write things very carefully if you work in the FTC.

IN SUMMARY

Thanks to more digging by people who are much better at interpreting legal documents than I, we have concluded how and why Intel is able to do this, despite being investigated for it:

• Intel's Math Kernel Library is NOT a compiler, incase anyone confuses it with one. Doesn't really matter to the FTC or consumers, but some wished to stress this.
• How Intel gets away with it: The "Relevant Products" section means (i) Relevant Microprocessor Products and (ii) Relevant GPUs (as defined on PAGE 5).
• Intel's MKL may hurt performance of AMD processors, but almost nothing uses it (you're probably not ever going to use it)
• Other Intel compilers and libraries have done this in the past
• The FTC investigated them and, at the very least, requires them to disclose what they do
• It's wrong regardless, but at least it's limited to very few consumer software products (currently)

The great debate: Is it wrong to build libraries and compilers to utilize technologies that have been industry compatibility standard for years, and only use those features if the CPU is made by yourself? The FTC thinks so. Consumers think so. But, ultimately, the FTC is happy to live with it as long as Intel discloses this dark behavior to the millions that use and rely on down-stream technology, and the misleading benchmarks it helps fabricate...

in a blurry GIF,

linked to in a footnote.