Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

AMD Ryzen 7 1800X Benchmarked – Giving Intel’s $1000 Chips A Run For It

wccftech.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 278 posts

Re: AMD Ryzen 7 1800X Benchmarked – Giving Intel’s $1000 Chips A Run For It

#21

Post by tmd83 »

wyager wrote: post #11
lostmsu wrote: post #6

That does not really make sense. Why would physics simulation and prime calculation be so much slower? I would not trust those benchmarks.

My guess would be branching behavior. The Intel branch predictor could be better for that sort of stuff.

I was weird out by some of those figure too. I thought Ryzen floating point units were smaller than intel so how come its so better in the floating point benchmark. The SSE performance being so out there compared to anyone also looks very interesting.

It could be the benchmarks are very focused on some particular kind of operation where Ryzen is very suited/unsuited for. Definitely need real app and more sophisticated benchmark. It looks to be a good processor probably miles ahead of Bulldozer in many department but what in terms of current gen intel in popular workload has to wait for March 2nd.

Re: AMD Ryzen 7 1800X Benchmarked – Giving Intel’s $1000 Chips A Run For It

#22

Post by kinghajj »

lostmsu wrote: post #6

That does not really make sense. Why would physics simulation and prime calculation be so much slower? I would not trust those benchmarks.

If those benchmarks make use of AVX, that could be another explanation. Even without those instructions, Zen has less-powerfull FP units than Skylake. One advantage Zen might have is in mixed codes, since it has 10-issue segmented into 6 int and 4 float, while Skylake is 8-issue mixed between int and float.

Re: AMD Ryzen 7 1800X Benchmarked – Giving Intel’s $1000 Chips A Run For It

#23

Post by kogepathic »

krzyk wrote: post #7
std_throwaway wrote: post #2

What about ECC memory? Intels desktop processors fail hard on that feature.

Why do you need that in desktop env? What's the usecase when it can be beneficial to have expensive ECC RAM instead of the ordinary one? I was always thinking that ECC can prevent blue screens/kernel faults, but I haven't seen those in years on my laptop without ECC.

> What's the usecase when it can be beneficial to have expensive ECC RAM instead of the ordinary one?

Anyone using ZFS will (or should!) care about ECC support. [0]

Lots of people build their own NAS/SAN boxes, so ECC support on a desktop CPU at a reasonable price point would be very appreciated. Currently you need to buy specific model CPUs (Celeron or Xeon, IIRC) to get ECC support from Intel. [1]

[0] https://serverfault.com/questions/454736/non-ecc-memory-with...

[1] https://ark.intel.com/search/advanced?ECCMemory=true&MarketS...

Re: AMD Ryzen 7 1800X Benchmarked – Giving Intel’s $1000 Chips A Run For It

#24

Post by mrb »

runeks wrote: post #15

Not a CPU expert here, but isn't this a comparison of AMD next gen to Intel current gen? Won't Intel have a new CPU out, too, when the Ryzen is actually released?

Ryzen becomes current gen in 11 days (March 2nd release.)

Intel would need to update their "current gen" (Skylake, Kaby Lake) CPUs with 8-core models to be competitive but for some reason Skylake and Kaby Lake have been stuck with a max of 4 cores... which is why these benchmarks are compared to an 8 core Broadwell.

Re: AMD Ryzen 7 1800X Benchmarked – Giving Intel’s $1000 Chips A Run For It

#25

Post by anonymfus »

wmf wrote: post #13

Ryzen leaks conspicuously don't mention gaming or the i7-7700K. AMD may win in a very small market yet lose the mainstream.

Gaming performance is irrelevant for top CPUs, the difference appears only in low resolutions and old games.

Re: AMD Ryzen 7 1800X Benchmarked – Giving Intel’s $1000 Chips A Run For It

#27

Post by kijin »

wmf wrote: post #13

Ryzen leaks conspicuously don't mention gaming or the i7-7700K. AMD may win in a very small market yet lose the mainstream.

The "mainstream" market doesn't buy 7700K's. The "mainstream" market doesn't even know what hyper-threading is.

People will see two identical laptops, one with the 2-core Intel i3, and one with the 4-core Ryzen, with similar clock speeds and similar prices. The Ryzen model might even give the illusion that it comes with an AMD graphics card even though it's integrated. That's all that matters.

Re: AMD Ryzen 7 1800X Benchmarked – Giving Intel’s $1000 Chips A Run For It

#28

Post by kinghajj »

kijin wrote: post #27
wmf wrote: post #13

Ryzen leaks conspicuously don't mention gaming or the i7-7700K. AMD may win in a very small market yet lose the mainstream.

The "mainstream" market doesn't buy 7700K's. The "mainstream" market doesn't even know what hyper-threading is. People will see two identical laptops, one with the 2-core Intel i3, and one with the 4-core Ryzen, with similar clock speeds and similar prices. The Ryzen model might even give the illusion that it comes with an AMD graphics card even though it's integrated. That's all that matters.

Especially since AMD's APUs' integrated graphics have stayed superior to Intel's.

Re: AMD Ryzen 7 1800X Benchmarked – Giving Intel’s $1000 Chips A Run For It

#29

Post by snuxoll »

kogepathic wrote: post #23
krzyk wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you need that in desktop env? What's the usecase when it can be beneficial to have expensive ECC RAM instead of the ordinary one? I was always thinking that ECC can prevent blue screens/kernel faults, but I haven't seen those in years on my laptop without ECC.

> What's the usecase when it can be beneficial to have expensive ECC RAM instead of the ordinary one? Anyone using ZFS will (or should!) care about ECC support. [0] Lots of people build their own NAS/SAN boxes, so ECC support on a desktop CPU at a reasonable price point would be very appreciated. Currently you need to buy specific model CPUs (Celeron or Xeon, IIRC) to get ECC support from Intel. [1] [0] https://serve…

This is why I ultimately ended up buying an HP ML10 for my FreeNAS box, $300 for a Xeon E3-1220, board and iLO ended up being cheaper than buying a barebones + the CPU (which is just shy of $200 retail). I would like to have something that supports more memory, but to get anything with more sockets or support for larger DIMM's you start looking at the Broadwell-E or Xeon-E5 chips and those are considerably more expensive (my ThinkServer TD340 cost me $700 as an open box with a E5-2403v2 and 8GB of RAM installed).

If Zen client chips have full ECC support and can handle 64GB of memory I'll be sold easily on an upgrade for my TrueNAS box, then I'll anxiously await some lower-cost (4/8c) dual-socket server CPU's and swap out my TD340 with some supermicro barebones build.

Post reply on HN