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

31–40 of 278 posts

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

#31

Post by crowbahr »

anonymfus wrote: post #25
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.

I've been looking into a new CPU to play Overwatch because my is 4(670?)K is struggling with even high. Bottlenecks around the gpu pegging all 4 OCd cores out at 100% constantly without even hitting 144fps.

It's not just old games that need good cpus these days, though I will admit I'm probably more than just the enthusiast market.

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

#32

Post by jpalomaki »

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.

It is kind of funny that we even accept non-ecc memory and say that it is perfectly OK that sometimes a 0 written to memory turns to 1. This would be more understandable if we treated the memory as unreliable but in most cases we don't.

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

#33

Post by reitzensteinm »

orliesaurus wrote: post #30

Execs at Intel ain't gonna be too worried, they probably have signed contracts that lock partners up for many years to come

In a world where progress has slowed down, being two to three years behind Intel means you're practically interchangeable. This chip isn't an abnormality, it's a sign of things to come, and there's no way it isn't keeping Intel's execs up at night.

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

#36

Post by solarengineer »

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…

To be clear: ZFS performs a checksum _before_ the data is written to disk. This checksum proves to be highly useful to ZFS when checking whether the data being read back is correct or not.

However, the checksum and the data is also only as good as the memory in which it is stored during computation. Since ZFS takes care of everything else other than memory, you'd use ECC if the data being stored is important enough that you want to ensure that ZFS gets healthy checksums.

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

#37

Post by grogenaut »

crowbahr wrote: post #31
anonymfus wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I've been looking into a new CPU to play Overwatch because my is 4(670?)K is struggling with even high. Bottlenecks around the gpu pegging all 4 OCd cores out at 100% constantly without even hitting 144fps. It's not just old games that need good cpus these days, though I will admit I'm probably more than just the enthusiast market.

Something is wrong with your pc. I'm running ultra gpu settings constant 70fps at 2560x1440. I've got the same cpu, not overclocked at all, and a 980GTX. I'm also running 4 of those monitors off of the gpu, one with the game, one usually with netflix at the same time and I sit at 20% cpu the whole time.

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

#38

Post by vedranm »

kevindong wrote: post #18
frik wrote: post #3

What about Win7 drivers? Even if the Redmond based company doesn't like marketing about it (an understatement) - please support it. (Recently AMD announced Win7 support only to remove the announcement after after a few days.) Even Intel supports Win7 with their most recent CPU as well, even if it's not officially marketed, and one has to search around for the driver.

Do you mind explaining why you prefer Windows 7 over 10?

I'm not OP but I'm using Windows 7 for playing Steam games which do not work on Linux natively or using Wine. My reasons for avoiding Windows 10, aside from having everything I care about on Windows 7 already, are described well by EFF [1].

None of the games I care to play are DX12 and Windows Store exclusive, so using Windows 7 has worked well so far.

[1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/08/windows-10-microsoft-b...

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

#39

Post by vegabook »

mindcrime wrote: post #4

Wow... I really hope this is true and that it's a sign that AMD have their mojo back. Partly because I have a sentimental favoritism towards AMD, and partly because Intel (and Nvidia) need competition.

An AMD 40Mhz 80486 was my first build so I also have a soft spot. At the time it was the fatest x86 one could buy. Gees I even remember lusting after the Ati 8514 Ultra, one of the earliest GPU accelerators, clone of IBM's high end workstation standard of the early 90s, as a teenager. Wow I'm getting old.

Conversely, though I admire Intel for its central place in advancing computing itself, I cannot love the company because it has shamelessly monetized its monopoly over the past 7 years or so with vast overpricing on higher end lines. I for one am definitely doing a Ryzen 7 build as soon as I can get a chip, and the same goes for Vega. So happy to see AMD back in the game.

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

#40

Post by grndzro »

mrb wrote: post #17
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.

The symptoms of memory corruption are much more varied (and can be much more stubtle) than BSODs. For example they can cause filesystem corruption, any random app crashes (SIGSEGV...), infinite loops, etc.

That is why it is important after building/tweaking a system to do stability tests. If it runs full out without errors for 24h then you are fine.
Post reply on HN