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

51–60 of 278 posts

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

#51

Post by seanp2k2 »

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…

Great use-case for the server-grade Atoms. I have a freenas build with an Avoton 8-core and it's fantastic. Asrock Rack c2750D4i, check it out. Can't wait for the new Atom server chips as well, and I hope AMD launches a competitor in the low-power / storage server market.

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

#52

Post by vegabook »

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.

This question comes up constantly. Anybody doing anything with more than 16GB, especially data science (think all the R and Python people, all scientists), anybody running a memory cached data store (all server side people on mongo, redis, etc), and anybody doing finance or engineering, wants ECC. Basically anybody doing anything where data persistence is important, and/or where even the slightest chance of silent corruption is catastrophic. And with Intel you had to spend well north of 1k to get it on an 8/16 system. Hoping Ryzen does it.

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

#53

Post by deaddodo »

grndzro wrote: post #40
mrb wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's.....not how non-ECC works. Even a little.

RAM bitflips randomly, period. It's just how it works. A cosmic ray can hit the memory chip just right and flip it, there's no way to predict or control that no matter how "stable" your machine is. ECC still does the same, it just has a parity bit on each line to confirm against and flip it back, as needed.

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

#54

Post by nottorp »

seanp2k2 wrote: post #48
grogenaut wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah, I'm running 1080@120hz on a GTX1080 with a 2500k@4.5ghz on all cores and the GPU maxes out before the CPU. Google around a bit for OW competitive settings and you should be able to achieve something similar :)

The guy you're replying to looks like he wants 144 fps on 4K. Which is prolly not doable with current hardware.

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

#55

Post by deaddodo »

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.

This has been discussed extensively. It's very likely due to memory.

The only specs we've seen released for any of the benchmarks have shown very slow memory with high latency being used. When someone went about replicating the same timings on his Intel CPU, he saw a significant drop in those same scores. The post was on the TomsHardware forums when the first leak slipped out.

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

#56

Post by makapuf »

jcoffland wrote: post #47
vegabook wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I remember those days and bought AMD then too. There was even a third competitor in those days, Cyrix.

I remember cyrix being later in the game with its 686/166 Mhz proc which did wonders.

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

#57

Post by deaddodo »

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?

These release in less than two weeks. Intel's "current" gen released less than a month ago.

Seems pretty fair to me.

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

#58

Post by zer0t3ch »

solarengineer wrote: post #36
kogepathic wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 t…

If ZFS is anything like BTRFS, then I don't think ECC is super necessary. Yeah, it'll prevent problem from eventually cropping up when the RAM shits itself, but it's not like those issues compound silently in the night. When my ram started going a bit down the drain, (Flipping the occasional bit. Rare enough that the system still ran fine) I was hounded with checksum errors and any attempt to work with the data was met with error messages until I got new RAM. I don't think ECC is really all that important unless you're dealing with data worth thousands of dollars or more.

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

#59

Post by nottorp »

More importantly for some, it's a 95W AMD part vs a 140W Intel part. If the power delta stays the same even for mainstream parts, does this mean AMD will become a good quiet option too?

By quiet I mean "I can't hear it at night" not "I can't hear it over the music".

Edit: Also, I think data centers these days are limited in density by power delivery and cooling. Even a 25W delta adds up when you're talking about thousands of servers.

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

#60

Post by fulafel »

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.

Desktop computers are sometimes used for actual work where data integrity is important.

Only a small minority of main memory data corruptions lead to OS crashes, mostly the in-memory application or filesystem data just silently gets corrupted.

Post reply on HN