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

Post by DowsingSpoon » Sun, Feb 19, 2017, 9:40 AM UTC

abrookewood wrote: post #71

crowbahr wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're running at close to 144 FPS - what FPS are you hoping to hit???

Post by beagle3 » Sun, Feb 19, 2017, 9:42 AM UTC

vegabook wrote: post #45

reitzensteinm wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Amd is prepping a 32 core server beast. Considering Intel just launched a 24 core chip costing 9000 dollars , and considering the AMD IPC is looking good, Intel execs must be gnawing down to their elbows at the prospect of AMD walking in to that market at 50% pricing deltas. Over to GloFo though on process. That appears to be the a possible achilles heel here for AMD.

Post by guitarbill » Sun, Feb 19, 2017, 9:45 AM UTC

zer0t3ch wrote: post #58

solarengineer wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 m…

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Feb 19, 2017, 9:50 AM UTC

qeternity wrote: post #61

elementalest wrote: post #12

There is so much hype with AMD atm. In particular sites like WCCFTech have gone almost rabid with hype. My experience is that AMD tend to over promise with their marketing and rumours. So whilst the hype may well be warranted this time, I'm going to wait for the actual reviews to come through and take these leaks with a grain of salt.

Fair enough, but this is a bit more concrete than marketing fluff.

Post by justincormack » Sun, Feb 19, 2017, 9:51 AM UTC

deaddodo wrote: post #53

grndzro wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.