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

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

#81

Post by dchest » Sun, Feb 19, 2017, 9:56 AM UTC

jpalomaki wrote: post #32

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.

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.

ECC (error-correcting codes) don't completely eliminate errors — they reduce probability of them happening — so even with ECC memory you're still accepting that it's perfectly OK that 0 is sometimes 1, just a lot less likely. No absolutes here, unfortunately.

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

#82

Post by aidenn0 » Sun, Feb 19, 2017, 9:56 AM UTC

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.

ECC RAM isn't that much more expensive despite being less common. It's a bigger premium to go from an i7 to Xeon than to equip the Xeon with ECC RAM. If ECC were manufactured in the volumes of non-ECC it would probably be almost exactly 12.5% more expensive (i.e. just the cost of the extra chip).

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

#83

Post by yrro » Sun, Feb 19, 2017, 9:58 AM UTC

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.

Don't fotget WinChip too...

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

#84

Post by sharpercoder » Sun, Feb 19, 2017, 9:59 AM UTC

kayoone wrote: post #64

Take everything WCCFTECH writes with a pinch of salt, all of this could still be fake. The Ryzen hype train is on full steam and i really hope they deliver, but i'll wait for official benchmarks. In the last few years, more often than not AMD hardware leaks have shown potential that in the end wasn't met. Things look good for Ryzen though, maybe they can finally make 6-8 Core CPUs mainstream.

My experience is they actually do deliver promises, yet always too late. It was the case with the 120Mhz 80486, the K6-2, the Athlon, the Opteron, and I'm just getting started. All about as fast as their marketing claimed, but simply too late so the nextgen Intel caught up for the most part.

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

#85

Post by chx » Sun, Feb 19, 2017, 10:03 AM UTC

These last few years Intel was much working much more on bring power consumption down than ... anything else? The performance changed little: http://www.hardocp.com/article/2017/01/13/kaby_lake_7700k_vs... 20%? But now the 15W U series mobile chips deliver the same performance as 35W M chips in the Sandy/Ivy Bridge era which is quite impressive.

This, of course, leads to a tremendous advantage in server CPUs -- if you have capable cores at a lower wattage, you can add more of them. Hence the 14 core E5-2690V4 @ 135W at 2.6Ghz vs 8 core E5-2690 @ 135W at 2.9GHz. So in just four generations from Sandy Bridge to Broadwell, no TDP change, roughly the same or a bit better single thread execution but almost double the core count. If you are willing to drop a tiny bit your base clock further and your TDP higher, perhaps 10% less single thread performance, you can get a hulk of a 24 core E7-8890V4 at 165W. And that's where the big profit is -- currently.

Now some unfounded nonsense: what if Intel is not pulling these crazy prices out of their sorry behind but there's in fact some reality behind them? It just bothers me that the price of the 24 core chip is so close to the 6*6 times of a 4 core chip. It could be a coincidence.

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

#86

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Feb 19, 2017, 10:04 AM UTC

vedranm wrote: post #38

kevindong wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

[deleted]

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

#87

Post by oliwarner » Sun, Feb 19, 2017, 10:08 AM UTC

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.

You'd think, but there's an appreciable difference between i3/5/7 at the same level, even with discrete graphics.

http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=24115

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

#88

Post by alanfranzoni » Sun, Feb 19, 2017, 10:09 AM UTC

I'd really like to see what AMD can do in the ultrabook and notebook segment. Good mobile CPUs with a good integrated GPU could really be a killer feature. I don't know whether the desktop segment is enough for AMD to reboot its cpu brand (although the server market is a more interesting beast).

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

#89

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Feb 19, 2017, 10:09 AM UTC

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.

[deleted]

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

#90

Post by Const-me » Sun, Feb 19, 2017, 10:12 AM UTC

kinghajj wrote: post #28

kijin wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Is it still true?

http://www.hardwarezone.com.sg/feature-integrated-graphics-f...