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

111–120 of 278 posts

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

#111

Post by digitalzombie »

sharpercoder wrote: post #84
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.

Uh... did you forget about Bulldozer?

It did bad compare to what their marketing team was telling their users.

The past two or so architecture underperform what the marketing them had in the slides.

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

#112

Post by barrkel »

Matthias247 wrote: post #99
chx wrote: post #85

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 yo…

I think you sum it up quite good: The thing that Intel did mostly was putting more cores on the chips. However that happenend only for the server lines. With Sandybridge and before the top desktop and server chips were nearly identical, now there's a huge difference. Which also means that during the last years the performance of desktop CPUs increased barely. That might be ok from the point of view that normal users…

There's been a fork in CPU design goals. Before, the fastest chip was the goal. Now, we have fast single-threaded vs high parallel throughput - and while there's a spectrum between them, the extremes matter, it's not a case of a Goldilocks solution.

Consumer loads are mostly limited by single threaded performance, though software is increasingly written for more cores. Best choice for a consumer used to be dual core, now it's probably quad core with thermal limited boosting on less parallel workloads.

It's only prosumers doing lots of transcoding or rendering, or CPU intensive VMs, that typically benefit from increasing cores above 4.

Whereas the server space prizes throughput and much of its workload is trivially parallelizable. On the server, higher single core speed mostly just decreases latency for small tasks; if you're happy with the latency, you can get more cores working on shared memory and potentially get big wins in perf.

There are diminishing returns though, scaling up boxes is expensive and unless it's being forced by software licensing or architectural models, things like Hadoop and Spark for spreading the load across a whole cluster are increasingly attractive. This helps solve the I/O throughput problem too.

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

#113

Post by grndzro »

chx wrote: post #85

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 yo…

Except AMD's CMT implementation blows Intel's outta the water.

If intel needs 20% more cores to match the MT perf on the high end then it really isn't an advantage.

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

#114

Post by hocuspocus »

nottorp wrote: post #59

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 thou…

The 65W versions should be trivial to cool silently, a $40 heatsink with a single low speed 12cm fan (500~600 rpm) does the job well with my CPUs.

For a 95W TDP you might need to spend a little more (like on those big Noctua heatsinks with 14cm fans), but silent air-cooling is definitely possible. (Water is always trickier, AIO kits will typically be a little noisier due to the pump).

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

#115

Post by therealmarv »

chx wrote: post #85

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 yo…

Hm, wished we also jumped from 2 to 4 cores on U processors. Then we we should have finally a big jump for consumer notebooks. My U Core i7 from 2013 is still one of the better ones in 2017 when looking at raw CPU benchmarks which makes me think: What happened the last 4 years? 16% increasement only when comparing to top i7 U processors from 2017?!

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

#116

Post by temac »

dchest wrote: post #81
jpalomaki wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This EXTREMELY reduces the probability that a bit flips happens. And consumer PCs (or mobile devices) are the only devices where there is no ECC memory, RAM is the only place in such devices where there is no error detection and/or correction.

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

#117

Post by temac »

aidenn0 wrote: post #82
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.

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).

> It's a bigger premium to go from an i7 to Xeon than to equip the Xeon with ECC RAM.

Not exactly. The prices between comparable i7 to Xeon are nearly the same.

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

#118

Post by arjie »

Would have been an interesting validation to put the i7-2700K in there. It was nearer the 8350 and would have provided a good baseline to see that the benchmark is actually useful. As it stands, I'm a little sceptical (but also very hopeful, since I'm buying desktop hardware soon).

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

#119

Post by temac »

abrookewood wrote: post #70
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.

There's no need to down vote him. ECC is extremely uncommon on desktops & laptops. Yes, it's always going to be preferential to have it, but it typically comes at a price point that excludes it from these platforms.

That's a problem, not a manifesto to continue to live with it... And if the prices difference are large, they are largely artificial. That means if ECC is more widely uses, prices difference will decrease to reasonable levels (at the marginal level, price of RAM with ECC should be ~= 9/8 price of RAM without ECC, and the price of supporting platforms should be only very slightly higher than the price of non-supporting platforms)

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

#120

Post by lightedman »

Const-me wrote: post #90
kinghajj wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

>newest Intel iGPU vs two-gen old AMD iGPU, barely keeping pace

Yes, it's still true. That should've been plainly obvious.

Post reply on HN