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

121–130 of 278 posts

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

#121

Post by temac »

mtgx wrote: post #109
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.

I believe ECC RAM protects against RowHammer, doesn't it? That would be reason enough to get it.

It mitigates. IIRC DDR4 also mitigates. With both at least I'm pretty sure RowHammer is not a security problem anymore, and maybe even the risk of crashing disappear completely (or have an extremely small probability)

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

#122

Post by prodmerc »

grndzro wrote: post #43
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.

Grab a copy of Win10 LTSB-N and get rid of Win7. It has all that annoying crap stripped out. You should be able to find a copy fairly easily floating around here and there.

Thanks for mentioning this, I didn't know the Enterprise version had all that removed. Do you know if it still sends data to Microsoft or not?

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

#123

Post by Lev1a »

hocuspocus wrote: post #114
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).

AFAIK the Ryzen 1700 (TDP 65W) is supposed to come with a "Wraith" cooler from AMD and those new ones are apparently better than their shitty older counterparts from the Vishera days (I had one and I'm glad I switched to a near silent Arctic cooler).

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

#124

Post by abrookewood »

temac wrote: post #119
abrookewood wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-supportin…

Fair enough - I'd like to see it happen, just don't think it will.

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

#125

Post by semi-extrinsic »

vegabook wrote: post #52
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.

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 co…

> Anybody doing anything with more than 16GB, especially data science (think all the R and Python people, all scientists)

Not sure I agree. Most science datasets (both from simulations and experiments) are sufficiently noisy that if your scientific end results and conclusions change as a result of even thousands of bitflips in your 16 GB of data, you're Doing It Wrong and your article isn't worth the paper it's printed on. (There are probably exceptions, as always, but those working in those few specific subfields should be aware of it.)

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

#126

Post by DrNuke »

therealmarv wrote: post #115
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?!

Mainstream market moved to smartphones & tablets, so the effort.

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

#127

Post by jdietrich »

hocuspocus wrote: post #114
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).

At these TDPs, fully passive cooling is an option:

http://www.silentpcreview.com/NoFan_CR-95C_Copper

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

#128

Post by vegabook »

AMD has been really smart. Freesync is a huge success. It's outperforming Nvidia by about 20% on Vulkan and DX12 on similar hardware because game makers can use their optimized code from the AMD-equipped consoles. On Ryzen, it appears strategically to have reduced the silicon usage from AVX in order to improve mainstream performance and increase cache, while maintaining a smaller (and therefore cheaper) die than Intel's increasingly bloated silicon. It all points to a company, back to the wall, really fighting its corner, optimizing its much smaller resources. If Ryzen and Vega work out as expected, I hope the people responsible at AMD are in for big rewards. BTW the stock has ramped 200% in the past year.

To get an idea of how smart AMD people are, this video instructive:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwcUMZLvjYw

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

#129

Post by literallycancer »

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???

Probably going for the 144 FPS worst case (meaning frame times below 6.944ms at all times).

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

#130

Post by therealmarv »

DrNuke wrote: post #126
therealmarv wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?!

Mainstream market moved to smartphones & tablets, so the effort.

That's true if I look at the raw CPU benchmarks of ARM chips... there it is normal to have each year 40-60% jumps which is crazy.
Post reply on HN