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

141–150 of 278 posts

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

#141

Post by Joeri »

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.

But intel isn't doing smartphone cpu's, so again: what happened?

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

#142

Post by agumonkey »

vegabook wrote: post #128

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 Inte…

AMD last decade has been so stressful even from the public POV, I'm surprised they managed to survive up to Zen.

If ryzen is enough of a success this will be heaven for the company.

I wish them all the best.

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

#143

Post by marcosdumay »

frik wrote: post #16
3825 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Call me selfish but I think it is more important for them to contribute to GNU/Linux and *bsd projects. I know Microsoft has a contractual obligation to support 7 for a while but I think there's next to zero chance they will reset Windows 10 and go back to Windows 7. You will need to get away from Windows 7 at some point. Better start making preparations now.

At the moment Windows 7 is number one desktop/notebook OS, it dwarfs all other operating systems (all other Windows versions incl Win8 & Win10, macOS and Linux combined )! Win7 is superb, looks nice and works rock solid and is supported until 2020 or beyond (see XP). And then in 2020s Fuchsia/Android, or what ever OS is available and make sense for end consumer needs. (Of course *nix driver support is important too,…

What is Windows 7 share on new devices? The total installed base numbers are meaningless here.

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

#144

Post by lultimouomo »

yuhong wrote: post #69
lultimouomo wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am looking into replacing my home server / NAS, and I considered the atom server chips, but they seem just so expensive for their computing power, and also not very power efficient. The 8 core C2750 has a passmark of 3800[0], with an abysmal single thread performance of 579, and still has a TDP of 20W, and the mobo+cpu assemblies go for ~400$. For way less, if you're willing to five up on ECC, you can get an i5-750…

Look at Xeon E3, for example: https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E1681911...

Thanks. It looks there are reasonably priced mini-ITX boards that support Skylake Xeons (a note to this that are considering this: v5 E3 (Skylake) use the same socket as Cores, but need a different chipset).

The 80W TDP worries me about though, cooling, noise and money/pollution wise (the extra 45W make around 400kWh/year).

Considering the CPU will be idle most of the time, do you have figures about the actual idle consumption of an E3 based machine?

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

#145

Post by detaro »

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?!

With the -U types, technology gains have been invested in lowering TDP, making for smaller and longer running laptops.

E.g. with my last laptop change, I went from a 35W TDP i7-M to a 15W TDP i7-U, while still gaining some performance.

Laptops with 35W/45W CPUs still exist, but they use e.g. the quadcore i7-6700HQ.

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

#146

Post by jabl »

jsheard wrote: post #134
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…

TDP is a bit tricky to compare in this situation. The TDP of Intels HEDT chips is dictated by their 256-bit wide AVX units which drive power consumption through the roof when fully loaded, and the chips don't get nearly as hot when AVX isn't being used. Ryzen doesn't have this edge case because it sticks with 128-bit SIMD units and runs AVX instructions over two clock cycles. I expect the "140W" Intel part will have…

The Intel chips (at least the Xeon ones, don't know about the consumer parts, but I'd presume they behave the same?) clock down when running AVX2-heavy code to fit within the power envelope.

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

#147

Post by jon-wood »

detaro wrote: post #145
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?!

With the -U types, technology gains have been invested in lowering TDP, making for smaller and longer running laptops. E.g. with my last laptop change, I went from a 35W TDP i7-M to a 15W TDP i7-U, while still gaining some performance. Laptops with 35W/45W CPUs still exist, but they use e.g. the quadcore i7-6700HQ.

Very much this. I replaced an old 6700HQ laptop with the latest 7500U and battery life is worlds better. My previous machine was lucky to go three hours, and that was intentionally throttling the CPU, while my new machine can go 4-5 hours pushing it hard, or all day if I'm not doing anything intensive.

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

#148

Post by simooooo »

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...

All those consoles are bound to have some benefit

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

#149

Post by chatterbeak »

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.

All of my desktops are Xeons with ECC. Maybe you or your customers don't care, or you just play games and browse the web. But if you're doing something critical, you want to be able to detect and repair a bit flip. Google estimated that 1 bit/GB/year flips. There's 128 GB in our standard desktop built. That would be 2 bit flips/week.

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

#150

Post by jabl »

semi-extrinsic wrote: post #125
vegabook wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 print…

Yes, there are some algorithms that are iterative in nature (e.g. iterate until some error threshold goes below some specified limit), that can be tolerant to random corruption. Many other algorithms aren't. And even if you use such a tolerant algorithm, you may still get a bit flip e.g. in the code, or in some data not touched by the iterative algorithm, etc. etc.

There's a reason why HPC systems universally use ECC.

Post reply on HN