Live data from Hacker News

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

wccftech.com

151–160 of 278 posts

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

#151
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It's not simply the "Enterprise" version. It's the LTSB version. The parent comment said that.

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

#152
post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gaming performance is irrelevant for top CPUs, the difference appears only in low resolutions and old games.

The "games don't use CPU" line is only really true for multiplatform games that must also run on the low performance PS4/XBox One AMD Jaguar CPUs. If we look at PC exclusives [1] then we can see that these are extremely CPU-hungry games. This hunger only goes up if we want to achieve a framerate higher than 60, say going for 144. I personally have an i7 @ 3.8 GHz with GTX 1060 and none of these games can hold a stabl…

Just curious: why do you want to run a turn based game like civ6 at 144fps? Or for that matter anything except super reaction-dependent FPSs?

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

#154
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…

Intel chips use a lower base clock frequency when they're running AVX code than when they're running non-AVX code for the very reasons you mention. In Intel's example[1] they talk about a base freqeuncy of 2.3 GHz without using AVX dropping to 1.9 with AVX[1]. That drop isn't much in frequency terms but you also have to figure in the voltage drop that the lower frequency allows you to cut power much more than you cut frequency. The end result is somewhere between power dropping with the cube or square of frequency depending on whether active or leakage power is dominating. Which is to say that they can save between 30% and 40% of their power by reducing the frequency at the same time they're lighting up a large area of new silicon. So I assume they chose the specific frequencies so that they're always hitting the same TDP whether they're making us of AVX or not.

Of course, performance scales not to far from linearly here so going to AVX is a large net performance win, as you say. It's just that I'd assume equal power consumption on non-AVX loads.

[1]http://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/documents/...

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

#155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

As soon as you are putting a noisy dataset through multiple iterative algos, though, if a bit error hits the control flow code or data structure delimiters, you face the possibility of massive silent, propogating corruption. Imagine your hash table getting a bit error in it (all R lists and Python dicts use them), or an incorrect branch in your code. Admittedly the risk is ultra low, but you have enough problems to w…

> Admittedly the risk is ultra low

Exactly this. The size of your code is positively infinitesimal compared to your data. And unless you're writing your code and then running it exactly once, which is a) even more unlikely and b) bad practice, you'll catch any of those bit-flip errors in your code or data structures.

This has been discussed a lot in the literature, especially for GPUs where ECC carries a performance penalty both on speed and available memory, e.g. in this paper where they've tested it on a GPU cluster:

http://www.rosswalker.co.uk/papers/2014_03_ECC_AMBER_Paper_1...

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

#156
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).

6 core 140W 6800K I have under my desk is cooled with a Noctua NH-U14 - very quiet and max core temp I've seen under load (mostly video transcoding) is 54 degrees - that's about 30 degrees above my office room temperature.

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

#157
post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember cyrix being later in the game with its 686/166 Mhz proc which did wonders.

Cyrix had a 486.

They marketed 5x86 and 6x86. Faster integer performance than Intel; the FPU was the weak spot.

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

#159
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…

Maybe Calyos[0] technology might interest you. Fanless and totally silent technology, here is the other Linus[1] talking about it.

[0]: http://www.calyos-tm.com/calyos-fanless-pc-workstation/

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PJOrfpiVwE

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

#160
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.

The Clustering MultiThreading (CMT) part of AMD's recent Bulldozer generation seems to have worked very nicely by itself. But the cache heirarchy of the chip was quite poor and it's not clear whether using CMT led to the cache problems they were having or not. In the end Bulldozer used CMT and performed poorly. Now, AMD have abandoned CMT in favor of the Simultaneous MultiThreading (SMT) that Intel uses in Zen and this chip looks like it's going to be performing quite well. So without more details than we're ever going to be privy to it looks like CMT was a dead end.
Post reply on HN