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

191–200 of 278 posts

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

#191

Post by onli »

Const-me wrote: post #167
lightedman wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>newest Intel iGPU vs two-gen old AMD iGPU, barely keeping pace Yes, it's still true. That should've been plainly obvious.

Both are from 2015: https://ark.intel.com/products/88040/Intel-Core-i7-5775C-Pro... http://cpuboss.com/cpu/AMD-A10-7870K

That Broadwell-cpu is an exception. It is the only series for the desktop where Intel produced capable integrated graphics. Btw, it is also a very strong processor.

But it was released immediately before the next cpu generation was released. It got no real marketing, and support for it was abysmal – some to many games just produced a black screen with it. Based on its performance and pricing I'd have liked to recommend it, but given its socket and its support issues that was almost never a good idea.

Normally you'd compare the A10-7870K to the integrated HD graphics of a Skylake or Kaby Lake cpu, it beats those easily.

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

#192

Post by washadjeffmad »

prodmerc wrote: post #122
grndzro wrote: 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?

You can always 'unfuck' a standard edition: https://github.com/dfkt/win10-unfuck

It lists two other repos at the bottom for privacy and de-bloat. I version froze my only Win10 VMs, so not sure if the projects are current for post-Anniversary Update.

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

#193

Post by nottorp »

driverdan wrote: post #172
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…

All CPUs are silent when you water cool them. You can get a decent closed loop cooler for <$100 now.

Actually it very much depends on what kind of fan cools the radiator. You're using that liquid loop just to move the heat from the CPU to somewhere else. That somewhere else is generally a large radiator with a quiet fan, but not always.

Anyone building their own silent pc should hang a bit on silentpcreview before they buy anything.

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

#194

Post by benologist »

hocuspocus wrote: post #132
jdietrich wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At these TDPs, fully passive cooling is an option: http://www.silentpcreview.com/NoFan_CR-95C_Copper

That's huge :) In a smaller HTPC it can make sense to go passive but for an 8-core desktop workstation I'm not convinced it's worth the trouble. Your PSU and GPU will likely have fans, also with a PCIe SSD it's better to have some airflow.

http://fanlesstech.com

This is a good site to keep an eye on if you're interested in fanless computers.

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

#195

Post by [deleted] »

ido wrote: post #152
Strom wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

[deleted]

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

#196

Post by tbrowbdidnso »

Strom wrote: post #136
anonymfus wrote: post #25

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…

Does it matter that every piece of scientific evidence shows that humans can't see anything at more than ~70hz?

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

#197

Post by rch »

olegkikin wrote: post #180
Matthias247 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Server CPUs are often used in workstations, which are pretty much desktops.

I just speced a new laptop with a Xeon E3-1505M v6.

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

#198

Post by [deleted] »

tbrowbdidnso wrote: post #196
Strom wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Does it matter that every piece of scientific evidence shows that humans can't see anything at more than ~70hz?

[deleted]

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

#199

Post by Nokinside »

dman wrote: post #187
Nokinside wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doing illegal is just optimization. Intel can undercut AMD lawfully if it wants. Instead of hidden rebates, Intel can openly cut prices.

That first line is amazingly brazen. If a movie is made about Intels monopolistic practices that fully belongs as a dialog spoken by the Intel CEO.

It was. The whole debacle was probably just decision between few percentage points in Intel's profit margins. For AMD it was much bigger issue.

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

#200

Post by snuxoll »

lultimouomo wrote: post #68
snuxoll wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why I ultimately ended up buying an HP ML10 for my FreeNAS box, $300 for a Xeon E3-1220, board and iLO ended up being cheaper than buying a barebones + the CPU (which is just shy of $200 retail). I would like to have something that supports more memory, but to get anything with more sockets or support for larger DIMM's you start looking at the Broadwell-E or Xeon-E5 chips and those are considerably more expen…

Do you know how much power does it use? If so, could you add some details (number of HDDs, typical load - light, medium, heavy)? I'm looking into building a home server and would like something decently beefy, not too power hungry and possibly with ECC.

I know the ML10 only has a 300W PSU, but I haven't bothered to take a kill-a-watt as the ML10 itself would be outshined by the rest of my lab gear.

The E3-1220 is usually idle and frequency scaled back unless something like a ZFS scrub is running, I've got ~45W of PCIe cards (SAS HBA, 10GBe NIC and 4x1GBe NIC), 4x8GB sticks of DDR3 UDIMM's probably uses 12W.

I'd say without drives it probably draws no more than 150W on average, unless I'm doing something CPU intensive. My drives all sit in an external SAS enclosure, since I wanted more than 4 drive bays that the LFF expansion bracket provided.

Anyway, the ML10 is pretty decent for light-medium work. It's got 4 really fast cores and 32GB of RAM is adequate for most home server use (this was why I got the TD340 though, I've got 72GB in it) - just beware that the Gen1 units don't include the drive bracket so if you want more than a single HDD you have to purchase one or get an external SAS enclosure.

EDIT: the ML10 is basically silent too, even under load - I can't hear the fans unless I try (though my SAS enclosure makes up for this by being the loudest bit of kit in my lab).

Post reply on HN