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

221–230 of 278 posts

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

#221

Post by seabrookmx »

jon-wood wrote: post #147
detaro wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> old 6700HQ

I'd hardly call that old.

And that's not an apples to apples comparison. The 6700HQ is a quad core part, whereas the 7500U is dual core (both of them feature hyperthreading, so 4 and 8 threads respectively).

Given equivalent software, the 6700HQ will outperform the 7500U in multithreaded workloads.

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

#222

Post by tbrowbdidnso »

LordJZ wrote: post #201
tbrowbdidnso wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

This is false.

Well, I guess that decides it

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

#223

Post by dagw »

Joeri wrote: post #141
DrNuke wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

1-2 years ago they where though, but for whatever reason they never managed to break into that market.

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

#224

Post by vesrah »

bdz wrote: post #100
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.

lol? Your CPU can absolutely bottleneck your GPU. And new games start to use hpyer threading more and more, see Battlefield 1 for example. There is a huge difference between i3/i5/i7 http://www.gamersnexus.net/game-bench/2673-battlefield-1-cpu...

I can agree with this. I went from a Pentium G3258 clocked at 4.8GHz to a box-clocked i7-4790S. Battlefield 1 went from unplayable to dead smooth with a GTX750Ti.

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

#225

Post by Strom »

tbrowbdidnso wrote: post #222
LordJZ wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is false.

Well, I guess that decides it

The thing is, anyone with a 144 Hz monitor [1] knows from experience that what you're claiming here is complete bullshit. Then there's also the fact that 70 Hz causes demonstrably more nausea in VR users than 90 Hz or more.

Beyond that, if you wanna act innocent and play a citation game, I can throw you a bone. I'll give you this [2], what do you give me in return?

--

[1] This was already evident back in CRT days when 70 Hz was garbage and 100+ Hz was what every serious gamer was after.

[2] http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm

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

#226

Post by edvinbesic »

marcosdumay wrote: post #139
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…

Is AMD still publishing the real power envelope of their chips while Intel is publishing "normal" power consumption?

I believe it is, AMDs TDP is the maximum the CPU will consume whereas Intel is maximum under normal workloads meaning you can push it past the advertised TDP

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

#227

Post by catdog »

CydeWeys wrote: post #185
jdietrich wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's now possible to build very high-performance rigs that run completely silently. Palit offer a fanless 1050ti; Asus Strix 1060/70/80 cards will run with the fans stopped under light loads. Fanless 500w PSUs are readily available, which will happily power an eight core machine with a GTX 1080. The brilliant Silverstone FT03 case uses a chimney-like vertical design that can create significant airflow through pure co…

The biggest reduction in computer noise I've noticed over the past ten years has been eliminating HDD chatter by switching to SSDs. I still have one older PC that I use occasionally that has an HDD, and it is pretty serious. You can feel when the filesystem is under load by the frantic vibrations of the arm moving across the disk. Fans, in comparison, tend to be a steady thrum, and thus fade into the background in a…

I second this. Even without chatter a spinning HDD is quite noticeable while fans are not that noisy as long as you are able to keep them at moderate speeds.

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

#228

Post by lisivka »

masklinn wrote: post #97
lisivka wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no idea, why you downvoted. Stability test is important step of cluster building. If probability of something broken in new server is 10% then probability of something broken in new cluster of 10 servers is 1-(1-0.1)^10 = 65% .

Because they objection has nothing to do with the original comment. Bitflips are not a RAM stability issue.

Bitflips are not a RAM stability issue, they happen randomly due to radiation, but radiation is not random, especially in my area (I live not far from Chornobyl).

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

#229

Post by coredog64 »

seanp2k2 wrote: post #51
kogepathic wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What's the usecase when it can be beneficial to have expensive ECC RAM instead of the ordinary one? Anyone using ZFS will (or should!) care about ECC support. [0] Lots of people build their own NAS/SAN boxes, so ECC support on a desktop CPU at a reasonable price point would be very appreciated. Currently you need to buy specific model CPUs (Celeron or Xeon, IIRC) to get ECC support from Intel. [1] [0] https://serve…

Great use-case for the server-grade Atoms. I have a freenas build with an Avoton 8-core and it's fantastic. Asrock Rack c2750D4i, check it out. Can't wait for the new Atom server chips as well, and I hope AMD launches a competitor in the low-power / storage server market.

Aren't the Avoton chips the ones that is causing Cisco to have to replace a crapload of network gear?

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

#230

Post by grogenaut »

nottorp wrote: post #54
seanp2k2 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I'm running 1080@120hz on a GTX1080 with a 2500k@4.5ghz on all cores and the GPU maxes out before the CPU. Google around a bit for OW competitive settings and you should be able to achieve something similar :)

The guy you're replying to looks like he wants 144 fps on 4K. Which is prolly not doable with current hardware.

They didn't say 4k resolution they said 4(xxx)K model CPU which is a very standard enthusiast Intel CPU.

You are correct if they're trying to do 4k 144hz they're not going to have any luck. Stick with 1080 or 1440 max resolution 144 hz gaming.

Also personally I think 144hz is a waste. I work for Twitch so I have access to and play on 144hz hardware a ton and I could easily afford it. I instead go for max screen real-estate and high end color reproduction. I'm totally fine with my 60hz gaming on my dell u2714 at home and at work where I can walk 10 feet and use nice 144hz gaming rigs I generally just play on my 30" dell instead.

Totally anecdotal but my coworker was all about the big glorious 1440 display, bought a raptor or whatever and a 1080 gpu. Then because the raptor had an issue he bought a 48" 4k tv instead. The raptor has been replaced but sits idle because having equivalent 4 screens with no border on the tv is much more useful to him.

144hz is like 3d in movies, if it doesn't distract you (glasses for movies, smoothness for games) then it's immersive. And that's the problem. Immersive things you forget about, they bleed away. Gaming is already very immersive so you're just forgeting about more things.

Go with more screen real estate if your desk will fit it. I've convinced 30+ friends to go with more monitors over better single monitors, friends who thought that 2 monitors was ridiculous, friends who thought that 3 was ridiculous. No one has ever come back and said I was wrong.

Final point: Overwatch, I believe, is capped in the engine at 60fps. This means that if you run over 60fps you're not getting additional information. I don't think they even do sub-frame interpolation, so you're likely just seeing the same frame multiple times. But best case even sub-frame interpolation is just showing you predictions for 6.49 milliseconds at a time, but these are not actually accurate, they're interpolations.

Post reply on HN