The AMD strategy seems to just be "give the customer what they want".
Revolutionary indeed.
AMD’s $499 Ryzen 7 1800X Beats $1700 i7 6950X with 1-Click OC on Air Cooling
121–130 of 209 posts
Re: AMD’s $499 Ryzen 7 1800X Beats $1700 i7 6950X with 1-Click OC on Air Cooling
#122Earlier quoted context omitted.
Same question still applies.
You asked in another sub-thread "what do people need >64 gigs for on a consumer desktop? " but jeff_vader started this sub-thread asking "what do you do if you are interested in >64gb workstations? " AFAICT nobody on this sub-thread is claiming that consumer desktops should cater to our niche use cases. We're just offering examples of application domains where a high RAM-to-CPU ratio is useful.
You're right. I was following up on the "I absolutely hate how they cap maximum RAM on consumer machines" comment further up the chain but jeff_vader's question pivoted the conversation and I missed the memo. There are definitely cases where professionals need (or can greatly benefit from) >64GB workstations and I don't dispute that.
Re: AMD’s $499 Ryzen 7 1800X Beats $1700 i7 6950X with 1-Click OC on Air Cooling
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's about $2000/week to rent an IQ180. If you can afford the rental price, you can afford a computer to process the images.
thats not how money works. Just because you can afford one expensive luxury, doesnt mean you can afford all the other expensive stuff. Sometimes you do sacrifice all the other thing to get that one important expensive stuff
"I can't afford the premium gasoline my Ferrari needs."
Re: AMD’s $499 Ryzen 7 1800X Beats $1700 i7 6950X with 1-Click OC on Air Cooling
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. Ridiculous Intel pricing and artificial limitations were a consequence of de facto monopoly. I absolutely hate how they cap maximum RAM on consumer machines, so that you need to pony up for a Xeon workstation if you need more than 64 GB.
Don't need a xeon for more than 64GB of ram. I have a 5820K with 128 GB ram on an X99 mobo. Runs very well for it's price, though a little power hungry.
Yup, I have the same. But the spec sheet says 64gb https://ark.intel.com/products/82932/Intel-Core-i7-5820K-Pro...
Which is what confuses people. I am actually not sure what that max memory refers to. Possibly max per module?
Re: AMD’s $499 Ryzen 7 1800X Beats $1700 i7 6950X with 1-Click OC on Air Cooling
#125Earlier quoted context omitted.
Same question still applies.
Not really. As the actual editing being added to the base image is what could push that. I think the question you'd be looking for is, "what amount of photo editing, effects, etc. would make the editing process of a 80mpix photo consume >16GB memory?" Additionally, as for your original question: For hobby or even 'normal' professional photography, I'd guess none. But rigs like the ones used for Gmaps Street View, the…
I actually want to know what camera is capturing 80 megapixels at 48 bits per pixel. The IQ180 is 16 bits per pixel. Where's the camera that triples this? Or are we doing Bayer interpolation in a way that requires 48 bits per pixel for some reason? Because there definitely isn't 48 bits of actual signal there.
And yes, I also want to know what turns a 500MB photo into >16GB in memory. That's 32 full-res copies of the photo in memory. Just "a couple layers and a couple undo steps", really?
Re: AMD’s $499 Ryzen 7 1800X Beats $1700 i7 6950X with 1-Click OC on Air Cooling
#126Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's about $2000/week to rent an IQ180. If you can afford the rental price, you can afford a computer to process the images.
That still doesn't follow. Having a certain amount of money doesn't imply that you have even more money, nor that you want to spend more than is truly necessary.
Sure it does. If someone can't afford the machine necessary to process the images that they got from the camera they spent thousands to rent, the problem isn't actually money. It's that they're an idiot.
You don't buy/rent a camera you can't afford to process images from just like you don't buy a car you can't afford to service and you don't buy a house you can't afford taxes for. Or if you do, I have little to no sympathy.
Re: AMD’s $499 Ryzen 7 1800X Beats $1700 i7 6950X with 1-Click OC on Air Cooling
#127Earlier quoted context omitted.
Genomics. E.g. building a genome index of k-mers (n-grams) usually requires more than 64 GB. It can be quickly done on a consumer workstation, but you do need 128 GB in many scenarios.
Who is doing this and can't afford a Xeon system? And why should Intel and AMD be making everyone else pay more so that these people can pay a little less?
Grad students :). More specifically, a professor with a research grant can afford to fund N grad students where N is inversely proportional to equipment cost.
The complaint is not about adding the capability to all chips. It's about smoothing out the step function between consumer machines and professional workstations.
Re: AMD’s $499 Ryzen 7 1800X Beats $1700 i7 6950X with 1-Click OC on Air Cooling
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
What camera is capturing 16GB photos? An IQ180 captures 80 megapixels but the images are something like 500 MB each. All of your hypothetical examples are also for very niche high-resource usage professionals. It's absurd that these cases need extremely high memory support from consumer processors. Intel is not obligated to subsidize anyone, especially not people who can afford to pay for high end systems.
To address the core of your argument: no one is saying Intel should subsidize anything. The assertion is that using monopoly status to do additional work to gimp functionality in one product line and artificially drive up the price of another is at least abusive in the short term, probably makes Intel less competitive in the long run, and increases the volatility of the market.
> The assertion is that using monopoly status to do additional work to gimp functionality in one product line and artificially drive up the price of another
1. Are they actually doing that? I'll be honest, I don't know for sure, but I do know that more capacity rarely comes for free. I assume that supporting 256GB of memory efficiently relative to 64GB requires either a faster clock speed or some more pins. Is Intel "gimping" the consumer product or simply not building in the extra capacity?
2. Is it necessarily a bad thing if they are? If consumer demand peaks at, say, 32GB and professional demand reaches, say, 512GB, Intel could develop two entirely different architectures, which seems wasteful and more costly to everyone. They could ship just one chip with professional capacity supported, which drives up consumer costs effectively subsidizing professionals (because professionals are no longer paying the premium for the "pro" chip; they're just buying the consumer one). Or they could ship a consumer chip that doesn't support professional needs and ship a professional chip at a price that makes pros pay for the capacity Intel had to engineer for them.
The last option seems like a good option for everyone except the people who think everyone else should pay a premium for unnecessary pro support so that a few people can get cheaper pro chips.
Re: AMD’s $499 Ryzen 7 1800X Beats $1700 i7 6950X with 1-Click OC on Air Cooling
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who is doing this and can't afford a Xeon system? And why should Intel and AMD be making everyone else pay more so that these people can pay a little less?
Grad students :). More specifically, a professor with a research grant can afford to fund N grad students where N is inversely proportional to equipment cost. The complaint is not about adding the capability to all chips. It's about smoothing out the step function between consumer machines and professional workstations.
The steps from consumer to professional seem pretty smooth. The higher end consumer machines cost more than the lower and professional machines. You can buy SkyLake Xeon processors from Newegg for as low as a couple hundred dollars.
Re: AMD’s $499 Ryzen 7 1800X Beats $1700 i7 6950X with 1-Click OC on Air Cooling
#130I won't be replacing my i7 6800K build any time soon, but I'm very happy to see AMD looking competitive again. There hasn't been much excitement about the recent generations of i7 for good reason, and hopefully this forces them to start pushing the envelope again.
Exactly. Ridiculous Intel pricing and artificial limitations were a consequence of de facto monopoly. I absolutely hate how they cap maximum RAM on consumer machines, so that you need to pony up for a Xeon workstation if you need more than 64 GB.
Are you sure? I bought an i7-6850K for a personal GPU server, and 'top' sees all 128GB that I put in.
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E1681911...
I see an i7 6950X should also support 128GB:
http://www.overclockers.com/intel-i7-6950x-broadwell-e-cpu-r...
I wish it had ECC, but you can't have everything.