Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

AMD’s $499 Ryzen 7 1800X Beats $1700 i7 6950X with 1-Click OC on Air Cooling

wccftech.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 209 posts

Re: AMD’s $499 Ryzen 7 1800X Beats $1700 i7 6950X with 1-Click OC on Air Cooling

#141

Post by michaelmrose »

tzakrajs wrote: post #138

Micro Center is selling Intel i7 7700k for $299 Those 4 cores are stronger than the first 4 cores of the 1700X or the 1800X. If you are a gamer, then most if not all of your games will use 4 or less cores. Why pay more money for worse gaming performance? https://www.techpowerup.com/230638/amd-ryzen-benchmarks-leak...

This post is pretty full of bad logic and could benefit from comparative benchmarks in place of supposition.

- One retailers sale price on one chip is a poor way to judge the relative value of 2 entire lines of products.

- the Intel i7 7700k is normally north of 350 which is what a lot of retailers are selling it for. There is no reason to suppose that one retailers temporary sale right now ought to be compared to the projected sale price of amd chips.

-This price is without cooler/paste amd 1700 includes both for 329 so most would end up paying almost 400 for Intel $70 more if you include the next item.

- Historically Intel motherboards have been more expensive and have been worthless as far as upgrading even to the very next generation of cpu. Amd motherboards are often upgradable.

- It would be more reasonable to compare it to the 1700 which has uses 2/3 the power to run twice the cores with substantially better multi core performance as much as 40% better in fact.

http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-1700-gaming-performance-benc...

While single core performance isn't quite as good if you followed pc gaming you would in fact know that either chip is going to be more than enough to keep up with any mid and most high end gpu setups you could throw at it.

In summary going Intel on your next mid to low high end gaming rig will probably cost you slightly more, use a lot more power, give you substantially worse performance and no better gaming performance.

Re: AMD’s $499 Ryzen 7 1800X Beats $1700 i7 6950X with 1-Click OC on Air Cooling

#142

Post by jdietrich »

c2h5oh wrote: post #13
jychang wrote: post #6

Just a reminder that wccftech.com is notoriously pro-AMD. I would caution against taking their word as proof. I'm not an AMD hater (actually own AMD stock), just cautious.

It's more of a rumor/gossip tech site with a reputation for immediately publishing almost anything you could put a click-baity title on. As a result it does look pro-AMD, because there is significantly more hype (the infamous hype train) in AMD community (just compare /r/amd and /r/nvidia on Reddit). I can't say if it's something that emerged organically in those communities and embraced by corporate or the other way…

Techies love a hype train, but Ryzen is genuinely important. Intel have had a near-total monopoly on high-performance CPUs for many years. This has led to a dismal stagnation in the CPU market. If you bought an i7-2600k six years ago, you have little reason to upgrade - an i7-7700k is only about 30% faster in most workloads.

If Ryzen is anywhere near as good as the benchmarks suggest, then Intel have got a lot of work to do. They'll need massive performance increases, huge price cuts or both to remain relevant. That's good news for everyone except Intel.

Re: AMD’s $499 Ryzen 7 1800X Beats $1700 i7 6950X with 1-Click OC on Air Cooling

#143

Post by jdietrich »

tzakrajs wrote: post #138

Micro Center is selling Intel i7 7700k for $299 Those 4 cores are stronger than the first 4 cores of the 1700X or the 1800X. If you are a gamer, then most if not all of your games will use 4 or less cores. Why pay more money for worse gaming performance? https://www.techpowerup.com/230638/amd-ryzen-benchmarks-leak...

FTA:

“With our overclocked 1800X sample cooled by the Noctua unit AMD provided in the reviewer’s kit we managed to surpass the 7700K in single threaded performance and the temperatures were great."

The 7700k might be a reasonable value choice for gaming today, but I have little doubt that the extra four cores of the 1800X will come into play quite soon.

Not so long ago, the same argument applied to dual vs quad core processors. Game developers didn't start optimising for four cores until there were a significant number of users with quad core processors.

We're also yet to see the performance of the hex-core and quad-core Ryzen parts. At $199, the 4c/8t 1400X could demolish the 7700k.

Re: AMD’s $499 Ryzen 7 1800X Beats $1700 i7 6950X with 1-Click OC on Air Cooling

#144

Post by frik »

How is the single core performance in real world beside benchmarks?

AMD mentions some AI technology to improve the perf. If one runs the same software many times, will the performance change? It could be good if it learns and improves the performance, but results might not be reproduce. Is it like the Pentium 4 with its long pipelines that ideally result in better performance but meant more misses?

Good that AMD has something in peto to compete with Intel again.

Re: AMD’s $499 Ryzen 7 1800X Beats $1700 i7 6950X with 1-Click OC on Air Cooling

#145

Post by semi-extrinsic »

smallnamespace wrote: post #64
semi-extrinsic wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 24-bit (...) uncompressed audio Do you really need this much headroom, e.g. for producing music professionally? (If so, why are you arguing over the $50-100 extra for a Xeon?) Because for listening, it's proven fact that even professional musicians and mixing engineers using equipment costing >$100k can't tell 24 bit from 16 bit in a proper double-blind A/B test. Presumably you use a high sample rate as well (maybe…

For editing, you want to use the highest possible starting bandwidth (sampling rate * bit width) because every intermediate edit and calculation leads to round-off and other errors. You also need them to be WAVs or some other raw format since you cause minor errors every time you compress + decompress something, not to mention the performance loss. It's the same rationale for doing calculations in full 80-bit or 64-b…

Yes, that's exactly what I was trying to ask. Does OP really need 24 bits because they are producing music professionally? In that case, $100 on the i7->Xeon upgrade is a cheap no-brainer. If they are not producing audio professionally, I'm saying they probably can't tell the difference between 16bit and 24bit audio.

Also, you don't cause errors when you compress and decompress using a lossless compression format (as the name sort of implies).

Re: AMD’s $499 Ryzen 7 1800X Beats $1700 i7 6950X with 1-Click OC on Air Cooling

#146

Post by skartik »

c2h5oh wrote: post #17
jeff_vader wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

64gb workstation ought to be enough for anybody. Jokes aside, what do you do if you are interested in >64gb workstations?

Some examples that can easily push you beyond 64 GB: - high resolution photo editing: when you start with a 80 mpix / 48 bit photo from a medium format camera pushing beyond 16 GB requires only a couple layers and a couple undo steps being available - high resolution video processing. 1 second of uncompressed 4k 60fps video is almost 1.4GB - very large application compilation: building Android requires 16GB of RAM/sw…

I am a FEA Consultant and work with Abaqus and LS-Dyna. I need >64 GB now.

Re: AMD’s $499 Ryzen 7 1800X Beats $1700 i7 6950X with 1-Click OC on Air Cooling

#147

Post by jdietrich »

semi-extrinsic wrote: post #50
emersonrsantos wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use a sound sampler (Hauptwerk) that loads tens of thousand of wavefiles and needs a polyphony (simultaneous samples being played) of thousands of voices to simulate a pipe organ. The minimum configuration for the smallest instrument (one voice) with natural acoustics (ie. original ambient reveberation recorded) is 4gb. The normal requirements for some good instruments are 64-128gb for 24-bit 6-channel uncompressed…

> 24-bit (...) uncompressed audio Do you really need this much headroom, e.g. for producing music professionally? (If so, why are you arguing over the $50-100 extra for a Xeon?) Because for listening, it's proven fact that even professional musicians and mixing engineers using equipment costing >$100k can't tell 24 bit from 16 bit in a proper double-blind A/B test. Presumably you use a high sample rate as well (maybe…

Yes. Bit depth is almost entirely about dynamic range. Run out of bits at the top of the range and you get clipping; run out of bits at the bottom end and the signal disappears below the noise floor of dithering.

For mixed and mastered music, the ~120dB perceived dynamic range of properly dithered 16-bit audio is more than sufficient. If you're listening at sufficient volume for the dither noise floor to be higher than the ambient noise floor of the room, you'll deafen yourself in minutes.

For production use, the extra dynamic range of 24 bit recording is invaluable. You're dealing with unpredictable signal levels and often applying large amounts of gain, so you'll run into the limits of 16-bit recording fairly often. In a professional context, noise is unacceptable and clipping is completely disastrous. Most DAW software mixes signals at 64 bits - the computational overhead is marginal, it minimises rounding errors and it frees the operator from having to worry about gain staging.

You can probably get away with 16 bit recordings for a sample library, but it's completely unnecessary. Modern sampling engines use direct-from-disk streaming, so only a tiny fraction of each sample is stored in RAM to account for disk latency. The software used by OP (Hauptwerk) is inexplicably inefficient, because it loads all samples into RAM when an instrument is loaded.

Re: AMD’s $499 Ryzen 7 1800X Beats $1700 i7 6950X with 1-Click OC on Air Cooling

#148

Post by dsacco »

nextos wrote: post #10
haswell wrote: post #3

I 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.

This is false, I have an i7-6900K and 128GB of RAM on an X99 motherboard. You could do the same with a significantly cheaper CPU, too.

Re: AMD’s $499 Ryzen 7 1800X Beats $1700 i7 6950X with 1-Click OC on Air Cooling

#149

Post by dsacco »

lqdc13 wrote: post #120
boulos wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this is just a hobby why not rent a large VM from us (GCE) or AWS? It sounds like you don't run enough to want a box for anything like 24x7, but that it'd be great to have tons of memory and lots of cores (or a giant SSD). We just announced our Skylakes yesterday ;). Disclosure: I work on Google Cloud,

I work on NLP projects and have similar issue with memory. The reason I don't use cloud computing is that you constantly have to worry about moving data around, turning stuff on and off, API changes, data movement costs, product lineup changes (should I store this stuff on S3 or local HD), locally compiling all your stuff again or containerization and associated time overhead. Local large box makes way more sense if…

I can confirm, I run machine learning workloads on a home machine with 128GB of RAM on an X99-E WS/USB 3.1 motherboard. My manual explicitly states that it has 128GB RAM support, as well.

Re: AMD’s $499 Ryzen 7 1800X Beats $1700 i7 6950X with 1-Click OC on Air Cooling

#150

Post by qume »

abdulmuhaimin wrote: post #100
dpark wrote: post #60

Earlier 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

Also the camera rental cost goes to the client. The computers to process are generally owned by the company doing the work. Big difference. I will regularily spend $1-2k for cameras for ~1 week, and pass that on, but still use our own gear for processing.
Post reply on HN