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

181–190 of 209 posts

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

#181

Post by aaronmdjones »

yeukhon wrote: post #139
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...

Not sure, but some gamers are youtubers and they need to process videos. What about having an extra core or two for handling recording and playing live? Those cost serious real time processing.

When I'm streaming, I let my GPU do the video capture and compression for me (Nvidia NVEnc). You can do this with ShadowPlay if you feel like hurting yourself, but Open Broadcaster Studio supports it too.

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

#182

Post by throwawayish »

seabrookmx wrote: post #163
fgonzag wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The phenom lineup was very competitive (even slightly better than Intel's) for most of its lifetime. It wasn't really until a couple of generation into the Core 2 Duos that Intel started taking the lead.

> (even slightly better than Intel's) Competitive on price, sure. But it never held the performance crown. AMD hasn't held that since the Athlon 64 era. The first gen Phenoms were outpaced by the Core 2 lineup, and the second gen Phenoms that became quite popular were handily beaten by the first gen i7's. The Phenom II was a great bang-for-the-buck chip though, no doubt. I've owned all the relative players here: the…

The Phenom X6 had great performance both in terms of price and actual performance for developer / thread-heavy workloads. Although this is now ~seven years ago.

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

#183

Post by Strom »

stephenr wrote: post #174
nialv7 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You were just ahead of your time :) Multicore advantage for gaming is starting to materialize with Vulkan, mantle, etc.

Aren't Vulkan/Metal etc about GPUs rather than CPUs ?

Indeed, they are designed to reduce CPU load. Even so, if the game can't use multiple cores and previously was running game logic & OpenGL driver on the same core, now it's only the game logic. [1]

--

[1] nVidia actually implements Vulkan on top of their OpenGL driver, but nVidia's drivers have been relatively well optimized in terms of CPU usage already. AMD is the bigger winner here.

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

#184

Post by redtuesday »

trynumber9 wrote: post #109
sparkling wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Zero. While the performance of Ryzen is pretty good, the overall power consumption and efficiency (idle, semi-load and load) i still no where near Intel. They won't kill 2-3 hour battery life on Macbooks for a AMD CPU.

How do you know this? The only Zen-based chips we have any information about are desktop parts and we don't have any power usage benchmarks. The Raven Ridge chips, which are meant for laptops, would have the added advantage of removing the need for a discrete GPU in the 15" MacBook Pro. Switching to AMD seems unlikely but I'd be interested if they did.

Absolutely, nothing is really known at this point. The leaked power consumption results that we have show that a Ryzen engineering sample uses slightly less power than comparable Intel CPU's (i7 6900k). But we don't know if the leak is real.

So let's wait for real benchmarks (at march 2) before saying Intel is better in power consumption @ sparkling. But keep the following in mind: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13736809

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

#185

Post by ralfd »

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.

>actually own AMD stock

Any insight for that? Why do you think AMD is good investment (or speculation).

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

#186

Post by danvet »

Strom wrote: post #183
stephenr wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren't Vulkan/Metal etc about GPUs rather than CPUs ?

Indeed, they are designed to reduce CPU load. Even so, if the game can't use multiple cores and previously was running game logic & OpenGL driver on the same core, now it's only the game logic. [1] -- [1] nVidia actually implements Vulkan on top of their OpenGL driver, but nVidia's drivers have been relatively well optimized in terms of CPU usage already. AMD is the bigger winner here.

The OpenGL threading model is completely screwed up. You essentially have a global lock per GL context, which means you're restricted to 1 thread for issuing rendering. And in GL a context is for everything, including shaders, texture states, you can't even reasonable do uploads of new scene data in a separate thread.

Vulkan fixes this big time, by allowing apps to construct GPU workloads for a single GPU in parallel. Only the final submission step (which is supposed to be very low overhead if the driver design is decent) is single-threaded per GPU context. And even for that Vulkan is better: It allows you to allocate different contexts for separate engines (e.g. rendering vs. compute vs. copy engine for data up/download to/from the GPU vram).

The lower CPU overhead is just the icing on the cake, the real deal is that Vulkan fixed the threading/locking model.

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

#187

Post by redtuesday »

stephenr wrote: post #174
nialv7 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You were just ahead of your time :) Multicore advantage for gaming is starting to materialize with Vulkan, mantle, etc.

Aren't Vulkan/Metal etc about GPUs rather than CPUs ?

Yes and no: here is a short article about it from Brad Wardell the CEO from Stardock [0]. Vulkan/Mantle/DirectX12 allow the game developer to really take advantage of multicore CPU's. Which is why we see the most gains with these new low level API's for AMD's FX chips because they are better at multi-threaded workloads compared to single threaded workloads like with previous DirectX versions.

A quote from the linked article:

  To to summarize:

  DirectX 11: Your CPU communicates to the GPU 1 core to 1 core at a time. It is still a big boost over DirectX 9 where only 1 dedicated thread was allowed to talk to the GPU but it’s still only scratching the surface.
  DirectX 12: Every core can talk to the GPU at the same time and, depending on the driver, I could theoretically start taking control and talking to all those cores.

  That’s basically the difference. Oversimplified to be sure but it’s why everyone is so excited about this.
[0] http://www.littletinyfrogs.com/article/460524/DirectX_11_vs_...

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

#188

Post by redtuesday »

ralfd wrote: post #185
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.

>actually own AMD stock Any insight for that? Why do you think AMD is good investment (or speculation).

Maybe he/she bought when the stock was under 2 dollar last year? I know some people who invested their vacation money back then into AMD stock and are happy now.

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

#189

Post by redtuesday »

jeff_vader wrote: post #12
nextos wrote: post #10

Earlier 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.

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

Maybe to play around with genome data?

http://i.imgur.com/UYqaVoD.jpg

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

#190

Post by greggyb »

chatterbeak wrote: post #38
nextos wrote: post #10

Earlier 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.

With that much RAM, you'd be insane not to use ECC, which is another good reason for Xeon.

Or AMD, which supports ECC across all (most?) CPU lines historically. Again, the argument is about limitations of Intel consumer lines.
Post reply on HN