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

AMD Zen and Ryzen 7 Review: A Deep Dive

anandtech.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 359 posts

Re: AMD Zen and Ryzen 7 Review: A Deep Dive

#101

Post by cynic_ »

teilo wrote: post #70
olegkikin wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it wins in every case where performance truly matters: multi-threaded calculations, archiving, encoding. You know, the things that actually do take up time. Do you really care if your webpage renders for half a second longer?

No, it doesn't. Their hyperthreading model is clearly not as good as Intel's. Take a look at the Handbrake tests, which take full advantage of hyperthreading. The 7700K, with half the cores, is only a few frames/sec. behind. If I was after encoding performance, I wouldn't buy a Ryzen. If I was after rendering performance, I wouldn't buy a Ryzen. Throw an mid-range nVidia on there for OpenCL, and the only CPU that mak…

Looking at most benchmarks hyperthreading model is equal or better on Ryzen. Ryzen 1800x and 6900k have almost the exact single threaded score on Cinebench. But 1800x beats 6900k on Cinebench and Handbrake

Re: AMD Zen and Ryzen 7 Review: A Deep Dive

#102

Post by floatboth »

trueSlav wrote: post #66
izacus wrote: post #31

If I read the specs correctly, Ryzens don't have GPUs integrated. Are there any motherboards out there with GPUs on board? Or do you always have to add a 150EUR+ graphics card to it (assuming I want at least 2x 4K display support)? The 1800X does seem like a killer value for the money for us C++ people :)

The fact that it doesn't have an integrated gpu is a GREAT THING. This is an enthusiast/server CPU, if you can't be bothered to buy a cheap dedicated graphics card, wait for the mobile/apu Zen.

This is not server. The actual server Zen, codename Naples, is coming later.

Re: AMD Zen and Ryzen 7 Review: A Deep Dive

#103

Post by jdietrich »

olegkikin wrote: post #45
izacus wrote: post #31

If I read the specs correctly, Ryzens don't have GPUs integrated. Are there any motherboards out there with GPUs on board? Or do you always have to add a 150EUR+ graphics card to it (assuming I want at least 2x 4K display support)? The 1800X does seem like a killer value for the money for us C++ people :)

Why do you have to add a 150+EUR GPU? There are many cheap options. You can get Radeon R7 250 under $50, which absolutely destroys i7-6700k's integrated HD530.

Low-end GPUs are a very poor value proposition. For $89 you could have an RX 460 with nearly 3x the performance of the R7 250 plus HDMI 2.0b and DisplayPort 1.4.

Re: AMD Zen and Ryzen 7 Review: A Deep Dive

#104

Post by izacus »

trueSlav wrote: post #66
izacus wrote: post #31

If I read the specs correctly, Ryzens don't have GPUs integrated. Are there any motherboards out there with GPUs on board? Or do you always have to add a 150EUR+ graphics card to it (assuming I want at least 2x 4K display support)? The 1800X does seem like a killer value for the money for us C++ people :)

The fact that it doesn't have an integrated gpu is a GREAT THING. This is an enthusiast/server CPU, if you can't be bothered to buy a cheap dedicated graphics card, wait for the mobile/apu Zen.

It's mostly also a packaging issue - I don't need 3D capabilities, so a basic 4K supporting Intel GPU works well and doesn't require me to add a GPU to a chasis (which can then be mini-ITX).

Hence my question about having GPU integrated to the motherboard like older boards had it.

Re: AMD Zen and Ryzen 7 Review: A Deep Dive

#105

Post by DannyBee »

teilo wrote: post #70
olegkikin wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it wins in every case where performance truly matters: multi-threaded calculations, archiving, encoding. You know, the things that actually do take up time. Do you really care if your webpage renders for half a second longer?

No, it doesn't. Their hyperthreading model is clearly not as good as Intel's. Take a look at the Handbrake tests, which take full advantage of hyperthreading. The 7700K, with half the cores, is only a few frames/sec. behind. If I was after encoding performance, I wouldn't buy a Ryzen. If I was after rendering performance, I wouldn't buy a Ryzen. Throw an mid-range nVidia on there for OpenCL, and the only CPU that mak…

It's funny that the article mentions that Intel went through a number of these projects and optimized them, just so they could try to say that :)

I expect if AMD went back through again, they could improve them even more.

(In the handbrake case, most likely it's half-speed AVX2 that is hurting them)

Re: AMD Zen and Ryzen 7 Review: A Deep Dive

#106

Post by raverbashing »

Asooka wrote: post #59
snovv_crash wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also up to 30% faster. That's how variance works.

Well yeah but will you buy an alternate CPU that might be faster or might be slower in some games, or will you buy standard Intel, for which every game was definitely tested and will run with standard performance?

It's been more than 10 years since I've read such an uninformed comment

Re: AMD Zen and Ryzen 7 Review: A Deep Dive

#107

Post by floatboth »

msimpson wrote: post #49

AMD Ryzen 1800X (Summit Ridge): 3.6 GHz (4.0 GHz Turbo) over 16 threads 15,812 Passmark for ~$500 ----- Intel i7-7700K (Kaby Lake): 4.2 GHz (4.5 GHz Turbo) over 8 threads 12,321 Passmark for ~$350 ----- Intel Core i7-6850K (Broadwell E): 3.6 GHz (4.0 GHz Turbo) over 12 threads 14,500 Passmark for ~$575 ----- Competition is back. Ya!

And that's only CPU prices, don't forget mainboards, which are overpriced on the Intel X99 side!

Re: AMD Zen and Ryzen 7 Review: A Deep Dive

#108

Post by Geee »

olegkikin wrote: post #54
yread wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it's still losing in every web and office single threaded benchmark. EDIT: compared to 7700k that costs about the same

But it wins in every case where performance truly matters: multi-threaded calculations, archiving, encoding. You know, the things that actually do take up time. Do you really care if your webpage renders for half a second longer?

Yes, I do care. A lot. Actually if it's just 50ms I care. Slow main thread is a huge annoyance, and that's 99% of my computer use. On the other hand, I don't care if asynchronous tasks (encoding etc.) take 30 or 40 seconds or whatever; I can get a cup of coffee or check my email. Also, major parallel workloads are done on the GPU anyway.

Re: AMD Zen and Ryzen 7 Review: A Deep Dive

#109

Post by jabl »

tutanchamun wrote: post #47
arcanus wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep. And nvidia and amd are hurting Intel in terms of servers which are moving in many cases towards GPU for acceleration. Very interesting times in Silicon.

Yeah, and AMD is the only company who can offer a high performance GPU together with a high performance x86 CPU. And APU's with HBM of course. Looking forward to what they can achieve now that they seem to be back (although most of the financial success probably lies with the server CPU Naples).

They seem to be planning something like http://www.computermachines.org/joe/publications/pdfs/hpca20...

Something like that could be a monster for HPC & ML type tasks. Provided AMD gets their software and tooling up to par; Nvidia doesn't rule HPC/ML because their GPU's are leaps and bounds ahead of AMD, but because CUDA is..

If so, might explain why they went with a (relatively) gimped vector FPU for Zen compared to Intel offerings (particularly the soon arriving Skylake Xeons with 512-bit wide SIMD).

Re: AMD Zen and Ryzen 7 Review: A Deep Dive

#110

Post by floatboth »

antouank wrote: post #25
gigatexal wrote: post #23

Since I'm not much of a gamer I'm looking at these chips. I wonder what an optimized (packages compiled with flags specific to the chip) Linux system around ryzen would be like.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13774293

Would be nice to also see how long a FreeBSD buildworld takes :)
Post reply on HN