121–130 of 359 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You do have to consider that this is an 8 core, and more and more applications are being developed with this in mind. Whoever still thinks that Single threaded performance is the most important, lives in the past.
Consumer applications? Doubt it. Not a whole lot of consumer-oriented applications parallelize that well to be honest.
Do they ever do compiler speed tests or boot speed tests? Which of the existing ones would be most similar?
Boards initialization takes forever
For the last weeks Computerbase had access to different mainboards [...]. They had an extremely long init process in common: even with the latest BIOS it took up to 30s to get to the POST screen. Obviously this needs optimization.
-----
German:
Die Boards initialisieren ewig
ComputerBase konnte die letzte Woche auf drei verschiedene Mainboards zugreifen, neben den X370-Varianten von Asus und MSI auch auf das Gigabyte GA-AB350-Gaming 3 mit Chipsatz B350. Allen gemein war auch mit dem letzten BIOS der extrem langwierige Initialisierungsprozess: Bis der Post-Screen erscheint, vergeht über eine halbe Minute. Auch hier gibt es offensichtlich noch deutlichen Optimierungsbedarf.
----
https://www.computerbase.de/2017-03/amd-ryzen-1800x-1700x-17...
Do they ever do compiler speed tests or boot speed tests? Which of the existing ones would be most similar?
But the actual compilers people use (IE not that version of GCC) are rarely well-optimized for CPU. In fact, most compiler profiles are not flat yet, and where your compilation takes a long time, it's because some optimization or algorithm has gone nuts and needs to be fixed.
Until that kind of state of the world changes, measuring compile time is IMHO, a bit pointless, because they are only artificially CPU bound, and not in a way that is useful to benchmark (IE while i understand that people use these compilers every day, and care about performance, i'm just saying that, given a compiler benchmark, i could still probably make it take zero time with limited amounts of work)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks for pointing this out. I found this on the specification page[0] for the ASRock "X370 Killer SLI/ac" AM4 board: > AMD Ryzen series CPUs support DDR4 2667/2400/2133 ECC & non-ECC, un-buffered memory So the board seems to accept ECC memory, hopefully that means the memory controller actually performs ECC? I found a reddit comment claiming that the boards accept ECC memory but don't perform error correction[1]. N…
Several people contacted ASRock in the last few days. And the reply always was that ECC is fully supported, e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13762950
In that case anandtech saying "We know that it is disabled for the consumer parts" and ASRock saying "ASRock AM4 motherboards fully support ECC function" can both be true.
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're coming in at half the price of equivalent Intel chips. They don't need to win, necessarily (which I didn't think was going to happen), they need to be competitive for a lot less money. EDIT, in response to the other edit: sorry about that, I wasn't sure which comparison you were making. Still, the difference is slim enough that if I were in the market, I'd go with this one just to put the heat on Intel.
You do have to consider that this is an 8 core, and more and more applications are being developed with this in mind. Whoever still thinks that Single threaded performance is the most important, lives in the past.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
games you say? It's up to 30% slower here https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Processors/AMD-Ryzen-7-1800X-R...
It's also up to 30% faster. That's how variance works.
I'd take Intel CPU that runs 120 FPS average over AMD that runs 130 FPS average, when lowest FPS for Intel drops to 100 FPS and for AMD it drops to 80 FPS...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Several people contacted ASRock in the last few days. And the reply always was that ECC is fully supported, e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13762950
That's good information but still doesn't tell us that these cpus support ECC, right? Maybe the motherboard fully supports ECC when used with a future 1800X-PRO but not with the 3 chips reviewed here. In that case anandtech saying "We know that it is disabled for the consumer parts" and ASRock saying "ASRock AM4 motherboards fully support ECC function" can both be true.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's also up to 30% faster. That's how variance works.
It's also 0.1fps faster than the 6950X in the Civ VI AI test. And the 6950X is literally fucking $1700, that's over THREE TIMES more expensive than the top Ryzen.
If you do more than games, the Ryzen seems like a a good choice. It has serious power in applications, and is still fast in Games - which is a big step up compared to the FX. But no, it is not the goto choice for a gaming PC.