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

151–160 of 359 posts

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

#151

Post by Orangeair »

mtgx wrote: post #115
kayoone wrote: post #21

Seems like gamers in general are a little disappointed, for everyone else this CPU is amazing at that pricepoint though.

And it's mainly because games aren't optimized to take advantage of 16 threads - yet. That's partially Intel's fault for keeping 8+ core processors so expensive. AMD is trying to change that. Of course 16t games won't be available from day one of Ryzen launch.

As a lot of other people online are pointing out, this is pretty much the exact same thing people said when Bulldozer came out, but it never materialized. AMD has always won in terms of core count, and people have been saying for years that games capable of taking advantage of 8+ threads/cores are right around the corner, but it never really happened. We shouldn't be basing purchase decisions today on what might theoretically happen at some point in the future.

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

#153

Post by throwaway2048 »

tutanchamun wrote: post #73
jhasse wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that's probably the reason for the increased power consumption. But Ryzen also supports AVX2, doesn't it?

Ah yeah, remembered it false. I thought Ryzen had no AVX2, but actually it has it, but at half the speed.

Half the width, 128bit vs 256bit. Often translates to half the speed but not always.

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

#154

Post by sounds »

noipv4 wrote: post #142
sounds wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm actually curious which prices have changed. A quick google turned up an article claiming prices were being cut [1] but looking at the full price history tells a different story: http://imgur.com/a/vDHAv It looks like Intel's retail channel partners have a lot of inventory still in the pipeline. Prices are still within the bounds of the second half 2016. My best guess is the retail channel partners will be the mos…

http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/intel-is-dropping-processor... http://www.microcenter.com/product/472529/Core_i7-7700K_Kaby...

Ok, I added the i7-7700K, but I only see a $10 price drop:

http://imgur.com/a/vDHAv

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

#155

Post by nottorp »

floatboth wrote: post #145
onli wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you ignore that the i7-7700K is faster in that benchmark. And that one is cheaper. So is the i5. 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.

Yeah, I'm not arguing with that, I actually made that same exact point in a different thread :) I'm just pointing out how it compares to more expensive 8/10-core CPUs.

If the 6C/8T and 4C/8T parts will launch at the same frequency as the high end (and i've read that at least for the 6C they will) we'll end up with a CPU that is as fast as the 1800X in games (which is good enough no matter what the 120 fps enthusiasts say) but this time is cheaper than the 7700K. That will be the sweet spot for just gaming performance, not these ones.

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

#156

Post by MLR »

slantyyz wrote: post #89
jdietrich wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The R7 1700 is within shouting distance of the 6900k in most serious tasks - rendering, encoding, compilation etc. A $330 65w CPU is a credible alternative to an $1100 140w CPU. That is absolutely remarkable. The cherry on the cake is that the cheapest AM4 motherboards are half the price of the cheapest 2011-v3 boards. For the first time in a decade, AMD are seriously competing at the high end. That's great news for…

I'm hoping things get more interesting when the Ryzen Mobile chips come out later in the year.

The Zen based APU platform is going to cause real problems for Intel in the laptop/ultrabook market, Ryzen's power consumption looks very low and their iGPU technology is years ahead of Intel's.

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

#157

Post by nottorp »

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?

Your standard Intel is running a 64 bit instruction set designed by umm... AMD.

Perhaps you'd like to restrict yourself to 32 bit software just to be standards conformant?

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

#158

Post by MLR »

qaq wrote: post #62
anthonybsd wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consumer applications? Doubt it. Not a whole lot of consumer-oriented applications parallelize that well to be honest.

look at how many threads your Chrome is running

This review has a CPU web test section, you can see performance is mostly a function of IPC and clock speed.

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

#159

Post by contras1970 »

gigatexal wrote: post #112
floatboth wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would be nice to also see how long a FreeBSD buildworld takes :)

That'd be a fun test, too. One would need to control for disk io but definitely useful. I wonder how many HN readers run FBSD

FreeBSD 12.0-CURRENT on this very laptop.

I'm going to build an 1800X-based box in a few weeks (for games; planning to run Steam on a GNU/Linux distro), I'll want to see `make -j16 buildworld` for sure.

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

#160

Post by rbanffy »

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.

I think it'd be great if we could rely on every part having a standard, reasonable, GPU, even if we just use it as a clever vector unit and never push a single pixel through it.
Post reply on HN