331–340 of 359 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's also up to 30% faster. That's how variance works.
Those linked benchmarks are useless. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2017/03/amd-ryzen-review/ 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.
I'll have to disagree on a few of the points on that list: > - relative multi-threaded performance per $ Highly depends on the particular workload. Given the few benchmarks we have right now, it seems to go 50-50 once you factor in the lower price of the 7700k. At the very least, this one is close. > - memory bandwidth Seems about equal from the measurements I've seen (the theoretical numbers are irrelevant). > - L3-…
Ryzen 7 1800X unambiguously beats the 7700k on memory bandwidth: http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_ryzen_7_1800x_proce...
[1] https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Processors/AMD-Ryzen-7-1800X-R...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your piddly 5K doesn't stand up to my 8K professional video setup. To boot, I have multiple drives, and PCI-E/M.2 based networking and storage as well. Please try again when you need to juggle 1,000+ video feeds simultaneously and truly understand what REAL power requires.
I don't know if it was attempted, but you can turn down the condescension.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"If those are your needs you're well beyond enthusiast/prosumer" Allow me to introduce you to Camfrog. Absolutely consumer, boss.
You said 8K video with thousands of streams. That thing just looks like a normal video chat app that any modern CPU should have no problems with.
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's still losing in every web and office single threaded benchmark. Web and office? Single-threaded? Why are these benchmarks, specially in 2018?
That said, those numbers aren't particularly bad for a new CPU running un-optimized software. All the important software will be updated soon enough once the compilers are in order.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And you're also stuck with a $200/month power bill and the full home heater.... Don't get me wrong, I have a bunch of rack pull servers and they're great for the price but I colo mine for less/server than the power bill/server would be at home and have them ona faster connection. I stick with low power options for light in-home usage
The single-socket Xeon E3 that GP mentioned is 69W TDP. The Ryzen 1700 is 65W, while the 1700x and 1800x are 95W. Why do you think the Ryzen box will be a lot less power hungry?
Modern processors do some clever tricks to minimize using power if it is not needed, and have gotten progressively better at it. For home use cases, it's often worthwile to spend more money to get newer or otherwise more efficient PC components. This is especially true in areas where electricity costs are higher (e.g. average price per KWh can be almost twice as high in the Benelux when compared to the US).
One thing to get an indication about how good a CPU/chipset is is idle power usage of a system. It seems Ryzen is even better at this than Intel's already excellent Sky/Kaby Lake architectures [1], possibly because of the fact that Ryzen motherboards contain fewer components. On the contrary, the Ivy Bridge architecture of the chip mentioned by the parent cannot be considered competitive from a power consumption perspective, despite still being a great performer.
[1]: https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Processors/AMD-Ryzen-7-1800X-R...
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.
http://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/documents/...
I'm someone who's still running an ancient (2007, IIRC) Nehalem i7-920 based workstation for daily use and was eagerly waiting for this launch to finally decide on a new build. After reviewing all the day one benchmark data, I've come to the odd decision that I'm probably going for an i7-7700k, especially if Intel drops the prices by even a tiny amount. I say "odd" because, apart from basic daily tasks and occasional…
If we assume a similar AVX IPC (and Ryzen 1/2 with AVX2), you'll double your cores with Ryzen, so the AVX2 throughput per clock would be about the same. 7700 clocks higher, but then downclocks again when AVX are encountered. It seems like in practice, they are about the same for performance with AVX, but Ryzen is ahead in every other multi-threaded bench.
http://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/documents/...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
ECC is great for detecting errors more than correcting them. Then one can do thorough memtests and decide if it's time to replace memory modules. It doesn't really prevent problems (there are unrepairable ECC errors too) as much as it leads to early detection and repair. Well worth it when you're optimizing for MTTR. It's not a silver bullet if the user is just paranoid about data integrity (nothing beats end-to-end…
Personal anecdote. I have a Phenom + Asus mobo system with ECC memory in it that has been working fine for years without reporting a single ECC error. And then they started. At first there was a correctable error once every few days, then few errors per day, and then almost a constant stream of errors. Fortunately, they were all correctable. From the reported ECC syndomes I deduced that it was always the same single…
I'm someone who's still running an ancient (2007, IIRC) Nehalem i7-920 based workstation for daily use and was eagerly waiting for this launch to finally decide on a new build. After reviewing all the day one benchmark data, I've come to the odd decision that I'm probably going for an i7-7700k, especially if Intel drops the prices by even a tiny amount. I say "odd" because, apart from basic daily tasks and occasional…
Are there any benchmarks that show Ryzen at 50% slower on AVX2? Intel does AVX in one clock cycle, but drastically cuts clockspeeds when AVX instructions are executing. You'll overclock a lot, but it will then reduce the multiplier/clock the second AVX appears to keep from killing the chip. If we assume a similar AVX IPC (and Ryzen 1/2 with AVX2), you'll double your cores with Ryzen, so the AVX2 throughput per clock…
But that's only half the story. The thing is, a decent 7700k (after fixing the thermal interface via delidding and using high end air or low to mid end water cooling) is actually capable of running at 4.8-5 Ghz without downclocking for AVX. You might get an unlucky sample and only do 4.6 Ghz, but it's still cost effective. A 6900k, on the other hand, doesn't have the thermal headroom to go much past its stock frequencies on AVX-heavy workloads, unless you go full crazy with sub-ambient cooling.
So, in the end, it looks like the 7700k has at least double the price/performance ratio of a 1800X in AVX-heavy workloads along with vastly superior single thread performance. It looks to me like Ryzen is a great leap in price/performance only insofar as your workloads are highly multithreaded, yet don't make much use of vectorization at all.
[1] http://media.bestofmicro.com/ext/aHR0cDovL21lZGlhLmJlc3RvZm1...
[2] http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-cpu,49...
