31–40 of 127 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You still have the Ryzen 5 3400G with integrated graphics
This is the problem with AMD's intentionally misleading marketing. The Ryzen 5 3400G is an APU with a Zen+ CPU. The CPU core that's actually good, that everybody wants, is the Zen2. The Zen+ is pretty slow. It has performance comparable to $99 Intel CPUs from last year.
Zen2 is faster than Zen+, but Zen+ isn't that slow.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is this including SPECTRE, etc. mitigations?
Why would anyone enable speculative execution mitigations on a computer used to build software?
Given that, I'd prefer they had shell access as a low privilege user than be able to read my ssh keys from RAM...
Obviously if you compile software as your regular linux user account like most users, you're already a sitting duck, so might as well throw in a few more vulnerabilities.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this is why you mostly see these cheap articles called out as being ideal for gaming rigs where you're highly likely to be adding a dedicated GPU anyway. Even a low end card like a $120 RX 570 is going to be 600+% faster than the built in Intel GPU: https://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-UHD-Graphics-630... Even for video editing the math might change a bit since modern video editing apps can leverage GP…
$120 is sensitive amount of money for someone who wants to use a machine only for development. I am wondering why AMD would manufacture ultra low end potato cards which would cost like $35, only for office use. That would boost the sales big time.
How about single core performance? Many games are pegged to one or two cores only. I've always found the AMD approach of throwing more cores at the problem not to be optimal.
https://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/2589?vs=2250
That's a $199 Intel 6-core part against a $120 AMD 4-core part. Anandtech hasn't bothered to benchmark a 4-core 9th-generation Intel CPU yet, despite the fact that they hit retail a year ago.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have a Ryzen 3900X, and also an i5 for software development. With unoptimized code the Ryzen is pretty close to the i5. But when you start to really optimize it becomes obvious the i5 has more execution resources and is faster single threaded.
Is this including SPECTRE, etc. mitigations?
Spectre doesn’t make much difference since its not making syscalls.
If you can somehow keep the CPU fed it becomes obvious there is more oomph behind the Intel device. That said how often are you running hand rolled assembly routines?
As an additional datapoint liblzf is faster on the Ryzen. But its limited by pipeline stalls so doesn’t get to take advantage of the extra resources.
Intel can't match this performance to price ratio
Maybe but we can't tell from this article which should have compared against the $75 Core i3-9100F or maybe the $160 Core i5-9400F, instead of filling their graphs full of unavailable, ancient Intel parts like the 4th-gen core i7 that launched in 2014, and then listing the 2014 MSRP as if that was a relevant point of comparison.
Other do compare against that CPUs and it's still much better to buy the Ryzen then the Intel ones (at least if you go headless or if you will put one a dedicated GPU anyway).
So I was recently looking at those as options for a very low budget video editing PC for someone, and yes, AMD destroys intel in raw CPU performance for the same price, however in those low-budget applications Intel has an upper hand - integrated GPU. With AMD you either have to go with the super crappy 3400G, which is a really poor CPU(but also very cheap), or for literally anything else + a dedicated GPU(which incr…
Intel can't match this performance to price ratio
Maybe but we can't tell from this article which should have compared against the $75 Core i3-9100F or maybe the $160 Core i5-9400F, instead of filling their graphs full of unavailable, ancient Intel parts like the 4th-gen core i7 that launched in 2014, and then listing the 2014 MSRP as if that was a relevant point of comparison.