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

AMD Ryzen 7 1800X Benchmarked – Giving Intel’s $1000 Chips A Run For It

wccftech.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 278 posts

Re: AMD Ryzen 7 1800X Benchmarked – Giving Intel’s $1000 Chips A Run For It

#101

Post by astrodust »

sufiyan wrote: post #9

One must bear in mind that wccftech has always been one to leak stuff. Take what you might want to from that. More importantly though, Intel definitely needs competition. This is really good news and I hope it plays out well.

It'll put price pressure on Intel, that's for sure, but I don't know if it'll make Intel work any faster on boosting performance. They're having enough trouble with process and yield as it is.

It's interesting that this time around, if these numbers are true, AMD is not only faster performing and less costly, but also lower power. In the past they've always run hot, noisy, but cheap and fast-enough.

Maybe their experience in optimizing GPU production is paying dividends here.

Re: AMD Ryzen 7 1800X Benchmarked – Giving Intel’s $1000 Chips A Run For It

#102

Post by astrodust »

kijin wrote: post #27
wmf wrote: post #13

Ryzen leaks conspicuously don't mention gaming or the i7-7700K. AMD may win in a very small market yet lose the mainstream.

The "mainstream" market doesn't buy 7700K's. The "mainstream" market doesn't even know what hyper-threading is. People will see two identical laptops, one with the 2-core Intel i3, and one with the 4-core Ryzen, with similar clock speeds and similar prices. The Ryzen model might even give the illusion that it comes with an AMD graphics card even though it's integrated. That's all that matters.

If it has a K in the part number it is by definition not mainstream.

Those are made for overclockers, enthusiasts, which are a tiny segment of the market. For every K-part Intel produces they must make six E-series Xeon chips and fifty low-power notebook ones.

Re: AMD Ryzen 7 1800X Benchmarked – Giving Intel’s $1000 Chips A Run For It

#103

Post by vetinari »

perryh2 wrote: post #26
wmf wrote: post #13

Ryzen leaks conspicuously don't mention gaming or the i7-7700K. AMD may win in a very small market yet lose the mainstream.

The i7-7700K has only 4 cores. The comparison with the 6900K is more fair.

6900K has 40 PCIE lanes and that's raison d'etre of this chip. So it is not really fair to compare the more expensive chip and then ignore exactly that thing, that makes it expensive.

Re: AMD Ryzen 7 1800X Benchmarked – Giving Intel’s $1000 Chips A Run For It

#104

Post by Rebelgecko »

justincormack wrote: post #80
deaddodo wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's.....not how non-ECC works. Even a little. RAM bitflips randomly, period. It's just how it works. A cosmic ray can hit the memory chip just right and flip it, there's no way to predict or control that no matter how "stable" your machine is. ECC still does the same, it just has a parity bit on each line to confirm against and flip it back, as needed.

It is how faulty RAM works, and it is sensible to do that.

Not just faulty RAM. As far as I know, all modern RAM is going to have bitflips every once in a while (it even happens with ECC RAM)

Re: AMD Ryzen 7 1800X Benchmarked – Giving Intel’s $1000 Chips A Run For It

#105

Post by astrodust »

bdz wrote: post #100
anonymfus wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gaming performance is irrelevant for top CPUs, the difference appears only in low resolutions and old games.

lol? Your CPU can absolutely bottleneck your GPU. And new games start to use hpyer threading more and more, see Battlefield 1 for example. There is a huge difference between i3/i5/i7 http://www.gamersnexus.net/game-bench/2673-battlefield-1-cpu...

Unless you have a 144p display then all of the high-end configs there will appear identical.

Re: AMD Ryzen 7 1800X Benchmarked – Giving Intel’s $1000 Chips A Run For It

#106

Post by astrodust »

vegabook wrote: post #45
reitzensteinm wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a world where progress has slowed down, being two to three years behind Intel means you're practically interchangeable. This chip isn't an abnormality, it's a sign of things to come, and there's no way it isn't keeping Intel's execs up at night.

Amd is prepping a 32 core server beast. Considering Intel just launched a 24 core chip costing 9000 dollars , and considering the AMD IPC is looking good, Intel execs must be gnawing down to their elbows at the prospect of AMD walking in to that market at 50% pricing deltas. Over to GloFo though on process. That appears to be the a possible achilles heel here for AMD.

Intel's ultra-top-end chips are priced to the moon and then some. If AMD can nibble away at that market they're going to do quite well.

The trouble is it looks like they nearly folded out of the market completely, so they've got a lot of trust to rebuild.

Re: AMD Ryzen 7 1800X Benchmarked – Giving Intel’s $1000 Chips A Run For It

#107

Post by [deleted] »

vegabook wrote: post #45
reitzensteinm wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a world where progress has slowed down, being two to three years behind Intel means you're practically interchangeable. This chip isn't an abnormality, it's a sign of things to come, and there's no way it isn't keeping Intel's execs up at night.

Amd is prepping a 32 core server beast. Considering Intel just launched a 24 core chip costing 9000 dollars , and considering the AMD IPC is looking good, Intel execs must be gnawing down to their elbows at the prospect of AMD walking in to that market at 50% pricing deltas. Over to GloFo though on process. That appears to be the a possible achilles heel here for AMD.

[deleted]

Re: AMD Ryzen 7 1800X Benchmarked – Giving Intel’s $1000 Chips A Run For It

#108

Post by ntelson1s »

grndzro wrote: post #43
frik wrote: post #3

What about Win7 drivers? Even if the Redmond based company doesn't like marketing about it (an understatement) - please support it. (Recently AMD announced Win7 support only to remove the announcement after after a few days.) Even Intel supports Win7 with their most recent CPU as well, even if it's not officially marketed, and one has to search around for the driver.

Grab a copy of Win10 LTSB-N and get rid of Win7. It has all that annoying crap stripped out. You should be able to find a copy fairly easily floating around here and there.

What is this magic you speak of? Know of anywhere to find out more? I'd kill for a suitable equivalency to win7

Re: AMD Ryzen 7 1800X Benchmarked – Giving Intel’s $1000 Chips A Run For It

#109

Post by mtgx »

krzyk wrote: post #7
std_throwaway wrote: post #2

What about ECC memory? Intels desktop processors fail hard on that feature.

Why do you need that in desktop env? What's the usecase when it can be beneficial to have expensive ECC RAM instead of the ordinary one? I was always thinking that ECC can prevent blue screens/kernel faults, but I haven't seen those in years on my laptop without ECC.

I believe ECC RAM protects against RowHammer, doesn't it? That would be reason enough to get it.

Re: AMD Ryzen 7 1800X Benchmarked – Giving Intel’s $1000 Chips A Run For It

#110

Post by mschuster91 »

ntelson1s wrote: post #108
grndzro wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Grab a copy of Win10 LTSB-N and get rid of Win7. It has all that annoying crap stripped out. You should be able to find a copy fairly easily floating around here and there.

What is this magic you speak of? Know of anywhere to find out more? I'd kill for a suitable equivalency to win7

To quote Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_10_editions):

> Windows 10 Enterprise Long Term Servicing Branch (LTSB) is similar to Windows 10 Enterprise but does not include Cortana, Windows Store, the Edge browser, Photo Viewer and the UWP version of Calculator (replaced by classic version), and will not receive any feature updates, gives companies more control over the update process. Windows 10 Enterprise N LTSB also lacks the same components absent in other N variants (see below), and it is the most stripped down edition of Windows 10 available.

Given that this is Enterprise stuff, you won't get it preinstalled on retail laptops/PCs and buying it separately is impossible - you only get it with a Volume License contract or a MSDN subscription (IIRC 1.1k $ per year).

The "-N" suffix is there since (IIRC) Win XP, it is a version of Windows without bundled Media Player and other stuff.

Edit: According to https://www.howtogeek.com/273824/windows-10-without-the-cruf... one could get Win 10 Enterprise as a $7/month subscription and via this also Win 10 Enterprise LTSB? Does anyone have more details on how and if this works? I'd GLADLY pay $7/month for this, even more.

Post reply on HN