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

AMD’s $499 Ryzen 7 1800X Beats $1700 i7 6950X with 1-Click OC on Air Cooling

wccftech.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 209 posts

Re: AMD’s $499 Ryzen 7 1800X Beats $1700 i7 6950X with 1-Click OC on Air Cooling

#151

Post by qume »

dpark wrote: post #126
mcbits wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That still doesn't follow. Having a certain amount of money doesn't imply that you have even more money, nor that you want to spend more than is truly necessary.

Sure it does. If someone can't afford the machine necessary to process the images that they got from the camera they spent thousands to rent, the problem isn't actually money. It's that they're an idiot. You don't buy/rent a camera you can't afford to process images from just like you don't buy a car you can't afford to service and you don't buy a house you can't afford taxes for. Or if you do, I have little to no sy…

The specifications from the client are quite particular, and usually only one or a few cameras meets the spec.

The computers often are owned by the company renting the gear, where the end customer pays for the camera rental.

So it's not so simple. And one thing - go easy on using the word idiot... I work with some very smart people who fit your description of idiot on a regular basis.

Re: AMD’s $499 Ryzen 7 1800X Beats $1700 i7 6950X with 1-Click OC on Air Cooling

#152

Post by michaelmrose »

dpark wrote: post #43
joethebob wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no free lunch. Moving to quad channel incurs more costs in pins, mobo traces, etc.. It's targeted product development.

Nah, it's just artificial limits. Would totally just work if they flipped a bit in the processor. /s Less sarcastically, what do people need >64 gigs for on a consumer desktop? I'm a dev and work on a pretty memory intensive service and don't need 128 gigs. Holding an entire double layer blu-ray in memory would only require 50 gigs.

Did you miss every example people gave?

Re: AMD’s $499 Ryzen 7 1800X Beats $1700 i7 6950X with 1-Click OC on Air Cooling

#153

Post by erik »

m_mueller wrote: post #75
actuator wrote: post #27

I just hope this lives up to the hype. I built my last machine using Phenom II X6 1090T but I always regretted it after; as the 6 core advantage that I thought future games will use, never materialized and per core performance of that was not as good as the Intel CPUs of the same generation. Most of the benchmark leaks have focussed on top of the line Ryzens, I would be interested in seeing how the mid level Ryzens a…

For performance / $ in HPC systems this will be a field day though.

Most HPC systems are focused on floating point though, and Zen's vector/AVX implementation doesn't match Intel's.

Re: AMD’s $499 Ryzen 7 1800X Beats $1700 i7 6950X with 1-Click OC on Air Cooling

#154

Post by m_mueller »

erik wrote: post #153
m_mueller wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For performance / $ in HPC systems this will be a field day though.

Most HPC systems are focused on floating point though, and Zen's vector/AVX implementation doesn't match Intel's.

That only matters for applications that are fully vectorized however. Most real world HPC applications depend much more on memory bandwidth and/or multicore performance and how well the compilers can optimize for the vector units (typically not very well). If I can choose two cores with 128 bit vectors for the same money as one core with 256bit, I'll choose the two core system any day of the week.

Re: AMD’s $499 Ryzen 7 1800X Beats $1700 i7 6950X with 1-Click OC on Air Cooling

#155

Post by erik »

Jerry2 wrote: post #99
gigatexal wrote: post #91

What're the chances Apple puts ryzen into their lineup?

Power requirements aside, AMD is still lacking a Thunderbolt 3 implementation so Apple will have to stay with Intel when it comes to Mac CPUs.

I wonder if AMD's patent cross licensing with Intel is broad enough to even allow them to do Thunderbolt.

Re: AMD’s $499 Ryzen 7 1800X Beats $1700 i7 6950X with 1-Click OC on Air Cooling

#156

Post by geezerjay »

m_mueller wrote: post #75
actuator wrote: post #27

I just hope this lives up to the hype. I built my last machine using Phenom II X6 1090T but I always regretted it after; as the 6 core advantage that I thought future games will use, never materialized and per core performance of that was not as good as the Intel CPUs of the same generation. Most of the benchmark leaks have focussed on top of the line Ryzens, I would be interested in seeing how the mid level Ryzens a…

For performance / $ in HPC systems this will be a field day though.

For performance/$ in HPC systems, nowadays anyone can buy used Opteron 61XX processors for less than 20$/each, and even Opteron 62XX for around 50$.

Re: AMD’s $499 Ryzen 7 1800X Beats $1700 i7 6950X with 1-Click OC on Air Cooling

#157

Post by erik »

m_mueller wrote: post #154
erik wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most HPC systems are focused on floating point though, and Zen's vector/AVX implementation doesn't match Intel's.

That only matters for applications that are fully vectorized however. Most real world HPC applications depend much more on memory bandwidth and/or multicore performance and how well the compilers can optimize for the vector units (typically not very well). If I can choose two cores with 128 bit vectors for the same money as one core with 256bit, I'll choose the two core system any day of the week.

I certainly agree that vector performance is overrated. But it seems to dominate HPC spending. At least on the top500. But maybe AMD can pick up some HPC spending for smaller clusters designed to run less specialized code? I don't know how big that market is.

Re: AMD’s $499 Ryzen 7 1800X Beats $1700 i7 6950X with 1-Click OC on Air Cooling

#158

Post by geezerjay »

paulmd wrote: post #117
philipkglass wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quantum chemistry. There are a number of high accuracy wavefunction based methods that are compute-tractable on desktop machines but very demanding of storage. Even when there's a disk based alternative to RAM storage it's a lot slower when you can't just allocate huge arrays in memory. I could easily use 256 GB, maybe 512, on a machine with 8 physical cores. You can get commercial software that is a bit better tuned…

Forget about desktop processors and buy yourself a double-socket LGA2011v3 board and some engineering-sample Xeons. Then you can address that kind of memory and run ECC. The clocks are a little lower than the retail Xeons, and you do need to pay attention to compatible boards/BIOS versions, but you can get a big Xeon E5 for like $200-300.

> Forget about desktop processors and buy yourself a double-socket LGA2011v3 board and some engineering-sample Xeons. Then you can address that kind of memory and run ECC.

If you follow this very thread, you'll notice that another user already complained that "you need to pony up for a Xeon workstation if you need more than 64 GB."

Re: AMD’s $499 Ryzen 7 1800X Beats $1700 i7 6950X with 1-Click OC on Air Cooling

#159

Post by redtuesday »

tzakrajs wrote: post #138

Micro Center is selling Intel i7 7700k for $299 Those 4 cores are stronger than the first 4 cores of the 1700X or the 1800X. If you are a gamer, then most if not all of your games will use 4 or less cores. Why pay more money for worse gaming performance? https://www.techpowerup.com/230638/amd-ryzen-benchmarks-leak...

Doesn't seem to be the case for modern games [0]. And this comes from a side which sometimes is called NvidiaBase or IntelBase. With the consoles having 8 (slow) cores, and Mantel/Vulkan and DirectX 12 emerging this will probably get more pronounced over time. Especially when Unreal 4, Unity and Cryengine optimize for more threads which means even indie games should take advantage of more cores.

btw: the 65 watt tdp Ryzen R7 1700 for 329 dollar is matched against the Intel i7 7700k and has double the cores. Yes it will be slower in single thread applications like ARMA 3 (having only Broadwell IPC and being clocked lower), but even at stock you will have better performance in modern games (where the GPU is more important anyway).

[0] https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=y&prev...

Re: AMD’s $499 Ryzen 7 1800X Beats $1700 i7 6950X with 1-Click OC on Air Cooling

#160

Post by SyneRyder »

dpark wrote: post #125
brennebeck wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. As the actual editing being added to the base image is what could push that. I think the question you'd be looking for is, "what amount of photo editing, effects, etc. would make the editing process of a 80mpix photo consume >16GB memory?" Additionally, as for your original question: For hobby or even 'normal' professional photography, I'd guess none. But rigs like the ones used for Gmaps Street View, the…

I actually want to know what camera is capturing 80 megapixels at 48 bits per pixel. The IQ180 is 16 bits per pixel. Where's the camera that triples this? Or are we doing Bayer interpolation in a way that requires 48 bits per pixel for some reason? Because there definitely isn't 48 bits of actual signal there. And yes, I also want to know what turns a 500MB photo into >16GB in memory. That's 32 full-res copies of the…

> I actually want to know what camera is capturing 80 megapixels at 48 bits per pixel. The IQ180 is 16 bits per pixel...

Presumably that's 16-bits for each channel of Red, Green, Blue. Since every pixel is composed of the three RGB components, that's how you get 48-bits for every pixel (and internally, Photoshop refers to 16-bits per color channel as 'RGB48Mode').

Post reply on HN