Live data from Hacker News

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

wccftech.com

61–70 of 278 posts

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

#61

There is so much hype with AMD atm. In particular sites like WCCFTech have gone almost rabid with hype. My experience is that AMD tend to over promise with their marketing and rumours. So whilst the hype may well be warranted this time, I'm going to wait for the actual reviews to come through and take these leaks with a grain of salt.

Fair enough, but this is a bit more concrete than marketing fluff.

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

#62
post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

32 core beast makes me think of a chip the size of a drink mat. Presumably it does fit in the AM4 socket though.

[deleted]

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

#63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What's the usecase when it can be beneficial to have expensive ECC RAM instead of the ordinary one? Anyone using ZFS will (or should!) care about ECC support. [0] Lots of people build their own NAS/SAN boxes, so ECC support on a desktop CPU at a reasonable price point would be very appreciated. Currently you need to buy specific model CPUs (Celeron or Xeon, IIRC) to get ECC support from Intel. [1] [0] https://serve…

Great use-case for the server-grade Atoms. I have a freenas build with an Avoton 8-core and it's fantastic. Asrock Rack c2750D4i, check it out. Can't wait for the new Atom server chips as well, and I hope AMD launches a competitor in the low-power / storage server market.

I am looking into replacing my home server / NAS, and I considered the atom server chips, but they seem just so expensive for their computing power, and also not very power efficient. The 8 core C2750 has a passmark of 3800[0], with an abysmal single thread performance of 579, and still has a TDP of 20W, and the mobo+cpu assemblies go for ~400$.

For way less, if you're willing to five up on ECC, you can get an i5-7500T and a pretty good motherboard, bringing your TDP to 35W but having a passmark of 7055, and most importantly, a single thread rating of 1924.

This might not matter much if you're use is exclusively NAS, but I will probably end up running some virtualized or containerized server, or streaming video possibly transcoding on the fly, and I'm afraid the Atom might become a bottleneck.

Is there a solution that is somewhat competitive with the i3/5/7 on price and power, and has ECC? And, ideally, that comes in a Mini-ITX form factor?

[0] Obviously the PassMark score is only a ballpark estimate to get an idea of how fast is a chip, but still.

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

#64
Take everything WCCFTECH writes with a pinch of salt, all of this could still be fake. The Ryzen hype train is on full steam and i really hope they deliver, but i'll wait for official benchmarks.

In the last few years, more often than not AMD hardware leaks have shown potential that in the end wasn't met. Things look good for Ryzen though, maybe they can finally make 6-8 Core CPUs mainstream.

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

#65
post #15

Not a CPU expert here, but isn't this a comparison of AMD next gen to Intel current gen? Won't Intel have a new CPU out, too, when the Ryzen is actually released?

The current roadmap suggest Intel will get YET another 14nm tweaks called Coffeelake on desktop, which is basically the same arch as Skylake. And Next year it will be Cannonlake, which is 10nm of Skylake.

Intel has been pretty much milking the Desktop Market for as long as they could.

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

#66
post #7

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.

That is like asking: "Why do you wear a seatbelt if you don't even drive a racecar?"

Because I care about my data. Data corruption may kill your main storage and the first backup, too.

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

#67
post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember those days and bought AMD then too. There was even a third competitor in those days, Cyrix.

I remember cyrix being later in the game with its 686/166 Mhz proc which did wonders.

Cyrix had a 486.

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

#68
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What's the usecase when it can be beneficial to have expensive ECC RAM instead of the ordinary one? Anyone using ZFS will (or should!) care about ECC support. [0] Lots of people build their own NAS/SAN boxes, so ECC support on a desktop CPU at a reasonable price point would be very appreciated. Currently you need to buy specific model CPUs (Celeron or Xeon, IIRC) to get ECC support from Intel. [1] [0] https://serve…

This is why I ultimately ended up buying an HP ML10 for my FreeNAS box, $300 for a Xeon E3-1220, board and iLO ended up being cheaper than buying a barebones + the CPU (which is just shy of $200 retail). I would like to have something that supports more memory, but to get anything with more sockets or support for larger DIMM's you start looking at the Broadwell-E or Xeon-E5 chips and those are considerably more expen…

Do you know how much power does it use? If so, could you add some details (number of HDDs, typical load - light, medium, heavy)? I'm looking into building a home server and would like something decently beefy, not too power hungry and possibly with ECC.

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

#69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great use-case for the server-grade Atoms. I have a freenas build with an Avoton 8-core and it's fantastic. Asrock Rack c2750D4i, check it out. Can't wait for the new Atom server chips as well, and I hope AMD launches a competitor in the low-power / storage server market.

I am looking into replacing my home server / NAS, and I considered the atom server chips, but they seem just so expensive for their computing power, and also not very power efficient. The 8 core C2750 has a passmark of 3800[0], with an abysmal single thread performance of 579, and still has a TDP of 20W, and the mobo+cpu assemblies go for ~400$. For way less, if you're willing to five up on ECC, you can get an i5-750…

Look at Xeon E3, for example: https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E1681911...

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

#70
post #7

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.

There's no need to down vote him. ECC is extremely uncommon on desktops & laptops. Yes, it's always going to be preferential to have it, but it typically comes at a price point that excludes it from these platforms.
Post reply on HN