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

91–100 of 278 posts

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

#91

Post by lisivka »

grndzro wrote: post #40
mrb wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The symptoms of memory corruption are much more varied (and can be much more stubtle) than BSODs. For example they can cause filesystem corruption, any random app crashes (SIGSEGV...), infinite loops, etc.

That is why it is important after building/tweaking a system to do stability tests. If it runs full out without errors for 24h then you are fine.

I have no idea, why you downvoted. Stability test is important step of cluster building. If probability of something broken in new server is 10% then probability of something broken in new cluster of 10 servers is 1-(1-0.1)^10 = 65% .

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

#92

Post by viblo »

frik wrote: post #16
3825 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Call me selfish but I think it is more important for them to contribute to GNU/Linux and *bsd projects. I know Microsoft has a contractual obligation to support 7 for a while but I think there's next to zero chance they will reset Windows 10 and go back to Windows 7. You will need to get away from Windows 7 at some point. Better start making preparations now.

At the moment Windows 7 is number one desktop/notebook OS, it dwarfs all other operating systems (all other Windows versions incl Win8 & Win10, macOS and Linux combined )! Win7 is superb, looks nice and works rock solid and is supported until 2020 or beyond (see XP). And then in 2020s Fuchsia/Android, or what ever OS is available and make sense for end consumer needs. (Of course *nix driver support is important too,…

It seems like your data is outdated. According to Statcounter win 7 have 47.5% of the total windows market, you have to go back almost one year for a point when 7 had more than 50%. Netmarketshare says win 7 have 47.2% of the total market.

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

#93

Post by [deleted] »

nottorp wrote: post #59

More importantly for some, it's a 95W AMD part vs a 140W Intel part. If the power delta stays the same even for mainstream parts, does this mean AMD will become a good quiet option too? By quiet I mean "I can't hear it at night" not "I can't hear it over the music". Edit: Also, I think data centers these days are limited in density by power delivery and cooling. Even a 25W delta adds up when you're talking about thou…

[deleted]

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

#94

Post by iso-8859-1 »

weitzj wrote: post #42
kogepathic wrote: post #23

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…

There is nothing special about using ZFS with/without ECC. You are getting the same benefits using any filesystem while running with ECC. Also the "myth" that wrong checksum calculations due to a bitflip will degrade a ZFS filesystem even faster is not valid. There are some articles/newsgroups around explaining this in much more detail. So: Using ZFS on non ECC is not inherently unsafer than other filesystems on non…

And here is Matt Ahrens, a ZFS co-founder saying the same ("there's nothing special about ZFS that requires/encourages the use of ECC RAM more so than any other filesystem"):

https://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1235679&p=...

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

#95

Post by [deleted] »

beagle3 wrote: post #74
vegabook wrote: post #45

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.

> Intel execs must be gnawing down to their elbows at the prospect of AMD walking in to that market at 50% pricing deltas. That's not how it works. If they think AMD can make a dent, they'll mark their chips down to be competitive (for whatever definition of competitive they use, which is probably supported by data, though it might not be YOUR definition). Poor Intel will have to deal with only 100% profit instead of…

[deleted]

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

#96

Post by boomboomsubban »

guitarbill wrote: post #76
zer0t3ch wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If ZFS is anything like BTRFS, then I don't think ECC is super necessary. Yeah, it'll prevent problem from eventually cropping up when the RAM shits itself, but it's not like those issues compound silently in the night. When my ram started going a bit down the drain, (Flipping the occasional bit. Rare enough that the system still ran fine) I was hounded with checksum errors and any attempt to work with the data was m…

IDK, I've seen some odd RAM failure modes where the base OS would run fine, but then depending on the load (e.g. games) some weird stuff would happen like a BSOD after exactly minutes of gameplay. Once ZFS writes corrupted metadata with corrupted checksums to the disk, it's very hard to recover that data. Yes, ZFS is not backup, but the implications of serving clients messed up data is also worrying in certain busine…

The RAM itself isn't much more expensive, it's a compatible motherboard and CPU that add to the price. If you can't afford even a temporary loss of data it's well worth the cost. That is true with whatever filesystem you choose, and ZFS is always a great choice.

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

#97

Post by masklinn »

lisivka wrote: post #91
grndzro wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is why it is important after building/tweaking a system to do stability tests. If it runs full out without errors for 24h then you are fine.

I have no idea, why you downvoted. Stability test is important step of cluster building. If probability of something broken in new server is 10% then probability of something broken in new cluster of 10 servers is 1-(1-0.1)^10 = 65% .

Because they objection has nothing to do with the original comment. Bitflips are not a RAM stability issue.

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

#98

Post by masklinn »

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.

> The comparison with the 6900K is more fair.

It's also pointless if consumers will be choosing between a 7700K and the closest equivalent Ryzen part.

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

#99

Post by Matthias247 »

chx wrote: post #85

These last few years Intel was much working much more on bring power consumption down than ... anything else? The performance changed little: http://www.hardocp.com/article/2017/01/13/kaby_lake_7700k_vs... 20%? But now the 15W U series mobile chips deliver the same performance as 35W M chips in the Sandy/Ivy Bridge era which is quite impressive. This, of course, leads to a tremendous advantage in server CPUs -- if yo…

I think you sum it up quite good: The thing that Intel did mostly was putting more cores on the chips. However that happenend only for the server lines. With Sandybridge and before the top desktop and server chips were nearly identical, now there's a huge difference. Which also means that during the last years the performance of desktop CPUs increased barely. That might be ok from the point of view that normal users would mostly not benefit from more than 4 cores. However assuming that developing and manufacturing the top-end model of each generation costs roughtly the same the new generation desktop models should probably be a lot cheapter than they are currently sold for.

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

#100

Post by bdz »

anonymfus wrote: post #25
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.

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...

Post reply on HN