|
Yeah the closest Microcenter is two and a half hours away from me. We haven't had a big box computer store in town since CompUSA closed down over a decade ago.
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 22:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 10:20 |
|
|
FaustianQ posted:How not? I'm seeing Ivy processors keeping up with it, and it can barely keep up with Haswell according to Stilt on Anandtech. It's fine, and "barely keep up with Haswell" is a decent result given that Broadwell was a teeny tiny improvement over Haswell. The truth is somewhere in the middle, it's better at some things and worse at others than Intel's chips. It's competitively priced for things that want 6+ slower cores and a decent product overall.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 22:58
|
|
|
Rabid Snake posted:How is VR benchmarking going to work? As someone who got a vive over the winter I'm interested in some VR benchmarks It works with great difficulty. Until FCAT VR launched a few days ago there was no way to benchmark VR robustly, and even now it's time consuming and expensive. https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/NVIDIA-FCAT-VR-Preview-New-Performance-Tool
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 23:04
|
|
|
FaustianQ posted:How not? I'm seeing Ivy processors keeping up with it, and it can barely keep up with Haswell according to Stilt on Anandtech. No you're dead right, the TDPs are fantasy at best, the 1700X and 1800X are boosting way past 95W (basically Haswell-E TDP) and the IPC is poor as hell Edit: GN "hard recommendation against 1800X for gaming because there's better and cheaper processors".
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 23:13
|
|
|
Deuce posted:This idiot thinks turning off v-sync means his GPU can't be the bottleneck. repiv posted:He's chatting live with the Gamers Nexus guy right now. Maybe he can learn something Except the Gamers Nexus guy isn't disputing his results.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 23:23
|
|
|
Measly Twerp posted:Except the Gamers Nexus guy isn't disputing his results. He didn't really look at the results, though. That GPU was pegged at 99% the entire time. That's not to say it's a bad test, this is good information. But it is demonstrating that the GPU is the primary limit here. There's no disputing the results because the results aren't wrong. They're just not the best test when the question is "is the 7700k faster than the 1700 in gaming?"
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 23:28
|
|
|
Given how hard some posters are coming down on Ryzen, I have to wonder who drank the koolaid harder? r/AMD, or goons?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 23:30
|
|
|
Turns out that the R7 1700 is be the only really sensible Ryzen CPU for  unless you absolutely don't want to overclock. That runs at reasonable temperatures stock and overclocks up to 3.8-3.9 Ghz which is about as high as you want to go without watercooling. XFR is supported but seems fairly pointless.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 23:32
|
|
|
PerrineClostermann posted:Given how hard some posters are coming down on Ryzen, I have to wonder who drank the koolaid harder? r/AMD, or goons? /r/AMD will tell you the FX-9500 series was great and the 1800X is a gift from God himself. The goon threads seem to have mostly expected Haswell-E and are at most disappointed we were right on the money.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 23:33
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:No you're dead right, the TDPs are fantasy at best, the 1700X and 1800X are boosting way past 95W (basically Haswell-E TDP) and the IPC is poor as hell You're doing a real good impression of "only concerned with processor gaming performance  " today
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 23:35
|
|
|
PerrineClostermann posted:Given how hard some posters are coming down on Ryzen, I have to wonder who drank the koolaid harder? r/AMD, or goons? Uhh, goons are saying "7700k is still better for games, Ryzen good for many-threaded operations but has some version 1.0 problems" which is 100% accurate. r/AMD is saying Ryzen the above proves we're Intel shills. We're now able to see through the pre-release marketing bullshit AMD was throwing around, and it's totally fair to point that out. And it's not like anyone is pretending Intel isn't full of the same poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 23:35
|
|
|
Deuce posted:He didn't really look at the results, though. That GPU was pegged at 99% the entire time. I hear you, different test means different results, and it's wrong to compare them and say "Aha, maybe Ryzen this..." People are making out Ryzen as a complete failure for gaming just because those other tests show it performing poorly, however I don't think those tests can be particularly useful in judging the experience of actually gaming on a Ryzen if at 1080p Ultra it's already more than capable of pushing a GTX 1080 to the limit 99% of the time. Am I thinking incorrectly?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 23:36
|
|
|
e: bad joke
Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 04:15 on Mar 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 23:40
|
|
|
Risky Bisquick posted:Negative testing for pukes per session Uh, 1800X 8% behind the 6900K stock to stock, so 12% clockspeed advantage to be 8% slower? Where in reality that makes it 25% slower clock for clock? That's just bad, just not as horrifically bad as before. Twerk from Home posted:It's fine, and "barely keep up with Haswell" is a decent result given that Broadwell was a teeny tiny improvement over Haswell. The truth is somewhere in the middle, it's better at some things and worse at others than Intel's chips. It's competitively priced for things that want 6+ slower cores and a decent product overall. The truth isn't somewhere in the middle here, it's a low clock-speed, high efficiency processor with Ivy Bridge-E capability in TYOOL2017 (that like Ivy can keep up but has to be pushed beyond reasonable limits). AMD moved from awful to mediocre. This might be acceptable for mobile or APU/NPU use, for performance and even server I don't see it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 23:41
|
|
|
Measly Twerp posted:I hear you, different test means different results, and it's wrong to compare them and say "Aha, maybe Ryzen this..." No, I had the same thought. "Even a GTX 1080 can still be the bottleneck on a Ryzen" is good news. You may not get all the FPS of a 7700k, but you can get pretty close and gain a ton of multitasking power on top of it. And in higher resolution gaming, which anyone pondering a $300-500 CPU is definitely a candidate for, the difference does get smaller. Ryzen is good. It just wasn't the miracle that /r/AMD believes it is, and that goons really wanted it to be. Everyone wants the Big Blue rear end in a top hat to get punched in the balls, but I'll settle for the kick to the shins.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 23:41
|
|
|
FaustianQ posted:Uh, 1800X 8% behind the 6900K stock to stock, so 12% clockspeed advantage to be 8% slower? Where in reality that makes it 25% slower clock for clock? That's just bad, just not as horrifically bad as before. IB-e is what the pessimistic assumptions were. Again, remember how I was repeatedly reminding everyone to chill the gently caress out and not ride the hype train until Steve proved what was in the box of magic beans? Haswell IPC was a nice fantasy while it lasted tho it's garbage but at least it's not bulldozer, it's what we expected a month ago before the hype train got started Deuce posted:No, I had the same thought. "Even a GTX 1080 can still be the bottleneck on a Ryzen" is good news. You may not get all the FPS of a 7700k, but you can get pretty close and gain a ton of multitasking power on top of it. loving lol, it's a simple formula, 1440p/4K + any modern processor = GPU bottleneck, you could almost certainly even do that on something with IPC as garbage as bulldozer Seeing Steve asked how to explain GPU bottlenecks to Freshman Reviewer #77 was awesome, and he didn't even try to try.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 23:46
|
|
|
FaustianQ posted:Uh, 1800X 8% behind the 6900K stock to stock, so 12% clockspeed advantage to be 8% slower? Where in reality that makes it 25% slower clock for clock? That's just bad, just not as horrifically bad as before. How do you not see it for server? The $330 1700 walks all over the $420 E5-2620 v4. Intel's cheap 8 core server SKUs have a 2.1 GHz base clock!
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 23:47
|
|
|
Definitely a messy launch but eh, AMD. The actual results aren't really surprising at all, an 8-core was never going to be competitive with faster 4C in games. And it actually looks great at bang/buck in most heavy productivity loads, AVX2 aside. It's funny that there are probably kids now who are into PCs (so both of them) for whom AMD's been utter poo poo their entire lives, so this must come as a huge surprise  I don't do as much gaming as I used to and 8 cores are great for rendering or machine learning uses so an overclocked 1700 might be a consideration, depending on how well it clocks in practice. E: I'm not too optimistic about the 4c Ryzen beating the 7700k (except on price) though mobby_6kl fucked around with this message at 23:50 on Mar 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 23:48
|
|
|
FaustianQ posted:Uh, 1800X 8% behind the 6900K stock to stock, so 12% clockspeed advantage to be 8% slower? Where in reality that makes it 25% slower clock for clock? That's just bad, just not as horrifically bad as before. What is the word on when mobile Ryzen stuff is coming out anyway? There hasn't been a worthwhile AMD laptop outside of a certain kind of low end device ever, after all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 23:48
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:loving lol, it's a simple formula, 1440p/4K + any modern processor = GPU bottleneck, you could almost certainly even do that on something with IPC as garbage as bulldozer I guess as someone yet to experience true 60fps gaming at 1080p Ultra none of this seems particularly relevant.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 23:53
|
|
|
Deuce posted:No, I had the same thought. "Even a GTX 1080 can still be the bottleneck on a Ryzen" is good news. You may not get all the FPS of a 7700k, but you can get pretty close and gain a ton of multitasking power on top of it. All performance aside though, what really matters is sales. If enough people buy Ryzen then it doesn't really matter if Intel processors are better by whatever measure. I hope Ryzen is a huge success in terms of sales and we see an end to Intel thinking it's "normal" to sell $1k+ consumer chips. e: the 1800x is out of stock on newegg and Amazon! The only ones left are from vendors trying to charge $650+. Sophy Wackles fucked around with this message at 00:03 on Mar 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 23:56
|
|
|
.
Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 04:15 on Mar 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 23:58
|
|
|
Pawn 17 posted:All performance aside though, what really matters is sales. If enough people buy Ryzen then it doesn't really matter if Intel processors are better by whatever measure. I hope Ryzen is a huge success in terms of sales and we see an end to Intel thinking it's "normal" to sell $1k+ consumer chips. Considering the last time that AMD has an actual proper performance lead over Intel back in the original FX days, they did exactly what Intel did and sold a 1000 dollar halo product chip, it is pretty normal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 23:59
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:loving lol, it's a simple formula, 1440p/4K + any modern processor = GPU bottleneck, you could almost certainly even do that on something with IPC as garbage as bulldozer
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 00:06
|
|
Pawn 17 posted:All performance aside though, what really matters is sales. If enough people buy Ryzen then it doesn't really matter if Intel processors are better by whatever measure. I hope Ryzen is a huge success in terms of sales and we see an end to Intel thinking it's "normal" to sell $1k+ consumer chips. Indeed, the victory of AMD:Champion of the People over the Foul Demon Intel is paramount, benchmarks and everything else pale in comparison to this noble and shining quest!
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 00:06
|
|
|
Twerk from Home posted:How do you not see it for server? The $330 1700 walks all over the $420 E5-2620 v4. Intel's cheap 8 core server SKUs have a 2.1 GHz base clock! Because servers already have access to this kind of performance and all Intel has to do to counter it is offer the old poo poo at discount while offering the new poo poo at current premium. This isn't rocket science, Intel isn't going to let AMD a single sale if they can help it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 00:07
|
|
|
Pawn 17 posted:All performance aside though, what really matters is sales. If enough people buy Ryzen then it doesn't really matter if Intel processors are better by whatever measure. I hope Ryzen is a huge success in terms of sales and we see an end to Intel thinking it's "normal" to sell $1k+ consumer chips. I think you fundamentally misunderstand the business if you think the existence of chips that are expensive but not officially labeled as "enterprise" instead of "consumer" is a problem really. And also if you think expensive chips are going to go away.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 00:09
|
|
|
FaustianQ posted:Because servers already have access to this kind of performance and all Intel has to do to counter it is offer the old poo poo at discount while offering the new poo poo at current premium. This isn't rocket science, Intel isn't going to let AMD a single sale if they can help it. Hey if this knocks 30% off off E5 Xeon prices that's a huge win for every company not named Intel. That would be an achievement.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 00:09
|
|
|
fishmech posted:I think you fundamentally misunderstand the business if you think the existence of chips that are expensive but not officially labeled as "enterprise" instead of "consumer" is a problem really. And also if you think expensive chips are going to go away. Go away? No. The Best of the Best will always have a premium. But that premium can shrink when a solid competitor is present. You know, because business.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 00:15
|
|
|
fishmech posted:What is the word on when mobile Ryzen stuff is coming out anyway? There hasn't been a worthwhile AMD laptop outside of a certain kind of low end device ever, after all. Mobile is Q2 or H2, not sure.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 00:18
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:Indeed, the victory of AMD:Champion of the People over the Foul Demon Intel is paramount, benchmarks and everything else pale in comparison to this noble and shining quest! I'm saying competition, in any market, is good for consumers. A monopoly is not. It doesn't seem like that controversial of a thing to say. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 00:28
|
|
|
Deuce posted:Go away? No. The Best of the Best will always have a premium. But that premium can shrink when a solid competitor is present. Didn't happen last time AMD was at all competitive, why would it happen now?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 00:31
|
|
Pawn 17 posted:I'm saying competition, in any market, is good for consumers. A monopoly is not. It doesn't seem like that controversial of a thing to say. Yes, actual competition would be good, but what I got from your post is that you hope people will buy an inferior product just so that Intel has competition. Hoping that consumers fall for hype and screw themselves over seems to go right against why competition is a good thing in the first place.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 00:37
|
|
|
Ok that's all very nice for people who love streaming themselves using a software encoder doing raytracing hobbywork while also compiling Linux and some light cryptography on the side. Now where's my 5GHz 4/4
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 00:45
|
|
|
Twerk from Home posted:It's fine, and "barely keep up with Haswell" is a decent result given that Broadwell was a teeny tiny improvement over Haswell. The truth is somewhere in the middle, it's better at some things and worse at others than Intel's chips. It's competitively priced for things that want 6+ slower cores and a decent product overall. that wants fewer incredibly fast threads.Also, why the unholy gently caress is SMT broken on release? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 00:48
|
|
|
sauer kraut posted:Ok that's all very nice for people who love streaming themselves using a software encoder doing raytracing hobbywork while also compiling Linux and some light cryptography on the side. My dude have you heard of the 7700K
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 00:51
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Didn't happen last time AMD was at all competitive, why would it happen now? Because Intel isn't still doing the same poo poo that led to the 1.45 billion dollar fine?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 00:52
|
|
|
Woden posted:Because Intel isn't still doing the same poo poo that led to the 1.45 billion dollar fine? And that's going to lead to not still selling very expensive high end processors because: _____
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 00:54
|
|
|
sauer kraut posted:Ok that's all very nice for people who love streaming themselves using a software encoder doing raytracing hobbywork while also compiling Linux and some light cryptography on the side. That's literally the Kaby Lake i5. E: On another tangent, now that I think about it, one of the reasons people are saying to go with a Ryzen over a Kaby Lake for gaming purposes is for streaming. Now that I think about it, the consumer CPU's have dedicated encoding hardware on them so you can use Quicksync. I haven't used QS yet myself, though plan to test it soon, wouldn't QS be plenty for the casual streamer for little performance hit? Beautiful Ninja fucked around with this message at 00:57 on Mar 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 00:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 10:20 |
|
|
Anime Schoolgirl posted:It upclocks very poorly, this seems to be an architecture made for stuffing as many lower-power 2.5-3.0ghz cores as possible which while great for server usage isn't going to translate well to It's probably similar to the issue Bulldozer had with it at launch with its "modules" Windows 8+ had a fix for it that allowed it to gain like 15% performance vs Windows 7. Probably a similar patch needs to be released, but it also launched in the month that there was no Patch Tuesday sooo.. Who knows. Also It looks like they are pushing it a little farther 1800X @ 5.8Ghz
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 00:57
|
|
