|
SwissArmyDruid posted:You bought loving 990FX in 2017. What the gently caress, man. I played Overwatch side by side on my rig (FX8350, R9 380X) and on my buddy's (6600k, Gtx 1070). The difference, while noticeable and nice, was not enough to compel me to spend more than half a grand on a new system. I can wait a year or three until the jump is larger.
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 14:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 06:59 |
|
|
So it's official that 1800X isn't really as good as a 6th or 7th Gen Core i5 or i7? Okay good to know, better luck next time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 14:28
|
|
|
Junior Jr. posted:So it's official that 1800X isn't really as good as a 6th or 7th Gen Core i5 or i7? Okay good to know, better luck next time. If its for pure gaming this is true and it was always going to be 5-10% behind the 7700k Anything else its not so cut and dry
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 14:31
|
|
|
Junior Jr. posted:So it's official that 1800X isn't really as good as a 6th or 7th Gen Core i5 or i7? Okay good to know, better luck next time. Not only isn't it as good it will murder your family and send all your money to ISIS. You forgot to add that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 14:32
|
|
|
Col.Kiwi posted:You are very stupid. Plus the irony that the 1600X that he's calling a lower/inferior product, may actually get better clocks since it might have more thermal headroom. I was interested in the 1600X pre-launch and I'm still interested since by the time it's released they may have ironed out a lot of the issues they're currently seeing in Windows.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 14:36
|
|
|
Scarecow posted:If its for pure gaming this is true and it was always going to be 5-10% behind the 7700k So it's really good at Cinebench (as long as it's multi-threaded) and the one benchmark it's decent at is that one Battlefield 1 campaign story (and Doom 4 if that counts too).
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 14:51
|
|
|
Junior Jr. posted:So it's really good at Cinebench (as long as it's multi-threaded) and the one benchmark it's decent at is that one Battlefield 1 campaign story (and Doom 4 if that counts too). I'm not entirely sure how to break this kind of news to you, but people do other things besides games with their computers? It looks like in productivity benches the 1800/X/1700/X are in Broadwell-E territory, sometimes ahead sometimes behind but cheaper by a lot and maybe in an easier to cool situation? I don't know the load figures off the top of my head. Anyway, the 6C/4C stuff is prooooooobably more gaming oriented, the idea is that you'll be able to get the clocks needed to be near parity because the thermals are easier to manage across fewer cores. The R7 series is probably best suited for like workstation and home server use, but it's possible R5 and R3 will also be just okay at their target markets.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 15:05
|
|
|
Haha, you think these cpus that won't even boot at >4.1ghz are thermal limited, as opposed to it being an arch that simply can't clock higher without hilarious voltage? The 4 core skus won't clock any higher than the 8 cores man. Nobody is going to run their gaming cpu at 1.6V or whatever is needed to get a ryzen to boot at 5ghz. That's not to say that 4 core ryzens in the 100-200 range won't be a far better deal for gaming than i5/i7 4 cores, sure you get 5-10% fps less in your favourite game, but it's at half the price.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 15:11
|
|
|
Don't take my  away from me.I wonder what'll happen in 2020-whatever when we can't keep blaming GloFo. But also, yes, 90-95% performance for any pricing less than that ratio is good bang for buck and it'll be nice that things will probably be Broadwellish for much less money. Mobos are cheaper too, right?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 15:21
|
|
|
NewFatMike posted:Anyway, the 6C/4C stuff is prooooooobably more gaming oriented, the idea is that you'll be able to get the clocks needed to be near parity because the thermals are easier to manage across fewer cores. With that thermal load / ghz graph posted earlier, I'm not expecting the 6 & 4 core parts to have a ton of headroom over the 1800x. Whatever it is about the design or gloflo process just taps out at 4 ghz. But the R5s could easily be good enough at games to make a case for themselves, especially at the $250 mark where you're competing against a 4c/4t 7600k that's not exactly a stunning overclocker itself. Mobos are generally a bit cheaper on the AMD side as well. The thing I really liked about that graph was the performance when limited to 35-45 watts. I routinely underclock my PC in July & August if it's super-hot.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 15:32
|
|
|
Rastor posted:Have you guys considered getting a job at a company that values its workers' productivity and job satisfaction? I just started back in this industry after an 8 year hiatus. I need some time under my belt, then I'll use it to move geographically to where I wat to be.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 15:39
|
|
|
Gray Matter posted:Now let me explain myself - the mobo was $105 and is the second-best board for the [dead] socket. The reason I was even considering this upgrade to begin with was to get rid of my low-end ASrock board that was throttling at stock due to lovely VRM. For the games I play, which aren't very often current releases, I am satisfied enough with my current performance and this was a cheap way to scratch the upgrade itch and get some more life out of my system. If you are playing video games then a G4560 and the cheapest motherboard you can buy would absolutely poo poo on the FX chip, and it doesn't leave you with sunk costs into a dead platform.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 15:53
|
|
|
I get a stiffy when I open up the task manager and see 8 threads
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 16:09
|
|
|
Truga posted:Haha, you think these cpus that won't even boot at >4.1ghz are thermal limited, as opposed to it being an arch that simply can't clock higher without hilarious voltage? There kind of seems to be some thermal limit though? Like I'm not sure it's the primary limiting factor, but it seems a major one because Ryzen gets hellahot at 4.0-4.1Ghz continuous across all 8 cores, so at least in this regard 6 and 4 core parts will have much better thermals. Also Wendell got his chip to 4.2Ghz, and someone else managed to get theirs to 4.2Ghz after waking up from sleep mode, so I'm not sure if there isn't some power state and voltage fuckery going on right now in the chipset/windows that's limiting clocks, even if by 100-200Mhz.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 16:15
|
|
|
FaustianQ posted:There kind of seems to be some thermal limit though? Like I'm not sure it's the primary limiting factor, but it seems a major one because Ryzen gets hellahot at 4.0-4.1Ghz continuous across all 8 cores, so at least in this regard 6 and 4 core parts will have much better thermals. The sleep thing was confirmed to be a timing bug, the CPU was still running at 4GHz but the computers time was slower (one real second becomes equal to like .95 computer seconds).
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 16:22
|
|
|
Gray Matter posted:Now let me explain myself - the mobo was $105 and is the second-best board for the [dead] socket. The reason I was even considering this upgrade to begin with was to get rid of my low-end ASrock board that was throttling at stock due to lovely VRM. For the games I play, which aren't very often current releases, I am satisfied enough with my current performance and this was a cheap way to scratch the upgrade itch and get some more life out of my system. People are making fun of you because you bought an FX8350 in the first place. The only reason to use one of those vs alternatives is if it was literally free. Doubling down by getting another motherboard is just adding to the pile.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 16:35
|
|
|
Even when the hype train was at full tilt there was only one guy claiming that Ryzen would beat the 7700k in games, being disappointed that it fell short of that is pretty absurd. The 1700 is almost a 6900k for 1/3 the price, I'd say that's a pretty good showing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 16:37
|
|
|
I was reading through Agner Fog's posts about Bulldozer last night when I noticed this gem:quote:
Everything old is new again. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 16:41 on Mar 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 16:38
|
|
|
I'll be happy when the bugs are worked out because this sounds like a great CPU for doing a bunch of Excel and programming stuff with VM test servers etc. all running at the same time on a workstation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 16:40
|
|
|
AMD CPU and Platform Discussion: Ryzen Might Be good, FX8350 was never good
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 16:41
|
|
|
Gray Matter posted:Bought a new-in-opened-box Sabertooth 990FX R2.0 on eBay this week to prop up this currently stock FX-8350 another couple years after this underwhelming Ryzen showing Did you expect their top chips to clock higher? The 1700 is a steal if you can hit 3.8+ right now, before they fix the boards and the have an actual windows driver.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 16:42
|
|
|
FaustianQ posted:There kind of seems to be some thermal limit though? Like I'm not sure it's the primary limiting factor, but it seems a major one because Ryzen gets hellahot at 4.0-4.1Ghz continuous across all 8 cores, so at least in this regard 6 and 4 core parts will have much better thermals. I mean, the limit absolutely is thermal, because power use skyrockets beyond 4ghz (suggesting very high leakages?), but that won't suddenly change just because you now only have 4 cores. You might be able to squeeze another 100mhz due to less hot cores and thus being able to push each core slightly higher, but you'll still have to provide your chip with very high voltages to run above 4ghz, and thus somehow remove the vast amounts of heat from each core still.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 16:47
|
|
|
LTT benched the 1080ti at 4k with 1800X and 7700K systems. Clearly GPU limited but there are still some interesting Ryzen results, i.e. GTA5 min/avg framerates and virtually identical power consumption https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L34ZkAF9q9w&t=262s
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 17:35
|
|
|
eames posted:LTT benched the 1080ti at 4k with 1800X and 7700K systems. This is a huge win considering twice the cores. Ryzen really is a good chip.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 17:37
|
|
|
Junior Jr. posted:So it's official that 1800X isn't really as good as a 6th or 7th Gen Core i5 or i7? Okay good to know, better luck next time. lmao @ anyone dumb enough to buy an i5 now that Ryzen is out 4c/4t for anything over $200 (hell, even $150 once the R3s come out) is a terrible investment and Intel's higher clock speeds aren't going to save them even in gaming now that major titles are starting to recommend 8 threads. If AMD can get some of the nagging issues cleaned up by the time R5s are out this summer Intel is going to be nearly irrelevant in the midrange market barring some drastic price cuts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 17:38
|
|
|
BEAR GRYLLZ posted:lmao @ anyone dumb enough to buy an i5 now that Ryzen is out Intel has some room to cut prices and still print money, look at how all of a sudden the $50 pentium CPUs have 4 threads. Would you still be saying that a $200 hyperthreaded 3.8GHz i5-branded chip was a bad deal?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 17:52
|
|
|
eames posted:LTT benched the 1080ti at 4k That's... Kind of the point of a GPU review?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 18:26
|
|
|
RyuHimora posted:That's... Kind of the point of a GPU review? Oh really? I had no idea! Thank you for pointing that out. Some content from over at /r/amd:  Ryzen @ 3700 12-11-11 RAM, 139 Mhz bus frequency, scores 100 points higher than comparable CB runs even though that benchmark doesn't scale well with memory bandwidth, apparently because all sorts of stuff runs off a ratio of the memory controller (northbridge, QPI, CCX, infinity fabric). The guy is a "world class overclocker" so he had the finest Samsung B-die RAM at 1.9V and possibly a beta bios. eames fucked around with this message at 18:41 on Mar 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 18:28
|
|
|
Twerk from Home posted:Intel has some room to cut prices and still print money, look at how all of a sudden the $50 pentium CPUs have 4 threads. Would you still be saying that a $200 hyperthreaded 3.8GHz i5-branded chip was a bad deal? Have to say another Unlocked Pentium for $50 or so wouldn't be a bad thing. I love my old G3258 and with HT it might be that little bit better in the super low end. However if you can get a Ryzen 4C/8T at $50 then well... Yea Intel isn't going to be able to do much unless they drop any 2C/4T chips into the $30 realm. Where this is going to reallly hurt is if AMD can shove 4C/8T or more into the same space as the i3/i5/i7 U/Y poo poo. Why would anyone want a dual core CPU in a $1300 laptop if you could get one with 4-6Cores that may clock 1Ghz slower, but you can actually do some major work on in an Ultrabook form factor? I really hope OEM's pick this up and we see something like a Ryzen powered Dell XPS 13 (APU maybe even). That would really put the fire under Intel and their Ultrabook initiative that they started, and AMD somehow comes up and improves upon. I know it is a pipe dream, but man would it be a nice dream about those tiny pipes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 18:35
|
|
|
LTT saw 1800X outperform 7700K in minimum FPS in their latest test in some games fwiw:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L34ZkAF9q9w
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 18:57
|
|
|
EdEddnEddy posted:Have to say another Unlocked Pentium for $50 or so wouldn't be a bad thing. I love my old G3258 and with HT it might be that little bit better in the super low end. So you want even slower single threaded performance on platforms that already have really constrained/lackluster SP performance, to gain, ?????? This thread gets extremely silly at times.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 18:58
|
|
|
From what we see with Ryzen, by the time the mobile chips arrive the Single Threaded performance will probably be pretty drat close to the Intel offerings for the U/Y chips, then throw in another 2 cores for 4 more threads and really, anything you are doing on your Ultrabook (Browser Tabs, Excel, Light Video Work, hell with an APU some light gaming) is going to get a huge performance boost.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 19:06
|
|
|
ufarn posted:LTT saw 1800X outperform 7700K in minimum FPS in their latest test in some games fwiw: I'd like to see more comparisons between a 1700@3.8 vs a 7700k@4.8, they both seem reasonable overclocks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 19:07
|
|
|
If those 1800X benchmarks are that good on a 1080 Ti, I'm having even less hope for Vega. If they're really going to stay competitive at this point, they have to be at least on par with Pascal (especially with 1800X) and not be 10 or so frames behind.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
Junior Jr. posted:If those 1800X benchmarks are that good on a 1080 Ti, I'm having even less hope for Vega. If they're really going to stay competitive at this point, they have to be at least on par with Pascal (especially with 1800X) and not be 10 or so frames behind. Vega is probably another mid tier gpu but hopefully with zen money amd can throw money at navi.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 19:28
|
|
|
EdEddnEddy posted:From what we see with Ryzen, by the time the mobile chips arrive the Single Threaded performance will probably be pretty drat close to the Intel offerings for the U/Y chips, then throw in another 2 cores for 4 more threads and really, anything you are doing on your Ultrabook (Browser Tabs, Excel, Light Video Work, hell with an APU some light gaming) is going to get a huge performance boost. Ryzen isn't magically packing more cores in to the same power envelope though. I don't know where that idea comes from, because when it's running at the same speed as the intel 8 core chips, it uses the same measured power. (The reviews I was looking at showed the 1800x @ 3.8ghz pulling ~142w under load, and a 6900k @ 3.7ghz pulling 145 ish.) Like, ok, if you lower speeds enough to where you can use less voltage maybe it scales down much better, but those ultra low power range CPUs are already loving starved speed wise and more slower threads isn't going to do jack for them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 19:45
|
|
|
Since when is the ultrabook market concerned with the best performance in things (besides secondary or tertiary requirements)? To me, it seems that the primary usage for ultrabooks are ultra nice internet/streaming machines with maybe some light gaming and/or office or other productivity task. Since the clock speed/voltage (ie power) relationship is clearly non-linear (more of an exponential, really) lowering the clock speed to roughly match intel's would either match intel's power draw or better (see that one chart someone made where they underclocked it to like 2ghz or something and it only drew 35W), ryzen will definitely be very attractive for the high end market due to lower relative prices and possibly being able to market 6-8c stuff as 'workstation' or something.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 20:06
|
|
|
Gwaihir posted:Ryzen isn't magically packing more cores in to the same power envelope though. I don't know where that idea comes from, because when it's running at the same speed as the intel 8 core chips, it uses the same measured power. (The reviews I was looking at showed the 1800x @ 3.8ghz pulling ~142w under load, and a 6900k @ 3.7ghz pulling 145 ish.) Ryzen's power efficiency in a desktop chip running at 3.8GHz may not be reflective of how it does at lower clocks in a mobile part though, there have been some people posting graphs showing it to be especially power efficient at lower speeds.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 20:07
|
|
|
This is true. I suppose you would need very specific workloads to get much of a boost from a 3ghz or so Ryzen in a laptop. I got caught up in hype as well. Is ryzen+ going to use the same process? This is Samsung's mobile 14nm process isn't it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 20:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 06:59 |
|
|
Watermelon Daiquiri posted:Since when is the ultrabook market concerned with the best performance in things (besides secondary or tertiary requirements)? To me, it seems that the primary usage for ultrabooks are ultra nice internet/streaming machines with maybe some light gaming and/or office or other productivity task. Since the clock speed/voltage (ie power) relationship is clearly non-linear (more of an exponential, really) lowering the clock speed to roughly match intel's would either match intel's power draw or better (see that one chart someone made where they underclocked it to like 2ghz or something and it only drew 35W), ryzen will definitely be very attractive for the high end market due to lower relative prices and possibly being able to market 6-8c stuff as 'workstation' or something. Sure, that's definitely the target market for Ultrabooks. I had an XPS 13 that I traded in for a typical full power quad though, just because web performance started to go down the tubes with 10+ tabs open, along with pidgin/discord/whatever other random crap I had running. Granted, web use does suck up an inordinate amount of CPU power these days given how heavy some sites can be, but still, it's a commonly cited thing as "Oh well you don't need lots of power for web browsing" when that's not really the case. (Also, to be fair, with only 2 or 3 tabs open it's fine on the ULV chip). My point is there's not exactly a ton of room to further chop back per core performance in order to pack in more of them to an ultrabook platform. Full fat laptops on the other hand, the ones using 35 or 45w chips, sure-. I mean, we can already see what is possible in that power envelope, because Xeon-Ds exist and pack either 8 cores @ 2.6ghz, or 12 cores @ 2.1 in to a 45w TDP. (Vs the 4.1ghz turbo quad @ 35w i7-7920hq) e: I mean, by your example using 35w, the Xeon-D 1537 in that TDP has 8 cores @1.7 base/2.3 turbo clocks, and has other other nifty things like 10gBase-T built in. Of course, it's also a $500 chip so it'd be nice to see something like it available for cheaper, but yea. Gwaihir fucked around with this message at 20:41 on Mar 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 20:36
|
|