|
Nonpython posted:But my computer gets 36 points higher on some stupid artificial benchmark for just $500 more! I agree that AMD makes some great value processors and that they're just fine for gaming but yes paying $50-100 more to get a 2500k will net big improvements in performance if you do much other than gaming.
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2011 07:46
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 19:49 |
|
|
feedmegin posted:Or, y'know, Moores Law is dying, as we always knew it would. We see only small improvements now because we've pushed the physics about as far as it can go. A healthier AMD might push prices down but it wouldnt make speeds shoot up again because, again, physics. It's dead in the sense that we're not going to see doubling every 18 months anymore but it's not dead in the sense that we have to settle for paltry 5% performance improvements every generation like we've been getting from Intel desktop CPUs. GPUs, server CPUs, FPGAs, mobile CPUs, etc have all continued to improve at much higher rates, those too will probably start to hit a wall sometime in the 2020s but we're not there yet.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
Yeah I didn't mean that to be a complaint as much as just pointing out how we've made a lot more progress in areas other than single-threaded CPU performance, and that we're not butting up against a physics wall yet. Now if Nvidia or AMD released a new line of GPUs with only a 5% performance improvement that would be something to panic about.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2016 20:06
|
|
|
Yeah that's why the 5% gains don't frustrate me too much, all of the cool stuff is happening with GPUs and they're still making leaps and bounds for now. The new Pascal Titan is supposed to be a 100% improvement in raw compute power over the Titan X. If DX12 is able to successfully reduce burden on CPUs and better utilize many-core CPUs then I'll probably stop caring completely. Also in respects to the AI stuff there has been a lot of progress on neuromorphic chips which completely deviate from the traditional von neumann architecture which has been computing as we know it for decades. Traditional CPUs are really ill-suited for these types of tasks and even GPUs might not be used for this stuff after the neuromorphic architectures are better developed and researched. I think that the future of computing architecture is going to be CPU + GPU + FPGA/Neuromorphic ASIC all on the same die with some HBM and shared cache. The traditional CPU is going to be relegated to roles where serial processing is absolutely necessary while the other components do the heavy lifting. MaxxBot fucked around with this message at 01:02 on Mar 23, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2016 00:27
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:No, it really is, in that sense. Not just intel desktop CPUs, by the way, if that's all there was to it you'd see IBM's POWER line racking up the clocks, or SPARC or even Itanium. (which server CPUs do you think are increasing in speed above 5% or so year on year, by the way?) I didn't mean clock speed, I mean overall compute performance of the chip. Server CPU clock speeds have been steady for a while but their core counts and overall compute performance has still improved a fair amount every generation especially when compared to desktop CPUs. Plenty of server applications can make good use of the extra cores as it can directly translate to being able to have more VMs running on the machine. There are a lot of things that are hard to parallelize but look at what sort of things people are trying to do now days that require a ton of compute. Machine learning, AI, advanced image/video processing, all of those tasks are highly parallelizable or even can use alternative architectures as I mentioned earlier where clock speed becomes totally irrelevant.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2016 16:45
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Sure...but the argument that started this off was something like 'if AMD were stronger Intel would be forced to compete and our desktop CPUs would be shooting up in performance again'. My counter-argument is that this is untrue because of physics, and this remains the case. People at home, even power users, aren't generally running dozens of VMs or high-traffic webservers or whatever so giving them more CPUs or more cores wouldn't do them any good, and otherwise we are stuck with 5% improvements in the only area where improvements matter for anything that you can't do with your GPU. Physics stops you from increasing the clocks by much anymore but you can always put more transistors on the die for bigger caches and better branch prediction and stuff. They've really slowed down on doing that ever since Sandy Bridge came out on the desktop side while they're still trucking along with the increased transistor counts on the server side, which is why I was comparing the progress of desktop and server chips. I am guessing that this is due to a combination of diminishing returns, high cost/heat, and the fact that it would basically be niche product for PC enthusiasts which they have little economic incentive to provide. I still think that they would be pushing harder if they were still in close competition with AMD but yes there are inherent design challenges to providing more IPC that make it harder than just adding more cores like with GPUs and server CPUs.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2016 18:32
|
|
|
fart simpson posted:The dual core with hyperthreading mobile i5 I have in my work laptop is garbage. Which one is it? I have the i5-5300U in my work laptop and the i5-5257U in my home laptop and I've been pretty happy with them. MaxxBot fucked around with this message at 21:49 on Mar 25, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
It's crazy to think that as fast as flash SSDs are improving Optane is going to come along and blow everything out of the water, these are some interesting times for storage.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2016 00:40
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Not gonna work. As has already been pointed out, the A10-7850K is a 95W TDP CPU and that case only supports 65W or less. I think it would be iffy even underclocked, personally. I would be wary of that Brix model with the GTX 760 in it, supposedly it's loud as gently caress AND still throttles down to a comically low frequency when loaded. It seems like they made poor engineering decisions and still decided to release the thing anyways, putting in a desktop GPU and letting it throttle from 1GHz all the way down to 200MHz just seems silly.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
Gwaihir posted:I don't really see being able to get away with selling an 8 core chip and having it be a commercial success, solely because the laws of chipmaking pretty much stipulates that an 8 core cpu is going to be more constrained on single core speed than a quad, and that outside of professional environments and niche communities (Uber nerds like us that do silly things like have home fuckin VM farms) we're all served by better single threaded performance. Intel quad cores these days are pretty low TDP, there's room for the 8c Zen to have a higher TDP without people holding that against them as long as the performance is there.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2016 01:22
|
|
|
Well the cheapest Intel octocore at this point is $1000, a 200W TDP chip might require a $100 CLC for proper cooling with overclocking. That's still a great value proposition if the performance of Zen is close to the Intel chips.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2016 01:41
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Yeah this is the reason I'm so down on the Core 2 duo for the normal user these days. Technical people have the expectation that "normal users" just run one thing at a time, or maybe a word processor and a browser tab simultaneously. But what you actually see happening is they'll open 20 complex tabs like facebook or whatever and have the word processor open and so on. Then they complain everything's so slow, but they're also not going to change their usage pattern. Yeah I see a lot of people around the office with tons of stuff open at once, they very well might not do that at home with their personal computer use but in an office setting it's definitely pretty typical.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2016 17:08
|
|
|
Eletriarnation posted:On the competition topic, Intel is its own competition at this point. I think they'd love to deliver large year-over-year performance gains at a given price/power point so they can sell more chips in new machines but they really can't. If we still had the kind of gains we were seeing 1993-2008 then I would have replaced my 2500K with a 5.5GHz 8-core by now. They still do deliver pretty good performance gains for server CPUs, partially because that's a much more lucrative market and partially because server applications can more easily utilize lots of threads. The same could be said for laptops, a Sandy Bridge laptop is pretty outdated now but my 2600k is still going strong even paired with a Pascal Titan X. Trying to provide faster desktop CPUs doesn't make much sense as an economic priority and is also harder from a physics and computer architecture standpoint as both clock frequencies and IPC are becoming harder to improve. Since gaming has increasingly been focused on GPU performance anyways there are a number of factors contributing to Intel's reduced focus on providing more IPC and performance/$ for gaming enthusiasts. If AMD were still competitive they would certainly still be delivering more but since they are not and gaming CPUs are a niche market for them they have little economic incentive to really push hard for fast enthusiast gaming CPUs. MaxxBot fucked around with this message at 00:20 on Sep 9, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2016 00:15
|
|
|
Pryor on Fire posted:Actually it might have been Palomino (Athlon XP) in 2001 that everyone lost their loving minds over. It's been so long since I was frying and cracking naked cpus that I barely remember those days. The older Thunderbird was really strong too, I had one in my first real computer in 2001 clocked to 1.5GHz and it absolutely smoked the P4 at the time.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2016 02:24
|
|
|
I don't even need a new computer but I'm probably going to buy Ryzen purely out of frustration with Intel's poo poo over the past few years.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
Gwaihir posted:source your reddit quotes plz 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
I don't know where the notion that non-nerds don't give a poo poo about how fast their computer is comes from, no one likes waiting for their computer to do poo poo. I hear people at work complaining about computer slowness all the time although much less so now that they mostly have SSDs.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
I liked how if the HSF wasn't properly seated and functional the chip would melt down after a couple seconds, almost happened to once but I cut the power to the machine just in time.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2017 00:03
|
|
|
Twerk from Home posted:You know, I'm really regretting cheaping out with one of the worst P67 motherboards out there. I never thought I'd be trucking on the same machine 6 years later with no real plans to upgrade soon. Yeah having a lovely old mobo for my 2600k was basically my only excuse for building a new system, it is nice having two PCs though.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2017 00:08
|
|
|
As far as I know Itanium was built on a flawed premise that ILP could be achieved through compiler optimizations and explicitly parallel architectures rather than achieving ILP through hardware methods like superscalar microarchitectures, out of order execution, etc. It seems like almost everyone uses the hardware approach now days and I'm not aware of anyone having much success with the software approach in the traditional CPU market.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2017 11:05
|
|
|
Boiled Water posted:This is being discussed heavily in the Intel thread and generally perceived as being a bad idea. A bad idea for home users, it's an increasingly common thing in the enterprise space because they have very different requirements and absolutely can utilize all the speed.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2017 16:34
|
|
|
HalloKitty posted:Edit: 4GHz base clock for an 8 core 16 thread chip at lower TDP than Intel's equivalent is just unreal. AMD might just have done it, the mad bastards. Intel will need to up their game. Hope AMD doesn't screw this up somehow Yeah that's really quite something, I'm definitely gonna get one even though I don't need it badly.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2017 21:36
|
|
|
They're certainly not going to get another 40% IPC gain going forward but they've claimed that Zen+ would offer more than the typical 5% from Intel. There are definitely a lot of obstacles but I think the paltry performance gains we've seen going from the 2600k to the 6700k are just as much reflective of Intel just not caring much about the desktop market anymore for multiple reasons. Hopefully this competition from AMD will at least make them care a little bit about the desktop market even though it's too small of a market to spend a lot of resources catering to.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2017 18:19
|
|
|
This looks really good, the $389 1700X is barely slower than the 6900k. http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-1700x-389-8-core-cpu-benchmarks-leaked/
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2017 21:36
|
|
|
This is what we have so far, not the best benchmark but it's a data point. http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-1700x-389-8-core-cpu-benchmarks-leaked/ 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2017 05:14
|
|
|
Aesculus posted:How is the quad-core at 3.2ghz doing better than the octa-core at 4ghz per core The per core numbers seem to be just the total score divided by the # of cores so since the benchmark doesn't scale perfectly with additional cores any CPU with more cores will be disadvantaged on that chart.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2017 07:29
|
|
|
Josh Lyman posted:Toyota MR2 I remember this reference but it's been so long I forgot the origin 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2017 16:52
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/derrickgott007/status/831509055424360451
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2017 18:22
|
|
|
wargames posted:is that good or bad? That's better than what I'm seeing from a 4.5GHz 6700k so I'd say really, really good. I have no idea what that benchmark consists of though.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2017 18:44
|
|
|
A 3.5GHz Ryzen vs a 4.7GHz 7700k isn't the best comparison though, we will have to wait to figure out how high Ryzen will clock.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2017 01:59
|
|
|
This is pretty impressive since it's 6900k with turbo vs 1800X with turbo disabled and Ryzen is still doing quite well, it's still just passmark though. http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-8-core-benchmarks/
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2017 01:32
|
|
|
Some more good numbers but it's still synthetics and unknown clock frequencies. http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-1700x-processor-tested/
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2017 16:40
|
|
|
Josh Lyman posted:Wouldn't a Pascal Titan outperform any AMD setup? The HPC cards that AMD has previewed so far are pretty close to the P100 but more importantly I think the HPC people want the advantage of an APU over a CPU + GPU that have to communicate over PCI-E.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2017 20:59
|
|
|
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2017 23:43
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:The high-end chips are clearly the ones to get here - insofar as you would ever want to pay $500 for a chip that barely breaks ahead of an Intel 6-core that you can buy for $330 even in multithreaded performance and gets utterly destroyed in single-threaded performance. You're referring to the i7-5820k? What evidence do you have that a i7-5820k would "utterly destroy" the 1800X in single-threaded performance? Granted it was only one game but the AMD demo they had today showed the 1700 getting higher FPS than an 6800k at identical clocks. Your take on Zen is way more pessimistic than I have seen from anyone else.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2017 01:05
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:
I pointed out earlier in the thread that is an awful, awful chart. Those numbers are just the numbers from the multithreaded physics benchmark divided by the number of CPU cores. It makes absolutely no sense to present the data like that because the benchmark does not scale linearly with additional cores.  
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2017 05:28
|
|
|
The 386 and 486 saw a lot of embedded use in the 90s so that's not even very atypical considering the time period.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2017 07:32
|
|
|
I went to r/AMD yesterday and even they were freaking out about the 1080 Ti stuff, rightfully so.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2017 02:05
|
|
|
Truga posted:GPU encoding produces poo poo quality unless you're willing to stream at higher bitrates and then everything goes to poo poo anyway, because youtube will recompress your stream to poo poo so people can actually watch it. [H] did some VR stuff in their review, it looks stronger in VR than in the general gaming benchmarks. http://www.hardocp.com/article/2017/03/02/amd_ryzen_1700x_cpu_review
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2017 22:24
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 19:49 |
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:Hell, how much of the market is still dual-core, and how long has it taken for quad-core to become more prolific? I didn't even get a quad core chip until 2013. I was curious so I took a look at some historical Steam HW survey data. Feb 2009 - 15% quad core May 2011 - 26% quad core Feb 2013 - 43% quad core Feb 2017 - 48% quad core
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2017 18:47
|
|