Slashdot Mirror

Heck, as a gamer, I'm using a Q9550, launched over 10 years ago. While it's not nearly as fast as an i7, it can hold its own, getting 60 FPS in most games and never below 30FPS. And it's running the latest version of Windows 10 with zero issues--10 years later.

The only upgrade I've done is a SSD and a GTX 1050, which have kept the system running nicely. Honestly, the incremental gains made in CPUs just aren't what they were. In fact, if you have at least a 2nd generation i7, your gaming performance benefit for upgrading is low. The i7-8700k's single-threaded performance is only 36% faster than the i7-2700k. You're generally better off taking the money from a new system and sinking it into a better video card.

https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/...

Will KVM work with Intel CPUs that lack VT-d?

You are out there beyond my personal experience. My impression is that it wil but the performance hit is too much for high end gaming.

I bought the 4770 instead of the 4790 because it was cheaper. I regret that choice as it doesn't support I/O pass thru. As a result I am limited to Windows 10/Hyper-V or Virtualbox unless I want to pluck $$$$ for VMWare workstation

Sorry Intel screwed you. Instead of dropping bucks on VMWare, why not change out the 4770 for a Ryzen? A motherboard swap is kind of hard core the first time but its a great skill to learn, and alternatively any decent screwdriver shop can do it in minutes.

Informative thread here.

For the desktop/gaming user, I'm not actually convinced of their price vs performance. Userbenchmark has the Ryzen series at a pretty big disadvantage given the high prices compared with similarly performing intel CPUs. They seem to only be the clear winner when it comes to massively parallel multi-threaded applications.

For the desktop/gaming user, I'm not actually convinced of their price vs performance. Userbenchmark has the Ryzen series at a pretty big disadvantage given the high prices compared with similarly performing intel CPUs. They seem to only be the clear winner when it comes to massively parallel multi-threaded applications.

Its not exactly an apples to apples comparison but I found this:

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-6850K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-7-1800X/3606vs3916

Dell charges $350 to go from HD to 4K on the same configuration so $600 for 6K isn't really that out of line. But another item you neglected to mention is that the SB comes with GTX 965M with 2GB dedicated graphics vs the MBP coming with Intel Iris Graphics 540 with shared memory. The GTX benchmarks are over twice the Iris.

It's REALLY hard to figure out exactly what's what on the Surface Book, PARTICULARLY with the GPUs.

It looks like the only one with the GTX 965M w/2 GB video RAM is the one with the "Performance Base", which is yet ANOTHER $100 more ($700 more total) than the non-touchbar MBP config, or $400 more than the touchbar MBP config.

Since I didn't spec the "Performance Base" model in my comparison, it looks like the i7-equipped model Surface Book has an NVIDIA® GeForce® dGPU with 1GB GDDR5 memory (doesn't say which NVidia GPU). FYI, the i5 model Surface Book has the Intel® HD graphics 520, with presumably shared memory.

But I will agree: If you spend the extra money on the Surface Book, the Nvidia 965M does whip all over the Iris Graphics 550 as far as benchmarks go.

But, as you said, if you pop for the top-of-the-line 15" MBP, with the Radeon Pro 455 with 2GB dedicated memory, the story is quite different, with each GPU having its stronger, and weaker, points; but overall, in the same ballpark.

Just in case you don't trust me when I say the i3 6100 beats the FX-6300:
http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/C...
Advantage i3 6100:
Single-core speed: +58%
Quad-core speed: +24%
Advantage FX-6300:
Multi-core speed: +8%

But games and DX11 aren't really good in taking care of many cores, and that's still a six core 3.5 GHz chip vs the PS4 eight core 1.6 GHz one.

This person compare a G3258 (dual-core without hyper-threading) with a GTX 750Ti vs Playstation 4:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
i3 4130 + GTX 750Ti in Witcher 3 vs Playstation 4:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

high-end intel i7 workstation, which would have given me maybe 30% higher performance (at best)

At that time I don't know, now? Totally not true.

The Athlon X4 860K would cost half as much but get rid of the integrated graphics, better for the gamer who would rather spend the money on the graphics card.

Anyway the processor is SLOOOOW, a dual-core i3 6100 will perform about the same as the FX-6300, a quad-core will be better and quad-core i7 with hyper-threading better still.

There's not 30% difference:
vs somewhat older i7 4790K: http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-...
Two generations older still i7 2700K vs A10 7850K: http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/C...

From the last one:
"Hugely faster multi-core fp speed.
+163%"

They aren't as similar as you think they are.

An FX-8350/70 cost about the same as an i5 4460, former is 8 core later is 4 core.

For gaming the later is kinda more capable, even if you throw in another 40% IPC on top you will have to compare to the i5 6600K and the i7 6700K too.

And then there's the Broadwell-E chips coming up with 6, 8 and 10 cores. Assume the Zen for normal consumers will be 8 core it likely can't really compete with Broadwell-E there, but it likely won't in price either, at-least not the 10 core chips which will likely start at $1000, at-least, and be for an expensive X99 motherboard.

AMD:
AMD A10-7850K, 170$CAD
GIGABYTE GA-F2A68HM-H, 59$CAD
8GB DDR3 1600 (2x4GB), 70$CAD
Total: 299$CAD

Intel:
Intel Core i5-4460, 220$CAD
ASRock B85M, 85$CAD (the HDS is listed as possibly discontinued).
8GB DDR3 1600 (2x4GB), 70$CAD
Total: 375$CAD

Two thirds of the difference in price you cited is the i5-4460 vs the 7850K. There is no comparison between these CPUs in non-graphics performance, as the i5-4460 whips the 7850K, repeatedly. The remainder is CAD26, which is not nothing, but not a game changer like the OP's fantasy numbers.