Slashdot Mirror
AMD Ryzen 7 Series Processor Reviews Go Live, Zen Looks Strong Vs Intel (hothardware.com)
MojoKid writes: AMD has finally lifted the veil on independent reviews of its new Ryzen series of desktop processors that bring the company's CPU architecture back more on competitive footing versus its rival, Intel's Core series. The initial family of Ryzen processors consists of three 8-core chips, the Ryzen 7 1800X at 3.6GHz with boost to 4.1GHz, the Ryzen 7 1700X at 3.4Ghz with boost to 3.8GHz, and the Ryzen 7 1700 at 3GHz with boost to 3.7GHz. Each has support for 2 threads per core, for a total of 16 threads with 16MB of L3 cache on-board, 512K of L2 and TDPs that range from 65 watts for the Ryzen 7 1700 at the low-end, on up to 95 watts for the 1700X and 1800X. In comparison to AMD's long-standing A-series APUs and FX-series processors, the new architecture is significantly more efficient and performant than any of AMD's previous desktop processor offerings. AMD designed the Zen microarchitecture at the heart of Ryzen with performance, throughput, and efficiency in mind. Initially, AMD had reported a 40% target for IPC (instructions per clock) improvement with Zen but actually realized about a 52% lift in overall performance. In the general compute workloads, rendering, and clock-for-clock comparisons, the Ryzen 7 1800X either outperformed or gives Intel's much more expensive Core i7-6900K a run for its money. The lower clock speeds of the Ryzen 7 1700X and 1700 obviously resulted in performance a notch behind the flagship 1800X, but those processors also performed quite well. Ryzen was especially strong in heavily threaded workloads like 3D rendering and Ray Tracing, but even in less strenuous tests like PCMark, the Ryzen 7 series competed favorably. It's not all good news, though. With some older code, audio encoding, lower-res gaming, and platform level tests, Ryzen trailed Intel -- sometimes by a wide margin. There's obviously still optimization work that needs to be done -- from both AMD and software developers.
> $500 R7 1800X vs $340 i7 7700k.
The 1800X is like 8 cores to the 7700K's 4 cores. The 7700K, having half the cores, will presumably do better on single threaded tasks, such as the benchmarks in question. Future code, especially that which makes requests to the GPU in a multithreaded fashion, will perform better with more damned cores. For single threaded (or basically that), the 7700K also blows away Intel's 6950X, their top desktop CPU offering with 10 cores.
A better comparison per price point would be the 1700X or 1700 to the 7700K. Again, you find that the 8 core chip blows away the 4 core chip on multiprocessing, with less amazing results from a single thread.
There's a ton of applications that scale well with cores, and games will begin to do so more in the future. There will always be tasks that can't be parallelized, but the question is, when do they matter versus the ones that can? The question of cores versus speed per dollar is about as old as CPUs, and the answer is always "what is your use case".
Rendering and video encoding is not an end-user application
Watch for "no true Scotsman" fallacies. How exactly do you define "an end-user application"? One focused on viewing works of authorship made by others rather than creating works?
The "bad" review? Was from hothardware....you ever went to that site without adblock? Last time I did the entire page was NOTHING but Intel ads.
From what I've seen there is 4 sites you should never listen to, hothardware, Ars Technica, and the worst are Tom's Hardware (where their "expert" told a person asking what CPU to buy for GAMING that he should buy a Pentium dual core over a lower priced AMD X6 even though he admitted that most games the person wanted to play required a quad) and Anandtech who went so far as to drop several new triple A titles from their benchmark that so happened to play better on AMD hardware and replaced them with older titles that were expressly built with Nvidia Gameworks (which has been shown to have "cripple AMD" code baked in)...you wanna guess who their biggest advertiser is?
Its sad that I have to even say this but you really have to do some digging before you can actually take any "news" as credible as we have had so many cozy deals with advertisers and companies affiliated with those they are reviewing that a good chunk of what you see and hear these days is just corporate propaganda or FUD.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
The "bad" review? Was from hothardware....you ever went to that site without adblock? Last time I did the entire page was NOTHING but Intel ads.
From what I've seen there is 4 sites you should never listen to, hothardware, Ars Technica, and the worst are Tom's Hardware (where their "expert" told a person asking what CPU to buy for GAMING that he should buy a Pentium dual core over a lower priced AMD X6 even though he admitted that most games the person wanted to play required a quad) and Anandtech who went so far as to drop several new triple A titles from their benchmark that so happened to play better on AMD hardware and replaced them with older titles that were expressly built with Nvidia Gameworks (which has been shown to have "cripple AMD" code baked in)...you wanna guess who their biggest advertiser is?
Its sad that I have to even say this but you really have to do some digging before you can actually take any "news" as credible as we have had so many cozy deals with advertisers and companies affiliated with those they are reviewing that a good chunk of what you see and hear these days is just corporate propaganda or FUD.
Toms Hardware is excellent, from my experience, for their hardware reviews. I've been building my own systems for a long time now and have used their reviews as primary source for selecting hardware components and have never had a problem with their findings. As for their "forum experts", I've had no experience with them. Saying that a whole site is horrible based on one bad experience is a tad on the extreme side, though.
From a PC gaming perspective, until recently, very few games have taken full advantage of multi-core processors. Even if a game uses multi-core, they tend to be poorly optimized such that the load is not spread evenly across all cores. Your still better off getting the fastest CPU that you can buy even if it means getting a quad-core vs an octa-core.
Intel releases the 8-core i7-7900K for $499 which blows all the Ryzen 7 1800X away in every performance metric...
This is not probably too far off, and based on single threaded performance of the i7-7700K which is already 18% faster than the 1800X, an 8-core i7-7900K (if the price was right) would push AMD's best back to being #2...
However, the good news will be Ryzen will be a strong enough competitor to force chipzilla into a pricing war, and that'll make every buyer happier, no matter which horse you back.
Look at the delta from i7 7700k to R7 1800X to FX-8370. It's a reminder of how far AMD has come.
And if the best thing that comes out of Ryzen is that Intel lowers its prices, then we all win anyway.
I'll probably pick up an R7 1700 or the R5 later this year, because yes I'm an AMD fanboy.
The only operating systems I run are Ubuntu Linux and Gentoo Linux and 80% of my gameplay occurs on Ubuntu Linux, as well. Ok, "only Linux" was an exaggeration because for the other 20% of games I care about that don't have Linux ports, I have a small partition for Windows 10, which I use exclusively for those games. But, 98% of the time I'm booted into a Linux OS. Sure, I'm a programmer, so it makes sense that I run Linux, but the OS is more than capable, hugely customizable, and nowadays easy enough for anyone to use. Moreover, today software exists to accomplish almost any required task, and even more, you will likely be able to look and fix any bugs you may encounter, instead of simply relaying a bug to a closed source programming team that will get around to it "when it is high enough priority for them to care". And if you can't dig into the code yourself like I can, the open source community will help resolve your bug immediately. It may not be right for everyone, but calling Linux "a completely worthless desktop OS" is simply wrong.
Regards, Rob
And therein lies the problem. Linux is a technical OS, for technical people who can solve technical problems.
And therein lies the problem, people that think Linux is a technical OS only for technical people, and those that perpetuate that vision.
The real elephant in the room problem are those people that use the latest version of Office whose documents have interoperability issues with pretty much everything else. That takes some minor finagling to fix most of the common errors that put people off (unsupported fonts) and for 99% of regular people that will address everything they need.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.