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.
Ryzen isn't quite perfect but it's nice that AMD has burned their white flag of surrender and once again gotten fit to fight against chipzilla.
some older games...and it still performed quite strong without optimization...and it's half the price of the $1000+ intel processor that it trailed by 20% but feel free to pay the extra $500 for 20% more performance for some older games.
Looking more like crappy game code than crappy processor. Reviews show Ryzen doing particularly well on high quality settings. Regardless of gaming, which really is all about the GPU especially with Vulkan games coming down the pipe, Ryzen by all appearances is a kickass workstation chip at a gimme price. Because of Ryzen, I expect to pay less for my next desktop than my next phone.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Don't forget Vulkan, which effectively puts the CPU in the back seat. And there are lots of great Ryzen reviews out there, in contrast to the Intel dicksuck site you picked.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
I have a feeling feeding a multi GPU rig will show some of its muscles. STH has some nice benchmarks showing it holding its own against a lot of Xeons.
After a while the virtualization code I was working with just stopped being maintained upstream for AMD because the value proposition was just so ludicrously bad vs. Intel and nobody was using them.
Has AMD, perchance, contributed code to KVM or Xen to get a running start or are we going to be waiting until after Intel's next chip rev. before Zen stands a chance again in this arena (at which point, it's already lost its advantage)?
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
In general, the reviews are negative. We knew Ryzen would be behind in single-threaded performance, and it is. But it's also behind in multi-threaded performance in a lot of benchmarks for some reason. It beats out Intel's offerings in certain workloads (primarily video encoding), but it gets its ass handed to it in games.
On FP-heavy workloads it's toe-to-toe with Intel processors costing twice as much. On integer-heavy workloads Intel still has the better technology but on price/performance it's correctly priced between the i7-7700k and Intel's HEDT offering. On memory-heavy workloads the dual channel is no match for Intel's quad channel but the price/performance is still okay as far as I've seen.
Where it does fall short is single/few-threaded games if you game at low resolution/high frequency but since hardly any gamer would spend $1000 on an 8C Intel processor it's no surprise games don't really take any advantage of the last four cores, even hyper-threading 4C/8T doesn't do much for gaming. But if you move to 1440p the difference is less, at 4K you're GPU limited anyway.
Basically if you'll only be using it for gaming and have a Sandy Bridge or newer just save your money and use it for a 1080 Ti or Vega. I find the reviews are trying really trying to make games CPU bound when they're mostly not, at least the way I prefer to play them. Maybe the FPS addicts with 144Hz monitors see it differently, I prefer higher quality as long as frame rates are reasonably smooth.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
> $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".
No.
all intel has to do is use the headstart money from the i-series whatever all the names were slash the price on i7, make i5 the new celeron even if selling it virtually no profit http://www.tomshardware.com/re... and bob's amd's uncle
Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
Certainly good to see AMD come out with a real positive chip for a change. Still early yet, and Ryzen is more a chip for desktops and gamer's. But it's going to go up against Intel pretty well which has to be good for end users.
Don't forget Vulkan, which effectively puts the CPU in the back seat. And there are lots of great Ryzen reviews out there, in contrast to the Intel dicksuck site you picked.
1. Links to wccftech (the 4chan of tech sites)
2. Uses the word "dicksuck"
3. A poor CPU is still a poor CPU after Vulkan
And I say that as someone planning to buy a Ryzen.. is it perfect? No. But it's close enough that AMD deserves a sale so Intel doesn't get to monopolize the high end again. Just deciding on whether I'll hold out for Vega or not...
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
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?
Plus anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows you'll get better bang for the buck throwing that extra $500 at a good video card on the Ryzan box instead of dumping it into minor gains on the CPU side with Intel.
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.
Too bad Ryzen only supports Windows 10
Source? My sources say GNU/Linux runs on it.
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.
single-thread performance is king for games
It was, some time last decade. Apparently you have not heard about Vulkan. Applications are going that way too, and, well, everything.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
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 1800X seems to be extremely strong in compile benchmarks: https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ryzen-1800x-linux&num=1
What he's talking about is obvious bias towards particular builds rather than empirical comparisons involving $ amounts as a divisor of performance numerals, rather than simply a small subset/collection of intentionally skewed benchmarks to make a case for something that in effect is an artifact of the analysis.
If you want fanboyism you will find it in every flavor. Including integrated into specific benchmarking applications, intentionally. Do the reviewers know enough about the underlying use-cases to adequately vet their benchmarks and weight the results for the average use case? Of course they don't, that doesn't make them money from kickbacks.
"AMD multithread optimized games" is right up there with "Year of Linux desktop".
I don't know what you're on about (or your ulterior motive), but I just read Peter Bright's summary on Ars, and it was just fine—yeoman's work—modulo 2017. BTW, "never" is a long time and a broad brush and also a brush that points in both directions.
I miss Jon Stokes from way back something fierce, but that's not even true: I miss the era where the articles that Jon Stokes was writing could be written. AK-47[*], more than a billion transistors ago.
[*] Uh, I meant 'aka'. Turns out Jon is an AR-15 nut (in one rant, he really carves the word "need" a new one), and all that stuff is not my speed, but then again, it's a free world.
—
Way off topic, but here goes.
What Jon wrote:
The reality:
Assault rifles are becoming mass shooters' weapon of choice
Sorry, Jon, I loved you so much, but "drug-related handgun violence" is not a universal denominator in this debate.
Separate problems, separate solutions.
I would really like a Ryzen gaming system with top of the line Nvidia graphics. I'm going to ask my dad tomorrow to buy me one. He's in the hospital with something wrong with his kidney. The family wants me to get tested to see if I could donate a kidney. If he says no to me, I'm going tell him straight out, no gaming system, no kidney. He can go fuck him self. Fucking old bastard.
Not all tasks can simply be split out in parallel. I mean you can see that with physical tasks, just like computer tasks: Some things just have to be done in sequence, you can't speed them up by doing them at the same time.
Well with some kinds of games it may well be there's only so much you can spin off to run in parallel and you are still going to have one or two threads that hit the hardest, so they'll be the limiting factor.
Now that said, it looks like this processor is still plenty fast enough for gaming these days. Most new high end games need a good CPU, but are more GPU bound and it looks like the new AMD processor does fine. You do find some outliers but it is things like Ashes of the Singularity which is not only a notoriously power hungry game, but a bit on an anomaly engine-wise so its performance isn't that relevant to other titles.
Same thing I said wh n the 486 came out.
32 bits!!!! 1mb of ram!!!
The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
I wish they would offer more PCIe lanes though. Intel isn't any better. Top end Ryzen mobos give you one 16/8x8 slot for a GPU or two, a 4x slot and a few 1x slots. Apparently the combo of 16x GPU and 8x RAID card isn't catered for.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
It's a CPU running x86 instruction.
It basically works.
The rest is just drivers for the various parts (for the northbridge that's inside the CPU package, or for the chipset on the motherboard).
And drivers can be provided by the motherboard manufacturer.
So basically there's no reason why a Ryzen won't run on your Windows 8.1 or 7 (once you loaded the appropriate chipset drivers), nor why it won't run on older versions of Ubuntu (kernel 4.4, predates Ryzen, doesn't have any Ryzen specific code, will output a few oopses in code, but otherwise reported to run).
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Regardless of gaming, which really is all about the GPU especially with Vulkan games coming down the pipe, ...
Vulkan has even another reason: it supports better multithreading, and Ryzen seems to shine under those circumstances.
(That's also why older, more single-thread-oriented games don't work better)
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Rendering and video encoding is not an end-user application
No, indeed. Spending time online on Facebook/Whatsapp/instagram/etc. is the more typically end-user application.
And that has been already solved for quite some time.
Including by CPUs that run into your pocket.
Now please, can we go back to what modern CPUs have to offer ?
Intel clearly retains the crown for single thread and high-end performance. - And single-thread performance is king for games and end-user applications.
Was.
Multithreading is slowly entering other fields.
Games start to make better use of multiple cores.
That was one of the main argument for Vulkan : better multithreading support.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
No wonder I saw (and recognized) 3 of these 4 sites top of my first 'ryzen' search today! (Ars, Anand and Tom). I'm new to PC building and so I'm not aware who are the Intel shills. Thanks for the enlightenment!
Strange, I just looked at a random x370 motherboard and there were drivers for win7,8,10
Erm, no. Outside of gaming, Ryzen kicks Intel up and down the block outside of 2 or 3 real world applications. With gaming, once the BIOS, opcode, and MS drivers have had time to shake down and be updated it will trump everything but the 7700k. Which will probably be beaten by one of the Ry5 or Ry3 chips when they are released..
Show me a game that isn't bottlenecked by the GPU. Artificially creating a set up where the cpu becomes the bottleneck is like the OPPOSITE of real world testing. It's a stupid way judge (or buy) a CPU.
Samsung took back my unlocked bootloader because Google wants me to rent movies. They're both evil.
Pfff. This is all garbage. A half decent CPU is all you need for gaming these days. The real grunt work is all done on the GPU - and it's getting more and more the case.
CPUs these days are close to being irrelevant - and Intel knows it - even though they've done their best to convince people it's not the case. Monster processing tasks are all GPU based - and you shove in a mediocre CPU with multiple cores to coordinate things.
No, the answer is that single threaded is nearly always more important than multi-threaded, because you are doing single threaded tasks about 99% of the time.
Even tasks that are multi-threaded benefit from having good single threaded performance.
The best scenario is having a CPU that is good at both. (but it's not the only thing, memory and cache is also important)
From what I read in the reviews is that AMD has improved their single threaded performance by 50%, which brings it close to Broadwell levels. That is a big improvement and means that they have something that's at least competitive.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Reviews show Ryzen doing particularly well on high quality settings.
Those tend to be tests where the GPU - and not the CPU* - are bottlenecked. Did you only look at the graphs and not actually read the reviews?
*Don't get me wrong; I'd still pick it over anything Intel for all but the priciest builds but I wouldn't mind seeing two more DDR4 channels and more PCI-E lanes added to the processor northbridge (as opposed to the motherboard chipset/southbridge)...
You're kidding right? How are you supposed to test a CPU if the entire test is distorted by another component in the system? Do you also look at 720p benchmarks when the GPU is tested and would argue that 4k benchmarks are invalid because they're bottlenecking the GPU?
The vast majority of games usually becomes bottlenecked by the GPU if you use a ton of post processes, high super sampling or huge resolutions. If you don't do that, the CPU is usually the limiting factor when it comes to minimal FPS. For a gamer, especially the ones that play competitive games this is one of the most valuable metrics when it comes to making a decision for hardware.
I agree. Most games, for serious gamers, that are going to buy the 1800x are GPU bound anyway, not CPU. The 1800x will perform just as well as the Intel high end desktop CPU's at 4k or on multi-monitor setups. This is a clear home run for AMD, considering performance/$ across the board. If you play games at low resolution and that's it, why would you buy a $500 CPU in the first place? The reviews have been overly negative in this light, IMO.
Who honestly uses a RAID card on a desktop system these days? Software RAID does everything you need, and just works with no noticeable performance hit for the most common desktop RAID0/1/10 configurations, with no expensive hardware needed. Servers with HA requirements I wouldn't run without them.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Single threaded performance is benchmark for how fast a single unit of work can be done. Multi-threaded is how many units you can do simultaneously. Games have notoriously been single threaded for ever, because it's a lot easier to program a linear algorithm and keep memory use clean. when you go parallel, there's all sorts of fun involved, especially if you're simultaneously doing multiple tasks on the same in memory data. Most developers have trouble with the linear algorithm already.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Outside of gaming, there is a wide swath of applications where the i7-7700k beats the Ryzen 1800X by 10% to 20%, and the Intel chip is 30% lower in price. I think it's unlikely that a Ryzen 3 or 5 can take enough advantage of lower heat generated by fewer cores to make up for that 10% to 20% deficit.
I want to buy an AMD CPU; the disrespect Intel shows its customers by using an inferior thermal interface irks me. Alas, these AMD chips don't quite make the grade.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Going through the benchmarks, it appears that AMD has really developed an architecture that was built with the datacenter/server/virtualization/HPC world in mind. It crushes Intel 6900k on some of the intensive Floating Point and computational processes that utilize all the cores efficiently. While on the desktop this may not be as crucial, in the server/hpc/virtualization world this huge. The new 'Naples' server chip, if it performs as well as the Ryzen, will be a major competitor to Intel in the HPC, cloud computing and server arena. The virtualization market alone is huge, which demands large numbers of highly efficient cores, which Ryzen has demonstrated it is capable of delivering. Unless AMD stumbles, the server CPU market is about to get a breath of fresh air later this year, with a much better performance/$ product in all likelihood.
People that do live streaming like 8 core machines since they are encoding and streaming on the fly.
love is just extroverted narcissism
Don't smoke weed before posting on Slashdot please.
I have an aging Sandybridge Quad. From the the benchmarks I've ready, the Ryzen will be a slight upgrade for me in gaming.
Obviously, when I edit and compress video, as I often do when starting a youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCALWDnHfbhcpdPco0cXIeOQ/videos?sort=dd&view=0&shelf_id=0
...and raytrace images from Rhino 3D, compress music, it will quite an upgrade.
I am glad AMD is competitive again because I like competition in the marketplace.
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
> No, the answer is that single threaded is nearly always more important than multi-threaded, because you are doing single threaded tasks about 99% of the time.
The answer is nowhere near that simple. If your single threaded task is any manner of I/O bound- disk, network, or memory, then you can't speed it up any further with a faster CPU, on clock or IPC. If PARTS of it are bound in those ways, then a faster processor will help, but not linearly.
But in general, if you had a choice between a 4 GHz 8 core processor and an 8 GHz 4 core processor, you'd take the faster chip. But that has NEVER been the comparison, and that's why YOUR USE CASE matters, and why single threaded performance is not always the answer. In the top end desktop useage, you'll usually pick between something like the i7-6900K (Intel's 8 core desktop offering, stable up to 4.3 GHz, a Broadwell piece released middle of last year) and the i7-7700K (Intel's very latest 4 core desktop offering, some of which are stable up to 5 GHz, a Kabylake piece two generations advanced from Broadwell). And when these are benchmarked, you see that CPU bound tasks that are single threaded are in fact a bit faster on the Kabylake, which has both slightly improved instructions per clock over the broadwell piece, and a faster clock speed, but that anything that can make use of the cores is a LOT faster on the Broadwell chip.
More relevantly, you get to make this tradeoff at many prices, and the reason you are normally going to recommend the higher singlethreaded performance is because the piece with the more core, while way hella better in multithreaded parts, usually costs more. Doubling cores doesn't double performance in multithreaded, but it isn't too far off in some cases. Meanwhile, a 20% increase in clock speed normally gets you almost 20% more performance on single threaded.
AMD's chips are coming in at prices that are competitive with the 4 core desktop chip, while offering performance that competes with the 8 core desktop/enthusiast pieces. That's why this is important.
And why your use case matters.
And your use case is probably going to favor more cores, going forward. Only you know better for you, of course, but as a general recommendation it is worth pointing out.
> Games have notoriously been single threaded for ever, because it's a lot easier to program a linear algorithm and keep memory use clean.
Some things games have to do are fundamentally single threaded, but you are correct: it's easier to program a single thread, and often the gain from another thread doesn't help much. 3D games are a little different, because much of the CPU tasking involves doing stuff so that data can be pushed to the graphics card. Those scale VERY well with extra cores, but only if coded that way.
An example is the MMO Star Wars: The Old Republic. In any area where there is not many players, the CPU has almost nothing to do. It continuously funnels requests for frames to the graphics card, which goes totally bonkers rendering hundreds of frames per second, and spinning its fan like crazy (there's a vsync option, should you be looking for a solution to this issue, and also be running fullscreen). In an area where there's a ton of players, your frame rate drops below 60 fps, and sometimes even below 30 fps, and the graphics card fan is silent. Check out the processor status, and you see the CPU dance:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
And a bit of investigation reveals that the process is barely multithreaded at all.
Meanwhile, other games don't have this issue: they divest that logic across the cores, and the graphics card can be fully tasked (ideally intelligently so), giving you a good framerate consistently, with your GPU fan starting up if the game is actually rendering something hard.
But again, that requires those games be programmed that way. And more are being programmed that way today. Mostly, game developers have been happy to take the much simpler single threaded approach, which reduces development costs, and if you have to support a bunch of dual core chips because a decent chunk of your customers have those, why spend your time worrying about the extra cores most chips have? That's not necessarily how all future development will go, however, especially if, as is being made obvious, that adding more cores is a lot more reasonable than adding a little bit of IPC and clock.
An example is the MMO Star Wars: The Old Republic. ...inter In an area where there's a ton of players, your frame rate drops below 60 fps, and sometimes even below 30 fps, and the graphics card fan is silent.
That case is exactly where an asynchronous model would excel, keeping the framerate steady and offloading all object rendering to external pieces. It should be easy enough to do so, but the re-assembly is where it gets hard. However, that still doesn't get around the base issue that 100K+ things are being rendered for a frame when only a few hundred, at most, will ever be seen. Those particular game devs only know 1 way to solve a problem, which is the core problem.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Based on a quick review, the AMD X370 appears to have 2 X16 and 8 X2 which can be multiplexed together to support up to 4 M.2 SSDs, if you wanted to go that route.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Vulkan/DX12 etc take a long time to become ubiquitous and were not at that point yet, most games are still on dx9-11 which is largely due to console architecture as developers usually don't go with the latest api just for porting over to PC.
Single core performance is still the most valuable for gaming right now, but it will change. How quickly it will change is the important factor here.
When building a new PC its certainly worth thinking about, but I generally find building for now is better than building for some potential need as its nearly impossible to predict exactly how the gaming PC landscape will change and when.
actually with the advent of streaming everything, and instant replays of entire gaming sessions
How long will this remain true once video game publishers crack down on infringement of the publisher's exclusive right to perform a video game or audiovisual work publicly?
When my mother can use it without me walking her through changing her monitor resolution
In Xubuntu, it's Start > Settings > Display. But because modern monitors have fixed pixels, you usually want to keep it at the highest supported resolution and change the scaling. That's in Start > Settings > Appearance > Fonts. And in either case, I'd have to do the same amount of "walking her through" under Windows.
Same here.
NOT forcing some 96dpi default just because some moron webdesigners weren't able to design things that scale
Then what should be the default? A 1080p panel with a (1920^2+1080^2)^.5/96 = 23 inch diagonal visible image size does indeed display 96 dpi. Should a user instead be shown an eye chart when logging in for the first time in order to set the display's virtual density?
think about how few do things like video encoding
Hangouts, Skype, and other video chat applications encode video in real time during a call. Or do you claim that most use only the text and audio features of those applications?
You didn't bother looking at the price of a 7700k did you...
Last I checked $350 (i7-7700k) is less than $500 (Ryzen R7 1800x).
The 7700k does better in most games due to it's better per-core performance (slightly better IPC, much higher clock), but tends to do worse in programs that can use all 8 cores/16 threads on Ryzen. We're hoping for the gap in single-core performance to be reduced slightly with bios updates, Windows updates, and software optimization, but we don't expect an 1800x to ever be better than an 7700k in that arena. On the otherhand the 1800x demolishes the 7700k in threaded apps when it's scaling well, we're hoping that the outliers where it doesn't scale well can be corrected with software updates.
If a window spans two screens that have different DPI values, how should the window system behave?
If a PC is connected to a physically large monitor, such as an HDTV, the user is likely to be sitting significantly farther away than arm's length. If the virtual DPI is then set equal to the physical DPI, body text drawn under the assumption that the display is at least 72 dpi is unlikely to be readable.
To be honest Hairy I have not seen 1 positive review for games.
Tomshardware did not totally bash it. It mentioned it as a big improvement and great workhorse CPU.
The Joker did another video here and I made a comment after I noticed something? This was evident in the last game tested but I noticed in Tom Clancy's THe Division cpu utilization was higher on the Intel while lower on the 1st core for Ryzen
"I think I figured out what Ryzen's issue is? Look at the CPU core usage? On the Ryzen the first core has a higher % used while the rest of the cores are less utilized? On the Intel the 1st core has less cpu usage but the rest of Intel;s core are higher utilized? From what I observed:
1. The game is stuck trying to wait for synchronization on the Ryzen or
2. The game has code expecting a previous cpu and over utilizing the threads expecting a slower core IPC and running it like a stream (how the PS3/4 are optimized) Netflix app.
It could also mean AMD has inferior synchronization latency or optimizations too while the INtel doesn't slow down when trying to use it's cores. What do you all think?"
So I think AMD is having a bug with synchronization or the game codes assume AMD sucks and overdoes it's threading and replication and lowers the priority of the main CPU core?
It could also just mean it is still inferior to an Intel on per core performance even if much improved :-(
Sorry Hairy, I own an RX 470 and used to be an AMD fan back in the day. Intel has a better CPU for most users and gamers. An i5 4660K from 2014 is much cheaper and so is a newer i5 7600K and performs better for a much cheaper price than AMD. It may make sense at your shop to switch to Intel as you can save money.
If am paying $500 for a damn CPU you bet I expect it to be a 4 core in EVERY benchmark. I have not seen any games that beat Intel. Not one at 720P or 1080P which stress the CPU and not the GPU. I mean even Dues Ex du Mankind divided which is an AMD optimized title is .3% than a cheaper i7 7700K. I will wait back and see.
Intel will not take this sitting down and you bet 8 core i7's will be here next year creaming AMD unless the next Ryzen finds out what is going on and fixes it. Also the ram not being able to past 2600 mhz, only 16 PCI Express lanes, as well as 30 second boots from UEFI show teething pains.
http://saveie6.com/
they also support the last bristol ridge am4 apus released last year.
...
Show me a game that isn't bottlenecked by the GPU.
Any Super FX or SA-1 game running in higan.
Vulkan/DX12 etc take a long time to become ubiquitous and were not at that point yet, most games are still on dx9-11 which is largely due to console architecture as developers usually don't go with the latest api just for porting over to PC.
That may be your theory, but it does not correspond to facts on the ground. Every major game engine already has a Vulkan port, and in many cases the results are jaw dropping. Within a year, all tier one publishers will be shipping Vulkan builds. Bottom line: gamers know about Vulkan and gamers know they want Vulkan.
What this means if you are building a game box is simple: if your budget is limited, spend big on the GPU, not the processor.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Hey, dumbass. I don't have a 7700k. I do have Windows (7), and an old i7-2600k.
And if you had read my post, you'd realize that I fucking mentioned other workloads. I call out the 7700k and gaming performance specifically because that's the worst situation for Ryzen. I also point out the best situation for Ryzen.
If all the latest review of the new Intel octocore were focused solely on DOS performance and kept harping on how its bad for DOS, would you consider that a fair and unbiased review? AMD has repeatedly said in every one of their tech talks The Ryzen 7 is designed to compete with the $1100 Intel chips....now do you see ANYBODY recommending $1100 Intel 16 thread chips for gaming? Have you ever seen a single article claiming the $1100 Intel chip is a gaming CPU? Can you find a single article saying this?
Of course you can't because that is fucking stupid, the Intel chip is a gasp! shock! a WORKSTATION CPU and everyone knows this. Meanwhile what did you see the focus at the Ryzen 7 demos by AMD? Yep tools like Blender and Photoshop which is WORKSTATION LOADS. They also made it clear the gaming chips are the R3s and R5s being released later this year.
So yeah sorry but these "reviews" focusing on a metric that a chip wasn't designed for is about as fair and unbalanced as Faux News. Again show me a single article when Intel released their $1100 chips that focused on their gaming performance, hell I bet you'd be hard pressed to find an article that even mentioned gaming because nobody would consider $1100 workstation CPUs as gaming chips.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
So you want to compare a multi-year out CPU socket with an initial release motherboard option for a CPU you can just recently purchase and complain about untweaked feature sets? OK, go ahead, I guess this will be the only chipset for this obsolete CPU that will ever be out there. Oh, and the much greater mesh bandwidth capable AMD CPUs will certainly never be taken advantage of, either.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.