Slashdot Mirror
Preview of AMD Ryzen Threadripper Shows Chip Handily Out-Pacing Intel Core i9 (hothardware.com)
MojoKid writes: AMD is still days away from the formal launch of their Ryzen Threadripper family of 12 and 16-core processors but OEM system builder Dell and its Alienware gaming PC division had an inside track on first silicon in the channel. The Alienware Area-51 Threadripper Edition sports a 16-core Ryzen Threadripper 1950X processor that boosts to 4GHz with a base clock of 3.4GHz and an all-core boost at 3.6GHz. From a price standpoint, the 16-core Threadripper chip goes head-to-head with Intel's 10-core Core i9-7900X at a $999 MSRP. In early benchmark runs of the Alienware system, AMD's Ryzen Threadripper is showing as much as a 37% percent performance advantage over the Intel Core i9 Skylake-X chip, in highly threaded general compute workload benchmarks like Cinebench and Blender. In gaming, Threadripper is showing roughly performance parity with the Core i9 chip in some tests, but trailing by as much as 20% in lower resolution 1080p gaming, as is characteristic for many Ryzen CPUs currently, in certain games. Regardless, when you consider the general performance upside with Ryzen Threadripper versus Intel's current fastest desktop chip, along with its more aggressive per-core pricing (12-core Threadripper at $799), AMD's new flagship enthusiast/performance workstation desktop chips are lining up pretty well versus Intel's.
Um if you only look at synthetic benchmarks yes it does win but sadly rest of the results are don't put it so amd chip's way.
AMD is the best!
When setting a mug of coffee on the AMD CPU it will heat it faster than the puny Intel CPU for the same amount of processing!
Gaming is great and all but my real interest is on the computing power per Watt. This is a tech site and I would think people would want to know if datacenters are about to switch their boxen to AMD in the near future. This actually is something that matters.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
What?
Have you seen the real power consumption on Skylake-X?
uh... electricity is cheap dude.
cores?
It doesn't mention the Intel chips clock speeds there, but based on those two details, it seems like the AMD chip is not performing better than the Intel one on a per-core/per-thread basis, which is important to note. On the other hand the added I/O fabric and the much lower price certainly make it competitive on a selection of consumer focused metrics.
You are wrong. https://img.purch.com/o/aHR0cD...
Ryzen 1700 uses 35W less than a 7700k and 1800X uses 25W more. In gaming a Ryzen uses around 15% less which is typically the upper end how much slower it is in games compared to a 7700k. E.g. it is as efficient (games) or tons more efficient (when all cores can be used) than a Intel i7
Intel however is certainly ignoring their own power envelope with their factory overclocked CPU and from all news, their Skylake-X are worse, even the low end chips, in their mad dash to beat AMD. I doubt this will change with Threadripper which uses the same dies as Ryzen.
It doesn't matter if it's AMD or Intel: they always ignore your mythical "power envelope", especially when they are behind like Intel now and AMD before or when they have to press out the last bit of performance from an aging architecture like Intel now or AMD with the 9590.
I'm glad Macraig has learned to enjoy Intel's dongle in his rear-facing port. You're someone's BITCH now, stand tall! Don't let those AMD fanbois tease you with their faster processing speeds, so mean!
Is it possible to build an AMD Threadripper Hackintosh? The performance data looks very good, high performance, low power. Time to rip some threads!!!
Seems that if you max out the Ryzen on Linux or BSD, it can (under certain conditions) cause a reset:
https://hothardware.com/news/freebsd-programmers-report-ryzen-smt-bug-that-hangs-or-resets-machines
Threadipper at $550 has more pci-e then Intel at X2 the cost.
For $599 you still only get 28 lanes with intel
Even on the desktop not high level you get more as well.
Funny shit.
I consider myself a gamer, but I WILL NOT burn through the power that a GTX 1080 consumes.
So you wouldn't buy a $500 graphics card because it'd cost you $5/year in electricity. Got it.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Are we still waiting for these mystery drivers/patches to make any new AMD CPU decent at games? What processor do you buy if you want raw grunt and be good at games? Hint: it's not AMD.
Just a double whammy there. The new Intel CPUs aren't compatible with the old motherboards
http://www.pcgamer.com/intels-...
It looks like they are practically driving people AMD's way. Nice to see the shakeup though it's been far too long.
"I WILL NOT burn through the power that a GTX 1080 consumes"
I bet you had no problem saying that while running a fucking GTX 780, at nearly DOUBLE the TDP of a fucking Threadripper or GTX 1080.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Ryzen uses FAR less power than Intel per work load
Ryzen has far lower temps than Intel
Ryzen cores scale far better than Intel >4 core cores.
Ryzen is cooled using vastly cheaper cooling solutions than Intel (when overclocked)
Ryzen multithreading (AMD gen 1) is significantly better than Intels (Gen 6)
Ryzen motherboards are, like for like, cheaper than Intel
Ryzen, like for like, is much cheaper than Intel
Ryzen boosts performance with faster memory far better than Intel
Now, for sure, a 20 core Intel will beat a 16 core Ryzen. So What? Once you get as many cores as you want to pay for, what matters is performance per dollar- and Ryzen is HALF (read that again) the cost of Intel. And if at the same cost, AMD is thrashing Intel, it doesn't matter if that happens cos the AMD solution has more cores.
But, as it so happens, Ryzen has a slightly higher Instruction per clock than even Intel's best- Kaby Lake (if the never used AVX 256/512 is excluded). But Ryzen, in current software, shows equal with Intel's Broadwell and Haswell, and a little lower than Kaby Lake- cos current apps are written and compiled to favour Intel architecture (a consequence of AMD's last CPU architecture, Bulldozer, being such a flop).
Intel's LAST advantage is reaching 4.8GHz on one core when AMD is stuck at 4 on all cores. For rubbish software this can still make a difference- but given that even Intel is due to make 6-cores 'mainstream', and drop support for cr-ppy 2-core (old i3)- well all important software (including games) is going multi-core very quickly. And for you dumb-dumbs who haven't updated their computer knowledge in the last decade- no this does NOT require highly 'parallel' algorithms- but many work units with low inter-dependencies, as found in most sophisticated computer games.
In one swoop, AMD has made all current Intel CPUs obsolete- hence the raging in forums like this one. Intel loving fools who've just wasted their money on single-thread monster, the 7700K- have now learnt Intel is releasing a SIX-core part (the 8700K) on a non-compatible motherboard for the same cost- so they're suffering massive amounts of buyer's remorse.
PS again, AMD's Ryzen runs much cooler and uses less power (stock vs stock or overclock vs overclock) than Intel- but Slashdot is always full of losers who spout their ill-informed dribble to prove to us how 'clever' they are. No, 'clever' is actually bothering to keep up to date in the field you claim speciality in.
... at the cost of 30% of the performance of the chip...
Deja-vú...
Buldozer anyone?
*** Suerte a todos y Feliz dia!
Summary of the video: 16 core threadripper beats 10 core i9 in a highly parallel job. Wow, wow, wow.
Bleeding edge performance always consumes a lot of power. Doesn't matter if it's computers or cars.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
I think it's amusing how you assume that I have a favorite doggie in the contest just because you do. Having a perpetual favorite is the behavior of idiots who can't even protect their own self-interest. Have fun with that.
I think it's amusing how you assume that I have a favorite doggie in the contest just because you do. Having a perpetual favorite is the behavior of idiots who can't even protect their own self-interest. Have fun with that.
I use a GTX 960, topping out at less than one third the consumption of a GTX 1080, and a fraction of the price. It would have been worse had I chosen the equivalent AMD Product at the time, which is why I chose Nvidia that occasion; AMD had gotten my vote the time before. Having shredded your desperate little hypocrisy theory, I wonder just what it is that motivated you to post it? What sacred little cow are you hiding in your barn?
FYI, I've set a personal GPU power consumption limit of 150 Watts. Saving energy is just one of several reasons for setting that limit.
Zen/Ryzen has better performance per watt than any Intel chip currently offered and the next 6 months or more. You are either Intel fanboy/shill or you have been living under a rock. Tom's actually measures the wattage draw directly from the CPU, 4-core Intel draws more power than an 8 core AMD chip. http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/...
Zen/Ryzen has better performance per watt than anything Intel has currently or will offer for at least the next 6 months or longer. Example a 4-core 7700k Intel chip uses more power than a 8 core Ryzen 1700. It is basically impossible for Intel to get wattage down without a new lithography and arch, which isn't happening for more than 6 months or longer, cannonlake got pushed back until second half 2018, 10nm isn't going well.
Dammit forgot link http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/...
You get five installs of Windows 10 Pro. You won't have any problem activating on a newer PC.
What are you talking about? These benchmarks show a 35% performance gap. Other benchmarks (do a quick google) show a 16% power penalty. The Ryzen is more efficient based on the benchmarks we've seen so far.
AMD has always been the first to crash.
I'm shocked at how AMD fanboys/apologists will say "yeah, it only BSODs on me once every week or two."
Dude, if your PC is crashing from errors introduced by overclocking and you think that's an ok trade-off, then you and I have different ideas of what's acceptable.
And then last week's announcement that AMD's new chips crater when compiling Linux.
First to crash, but it's apparently worth it for 2 more frames per second.
Judging by their reaction and rushed 'counter' release, they where caught with their pants down. And this is a good thing. Intel have been resting comfortable at the top for a while now, so this will be good for all of us. Now while highly unlikely, if only AMD could pull some similar stunt against NVidia also..
But you have, it's blindingly obvious. Either that, or you're actually retarded.
Look at the percentage difference in power consumption. Then look at the difference in cost of acquisition. Now, think about how much electricity you can buy for that sum.
You'll find you'll be burning an awful lot of electricity before the Intel even hypothetically begins to pay for itself.
On the other hand AMD's GPU are still much more open-source friendly compared to Nvidia, and at the same time are still relevant when compared to Intel (even if not as power-efficient as Nvidia).
AMD has Linux devs on their payroll, is supporting 2 stack one of which (their long term goal) is opensource (runs a classical DRI/Mesa stack), while the other (eventually targetting for professionnals who need some weird features) leverages the same kernel driver.
The AMD opensource drivers are decent, offer support for most of the hardware (except the current DC/DAL delay) and is the official stack for older hardware.
Means that AMD graphic cards "just work" with the latest version of your favorite rolling distro (Opensuse tumbleweed in my case).
(BTW: Intel is also providing opensource drivers, but completely different than their windows stack)
Meanwhile, Nvidia only provides a blob which, while mostly decent, has several problems :
no way to fix it by 3rd parties for newer kernel (so you're stuck with which ever kernel version they decided to support)
and they only support a small subset of advanced features (optimus used to not work for quite some time),
also lots of problems on platforms which are not the standard desktop (sleep and mode-setting working badly on some laptops).
The only alternative is Nouveau which, while having achieved quite some progress, still needs to be done nearly enterily by reverse engineering Nvidia's drivers, all done only by volunteers with very little actual help from Nvidia.
Meaning often some basic stuff (reclocking) isn't working.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
"...but AMD is doing it at the continued cost of a significantly larger chunk of electricity..."
Talk about "having a perpetual favorite" :)
Ezekiel 23:20
"...but AMD is doing it at the continued cost of a significantly larger chunk of electricity..."
Talk about "having a perpetual favorite" :)
Ezekiel 23:20
I know a lot of you don't think small power consumption issues are a big deal but I thought I'd highlight a few points:
x) We now operate in a space where the physics of chips well into the future is already known, planned, and targetted for production. 7nm and below is atoms-wide production that we have been theorizing about for over a decade and what you are seeing is the culmination of a lot of that work today. This requires high skill and high tech to just be able to prototype, let alone mass produce. There are only a few companies in the world left that have the money to do this and Intel, AMD, and ARM are all on the short list.
x) As we get smaller, heat exponentially gets to be a larger problem. Making things faster in smaller spaces trades off heat as a waste by-product and this has been ramping up significantly since the Pentium chips. I remember reading about the first ones being water and/or ice cooled (right here on /., iirc).
x) The current drive for chip production is probably going to data centers (think AWS). Data centers do not care what chip in the box. They need chips that run cool and use the least electricity possible because they have a lot of them working a lot of the time. I have seen several analysts say that Intel is so far ahead here you will never see AMD in data centers at this point. It is simply not affordable based on today's market rates for computation.
I hope AMD stays around for a long while. I have an FX-8350 right next to me. That being said, the chip industry is run completely on physics at this point and things are going to start getting weird.
That is just total fucking bullshit right there.
Fuck off with the apologies for the limited number of installs: that model is fundamentally broken.
The *only* model that is acceptable, is that the license is for one installation to be running at any moment in time. ...not arguing that it's enforceable, just pointing out that it's the only model that I'll accept.
Doesn't that prevent you from ever using a flagship product? I'm not going to say there's never a reason for a limit like that, but it does seem somewhat arbitrary. Do you think that refusing to buy top-of-the-line products will encourage vendors to create more competitive better chips, or will it starve them of the funds or motivation to improve?
I'd also like to point out that the GTX960 has less than half as many transistors as the 1080, but due to the process shrink there's only a 30% difference in die size. It also appears to use over half the power that a 1080 does, making it considerably less efficient.
tldr; don't drink the low performance = high efficiency kool-aid.
If it weren't for games, it'd be the year of another desktop, er and another gfx chip maker.
"Topping out at less than a third the power consumption of a 1080" yeah, except not. Normally I wouldn't even both correcting just another ransom person spouting completely wrong information. But you have been going on and on about it, talking about how you *refuse* to use something so power hungry and inefficient, and how you're so clever cause what you use is *of course* way better perf/watt.
That would be nice and all if it were true, but it's complete bullshit. TDP of a 960 is 120W, per Nvidias site. See for yourself: https://www.geforce.com/hardwa...
The 1080 TDP is 180W, Nvidia significantly improved the power usage of the 10 series compared to the previous 900 series cards for equal or greater performance levels, like the 1080 vs 980 ti. https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/g...
If you were actually right, your continued mentioning of it would be kind of annoying, but that's ok. But since you're actually not even close to right, it's just obnoxious to keep reading the same bullshit spewed out over and over again. So you aren't oddly principled about using only the best perf/watt components, you're just ignorant. Sorry.
I don't know where you have been, but graphics processors have been used for 3D rendering for a long time.
While no where near the power we have now, SGI was making dedicated 3D chips that were utilized not only in the creation of 3D scenes, but also in the final render. This was over 20 years ago. Professional houses have been using PC cards all the way back to the Voodoo 2 in 1999.
Now it would be almost unheard of, for any final rendering stage not to use the GPU.
Heck ILM has their own rendering plug-in with customized graphics drivers to try to cope with the rendering load.
No, a graphics card cannot handle all the textures, polygons and shaders needed to render a final scene, but they don't have to. They load in what is needed at the time, render their part, then load in the next part, only keeping the frame in the card's memory.
Actually it is very common on blockbuster movies for multiple cards to be working on one scene at the same time with each card rendering a section of the frame.
Microsoft, Apple, Google, Amazon what's the difference? All steal money from devs and control with walled gardens.
Fucking nerd
You're a lying faggot, Macraig! Enjoy that title, you EARNED IT BITCH.
Whom was the first company to produce the 1ghz chip?
who's proc's kicked the crap out of the other based on Math
bottom line is
Intel can maintain
But AMD can innovate..
Its very clear..
I can't quit.
If you buy a retail license, it's transferable. If you buy oem, it's tied to hardware and cannot be transferred. Been this way for 20 years, AFAIK.
Why would you bother to reply, then? No one gives a shit that you don't give a shit. You added nothing of value. To fucking brag about chess? FFS.
No prob. Just chat with MS, and they will help you.
This summary and article gave me the kind of information I can use. These "synthetic benchmarks" are actually my intended workload. Games don't benefit greatly from multi-cores over about 3 or 4 these days, and in the future I think they'll start to take advantage of the newer platforms.
My Phenom II 1055T has served me well, but I'm thinking something a bit more high end might be a good upgrade.
All that said, is there something I'm missing? Can someone suggest an even better upgrade? At home I'm mostly playing around in Unity3D/Blender3D and making videos.
System specs:
(Off-site backups and on-site backups to other machines, of course!)
"In gaming, Threadripper is showing roughly performance parity with the Core i9 chip in some tests, but trailing by as much as 20% in lower resolution 1080p gaming, as is characteristic for many Ryzen CPUs currently, in certain games."
In other words, we now have more choice, a wider array of trade-offs, and lower prices for more performance (as a general statement, not picking and choosing individual processors or workloads).
This is Good News, all 'round!