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.
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.
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.
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.
Software capabilities traditionally lag behind hardware capabilities. Look at how underutilized the multi-core capability of modern hardware is even today. Now consider that GPGPU is even newer than multi-core CPUs. Thus, logically, most 3D rendering software *isn't* designed to use the GPU to do its work. 3D rendering software designed to use the GPU is *just appearing*, and even where it exists, it can't be reasonably used for complex scenes, since those have traditionally been memory-limited. High-end 3D production was using multi-gigabyte assets (around 10 GB per frame) around the year 2000 already. An average graphics card is just getting there, but the industry has moved on already.
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 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.