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.
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!
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.
Could you revise your post so that we know what "it" refers to with regards to winning? And could you revise your sentence "sadly rest of the results are don't put it so amd chip's way." so that it uses grammar and makes sense? I would like to understand your point.
A dingo ate my sig...
uh... electricity is cheap dude.
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.
Sorry to break it to you but AMD has backdoor of it's own called PSP. I just hope they make it open for scrutiny but I wouldn't hold my breath.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
It's not all that surprising that gaming benchmarks don't scale as well to large numbers of cores. Videogame programming isn't a field in which performance can simply scale nearly linearly based on the number of hardware threads available. That's because the CPU is performing a huge number of very diverse tasks among all it's engine components, and there's a great deal of global coordination that occurs on a central database. It's essentially a heterogeneous workload, and those just don't scale as well.
Thinks like a 3D renderer or video encoding benchmark, in which you can divide up portions of the screen or encode successive frames on different threads - those sorts of things will scale nearly linearly with the number of threads, because it's a largely homogeneous workload.
So, it's not necessarily about synthetic vs read world benchmarks. It's really about how well the application in general scales to multiple threads. For some things, it's relatively easy. Others... not so much.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
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.
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.
He said that porn doesn't feel the same on an AMD chipset.
You can't have a CISC chip, or even a RISC-based chip that has CISC features (like ARM), if you want to be protected from backdoors. You need a real RISC chip where your registers are literally registers, and there is no microcode. Basically, the smallest of the microcontrollers from the 1980s. You'll have to build everything from the ground up with a cluster of those things.
Or, accept that you don't know what microcode does, you don't really trust it, and just decide which one to use anyway. And then you're able to use it.
It is just the same as with linux and hurd. It really makes no difference which one you like the best, because only one of them is a real choice.
Honestly, for most tasks you could just build a device with some op-amps and analog dials to do whatever automation you want. But when it behaves in ways you didn't expect, you'll be able to have confidence that it is some knowable phenomenon, like bad wiring, rats, insects, tree rats, backhoes, or somebody driving by with an excessively amplified CB radio. I mean, you still won't have any idea what is "really going on," but you'll look like you do to average people.
and they both cost the same... wow wow wow!
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.
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
Because of optimization. You don't render all points in a space. You only render points in a viewport. That means part of the job of the game loop is constantly keeping track of which points in space you need to worry about for rendering purposes versus physics purposes. There are tons of algorithms to do this and it is one of the areas that people optimize pretty aggressively.
Once you have a point list, you can build a scene and render it based on a ton of other factors (z-order, shaders, shadows, light blending, etc.). All of this is completely dynamic and can't be pre-computed. The assets that are pre-computed are basically just hints that tell you how to do all of these real-time calculations faster. Also, a lot of optimization goes into the 3D models themselves to eliminate unnecessary triangles. The more triangles in a viewport, the more calculations you have to do, and the slower the engine will be.
Again, a lot of this can't be done in parallel because it doesn't depend on the number of players. It is a problem with the fact that you are multiplexing an entire universe into a single viewport and trying to optimize it so that it actually runs. Some things can (and are) run in threads. Like I said, they've been working on this for a long while now.
"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.
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.