10 ms·

Wow. AMD has really pulled through on this one. They are really giving Intel a run for their money. This is going to be great for consumers. What is interesting

• yread 10y ago
  But it's still losing in every web and office single threaded benchmark. EDIT: compared to 7700k that costs about the same
  • M_Grey 10y ago
    Maybe I'm being a bit harsh, but so what? You don't buy a high-end graphics card because office or websites are chugging...
  • Analemma_ 10y ago
    They're coming in at half the price of equivalent Intel chips. They don't need to win, necessarily (which I didn't think was going to happen), they need to be competitive for a lot less money. EDIT, in response to the other edit: sorry about that, I wasn't sure which comparison you were making. Still, the difference is slim enough that if I were in the market, I'd go with this one just to put the heat on Intel.
    • Vanayad 10y ago
      You do have to consider that this is an 8 core, and more and more applications are being developed with this in mind. Whoever still thinks that Single threaded performance is the most important, lives in the past.
      • anthonybsd 10y ago
        Consumer applications? Doubt it. Not a whole lot of consumer-oriented applications parallelize that well to be honest.
        • qaq 10y ago
          look at how many threads your Chrome is running
          • yborg 10y ago
            All but one set (for the active tab) of which are probably idle or effectively so most of the time.
          • whyever 10y ago
            Only Servo parallelizes single-page rendering as far as I know.
            • anentropic 10y ago
              but they're moving in that direction
          • MLR 10y ago
            This review has a CPU web test section, you can see performance is mostly a function of IPC and clock speed.
        • deleted 10y ago
          [deleted]
        • caf 10y ago
          Even crusty old Microsoft Excel parallelises worksheet recalculation.
          • smitherfield 10y ago
            Sure, but Excel is presumably one of the most optimized (in terms of the amount of money and brainpower devoted to optimizing it) applications in existence.
            • caf 10y ago
              That's not the feeling you get when you use it, it seems more like the underlying engine hasn't really changed a great deal in 20 years.
      • Geee 10y ago
        That's not true. 2 weak horses != 1 strong horse. 1 strong horse can do the work of 2 weak horses, but not the other way around. A single core can run multiple threads, but multiple cores can't work together on a single-thread task.
        • timlin 10y ago
          Actually, 2 weak horses could probably equal 1 strong horse. http://timmaurer.com/2012/01/16/horse-sense/ http://timmaurer.com/2012/01/16/horse-sense/ https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-two-horses-pulling-together-can-pull-more-than-the-sum-of-the-two-horses-pulling-separately https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-two-horses-pulling-tog...
    • RUG3Y 10y ago
      I'm definitely going to be building a PC with one of these CPUs some time this year. I've been holding off on an upgrade because I couldn't justify the cost. This is a lot more reasonable.
  • O5vYtytb 10y ago
    Who buys a $350+ processor with 8C/16T for web/office?
    • washadjeffmad 10y ago
      Universities and government institutions that haven't spent all of their funding by year-end, for one.
    • toss1941 10y ago
      Quad cores are the absolute minimum I would want for a standard office machine, unless it's only for a handful of basic applications. My latest work laptop is a quad core with 32 GB of RAM for running multiple VM's, but they couldn't give me an SSD which ends up wasting at least a few hours of productivity a week.
      • O5vYtytb 10y ago
        Right, I guess that's my point. The minimal gains in CPU are widely offset by upgrading other components like a SSD. So what if Ryzen is a few percent slower on a javascript benchmark? Does this actually noticeably affect any apps that people actually use?
    • flukus 10y ago
      It's 2017, we need that just to read a website these days.
  • simias 10y ago
    By a pretty small margin compared to equivalent Intel CPUs from what I've seen[1]. And the ryzen chips are a whole lot cheaper and beat Intel for parallel tasks. I'm about to buy a beefy machine for FPGA development, I'm definitely considering AMD. Seems like I'd get better performance for a much lower price. I'm still waiting for more in-depth reviews though. [1] http://core0.staticworld.net/images/article/2017/03/ryzen_cinebench_r15_037_single_threaded-100711469-orig.jpg http://core0.staticworld.net/images/article/2017/03/ryzen_ci...
    • FullyFunctional 10y ago
      It's interesting that you'd mention that workload as it's traditionally been completely single threaded (where it matters), and exceedingly memory intensive. Do you have first hand experience with how well it scales with cores?
  • geezerjay 10y ago
    > But it's still losing in every web and office single threaded benchmark. Web and office? Single-threaded? Why are these benchmarks, specially in 2018?
    • matthewmacleod 10y ago
      Because people still buy new computers and use those applications on them – that's why single-thread performance is (for the moment at least) still important. I do understand where you're coming from, but real-world performance is important, especially when that world is imperfect.
      • floatboth 10y ago
        For these applications, any modern desktop CPU is enough, and enough is all you need for them. People browse the web and do office tasks just fine on tiny 10W "Ultrabook" CPUs.
        • contingencies 10y ago
          Just this week I bought three systems for PXE-boot office use at http://infinite-food.com/ http://infinite-food.com/ and settled on Kaby Lake G3950 dual core Celerons with integrated Intel HD graphics. Here in China a whole mini-ITX system (including case, 180W power supply, 8GB DDR4 2133 RAM, G3950 CPU, motherboard, keyboard and mouse but not screen) is ~USD$174 (inc. parts shipping). I think Intel's integrated GPUs are still very attractive at the lower end of the market.
      • geezerjay 10y ago
        > Because people still buy new computers and use those applications on them – that's why single-thread performance is (for the moment at least) still important. That's a load of bullshit. No one ever complained that the web is unbrowsable or an excel spreadsheet is unworkable without a high-end boutique processor. Those benchmarks are simply a load of bullshit that evaluate something that is utterly irrelevant.
  • raverbashing 10y ago
    Yeah, like I'm going to buy a new computer to open PDF files, not to play games, render graphics or do complex simulations
    • yread 10y ago
      games you say? It's up to 30% slower here https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Processors/AMD-Ryzen-7-1800X-Review-Now-and-Zen/Gaming-Performance https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Processors/AMD-Ryzen-7-1800X-R...
      • snovv_crash 10y ago
        It's also up to 30% faster. That's how variance works.
        • Asooka 10y ago
          Well yeah but will you buy an alternate CPU that might be faster or might be slower in some games, or will you buy standard Intel, for which every game was definitely tested and will run with standard performance?
          • phamilton 10y ago
            Frame of reference fallacy going on here. One could just as easily say the Intel is 30% faster or slower.
          • raverbashing 10y ago
            It's been more than 10 years since I've read such an uninformed comment
          • nottorp 10y ago
            Your standard Intel is running a 64 bit instruction set designed by umm... AMD. Perhaps you'd like to restrict yourself to 32 bit software just to be standards conformant?
        • 10y ago
  • reitzensteinm 10y ago
    But so does a 6900K, and that costs a fortune. The Ryzen quads will come. I'm not at all sure what your point is here.
  • AnthonyMouse 10y ago
    > But it's still losing in every web and office single threaded benchmark. By ~15% compared to >160% for Bulldozer. And this is day zero before any applications have been optimized for the new microarchitecture, compared with Core which everything has been targeting for more than a decade. They did good.
    • Tom1971 10y ago
      I don't think spending time and effort to optimize code for Ryzen will be time well spent. Would you do it if you had the choice between that or adding new money making features/fixing bugs?
      • AnthonyMouse 10y ago
        > Would you do it if you had the choice between that or adding new money making features/fixing bugs? Of course I would, because people are going to benchmark my software against my competitor's software and choose the one that runs faster on their hardware. Especially if my software is a compiler and people are benchmarking the programs it produces against other compilers, which is where most of the optimizing actually happens these days.
      • phamilton 10y ago
        This is a compiler optimization, not an application optimization. I'd certainly add -march=zen as a compiler flag for my application. As for the priorities of the compiler devs, I think it will get some love.
        • clarry 10y ago
          Maybe it is time to run Gentoo again.
      • JamesMcMinn 10y ago
        Give compilers some time and the optimizations will be "free" to developers. Besides, if your application is one where performance is a serious issue, then you are going to spend some time optimizing rather than adding features. For some applications, performance is a feature.
  • olegkikin 10y ago
    But it wins in every case where performance truly matters: multi-threaded calculations, archiving, encoding. You know, the things that actually do take up time. Do you really care if your webpage renders for half a second longer?
    • teilo 10y ago
      No, it doesn't. Their hyperthreading model is clearly not as good as Intel's. Take a look at the Handbrake tests, which take full advantage of hyperthreading. The 7700K, with half the cores, is only a few frames/sec. behind. If I was after encoding performance, I wouldn't buy a Ryzen. If I was after rendering performance, I wouldn't buy a Ryzen. Throw an mid-range nVidia on there for OpenCL, and the only CPU that makes sense for that price range is the 7700K.
      • slantyyz 10y ago
        From everything I've seen, the Ryzen's main appeal is bang for the buck. If you're after pure performance, then you simply go with the best for your use case, whether it is Ryzen or not. If you're on a tight budget, however, things get interesting.
        • deleted 10y ago
          [deleted]
        • Geee 10y ago
          It's not so clear, because 7700K offers more bang for the buck in single-threading cases, which is more important in typical computer use.
          • slantyyz 10y ago
            > It's not so clear, because 7700K offers more bang for the buck in single-threading cases hence, "things get interesting"
      • cynic_ 10y ago
  • jdietrich 10y ago
    The R7 1700 is within shouting distance of the 6900k in most serious tasks - rendering, encoding, compilation etc. A $330 65w CPU is a credible alternative to an $1100 140w CPU. That is absolutely remarkable. The cherry on the cake is that the cheapest AM4 motherboards are half the price of the cheapest 2011-v3 boards. For the first time in a decade, AMD are seriously competing at the high end. That's great news for everyone except Intel.
    • slantyyz 10y ago
      I'm hoping things get more interesting when the Ryzen Mobile chips come out later in the year.
      • MLR 10y ago
        The Zen based APU platform is going to cause real problems for Intel in the laptop/ultrabook market, Ryzen's power consumption looks very low and their iGPU technology is years ahead of Intel's.
        • slantyyz 10y ago
          >> The Zen based APU platform is going to cause real problems for Intel in the laptop/ultrabook market Technically this is true, but unlike the desktop market where you can buy stuff in pieces, it really depends on how the laptop manufacturers adopt them. As in how fast they show up in product lines, and in which laptop segments they show up in. If, for example, Intel gives laptop manufacturers pricing incentives (legally or not) to stick with their chips, it may not cause any problems at all with respect to actual customer purchases.
    • karpodiem 10y ago
      and this is exactly why I'm getting one. Cheap, power efficient, eight cores. It may not win everything, but it works for me.
      • lostmsu 10y ago
  • mrb 10y ago
    Or, seen another way (better representation of the overall reality): The 7700k is losing in all aspects below w.r.t. the Ryzen 7 1800X, except absolute single-threaded perf. Intel is losing in: - absolute multi-threaded performance - relative multi-threaded performance per $ - memory bandwidth - L3-cache bound workloads (AMD has twice more L3) - price of motherboards
    • dfrey 10y ago
      You left out the tiny detail that the 7700k is $150USD cheaper than the 1800X.
      • mrb 10y ago
        True. But IMHO justified and worth it because AMD beats Intel in all these areas.
      • r00fus 10y ago
        What about when you factor in mobo costs?
    • keldaris 10y ago
      I'll have to disagree on a few of the points on that list: > - relative multi-threaded performance per $ Highly depends on the particular workload. Given the few benchmarks we have right now, it seems to go 50-50 once you factor in the lower price of the 7700k. At the very least, this one is close. > - memory bandwidth Seems about equal from the measurements I've seen (the theoretical numbers are irrelevant). > - L3-cache bound workloads (AMD has twice more L3) Cache-size bound workloads to be precise. Cache latency still seems higher, even on L3. Overall, the 1800X seems to make the entire Broadwell-E series redundant on price/performance (at least at current price), no argument there. Against the 7700k, however, it's a very interesting decision, entirely based on the distribution of your workloads. And if Intel drops the prices on Kaby Lake, the value equation can change very quickly indeed.
      • mrb 10y ago
        Ryzen 7 1800X unambiguously beats the 7700k on memory bandwidth: http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_ryzen_7_1800x_processor_review,13.html http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_ryzen_7_1800x_proce...
  • tomku 10y ago
    And? Intel's $1,600 6950X loses to their own $170 i3-7350K in single-threaded benchmarks. When you pay extra for a CPU with more cores, you almost always get less single-threaded compute because of power/heat/design constraints forcing the clock speed down. Dual cores will often beat quad-cores, which will almost always beat hex/octo-cores. What's happening here is that AMD has priced Ryzen so inexpensively that it actually broke the usual market segmentation by driving high-thread-count workstation CPUs (usually $1k+) into the same price range as high-end gaming CPUs (~$300-400). Think of it as being able to buy an industrial dump truck for the same price as a pickup truck. The dump truck is clearly a better value in terms of hauling capacity, but most people would be far better off with a pickup truck for their daily traveling. AMD's pickup truck (the 1400X) doesn't launch until later this year. The 7700K will probably still beat it on single-threaded workloads due to the difference in clock speed, but it should get you most of the way there for substantially less money, around $200 if the leaks are accurate.
    • jrockway 10y ago
      I think Intel severely underclocks the 6950X by default, so that it fits within the stated TDP of 140W with all 10 cores at full load. If you have adequate cooling, it is very easy to overclock. I think I ended up at 4.2GHz for 10 core loads, 4.4GHz for 4 cores.
  • lallysingh 10y ago
    I think people run enough browser tabs (+ their office suite + background OS tasks) where the core difference will outshine the single-core speed. It's not hard to overwhelm 4 real cores.
  • ascendantlogic 10y ago
    Ryzen 7 chips focus on heavily multithreaded work. When you are dealing with every day apps and games you are more concerned with IPC (instructions per cycle) and I'm sure we'll see better performance in that arena with Ryzen 3 and 5
• rbanffy 10y ago
  > What is interesting is the HUGE jump in multi-threaded performance on AMD. Very interesting. Indeed. Single threaded performance, however, seems bad. Virtual cores most likely share less of the actual core than on Intel parts, allowing one to compete less with the other and get more done. On my i7 laptop, on anything more demanding, I see half the "cores" idling, probably because one is using the actual underlying core while the other is waiting. Still, while AMD obviously did a good job, it will not make the Intel guys lose any sleep for now. The server parts are another story. If they manage to reliably outperform Xeons (even if it's only on a per watt basis), it'll be fun to watch.
  • pmalynin 10y ago
    >"half the "cores" idling" Right, thats exactly what happens with Hyper-Threading. If you can fully utilize the physical core, Hyper-Threading can't do much.
    • rbanffy 10y ago
      It seems the AMD parts can squeeze a little more work from the two threads, judging by the multi-threeaded benchmarks, than competing Intel parts.
  • deepnotderp 10y ago
    Server supplies ~60% of Intel's total profits.
  • michaelmrose 10y ago
    Hyperthreading is not a virtual core and as it doesn't exist as a separate core its hard for it to be idling. Bad analogies make for less than adequate understanding.
    • rbanffy 10y ago
      They are also called "logical cores" (I think Intel documents prefers "logical" and Sun - they invented the concept - prefers "virtual"). One logical core can appear to be idling to the OS if the parts of the physical core are in use by another (SPARC and POWER go up to 8) logical core (as it's resource starved). It seems, from the benchmarks, the AMD parts have less shared resources between logical cores (or a finer granularity for allocating) than the i7 in my laptop.