5 ms·
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.
by 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 agoNo, 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 agoFrom 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 agoIt'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 agoLooking at most benchmarks hyperthreading model is equal or better on Ryzen. Ryzen 1800x and 6900k have almost the exact single threaded score on Cinebench. But 1800x beats 6900k on Cinebench and Handbrake
- DannyBee 10y agoIt's funny that the article mentions that Intel went through a number of these projects and optimized them, just so they could try to say that :) I expect if AMD went back through again, they could improve them even more. (In the handbrake case, most likely it's half-speed AVX2 that is hurting them)
- ElatedOwl 10y ago>If I was after rendering performance, I wouldn't buy a Ryzen But why? http://www.anandtech.com/show/11170/the-amd-zen-and-ryzen-7-review-a-deep-dive-on-1800x-1700x-and-1700/18 http://www.anandtech.com/show/11170/the-amd-zen-and-ryzen-7-... The benchmarks show Ryzen being the obvious choice other than cinebench single threaded.
- carspically 10y agoThe reason he said that is because it makes infinitely more sense to use a renderer that does it's work on the GPU with CUDA or OpenCL. Only if you are using a shitty software renderer or are completely stupid would you do rendering on the CPU. The Ryzen performs nicely on the encoding tests, though that will be performed by the GPU soon. It already can be (NVENC and AMD VCE), but the quality isn't quite as good as everyone's favorite h.264 encoder, x264.
- skykooler 10y agoDepending on rendering task, GPU rendering isn't always feasible. In particular, for very large scenes consuming a large amount of RAM, it is difficult to find graphics cards with over 8 GB of VRAM, while 32gb or 64gb of desktop RAM are easily accessible.
- untoreh 10y agoare you saying gpu x264 encoding is reaching bitrate/quality ratio similar to cpu x264 soon ?
- Geee 10y agoYes, I do care. A lot. Actually if it's just 50ms I care. Slow main thread is a huge annoyance, and that's 99% of my computer use. On the other hand, I don't care if asynchronous tasks (encoding etc.) take 30 or 40 seconds or whatever; I can get a cup of coffee or check my email. Also, major parallel workloads are done on the GPU anyway.
- slizard 10y agoFTFY: some major parallel workloads are done on the GPU anyway, so parallel work on CPUs is often still relevant. ;)
- tbrowbdidnso 10y agoWhat? I've never run a parallel op on the GPU but I do on my CPU multiple times a day. GPU acceleration besides games is still extremely rare. You're grasping straws here. You're also missing that even on chrome the js and layout engines run different threads. Same with audio and video rendering. Same with downloads. The average page is probably running things on 10-20 random threads. And the average user has multiple tabs open. Multicore CPU is so common these days that any performance critical code that can be parallelized, is. This includes GZIP and HTTP which are used heavily by web browsers. The network stacks underneath those in the OS are also multi core capable. Single thread performance is not all that important anymore. It's better to have 2x the number of fast cores than half the number of slightly faster cores in almost every situation these days.
- lightedman 10y ago"GPU acceleration besides games is still extremely rare" Not even. Video acceleration, browser acceleration, flash acceleration, and much more, are becoming increasingly GPU-oriented.
- ganfortran 10y agoI don't so it is good for me
- ldev 10y agoI'm actually using my computer and not running it as a build server. I'd take 16 ghz single core CPU over 4 core 4ghz any time of the day.
- rockdoe 10y agoAnyone would. That's not the option on offer though.
- Symmetry 10y agoGenerally speaking the price of a processor is going to be the square of the single threaded performance times the number of cores. So your choice is more like one 8 GHz core versus 4 4GHz cores. Which might be good or bad depending on your use case. Well, there's a threshold below which you only get linear per-core scaling but outside microcontrollers you're not going to have to worry about that.