4 ms·

Disregarding brand loyalty and whatnot, there are very few situations in which AMD's Ryzen chips aren't a "no-brainer" over Intel's. Most rational people shoul

by mtgx 9y ago

Disregarding brand loyalty and whatnot, there are very few situations in which AMD's Ryzen chips aren't a "no-brainer" over Intel's. Most rational people should be getting AMD's chips and AMD Ryzen-based devices.

hyperbovine 9y ago
I took a hard, rational look at Ryzen for my latest workstation purchase. Ultimately I went with Intel due to all the reports of crashes under heavy SMT load on Linux.
- gcp 9y ago
  You can RMA affected chips (I've done so), which were from early batches (apparently). It's inconvenient but it's not the first and won't be the last piece of hardware that has to be RMA-ed. At least you can RMA them! Intel didn't offer that when TSX turned out to be broken. After compiling things on an 8 thread Haswell Xeon, and now a 16-thread Ryzen, I really want a ThreadRipper...
- loeg 9y ago
  That's understandable, but it's also worth pointing out that that issue is now understood and affects only processors manufactured before June 2017. Any affected processor should be returned for replacement or RMA.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
pizza234 9y ago
I don't think the situations are as few as you report. The heat/consumptions and single-core speed aspects are not negligible. In addition (although this is definitely something for a minority of users), I suffered blocking VFIO scheduling issues with AMD (A10) while I didn't with Intel. Even Ryzen seems to be immature for VFIO (but I didn't personally test this).
- gcp 9y ago
  Doesn't Ryzen have better power efficiency compared to these new Coffee Lake's? The issue is a bit muddled because sites are (for some weird reason?) ignoring the most common Ryzen SKU, which is 65W (R7 1700).
  - bilbo0s 9y ago
    But the Ryzens being compared... consume quite a bit more power than the intel parts they are being compared against. That said, yes, if power consumption is no item, the Ryzens look better. If you are looking for power efficiency, go with the intel parts.
    - gcp 9y ago
      No, no, not at all! That's exactly what I was pointing at: most reviews are using the most power hungry Ryzen SKUs (95W), so of course it looks bad in comparison. Meanwhile, the price/perf leader and most sold Ryzen SKU is only 65W. This one is ahead of Intel in power efficiency.
  - uep 9y ago
    I've noticed this as well. It seems outright bizarre that many benchmarks have been leaving out the 1700, when anecdotally, it seems to be the Ryzen that people are buying. It also seems to be the price/performance/wattage sweet spot for Ryzen, since it has low wattage, and also comes bundled with a cooler.
vbezhenar 9y ago
I considered ThreadRipper, but I'm going to overclock 8700K. Multiple cores are good to have sometimes (clean rebuild, reindexing), but 99% of time there are 1-2 threads and their performance is most important. If AMD would improve ThreadRipper IPC and frequency at least to 5 GHz, it would be much more interesting choice.
verall 9y ago
Really? I'm honestly looking for opinions here. I'm currently looking at the i7-7820X for a gaming/developer/GP machine. The Ryzen 1800X has only 16PCIe lanes, and a dual channel memory controller that is not as fast as Intel's. The Ryzen 1920X has what I need, but costs about $200 more, and I'm a bit concerned about performance consistency due to the NUMA architecture. With this in mind, I'm really leaning towards the 7820x. But I keep seeing these posts saying that beyond brand loyalty, Ryzen is the way to go. Is the balanced ST/MT workstation niche really in Ryzen's court?

by mtgx 9y ago

hyperbovine 9y ago

I took a hard, rational look at Ryzen for my latest workstation purchase. Ultimately I went with Intel due to all the reports of crashes under heavy SMT load on Linux.

gcp 9y ago
You can RMA affected chips (I've done so), which were from early batches (apparently). It's inconvenient but it's not the first and won't be the last piece of hardware that has to be RMA-ed. At least you can RMA them! Intel didn't offer that when TSX turned out to be broken. After compiling things on an 8 thread Haswell Xeon, and now a 16-thread Ryzen, I really want a ThreadRipper...
loeg 9y ago
That's understandable, but it's also worth pointing out that that issue is now understood and affects only processors manufactured before June 2017. Any affected processor should be returned for replacement or RMA.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

pizza234 9y ago

I don't think the situations are as few as you report. The heat/consumptions and single-core speed aspects are not negligible. In addition (although this is definitely something for a minority of users), I suffered blocking VFIO scheduling issues with AMD (A10) while I didn't with Intel. Even Ryzen seems to be immature for VFIO (but I didn't personally test this).

gcp 9y ago
Doesn't Ryzen have better power efficiency compared to these new Coffee Lake's? The issue is a bit muddled because sites are (for some weird reason?) ignoring the most common Ryzen SKU, which is 65W (R7 1700).
- bilbo0s 9y ago
  But the Ryzens being compared... consume quite a bit more power than the intel parts they are being compared against. That said, yes, if power consumption is no item, the Ryzens look better. If you are looking for power efficiency, go with the intel parts.
  - gcp 9y ago
    No, no, not at all! That's exactly what I was pointing at: most reviews are using the most power hungry Ryzen SKUs (95W), so of course it looks bad in comparison. Meanwhile, the price/perf leader and most sold Ryzen SKU is only 65W. This one is ahead of Intel in power efficiency.
- uep 9y ago
  I've noticed this as well. It seems outright bizarre that many benchmarks have been leaving out the 1700, when anecdotally, it seems to be the Ryzen that people are buying. It also seems to be the price/performance/wattage sweet spot for Ryzen, since it has low wattage, and also comes bundled with a cooler.

vbezhenar 9y ago

I considered ThreadRipper, but I'm going to overclock 8700K. Multiple cores are good to have sometimes (clean rebuild, reindexing), but 99% of time there are 1-2 threads and their performance is most important. If AMD would improve ThreadRipper IPC and frequency at least to 5 GHz, it would be much more interesting choice.

verall 9y ago

Really? I'm honestly looking for opinions here. I'm currently looking at the i7-7820X for a gaming/developer/GP machine. The Ryzen 1800X has only 16PCIe lanes, and a dual channel memory controller that is not as fast as Intel's. The Ryzen 1920X has what I need, but costs about $200 more, and I'm a bit concerned about performance consistency due to the NUMA architecture. With this in mind, I'm really leaning towards the 7820x. But I keep seeing these posts saying that beyond brand loyalty, Ryzen is the way to go. Is the balanced ST/MT workstation niche really in Ryzen's court?