5 ms·

The cost in the 7000 series is the motherboards at the moment. They're still extortionately priced. 2x the price of an equivalent Intel one and that hasn't chan

by unxdfa 4y ago

The cost in the 7000 series is the motherboards at the moment. They're still extortionately priced. 2x the price of an equivalent Intel one and that hasn't changed. It's improving but nowhere near reasonable. The AM4/B550 combo is still pretty good however. 99% of what I do is single thread bound so I really want to see some single thread power benchmarks but no one seems to bother with those. I'm in the market for a PC with the best single thread performance out there at the moment so I've got several machines configured in pcpartpicker and spreadsheets at the moment :(

bryanlarsen 4y ago
A520 motherboards should be coming out soon. Hopefully they're cheap and don't suck.
sliken 4y ago
Have you looked recently? I've been tracking DDR5 motherboard (I think the perf is worth it), MicroATX (don't need fullsize), I don't need blinking lights, watercooling systems, wifi, or exotic sound systems, so I go for relatively barebones motherboards. I do want something small, quiet, 2.5G ethernet, and has dual m.2 slots. On Newegg I found an Intel ASRock Riptide for $159 [0]. On Newegg I found an AMD ASRock Riptide for $169 [1]. I'll happily take the AMD and end up with a quieter and cooler system for the $10.00 premium. Debating between a 7700 (non-x), 7700X3D, or 7900 (non-x). Hopefully it lasts as long as my current (2015) desktop. Do you consider a $10 premium "extortionately priced"? [0] https://www.newegg.com/p/N82E16813162061 https://www.newegg.com/p/N82E16813162061 [1] https://www.newegg.com/p/N82E16813162083 https://www.newegg.com/p/N82E16813162083
- unxdfa 4y ago
  UK here. Based on my needs, an Asus Prime H610 board that'll take a 13700K is £85. The cheapest AM5 board is £175. (I'm checking one vendor here who I know has a decent returns policy when your system integration goes to hell, another common AMD problem from much experience!)
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - sliken 4y ago
    Ah, wasn't looking that low. That gets you half the memory channels, half the memory bandwidth, half the PCIe, and 40% of the ethernet bandwidth. They go for $100-$110 here, doesn't seem worth saving $50, at least if you plan to keep the system for 5-10 years. BTW, AM5 added the ability to upgrade BIOS without a CPU. So no more nightmares of having to beg a CPU, borrow a CPU from AMD, or RMA to get a compatible CPU<->BIOS setup.
    - unxdfa 4y ago
      Yeah if I throw a B660 in there the price is closer. I would probably do that. Good to hear that about the CPU issue. I found that one out the hard way and had to scoot around to a friend's house and borrow his CPU for a few minutes. I bought MSI board after that as they had that built in anyway. AMD scare me on the reliability front. The 3700X and B450 combo I had before was a dick. It would come up 50% of the times with the fans cranking and have to be powered down and back up again a couple of times for it to boot. My Intel machines never did anything like that for the last 25 years or so but the last Athlon XP I had did the same damn thing.
      - sliken 4y ago
        Heh, I've been tracking desktops for quite some time, not noticed any significant reliability differences between AMD and Intel. My current desktop is a 2015 Xeon e3-1230 which was CHEAPER then the similar i7, but allowed ECC. I do like that the AMD motherboards allow ECC, it's a bit of a mess, but better then nothing. AMD doesn't guarantee/certify it until you upgrade to the Epyc. So you end up digging through motherboard docs, certification lists, and forums. My previous desktop was some early amd64, had no reliability problems with it. Before that I think it might have been an Celeron 300A that was overclocked to 450 MHz, same silicon as their non-celeron 450 MHz CPU, so overclocking was very common then. So far I've been switching between AMD and Intel every gen, and likely on my Xeon replacement.
      - 4y ago
phkahler 4y ago
What are you running that is pushing single thread performance but doesn't benefit from more cores? Asking because IMHO it's so easy to use multiple cores on some parts of an app I feel like everyone should do it.
- unxdfa 4y ago
  Compilation mostly (with shit compilers) and single image manipulation.
  - JoshTriplett 4y ago
    Which compilers? Always interested in unusual build-system issues.
    - unxdfa 4y ago
      These are custom written DSL and rule engine compilers. Mostly written or ruined by me.
foobarian 4y ago
I have an old i5 750 with 4 cores running Plex server, file server, Minecraft servers for kids, some home apps etc. Minecraft and transcoding has been pushing it a bit so I've been tempted to upgrade. I wonder if it's finally time to jump over to the AMD camp! Any time I tried AMD in the past (I stopped trying 10 years ago) the AMD CPUs were cheaper but there was some problem that was just enough to keep me with Intel. Weird compatibility issues when compiling packages. Huge power draw. Weird motherboards. Has this improved nowadays? Otherwise I'm thinking one of the budget i9 parts.
- paulmd 4y ago
  > Huge power draw. Weird motherboards. Has this improved nowadays? AMD never fully fixed the USB dropout issues under load, AMD CPU/mobo are still extremely problematic for VR setups. There are also some weird issues around stuttering with the onboard fTPM enabled (which windows 11 wants you to use). Better than the early days where Ryzen 1000 chips had cache defects that led to segfaults under compiling workloads. The AGESA-BIOS model foists responsibility onto partners for distributing microcode updates and AMD tends to release buggy microcode that partners then have to fix, and they churn the microcode so fast that the fixes often go stale and break other things, but partners have to do them or people accuse them of "buggy BIOS". It's sort of the inverse problem in GPUs where AMD has to fix other people's game bugs in the drivers... partners have to fix AMD's microcode problems in their BIOSs. Commonly manifests as sensor glitches/offset problems/etc, sometimes this has led to real fun problems when those sensors are controlling core/SOC voltage or things like that. AMD GPUs still suck for VR, the 5700XT series had huge crashing problems under the windows drivers that were never really resolved for a lot of people, and the 7000 series seems to be on course to replicate those sorts of issues. They did finally bring the 7900XTX's idle power down to only about 45W though. The fans will vehemently deny it but yeah, you're pretty much right. AMD has gotten better but their software/drivers and user-experience still aren't as polished, either CPU or GPU. It's usually good enough it's not a problem, but you're going off the beaten path and they're not always flawless. On the other hand who knows what's going to happen with Intel with an exodus of staff already happening and likely to continue. 7900X, 7800X3D, 7900X3D, and 7950X3D are great looking parts at the right price but Intel is willing to make dealz right now to keep the cash flowing, they've got DDR4 boards to bring the platform cost down, etc. You have to evaluate the whole build and see what you get... and AMD does worse with large 128GB builds right now too. Although Intel is not flawless either to be fair. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P58VqVvDjxo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P58VqVvDjxo Around here microcenter is willing to throw in a free 32GB RAM kit of decent quality if you buy a 7000X (not the base tier and unknown whether this will include X3D) and Newegg was offering a similar promotion at one point. Which neutralizes a lot of the platform cost difference - the DDR5 + PCIe 5.0 capable Intel boards aren't cheap either, but, a bit cheaper than AMD right now. Again, gotta look at the whole cost of the build for your own local costs. Personally I think the DDR4 compatibility makes Intel a no-brainer for very cheap builds. You can get a PCIe 4.0 + DDR4 Intel board for the usual, expected price ranges... PCPP says starting from $79. If you're a fit for a Pentium/Celeron or a 12100/12100F that's a system cost AM5 can't compete with at the low end, you have to go back to AM4 which are slower systems. The 12600K, 13500, and 13600K are also very good gaming-focused builds. There's nothing wrong with 7800X for gaming either, especially with the free RAM, but, Intel 13th gen does outperform it. And the e-cores are "free" at the MSRP, so Intel is simply giving you more, but, AMD is also dropping prices below MSRP lately (ymmv depending on your location). For productivity and "server"-ish workloads, the AMD 7900X is great, particularly since AMD supports AVX-512 while Intel has disabled it on 12th/13th gen. And the 7800X3D, 7900X3D, and 7950X3D should all be very attractive high-end gaming+productivity "crossover" components if you are willing to splash out.

by unxdfa 4y ago

bryanlarsen 4y ago

A520 motherboards should be coming out soon. Hopefully they're cheap and don't suck.

sliken 4y ago

Have you looked recently? I've been tracking DDR5 motherboard (I think the perf is worth it), MicroATX (don't need fullsize), I don't need blinking lights, watercooling systems, wifi, or exotic sound systems, so I go for relatively barebones motherboards. I do want something small, quiet, 2.5G ethernet, and has dual m.2 slots. On Newegg I found an Intel ASRock Riptide for $159 [0]. On Newegg I found an AMD ASRock Riptide for $169 [1]. I'll happily take the AMD and end up with a quieter and cooler system for the $10.00 premium. Debating between a 7700 (non-x), 7700X3D, or 7900 (non-x). Hopefully it lasts as long as my current (2015) desktop. Do you consider a $10 premium "extortionately priced"? [0] https://www.newegg.com/p/N82E16813162061 https://www.newegg.com/p/N82E16813162061 [1] https://www.newegg.com/p/N82E16813162083 https://www.newegg.com/p/N82E16813162083

unxdfa 4y ago
UK here. Based on my needs, an Asus Prime H610 board that'll take a 13700K is £85. The cheapest AM5 board is £175. (I'm checking one vendor here who I know has a decent returns policy when your system integration goes to hell, another common AMD problem from much experience!)
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- sliken 4y ago
  Ah, wasn't looking that low. That gets you half the memory channels, half the memory bandwidth, half the PCIe, and 40% of the ethernet bandwidth. They go for $100-$110 here, doesn't seem worth saving $50, at least if you plan to keep the system for 5-10 years. BTW, AM5 added the ability to upgrade BIOS without a CPU. So no more nightmares of having to beg a CPU, borrow a CPU from AMD, or RMA to get a compatible CPU<->BIOS setup.
  - unxdfa 4y ago
    Yeah if I throw a B660 in there the price is closer. I would probably do that. Good to hear that about the CPU issue. I found that one out the hard way and had to scoot around to a friend's house and borrow his CPU for a few minutes. I bought MSI board after that as they had that built in anyway. AMD scare me on the reliability front. The 3700X and B450 combo I had before was a dick. It would come up 50% of the times with the fans cranking and have to be powered down and back up again a couple of times for it to boot. My Intel machines never did anything like that for the last 25 years or so but the last Athlon XP I had did the same damn thing.
    - sliken 4y ago
      Heh, I've been tracking desktops for quite some time, not noticed any significant reliability differences between AMD and Intel. My current desktop is a 2015 Xeon e3-1230 which was CHEAPER then the similar i7, but allowed ECC. I do like that the AMD motherboards allow ECC, it's a bit of a mess, but better then nothing. AMD doesn't guarantee/certify it until you upgrade to the Epyc. So you end up digging through motherboard docs, certification lists, and forums. My previous desktop was some early amd64, had no reliability problems with it. Before that I think it might have been an Celeron 300A that was overclocked to 450 MHz, same silicon as their non-celeron 450 MHz CPU, so overclocking was very common then. So far I've been switching between AMD and Intel every gen, and likely on my Xeon replacement.
    - 4y ago

phkahler 4y ago

What are you running that is pushing single thread performance but doesn't benefit from more cores? Asking because IMHO it's so easy to use multiple cores on some parts of an app I feel like everyone should do it.

unxdfa 4y ago
Compilation mostly (with shit compilers) and single image manipulation.
- JoshTriplett 4y ago
  Which compilers? Always interested in unusual build-system issues.
  - unxdfa 4y ago
    These are custom written DSL and rule engine compilers. Mostly written or ruined by me.

foobarian 4y ago

I have an old i5 750 with 4 cores running Plex server, file server, Minecraft servers for kids, some home apps etc. Minecraft and transcoding has been pushing it a bit so I've been tempted to upgrade. I wonder if it's finally time to jump over to the AMD camp! Any time I tried AMD in the past (I stopped trying 10 years ago) the AMD CPUs were cheaper but there was some problem that was just enough to keep me with Intel. Weird compatibility issues when compiling packages. Huge power draw. Weird motherboards. Has this improved nowadays? Otherwise I'm thinking one of the budget i9 parts.

paulmd 4y ago
> Huge power draw. Weird motherboards. Has this improved nowadays? AMD never fully fixed the USB dropout issues under load, AMD CPU/mobo are still extremely problematic for VR setups. There are also some weird issues around stuttering with the onboard fTPM enabled (which windows 11 wants you to use). Better than the early days where Ryzen 1000 chips had cache defects that led to segfaults under compiling workloads. The AGESA-BIOS model foists responsibility onto partners for distributing microcode updates and AMD tends to release buggy microcode that partners then have to fix, and they churn the microcode so fast that the fixes often go stale and break other things, but partners have to do them or people accuse them of "buggy BIOS". It's sort of the inverse problem in GPUs where AMD has to fix other people's game bugs in the drivers... partners have to fix AMD's microcode problems in their BIOSs. Commonly manifests as sensor glitches/offset problems/etc, sometimes this has led to real fun problems when those sensors are controlling core/SOC voltage or things like that. AMD GPUs still suck for VR, the 5700XT series had huge crashing problems under the windows drivers that were never really resolved for a lot of people, and the 7000 series seems to be on course to replicate those sorts of issues. They did finally bring the 7900XTX's idle power down to only about 45W though. The fans will vehemently deny it but yeah, you're pretty much right. AMD has gotten better but their software/drivers and user-experience still aren't as polished, either CPU or GPU. It's usually good enough it's not a problem, but you're going off the beaten path and they're not always flawless. On the other hand who knows what's going to happen with Intel with an exodus of staff already happening and likely to continue. 7900X, 7800X3D, 7900X3D, and 7950X3D are great looking parts at the right price but Intel is willing to make dealz right now to keep the cash flowing, they've got DDR4 boards to bring the platform cost down, etc. You have to evaluate the whole build and see what you get... and AMD does worse with large 128GB builds right now too. Although Intel is not flawless either to be fair. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P58VqVvDjxo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P58VqVvDjxo Around here microcenter is willing to throw in a free 32GB RAM kit of decent quality if you buy a 7000X (not the base tier and unknown whether this will include X3D) and Newegg was offering a similar promotion at one point. Which neutralizes a lot of the platform cost difference - the DDR5 + PCIe 5.0 capable Intel boards aren't cheap either, but, a bit cheaper than AMD right now. Again, gotta look at the whole cost of the build for your own local costs. Personally I think the DDR4 compatibility makes Intel a no-brainer for very cheap builds. You can get a PCIe 4.0 + DDR4 Intel board for the usual, expected price ranges... PCPP says starting from $79. If you're a fit for a Pentium/Celeron or a 12100/12100F that's a system cost AM5 can't compete with at the low end, you have to go back to AM4 which are slower systems. The 12600K, 13500, and 13600K are also very good gaming-focused builds. There's nothing wrong with 7800X for gaming either, especially with the free RAM, but, Intel 13th gen does outperform it. And the e-cores are "free" at the MSRP, so Intel is simply giving you more, but, AMD is also dropping prices below MSRP lately (ymmv depending on your location). For productivity and "server"-ish workloads, the AMD 7900X is great, particularly since AMD supports AVX-512 while Intel has disabled it on 12th/13th gen. And the 7800X3D, 7900X3D, and 7950X3D should all be very attractive high-end gaming+productivity "crossover" components if you are willing to splash out.