Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

AMD Zen and Vega

56 replies to this topic
ΣΓ
  • ΣΓ

    Never Settle

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2011
  • European-Union

#31

Posted 03 March 2017 - 08:10 PM

I mean the price to performance aspect would have been enough to market these things. I don't know what they were thinking.

K^2
  • K^2

    Vidi Vici Veni

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Apr 2004
  • United-States
  • Best Poster [Technology / Programming] 2016
    Best Poster [Programming] 2015
    Most Knowledgeable [Web Development/Programming] 2013
    Most Knowledgeable [GTA Series] 2011
    Best Debater 2010

#32

Posted 05 March 2017 - 06:54 AM

AMD is apparently instructing reviewers to disable Intel features (like disabling turbo boost for all cores) when they compare CPUs. So basically AMD is just as scummy as a company as any other. This is why I only buy stuff based on how well they perform, and not to prop up some company that I think will be good to people. All corporations suck.

Yeah, that's the thing that really annoys me about AMD. I would absolutely wish them all the best, despite the fact that it introduces many competitive architectures I, as a developer, have to keep in mind when testing and optimizing my code. However, I also recognize that competition is good for industry at large, and having AMD stay on Intel's toes means I'll have more headroom in performance and features on the future generations of chips. It makes me want to cheer for the AMD.

But every single generation they start by exaggerating the performance, and twisting stats and benchmarks to try and get unfair edge on the numbers. I want them to get burned for this, so when they get schooled by Intel or nVidia, it makes me feel like justice was served.

The worst part is that this time they really have a solid product with a niche. Yet they keep insisting on going for these underhanded marketing techniques to make it sound like the best thing in the world. And that's probably going to turn away more people than it attracts. Especially after the way Bulldozer tanked after so many promises leading up to the launch.
  • ΣΓ likes this

SilverRST
  • SilverRST

    Big Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Mar 2013
  • None

#33

Posted 05 March 2017 - 05:05 PM

In the mean time, it doesn't matter as for now. Games still utilize 4 faster cores and more cores won't improve the performance but I could be wrong.

But doesn't have to do with the dirty tactics from Intel to bribe OEM's/stores to only sell Intel CPU and no AMD CPU's?

 

Now AMD also has to improve GPU's too otherwise we are f*cked, really hard. Some GTX1080 still costs almost or a little above €900, f*ck that.


ΣΓ
  • ΣΓ

    Never Settle

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2011
  • European-Union

#34

Posted 05 March 2017 - 06:49 PM

But doesn't have to do with the dirty tactics from Intel to bribe OEM's/stores to only sell Intel CPU and no AMD CPU's?
 
Some GTX1080 still costs almost or a little above €900, f*ck that.

If you mean that games are optimized for Intel CPUs, well there's some truth to that but then think about the 8-core CPUs from Intel's X99 platform. They also perform worse and they are based on the same microarchitecture as the consumer stuff, so a direct comparison can be made pretty much.

Not NVIDIA's fault.

K^2
  • K^2

    Vidi Vici Veni

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Apr 2004
  • United-States
  • Best Poster [Technology / Programming] 2016
    Best Poster [Programming] 2015
    Most Knowledgeable [Web Development/Programming] 2013
    Most Knowledgeable [GTA Series] 2011
    Best Debater 2010

#35

Posted 06 March 2017 - 04:11 AM

If you mean that games are optimized for Intel CPUs, well there's some truth to that but then think about the 8-core CPUs from Intel's X99 platform. They also perform worse and they are based on the same microarchitecture as the consumer stuff, so a direct comparison can be made pretty much.

It's not that. It's the fact that when we make games, we explicitly optimize for 4-core performance. That is an absolute truth for overwhelming majority of the studios. The reason is simple. Most gamers will have 4 cores, and that's what we target. Optimizing for all other configurations takes a lot of resources, and if the game runs well on 4 cores, it won't run worse on 8.

The drawback is that benefit of 8 cores is going to be marginal for most games, so the chip with faster cores wins. That's why i7 7700K runs circles around R7 1800X on most game benchmarks. Sure, i7 6900K won't do any better, but the point is that there is no reason to buy a $500 AMD chip for gaming, when a $320 Intel chip is so much better for this purpose.

So currently, if you are building a high-end gaming machine with a single GPU, i7 7700K is objectively the best choice and it isn't going to cost you a fortune. Now, if you plan on going for multiple high-end cards in SLI, then there are other considerations and things get way more complicated, but we're talking about something in $3k+ range for such a build, so presumably, CPU cost isn't the deciding factor at this point.
  • Niobium likes this

Niobium
  • Niobium

    Despite the constant negative press covfefe

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Oct 2013
  • Canada
  • April Fools Winner 2015

#36

Posted 06 March 2017 - 06:42 PM Edited by Niobium, 06 March 2017 - 06:43 PM.

when we make games, we explicitly optimize for 4-core performance. That is an absolute truth for overwhelming majority of the studios. The reason is simple. Most gamers will have 4 cores, and that's what we target. Optimizing for all other configurations takes a lot of resources, and if the game runs well on 4 cores, it won't run worse on 8.

The drawback is that benefit of 8 cores is going to be marginal for most games, so the chip with faster cores wins. That's why i7 7700K runs circles around R7 1800X on most game benchmarks. Sure, i7 6900K won't do any better, but the point is that there is no reason to buy a $500 AMD chip for gaming, when a $320 Intel chip is so much better for this purpose.


if games don't really benefit from 8 cores that much, then i think it's best to wait for bios updates from mobo manufacturers, game patches and optimization from game devs, OS updates from windows, or the ryzen 5 lineup.

but that means we need to "wait for zen" more.... argh..... more waiting....

HaRdSTyLe_83
  • HaRdSTyLe_83

    ☆★RIP Open IV★☆

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Mar 2014
  • Portugal

#37

Posted 06 March 2017 - 09:13 PM Edited by HaRdSTyLe_83, 06 March 2017 - 09:20 PM.

 

when we make games, we explicitly optimize for 4-core performance. That is an absolute truth for overwhelming majority of the studios. The reason is simple. Most gamers will have 4 cores, and that's what we target. Optimizing for all other configurations takes a lot of resources, and if the game runs well on 4 cores, it won't run worse on 8.

The drawback is that benefit of 8 cores is going to be marginal for most games, so the chip with faster cores wins. That's why i7 7700K runs circles around R7 1800X on most game benchmarks. Sure, i7 6900K won't do any better, but the point is that there is no reason to buy a $500 AMD chip for gaming, when a $320 Intel chip is so much better for this purpose.


if games don't really benefit from 8 cores that much, then i think it's best to wait for bios updates from mobo manufacturers, game patches and optimization from game devs, OS updates from windows, or the ryzen 5 lineup.

but that means we need to "wait for zen" more.... argh..... more waiting....

 

 

its not about waiting for updates, why would game devs do that when games dont need that many cores.

this chip was advertised as the ultimate beast for gaming and its not what it is.

 

IMO AMD just cant make fast cpus, period, so they just slap extra cores in that.

they just need to focus on the price and go after the same nich intel goes with they're 6900k


ΣΓ
  • ΣΓ

    Never Settle

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2011
  • European-Union

#38

Posted 06 March 2017 - 09:15 PM

I wouldn't get my hopes up. Chances are the quad cores won't reach much higher clock speeds. Intel's 6950x can go up to 4.3 GHz and it's a 10 core chip. The 8 core stuff goes even higher.

I don't think it's going to match the 5 GHz overclocks you can reliably get on Kaby Lake.

Niobium
  • Niobium

    Despite the constant negative press covfefe

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Oct 2013
  • Canada
  • April Fools Winner 2015

#39

Posted 07 March 2017 - 12:50 AM

watch this

 


ΣΓ
  • ΣΓ

    Never Settle

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2011
  • European-Union

#40

Posted 07 March 2017 - 11:23 AM

The stuff that I watched didn't deny improvements in the future for Ryzen but I don't think that he is correct about games benefiting from more cores. There's overwhelming evidence that suggests the contrary although the performance difference is kinda negligible.

K^2
  • K^2

    Vidi Vici Veni

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Apr 2004
  • United-States
  • Best Poster [Technology / Programming] 2016
    Best Poster [Programming] 2015
    Most Knowledgeable [Web Development/Programming] 2013
    Most Knowledgeable [GTA Series] 2011
    Best Debater 2010

#41

Posted 10 March 2017 - 10:15 AM

Games can benefit from more cores. But because most users have 4 cores, that's what games are optimized for.

Game optimization isn't like your typical rendering or compression algorithm optimization. A game engine performs a ton of different tasks, and they have to be performed in very specific order. There could be some FX updates that have to happen before animation tasks, while some must happen after. Some will depend on camera movement and occlusion. AI may or may not depend on physics. Physics will definitely depend on network updates if it's an on-line game. And so on.

Because of this, you can't just say, "Oh, lets throw our task at however many cores there are." What you'll end up doing is paying the overhead in memory and CPU use for extra cores, while getting absolutely nothing in return, because you are actually waiting for another task to complete!

For this reason, it is a lot easier to optimize for a specific number of cores. (Actually, concurrent threads, which is equal to number of virtual cores.) And the magic number right now is 4 physical cores for a total of 8 concurrent threads. This is simply because that is the most common gaming configuration.

If 8 core CPUs become very common, then games will be optimized for 8 cores much better than they are today. And we are slowly heading in that direction, but we aren't nearly there yet. CPU simply isn't the main bottleneck, so gamers will keep using 4 cores until either the 8 core prices drop significantly or there are games with significant performance advantages on more cores.
  • Niobium likes this

Small Moist
  • Small Moist

    you can call me... SUPERLIGHTDUSKMASTER99

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 Jan 2015
  • None
  • April Fools Winner 2015

#42

Posted 15 March 2017 - 02:06 AM Edited by Small Moist, 15 March 2017 - 02:07 AM.

Why were people expecting Ryzen to be some 7700k killer? It was pretty clear before release it wouldn't be able to overclock well, so the lower performance at gaming should've been expected. Honestly, Ryzen gave me exactly what I was expecting; lower single-thread performance with 8 cores for what will likely be better future-proofing and much better productivity performance for way less than Intel. Anyone who was expecting something different is pretty delusional, as are people who expect some crazy 30% improvement from Windows optimizations. Look at it realistically, it's fine. Ryzen is still a good CPU.

HaRdSTyLe_83
  • HaRdSTyLe_83

    ☆★RIP Open IV★☆

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Mar 2014
  • Portugal

#43

Posted 16 March 2017 - 12:21 AM

^^ the same ol hype train, thats what it was

 

at least here (portugal) the price of the 1700x goes for 439$ while the 7700k goes for 365$ so for gaming it doesnt pay out, future wise or not, 8 virtual cores are more then enough for the next years, by the time they arent there will already be another gen of intel / amd chips

for productivity i doubt there is something better, but my hype was more about the market competition and the intel price drops


K^2
  • K^2

    Vidi Vici Veni

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Apr 2004
  • United-States
  • Best Poster [Technology / Programming] 2016
    Best Poster [Programming] 2015
    Most Knowledgeable [Web Development/Programming] 2013
    Most Knowledgeable [GTA Series] 2011
    Best Debater 2010

#44

Posted 16 March 2017 - 05:24 AM

So they've finally released prices for Ryzen 5 series. The 1400 and 1500X are 4 core CPUs that will set you back $169 and $189 respectively. The 6 core CPUs are 1600 and 1600X at $219 and $249 respectively.

 

At these prices, 1500X is posed to compete against i5 7400 which it can probably beat rather solidly.

 

With 1600X, the situation will be less certain. For the same money, one can buy an i5 7600K, and that will certainly beat Ryzen core-for-core. The 1600X might still outperform on heavily threaded tasks, like encoding and rendering, but we here all care about gaming, right? And I just don't see 1600 or 1600X being competitive there.

 

All in all, I'm actually surprised at how low these prices are, and while I would like to see thorough benchmarks before saying anything more concrete, I think AMD has a good chance of cutting a big chunk of budget build market with 1400 and 1500X. The rest of the Ryzen 5 and 7 are not likely to be nearly as popular.

 

In summary: If all you can afford is 1500X, maybe wait for it and see how it benches. If you are looking for something a bit more powerful for your games, stick with Intel. AMD isn't going to release anything that beats 7600(K) or 7700(K) CPUs in their price ranges.

  • ΣΓ likes this

Natasha
  • Natasha

    Mack Pimp

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2017
  • United-Kingdom

#45

Posted 16 March 2017 - 02:38 PM

So they've finally released prices for Ryzen 5 series. The 1400 and 1500X are 4 core CPUs that will set you back $169 and $189 respectively. The 6 core CPUs are 1600 and 1600X at $219 and $249 respectively.
 
At these prices, 1500X is posed to compete against i5 7400 which it can probably beat rather solidly.
 
With 1600X, the situation will be less certain. For the same money, one can buy an i5 7600K, and that will certainly beat Ryzen core-for-core. The 1600X might still outperform on heavily threaded tasks, like encoding and rendering, but we here all care about gaming, right? And I just don't see 1600 or 1600X being competitive there.
 
All in all, I'm actually surprised at how low these prices are, and while I would like to see thorough benchmarks before saying anything more concrete, I think AMD has a good chance of cutting a big chunk of budget build market with 1400 and 1500X. The rest of the Ryzen 5 and 7 are not likely to be nearly as popular.
 
In summary: If all you can afford is 1500X, maybe wait for it and see how it benches. If you are looking for something a bit more powerful for your games, stick with Intel. AMD isn't going to release anything that beats 7600(K) or 7700(K) CPUs in their price ranges.

It's about time really, AMD were always the goto budget option, but literally ever since the Core2 range came out, my motto has been "save more, buy Intel" I've not gone anywhere near AMD for years, at least since about 2005 now! And make no mistake I was an AMD fan back before that time.
  • Presidential likes this

Presidential
  • Presidential

    lol

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Jun 2015
  • United-States

#46

Posted 16 March 2017 - 02:42 PM

I was hoping Zen would be the first CPU I've bought from AMD in a while but nope, better off doing what I've been doing for a while now and just save more for an Intel CPU.


Natasha
  • Natasha

    Mack Pimp

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2017
  • United-Kingdom

#47

Posted 16 March 2017 - 02:46 PM

I was hoping Zen would be the first CPU I've bought from AMD in a while but nope, better off doing what I've been doing for a while now and just save more for an Intel CPU.

Well for comparable performance here anyways they seem to be around the same price. So it's less saving and more sticking to what you've known to trust more or less I feel.

K^2
  • K^2

    Vidi Vici Veni

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Apr 2004
  • United-States
  • Best Poster [Technology / Programming] 2016
    Best Poster [Programming] 2015
    Most Knowledgeable [Web Development/Programming] 2013
    Most Knowledgeable [GTA Series] 2011
    Best Debater 2010

#48

Posted 17 March 2017 - 11:10 AM

It's about time really, AMD were always the goto budget option, but literally ever since the Core2 range came out, my motto has been "save more, buy Intel" I've not gone anywhere near AMD for years, at least since about 2005 now! And make no mistake I was an AMD fan back before that time.

Well, Core 2 did come out in 2006, so it's not surprising. 2005 was the last year that K8 was dominating the market.

I did have a K8 Athlon 64 CPU around that time. I don't recall the details anymore, but it had great performance for the money I payed for it.

Natasha
  • Natasha

    Mack Pimp

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2017
  • United-Kingdom

#49

Posted 17 March 2017 - 11:18 AM

It's about time really, AMD were always the goto budget option, but literally ever since the Core2 range came out, my motto has been "save more, buy Intel" I've not gone anywhere near AMD for years, at least since about 2005 now! And make no mistake I was an AMD fan back before that time.

Well, Core 2 did come out in 2006, so it's not surprising. 2005 was the last year that K8 was dominating the market.

I did have a K8 Athlon 64 CPU around that time. I don't recall the details anymore, but it had great performance for the money I payed for it.

Haha I think that's also the AMD I had before the launch of the Core2 range. AMD just weren't in the races once those things launched. Shame really.

Niobium
  • Niobium

    Despite the constant negative press covfefe

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Oct 2013
  • Canada
  • April Fools Winner 2015

#50

Posted 28 March 2017 - 03:46 AM

if ryzen 5 does not have good price to perf ratio then i guess the only thing to be excited about is vega
  • Natasha likes this

Niobium
  • Niobium

    Despite the constant negative press covfefe

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Oct 2013
  • Canada
  • April Fools Winner 2015

#51

Posted 13 April 2017 - 05:16 PM Edited by Niobium, 13 April 2017 - 05:18 PM.

ryzen 5 is looking good

 

 

again, there are some differences between the results of different reviewers, but i suspect that it's the motherboard bioses, which will be ironed out


K^2
  • K^2

    Vidi Vici Veni

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Apr 2004
  • United-States
  • Best Poster [Technology / Programming] 2016
    Best Poster [Programming] 2015
    Most Knowledgeable [Web Development/Programming] 2013
    Most Knowledgeable [GTA Series] 2011
    Best Debater 2010

#52

Posted 17 April 2017 - 04:50 AM

I'm going to add Linus review at the bottom for more reference, but yeah, this is pretty much what I expected, maybe slightly better OC performance on AMD than I would have called. (Although, it makes sense in retrospect with things I've learned about its cache performance.)

 

Cache rant.

Spoiler


If you are going to overclock, R5 1500X, R5 1600, and R7 1700 are all solid choices in their price category.

The R5 1600X tends to match i5 7600K under OC, but it also $10 more expensive. I can't say that it's a bad choice, but at this point, you're getting it purely because you want to have an AMD choice. Nothing wrong with that, but it's not going to win any Intel fans over.

If you are not going to overclock, i5 is a clear winner in the above price categories.

As a general recommendation, I would still recommend i5 7600K or i5 7600K to anyone building a gaming PC. They have broader support, and so will have better or more stable performance in most games. However, if you opt to go for AMD in a lower price range I wouldn't tell you that you're doing it wrong, like I would before Ryzen 5. AMD has definitely brought their A game this time around.

  • HaRdSTyLe_83 likes this

Grae
  • Grae

     

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Nov 2007
  • None

#53

Posted 24 April 2017 - 10:20 AM

I've never owned an AMD CPU, but was/am wanting to change for my wallet and competition's sakes. Started with an OEM-locked E6300 in 2006 when I could barely operate a PC. Got my first card, an 8800GT, about a year later, before moving it to a properly built (with a bit of family help) system with an E8400. Next an i5 760, which was replaced by my current, 2nd-hand 3570K. BTW, kinda wish I'd gotten a Q6600 instead of the E8400 (as mentioned, it wasn't really up to me) and then I might've gotten the also-great 2500K later..

Mainly gaming and some casual video rendering, with an old 1200p monitor AKA 1080p often. Saving for a full upgrade except case and KB&M. Was hoping AMD would totally clobber Intel, and I'd either go with Ryzen or if Intel were/are forced to bring out "mainstream" 6/8 cores (will Coffee Lake have a 6 core at least?). Could order a 7700K today, but that doesn't feel right as I'm getting flashbacks of the E8400 vs Q6600 *shudder*.

And tho that 8800GT was nice and I've mostly been with them since, I'd like Vega to smack Nvidia, as the better it or Nvidia's responses are the more my chances are of making the leap to 4K or 3440x1440 100Hz+. Won't be upgrading till later in the year-ish, so I'll see how things are on all sides then.

K^2
  • K^2

    Vidi Vici Veni

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Apr 2004
  • United-States
  • Best Poster [Technology / Programming] 2016
    Best Poster [Programming] 2015
    Most Knowledgeable [Web Development/Programming] 2013
    Most Knowledgeable [GTA Series] 2011
    Best Debater 2010

#54

Posted 25 April 2017 - 07:05 AM

BTW, kinda wish I'd gotten a Q6600 instead of the E8400

Yeah, I went with Q6600 for my 2007 gaming build. Got it for less than $300. Turned out to be a great buy. It managed to keep up for quite a while. IIRC, I only replaced it in early 2013 because mobo went fubar and I had to jump sockets.

Niobium
  • Niobium

    Despite the constant negative press covfefe

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Oct 2013
  • Canada
  • April Fools Winner 2015

#55

Posted 3 days ago

PSA: if you have a used 470/570/480/580, now is a good time to sell. all of those cards are out of stock, and the price of those cards have raised greatly due to digital currency miners. i bought my MSI RX 470 for 285 CAD, and sold it for 300.

 

i am definitely going to be using that money to buy vega if it delivers.


yojc
  • yojc

    2A03

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Dec 2008
  • Poland
  • Best Poster [Tech] 2014
    Most Knowledgeable [Tech] 2013
    Helpfulness Award

#56

Posted 3 days ago

Yup - my RX-470 costed me about 800-850PLN, sold it for 1405PLN. It's ridiculous, but I'm not complaining at all ;)

Apparently GTX1060 and GTX1070 are being bought out too.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Nškyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#57

Posted 2 days ago

The reason is pretty much solely Ethereum crypotocurrency. OpenCL performance on these cards means they're basically just like printing money now the price has gone through the roof. Few people at work have built budget Ethereum mining rigs using 480s.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users