Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

AMD Zen and Vega

49 replies to this topic
ΣΓ
  • ΣΓ

    Never Settle

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

#31

Posted 3 weeks ago

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 3 weeks ago

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 3 weeks ago

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 3 weeks ago

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 3 weeks ago

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

    hitlist? more like sh*tlist amirite UP TOP

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

#36

Posted 3 weeks ago Edited by Niobium, 3 weeks ago.

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

    ☆★☆★☆

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Mar 2014
  • Portugal

#37

Posted 3 weeks ago Edited by HaRdSTyLe_83, 3 weeks ago.

 

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 3 weeks ago

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

    hitlist? more like sh*tlist amirite UP TOP

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

#39

Posted 3 weeks ago

watch this

 


ΣΓ
  • ΣΓ

    Never Settle

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

#40

Posted 3 weeks ago

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 2 weeks ago

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 A week ago Edited by Small Moist, A week ago.

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

    ☆★☆★☆

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Mar 2014
  • Portugal

#43

Posted A week ago

^^ 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 A week ago

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

    Playa

  • Facade Corporation
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2017
  • United-Kingdom

#45

Posted A week ago

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 A week ago

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

    Playa

  • Facade Corporation
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2017
  • United-Kingdom

#47

Posted A week ago

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 A week ago

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

    Playa

  • Facade Corporation
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2017
  • United-Kingdom

#49

Posted A week ago

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

    hitlist? more like sh*tlist amirite UP TOP

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

#50

Posted 20 hours ago

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




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users