Wouldn't play it at all, CPU shot to 100% instantly and that was that.... lol, £200... Intel suck.
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
*** AMD "Zen" thread (inc AM4/APU discussion) ***
- Thread starter Boomstick777
- Start date
Wouldn't play it at all, CPU shot to 100% instantly and that was that.... lol, £200... Intel suck.
Wouldn't play it at all, CPU shot to 100% instantly and that was that.... lol, £200... Intel suck.
What CPU if you don't mind me asking?
Thanks a lot. 57 W idle is great especially if it includes the screen (which I wouldn't have on)! I'll have to compare that to my current system and also my Westmere-EP desktop. My desktop used to use ~150 W when idle with no monitor. I haven't measured it since upgrading from Nehalem to Westmere-EP but I bet it's about the same. If so, that'd be 1314 kWh per year = £130 at my current unit rate. If I got a system using 50 W it'd be £43, saving £87 per year, which means an R5 1600 would pay for itself within 5 years (plus it'd be ~50% faster when needed). In fact it'd likely pay for itself faster than that because unit rates will only go up.
Thanks a lot. 57 W idle is great especially if it includes the screen (which I wouldn't have on)! I'll have to compare that to my current system and also my Westmere-EP desktop. My desktop used to use ~150 W when idle with no monitor. I haven't measured it since upgrading from Nehalem to Westmere-EP but I bet it's about the same. If so, that'd be 1314 kWh per year = £130 at my current unit rate. If I got a system using 50 W it'd be £43, saving £87 per year, which means an R5 1600 would pay for itself within 5 years (plus it'd be ~50% faster when needed). In fact it'd likely pay for itself faster than that because unit rates will only go up.
That is 57w idle just on the PC base unit, not the screen, the screen is just on. I would assume that removing the GFX card and the WD Red the idle watts would be even lower.
Well I'd need some kind of GPU, Ryzen doesn't have an on-board one remember.
I understand that, I was referring to the power usage with a 1070, it could be lower with a different GPU.
Associate
- Joined
- 10 Mar 2017
- Posts
- 22
- Location
- United States
I started getting a baseline on my 1800X with P95 non AVX
I am getting a lot of vdroop. At idle, my voltage is about 1.4. Under load, it's running at 1.25 for stock settings. That 61.75 is after 30 minutes with my fans on 750rpm.
I am getting a lot of vdroop. At idle, my voltage is about 1.4. Under load, it's running at 1.25 for stock settings. That 61.75 is after 30 minutes with my fans on 750rpm.
I tried it with Chrome, it cant handle 8K so I closed Chrome and opened Edge. Very surprised to see Edge can handle 8K perfect very smoothly with no dropped frames at 14% CPU load.
That would explained why Netflix recommended Edge browser for 4K HDR.
Trying this a on x58 hexcore at 4ghz sits about 90% load for me ( was also doing other stuff i was to lazy to stop), What was very interesting for me using MS edge cpu usage dropped to 35%ish while still doing my other stuff. Whille be doing more of my utubing in Edge i feel
DSR'd to +8k looks stunning and no dropped frames, R7 1700 @ stock
Same here with 1700X at stock.
And seeing that video, I am putting my house on sale and all it's belongings, cars and retiring to Patagonia.
I will live by the land in a small tent for the rest of my life.....
Quick update.
Few days back mentioned that WOT runs on the 1700X stock as good as on the 6700K @ 4.7Ghz.
After 40+ battles, I must say yes it does run as good if not better.
Anyone can argue about this because "xxxx had better IPC than yyyy" say what you like. I never saw FPS drop bellow 100 even on zoom out scenes, where before it was always dipping to high 80s.
Yes I know is single thread game etc, but it runs much better. Maybe the CPU is not that cramped on 4 cores and all services etc are spread out because the game is running usually on core 5-6 always, not on core 2 like on the quad core CPUs I had now.
Last edited:
Aye very similar to myself, drops a little to 116fps but never lower. Joys of a 144hz panel
The struggle is real, 90% average between all 8 logical cores on my 2600K but a lot of dropped frames. Seems my ~40mb internet can't keep up either...
Interesting, chrome average 36% on the CPU and edge averages 4%??? Chrome really that bad for it?
I also find in chrome the video buffers even with 300mb down, however, edge runs without a single buffer and the buffer zone runs away from the play timers...
Yeah I tried that video on an i7 3770k.
Get terrible stuttering on Chrome, but Edge is perfectly smooth.
It's cool the 8/16 Ryzen can still run on Chrome without stutter, but really this shows Chrome's video renderer is ****
Get terrible stuttering on Chrome, but Edge is perfectly smooth.
It's cool the 8/16 Ryzen can still run on Chrome without stutter, but really this shows Chrome's video renderer is ****
In my experience, Edge is far better at hardware acceleration on Youtube than Chrome is (or Opera/Vivaldi etc). Edge is also a lot smarter when choosing what codec should be used - it will always default to H264 on my tablet because it can hardware decode that and not VP9. Opera, Chrome et all will ram VP9 through and it devolves into a mess of out of sync audio, dropped frames and stutter when the tablet can't keep up. Same story with Metro IE.
Aye very similar to myself, drops a little to 116fps but never lower. Joys of a 144hz panel
Watching the video was the last thing my 1700X did
it shut down and since then I cannot recover it from error code 8. Was trying all way to 3am.
So contacted OCUK and started the RMA process.
Just to give you a reference my I7 6850K @ 4.30 Ghz is pegged @ 70% ~ on the 8K playback.
