CPU Longevity?

[humbug]

So you still don't get the analogy of "a beautiful girl in her best years without a man"? What about "a sexy boy in his most vigorous years without a girl"?

I, now...., i have a feeling that's a cultural thing? no i don't. sorry

 

[voidshatter]

just for a 5-10% ipc jump in the short term

Well, 5GHz vs 4GHz is like a 25% jump, and it's going to work for some applications because they never get parallelised.

 

[humbug]

There is also another thing, Intel Change the pin layout every 5 minutes to keep you buying Motherboards...

AM4 is set to last 4 Generations of Zen. might as well get the 6 core now on the AM4 platform and be perfectly happy with that until they update the CPU.

Yes there are still a lot of games where the 7700K will net you 20% more FPS but its also £150 more.

For the longevity of the platform and actually the original Ryzen chip its self your better off trading that saved £150 for GTX 1080 and an OCUK mug vs a GTX 1070. And no Mug. Such maybe your budget constraint.

 

[greatash]

Really? This makes me feel out-dated. Below is a review not even at max settings:

I have no idea where you got that benchmark from but every other benchmark that comes up in google shows way better framerate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npyFer2vAgs

etc

 

[Chuk_Chuk]

Its really simple, in the MLL case Intel have 100% IPC X4, the Ryzen Chip has 95% IPC x6 < excluding SMT, that is.

Just going to throw a spanner in the works in your discussion with void shatter but it seems that one of the reason that intel chips are pinned at 100% is because of how Nvidia drivers works. I've linked a video below which talks about this (about half way through but worth watching all the way through). The Nvidia drivers split up the DX11 draw calls across multiple cores to make them more multithreaded. This adds overhead to the cpu. With games being programmed to be more multithreaded it seems that the way the driver works causes high CPU usage because now the base code is multi threaded but now also have Nvidia driver overhead on top.

 

[humbug]

Just going to throw a spanner in the works in your discussion with void shatter but it seems that one of the reason that intel chips are pinned at 100% is because of how Nvidia drivers works. I've linked a video below which talks about this (about half way through but worth watching all the way through). The Nvidia drivers split up the DX11 draw calls across multiple cores to make them more multithreaded. This adds overhead to the cpu. With games being programmed to be more multithreaded it seems that the way the driver works causes high CPU usage because now the base code is multi threaded but now also have Nvidia driver overhead on top.

The Nvidia drivers split up the DX11 draw calls across multiple cores to make them more multithreaded

I know, which is why its a good idea to have more threads

Its like, lol.... nVidia using more threads is why a CPU with less threads is better? Good Grief... thats some spanner

 

[voidshatter]

I have no idea where you got that benchmark from but every other benchmark that comes up in google shows way better framerate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npyFer2vAgs

etc

These are not max settings. For example, the second one you linked reads "IQ HIGH, SSAA OFF, Normal Tessellation etc"

 

[voidshatter]

Just going to throw a spanner in the works in your discussion with void shatter but it seems that one of the reason that intel chips are pinned at 100% is because of how Nvidia drivers works. I've linked a video below which talks about this (about half way through but worth watching all the way through). The Nvidia drivers split up the DX11 draw calls across multiple cores to make them more multithreaded. This adds overhead to the cpu. With games being programmed to be more multithreaded it seems that the way the driver works causes high CPU usage because now the base code is multi threaded but now also have Nvidia driver overhead on top.

Thanks for linking the video. More and more games will utilise more than 4 threads, that's for sure. However, a powerful GPU is needed to make the game CPU-bound (and to prevent the master thread on the CPU from standing out, leaving other cores not fully utilised). Unfortunately such GPU won't exist in the best years of the first generation Ryzen, unless you play at 720p low settings.

 

[gavinh87]

Thanks for linking the video. More and more games will utilise more than 4 threads, that's for sure. However, a powerful GPU is needed to make the game CPU-bound (and to prevent the master thread on the CPU from standing out, leaving other cores not fully utilised). Unfortunately such GPU won't exist in the best years of the first generation Ryzen, unless you play at 720p low settings.

With intel finally pushing more than 4 cores on the mainstream socket, it won't be long before those 4 cores start to choke.

 

[voidshatter]

With intel finally pushing more than 4 cores on the mainstream socket, it won't be long before those 4 cores start to choke.

Long enough. Even if future games remain as GPU-demanding as Metro LL Redux and are not getting more power-hungry, it takes 5-6 generations for a single GPU to achieve 100 fps for 4k max settings, and that's gonna be 5-6 years.

However, if you are playing at low settings, or playing with SLI/CF, with 144 Hz displays etc, then things could have changed, and quad-core CPUs can become the bottleneck sooner.

 

[gavinh87]

Long enough. Even if future games remain as GPU-demanding as Metro LL Redux and are not getting more power-hungry, it takes 5-6 generations for a single GPU to achieve 100 fps for 4k max settings, and that's gonna be 5-6 years.

However, if you are playing at low settings, or playing with SLI/CF, with 144 Hz displays etc, then things could have changed, and quad-core CPUs can become the bottleneck sooner.

And how about games that are not GPU bottlenecked but still appreciate the extra cores that we have been seeing? The likes of BF1 ashes of the singularity etc?

 

[GAC]

Long enough. Even if future games remain as GPU-demanding as Metro LL Redux and are not getting more power-hungry, it takes 5-6 generations for a single GPU to achieve 100 fps for 4k max settings, and that's gonna be 5-6 years.
However, if you are playing at low settings, or playing with SLI/CF, with 144 Hz displays etc, then things could have changed, and quad-core CPUs can become the bottleneck sooner.

you mean if games carry on using an engine that even if we are generous and use the year of release of last light is some 4 years old.

as for your 5-6 generations for a card to do 100fps in 4k, i can see it in 2 the way nvidia and amd have finally gotten around to trying to one up each other. true this will be dependant on devs using hardware better but with 1080ti's able to push a couple of titles around at 60fps in 4k nearly maxed out now so expect the gtx1080 replacement to get a slight bump over the 1080ti cards and then the gen after we should be nudging that 100fps mark i bet.

 

[voidshatter]

And how about games that are not GPU bottlenecked but still appreciate the extra cores that we have been seeing? The likes of BF1 ashes of the singularity etc?

I believe these two games have already been covered - they are still not CPU-thread-bound. They are CPU-frequency-bound because the master thread on the CPU is still the bottleneck when you apply max settings? (Yes, Ashes of the Singularity would be CPU-thread-bound on 4C4T.)

 

[gavinh87]

I believe these two games have already been covered - they are still not CPU-thread-bound. They are CPU-frequency-bound because the master thread on the CPU is still the bottleneck when you apply max settings? (Yes, Ashes of the Singularity would be CPU-thread-bound on 4C4T.)

That BF1 slide is ********. Go play it on an i5 and see how you get on. You seem to have turned this into a ryzen vs everything thread. The ashes slide you have just posted highlights my point, cores and threads are winning this battle.
The 4.9ghz 7600k is getting destroyed by a 3.5ghz 6950x. Is it a fair fight? Of course not but frequency goes out the window here.
Show me the frametime graphs for that i5 in BF1 and tell me its the best CPU for the job.

 

[GAC]

something iv noticed with all the updates on ryzen where are the updated scores, had a quick look yesterday and seems most are over a month old now. would be interesting for some of these sites to rerun the tests to see where the platform actually is now rather than where it was a month or more ago.

 

[voidshatter]

you mean if games carry on using an engine that even if we are generous and use the year of release of last light is some 4 years old.

as for your 5-6 generations for a card to do 100fps in 4k, i can see it in 2 the way nvidia and amd have finally gotten around to trying to one up each other. true this will be dependant on devs using hardware better but with 1080ti's able to push a couple of titles around at 60fps in 4k nearly maxed out now so expect the gtx1080 replacement to get a slight bump over the 1080ti cards and then the gen after we should be nudging that 100fps mark i bet.

Well, isn't Metro LL Redux the only game (720p low settings) repeatedly quoted here as evidence of Ryzen doing better than Intel's quad-core?

As for graphics card advancement, I just checked historical data at TPU:

AMD 4870 (June 2008) - > AMD 5870 (Sep 2009): 100% improvement over 15 months
AMD 5870 (Sep 2009) -> AMD 6970 (Dec 2010): 16% improvement over 15 months

NVIDIA 285 (Jan 2009) -> NVIDIA 480 (Mar 2010): 43% improvement over 14 months
NVIDIA 480 (Mar 2010) -> NVIDIA 580 (Nov 2010): 16% improvement over 8 months

Make whatever estimations you want, and let's hope they're going to advance fast.

 

[voidshatter]

That BF1 slide is ********. Go play it on an i5 and see how you get on. You seem to have turned this into a ryzen vs everything thread. The ashes slide you have just posted highlights my point, cores and threads are winning this battle.
The 4.9ghz 7600k is getting destroyed by a 3.5ghz 6950x. Is it a fair fight? Of course not but frequency goes out the window here.
Show me the frametime graphs for that i5 in BF1 and tell me its the best CPU for the job.

Could you point to any frametime graphs for the BF1 game (Ryzen vs i5 4C4T and i7 4C8T) to show us the stuttering you are talking about?

 

[voidshatter]

something iv noticed with all the updates on ryzen where are the updated scores, had a quick look yesterday and seems most are over a month old now. would be interesting for some of these sites to rerun the tests to see where the platform actually is now rather than where it was a month or more ago.

Not sure what's been updated so far. As for memory frequency I don't think that plays an important role here.
AMD Ryzen Memory Analysis: 20 Apps & 17 Games, up to 4K

 

[voidshatter]

It amuses me to see figures like this What is SMT? Like Intel's HT? So Ryzen 8C16T < Intel 2C4T regarding stuttering-free experience?

 

[GAC]

yeah wasnt talking memory but performance in general, not sure if the updates have helped or not hence id have expected at least someone to put out a new set of benchmarks maybe as that one you posted is nearly 2 months old.

but il say it again, personally il be waiting for august and see where things sit after coffee lake ships and hopefully things have moved on a smidge on the testing front.