• 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.

Replace my i5 2500k 4.5 Ghz for i7 7700K or wait ?

Soldato
Joined
22 Nov 2009
Posts
13,252
Location
Under the hot sun.
So basically most of the Intel powered gaming PCs and productivity desktops out there for example won't actually support AVX512.
Edit!!
The main issue,is the AVX512 functionality costs a lot of transistors. This is what AT had to say:
Second Edit!!
Also the consoles don't support AVX512 either,so do people honestly think for gaming it will start to see any large scale usage at all?? Again it would require Intel to pump more money into forcing devs to use it.
Third Edit!!
Apparently looking over on AT forums,even AVX512 support is segmented too(12 different sets),so that means even if AVX512 support were to start becoming more relevant in a few years there is no guarantee whether the current chips will be that great at it anyway,as they are not fully compliant even now let alone if there are any new additions.

Given that everything is driven with the consoles hardware today, where 95% of the games are just console ports, AVX ain't going to find it's way away from some specialised software for many years.
But apparently last couple of months, became relevant and important for "future proofing".

Ofc for them future proofing is to buy 4 core CPU in July 2017, given the advice they give.....
 
Man of Honour
Joined
13 Oct 2006
Posts
91,128
While I can't really see the relevance in this case what is and isn't supported in console hardware is generally still meaningless to PC gaming - for instance some game features can be run pretty much unmodified through PC specific hardware extensions (regardless of console support) giving a speed increase over not using them and things like memory management, etc. is so different even where for instance shaders are optimised for a specific architecture on consoles they will largely be rebuilt for PC use.

Also don't confuse mainstream AAA titles for 95% of games - the PC platform has a vast array of games from indie and single developers through to the big well known studios - a huge number of PC games will never see a console.

In terms of CPU anything that can handle 8 threads will suffice for any straight console "port" for awhile - not that I'd recommend such a CPU forward looking today.
 
Associate
Joined
12 Jun 2012
Posts
313
LMAO,now the hype bandwagon has moved to AVX512. Hardware enthusiasts on tech forums were hyping up AVX MK1,which took years to show any market usage,then when didn't get traction it was AVX2 and now its AVX512. FFS,both SB and BD support AVX but even then its fairly limited in usage.

I'm not sure what you mean by "bandwagon"? It's not a trendy thing, you are either need it or you don't. For my projects, AVX-512 is now firmly on our roadmap and therefore influences all of our purchasing decisions. What's more, we can now add this tool to our arsenal and put it onto an engineers desktop without having to spend a fortune on server parts.

By the time AVX512 is actually used in any meaningful way for single socket desktop PCs there will be much newer CPUs out there and all the hardware enthusiasts would have moved onto the next hyped extension. It was the same hype with TSX too - all the PC gamers and hardware enthusiasts on forums were bigging that up,yet at least on the consumer side its not really done much.

On top of that in the commercial markets it seems to not really made as much impact as enthusiasts think it has - Xeon Phi has AVX512 support and apparently Nvidia was doomed,but they seem to be holding their own.

We'll have code ready for these extensions within the next month. We could have looked at Nvidia but our strategy would have had to change and we also have to consider how likely it is that our customers are going to invest in a HPC farm populated with GPU's which would still require an additional infrastructure spend to scale it out. Instead, as of last week the tool is right there in a desktop for £850 and that makes our market easier to reach and shortens time to market for our tools massively. It has effectively created new opportunities for us, and we can't be alone in that conclusion and we're certainly not blinkered enough to believe that.

Lots of servers out there actually still run legacy code anyway,and it takes a long time for software companies to change over to newer extensions. This is because they need to think of the pre-existing userbase,not hardware enthusiasts who upgrade every 5 seconds.

The problem is that if AMD,Nvidia and ARM licensees don't support it either,then it needs Intel to keep pushing it,which is why AVX/AVX2 has taken yonks to get anywhere.

I really don't know where you get this from and it's just your opinion, and all I can tell you is it bares absolutely no relevance whatsoever to my specific requirements. These extensions, in this package, within this type of hardware - it creates a level of market accessibility we've never had before. The GPU/CPU HPC market gap has been widening like crazy with the cost to scale out the required GPU infra essentially making it inaccessible on our budget, the alternative being Phi, which isn't really an alternative.

So basically most of the Intel powered gaming PCs and productivity desktops out there for example won't actually support AVX512.

I don't think that's in dispute, and I'm not directly referring to gaming.

Apparently looking over on AT forums,even AVX512 support is segmented too(12 different sets),so that means even if AVX512 support were to start becoming more relevant in a few years there is no guarantee whether the current chips will be that great at it anyway,as they are not fully compliant even now let alone if there are any new additions.

OK, this indicates that you're not in possession of the full picture as to how these are structured and implemented, and neither does your source. I think I can leave this debate right here.
 
Caporegime
Joined
21 Jun 2006
Posts
38,372
Its going to cost me £600 to upgrade to a new CPU and Board & Memory ! Is it worth the upgrade ? As I believe at best all i am going to get is maybe 20 FPS boost on my games.

your GPU will be getting bottlenecked for sure atm. weird choice of GPU you should have went for a 1060 6GB.

as for how much difference it will make, it will vary from game to game. why did you buy a 1080ti when you know you wouldn't be able to get the most out of it?
 
Caporegime
Joined
17 Mar 2012
Posts
47,628
Location
ARC-L1, Stanton System
I'm not sure what you mean by "bandwagon"? It's not a trendy thing, you are either need it or you don't. For my projects, AVX-512 is now firmly on our roadmap and therefore influences all of our purchasing decisions. What's more, we can now add this tool to our arsenal and put it onto an engineers desktop without having to spend a fortune on server parts.



We'll have code ready for these extensions within the next month. We could have looked at Nvidia but our strategy would have had to change and we also have to consider how likely it is that our customers are going to invest in a HPC farm populated with GPU's which would still require an additional infrastructure spend to scale it out. Instead, as of last week the tool is right there in a desktop for £850 and that makes our market easier to reach and shortens time to market for our tools massively. It has effectively created new opportunities for us, and we can't be alone in that conclusion and we're certainly not blinkered enough to believe that.



I really don't know where you get this from and it's just your opinion, and all I can tell you is it bares absolutely no relevance whatsoever to my specific requirements. These extensions, in this package, within this type of hardware - it creates a level of market accessibility we've never had before. The GPU/CPU HPC market gap has been widening like crazy with the cost to scale out the required GPU infra essentially making it inaccessible on our budget, the alternative being Phi, which isn't really an alternative.



I don't think that's in dispute, and I'm not directly referring to gaming.



OK, this indicates that you're not in possession of the full picture as to how these are structured and implemented, and neither does your source. I think I can leave this debate right here.

I really don't know where you get this from and it's just your opinion

Its ones opinion vs anothers, your opinion is no more relevant than his because you proclaim yourself an expert, every one on this forum pushing their 'opinion' to sell their church proclaims themselves as a company boss, a software coder, and expert on whatever the relevant argument at the time to try and win the tallest soapbox..... its a very very old and worn-out tactic around these parts.

You started this argument by proclaiming Ryzen is not worth buying because software would be supporting AVX and that would put Ryzen at a disadvantage.

Later upon pointing out to you that Ryzen had AVX extensions and was using them competitively you refined your argument to "but I'm referring to AVX-512" that was not what you said originally.

One of two things happened here:

You didn't know Ryzen supported AVX and AVX2, in which case your expertise has just been rumbled for what it is.
Or, you had to refine your argument upon realising we are more knowledgeable than you thought and saw your blanket crap for what it was.

BTW:

and Threadripper has been announced as only supporting AVX-128

Wrong again, Threadripper supports AVX-256 via 2X 128Bit Microops.

You're Fired :p
 
Associate
Joined
12 Jun 2012
Posts
313
your GPU will be getting bottlenecked for sure atm. weird choice of GPU you should have went for a 1060 6GB.

as for how much difference it will make, it will vary from game to game. why did you buy a 1080ti when you know you wouldn't be able to get the most out of it?

That's a gross generalisation. It depends on the title/workload. If whatever he's running is offloaded to the GPU (as most games are) then unless there are other compute intensive workloads running concurrently on the CPU then it will make negligible difference. There's been plenty of benchmarks showing that on some titles that it makes almost no difference if you're running on a Core i3 or a Core i7.

In any case, he may well have purchased his GPU based on making an investment that will last him a few years, in the knowledge that he'll be also upgrading the rest of his rig in due course. No one likes to buy more than once. Makes sense to me.
 
Associate
Joined
12 Jun 2012
Posts
313
Its ones opinion vs anothers, your opinion is no more relevant than his because you proclaim yourself an expert, every one on this forum pushing their 'opinion' to sell their church proclaims themselves as a company boss, a software coder, and expert on whatever the relevant argument at the time to try and win the tallest soapbox..... its a very very old and worn-out tactic around these parts.

It's not about opinion. It's a statement of fact. If you're in the business of providing vectorised code solutions then there is no debate, ergo no opinion to foist onto anyone and no argument to be had.

You started this argument by proclaiming Ryzen is not worth buying because software would be supporting AVX and that would put Ryzen at a disadvantage.

No I not say it was not worth buying, I was trying (and failing) to state that the use case dictates the platform, as with everything. Unfortunately, there's nothing that AMD offer into this particular space in the market that provides someone with this particular use case the same toolset. In addition to that I said that the use case could end up expanding into other areas in time and possibly quicker than many might believe. That's all. I didn't say anything about whether it was fit for purpose to run some games, which would appears to be all you're concerned with.

Later upon pointing out to you that Ryzen had AVX extensions and was using them competitively you refined your argument to "but I'm referring to AVX-512" that was not what you said originally.

Well one would assume that when talking about brand new processors we look to see what new extensions they might offer, and I made the assumption that you might already understand that I wasn't referring to a 4+ year old set of extensions that almost every CPU already has, or else why would I even mention it? My bad for engaging in a debate with someone who I thought understood the argument at the get go. You live and you learn.

One of two things happened here:

You didn't know Ryzen supported AVX and AVX2, in which case your expertise has just been rumbled for what it is.
Or, you had to refine your argument upon realising we are more knowledgeable than you thought and saw your blanket crap for what it was.

So I refined an argument based on not realising that I could make my point even stronger than I could have? When we're talking about very very specific extension difference between CPU architectures? I literally withheld that because I didn't know the full facts? lol

BTW:

Wrong again, Threadripper supports AVX-256 via 2X 128Bit Microops.

Threadripper has 128bit FMA's, regardless of the extensions it supports. The end.
 
Caporegime
Joined
17 Mar 2012
Posts
47,628
Location
ARC-L1, Stanton System
It's not about opinion. It's a statement of fact. If you're in the business of providing vectorised code solutions then there is no debate, ergo no opinion to foist onto anyone and no argument to be had.



No I not say it was not worth buying, I was trying (and failing) to state that the use case dictates the platform, as with everything. Unfortunately, there's nothing that AMD offer into this particular space in the market that provides someone with this particular use case the same toolset. In addition to that I said that the use case could end up expanding into other areas in time and possibly quicker than many might believe. That's all. I didn't say anything about whether it was fit for purpose to run some games, which would appears to be all you're concerned with.



Well one would assume that when talking about brand new processors we look to see what new extensions they might offer, and I made the assumption that you might already understand that I wasn't referring to a 4+ year old set of extensions that almost every CPU already has, or else why would I even mention it? My bad for engaging in a debate with someone who I thought understood the argument at the get go. You live and you learn.



So I refined an argument based on not realising that I could make my point even stronger than I could have? When we're talking about very very specific extension difference between CPU architectures? I literally withheld that because I know the full facts? lol



Threadripper has 128bit FMA's, regardless of the extensions it supports. The end.

Still proclaiming yourself an expert to elevate yourself above everyone else around here.

You didn't even know the difference between TDP and power consumption let alone the difference between FMA 128 and AVX-256 via dual encoders or for that matter which micro-architecture did or did not have any AVX at all.
 
Caporegime
Joined
21 Jun 2006
Posts
38,372
That's a gross generalisation. It depends on the title/workload. If whatever he's running is offloaded to the GPU (as most games are) then unless there are other compute intensive workloads running concurrently on the CPU then it will make negligible difference. There's been plenty of benchmarks showing that on some titles that it makes almost no difference if you're running on a Core i3 or a Core i7.

In any case, he may well have purchased his GPU based on making an investment that will last him a few years, in the knowledge that he'll be also upgrading the rest of his rig in due course. No one likes to buy more than once. Makes sense to me.

His CPU is good enough for a 1070 max going off the youtube videos I watched about the G4560 bottlenecking anything above a 1060 6GB. The G4560 is roughly the same as a 2500K @ stock. So he has enough headroom for a 1070 I imagine but not a 1080ti.

Also nobody buys a 1080ti not to be playing at 4K or faster than 60hz @ high res on the most demanding of games. He certainly won't be using it to play minesweeper. His current setup is okay but he would definitely be bottlenecking that card on the most demanding games.
 
Associate
Joined
12 Jun 2012
Posts
313
Still proclaiming yourself an expert to elevate yourself above everyone else around here.

You didn't even know the difference between TDP and power consumption let alone the difference between FMA 128 and AVX-256 via dual encoders or for that matter which micro-architecture did or did not have any AVX at all.

TDP, TPC, whatever, I don't care .... TDP goes out the window when you overlock but you have to start somewhere. Possibly a mis-placed acronym on my part but totally irrelevant to this discussion.

Now you're saying that I didn't know which CPU did or didn't support AVX? Well why on earth would I even mention it if that was the case? You seem to think I came here to score points. I don't need to score points. What purpose does that serve? What possible point could I score and how does that benefit me or anyone else? Not least because I couldn't care less about what you may or may not think about my choice of kit, because I know that my use case and my workloads are a good match for this CPU. I couldn't care less what you think about my equipment choices because you don't pay my mortgage and I'm doing just fine already, thank you very much. Seriously, just make a contribution to the debate on picking the right tool for the job or simply back away from the keyboard unless you actually have something truly constructive to bring rather than the AMD fanboi gamer mentality. Because that contributes nothing and I already know that it's a position where the technology no longer matters and therefore makes it pointless in engaging in any half-sensible discussion, because you're surely not saying that if I have a requirement for AVX-512 that I should have waited for Threadripper, are you? Because that's the logical extension of whatever half-baked strategy you think I should have adopted.

But since you still want to wade in with this - Threadripper is using 128bit FMA's, however they happened to be deployed really doesn't make a whole lot of difference because it's still not supporting the supporting the extensions for which we (and I've been very keen to point this out, it's OUR OWN use case, not everybodies) are now working toward adopting. The very same AVX-512 extensions that I've been referring to from the get go, and stupidly assumed that you might have grasped that. 7900X doesn't use 128bit FMA's and doesn't merely support AVX-256, and that's where Threadripper starts and finishes. Instead we have AVX-512 with TWO 512 bit FMA's. It's not a cludge, it's a proper architecture to support the new toolset correctly. That, and only THAT, is the point that I've raised and THE SOLE reason I've thrown my money behind that CPU and that architecture. Nothing more, nothing less.

Anything else?
 
Caporegime
Joined
17 Mar 2012
Posts
47,628
Location
ARC-L1, Stanton System
TDP, TPC, whatever, I don't care .... TDP goes out the window when you overlock but you have to start somewhere. Possibly a mis-placed acronym on my part but totally irrelevant to this discussion.

Now you're saying that I didn't know which CPU did or didn't support AVX? Well why on earth would I even mention it if that was the case? You seem to think I came here to score points. I don't need to score points. What purpose does that serve? What possible point could I score and how does that benefit me or anyone else? Not least because I couldn't care less about what you may or may not think about my choice of kit, because I know that my use case and my workloads are a good match for this CPU. I couldn't care less what you think about my equipment choices because you don't pay my mortgage and I'm doing just fine already, thank you very much. Seriously, just make a contribution to the debate on picking the right tool for the job or simply back away from the keyboard unless you actually have something truly constructive to bring rather than the AMD fanboi gamer mentality. Because that contributes nothing and I already know that it's a position where the technology no longer matters and therefore makes it pointless in engaging in any half-sensible discussion, because you're surely not saying that if I have a requirement for AVX-512 that I should have waited for Threadripper, are you? Because that's the logical extension of whatever half-baked strategy you think I should have adopted.

But since you still want to wade in with this - Threadripper is using 128bit FMA's, however they happened to be deployed really doesn't make a whole lot of difference because it's still not supporting the supporting the extensions for which we (and I've been very keen to point this out, it's OUR OWN use case, not everybodies) are now working toward adopting. The very same AVX-512 extensions that I've been referring to from the get go, and stupidly assumed that you might have grasped that. 7900X doesn't use 128bit FMA's and doesn't merely support AVX-256, and that's where Threadripper starts and finishes. Instead we have AVX-512 with TWO 512 bit FMA's. It's not a cludge, it's a proper architecture to support the new toolset correctly. That, and only THAT, is the point that I've raised and THE SOLE reason I've thrown my money behind that CPU and that architecture. Nothing more, nothing less.

Anything else?

No one uses a TPC acronym let alone mistake it for thermal power design, its not even in the pseudo tech dictionary. anyone who knows what TDP actually is does not equate it in any way shape or form as power consumption. its the same difference, one is not the other and given the 7900X uses 90 watts more than its TDP its not "140 watts" is it? its "TPC is not 140 watts" even if there was such a thing. its TDP is 140 watt's TDP is what you said and that's what you meant as power consumption /

You clearly do care about all the things you say you don't, far too much. You're constantly pretending to be an expert to further your Intel plugging when your knowledge gaps and misunderstandings are the simplest things any mildly interested party knows... clearly you're anything but.

Your posts in this forum read exactly like one of Intel's latest nonsense slides. they make those for a reason too.... they don't care in the same way you don't.

It would have been far easier for you just to say "yes alright TDP is not the 7900X power consumption, Ryzen does indeed have AVX and ok AVX-512 is not going to be relevant for some years yet"

I mean, remind me now, at this point, why should people avoid buying Ryzen and Threadripper?

You see the thing is that is a big statement to make so you'd really need to be absolutely correct on that, this is peoples hard earned cash you are playing with and elevating yourself above the crowed in the way that you try, given your obvious lack of knowledge and understanding its clear you have no right to a taller soapbox to steer anyone in any direction.

Stick to actual facts without the untrue rubbishing of one brand, as Intel spout nonsense all the time of late, benefit of the doubt, maybe don't take any notice of their marketing?

Edited: many times.............
 
Last edited:
Associate
Joined
12 Jun 2012
Posts
313
I mean, remind me now, at this point, why should people avoid buying Ryzen and Threadripper?

I never said anyone should avoid Ryzen or Threadripper. Feel free to quote where I did and stop saying that this is what I said, because it's simply not true. If you have no concern for the latest AVX then it makes no difference, you just buy whatever you like and that's an end to it. If, however, you are concerned specifically about AVX-512 then a choice is made for you, isn't it? That's literally all I'm saying, so you need to stop putting words in my mouth.

Before you post anything else, please re-read the above paragraph (to yourself, you don't have to read it out load but I understand if that is a challenge) and tell me which part of it doesn't make sense to you and I'll do my level best to break it down into single syllables so that you can inwardly digest it.

You see the thing is that is a big statement to make so you'd really need to be absolutely correct on that, this is peoples hard earned cash you are playing with and elevating your self above the crowed in the way that you try, given your obvious lack of knowledge and understanding its clear you have no right to a taller soapbox to steer anyone in any direction.

Stick to actual facts without the untrue rubbishing of one brand, as Intel spout nonsense all the time of late, benefit of the doubt, maybe don't take any notice of their marketing?

Edited: many times.............

I wouldn't dream of telling anyone to spend their money in one way or another, as that would be utterly egregious. I haven't said that people should buy one thing or another, other than your use case determines your choice, and that's just logic and in this case it is an entirely binary proposition. You spend your money how you like. You earned it, you do what you like with it and to that end Caviat Emptor to all of us. We're big boys now, spending our own money and (I hope) not mummy and daddys? Do your homework, pays your money and takes your choice. If you want to go out and buy a bunch of square pegs to smash into your round holes then that's your lookout. If the government tells me I can't drive a diesel car any more then I'm not going to go out and buy another one am I? My use case determines by next car to be either petrol or electric or a combination thereof. To do anything else that is contrary to your use case is the very definition of stupidity ... but again, I don't give a _ what you do.

If you just wanna play Minecraft and CS Go then go get yourself Threadripper or just buy an abacus because it's all the same. I couldn't give a rats what you do with your money, I only care about my own specific requirements and I'm merely contributing based on my own thought processes which come about because of a "potential" commercial requirement. That is all I'm bringing to this and I am suggesting nothing else one way or the other.
 
Caporegime
Joined
17 Mar 2012
Posts
47,628
Location
ARC-L1, Stanton System
I never said anyone should avoid Ryzen or Threadripper. Feel free to quote where I did and stop saying that this is what I said, because it's simply not true. If you have no concern for the latest AVX then it makes no difference, you just buy whatever you like and that's an end to it. If, however, you are concerned specifically about AVX-512 then a choice is made for you, isn't it? That's literally all I'm saying, so you need to stop putting words in my mouth.

Before you post anything else, please re-read the above paragraph (to yourself, you don't have to read it out load but I understand if that is a challenge) and tell me which part of it doesn't make sense to you and I'll do my level best to break it down into single syllables so that you can inwardly digest it.



I wouldn't dream of telling anyone to spend their money in one way or another, as that would be utterly egregious. I haven't said that people should buy one thing or another, other than your use case determines your choice, and that's just logic and in this case it is an entirely binary proposition. You spend your money how you like. You earned it, you do what you like with it and to that end Caviat Emptor to all of us. We're big boys now, spending our own money and (I hope) not mummy and daddys? Do your homework, pays your money and takes your choice. If you want to go out and buy a bunch of square pegs to smash into your round holes then that's your lookout. If the government tells me I can't drive a diesel car any more then I'm not going to go out and buy another one am I? My use case determines by next car to be either petrol or electric or a combination thereof. To do anything else that is contrary to your use case is the very definition of stupidity ... but again, I don't give a _ what you do.

If you just wanna play Minecraft and CS Go then go get yourself Threadripper or just buy an abacus because it's all the same. I couldn't give a rats what you do with your money, I only care about my own specific requirements and I'm merely contributing based on my own thought processes which come about because of a "potential" commercial requirement. That is all I'm bringing to this and I am suggesting nothing else one way or the other.

Well ok grated not in those terms you didn't, but your qualification was based on an incorrect premiss, and lets not go over old ground again. Threadriper / Ryzen are as good for any would be buyer for AVX users as Skylake-X.

If you have any current workloads that utilise AVX instructions (simulations, analytics, hashing, etc) then you're not going to chose Ryzen and you're definitely not going to throw money down on Threadripper either. Going forward these extensions are likely to start factoring more and more into many different areas, and not just scientific workloads. Anyone remember the days when MMX mattered? Well this is just a progression of that and we've been taking it for granted for years but haven't had a huge amount of development in these area until now. Yes, it's early days but if you're investing in a new platform that is going to last you another 5 or 6 years (ie, Sandybridge age) then I'm guessing you'll not want to be buying twice if it turns out you find you're missing a critical instruction set. There's some interesting stuff on the SiSoftware site about AVX and the new implementation vs legacy.
 
Associate
Joined
12 Jun 2012
Posts
313
I'm not going to quote any of your post because you're still editing it after you posted it .... :rolleyes:

If you are in the business of coding for AVX, you are going to chose the latest iteration that the hardware in your market supports, agreed? If you care enough about the benefit of AVX then you're hardly going to code for the older extensions, particularly as the new AVX-512 implementation is designed to make adoption much easier for anyone already doing it. Don't confuse ease of adoption of AVX in general with the ease of transitioning to new extensions that you're effectively already leveraging - one requires reinventing your own particular wheel, the other does not.
 
Caporegime
Joined
17 Mar 2012
Posts
47,628
Location
ARC-L1, Stanton System
Edit: yeah... fair enough, i'm done here then. ^^^^

I'm not going to quote any of your post because you're still editing it after you posted it .... :rolleyes:

If you are in the business of coding for AVX, you are going to chose the latest iteration that the hardware in your market supports, agreed? If you care enough about the benefit of AVX then you're hardly going to code for the older extensions, particularly as the new AVX-512 implementation is designed to make adoption much easier for anyone already doing it. Don't confuse ease of adoption of AVX in general with the ease of transitioning to new extensions that you're effectively already leveraging - one requires reinventing your own particular wheel, the other does not.

Old ground....

Look, taking your credentials at face value this is specific to you, this is also a qualification you later made once i pointed out that both Ryzen and Threadripper had AVX, you; in that statement also did not qualify "AVX-512", you just said for anyone using AVX.

Had you Said "if you are coding for AVX-512" you would have been correct, what you actually said was this.

If you have any current workloads that utilise AVX instructions (simulations, analytics, hashing, etc) then you're not going to chose Ryzen and you're definitely not going to throw money down on Threadripper either. Going forward these extensions are likely to start factoring more and more into many different areas, and not just scientific workloads.

Ryzen and Threadripper have AVX and AVX2
 
Associate
Joined
12 Jun 2012
Posts
313
Look, taking your credentials at face value

What credentials? I've not provided you with anything. Why do you insist on injecting aspects into a debate that don't exist?

this is also a qualification you later made once i pointed out that both Ryzen and Threadripper had AVX, you; in that statement also did not qualify "AVX-512", you just said for anyone using AVX.

Had you Said "if you are coding for AVX-512" you would have been correct, what you actually said was this.

Tell me, why would I be referring to a set of 4 year old extensions when AVX-512 is a USP of 7900X? The only error I made was thinking that this news had already made into this forum, and I'm beginning to understand why that's not the case.
 
Associate
Joined
1 Nov 2013
Posts
713
Location
Ireland
His CPU is good enough for a 1070 max going off the youtube videos I watched about the G4560 bottlenecking anything above a 1060 6GB. The G4560 is roughly the same as a 2500K @ stock. So he has enough headroom for a 1070 I imagine but not a 1080ti.

Also nobody buys a 1080ti not to be playing at 4K or faster than 60hz @ high res on the most demanding of games. He certainly won't be using it to play minesweeper. His current setup is okay but he would definitely be bottlenecking that card on the most demanding games.

This is not true, the G4560 is a fine budget CPU but in any CPU heavy titles the 2500K spanks the G4560 effortlessly. Try running BF1 64p conquest on a G4560 and you'll see how badly it struggles, FPS can drop into the 20s.

A wouldn't pair anything beyond a 1050Ti with a G4560.

Anyway, as for the OP, the easiest thing is to sell the 2500K for €60 and buy a 3770K for €150. €90 upgrade cost, and significantly improved performance. Even a 2600K would be a big boost in games that use more threads. Obviously won't be anywhere near Kabylake speeds but it's an extremely cost effective option, maybe more ideal for 4K/60hz though versus 1440p 144hz if it's super high frames you are after, obviously it will show its weakness there vs Ryzen/Kaby.

I still play BF1 online sometimes with a 2600K at stock and it's perfectly fine for a stable 60fps. Ivy/Sandybridge i5's though very often drop into the 40's when stuff is going off.
 
Soldato
Joined
24 Feb 2003
Posts
4,201
Location
Stourport-On-Severn
Tell me, why would I be referring to a set of 4 year old extensions when AVX-512 is a USP of 7900X? The only error I made was thinking that this news had already made into this forum, and I'm beginning to understand why that's not the case.

Perhaps you could tell me why all you have done in this thread is posted about an AVX instruction that is not part of either an i5 2500K or an i7 7700K ? Perhaps you couldn't be bothered to actually read the title of the thread ? Or in the rush to tell us all why you will never buy into Threadripper you didn't realize you had posted in the wrong thread ?
 
Caporegime
Joined
17 Mar 2012
Posts
47,628
Location
ARC-L1, Stanton System
Upgrading the CPU to a 3770K is not a bad idea, it should be fairly cheap and provide a significant performance upgrade on the existing motherboard, but that board and the 3770K are getting a bit long in the tooth.
 
Back
Top Bottom