Ryzen "2" ?

humbug · 28 Mar 2018 at 18:44

chrcoluk said:
I look at it as performance per core rather than simple IPC.

Userbench shows intel still has a circa 30% advantage which is definitely relevant, that swayed me to my 8600k over a ryzen.

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-8600K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-5-1600X/3941vs3920

For most people an extra 30% raw performance means much more than 6 logical threads.

For ryzen to get comparable, they need to regain at least 20% performance per core in my opinion. That could be achieved by raising clocks 800mhz or so.

And yet when using all threads my CPU out performs yours even when you are running yours at 5Ghz +.

Its not as if those threads don't matter, they do, they make my Ryzen 1600 faster than your 8600K.

chrcoluk · 28 Mar 2018 at 18:47

The problem is I never use all my threads in a workload that is HTT friendly, as is the case for most people who use computers.

The ryzen r5 advantage in HTT optimal loads is 11%, vs the per core advantage of the 8600k of 30%.

The latter is more relevant to common uses of computers, but also its 3x the size of the heavy threaded advantage.

For most computing tasks the 8600k will outperform a r5 1600x, people seem to vastly overrate what logical threads actually do and their usefulness. They also seem to under estimate the huge amount of software out there that has single threaded processing, even some games still do.

Ryzen is a good chip from AMD tho, is a vast improvement over the FX line, so a great step forward, and if you do heavy threaded work loads like encoding they an attractive buy.

Ryzen 2 if they get the clock speeds out could be the real game changer, they just need at least 4.5ghz clock speeds.

4K8KW10 · 28 Mar 2018 at 18:51

chrcoluk said:
The problem is I never use all my threads in a workload that is HTT friendly, as is the case for most people who use computers

This is impossible - try to run a game and at the same time keep your browser open with the tabs, keep a download service working, keep Skype online and several other applications. You shall see how all of your threads are occupied to 100%.

humbug · 28 Mar 2018 at 18:58

chrcoluk said:
The problem is I never use all my threads in a workload that is HTT friendly, as is the case for most people who use computers.

The ryzen r5 advantage in HTT optimal loads is 11%, vs the per core advantage of the 8600k of 30%.

The latter is more relevant to common uses of computers, but also its 3x the size of the heavy threaded advantage.

For most computing tasks the 8600k will outperform a r5 1600x, people seem to vastly overrate what logical threads actually do and their usefulness. They also seem to under estimate the huge amount of software out there that has single threaded processing, even some games still do.

Ryzen is a good chip from AMD tho, is a vast improvement over the FX line, so a great step forward, and if you do heavy threaded work loads like encoding they an attractive buy.

Ryzen 2 if they get the clock speeds out could be the real game changer, they just need at least 4.5ghz clock speeds.

Now at least you are qualifying it,

i use a lot of "HEDT" workloads, i do 2D/3D content and 8 out of 10 of the things that i do the Ryzen 1600 is faster than your 8600K at any speed you can get out of it.

If anything people under estimate just how much multi-core performance matters when you use your computer for real productivity, the reason being is no one bothers to do benchmarks for professionals, not properly.

The Ryzen 1600 is faster, its smoother when multitasking, its more power efficient, it runs cooler, its cheaper.... the only thing the 8600K has is 10 to 20% higher gaming performance on a GTX 1080TI running 1080P, that actually accounts for about 0.5% of the gaming population.

chrcoluk · 28 Mar 2018 at 18:59

I monitor my cpu core usage during gaming, they never get pegged at 100%.

I game with chrome in the background amongst other apps (since I also use my pc for work).

e.g. FF15 a cpu demanding game the utilisation hovers between about 30% and 60% on average with occasional spikes higher.

Also logical threads are not real cores, they actually only provide extra processing power in specific scenarios. Threaded workloads that dont fully utilise the processor will perform similar on non logical threaded chips.

My main point of my first post was that the intel per core advantage is closer to 30% than 5%, as clock speed has to be factored in, the logical thread thing was my secondary point.

chrcoluk · 28 Mar 2018 at 19:00

humbug said:
Now at least you are qualifying it, i use a lot of "HEDT" workloads, i do 3D content and 9 out or 10 of the things that i do the Ryzen 1600 is faster than your 8600K at any speed you can get out of it.

If anything people under estimate just how much multi-core performance matters when you use your computer for real productivity, the reason being is no one bothers to do benchmarks for professionals, not properly.

The Ryzen 1600 is faster, its smoother when multitasking, its more power efficient, it runs cooler, its cheaper.... the only thing the 8600K has is 10 to 20% higher gaming performance on a GTX 1080TI running 1080P, that actually accounts for about 0.5% of the population.

yes we got different workloads, so for you the ryzen is a great choice

I dont do any kind of encoding, or similar type of workloads on my machine that peg all my cores, the only time thats been done is on stress testing or cinebench.

Rroff · 28 Mar 2018 at 19:01

4K8KW10 said:
This is impossible - try to run a game and at the same time keep your browser open with the tabs, keep a download service working, keep Skype online and several other applications. You shall see how all of your threads are occupied to 100%.

I do that all the time on my 4820K - its pretty rare for more than 2-3 cores/threads to be hitting 100% for any length of time.

Only way I'd do that and have multiple cores loaded at 100% is if I was trying to encode a video or something while playing - even streaming (to an external encoder) only has 1-2 cores at high usage.

chrcoluk · 28 Mar 2018 at 19:05

yeah the only time I have seen cores hit 100% and get pegged there in a game is badly written jrpg games, and they do it to just one core, the single threaded games I mentioned, those games love single core performance cause of how badly they optimised.

Optimised games that spread across all cores I have never seen peg my cores at 100%.

gavinh87 · 28 Mar 2018 at 19:06

humbug said:
Yes process improvement and minor tweak. ^^^^

It depends on what you define as "not much more" 30 watts more on total system power is significant, that's a 90 Watt 7740K vs 120 Watts for the 8700K, the 8 core 7800X is 63 watts more, that's 90 vs 153 Watts, 120 watts is pretty high power consumption, 150 watts is as high as Bulldozer, maybe even higher.

I'm talking about heat not power consumption.

gavinh87 · 28 Mar 2018 at 19:07

humbug said:
And yet when using all threads my CPU out performs yours even when you are running yours at 5Ghz +.

Its not as if those threads don't matter, they do, they make my Ryzen 1600 faster than your 8600K.

Sure if you're favourite game is cinebench.

It's funny as hell how all these people are claiming that they need all these threads. It was only 6 months ago they were fine on a quad core with no HT lol. If those threads were needed you would have been in Intel's HEDT years ago.

Drollic · 28 Mar 2018 at 19:09

humbug said:
Now at least you are qualifying it, i use a lot of "HEDT" workloads, i do 2D/3D content and 8 out of 10 of the things that i do the Ryzen 1600 is faster than your 8600K at any speed you can get out of it.

If anything people under estimate just how much multi-core performance matters when you use your computer for real productivity, the reason being is no one bothers to do benchmarks for professionals, not properly.

The Ryzen 1600 is faster, its smoother when multitasking, its more power efficient, it runs cooler, its cheaper.... the only thing the 8600K has is 10 to 20% higher gaming performance on a GTX 1080TI running 1080P, that actually accounts for about 0.5% of the gaming population.

You probably could have afforded an 8700k if you spent less time harping on about ryzen

gavinh87 · 28 Mar 2018 at 19:10

Drollic said:
You probably could have afforded an 8700k if you spent less time harping on about ryzen

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 28 Mar 2018 at 20:02

gavinh87 said:
Sure if you're favourite game is cinebench.

It's funny as hell how all these people are claiming that they need all these threads. It was only 6 months ago they were fine on a quad core with no HT lol. If those threads were needed you would have been in Intel's HEDT years ago.

Well no different than those buying a Core i7 8700K or a desktop Core i7 of any kind for the same reason for gaming,and then saying MT performance is not important just ST performance - not sure why they didn't just buy a Core i3 i3 7350K and overclock that to 5GHZ!!

Edit!!

If anything most enthusiasts who buy Core i7s for gaming do it because they themselves believe more and more games will push above 4 threads,and that a Core i3 7350K or Core i3 8350K will run out of grunt quicker.

ljt · 28 Mar 2018 at 20:10

gavinh87 said:
If those threads were needed you would have been in Intel's HEDT years ago.

Not with Intels prices for HEDT. Perhaps they wanted the HEDT core/threads, but couldn't justify the cost?

Now they can have HEDT core/thread performance for a fraction of the price through AMD.

4K8KW10 · 28 Mar 2018 at 20:42

Rroff said:
I do that all the time on my 4820K - its pretty rare for more than 2-3 cores/threads to be hitting 100% for any length of time.

Only way I'd do that and have multiple cores loaded at 100% is if I was trying to encode a video or something while playing - even streaming (to an external encoder) only has 1-2 cores at high usage.

Then the load is distributed in a smart way among the available threads. The thing is that if you return to a single-core Athlon 64 4000+ or a dual-core C2D, you won't be able to do anything that you are doing right now.

But anyways - long live the single core

humbug · 28 Mar 2018 at 21:03

gavinh87 said:
I'm talking about heat not power consumption.

Heat? the 8700K is already on the limit of that one mate.

eddiew · 28 Mar 2018 at 21:21

SiDeards73 said:
Pretty sure its going to be more cores and less Ghz going forward from Intel in the i7 area... will be interesting to see how they bring the battle to AMD, knowing they will have to regress clockspeed, add more cores, keep it tamed etc, ontop of that AMD will be on their 3rd revision of Ryzen when Intel come to play... will definitely be interesting.

Indeed so... and I hope they manage architecture changes enough to raise IPC by more than the clock drop! Something like the Pentium 4 to Core2Duo jump would be nice

Given that my favourite games respond better to single core, I'm seriously wondering whether to jump on an 8700k and hope it has the longevity of my old 2500k! Waiting for Ryzen 2xxx reviews I guess, and fingers crossed it will respond well to my existing b-die memory. Don't really want to take anything less than 90% of the i7's single-thread performance this time around... Been kicking myself for buying Ryzen just 3 weeks before Coffee launched :<

BongoHunter · 28 Mar 2018 at 21:30

eddiew said:
Indeed so... and I hope they manage architecture changes enough to raise IPC by more than the clock drop! Something like the Pentium 4 to Core2Duo jump would be nice

Given that my favourite games respond better to single core, I'm seriously wondering whether to jump on an 8700k and hope it has the longevity of my old 2500k! Waiting for Ryzen 2xxx reviews I guess, and fingers crossed it will respond well to my existing b-die memory. Don't really want to take anything less than 90% of the i7's single-thread performance this time around... Been kicking myself for buying Ryzen just 3 weeks before Coffee launched :<

I would love Intel to launch a 4c8t chip at 5Ghz - it must be close to the possible right now, this would be enough to keep Ryzen off their back in the gaming space for at least 18 months and would force AMD to respond with more clock speed.

Never been a better time to be a hardware nut - especially if your vendor agnostic

4K8KW10 · 28 Mar 2018 at 21:32

BongoHunter said:
I would love Intel to launch a 4c8t chip at 5Ghz - it must be close to the possible right now, this would be enough to keep Ryzen off their back in the gaming space for at least 18 months and would force AMD to respond with more clock speed.

Never been a better time to be a hardware nut - especially if your vendor agnostic

AMD can also play this game, though. They can release a 4.5 GHz 4-core Ryzen 2500X and call it a day

sideways14a · 28 Mar 2018 at 21:38

Amd might be keeping the 2800 from us for just this reason, say intel panics (again) and fires out a massive hot 8 core at 4.5Ghz and needing a 3 fan rad just to keep it running stock speeds, well sod it AMD just needs to do similar.
Seems like power and heat dont become an issue....