Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Nov 2018
- Posts
- 2,840
Because the 1700x is cheaper than the 2600x. You get 2 extra cores for £10 less.
Some people just don't have the patience to wait for gen 3.
-
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.
So what's the verdict so far on the Ryzen Processors?
- Thread starter AhhBisto
- Start date
Because the 1700x is cheaper than the 2600x. You get 2 extra cores for £10 less.
Some people just don't have the patience to wait for gen 3.
So, anandtech's words about the 7601 are:
"...With the exception of database software and vectorizable HPC code, AMD's EPYC 7601 ($4200) offers slightly less or slightly better performance than Intel's Xeon 8176 ($8000+)..."
They always find a way to shift the conclusion in an intel bias.
Instead, a neutral conclusion would be:
"...The AMD's EPYC 7601 ($4200) trades blows with the Intel's Xeon 8176 ($8000+) in some software, and is the clear winner in database software and vectorisable HPC code..."
Regardless of how you word it - doesn't support the conclusion you were trying to make before.
Also if you actually looked at the review it is the Intel CPU that was the clear winner in database software and vectorizable HPC code:
https://www.anandtech.com/show/11544/intel-skylake-ep-vs-amd-epyc-7000-cpu-battle-of-the-decade/18
So you obviously haven't even read the material you are using to try and make a claim... (infact I doubt you have done any more than google "AMD world fastest CPU").
It was other areas that the Epyc CPU took a commanding lead
https://www.anandtech.com/show/11544/intel-skylake-ep-vs-amd-epyc-7000-cpu-battle-of-the-decade/21
This is the exact same source as you used to try and claim AMD had the fastest CPU before only I went straight the original review rather than the cherry picked version of it you posted.
No, first of all I didn't google anything. That link is just a result of a search for an EPYC processor review.
Also, the commanding lead of >40% in their test, renders their conclusion invalid (more than 40% is not slightly):
Again you obviously haven't read the review.
For balance the database test goes the other way with a considerably more than 40% lead to the Intel platform:
There are various tests throughout that go one way or the other.
I don't need to read their crap.
I'll remind you again that they were the source of your claim for AMD having the fastest processor. Be nice if you posted something other than drivel.
You aren't serious, are you. Just proving that their conclusion is idiotic - nowhere I see slight differences..
Also, the original conclusion is another, why did you change the link:
"The bottom line is this: AMD’s Epyc isn’t the better choice in every situation or environment. But a combination of lower prices, competitive performance, and some solid test wins show AMD can hang with Intel again, even at the top of the market. For hardware cost-conscious companies, or vendors that can afford to optimize heavily for Ryzen (cloud providers like MS, for example), Epyc is a very strong brand. But Skylake-SP shows some formidable performance gains of its own, has a better scaling mesh topology, and the stronger overall level of performance. If your TCO is dominated more by software costs than hardware pricing, Intel and its proven track record may still be the better option here.
Finally, I’d like to echo some comments Johan makes. After years of watching Intel’s only competition being its own previous generation of products, it’s really nice to see some genuine performance back-and-forth. One of the grand ironies of reviewing is that people regularly accuse reviewers of using various tricks or indulging biases to tilt reviews deliberately towards AMD or Intel when, in reality, we’re probably the people that mostwant to see exciting performance matches. Articles like this (or, of course, AT’s vastly larger review) don’t write themselves; they take considerable time and effort. It’s boring to watch the same company win over and over. Nobody likes a slugfest better than a reviewer, and this review is worth a read."
https://www.extremetech.com/computi...f-intel-skylake-sp-xeon-massive-server-battle
This is a fair point, though. With one clarification - per CPU (per socket) there is no clear winner because of some factors but per spent dollar, AMD gives you more.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Nov 2018
- Posts
- 2,840
Yes that's a good point. A £200 AMD CPU will beat a £200 Intel CPU, a £500 AMD CPU will beat a £500 Intel CPU etc. It's consistant across the board.
Associate
- Joined
- 31 Jul 2018
- Posts
- 254
After 11 years of using a Q6600, I went for a Ryzen 2600, the differences between them makes the claim of differences between Intel and AMD at price brackets seem like arguing about which feather weighs more than the other.
Are you pleased with the performance of your 2600?
Q6600 is a 4C/4T CPU from 2007, the 2600 is a 6C/12T.
If he doesn't see a difference, then something is wrong with his configuration.
I've not doubt it is faster in benchmarks, I'm just curious about the subjective feel of the system in daily operation. Not something that gets covered much and can be just as useful as raw numbers when considering if an upgrade is worthwhile.
The Q6600 is ridiculously bottlenecking gaming - should be stuttering in all games.
Even simple web browsing has to be more fluent with the Ryzen 5.
I would expect so. My 2500K seems OK but I can see it pegged at 100% all cores. The difference comes if you need to task switch or something else kicks in. I think a Ryzen 3000 will give that smoothness of operation back. I know it's not scientific and will be disputed but I always found AMD based systems to feel very "smooth" when it came to task switching/multitasking.
My 4690K did that at 4.6Ghz, the 1600 i have now cleared that right up, smooth as silk with a performance gain in most new and some old games too.
Just an update since I have been quite busy, I ended up hopping on the Ryzen bandwagon.
I did go for the 1st gen ryzen 7 1700, it wasn't much cheaper but enough. The extra cores may help me with my video rendering and since I don't play games too often, I could always over clock if needed.
I picked the gigabyte b450m ds3h, even though some people saying having issues with the board and storage devices, it was cheap and had 4 very essential ram slots which even more expensive boards didn't.
Got to say I am very happy so far, I have switched form premier pro and trying Davinci for video projects, but so far everything is running smooth. Memory is clocked at 3000mhz with no stability issues.
I did go for the 1st gen ryzen 7 1700, it wasn't much cheaper but enough. The extra cores may help me with my video rendering and since I don't play games too often, I could always over clock if needed.
I picked the gigabyte b450m ds3h, even though some people saying having issues with the board and storage devices, it was cheap and had 4 very essential ram slots which even more expensive boards didn't.
Got to say I am very happy so far, I have switched form premier pro and trying Davinci for video projects, but so far everything is running smooth. Memory is clocked at 3000mhz with no stability issues.
Associate
- Joined
- 21 Sep 2018
- Posts
- 895
You'll be fine with Premier, too. That motherboard will work with Ryzen 3000 for sure. Then, you can definitely use any app you like. Premier is better for collaborative work.
https://i.imgur.com/jkKq2EJ.jpg