Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
AMD Discussion
- Thread starter koyoot
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I don't know about that, but SSE seems mindblowing:
http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-8-core-benchmarks/
Same as Intel.
Its from PassMark.
And we have seen Blender and Handbrake demos, already for a CPU at 3.4 GHz.
P.S. The presentation from today's Ryzen Tech Day was not only about Cinebench performance
. It was just one photo from the presentation that was talking about Cinebench.If you will look at the scores, AMD did pretty... S**** job with them. We all know perfectly well, that 6900K scores around 1.5 K points(actually slightly over) in Cinebench R15 Multithread test. So its marketing stunt from them, to show Ryzen in best possible light. As long as it can compete with 6900K, and cost half as much, I don't care, however...
P.S. Official levels of performance finally can be said: Single thread - Haswell Level. Multithread - Broadwell-E level. SMT appears to be better than Intel's implementation of HT, thats why the scores are so different than if we look solely at ST number and try to calculate MT performance.
In fact, If I will go Ryzen route, I will see a little drop in performance, cause currently I have i7-7700T with GTX 1050 Ti, in my main driver.
Dam, I wish Raven Ridge/Horned Owl NPUs would not be 2H/2017
.
Last edited:
But it isn't tied to any application, is it?
Most of the other benchmarks in that series are much more evenly matched.
Wake me when Zen shows up at http://www.specbench.org/cpu2006/results/res2017q1/ ...
What is this benchmark checking? Just curious. FP, Integer, AES? What sort of workload? Any of the typical ones?
I use cinema 4d, so I love what I'm seeing. It's going to be a pretty big jump from my overclocked 2600k (still going strong almost 6 years later).
I would love for that jump to be in a Mac. But I won't hold my breath.
I would love for that jump to be in a Mac. But I won't hold my breath.
It looks like first block of AMD brand reset in 2017, has manifested. All we have now is to wait for Vega to drop, and see what we can expect.
Oh, and one more little thing:
From Amazon. The offers were online just 15 minutes, and then have been taken down.
But it confirms pricing: 499$ for 1800X, and 399$ for 1700X.
I can now laugh a bit at tuxon, that was arguing with me about Ryzen, few months ago.
Oh, and one more little thing:
From Amazon. The offers were online just 15 minutes, and then have been taken down.
But it confirms pricing: 499$ for 1800X, and 399$ for 1700X.
I can now laugh a bit at tuxon, that was arguing with me about Ryzen, few months ago
.
Last edited:
I like that pricing. I'm still partial to air cooling myself, just because I'm nervous like that. I just want a monster air cooler that doesn't obstruct my ram slots.
Or, of course, a Mac with an 1800x in it that doesn't cost $3000.
SPEC is a well established cross-platform suite of benchmarks, founded nearly thirty years ago.
While they do have some aggregate numbers (like GeekBench does), they not only break the aggregate down four ways (single-stream integer, single-stream float, multi-stream integer, and multi-stream float) but they call out the individual scores of each of the component benchmarks so that if you know that you use one of the components (or something similar) you can look at those. There are also a number of more specific benchmarks (database, web serving, java, ...) that are useful if that's what closer to what you do.
SPEC slowly evolves, it brings in new component benchmarks that are relevant, and retires ones that have become irrelevant. The early benchmarks were relative to a Digital VAX-11/780 - a 1 Mips CISC system. More recent versions use more recent processors as the baseline. When you change the baseline - you can no longer directly compare scores.
One might say that SPEC is too slow to move to new baselines, and one might say that GeekBench is too quick to change baselines. Both are true. "Slow to change" means that you can compare systems for a longer time over a broader range of applications, "Fast to change" means that you can compare the latest systems with the most current applications.
SPEC has been the gold standard in platform-independent and application-independent benchmarking for nearly the last three decades. Koyoot, I'm surprised that you weren't aware of them. No, I'm dumbfounded that you weren't aware of them.
I "heard" about SPEC. But never knew exactly what it was testing. Thanks for explanation.
The only computer that could eventually come with Ryzen CPUs IMO is iMac. Mac Pro if will use Zen it will be Naples Server CPU or Snowy Owl Server NPU.
Last edited:
The Wraith Max does seem to put some of the RAM slots at risk - at least if the DIMMs have taller heat spreaders.
That's the "heartbreak of Hackintosh" - finding out that your perfect motherboard and the best CPU cooler don't leave any room for your chosen DIMMs.
Hah, and I was just looking at one particular cooler...
BeQuiet! Dark Rock TF. I was wondering about Cooler for the computer, and could not decide between BeQuiet! Dark Rock 3 with Push/Pull configuration of fans, or Dark Rock TF. It appears, that TF version is currently the best Cooler of them all. A bit louder than Dark Rock 3, but better performing than even Dark Rock 3 Pro, or Cryorig R1. And it has enough RAM clearence, because it is Top Flow cooler, with double heat spreaders.
P.S. Even if the Wraith coolers are better than what Intel offers standard with their CPUs, they are still rubbish compared to what you can get aftermarket.
BeQuiet! Dark Rock TF. I was wondering about Cooler for the computer, and could not decide between BeQuiet! Dark Rock 3 with Push/Pull configuration of fans, or Dark Rock TF. It appears, that TF version is currently the best Cooler of them all. A bit louder than Dark Rock 3, but better performing than even Dark Rock 3 Pro, or Cryorig R1. And it has enough RAM clearence, because it is Top Flow cooler, with double heat spreaders.
P.S. Even if the Wraith coolers are better than what Intel offers standard with their CPUs, they are still rubbish compared to what you can get aftermarket.
I'll consider an 1800x iMac. But tales of the screen problems have me nervous. I might just stuck with PC so I can plop in an nVidia card and a big cooler for overclocking to push those cinebench numbers up.
The 1800X is a good deal if you want high performance out of the box. But what I'm curious about is how well these chips will OC. AMD's doing a fair bit of work here, and if they're as good as these benchmarks, Intel's going to worry for a while. Especially once AMD's server chips come into play.
Not really. Intel can pull a bunch of top-bin chips that they've been hiding and knock AMD back into the dumpster.
Really, if all you can say is "9% faster" you're screwed when Intel comes up with "12% faster" than your "9% faster".
If Intel releases 7th generation extreme chips with higher core counts - Zen is dead except for the low-lifes who chant "fastest $299 processor".
Last edited:
For how much more? Intel CANNOT undercut the prices, without damaging themselves. Overall IPC advantage Intel will have from Architecture is in worst case scenario for Intel 3%, and in best case scenario 25-30%, or even more in AVX512 workloads. 90% of workloads are those 3% cases. So it will really be only on core clocks. Is Intel able to clock at 3.7 GHz all core turbo Skylake-X chips, to gain 3% advantage in 90% of workloads, and price it at 1099$?
Dam, August is again long way away
.One more thing about those Cinebench scores...
7700K with @4.4 GHz scores 165 pts in Cinebench R15 ST. And according to AMD, 1800X at around 4.0 GHz scores 162 pts in the same benchmark O_O. The hell?
Is this what your AMD overlords told you to say?
But it gives you lots of time to move the goalposts after production Ryzen systems hit the interwebs and fall far short of your guesses.Dam, August is again long way away
The Cinebench numbers are all over the place - it's a horrible benchmark unless Cinebench is the only app that you run - then it's just a bad benchmark since there is so much standard deviation.
What are Ryzen's SPEC numbers?
Last edited:
Bin them for what? Intel doesn't bin just for speed. They bin for core count first and then speed. If Intel began adding a bunch of cores to their chips, it would water down their lineup. That's not to say they won't bring more cores as they're scheduled to bring six core into the mainstream market within the next 2-3 years. The inherent problem Intel has is a combination of not jumping the gun due to limited competition from AMD but also because the current architecture is a modern iteration of the Core architecture, that's about a decade old now. The processors they're releasing in August are SL X and KL X processors, which will cost a tidy sum and aren't a good representation of purchased processors for mainstream customers. I sincerely doubt people regularly drop 600-1300 on a processor for home use that's non professional.
And I'm not sure how old you are, but if you're old enough to remember the late 90s to the mid 2000s, it was never black and white with these two. Intel P4s did some stuff better than AMD and AMD did stuff better than Intel. AMD was just the better value, especially if you overclocked. It's going to be the same now.
Regardless, all of this is hearsay until the chips go on sale. It's a bit silly to debate on what will happen when we don't have a clear idea of how the chips will perform in real world usage, not synthetic tests.
[doublepost=1487744387][/doublepost]
Or you could be sensible and get low profile RAM. You'd have to up the voltage on RAM DIMMs quite a bit to even generate enough heat that would require the use of passive cooling.
FWIW, the X5650 is now 7 years old yet it beats modern processors in synthetic benches and renderings. You could pick up a pair and a dual socket mobo and have a killer rig on the cheap for 3D work or film editing.
Comparing a non-existent so far Zen architecture server processor to a 22 core Intel Xeon is a bit silly. Realistically, how many average Joe's or even production houses are going to be dropped around $5K~ (E5-2699A v4) on a processor?
Anyway, I'm perfectly content with my Ivy Bridge-E processor, and I'll get years of use out of it. I'm not going to drop everything because AMD came out with a limited time smoker.
Last edited:
Obviously, I think we should reserve judgement on Ryzen until reliable reviews are out, but this is looking pretty promising. Would be really interesting to see if Apple move to AMD for CPUs in the near future. They've got to have at least a few Ryzen-based prototypes sitting on a test bench somewhere. After all..
Last edited:
For how much more? Intel CANNOT undercut the prices, without damaging themselves. Overall IPC advantage Intel will have from Architecture is in worst case scenario for Intel 3%, and in best case scenario 25-30%, or even more in AVX512 workloads. 90% of workloads are those 3% cases. So it will really be only on core clocks. Is Intel able to clock at 3.7 GHz all core turbo Skylake-X chips, to gain 3% advantage in 90% of workloads, and price it at 1099$?
Dam, August is again long way away
One more thing about those Cinebench scores...
7700K with @4.4 GHz scores 165 pts in Cinebench R15 ST. And according to AMD, 1800X at around 4.0 GHz scores 162 pts in the same benchmark O_O. The hell?
If we assume RYZEN is what all the leaks suggest and this information is readily available to anyone who is interested.
How do you explain the behavior of the market? Is there something that is not that grate about the new AMD? Is Ryzen targeting a market, which is irrelevant in the big picture or ...?
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/AMD?p=AMD
The release of the CPUs is 2 march 2017. Market did not had to react in stock prices, yet. The biggest threat to Intel Share prices is sales, and the drop of them. At first overall situation does not have to affect Intel shares. But Ryzen release will affect AMD share prices. Immediately. Its already starting to be reflected.
What I meant about August, which Im sure, you and Aiden completely misunderstood is that I am curious about what Intel will do. They cannot release high-clocked Skylake-X CPUs, at previous generation CPU prices, because nobody will be interested in them, when you can get the CPU that has 90-95% of performance in 90% of workloads, for half the price.
EVERY single Skylake architecture review shows that CPUs are at best 5% faster clock for clock, compared to Broadwell Architecture. For example here:
3.56 GHz Single core Ryzen scores 146 pts. in this benchmark. Which puts it slightly below Skylake when compared clock for clock.
If you believe that Skylake-X uArch will be different from it you are either delusional, or you have been not following the HEDT Intel offerings for past few years(Aiden, its an answer to your previous post). HEDT Haswell, Ivy Bridge, Broadwell, on low-level was exact copy of Mainstream offerings. And it had exactly the same level of performance clock for clock, as mainstream offerings, but had much higher core count. So why do you genuinely think that AMD will be behind Intel like it was before? Do you believe that Skylake is such gigantic leap in performance, that can put AMD again to Bulldozer-like gap between latest offerings of Intel?
If you actually guys would read my posts just like they are written, not based on your preconceptions about me, you would see, that in none of my posts I claimed that Ryzen is in front of performance compared to Intel. They are in front of value. And the value gap is as big, as was between AMD and Intel in performance, before. All I did was: I used logic to extrapolate the difference between Ryzen uArch performance, and Skylake-X, based on desktop, which is logical. There is nothing magical in Skylake-X on low-level that could affect in meaningful matter singlethreaded performance of the CPUs. Maybe you guys, you and Aiden, have misunderstood me? Or you are unaware how big difference is between Skylake and Broadwell in performance?
P.S. Are we sure that Intel will not release 12 core HEDT CPU, instead of previous 6, 8, 10 core lineup? 6, 8, 10, 12 core lineup would be great and allow to get same price margins on the highest core count, and at the same time staying competitive in value, with 6 and 8 core offerings.