In Intel CPUs there is also a lot of features on each CPU silicon, that are not visible to consumers, but are visible to partners who requested activating those features.
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'm not really sure how this discussion could get to 55 pages, given that Ryzen doesn't support Thunderbolt. I'm also not sure why people are so set on talking about gaming performance; no one in their right mind buys a Mac for gaming. It would be great for productivity though. Who knows, they might consider it for the Mac Pro, but without Thunderbolt it's not that realistic.
You need Alpine Ridge controller, not support for TB3. That is available to every OEM.
Ryzen CPUs are consumer level CPUs. The CPUs for MP are called ThreadRipper, and are coming in 12 and 16 core variants.
Okay, once again: The Rx480 is like 2/3 the FLOPS as the 1080 so the CPU at a lower clock can much easily bottleneck. To accurately test, you need to do crossfire 480's since AMD has nothing close to the 1080 in a single GPU.
For instance, I'm sure if you dug up a GTX680 and ran it at 720p on ryzen you'd get the same scores as the 7700k--doesn't mean an i5/i7 isn't better.
It's all silly anyway, it's not like the difference between 100 and 120fps is that big a deal. I'm just trying to find the big scandal. I was not surprised with those results.
How come, GTX 1060, GTX 1070, GTX 1080 and GTX Titan X, are loosing performance on Ryzen CPU in DX12 scenarios, vs DX11, and gain on Intel in the same scenario?
AMD, otherwise. In every single scenario AMD GPUs gain with DX12 on both platforms. It has nothing to do with CPU. It has everything to do with Nvidia driver. Nvidia simply did not had the opportunity to optimize drivers for AMD platform, pre-release.
It is not one scenario. It is not one test. It is not one benchmark. The same thing is apparent over multiple scenarios, and the conclusion is exactly the same in every single one of them.
Apple isn't moving to AMD. If anything, the reverse will happen. They will drop AMD in favour of Nvidia if the new drivers are any hint. Also months ago there were specific Mac related job postings by Nvidia to get started on supporting Metal.
AMD is a value chipmaker. If you want performance, core for core thread for thread Intel and Nvidia are better. The sooner Apple drops AMD, the better.
Beta Pascal drivers. The same level as Maxwell support under Mac. And we have had plentiful of Macs released by Apple with Maxwell GPUs.
Yeah, right.
We are going back to Nvidia and staying with Intel whether you like it or not: http://appleinsider.com/articles/16...n-graphics-for-revolutionary-new-mac-products
Or not going back to Nvidia whether you like it or not. A job posting on their driver team is a clue, but not a substantial evidence (gracefully copy & paste from previous posting, heh?), especially when AMD still got the deal of 2016 MBP despite Nvidia having "superior" product for a couple of years.
The job listing is floating for OVER 18 months. Nvidia has problems with Mac Drivers. Thats why they have released them so late. Yet, people on this forum believe Nvidia is going back to Mac. despite that the drivers are beta support. The same level support as Maxwell cards, which NEVER have been released in any Mac, by Apple.
And we have already information about upcoming iMac with AMD graphics. Yeah, Nvidia is going back to Mac.
OH you were talking about DX12. Yeah DX 12 is screwy with Nvidia, I was talking about the DX11 shortcomings with Ryzen in high FPS situations with DX11. I didn't pay attention to the DX 12 benchmarks so I'll take your word for it. Doom had some NVidia DX 12 issues too IIRC. Nvidia definitely has not optimized DX12 support for primetime.
Me. To clarify, I'm against AMD chips going in Macs, not that they're bad chips themselves. AMD Ryzen is a gap closer product. It lights a fire under Intel's ass and gives them some decent competition in years. This is really healthy for the industry.
But is it better than Intel's offering? Core for core, thread for thread...no, definitely not. The 6900k which is an 8c/16t processor which pretty much wins on all fronts from the 1800x; single and multicore processing. It's TDP is 140W, yes, but the reason for being so is it integrates an iGPU whereas 1800x doesn't have that which is also the reason for its higher price as well. AMD calls their CPU+iGPU combos APUs so it'll be interesting to see what their TDP is and their price.
Again to repeat, core for core thread for thread AMD is still behind Intel. And then there is the problem of TB3; if I understand correctly Intel can just say 'hey, we're not going to license you this'.
I suggest reading the reviews again.
65W 1700 is neck and neck, or slightly faster than 5960X. 1800X is faster than 6900K. Only scenario where Intel chips are faster is AVX workloads.
Look at tom's Hardware review, which some AMD fanboys omitted Intel Biased.
The CPU in HPC is neck and neck with 6900K.
1700 even stock vs stock can be faster than 6900K.
The ONLY place where Ryzen CPUs are loosing to Intel's is gaming scenario, when paired with Nvidia GPU. 6900K is slower than 1800X when both CPUs are paired with AMD GPU. Look at this chart, on the bottom:
https://thetechaltar.com/amd-ryzen-1800x-performance/2/ gaming performance.
Also a lot of compute tests here which show Ryzen faster than 6900K.
I am asking serious question. Why do people focus only on gaming, and completely do not care about professional workloads on this forum, where it goes for AMD branded hardware? It is regardless if it is CPUs or GPUs. AMD GPUs in OpenCL workloads, when compared with Nvidia GPUs are faster(R9 390X vs GTX 980 TI, for example), yet nobody cares about it. It all matters than Nvidia brand GPUs are better because they are better in gaming.
And I was supposed to be AMD fanboy, where I was just showing reality as it was?
P.S. The fragment about 6900K integrating GPU, shows your lack of knowledge. It is the same clean 8 core CPU, without any GPUs on die, just like Ryzen.
So to sum it all up. AMD has as fast, faster and slower CPU, depending on scenario, that costs 50% less, and uses less power. Im sorry, but you have to be soft in your head to be against Ryzen. Or just Intel fan. Which is understandable. I for one I am Intel fan.
I suggest reading the reviews again.
65W 1700 is neck and neck, or slightly faster than 5960X. 1800X is faster than 6900K. Only scenario where Intel chips are faster is AVX workloads.
Look at tom's Hardware review, which some AMD fanboys omitted Intel Biased.
The CPU in HPC is neck and neck with 6900K.
1700 even stock vs stock can be faster than 6900K.
The ONLY place where Ryzen CPUs are loosing to Intel's is gaming scenario, when paired with Nvidia GPU. 6900K is slower than 1800X when both CPUs are paired with AMD GPU. Look at this chart, on the bottom:
https://thetechaltar.com/amd-ryzen-1800x-performance/2/ gaming performance.
Also a lot of compute tests here which show Ryzen faster than 6900K.
I am asking serious question. Why do people focus only on gaming, and completely do not care about professional workloads on this forum, where it goes for AMD branded hardware? It is regardless if it is CPUs or GPUs. AMD GPUs in OpenCL workloads, when compared with Nvidia GPUs are faster(R9 390X vs GTX 980 TI, for example), yet nobody cares about it. It all matters than Nvidia brand GPUs are better because they are better in gaming.
And I was supposed to be AMD fanboy, where I was just showing reality as it was?
P.S. The fragment about 6900K integrating GPU, shows your lack of knowledge. It is the same clean 8 core CPU, without any GPUs on die, just like Ryzen.
So to sum it all up. AMD has as fast, faster and slower CPU, depending on scenario, that costs 50% less, and uses less power. Im sorry, but you have to be soft in your head to be against Ryzen. Or just Intel fan. Which is understandable. I for one I am Intel fan.
You are the biggest AMD fanboy in this forum lol. I find it hilarious when you keep writing AMD defending or cheerleading posts while denying yourself as being a fanboy.
Well, obviously I am AMD fan, because I am trying to defend hardware which has worse perception, than reality. In whose eyes I am AMD fan?
Yours? Then which brand's you are cheerleader, that way? You quoted a post that was response to a post in which user claimed that AMD Ryzen CPUs are clock for clock, core for clock slower than Intel's. Then I have provided screens from review which show otherwise.
Of course that makes me a fanboy of a company.
I suggest you read it again fully the same review you linked: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-cpu,4951-8.html
Except it doesn't go AMD's way for professional workloads. 6900k is an objectively better chip than 1800x while being over 10 months old. The reviews say so.
It does admittedly use more power and I was incorrect about the iGPU. But if and when the i7-7900k hits, which is what the 1800x should really be competing against, who knows maybe it'll use less power too.
The key here being depending on the scenarios. And the scenarios that favour AMD are smaller compared to Intel when you take into account multiple different workloads that aren't necessarily even gaming dependant. And when you add gaming to the mix, which are in a way benchmarks themselves, the 7700k and 6900k both blow AMD away as well. And again, the single core and the multicore score on geek bench is higher for 6900k than 1800x.
AMD Ryzen Macs are not happening for the foreseeable future. Intel makes the best CPU silicon, Nvidia makes the best GPU silicon in the desktop space. The sooner we move away from AMD, the better.
Not gonna argue this further.
You deliberately ignore situations, important workloads in which Ryzen is faster than Intel CPUs. You deliberately pick situations in which ryzen CPU is slower, and mostly it is because software may not be optimized for Ryzen platform. You claim that Intel CPUs are better, even if they are not(!). IPC on both CPUs on average is the same. There is a lot of software that has to be optimized for Ryzen architecture. How can you guys, jump straight out to conclusions, about something, so easily?
I guess, that no matter what AMD will do, it will not change the perception they have about their brand. Im wondering what will people say after Vega releases...
Im not saying Ryzen CPUs are perfect. Platform is immature, there is a lot of new-born child problems on it, but they are getting solved.
And lastly. There is no problem with Thunderbolt 3. All you need is Alpine Ridge controller. You can buy a card with it, and add to your Ryzen computer, and it will work, without problems.
P.S. Using Geekbench as your argument against something invalidates completely your argument. You have enough data, from scientific, engineering and HPC workloads, from other situations. Yet, you claim that 6900K is better, because it scores better in Geekbench. Its futile.
End of off-topic.
Yes, you are lol. If you are a fanboy of neither, I don't think you would have even bothered to come out and write rebuttal post.
Just admit and move on lol. I never said being a fanboy is a bad thing. I just find it funny that you keep denying yourself as AMD fan while your history of posts says otherwise.
Apart from possibly Koyoot, I think most people agree that the important things are 1) competition with intel and 2) value proposition. I'm not sure there are a lot of people who actually think ryzen is the fastest possible chip, just the best for the money. Although I could be missing some reviewers, Linus TT and others I follow were excited from day one just from reasons 1 and 2, while pointing out that Intel still has the highest end on lock.
As far as putting it in Macs, personally the x1800 is all the power I need in my Mac and therefore I'd love to have a cheaper new-new-Mac Pro with a Ryzen, plus I could give 2 craps about Thunderbolt.
however, it's admittedly a bad idea for Apple because of thunderbolt and lack of a super high-end... at least so far (the specs on the future server/workstation zen chips are amazing, and if they keep the cheap price-point it's going to change the whole tech industry). Apple's put all the marbles on thunderbolt, even on its desktops. Obviously we're speculating on the likelihood of Intel being stingy with TB, but I think you're right. This makes ryzen a heck of a lot less likely on a mac, unfortunately. Also I'm not sure AMD is doing anything in the low-power end (as in laptops).
It'd be weird to see some macs with AMD, some with intel, and likewise some with and some without TB. The whole proposition just makes it ridiculous. At the very least though, the CPUs will probably be cheaper with this new competition.
Last edited: