Well you know... AMD can do no wrong for some... And they never missjudged a market with their products. Or over promised and under delivered... Never... Damn haters! ;-)Mom and Pop aren't going to buy a Ryzen.
Newegg has Ryzen motherboards for under $70. Mom and pop aren't going to buy a motherboard.
What I don't understand is that some of the people fanning the "more cores cheap" hysteria about Ryzen are the same ones who've been complaining that "software doesn't support more cores".
So AMD makes it cheaper to have idle cores because the app isn't able to effectively use multi-threading?
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
Shirley, you jest.
Polaris certainly was over-promised.
Vega - well you can't say that it under-delivered until it actually ships. Any day now, I hear....
Ryzen? Let's check back in 4 months to see what kind of market penetration it gets.
What I don't understand is your inability to read with understanding what is posted on the internet.Mom and Pop aren't going to buy a Ryzen.
Newegg has Ryzen motherboards for under $70. Mom and pop aren't going to buy a motherboard.
What I don't understand is that some of the people fanning the "more cores cheap" hysteria about Ryzen are the same ones who've been complaining that "software doesn't support more cores, so anything over 2 is wasted".
So AMD makes it cheaper to have idle cores because the app isn't able to effectively use multi-threading?
I have no idea where you got "So AMD makes it cheaper to have idle cores because the app isn't able to effectively use multi-threading?". I have not seen any situation you described in the software world that on Intel all cores would be utilized, and on AMD not all. What is the point of this, bring some examples.
It appears that you completely do not understand what means "optimization of software for CPU architecture". Optimization of scheduling, compiler, specific width of commands, for particular architecture. This is all on software side. what is more important from this point of view is microcode of the CPU, and firmware, and then on top of that BIOS of the motherboard which affects the performance.
In the end, you will blame for your not understanding of situation everything around you, rather than just search.
When you have nothing to bash AMD for, you will refute to posts like this.
And last thing. It appears that Ryzen is clawing back market share, because in Australia and South Africa the CPUs are best sellers.
https://mybroadband.co.za/news/hardware/207708-amd-catching-up-to-intel-in-south-africa.html
Lets take this into other perspective. If Intel+Nvidia combo will allow you to play 4K gaming for 2000$, and Ryzen System for 1200$, what will mom and pop pick?
Your hate for AMD makes your eyes blinded completely.
Talk about "inability to read", cheese us christ.
Where did you come up with the idea that I implied that Intel would be able to use more cores? That's complete and utter nonsense. Your love for AMD makes your eyes blinded completely.
My point is that if your software is unable to use more than two cores - it's cheaper to buy a Ryzen 8-core and let 6 cores go to waste, than to buy a Xeon 8-core and let 6 cores go to waste. It's still much cheaper to buy a dual core and use it completely.
As we say about Donald Trump, you've become unhinged. And extra credit for claiming that I don't understand things that you clearly don't understand.
Last edited:
Yes, I misunderstood your post. But for different reason.
Secondly, people are not doing only one thing on their computers. There is something called: Multi-Tasking. So 8 core CPUs, can be fed with job very, very easily, even if there are applications running that use up to 2 cores.
Its funny that you cut out of context this, most important part:
Is it changing the context now?
In previous year I have not seen application that is not able to use more cores.
Secondly, people are not doing only one thing on their computers. There is something called: Multi-Tasking. So 8 core CPUs, can be fed with job very, very easily, even if there are applications running that use up to 2 cores.
Its funny that you cut out of context this, most important part:
At the end of what you quoted.
Is it changing the context now?
The people who "multi-task" as you say, would not be the people complaining that "software doesn't support more cores".
Badda Bing!
So who complained about software not using more than two cores? It was also in the part: Bring examples.
Are you deliberately being dense, or do you honestly believe that most apps can use 12 to 16 cores at 100%? Or, for some of my servers, 144 cores.
And yes, I see times when a single process is pegging all 144 cores.
That's rather rare, however.
Last edited:
So we are talking about 8 Core designs or 12/16 core designs?
Most apps can use 8 cores. Most apps are not optimized for 16 cores. We are right now on the verge of changing this picture, however.
Because Intel slacked for past 5 years, everything was optimized for 4 core designs with and without SMT/HT. But current suite of apps show that 4Core designs are on the verge of natural death topping them out. 8 cores are not bought for 1-2 years, like you would like to believe, but for 4-5 years.
Intel sees this also for two reasons. They knew Ryzen will be huge improvement, and that it will be bringing 8 core to mainstream. Thats what Intel is doing with Cannonlake - bringin 4C/6C/8C designs to mainstream Core i3/i5/i7 lineups.
There is a very good reason why yesterday's 2C/4T from Intel is tomorrows 4C/8T from AMD.
https://www.amazon.de/dp/B00NIOBV4YMom and Pop aren't going to buy a Ryzen.
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/commen...ching_i5_7600k_in_german_daily_sales/dgv7rob/
About sales of the CPUs...
One of the apps that benefit from more cores is in Apple's own ecosystem, and can use all of them. Made by Apple. Logic Pro X.
About sales of the CPUs...
Actually, I should say: anything, rather everything. That will be much more logical.
One of the apps that benefit from more cores is in Apple's own ecosystem, and can use all of them. Made by Apple. Logic Pro X.
There'll always be lots of tasks which can't be heavily parallelized. For example solving differential equations in a parallel manner is rather difficult because partial solutions in space and time are interdependent, so the theoretical speedup of algorithms solving ODEs or PDEs in parallel is limited (and can have severe stability issues).
As a result scientific/engineering simulation tools can't saturate more than a handful of cores. Due to their spacial nature FEM simulations can usually be split up on 4 to 8 threads when solving a single problem. Stuff like Simulink is even worse, it can rarely use more than a single core.
As a result scientific/engineering simulation tools can't saturate more than a handful of cores. Due to their spacial nature FEM simulations can usually be split up on 4 to 8 threads when solving a single problem. Stuff like Simulink is even worse, it can rarely use more than a single core.
Something new with Bristol:
https://www.costco.com/HP-Pavilion-...ktop---AMD-A12---1080p.product.100337901.html
https://www.costco.com/HP-Pavilion-...ktop---AMD-A12---1080p.product.100337901.html
Excavator v2. And a lot changed in terms of efficient implementation when moving to 28nm.
Threads can only live in one subforum on this site.
https://forums.macrumors.com/forums/alternatives-to-mac-hardware.197/Perhaps that means that the thread doesn't belong on this site.
I found one 1440p Bristol laptop:
http://www8.hp.com/us/en/products/laptops/product-detail.html?oid=11084775
http://www8.hp.com/us/en/products/laptops/product-detail.html?oid=11084775
Server rig with Naples benchmark on other day was impressive, it's pretty good if AMD release Naples intended for desktop workstation use, bypassing 64GB RAM limitation and more PCIE lanes.
Not sure about Apple will choose AMD path since AMD does't offer Thunderbolt technology, likely Apple still opt for Intel for CPU business. Mac Pro Ryzen is cool...but....unlikely happen.
Not sure about Apple will choose AMD path since AMD does't offer Thunderbolt technology, likely Apple still opt for Intel for CPU business. Mac Pro Ryzen is cool...but....unlikely happen.
From What I understand, the design is single package made from two 8 core CPUs connected through MCM.