Yes of course from that perspective, you are totally right.
In the real world, there probablly wont be manny people who buy a TitanXP card for 1080p gaming realisticlly, unless you talk about die hard fps gamers.
So yeah i get their point of view there.
However that of course would not represent proper relative cpu performance testing.
That is of course sorta kinda a diffrent discussion all together.
I've also yet to see anyone compare it to Intel clock for clock. @Fouquin has a video like that in the works I think? I could be wrong.
1 Like
I have a 4770k but thats not quite in the same ballpark as Kaby Lake lol.
Still.
Could be interesting.
Yeah you could do a nice head on head between those 2 chips.
the 4770K has a boost of 4.0Ghz aswell if iĀ“m right?
That might be an interesting compairisson.
I think on this one it will be depending on the games here.
it's like 3-5% slower IPC.
Very accurate graph. NASA should hire you. :P
Not so my Asus Rog setup at 4150 Mhz Oc is really nice in my opion.I also have a 6799k looks to keep up nicely. I agree a 7600k is better at gaming but this thing owns in Mt. Can't wait for memory father than 2133 atm.
I thought it was more towards 10% but meh. Most of that is likely the clock speed lol.
Working on it as much as I can.
1 Like
AMD have wading into a sea of nerd gamers and released a workhorse CPU for heavy computation workloads and gorn well fuck...the gamers want small thread count games at 1080p and we built at tank not an antelope :(
Ill take the tank but...I like raw CPU.
2 Likes
Well, looking back how this RyZen launch went down, it appears to me that AMD has made the same mistake again that they've made with the Bulldozer. Basically, with Bulldozer they tried to sell a number cruncher, server and workstation part, as a desktop CPU. Now again, they are trying to sell the R7, an 8-core part, as an all around daily driver.
It was a hard task to pull off back in 2011, and now that the most of parallel computations are handled by GPUs, I guess that selling this type of CPU to the masses has gone from impossible to ludicrous. There is a rather limited number of applications, and use scenarios that would take the full advantage of this CPU. The majority of the popular titles will remain poorly optimized, and the majority of programmers will remain lazy. It's the human reality. God knows when will there be code that threads well, and is easy to write and maintain.
They did the right thing with the RX480, targeting that sweet spot for price and performance, and I would say winning a decisive victory against Nvidia. I was kind of hoping that they would do the analogous with the RyZen, like some badass, high clocked APU, which wouldn't exactly beat the Kaby Lake, or standalone Nvidia GPU, but would come close enough to make the investment just right for an average person. I think that APUs have the real potential to conquer the market, have they had the power and the speed to compete.
On the other hand, AMD was clear from the very start that this is an enthusiast platform, they were clear about competing with X99, I don't remember them mentioning z270 and the Intel's consumer line. They were kind of clear about what they are launching, and it is really the press who mixed the apples and oranges here. There is just no comparison there. And if you take the X99 platform, and the line of CPUs that RyZen is aimed to compete with, you realize that it's aimed at a rather limited niche of enthusiasts and professional users. Let alone the pricing policies, it was never intended for the masses. Thus, for the most of average, daily user tasks, the z270 doesn't only beat the RyZen, but X99 as well.
There's one thing they did with RyZen, that I actually like. You see how they named the different classes of processors R7, R5, R3, analogous to the graphics cards? Kind of unified nomenclature thing going on there... That leaves me hoping that there will be in future the R9 line of CPUs, which will be clocked higher, have better memory controller, more PCI lanes... Maybe more cores? Joking.
If you look at it like that... sure... But you shouldn't. I can think of a lot of people that want the 8 core intel parts, but can't afford them. They don't need them, they want them. One person in particular likes to stream to Twitch as a hobby, but only at lower qualities. Ryzen is at the exact same cost has his current CPU (when he bought it), but for his streaming hobby, performs better. The Ryzen line simply lowers the entry bar. And it lowers it alot.
Ryzen 5's launch was just announced as being less than a month away with chips from $170 to $250. The $170 part is a 4c/8t chip. In other words: a bargain bin i7.
This isn't another Bulldozer. Not even close.
5 Likes
I agree with you that it isn't another Bulldozer. What I tried to say is that they have hit a rather narrow niche.
However, I guess that what Wendell repeated a couple of times is also true, this might the right long term strategy. They are launching it in the enthusiast niche, to figure out all the quirks of the platform, before going mainstream. However, it remains to be seen if the R5, or APUs would have any edge in single core over the R7.
Considering when the Zen development started, it's amazing how close it got to Intel's offerings. I believe that the second, or third gen will iron out all the imperfections, and offer even more exciting features. Especially since this is essentially SoC, I guess that many things can be upgraded without even touching the motherboard.
That further leads me to the point why I am more excited about APUs, and perhaps the x300 chipset. USB, memory controlers, more lanes... Everything is on a single die, and if you want to upgrade, just swap the SKUs, and you're good. Of course you loose the modularity, and perhaps this system won't be as overclockable as the traditional, since all the heat is generated in a single spot, but Goddamn, it will be more efficient. It will cost less, it will consume less energy, so power supply will cost less as well, and even the overall environmental footprint will be far lower. You will have at least one box less to worry about... HSA also looks promising, even though the adoption has been a bit slow, because from the current standpoint, it's still an alien technology.
And I hope that there will be at least one renegade manufacturer that will release a high-end motherboard without the LEDs. Like something called Spartan.
As for the Bulldozer line, I don't know why didn't they push harder in server market, because that's where this platform could flourish. Since 2012-2013 we haven't seen many new Opterons. They just gave up this market without a fight. Was it a bad estimate, or something else, who knows? But those were really good parts as number crunchers.
1 Like
As far as I can remember AdoredTV uploaded a video where he talked about this for a while. He argued that artificially creating a CPU bottleneck and extrapolating the future proofness of a CPU doesn't really work since things change. Right now a 7700k destroys a 1800X in gaming, but when/if games start to use more cores, things would look differently. A good example is the difference between a FX 8350 and a i5 2500k. Some reviewers tested these CPUs at 480p in order to creater a CPU bottleneck. In the tested scenario, the 2500k was around 20% faster than the FX8350. In 1080p the 2500k was only 10% faster. But in modern games both CPUs are roughly equal now.
if we assume a small, like 100-200 megahertz boost in clock by dropping 2-4 cores allowing for easier heat management than the APU's and R5's should run like a 4x00 or 6x00 series I5 from intel as the R7 straddles the single core IPC of those I5's right now.
Only in 1080P lol. The gap between 7700k & Ryzen in anything higher is a lot less far apart, iirc at most 10% and at best the same.
I hope this happens, lol.
1 Like
I know. Also, when a game is utilising the CPU more, apparently the 7700k is more at it's limit (all cores at 80%) than the 1800X (all cores at 50%)
Note: Take the percentages with a grain of salt, I pulled them from my head without doing any research, but I think they are in AdoredTV's video mentioned above.
Yeah; depends on the game but still.
Example: I ran GTA V and streamed it at 720p60FPS and that was hovering at 30-40% CPU use on 1800X not sure if other games are more CPU intensive but still
You have to consider that the most of average users probably still have the 1080p monitors, which are probably not 144Hz, or above, so it doesn't really matter that Ryzen can't push it over 200fps. XD