This makes me happy.

AMD is going to $100/share, you heard it here.

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:

I say let's follow TechReport's suggestion, shall we?

It depends on the software that will be used on that PC. For rendering, file compression, non-HEVC video encoding and other multitasking heavy applications absolutely. For gaming, <=4 threads applications and other applications that require a lot of inter-core communication... Ryzen isn't a very good choice. Also AVX2 is inferior to Intel implementation.

Don't forget this CPU is in fact a 2-way NUMA system... which doesn't report itself as such to the OS and thus there are issues with the scheduler. This will be even worse with the upcoming 16-core CPUs (quad-NUMA) and 32-core server variants (8-way 😲 ). Also most boards are still seriously bugged from what I've heard, mostly related to RAM compatibility.

havli wrote:

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:

I say let's follow TechReport's suggestion, shall we?

It depends on the software that will be used on that PC. For rendering, file compression, non-HEVC video encoding and other multitasking heavy applications absolutely. For gaming, <=4 threads applications and other applications that require a lot of inter-core communication... Ryzen isn't a very good choice. Also AVX2 is inferior to Intel implementation.

Ah, but for gaming, I'd rather spend my money on GPU instead of some expensive Intel CPU.

AMD is supposed to come out with a version 2 ryzen in 2018.

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:

Ah, but for gaming, I'd rather spend my money on GPU instead of some expensive Intel CPU.

If CPU is the bottleneck, then more expensive GPU won't help. And the fact is CPU is the bottleneck quite often, especially when running hi-refresh LCD (120+ Hz).

I think Ryzen is overrated, but I'm curious about Ryzen 2.

awgamer wrote:

AMD is supposed to come out with a version 2 ryzen in 2018.

One Ryzen at a time please. Ryzen 7 1700 - octocore 65 Watts... 😀

If the successor has more than 8 cores and or uses equal or less than 65 watts I'm in! 😎
Oh and make sure the motherboard can support 128GB or 256GB. More memory slots please.

Sometimes I feel like putting money aside to replace my gaming FX-8350 PC with a Threadripper system because it sounds so cool.. AMD have been underdogs in CPUs for so long that seeing them on top of the game again is a joy to my eyes.

appiah4 wrote:

Sometimes I feel like putting money aside to replace my gaming FX-8350 PC with a Threadripper system because it sounds so cool.. AMD have been underdogs in CPUs for so long that seeing them on top of the game again is a joy to my eyes.

Indeed... Even though the i7-7700K is on par with this processor but I just can't help to see if 8 cores can be seen under XP with this beauty. I'm just so tired of quad core.

Some more news:

https://www.hardocp.com/news/2017/07/13/amd_t … by_as_much_1000

https://www.hardocp.com/news/2017/07/13/intel … epyc_processors

Intel must be getting a bit scared if they have to resort to name calling.

I admit, I'm getting excited.

It feels like 1999 all over again!

Glued together 🤣. I wonder what kind of glue they used for Pentium 4 Dual Core chips..

appiah4 wrote:

Glued together 🤣. I wonder what kind of glue they used for Pentium 4 Dual Core chips..

Or c2q chips, or sandy-bridge chips...

Isn't it contradictory that the so called Zen architecture could give birth to a Thread'ripper'?

Here's hoping that a healthy competition materializes that up(s) innovation / down(s) prices, contrary to cheap tactics & something like this. Granted one might not be better than the other, still, one would expect an already established behemoth to have acted more honorably when met with genuine competition. Or was it too much to ask even in those days?

snorg wrote:

Some more news: […]
Show full quote

Some more news:

https://www.hardocp.com/news/2017/07/13/amd_t … by_as_much_1000

https://www.hardocp.com/news/2017/07/13/intel … epyc_processors

Intel must be getting a bit scared if they have to resort to name calling.

I admit, I'm getting excited.

Looks like it's becoming obvious that Intel has trouble getting back into gear and had gotten lazy again.
Intel resorting to throwing mud... 😵

I was very wary at first about Ryzen, but it's definitely looking like a successful comeback here 😀

havli wrote:

If CPU is the bottleneck, then more expensive GPU won't help. And the fact is CPU is the bottleneck quite often, especially when running hi-refresh LCD (120+ Hz).

Not to mention it's usually the single-threaded performance of the CPU that bottlenecks the GPU (which is only logical if you think about it: the CPU has to feed instructions to the GPU, this has to be done in a fixed order. You can't have multiple cores feeding instructions to a GPU at the same time, it needs to be synchronized).
Intel CPUs with high single-threaded performance aren't necessarily more expensive than AMD Ryzen CPUs.
Which is probably part of the reason why the Pentium G4560 is their budget choice.

appiah4 wrote:

Glued together 🤣. I wonder what kind of glue they used for Pentium 4 Dual Core chips..

They point out that AMD's solution results in 'inconsistent performance'.
I don't know if that is true or not, but you at the very least can't say that from Intel's multi-chip module CPUs from the past.
In fact, the first Pentium D (8xx) was a single core, they weren't MCM until the second generation (9xx), and performance didn't suffer one iota from it.

The Core2 Quad was a bit of a strange beast, since each dualcore had its own shared L2 cache. So there was some inconsistency in caching. This did not amount to problems in practice though. There was good cache synchronization, and OS schedulers would try to keep threads on the same cores anyway, so by default on the same die/cache as well.

MCM isn't necessarily bad, just like single-die isn't necessarily good. It all depends on the execution.

I'm not sure if most are happy that now, there is someone to make Intel uncomfortable sitting on it's king of the CPU throne any longer, or if they are genuinely happy that AMD is making progress, after a long hiatus of filling the highest end CPU category.

I seriously thought of getting an AMD during my previous main upgrade, but I decided, Intel's i7 4790K was a much better alternative (at that time), especially when it came to efficiency and heat production, and yet, still runs smooth and fast.

I won't be upgrading soon, but I'm genuinely happy, that AMD is giving a serious competition to Intel in terms of CPU prowess. I'm not merely happy that it can pose a threat to Intel, but it is able to give the common consumer a chance to own a more powerful system at the fraction of Intel's flagship CPUs costs.