VOGONS

Common searches


AMD drops the mic

Topic actions

Reply 240 of 279, by carlostex

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

It's possible that Ryzen will fare better in future games as optimizations are applied. AMD has now a good CPU line in their ranks, maybe with time they can improve the micro-architecture a bit. Considering the brutal performance improvement over Piledriver and that they had to design directly for a new 14nm node i think Ryzen is pretty good.

Intel probably spends more in R&D than AMD profits and the industry will always optimize for Intel first. If AMD keeps doing what they done, they can survive which is great for consumers.

Anyway, i was kinda predicting the thread would go downhill, but it's an internet forum so...

Reply 241 of 279, by clueless1

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

Just catching up a bit on this thread. I can't pretend to be knowledgeable enough to contribute on a technical level, but my impression is that many people (including Scali) have made some valid points. But there's a lack of humility permeating throughout this thread which interferes with the ability to discuss with civility and respect. People tend to argue more and dig their heels in when arrogance is on display.

The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don't know.
OPL3 FM vs. Roland MT-32 vs. General MIDI DOS Game Comparison
Let's benchmark our systems with cache disabled
DOS PCI Graphics Card Benchmarks

Reply 242 of 279, by TELVM

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

The 6c/12t iterations of Ryzen will also be juicy, like getting an R5 1500 for ~$229 then OCing it up till it smiles.

BTW for those interested:

Anandtech - How To Get Ryzen Working on Windows 7 x64

http://www.overclock.net/t/1624699/windows-7- … 0#post_25910913

Let the air flow!

Reply 246 of 279, by Tetrium

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
F2bnp wrote:

Just saw this today:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMNFoNtKCR8

🤣 🤣

That's not a benchmark, that's humor 🤣

Whats missing in your collections?
My retro rigs (old topic)
Interesting Vogons threads (links to Vogonswiki)
Report spammers here!

Reply 248 of 279, by Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
TELVM wrote:

Weyland-Yutani? 😲

Never thought this thread would be that long, but now, for something different.....
Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman.

Reply 251 of 279, by Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
gdjacobs wrote:

Building Better Worlds

Indeed.

Xenomorph.jpg
Filename
Xenomorph.jpg
File size
6.03 KiB
Views
1209 views
File license
Fair use/fair dealing exception
TELVM wrote:
Haven't you heard Kreshna? AMD has been acquired by Weyland-Yutani ryzently. […]
Show full quote

Haven't you heard Kreshna? AMD has been acquired by Weyland-Yutani ryzently.

alien.jpg

What would happen to Intel then?

Never thought this thread would be that long, but now, for something different.....
Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman.

Reply 252 of 279, by TELVM

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

Official Ryzen 5 lineup announced:

oqyKO6Rh.png

The 1600X, 1600 and 1500X will have the same amount of L3 (16MB) than the Ryzen 7's.

All Ryzen 5's will have 2x CCX, with the 6 cores distributed as 3+3, and the 4 cores as 2+2.

They all will be multiplier unlocked (= overclockable).

And who knows, some mobos might even be able to unlock some extra core/s, like in the good ole Phenom II times.

IMHO both the 1600 and 1500X look like great bang for the buck. 😎

Let the air flow!

Reply 254 of 279, by Scali

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
DosFreak wrote:
ArsTechnica wrote:

It’s actually a really good gaming processor
It's true that Ryzen's gaming performance doesn't match Intel CPUS. If your interest is solely and exclusively gaming performance, then Intel's Kaby Lake i7-7700K is the best chip on the market, and its price is in the same ballpark as the cheapest Ryzen, the 1700. Not even the top-end 1800X can beat the 7700K.
But the 7700K is the fastest all-round gaming processor on the market today. Being "not as fast as the 7700K" doesn't make a processor "bad" for games. It just means it's not quite as fast as literally the fastest gaming processor ever made.

I think they missed the point here.
The 1800X is not a "bad processor" for gaming, it's bad value for money for gaming, since the 7700k is considerably cheaper than the 1800X, as they said only one line before.
Even the 1700 is only marginally cheaper than the 7700k, and the difference in price is not proportional to the difference in performance in gaming.

Somehow I never heard such arguments back when the P4 was not quite as good as the Athlon in games, yet slightly more expensive. But hey, the P4 had HT and did great in SSE2-optimized tasks such as video encoding and 3d rendering.

They could turn the whole article upside-down and argue from the other side:
Currently they argue that you can get extra cores for little extra money, and basically pray that they will get used more in the future.
You could also argue that you could spend less money on getting less cores today, knowing that you won't be able to benefit from advances in multithreading, should they arrive in the near future.
Or in general... instead of arguing that a CPU that's not "the best" in games is not a "bad processor", you could argue that a CPU that's not "the best" in heavily multithreaded scenarios is not a "bad processor".

Either way, it's a gamble and a choice. And you can debate this forever, and not get anywhere, because you don't know what the future will bring.
So either you take the gamble and invest extra now, because you're optimistic about multicore.
Or you take the gamble and save money now, because you're pessimistic about multicore.
Also take your upgrade-cycle into account. If you upgrade your CPU every 3-5 years, you should expect the multicore 'revolution' to happen or not happen in those next 3-5 years as well. Else it's something you should worry about for your next purchase, not your current one.

I do wonder what all the people think who bought the Bulldozer last time round, hoping for those 8-core games and applications to arrive.
They never did, and the Bulldozer never performed beyond 'meh' anywhere. The gamble didn't pay off.

http://scalibq.wordpress.com/just-keeping-it- … ro-programming/

Reply 255 of 279, by TELVM

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

How to slipstream drivers into an ISO using RT 7 lite to smoothly install Windows 7 on AM4

^ Google translation from italian with self-explanatory images.

English link for AM4 chipset drivers: http://support.amd.com/en-us/download/chipset … s%2010%20-%2064

Scali wrote:

... the 7700k is considerably cheaper than the 1800X, as they said only one line before.

Even the 1700 is only marginally cheaper than the 7700k, and the difference in price is not proportional to the difference in performance in gaming ...

^ Agreed.

What do you think about the $219~$249 6c/12t Ryzens vs the $330 4c/8t 7700K, Scali?

Let the air flow!

Reply 256 of 279, by Scali

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
TELVM wrote:

What do you think about the $219~$249 6c/12t Ryzens vs the $330 4c/8t 7700K, Scali?

I think what's missing in these comparisons is the fact that the 7700k is the most expensive 4-core model, and the next model is the 7600k, which is much cheaper, at $239.99. That is the one to compare.
Story will probably be the same: 7600k is better in games, but having 2 less cores, there will be multithreaded scenarios where the Ryzen is better.
And like with the 7700k you can probably find cheaper CPUs than the 7600k which will still perform great in games (in most games even the i3 CPUs perform about the same). So if you just want the best value for games, that's where to look.
If you want something else, it depends on what you want, and how much you're willing to spend.

I think the more interesting question is what Intel will do with their 6-core and 8-core models.
Currently the price-difference between Intel's and AMD's 6/8-core CPUs is so large that it's no contest. Will Intel drop prices, and if so, how much?

http://scalibq.wordpress.com/just-keeping-it- … ro-programming/

Reply 257 of 279, by TELVM

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

Speaking of games: http://www.techspot.com/review/1360-amd-ryzen … x-1500x-gaming/

"... With the exception of Far Cry Primal, it looks like the quad-core Ryzen CPUs will destroy the higher-end dual-core Kaby Lake processors such as the 7350K. Even at 4.8GHz, the 7350K was no match in the more CPU-intensive titles.

It was interesting to find that when paired with the GTX 1070, the Ryzen CPUs were actually able to pull ahead in games such as Mafia III, while folks equipped with a sub-$300 current-gen GPU won't see any difference between the quad-core Ryzen and Kaby Lake CPUs ..."

Let the air flow!

Reply 258 of 279, by Azarien

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
TELVM wrote:

I wonder if anyone tried with Windows XP 😉

BTW. this is wrong:

PS/2 uses interrupts through the system, compared to USB which is based on polling. This results in different levels of engagement: the PS/2 keyboard injects its commands, but this means limited n-key rollover support, whereas a USB keyboard will bundle its commands up and send it over when the system requests it.

It's not PS/2 that has limited n-key rollover, it's the USB. Which is why PS/2 is better protocol for a keyboard.

Reply 259 of 279, by Stiletto

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

Regarding the CPU crash, quoted from elsewhere:

Lord Nightmare wrote:

http://forum.hwbot.org/showthread.php?t=167605&page=5
the first post shows the ryzen microcode bug fix released recently, if integrated into new uefi/bios, does seem to fix the crash

"I see a little silhouette-o of a man, Scaramouche, Scaramouche, will you
do the Fandango!" - Queen

Stiletto