Ryzen concerns

[Moress]

So with the IPC of Ryzen being confirmed more or less I was thinking a bit about it in the terms of Piledriver and Bulldozer. This release reminds me a lot of that of Piledriver, in that AMD is trying to undercut Intel with chips that are not quite to the IPC of Intel's current consumer chips (Kaby Lake) and taking a gamble on heavy multithreading in the coming years. I was just getting really into tech at the time all that went down so I may be missing something, but yeah. Really Im worried about AMD taking another 5 year break and the 1700 becoming the new 8350.

[gtx1060=value]

well to be fair, amd was focusing on gpus at that time - and their r9 and rx series turned out to be great - but if ryzen is what they say it is, im buying more amd stock - once they have the funding how will they stop

[Moress]

5 minutes ago, gtx1060=value said:

well to be fair, amd was focusing on gpus at that time - and their r9 and rx series turned out to be great - but if ryzen is what they say it is, im buying more amd stock - once they have the funding how will they stop

AMD has always seemed to trade punches with Nvidia with GPUs, even if its at the cost of higher power usage.

But Im sure that AMD was saying very simliar things about PD when it came out, and perhaps Ryzen is better than PD comparatively. I just think its more of the same with AMD playing catchup on intel when it comes to IPC and trying to gain ground by undercutting the prices. To combat this Intel will release CannonLake maybe with a 6-core consumer flagship and life will continue how its been for the last 5 years with AMD having outdated chips that they played the cards wrong on and we have to pay for it in the form of overpriced Intel chips.

I am optimistic, just really cautious and wanted to know what this launch is like compared to PD from someone who was really into tech back then

[GDRRiley]

amd has said they are working on the 2nd and 3rd generations of ryzen. the 2nd should be out in 2020. 

[Guest Kloaked]

9 minutes ago, gtx1060=value said:

well to be fair, amd was focusing on gpus at that time

to be fair, no they weren't

[Moress]

3 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

amd has said they are working on the 2nd and 3rd generations of ryzen. the 2nd should be out in 2020. 

This is what I mean. They're already behind KabyLake when it comes to IPC and will be woefully behind once 2020 comes along. Unless they manage to get a second gen out by the end of 2018 that trades punches with Intel's consumer grade chips I don't see things going well.

[gtx1060=value]

2 minutes ago, Kloaked said:

to be fair, no they weren't

not all of the 5 years, but the later part of it 

[GDRRiley]

1 minute ago, Moress said:

This is what I mean. They're already behind KabyLake when it comes to IPC and will be woefully behind once 2020 comes along. Unless they manage to get a second gen out by the end of 2018 that trades punches with Intel's consumer grade chips I don't see things going well.

that is fine that they are behind kabylake, everything will start to become more multi threaded. you expect them to have a new cpu out no long than 1.5-2 years, maybe but I think we are more looking at an update in 2018 and a new set it 2020. 

[79wjd]

5 minutes ago, Moress said:

This is what I mean. They're already behind KabyLake when it comes to IPC and will be woefully behind once 2020 comes along. Unless they manage to get a second gen out by the end of 2018 that trades punches with Intel's consumer grade chips I don't see things going well.

The big problem with bulldozer wasn't that it was behind in IPC, it was that it was miles behind.

 

If it was only 10% behind, and each year or so they improved upon it by another 5-10% rather than sitting idle for five years, then bulldozer wouldn't have been a disaster and AMD would have been competitive with Intel all these years. 

[Moress]

 

3 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

The big problem with bulldozer wasn't that it was behind in IPC, it was that it was miles behind. 

It competed with SandyBridge at release right? How far, percentage wise, was it behind Sandy at the launch?

[COUPER MILLAR]

 

5 minutes ago, Moress said:

This is what I mean. They're already behind KabyLake when it comes to IPC and will be woefully behind once 2020 comes along. Unless they manage to get a second gen out by the end of 2018 that trades punches with Intel's consumer grade chips I don't see things going well.

Intel has already said that coffee lake will be on the same node as they are having issues with 10nm, so don't expect more than another 5% improvement on the Intel side for another couple years.  Looking at it that way I think what we have seen so far from amd will keep them at least somewhat competitive,  especially at the current price delta compared to Intel.  

[79wjd]

4 minutes ago, Moress said:

 

It competed with SandyBridge at release right? How far, percentage wise, was it behind Sandy at the launch?

IPC of bulldozer was significantly behind Sandy Bridge. Multi-threaded was close. So even at launch, it was terrible. But then while Intel improved (albeit marginally) with each generation, AMD didn't (AMD only improved on bulldozer once, and that was with Piledriver, which didn't see a drastic increase). 

[Moress]

3 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

IPC of bulldozer was significantly behind Sandy Bridge. Multi-threaded was close. 

 

Alright. I guess we will see. I shit myself if AMD ever manages to outpace Intel in IPC lol. But if what @COUPER MILLAR said about the node issues coming, do you think CPUs will start going the route of GPUs in having tons of cores that are clocked lower? 

[roylapoutre]

The IPC of Ryzen doesn't concern me, it should be much closer to Intel than their latest CPUs were.

 

What concerns me is the R7 1700... It's supposed to be the direct competitor of a 6700k/7700k but with the underwhelming stock speed and the quite low 65W TDP, I'm afraid it won't overclock well and won't be so great in front of its overclocked Intel counterparts in heavily single threaded applications like gaming. It can have all the cores they want, if the IPC is roughly the same or a bit worse than Intel, it has to overclock like a beast, and the stock speed + TDP are not hinting to the best scenario. I hope I'm wrong though

[79wjd]

7 minutes ago, Moress said:

Alright. I guess we will see. I shit myself if AMD ever manages to outpace Intel in IPC lol. But if what @COUPER MILLAR said about the node issues coming, do you think CPUs will start going the route of GPUs in having tons of cores that are clocked lower? 

AMD has had moments when they offered a superior product to Intel. So, it's entirely possible for it to happen (although, I don't think Ryzen will be superior to Kaby Lake/Broadwell-E).

 

The problem with more cores is that muti-threaded programming is significantly harder, and at the end of the day, you can't always make things faster by parallelizing them as calculations can often be highly dependent on the results of something going on in another core. 

 

5 minutes ago, roylapoutre said:

The IPC of Ryzen doesn't concern me, it should be much closer to Intel than their latest CPUs were.

 

What concerns me is the R7 1700... It's supposed to be the direct competitor of a 6700k/7700k but with the underwhelming stock speed and the quite low 65W TDP, I'm afraid it won't overclock well and won't be so great in front of its overclocked Intel counterparts in heavily single threaded applications like gaming. It can have all the cores they want, if the IPC is roughly the same or a bit worse than Intel, it has to overclock like a beast, and the stock speed + TDP are not hinting to the best scenario. I hope I'm wrong though

A 1700 competes with a 6700k in price, but there is also the 1400x, which is what would be the 4c/8t overclockable competition to a 6700k.

[Moress]

9 minutes ago, roylapoutre said:

What concerns me is the R7 1700... It's supposed to be the direct competitor of a 6700k/7700k but with the underwhelming stock speed and the quite low 65W TDP, I'm afraid it won't overclock well and won't be so great in front of its overclocked Intel counterparts in heavily single threaded applications like gaming. It can have all the cores they want, if the IPC is roughly the same or a bit worse than Intel, it has to overclock like a beast, and the stock speed + TDP are not hinting to the best scenario. I hope I'm wrong though

I feel that while its priced against the 7700k its really competeing with the 6800k. I say that because much like the 7700k vs 6800k youre much better off with the 7700k for purely gaming, but you will have issues if you attempt to stream or edit videos with it.

[done12many2]

4 minutes ago, Moress said:

So with the IPC of Ryzen being confirmed more or less I was thinking a bit about it in the terms of Piledriver and Bulldozer. This release reminds me a lot of that of Piledriver, in that AMD is trying to undercut Intel with chips that are not quite to the IPC of Intel's current consumer chips (Kaby Lake) and taking a gamble on heavy multithreading in the coming years. I was just getting really into tech at the time all that went down so I may be missing something, but yeah. Really Im worried about AMD taking another 5 year break and the 1700 becoming the new 8350.

 

Multi-threaded hasn't moved along nearly as fast as everyone keeps hoping it will.  I'm not talking about gaming alone either.  Unless someone knows for a fact that he/she needs 6 or 8 cores, you are far better off sticking with 4 with high IPC and clock speed.  

 

I had my 5960x for over a year before I recently went the ways of a higher IPC / clock speed, but lower core count 7700k.  Almost everything I do uses 4 or less cores.  For daily use / gaming, the lower, but faster cores of the 7700k are working out very nicely for me.  

 

I still have my 5960x and I'm sure it will come in handy when those heavier workloads pop up, but ever since finishing the overclocks on my 7700k, I can't seem to find the motivation to finish the loop on my x99 build.  

 

It seems like we as a community switched attitudes about high core CPU's overnight when AMD announced the Ryzen line.  Go back a couple of months all all you heard about in every other thread was "6700k, it's all you'll ever need!!"  Nothing changed in the multi-threaded scene, but now all you hear about in every other thread is "Ryzen, more cores!!  Less money!!," simply because now more people will have access to more cores.

 

It seems that a lot of folks are going to realize soon enough that if you can't use all all of the cores efficiently, you would have been better off with fewer, yet faster ones.

[roylapoutre]

3 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

A 1700 competes with a 6700k in price, but there is also the 1400x, which is what would be the 4c/8t overclockable competition to a 6700k.

I know, that's the whole point, it's really close in terms of price but it has to overclock at least decently to stay competitive with the latest i7. Imagine it won't go above 4.2-4.3GHz (and with the announced TDP, it can be the case), it will not be as good as an i7 6700k/7700k that can easily go to 4.5GHz+ and may have higher IPC (albeit by a tiny margin). Keep in mind they only talked about multi-threaded performance but they kept single-threaded performance very very secretive, and I really hope it's not because it falls behind in gaming for example...

[Moress]

3 minutes ago, roylapoutre said:

I know, that's the whole point, it's really close in terms of price but it has to overclock at least decently to stay competitive with the latest i7. Imagine it won't go above 4.2-4.3GHz (and with the announced TDP, it can be the case), it will not be as good as an i7 6700k/7700k that can easily go to 4.5GHz+ and may have higher IPC (albeit by a tiny margin). Keep in mind they only talked about multi-threaded performance but they kept single-threaded performance very very secretive, and I really hope it's not because it falls behind in gaming for example...

They actually put out single core benches with the announcement today and its within a few percent of Broadwell, at least in synthetic benchmarks

[Glenwing]

27 minutes ago, Moress said:

It competed with SandyBridge at release right? How far, percentage wise, was it behind Sandy at the launch?

Not even close. I benched an 8350 (which was released a year after Bulldozer, when Ivy bridge was already out) and it doesn't even come close to my 2500K at equal frequencies. In single-threaded games the Sandy Bridge was 40–60% faster (at equal frequencies, so it's an IPC comparison), and in multi-threaded games where the FX-8350 actually gets to use all 8 cores compared to 4 cores on the Intel, it barely managed to sort of catch up with the Intel even with all 8 cores at 100% load. Even then it was slightly behind. Bulldozer was even worse.

[Moress]

3 minutes ago, Glenwing said:

Not even close. I benched an 8350 (which was released a year after Bulldozer, when Ivy bridge was already out) and it doesn't even come close to my 2500K at equal frequencies. In single-threaded games the Sandy Bridge was 40–60% faster (at equal frequencies, so it's an IPC comparison), and in multi-threaded games the FX-8350 barely managed to keep up with the 2500K, with all 8 cores under 100% load compared to 4 cores on the Intel. Even then the FX was slightly behind.

This makes me more excited then. Like I said, I wasnt in tech back then so I didnt know if we were talking about a few percent like it is now

[roylapoutre]

6 minutes ago, Moress said:

I feel that while its priced against the 7700k its really competeing with the 6800k. I say that because much like the 7700k vs 6800k youre much better off with the 7700k for purely gaming, but you will have issues if you attempt to stream or edit videos with it.

Yeah, I agree. Their demos were always showing cases where the more the cores, the better (gaming + streaming, video editing/rendering), and never talked about pure gaming tasks. If the IPC is a bit lower than an i7 7700k, and if doesn't overclock as high as the latter, it won't be as good in only-gaming scenarii. And that would be a shame.

 

3 minutes ago, Moress said:

They actually put out single core benches with the announcement today and its within a few percent of Broadwell, at least in synthetic benchmarks

Wasn't this for the R7 1800X flagship only against the i7 6900K ? Because I don't recall seeing such information for the R7 1700. Keep in mind that an i7 6700k/7700k is substantially better in single-threaded applications than a higher-end Intel CPU, the R7 1700 has to compete with an i7 7700k in terms of single-threaded performance with such a close price. Not everyone wants to stream and play at the same time

[COUPER MILLAR]

9 minutes ago, Moress said:

Alright. I guess we will see. I shit myself if AMD ever manages to outpace Intel in IPC lol. But if what @COUPER MILLAR said about the node issues coming, do you think CPUs will start going the route of GPUs in having tons of cores that are clocked lower? 

I don't think tons of cores will be the answer for the general public.  My guess is that a new processor material is going to be the thing that really changes the cpu market in the next 10 years. 

[Moress]

3 minutes ago, roylapoutre said:

Wasn't this for the R7 1800X flagship only against the i7 6900K ? Because I don't recall seeing such information for the R7 1700. Keep in mind that an i7 6700k/7700k is substantially better in single-threaded applications than a higher-end Intel CPU, the R7 1700 has to compete with an i7 7700k in terms of single-threaded performance with such a close price. Not everyone wants to stream and play at the same time

Youre right I think. I watched this still in bed when i woke up for class so its a little foggy lol. I do think that the 1700 is going to usurp some I7 users. I know at least 4 people who could use a good 8 core but cant afford it, so they have a 6700k instead. Including 2 streamers and someone who routinely runs servers from his PC.
What I think AMD is trying to bank on is the people who want a high core cpu or could use one, but never have because been out of reach.

[roylapoutre]

2 minutes ago, Moress said:

Youre right I think. I watched this still in bed when i woke up for class so its a little foggy lol. I do think that the 1700 is going to usurp some I7 users. I know at least 4 people who could use a good 8 core but cant afford it, so they have a 6700k instead. Including 2 streamers and someone who routinely runs servers from his PC.
What I think AMD is trying to bank on is the people who want a high core cpu or could use one, but never have because been out of reach.

Ahah I feel ya  And I totally agree, and I don't think it's bad thing, it's actually pretty amazing to see 8/16 CPUs at that price point, and it's clearly aimed at content creation people in general. That's why I feel a bit underwhelmed because I'm not one of those people, I want a CPU for gaming and gaming only in my desktop, my laptop is the one for programming sooo... I guess we'll see at launch ! But I think it won't be worth the upgrade from my 4790k like I thought before