AMD VEGA official details

[cj09beira]

1 minute ago, Humbug said:

You just showed me two benchmarks at wildly different settings with wildly different graphics horsepower.

 

And what I asked is when did AMD say 'perfect gaming CPU'?

 

 

 

 

plus ryzen is much better cpu at multitasking while only being a bit slower at gaming under realistic scenarios 

[PCGuy_5960]

Just now, Humbug said:

You just showed me two benchmarks at wildly different settings with wildly different graphics horsepower.

I wanted to show that the 6800K comfortably beats the 1800X in BF1, but AMD showed the 1800X destroying the 6800K. 

1 minute ago, Humbug said:

And what I asked is when did AMD say 'perfect gaming CPU'?

AFAIK, at first, they did advertise it as the perfect gaming CPU but then they changed it

[PCGuy_5960]

1 minute ago, cj09beira said:

plus ryzen is much better cpu at multitasking

Depends... If you compare it to the 7700K, sure, if you compare it to a 5820K/6800K, it is not much better at multitasking.

[Humbug]

9 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

I wanted to show that the 6800K comfortably beats the 1800X in BF1, but AMD showed the 1800X destroying the 6800K.

The benchmark of AMD's you posted was at 4k with a SLI dual Titan X setup. The other 1080p benchmark with a single GPU is not remotely comparable.

Also AMD never said or showed it destroying a 6800k, unless a few fps to you means destroying.

[cj09beira]

3 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

Depends... If you compare it to the 7700K, sure, if you compare it to a 5820K/6800K, it is not much better at multitasking.

at each price range ryzen is still much faster at multitasking,why buy a 400 dollar 6 core when you can buy a 250 dollar 6 core or a 320 dollar 8 core

[PCGuy_5960]

4 minutes ago, Humbug said:

Also AMD never said or showed it destroying a 6800k, unless a few fps to you means destroying.

90FPS(1800X) vs 80FPS(6800K), 10FPS is a significant difference...

4 minutes ago, Humbug said:

The benchmark of AMD's you posted was at 4k with a SLI dual Titan X setup. The other 1080p benchmark with a single GPU is not remotely comparable.

But why would a CPU that is slower at 1080p suddenly become faster at 4K......

[PCGuy_5960]

5 minutes ago, cj09beira said:

why buy a 400 dollar 6 core when you can buy a 250 dollar 6 core or a 320 dollar 8 core

Other than better gaming performance, more PCIe lanes and quad channel DDR4, there is no reason to do that

[Prysin]

1 minute ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

But why would a CPU that is slower at 1080p suddenly become faster at 4K......

that question should answer itself. If you know how games and CPUs work.

[cj09beira]

Just now, PCGuy_5960 said:

Other than better gaming performance, more PCIe lanes and quad channel DDR4, there is no reason to do that

you mean more expensive ram, a bit better gaming fps and more pcie for double the price?, great if you really need it go for it

[PCGuy_5960]

Just now, Prysin said:

that question should answer itself. If you know how games and CPUs work.

If a CPU is slower at 1080p it will still be slower at 4K.

[Prysin]

Just now, PCGuy_5960 said:

If a CPU is slower at 1080p it will still be slower at 4K.

will it? Or do you want it to be?

[PCGuy_5960]

Just now, Prysin said:

will it? Or do you want it to be?

It will.... It won't be much slower or it will be on par. But it won't become faster...

[2bitmarksman]

3 hours ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

Depends... If you compare it to the 7700K, sure, if you compare it to a 5820K/6800K, it is not much better at multitasking.

A better comparison for the 5820K/6800K would be the new 1600/1600X respectively, with the 1600 being $219 and the 1600X being $249 vs $389-$396 and $434-$441 (via Intel Ark). Ryzen has a lower TDP, but Intel has various Intel specific features, more PCIe lanes (28 for intel vs 24 for Ryzen).

As for 4k vs 1080p, it's been shown multiple times in CPU comparisons that at 1080p the bottleneck is CPU based, while at current the bottleneck is in the GPU.
 

[cj09beira]

1 minute ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

It will.... It won't be much slower or it will be on par. But it won't become faster...

frames arent simple things, its not hard to believe there are things in frames that some cpus do faster than others, when you have really high frames those slower parts show up more (it could be an api, software or hardware bottleneck), and on lower fps that bottleneck simply doesnt happen no matter how hard the frame was to do

[Prysin]

1 minute ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

It will.... It won't be much slower or it will be on par. But it won't become faster...

are you sure? Because unless you are comparing apples to apples (hint, you're not in this case), there is a whole lot of other factors that must be taken into account. Thread efficiency, resource allocation, memory management, IO management etc...

 

you know why Bulldozer CPUs "magically" got better at 4K then 2k res? because their only redeeming feature was a blisteringly fast IO transfer. Aka, they were good at fetching and sending data too and from memory/storage. So whilst an i3 or i5 would get bogged down due to larger data-sets needed to be fetched to the GPU or parsed to memory, the extra cores of the Bulldozer CPUs coupled with a good IO access speed made them catch up. They were absolutely atrocious in every other way, but as shit gets GPU bound, the most important part is to give the GPU what it needs, when it needs it.

 

Ryzen is still so new we barely scraped the surface in terms of dissecting its peculiarities and deficiencies.

 

So ill ask you again; Will it get slower? or do you want it to be?

[Humbug]

7 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

But why would a CPU that is slower at 1080p suddenly become faster at 4K......

What you mean to say is that AMD's relative position amongst the Intel chips looks faster in AMD's 4K benchmark.

 

Remember

-the 1080p benchmark is CPU limited in a very different way

-the 4K benchmark which AMD showed puts emphasis on the graphics subsystem

-the benchmark which AMD showed used a dual-Titan SLI setup. The 1080p benchmark used a single GPU. These are two very totally scenarios in terms of how they load the CPU cores and what framerate they output

[Humbug]

3 minutes ago, cj09beira said:

frames arent simple things, its not hard to believe there are things in frames that some cpus do faster than others, when you have really high frames those slower parts show up more (it could be an api, software or hardware bottleneck), and on lower fps that bottleneck simply doesnt happen no matter how hard the frame was to do

besides AMD's benchmark used an SLI setup.

So it is drastically different in terms of what kind of workload the graphics driver is doing on the CPU.

[2bitmarksman]

Honestly I'd say the choice comes down to price, features that you want, and your plans for the system you are building (as it always has). If price doesn't really matter to you and you NEED over 24 PCIe lanes, Intel is your only real option at the moment (at least until Naples is released). If you just want a good system that you only really want to have to upgrade mabye your storage or replacing your GPU and getting a great bang for buck system, I'd say Ryzen is a fantastic option.

[PCGuy_5960]

6 minutes ago, Prysin said:

Will it get slower? or do you want it to be?

I never said that it would get slower, I just don't expect it to suddenly become much faster.

[NumLock21]

AMD is fu*king stalling with VEGA!

Dagnabbit!!!!!!1111!1!

[zMeul]

56 minutes ago, NumLock21 said:

AMD is fu*king stalling with VEGA!

Dagnabbit!!!!!!1111!1!

I hope this isn't true but I heard some troubling rumors that VEGA might actually have issues because of the cache thingy, HBC

[Humbug]

4 minutes ago, zMeul said:

I hope this isn't true but I heard some troubling rumors that VEGA might actually have issues because of the cache thingy, HBC

can you link where you heard this?

[zMeul]

Just now, Humbug said:

can you link where you heard this?

it was couple of (1-2) weeks ago, on reddit

[Jito463]

 

4 minutes ago, zMeul said:

it was couple of (1-2) weeks ago, on reddit

Reddit?  Yeah, that's a source I consider wholly reliable... /sarc

[zMeul]

1 minute ago, Jito463 said:

Reddit?  Yeah, that's a source I consider wholly reliable... /sarc

it's a bloody rumor