Ryzen concerns

[Glenwing]

3 minutes ago, Moress said:

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

Yeah. Bulldozer was such a spectacular failure because it was way behind Intel even at launch. In fact my AMD Phenom II X6 1090T, which was the previous generation predating Bulldozer, is faster than the FX-8350 at equal frequencies. AMD had released a processor which was worse than their own previous gen stuff, in single-threaded. Although that was the FX-8150, the piledriver stuff (FX-8350) made a few improvements and did manage to pull ahead of the Phenoms, barely.

 

If AMD's 2011 launch had matched Sandy Bridge, they would still be excellent processors today. I myself use Sandy Bridge-E still (3930K), and I haven't felt any urge to upgrade to a newer part. With Ryzen, this time they are doing that, matching Intel in IPC (you can say they are still behind, but the amount is trivial, it's effectively equal), so this could easily be viable for the next 4+ years like Sandy Bridge was. All in all Ryzen looks to be in a much better position at launch than Bulldozer was.

[Brooksie359]

10 hours ago, done12many2 said:

 

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.

the same can be said with higher single core performance. i mean if your trying to hit 60 fps in games and you don't plan on playing at higher framerates then i really don't see the need for a 7700k compared to something like a r7 1700x. i mean if the 8 core has enough single core performance to play the games i want at the fps i want but also will do any multi-threaded applications i want much faster than the 7700k then i would go for the 1700x.

[Coaxialgamer]

11 hours ago, GDRRiley said:

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

I think you got that wrong . they said the Zen architecture will last until 2020 . After that they'll have an entirely new architecture ( not zen based).

Zen+ ( Zen 2.0) will be releasing sometime late 2018 supposedly .We won't be stuck on the 1700/1700x/1800x for the next 4 years.

[done12many2]

18 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

the same can be said with higher single core performance. i mean if your trying to hit 60 fps in games and you don't plan on playing at higher framerates then i really don't see the need for a 7700k compared to something like a r7 1700x. i mean if the 8 core has enough single core performance to play the games i want at the fps i want but also will do any multi-threaded applications i want much faster than the 7700k then i would go for the 1700x.

 

I had that exact same mentality when I built my x99/5960x rig.  I told myself more is better right?

 

Not exactly.  The issue is that single-threaded performance impacts most of us more than high multi-threaded performance on a daily basis.  A lot more.  

 

Even when I run my 5960x at 4.7 GHz or higher, it simply can't keep up with my 7700k in the majority of applications that I use throughout a day.  On the very few occasions that I use a well optimized multi-threaded application, sure the 5960x is faster, but even then, how much faster is based on how well that application uses the cores.  At the end of the day, I benefit more from higher individual core performance.  

 

That's not to say that I don't see the value in more cores.  That's why I kept my x99/5960x rig.  I'm simply saying that you don't use the cores anywhere near as much as you think you will.  That's why I said, "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" in my original post.  Otherwise, high IPC/clock speed with lower core count will win out every time.  It makes for a snappier rig, that's for sure.

[Brooksie359]

2 minutes ago, done12many2 said:

 

I had that exact same mentality when I built my x99/5960x rig.  I told myself more is better right?

 

Not exactly.  The issue is that single-threaded performance impacts most of us more than high multi-threaded performance on a daily basis.  A lot more.  

 

Even when I run my 5960x at 4.7 GHz or higher, it simply can't keep up with my 7700k in the majority of applications that I use throughout a day.  On the very few occasions that I use a well optimized multi-threaded application, sure the 5960x is faster, but even then, how much faster is based on how well that application uses the cores.  At the end of the day, I benefit more from higher individual core performance.  

 

That's not to say that I don't see the value in more cores.  That's why I kept my x99/5960x rig.  I'm simply saying that you don't use the cores anywhere near as much as you think you will.  That's why I said, "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" in my original post.  Otherwise, high IPC/clock speed with lower core count will win out every time.  It makes for a snappier rig, that's for sure.

The thing is most things that only use one core don't take that long to begin with. The only programs that really take a long time usually are the ones that can benefit from more cores. I mean what programs are you using where you actually see a tangible difference. And I'm not talking about being a slit second faster. 

[done12many2]

18 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

The thing is most things that only use one core don't take that long to begin with. The only programs that really take a long time usually are the ones that can benefit from more cores. I mean what programs are you using where you actually see a tangible difference. And I'm not talking about being a slit second faster. 

 

This is actually very common knowledge, that MOST programs are not optimized well for multi-threaded use.  Of the ones that are, most only use a hand full of threads, but far from 16.  Are they improving?  Yes, but a lot slower than it should.  It'll be a long time before we actually get to that point.  Until we get to that point, higher IPC/clock speed will continue to win out.

 

If I'm doing some encoding or something, I know which rig I should use.  For everything else, I use the other.

 

 

[Brooksie359]

11 minutes ago, done12many2 said:

 

This is actually very common knowledge, that MOST programs are not optimized well for multi-threaded use.  Of the ones that are, most only use a hand full of threads, but far from 16.  Are they improving?  Yes, but a lot slower than it should.  It'll be a long time before we actually get to that point.  Until we get to that point, higher IPC/clock speed will continue to win out.

 

If I'm doing some encoding or something, I know which rig I should use.  For everything else, I use the other.

 

 

Yes but what I'm asking is what programs are running slow because of the slower single core performance? I mean if having your computer being a split second faster during daily use justifies being quite a bit slower when needing to do multi-threaded applications then I guess you could go for the 7700k. For me I don't see the need to have my daily programs running half a second faster because all of my programs on my desktop run plenty fast besides the ones that would benefit from higher multi-threaded performance

[done12many2]

52 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

Yes but what I'm asking is what programs are running slow because of the slower single core performance? I mean if having your computer being a split second faster during daily use justifies being quite a bit slower when needing to do multi-threaded applications then I guess you could go for the 7700k. For me I don't see the need to have my daily programs running half a second faster because all of my programs on my desktop run plenty fast besides the ones that would benefit from higher multi-threaded performance

 

Look bud, I appreciate the back and forth, but at this point I think you are playing both sides of the fence.  

 

 

2 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

the 7700k is still going to offer better gaming performance unless you are playing a crazy cpu intensive rts. if you have any need for 8 cores the 1700 and the 1700x are looking really appealing. some reasons why you would want more cores is if you plan on playing games and having other things running in the background like obs for streaming. also if you use any software that is optimized for multi-threaded performance like video editing and some computational programs. 

 

I'd like to emphasize that I'm not arguing that more cores is bad.  I'll repeat that I have an 8c/16t CPU.  I'm just saying that a 4c/8t CPU with higher IPC and clockspeed is better for the majority of users.  Hell you yourself just said an hour ago in another thread that the 7700k not only offers better gaming, but that the 8c/16t core is better IF you use software that is optimized for multi-threaded performance.

 

Most software/games are not well optimized for 8c/16t.  Like you said, there are some computational programs, and we all know productivity applications that will take advantage of more threads.  I'm simply saying that 90% of stuff doesn't.  

 

If you use heavily threaded applications on a daily basis, there's no argument.  You'll benefit from a 8c/16t CPU even if it has slightly less IPC / clock speed.  However, if someone doesn't know for sure that they will be using software well optimized for multi-threaded use, they are better off with a higher IPC / clock speed CPU with less cores. 

 

I'm pretty sure I'm just repeating myself at this point as I've stated all of this in my original post that you quoted. 

 

With that said and switching gears, I ordered a Ryzen chip yesterday and it will be available on the 2nd at 1pm.  I'm just as interested as everyone else in what Ryzen has to offer, but I have reserved expectations.  If it can beat my 5960x, I'll keep it.  If it can't, I'll get rid of it.

 

[Brooksie359]

2 hours ago, done12many2 said:

 

Look bud, I appreciate the back and forth, but at this point I think you are playing both sides of the fence.  

 

 

 

I'd like to emphasize that I'm not arguing that more cores is bad.  I'll repeat that I have an 8c/16t CPU.  I'm just saying that a 4c/8t CPU with higher IPC and clockspeed is better for the majority of users.  Hell you yourself just said an hour ago in another thread that the 7700k not only offers better gaming, but that the 8c/16t core is better IF you use software that is optimized for multi-threaded performance.

 

Most software/games are not well optimized for 8c/16t.  Like you said, there are some computational programs, and we all know productivity applications that will take advantage of more threads.  I'm simply saying that 90% of stuff doesn't.  

 

If you use heavily threaded applications on a daily basis, there's no argument.  You'll benefit from a 8c/16t CPU even if it has slightly less IPC / clock speed.  However, if someone doesn't know for sure that they will be using software well optimized for multi-threaded use, they are better off with a higher IPC / clock speed CPU with less cores. 

 

I'm pretty sure I'm just repeating myself at this point as I've stated all of this in my original post that you quoted. 

 

With that said and switching gears, I ordered a Ryzen chip yesterday and it will be available on the 2nd at 1pm.  I'm just as interested as everyone else in what Ryzen has to offer, but I have reserved expectations.  If it can beat my 5960x, I'll keep it.  If it can't, I'll get rid of it.

 

I believe I was talking to someone who was planning on switching from a 7700k to the ryzen chip. I wouldn't recommend going from a 7700k to a r7 chip unless they really needed the cores. Now if you are building a new system and are debating between an r7 chip and a 7700k thats where I would say there are reasons to go with a r7 chip because if it can run games at the fps you want and have the ability to run multi-threaded applications well if need be. I always have been about the philosophy of better to have and not need then to need and not have. You may not be running a ton of multi-threaded applications now but who knows what programs they are going to be using a couple of years down the road.