Why doesn't Ryzen have fast single core?

[Phentos]

1 minute ago, DrMacintosh said:

Then the only thing that could be causing any perceptible slow downs are either you deciding subconsciously that the Ryzen system is slower, or you have a software conflict somewhere. 

Intel 320 SSDs are also slow af. Even a modern budget SSD will run laps around that.

[pas008]

11 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

Already posted the video. 

 

Intel is essentially only competitive if you only focus on single core performance rather than literally every other metric. 

90% of software is not going to use all those cores and is very single core/threaded

 

Maybe in next few years we will get more programs using more cores

But wait we been waiting for that since fx years and core war 1

Core war 2 is forcing Intel to up the cores because zen has closer single thread/core performance and that is what competition is about

[DrMacintosh]

5 minutes ago, pas008 said:

90% of software is not going to use all those cores and is very single core/threaded

Uhh, if you are talking about things like Google Chrome, sure. 

 

But if you look at real life, you see most of the key players in software have already gone to multi threaded. Sorry, but gaming doesnt actually determine what the rest of the software space is doing. 

[pas008]

8 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

Uhh, if you are talking about things like Google Chrome, sure. 

 

But if you look at real life, you see most of the key players in software have already gone to multi threaded. Sorry, but gaming doesnt actually determine what the rest of the software space is doing. 

I named few single core software already lol

Want me to continue to name them?

Is that want you want

Oh wait i already pointed out users use case

Which goes back to your statement i first pointed out but you need to bounce around that fact

[DrMacintosh]

12 minutes ago, pas008 said:

I named few single core software already lol

2 hours ago, pas008 said:

shouldn't name many areas of cad solidworks photoshop etc

Hate to burst your bubble, but those are multi threaded applications. 

[pas008]

24 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

Hate to burst your bubble, but those are multi threaded applications. 

Limited so all those cores do not matter

 

 

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Photoshop-CC-2018-CPU-Performance-AMD-Ryzen-2-vs-Intel-8th-Gen-1136/

 

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-7-2700x-review,5571-9.html

 

 

Enough said

[DrMacintosh]

4 minutes ago, pas008 said:

Enough said

Yes, we Know Adobe is ass. "Enough said"

[DrMacintosh]

BTW OP, the actual reason is pretty simple. 

 

AMD is targeting the server market at the end of the day. End user sales are great but the money is at the top. If we look at AMDs product structure we can see that the top tier EPYC CPUs are really just multiple ZEN dies "glued together" Treadripper has less functional ZEN dies, and Ryzen has the minimum. 

 

It is for this reason that AMD will always be ahead of Intel in terms of core count and raw performance in multi threaded workloads. 

 

[mattdmg]

1 hour ago, DrMacintosh said:

 

 

I'd never think that desktop performance would vary much from chip to chip as long as they were modern. Isn't the biggest thing that would change it would be your storage device? 

[DrMacintosh]

Just now, mattdmg said:

I'd never think that desktop performance would vary much from chip to chip as long as they were modern.

It wouldn't, which is precisely why the guy I was replying to has an issue somewhere else in his system. 

[mattdmg]

1 minute ago, DrMacintosh said:

It wouldn't, which is precisely why the guy I was replying to has an issue somewhere else in his system. 

I watched that video and it's pretty interesting while explaining a lot. AMD's stock probably would've been a really good buy 3 years ago because their price per share was about $2 and now it's $19 a share.

[Blademaster91]

1 hour ago, DrMacintosh said:

BTW OP, the actual reason is pretty simple. 

 

AMD is targeting the server market at the end of the day. End user sales are great but the money is at the top. If we look at AMDs product structure we can see that the top tier EPYC CPUs are really just multiple ZEN dies "glued together" Treadripper has less functional ZEN dies, and Ryzen has the minimum. 

 

It is for this reason that AMD will always be ahead of Intel in terms of core count and raw performance in multi threaded workloads.

Which isn't a good thing for AMD in the long term with their desktop chips,they can only keep throwing on cores for so long.

1 hour ago, mattdmg said:

I'd never think that desktop performance would vary much from chip to chip as long as they were modern. Isn't the biggest thing that would change it would be your storage device? 

I think there should a be noticeable difference when going to a much newer CPU, it should be an upgrade. While Zen does benefit from faster ram, it doesn't hurt performance enough to make it feel slow and lagging if using slower speed ram.

Edit: I also agree that it could be their OS setup, Windows 10 can be slow at times unless optimized for performance. If you game while streaming or do video editing,and don't need extremely high fps for a fast 144Hz+ monitor Ryzen is a good choice.

[DrMacintosh]

4 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

Which isn't a good thing for AMD in the long term with their desktop chips,they can only keep throwing on cores for so long.

It’s not like Intel can do anything. They can’t even make it to 10nm. AMD can always outperform and always be cheaper if Intel can’t break the 10nm barrier. But you’re right, eventually just adding more cores won’t cut it....but Intel isn’t in a position to make that the case any time soon. 

 

Intel is in the worst position that it has probably ever been in thanks to Zen. 

 

 

[42kq]

2 hours ago, DrMacintosh said:

Then the only thing that could be causing any perceptible slow downs are either you deciding subconsciously that the Ryzen system is slower, or you have a software conflict somewhere. 

 

Ryzen has better IPC than 2nd gen Intel chips, that's just a fact. 

It's not ipc it's the responsiveness. I installed windows 7 and 10 on brand new drives with the minimum amount of software needed. I did the benchmark tests and every single one ryzen is on top. But windows just lags with ryzen. Opening and closing windows is slow and I experience lag and stuttering when moving windows around. It's not as pronounced on 7 as with 10 but still noticeable.

[42kq]

2 hours ago, Phentos said:

Intel 320 SSDs are also slow af. Even a modern budget SSD will run laps around that.

Yeah I know, I bought them in bulk during a clearance sale. Running both systems on 320s was the most fair comparison I could do. 

[Phentos]

56 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

don't need extremely high fps for a fast 144Hz+ monitor Ryzen is a good choice.

Ryzen is fine for 144hz gaming except for ancient titles like CS:GO. 

 

When I had my old Ryzen rig, I borrowed a friend's 1080p 144hz G-sync monitor when he went off for a long cruise with his family. He had no one available to watch it, and he games on a very high spec laptop with the monitor as an external, so he took the laptop and left the monitor for me to keep for the duration. From playing PUBG, Fortnite, and an assortment of other games, I had no issues with the monitor running on my 1080TI and Ryzen 1700. All titles I tested were butter smooth, very responsive, and made my 60hz monitor look slow. Of course games such as Skyrim and Fallout 4 should always be kept at below 75-80 FPS at all times, as their physics break at higher framerates.

 

Only reason why I'm switching back (not 100% decided yet) is because I'm still unhappily married to Adobe Cloud programs and their performance is so much better on an Intel-based system. I've thought of switching to Hitfilm for video editing and other alternatives, but Adobe just keeps everything so integrated and intuitive.

[Dylanc1500]

I don't know how familiar you are with CPU architectures and how they can be optimized for different workloads (instructions). To give you an idea though, the largest performance effect is caused by how quickly and efficiently the CPU can complete those instructions in a single, or possibly, multiple clock cycles. This where the term "IPC" (instructions per clock) comes from. IPC metrics are entirely dependent on the instructions being completed, for example : MOVBE, MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, POPCNT, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512, AES, PCLMUL, etc. The way those instructions are moved in and out of cache is effected largely by the cache structure and the amount available, among the execution engine differences. The thing with games is, most of the time (there are exceptions), the CPU is waiting for the GPU to ask for the next frame. Now, this is very dependent on how much of a load is being placed on one or the other. Typically most games are very serialized and not heavily parallel and this is, in part, due to the "if" nature of games. With the higher clocking (typically) of Coffee Lake and its cache structure, it is able to update the GPU with instructions faster than Zen.

 

Again, I want to relay it is HIGHLY dependent on the game structure and the workload it places on the CPU.

 

6 core Coffee Lake Die layout:

 

Summit Ridge/Pinnacle Ridge Die Layout:

 

Coffee Lake Individual Core:

 

Zen+ Individual Core:

 

I apologize as If I am not being clear or if I forget something. It is now 4:57 and I have been up for over 24 hours. DEADLINES SUCK!

[mattdmg]

27 minutes ago, Dylanc1500 said:

 

 

Wow so much is happening in such a tiny space

[DrMacintosh]

7 hours ago, 42kq said:

It's not ipc it's the responsiveness. I installed windows 7 and 10 on brand new drives with the minimum amount of software needed. I did the benchmark tests and every single one ryzen is on top. But windows just lags with ryzen. Opening and closing windows is slow and I experience lag and stuttering when moving windows around. It's not as pronounced on 7 as with 10 but still noticeable.

Sounds like you’re having driver issues. 

[pas008]

8 hours ago, DrMacintosh said:

Yes, we Know Adobe is ass. "Enough said"

but toms link has more than just adobe

8 hours ago, DrMacintosh said:

BTW OP, the actual reason is pretty simple. 

 

AMD is targeting the server market at the end of the day. End user sales are great but the money is at the top. If we look at AMDs product structure we can see that the top tier EPYC CPUs are really just multiple ZEN dies "glued together" Treadripper has less functional ZEN dies, and Ryzen has the minimum. 

 

It is for this reason that AMD will always be ahead of Intel in terms of core count and raw performance in multi threaded workloads. 

 

intel hasnt even gone emib

7 hours ago, DrMacintosh said:

It wouldn't, which is precisely why the guy I was replying to has an issue somewhere else in his system. 

please tell me where my system hurts for my uses

7 hours ago, DrMacintosh said:

It’s not like Intel can do anything. They can’t even make it to 10nm. AMD can always outperform and always be cheaper if Intel can’t break the 10nm barrier. But you’re right, eventually just adding more cores won’t cut it....but Intel isn’t in a position to make that the case any time soon. 

 

Intel is in the worst position that it has probably ever been in thanks to Zen. 

 

 

like said emib

and yes intel is in the worse ever

3xxx series 7nm and tweaks could give amd the lead for long time plus if they are going to try to push 5nm with gaafet right after

[DrMacintosh]

1 minute ago, pas008 said:

but toms link has more than just adobe

That link only tested adobe programs, at least those were the only ones with graphs. 

 

2 minutes ago, pas008 said:

please tell me where my system hurts for my uses

I wasn’t quoting you. 

[pas008]

17 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

That link only tested adobe programs, at least those were the only ones with graphs. 

 

I wasn’t quoting you. 

there was some productivity shit in there

 

but we all know cad programs are single core/threaded

adobe was up top and there were others

if I did shit besides game, cad and some light photo editing I'd be all over ryzen myself but I will not recommend a product because of my desires of a brand but for the users needs

and if they are gaming at 4k along with other things depending on their said wants intel will get pushed away

i'm about 70/30 for gaming/work

but my programs require single core/threaded so I'm intel all the way

if anyone states video edit 40% of the time its almost a lock on ryzen same with vm

[Stefan Payne]

15 hours ago, mattdmg said:

 

How doesn't AMD come close (from what I've seen) to Intel's single core performance? I am mostly talking about the 2700x and 8700k.

Because they don't have the Clockrate and don't boos that high, their core design is different and more optimized for "future loads" and efficiency.

 

And thus AMD has the higher efficiency right now and is pretty competitive with a new architecture where they can still get some more performance out of it.

While Intel used the same architecture for around 10 Years now...

 

Bloomfield came in 2008...

[Stefan Payne]

12 hours ago, pas008 said:

90% of software is not going to use all those cores and is very single core/threaded

They are because they have to.

Nobody will get your software if you don't optimize for Multicore. 

 

12 hours ago, pas008 said:

Maybe in next few years we will get more programs using more cores

But wait we been waiting for that since fx years and core war 1

Core war 2 is forcing Intel to up the cores because zen has closer single thread/core performance and that is what competition is about

There will always be lazy/incompetent developers.

 

In the recent years there are things that dramatically changed for games like Vulkan and DX12.

Though both needs new from the ground up developed engines to be really worth it because DX12/Vulkan/Mantle is so much different than DX11...

12 hours ago, pas008 said:

Want me to continue to name them?

Why should we care about Incompetent/Lazy Developers?!

Sorry, but that makes little sense.

 

They have to get their body moving and do the stuff that is needed.

Going for Single Core is stupid.

 

Or as the Intel CEO on November 18, 1996 once said:

At the Comdex show, Intel CEO and President Andrew Grove predicts that by 2011, Intel processors will integrate one billion transistors and operate at 10 GHz and 100,000 MIPS. [1559]

 

He is partially right as to the transistor count. And the Mips were kinda right as well.

 

But where's the 10GHz processor?

Nobody even talks about that no more!!

[pas008]

8 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

They are because they have to.

Nobody will get your software if you don't optimize for Multicore. 

 

There will always be lazy/incompetent developers.

 

In the recent years there are things that dramatically changed for games like Vulkan and DX12.

Though both needs new from the ground up developed engines to be really worth it because DX12/Vulkan/Mantle is so much different than DX11...

Why should we care about Incompetent/Lazy Developers?!

Sorry, but that makes little sense.

 

They have to get their body moving and do the stuff that is needed.

Going for Single Core is stupid.

 

Or as the Intel CEO on November 18, 1996 once said:

At the Comdex show, Intel CEO and President Andrew Grove predicts that by 2011, Intel processors will integrate one billion transistors and operate at 10 GHz and 100,000 MIPS. [1559]

 

He is partially right as to the transistor count. And the Mips were kinda right as well.

 

But where's the 10GHz processor?

Nobody even talks about that no more!!

lazy and incompetent I agree

 

recently multicore software seemed to increase but nothing special still limiting themselves to certain amount and closed isa

 

which is why I go with intel especially in cad