No announcement yet.

Core i7 7700K vs. Ryzen 7 1800X With Ubuntu 17.04 + Linux 4.12

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #11
    Michael What CPU govenor was being used in testing? The default OnDemand gives me terrible performance. In CoH2 I lose about 10fpsAVG when using ondemand vs performance. Are the games running at max in game settings?


    • #12
      Should probably use a GTX 1080 for game testing to rule out drivers/etc.


      • #13
        Under Windows the propritary Nvidia grafic driver slows (somehow) down the System. Dont think its better with the propritary NVIDIA Linux driver. Maybe the check the nouveau driver with Ryzen and 1080 but you can throw nouveau in the trash for normal desktop use with new cards.



        So AMD cards are the best for real performance testing, because they dont "fake" the result like the current Nvidia with its driverproblems.
        Its time for Nvidia to fix their driver.
        Last edited by Pranos; 18 May 2017, 12:28 PM.


        • #14
          CPU with higher clock speed goes faster... why are people surprised?


          • #15
            Originally posted by fuzz View Post
            CPU with higher clock speed goes faster... why are people surprised?
            You only looked at the gaming benchmarks, didn't you? Ryzen is faster in all the tasks I care for. Besides, I can just buy 1700 and overclock till 3.9 to 4.0 Ghz. Faster than stock 1800X. What a silly comparison.


            • #16
              Originally posted by sdack View Post
              What a mixed bag this is... Ryzen obviously has got some great potential, which is really good. But it will take a while until the software developers tap into it. Some will likely ignore it and stay focused on Intel, like it's the case with graphics (and game makers more often focusing on Nvidia).
              If I had a penny where I have said the same thing....
              3DNow is a technology that we dont even know the full potential until game devs tap into it...

              Multi core cpus is a technology we dont even know the full potential until game devs tap into it...

              AVX is a technology we dont even know the full potential until game devs tap into it...

              So many promises but the fact remains that games nowadays require single thread performance just as much as 20 years ago. I bought a 1090T with the expectation that all games would fully utilize 6 or more cores in the future and I was wrong. Now I am looking at getting a 4 core CPU to replace it, for gaming and the 7700k looks pretty nice.
              Last edited by Sidicas; 18 May 2017, 01:20 PM.


              • #17
                Originally posted by macemoneta View Post

                Exactly. Even multi-threaded applications will have their threads limited to the performance of a single core. The I7-7700K and I7-4790K still rule in single thread performance. It doesn't fit well into 'more is better' marketing though.
                Performance per core is more or less identical on Zen and corei7; corei7 just clocks much much higher when only one or two cores are taxed. And that's what you see with almost all games: intels clockspeed advantage of almost 1ghz. I've never seen my 1800x go beyond 3.6ghz in linux, even when only one core is taxed, so the 4.4/4.5 ghz on kaby make it look better.
                Last edited by mlau; 18 May 2017, 01:44 PM.


                • #18
                  Originally posted by eydee View Post
                  Ryzen is supposed to be a Broadwell competitor. Kaby beating it is no surprise, and no BIOS update will change it.
                  What does surprise though is by how much Kaby wins here, and how small the difference is even in fully multi-threaded workloads like kernel compilation. When Ryzen and the first benchmarks came out I honestly thought they were really good CPUs, but the more benchmarks I see, even the non-gaming ones, the more I have to change my opinion, to the point where I'm inclined to say that, maybe with the exception of the cheap six-core parts if you need i7-levels of multi-threaded performance, they aren't worth considering under any circumstances.

                  And yeah, in gaming they are getting wrecked so hard it's not even funny. Still unsure when I what I should replace my old 1090T with - an i5 isn't an option because they are hardly any faster at compiling than my current chip (the 7400 is actually slower), an i7 is not an option because it's simply too expensive, and Ryzen 5 is not an option either because... well, they are terrible at anything other than compiling.
                  Last edited by VikingGe; 18 May 2017, 02:19 PM.


                  • #19
                    Originally posted by bug77 View Post
                    Performance per core still matters as some of these benchmarks show.
                    We're comparing a 4 core processor to an 8 core processor in this review, so it's a lopsided comparison. From a theoretical perspective, of course 4 cores will outperform 8 cores in a single-threaded benchmark, within the same process node and TDP envelope. No surprise there. When you compare intel's 8 core offerings with Ryzen, you see Ryzen delivering equal or greater performance across the board, at a much lower price point.

                    Sure AMD is marketing Ryzen to gamers, but the value proposition is still there even if it's lags intel slightly in single-thread performance. Does it really matter that Ryzen delivers 182 frames per second while intel does 190? The frame rates here are all so high, it really makes no difference, so unless you're doing VR @ 4k or something like that, the smart money goes for the best value.


                    • #20
                      Ryzen takes quite a beating in games. In fact that makes it a bit bad if you want to run demanding emulators for instance. e.g. fed up with generally being unable to run old games? You can emulate a whole 486 or Pentium class PC and run Win 9x in that. Albeit, the emulator doesn't build on my linux PC and the Windows version immediately fails in Wine so I didn't investigate it much yet.

                      Where Ryzen might have value is if you have an amount of CPU-eating garbage in the background. Browsers, Xorg, a Windows 7 VM, and even the Gnome/Mate "system monitor". And running a composite window manager will make that worse. So many trillions instructions wasted doing nothing much. But a Ryzen 1700 and up would be a luxury way to live with that crap (and add some more, like a web interface to stream your audio/video media to other devices and PC)