Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #51
    I did not expect this type of mixed bag results... Okay maybe for gaming, but look at c-ray test vs static serve, something just does not look right. Can anyone compare results to similar tests done on Windows?

    Comment


    • #52
      Originally posted by Jabberwocky View Post
      c-ray test vs static serve
      Totally agree (Intel 7700k 50%faster @ a static server??) this should be investigated. Maybe the Apache Benchmark needs to be updated somewhat? In my experience, it usually scales almost perfectly linearly with core count on Intel.

      Comment


      • #53
        Originally posted by bug77 View Post
        It puzzles me to see people thinking multithreading is the new kid on the block that will save puppies from dying one we figure out how to properly put it to good use. The reality is we've had (super)computers that would run hundreds of threads for decades. We've written code for them.
        That's BS or applies to a very specific definition of 'we', the HPC community. Normal people had one core/active thread/CPU per computer till ~2005. Some professionals had dual socket workstations. Some IBM Power machines had SMT before Intel, that is two hardware threads. Even HPC machines might have had one core/CPU/active hardware thread per machine. The supercomputers were normal boxen with fast interconnect LAN. There are some exceptions, like the SUN 'barrel' processor. Tilera and other research platforms were not available for consumers.

        Another thing, the server software behaves differently. The old servers from 1990s and 2000s used to run on a cluster of machines. One machine as reverse proxy, few as DB servers, a dozen as frontend servers and so on. Now the slow clusters (with 1/10G eth interconnect) are being replaced by heavy 22+ core CPUs on the cloud. So, even now the multi-socket and multicore are way faster than the old stuff and it truly is an upgrade. PCIe and QPI/UPI are way faster than gigabit ethernet.

        But the simple fact is not all problems are infinitely parallelizeable and even when you find tasks that are, you're hit by other problems that impact multithreading (e.g. memory coherence - look what happens the your data resides in another CCX's cache).
        I've used dual socket since Pentium 2. It worked just fine for tasks like compiling stuff on Gentoo (well, I used Slackware back then, but anyways). The first gen of Intel dual-core had a similar legacy design with two totally separate CPUs on the same die. When they integrated both as cores in Core2Duo, the main advantage was the shared cache and a bit faster inter-communication. However, most tasks like make -j2 don't get any magical boost from tighter core integration. Compiling scales so well that distcc speeds it up even on a 100 Mbit network. The core/uncore design with shared caches helps with the coherence a bit, but cache coherence won't become a problem anytime soon. At current rate, it will take Intel 10 years to deliver the core counts from their heavyweight server segment to consumers. The current designs already show that they work just fine.

        My recommendation is stop trying to predict the future. Buy what works for you now and let people in the know handle the advancements. When/if advancements come, upgrade and enjoy. When/if advancements don't come, enjoy your current rig
        It's pretty clear that there's only one way up, more cores and wider SIMD. If you look back, the biggest advancements in perf scaling come from SSE/AVX/cores. Faster clocks and IPC come far behind. BTW, guess how they got IPC up, that's right by adding more ALU/FP pipelines. IBM's fastest stuff runs at 5 GHz, Intel at 4.5 GHz. Next Intel i7 8700k will have 4 cores with 2% more speed? We'll see. People could already overclock their system 2% just like that. With a jump to 6..8 cores, they can achieve more than any IPC/freq boost would ever do.

        This whole multicore craze reminds me of the early 2000s when people where convinced that since they suddenly started thinking about EVs, by 2005 everyone will be driving one.
        You're still sceptical even though ESP32, $9 RPi clones, and anything upwards has multiple cores and the number is increasing with each year? A quad-core ARM costs ~ $2. Everyone can already buy them.

        Comment


        • #54
          Originally posted by caligula View Post
          You're still sceptical even though ESP32, $9 RPi clones, and anything upwards has multiple cores and the number is increasing with each year? A quad-core ARM costs ~ $2. Everyone can already buy them.
          Not to mention that even mobile phones have moved to 8 core CPU's. More cores is the only practical way to achieve significant performance gains.

          Comment


          • #55
            Originally posted by torsionbar28 View Post
            Not to mention that even mobile phones have moved to 8 core CPU's. More cores is the only practical way to achieve significant performance gains.

            Comment


            • #56
              Originally posted by pal666 View Post
              pointless comparison. 1800x's competition is $1100 6950
              if you feel urge to compare 7700, compare it against 6950, not against two times cheaper ryzen
              The competition is i7-6800K, which is slightly cheaper. i7-6800K beats it in most workloads, including gaming, CAD, photo editing and more.

              Comment


              • #57
                Originally posted by efikkan View Post
                The competition is i7-6800K, which is slightly cheaper.
                i messed it up, competition is i7-6900k, which is of more or less same speed and two times more expensive
                6800 is competition for 6core ryzens

                Comment


                • #58
                  Originally posted by caligula View Post

                  "CPU with higher clock speed goes faster." <-- not true, depends on the task. All Intel server CPUs with 12+ cores have much lower clock speed and they 'go faster' in those tasks they were designed for. Game FPS isn't the only metric. Throughput is much better metric for some useful tasks. Besides, with high throughput, you can often even finish tasks faster for example in web servers. It just depends on how you define tasks.
                  Take your foot out of your ass and take off your flame colored glasses. We agree. Maybe you should learn English.

                  Comment


                  • #59
                    Originally posted by pal666 View Post
                    i messed it up, competition is i7-6900k, which is of more or less same speed and two times more expensive
                    6800 is competition for 6core ryzens
                    i7-6800K is in the same price range and is very competitive. In fact, it beats 1800X in most common use cases. What matters is real world performance and price, not theoretical specifications. The same argument was used for Bulldozer; it had more cores so it had to be "better".

                    Comment


                    • #60
                      Originally posted by efikkan View Post
                      i7-6800K is in the same price range and is very competitive. In fact, it beats 1800X in most common use cases. What matters is real world performance and price, not theoretical specifications. The same argument was used for Bulldozer; it had more cores so it had to be "better".
                      So what are the most common use cases for people buying 6+ core CPUs? Definitely not games. The best gaming rigs use 4 or fewer cores.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X