Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AMD Ryzen Has Captivated Linux Gamers & Enthusiasts

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

  • AMD Ryzen Has Captivated Linux Gamers & Enthusiasts

    Phoronix: AMD Ryzen Has Captivated Linux Gamers & Enthusiasts

    AMD's Ryzen launch was hands-down the most popular topic for Linux enthusiasts and gamers reading Phoronix in March...

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...rch-2017-Ryzen

  • #2
    No surprise. For many users it's been the most anticipated launch of desktop PC hardware for years.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by juno View Post
      No surprise. For many users it's been the most anticipated launch of desktop PC hardware for years.
      Yeah, Intel's typical "hey guys, here is a new CPU that has 5% more power but is otherwise the same as the old one, hmm btw, we also changed socket, so go buy a new mobo, sucker." PC hardware launches happened in the last 5 years were boooooring.

      Comment


      • #4
        Considering the market abuse by intel (sandy bridge was the last real innovation we've seen from intel) and the insanity of getting any support from the ARM SOC manufacturers who have wholeale ignored linux, yes the ryzen might actually be interesting.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
          Yeah, Intel's typical "hey guys, here is a new CPU that has 5% more power but is otherwise the same as the old one, hmm btw, we also changed socket, so go buy a new mobo, sucker." PC hardware launches happened in the last 5 years were boooooring.
          And AMD goes from releasing Deneb in 2011, then Bulldozer in 2011, largely same perf (except with notable regressions), but more cores, very little perf increase with Piledriver in 2012, then nothing except for meh-class APUs until 2017 where they released a pretty good chip that is Haswell class performance with more cores. Intel is already two generations past that in perf though. One if we're not counting Kaby Lake as Intel really should have named that Skylake Refresh.

          Why is AMD suddenly getting a free pass here? They did the same nonsense years ago. They just are now reaching performance levels of 2014/2015 CPUs, ignoring core count. Very good CPUs to be fair! Excellent perf/watt.

          Is it because we love to cheer for underdogs?

          I'm ignoring core count because if we're counting cores, I guess we could say that Mediatek's 10 core nightmares are good mobile CPUs because they score to the heavens on multicore tests. I'm just interested in single core perf here. Stuff more cores in a chip, score higher on multi-core. Surprise surprise.
          Last edited by Helios747; 04-02-2017, 03:48 AM. Reason: explain why I'm ignoring core count better

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Helios747 View Post

            And AMD goes from releasing Deneb in 2011, then Bulldozer in 2011, largely same perf (except with notable regressions), but more cores, very little perf increase with Piledriver in 2012, then nothing except for meh-class APUs until 2017 where they released a pretty good chip that is Haswell class performance with more cores. Intel is already two generations past that in perf though. One if we're not counting Kaby Lake as Intel really should have named that Skylake Refresh.

            Why is AMD suddenly getting a free pass here? They did the same nonsense years ago. They just are now reaching performance levels of 2014/2015 CPUs, ignoring core count. Very good CPUs to be fair! Excellent perf/watt.

            Is it because we love to cheer for underdogs?

            I'm ignoring core count because if we're counting cores, I guess we could say that Mediatek's 10 core nightmares are good mobile CPUs because they score to the heavens on multicore tests. I'm just interested in single core perf here. Stuff more cores in a chip, score higher on multi-core. Surprise surprise.
            The difference is, AMD made a mistake with FX CPUs. It should've been designed by hand and shouldn't have focused so much on integer performance.

            Intel has like, ten times more resources, so what they did was deliberate.

            Let me however disagree with your statements on APUs, because they offered better gaming performance than similarly priced Intel CPUs at launch. People on a tight budget really liked those APUs.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Helios747 View Post
              And AMD goes from releasing Deneb in 2011, then Bulldozer in 2011, largely same perf (except with notable regressions), but more cores, very little perf increase with Piledriver in 2012, then nothing except for meh-class APUs until 2017 where they released a pretty good chip that is Haswell class performance with more cores. Intel is already two generations past that in perf though. One if we're not counting Kaby Lake as Intel really should have named that Skylake Refresh.

              Why is AMD suddenly getting a free pass here? They did the same nonsense years ago. They just are now reaching performance levels of 2014/2015 CPUs, ignoring core count. Very good CPUs to be fair! Excellent perf/watt.
              AMD finally has CPUs that are competitive with what Intel is offering again. I wouldn't say they're better or worse as both sides have clear advantages and disadvantages. AMD may not have created a revolutionary new CPU, it has at least a fair chance of changing the landscape and offering a future for AMD. People want Intel to produce CPUs that are much better than their previous offerings and I often hear that Intel doesn't achieve these improvements because they had no other company to fear, making them lazy. I guess most people are complaining because they can't really justify their expensive upgrades.
              Is it because we love to cheer for underdogs?
              Yes. (I don't want to have Intel completely controlling the PC market.)
              I'm ignoring core count because if we're counting cores, I guess we could say that Mediatek's 10 core nightmares are good mobile CPUs because they score to the heavens on multicore tests. I'm just interested in single core perf here. Stuff more cores in a chip, score higher on multi-core. Surprise surprise.
              Having more cores is​​​​​​​ important, though. You just want to make sure that the individual cores are performant enough for your workload. A 10 core mobile CPU seems like a bad idea to me as most mobile tasks don't benefit that much from great multi core performance and to keep power draw low those cores probably are a bit too weak. More cores is easier to market, though.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by wdb974 View Post

                The difference is, AMD made a mistake with FX CPUs. It should've been designed by hand and shouldn't have focused so much on integer performance.

                Intel has like, ten times more resources, so what they did was deliberate.
                Spending 10 times as much resources on something doesn't mean much faster innovation. It doesn't have to be deliberate.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Pcgh.de found that Nvidia is slowing Down AMD ryzen CPUs :

                  http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Ryzen-...aider-1224656/
                  Phantom circuit Sequence Reducer Dyslexia

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Helios747 View Post
                    Why is AMD suddenly getting a free pass here? They did the same nonsense years ago.
                    Because AMD is a small and poor company compared to intel. They did this with no money, no manpower, no fabs, no market share etc.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X