Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
AMD Ryzen Has Captivated Linux Gamers & Enthusiasts
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by starshipeleven View PostYeah, 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.
Ryzen flogs on dx12 tests. I'm getting better performance than any kaby lake wannabe. Intel will have to release an 8 core gaming cpu soon to truly catch up. Single thread speed is a thing of the past. Even phones are 8 core these days. Quad core days are over... I'm glad that AMD finally pulled their weight. I agree that AMD should have released this CPU 2 years ago but oh well. It's here now. Enjoy.
- Likes 2
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by wdb974 View PostLet 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.
Then due to marketing issues people still bought crappy boards with Atoms or Bay Trail processors, when for the same price they could get a AMD-based system that would be far better (and also run better on Linux).
- Likes 1
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Helios747 View PostWhy is AMD suddenly getting a free pass here?
If Intel suddenly decided to pull some magic out of their collective hat and do a similar jump it would also be justified to cheer for it.
They just are now reaching performance levels of 2014/2015 CPUs, ignoring core count.
They reached IPC that is more or less in line with the IPC of 2015 CPUs, but on multithreaded workloads they do give even 1000$ Intel CPUs with 140w TDP a very serious run for the money.
I'm ignoring core count because
I guess we could say that Mediatek's 10 core nightmares are good mobile CPUs because they score to the heavens on multicore tests.
1. Those 10-core CPUs are actually quadcores or dualcores in practice, they have more cores that are used at different load levels (Big-Little configuration), but it's never more than a quadcore due to basic thermal issues (they can't dissipate heat from all cores active).
10-cores are actually: low-end quad + mid-end quad + high end dualcore.
This design is supposed to maximize IPC, single core performance, not multicore performance, as the high end dualcore have a MASSIVELY higher IPC than the low-end quadcore.
2. A mobile CPU isn't supposed to be doing massively multithreaded jobs on a like 5W power budget anyway (hence you get designs that add multiple different cores to maximize IPC instead, which is admittedly a desperate measure, but it works), a high end x86 CPU... yeah, you bet it.
I'm just interested in single core perf here.
Trying to compete with Intel in the relatively high end consumer market is far harder than doing the same in the server market (mostly due to the last huh, decade? of marketing, people now want only i7 in their PC even if they don't know what that is), so you get why these designs focus more on massive multicore.
Also their hope is to get more and more program to go truly multicore, and finally have a way to catch off-guard Intel. Competing on IPC is a war they can't realistically win.
- Likes 1
Leave a comment:
-
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.
If you factor that AMD always managed to give us better bang for buck, i don't really see the problem.
And when you say that if we ignore processor count, that's a big IF.
Consoles are AMD based systems and are optimized/optimizing for more cores.
Vulkan and DX12 are focused and take advantage of more cores.
Game devs are all jumping into the 'more core' bandwagon, with some already having released Ryzen specific patches.
For todays games, Ryzen is not as fast as Intel, but it's more than enough.
For tomorrow's games Ryzen is a beast!
This is the analisys that matter. If Intel is faster on stuff that brings no real benefits, what's the point?
How is this a free pass?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by QaridariumPcgh.de found that Nvidia is slowing Down AMD ryzen CPUs :
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Helios747 View PostAnd 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?
Also AMD depends on external foundries. They moved from 32 nm to 28 nm from BD to Excavator while Intel moved from 32 nm to FinFETs, to 22 to the second iteration of their 14 nm process in the same timespan.
It is actually remarkable how Excavator is performing based on that fact as Carrizo was competitive to Haswell ULP processors.
Originally posted by Helios747 View PostI'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.
Previoulsy: 8 Cores desktop platform: 1100$ CPU + 200+$ board
now: 8 Cores desktop platform: 350$ CPU + 100$ board
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by JonathanM View PostSpending 10 times as much resources on something doesn't mean much faster innovation. It doesn't have to be deliberate.
But yeah, having funds isn't a warranty for progress. I should've worded myself differently.
Leave a comment:
-
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.
- Likes 1
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: