Ryzen posts from Vega/Navi rumors thread

[JDG1980]

Whenever there are big delays, you know things dont look good.

Ryzen got delayed but is still a fine product. If anything, it might have been better off with a slightly longer delay to get the BIOS and Windows scheduler bugs worked out.



Moved these posts discussing Ryzen et al. from the Vega/Navi thread. We have a whole forum full of Ryzen threads, please keep your discussion of Ryzen over there.

AT Moderator ElFenix

 

[beginner99]

I'm saying Ryzen discussions are stupid in general. Ryzen 7 has been compared to the 7700k. If you compare Ryzen 7 to a 7700k, then you don't get what Ryzen 7 is for. PERIOD. It's like comparing an SUV to a sports car. They are both cars, but they have very different capabilities. Ryzen 7 can do server tasks. 7700k CAN NOT.
So my main complaint with Ryzen 7 is the discussion of Ryzen 7 vs 7700k in gaming when I think that's one of the most low intelligence level conversations you can have about a processor. It should be Ryzen 5 and the 7700k, and Ryzen 5 is just better value for the average gamer period. It's not a discussion, it's just a fact that I don't feel like even debating.

I get your point. Still, 7700k could easily do server tasks and on low load actually better than Ryzen because faster single-threaded performance means faster request processing say for a web server. Also I'm in the market for a new CPU and hence of course I will compare Ryzen 7 to 7700k.

Given price points we know I say the 1700 is worth it over the 1600x. Price difference is small and you get 2 more cores. OC doesn't really matter as there is a pretty hard limit due to the process/uarch combination. So the 1600x might give you 300mhz more at best. In that case I gladly take 2 more cores instead. For the 7700k it's different as you can get 1ghz+ higher clocks compared to 1700 which is over 20% more.

 

[Bacon1]

For the 7700k it's different as you can get 1ghz+ higher clocks compared to 1700 which is over 20% more.

For half the cores and threads though... 4/8 vs 8/16.

 

[beginner99]

For half the cores and threads though... 4/8 vs 8/16.

True. In an ideal world the 1700 would be a no-brainer. Sadly we don't live in that world. Besides gaming (and especially high refresh rate gaming at 1080p) the 7700k has advantages in common desktop usage like AT review showed (for example pdf opening) and web tests. Single-threaded performance matters for direct user interaction on everyday-tasks. Encoding I could schedule over-night and could not care less if it completes in 5 or 10 hrs. (theoretically, I don't do encoding or rendering and assuming I'm not running a business)

 

[Arachnotronic]

The above is all 100% pure speculation. No one has ever posted any concrete figures on the relative cost of HBM2 versus GDDR5X. It seems likely that HBM-based setups are more expensive than standard GDDR5 setups, but we don't know how much more GDDR5X costs. If the extra chip costs for GDDR5X were negligible, then why use a 192-bit GDDR5 bus on GTX 1060 instead of a 128-bit GDDR5X bus? That would have saved on board routing costs.

It's not at all clear that Vega's two-stack HBM2 layout will necessarily be more expensive than GP102's 11- or 12-chip GDDR5X layout. The HBM2 solution may have higher costs for RAM and interposer (though we don't know even this), but it will be offset by a much smaller and simpler PCB that needs fewer VRM phases (power savings for HBM2 over GDDR5X).

GDDR5X is more expensive than GDDR5 and in much lower total industry supply (only one vendor, new tech that's harder to build and yield), but the difference between GDDR5 and GDDR5X is lower than the difference between GDDR5 and HBM2.

Think about it: NVIDIA is using HBM2 for GP100 (as in, successfully designed and shipping into major data centers since April) but consciously decided to bet on GDDR5/5X for the higher volume/more cost sensitive consumer parts.

 

[zinfamous]

True. In an ideal world the 1700 would be a no-brainer. Sadly we don't live in that world. Besides gaming (and especially high refresh rate gaming at 1080p) the 7700k has advantages in common desktop usage like AT review showed (for example pdf opening) and web tests. Single-threaded performance matters for direct user interaction on everyday-tasks. Encoding I could schedule over-night and could not care less if it completes in 5 or 10 hrs. (theoretically, I don't do encoding or rendering and assuming I'm not running a business)

So, an advantage of 1 or 2 seconds opening a PDF is a winning feature, where as shaving off 5 hours from a process-intensive task is negligible, because you can just go to sleep.

Ah.

 

[Arachnotronic]

So, an advantage of 1 or 2 seconds opening a PDF is a winning feature

If you are opening many PDFs over your day and performing other latency sensitive, real-time tasks, it adds up to a superior user experience.

For tasks that aren't necessarily about real-time responsiveness and can just be left to run, that responsiveness isn't as important

 

[zinfamous]

If you are opening many PDFs over your day and performing other latency sensitive, real-time tasks, it adds up to a superior user experience.

For tasks that aren't necessarily about real-time responsiveness and can just be left to run, that responsiveness isn't as important

So 60 seconds of accumulative frustration is more costly than a handful of hours for users and businesses? Ah.

You guys really love to twist yourselves into making every single positive for AMD a crutch.

It's like saying gaming is bad, when in the worst case scenario, you still never drop below 1080-60, or even 1440 60 (so, the accepted "sweet spot" achieved), and the frame minimums are actually better than on Intel. I mean, come on!

 

[beginner99]

So, an advantage of 1 or 2 seconds opening a PDF is a winning feature, where as shaving off 5 hours from a process-intensive task is negligible, because you can just go to sleep.

Ah.

For me yes as I don't render or encode as a hobby. For you it might be different. And for commercial use, say in a rendering studio, obviously the 1700 is superior. Still, even if the 7700k for me now is the better choice I might buy a 1700 because it's more interesting and honestly, going from 4c/8t to 4c/8t after almost 7 years kind of sucks compared to going to 8c/16t.

If you are opening many PDFs over your day and performing other latency sensitive, real-time tasks, it adds up to a superior user experience.

For tasks that aren't necessarily about real-time responsiveness and can just be left to run, that responsiveness isn't as important

Exactly what i meant. Real-time vs background.

EDIT:

So 60 seconds of accumulative frustration is more costly than a handful of hours for users and businesses? Ah.

You guys really love to twist yourselves into making every single positive for AMD a crutch

I clearly said for commercial use in rendering the 1700 is obviously better so don't twist words. For an office desktop 7700k clearly is superior (having an ssd is far more important). And no, saying something negative about AMD can be completely objective.

loading times/latency matters a lot for UX. Read up on UX studies. Seconds matter, in fact milliseconds matter. This isn't against AMD it is just facts. And If you look at my post history you can see I'm rather pro AMD than anti-AMD.

 

[Arachnotronic]

So 60 seconds of accumulative frustration is more costly than a handful of hours for users and businesses? Ah.

You guys really love to twist yourselves into making every single positive for AMD a crutch.

It's like saying gaming is bad, when in the worst case scenario, you still never drop below 1080-60, or even 1440 60 (so, the accepted "sweet spot" achieved), and the frame minimums are actually better than on Intel. I mean, come on!

I said nothing about AMD. I made a general statement about why for consumer usage, a lower-latency-but-lower-throughput processor could be preferable to a higher-throughput-but-higher-latency processor.

Do note that I sold a 6950X and replaced it with a 7700K, so I put my money where my mouth is.

 

[tamz_msc]

Chances are that if you're working regularly with PDFs that 'take 15 seconds to open on a mid-range laptop', you're more likely to keep them open for as long as necessary, in which case 3 seconds vs 2 seconds wouldn't matter because you'd try to minimize back and forth opening and closing of such files.

A typical PDF won't be of such complexity that you'd notice the difference between a i7 7700K and Ryzen 7 1700 while opening it.

This line of argument holds the same merit as arguing for a NVMe SSD to shave off two extra seconds of boot time compared to a SATA SSD.

 

[lobz]

True. In an ideal world the 1700 would be a no-brainer. Sadly we don't live in that world. Besides gaming (and especially high refresh rate gaming at 1080p) the 7700k has advantages in common desktop usage like AT review showed (for example pdf opening) and web tests. Single-threaded performance matters for direct user interaction on everyday-tasks. Encoding I could schedule over-night and could not care less if it completes in 5 or 10 hrs. (theoretically, I don't do encoding or rendering and assuming I'm not running a business)

You are absolutely right. Why would ANYONE EVER buy a CPU with more cores than the mighty 7700K?

 

[lobz]

If you are opening many PDFs over your day and performing other latency sensitive, real-time tasks, it adds up to a superior user experience.

For tasks that aren't necessarily about real-time responsiveness and can just be left to run, that responsiveness isn't as important

This very twisted argument sounds extremely familiar.... like in the old FX era, when all of your and Beginner's kind shouted: gaming is not everything, what really counts is the 2 (!!!) encoding softwares where the P4 was a little bit faster.

 

[lobz]

EDIT:



I clearly said for commercial use in rendering the 1700 is obviously better so don't twist words. For an office desktop 7700k clearly is superior (having an ssd is far more important). And no, saying something negative about AMD can be completely objective.

loading times/latency matters a lot for UX. Read up on UX studies. Seconds matter, in fact milliseconds matter. This isn't against AMD it is just facts. And If you look at my post history you can see I'm rather pro AMD than anti-AMD.

Then please show me ONE blind(!) UX study when intel machines were deemed having superior UX compared to AMD machines, would you? Let alone kaby lake vs ryzen...

 

[Arachnotronic]

This very twisted argument sounds extremely familiar.... like in the old FX era, when all of your and Beginner's kind shouted: gaming is not everything, what really counts is the 2 (!!!) encoding softwares where the P4 was a little bit faster.

Buy whatever CPU you want. No need to get worked up, it doesn't matter to me one bit.

 

[lobz]

Buy whatever CPU you want. No need to get worked up, it doesn't matter to me one bit.

I'm sorry, I didn't want to make it personal... you're right. It just tickles me in a bad way when I try and fail to imagine a real world case when I'm being hindered by having to open so large PDFs all day that a 8 core Ryzen7 compared to a 7700K becomes a bigger bottleneck then of my SSD choice. I mean, please..... how big the _real_ general responsiveness can be between those 2 CPUs?

 

[zinfamous]

Dang, I forgot that this was the Vega thread. And here we are going on about Intel over the last 3 pages.

 

[CatMerc]

I said nothing about AMD. I made a general statement about why for consumer usage, a lower-latency-but-lower-throughput processor could be preferable to a higher-throughput-but-higher-latency processor.

Do note that I sold a 6950X and replaced it with a 7700K, so I put my money where my mouth is.

Damn

Did you have any use case for it or did you just drop 1700$ for the sake of having the top? Just curious

 

[Bacon1]

Dang, I forgot that this was the Vega thread. And here we are going on about Intel over the last 3 pages.

TIL Vega is actually a CPU AMD with the smoke and mirrors!