Outside of strategy games like Ashes of Singularity and Total War, a gaming benchmark won't say much about the CPU aside from it's clock speed. Games are just too GPU dependent to mean anything aside from you are overspending on CPUs.
Outside of strategy games like Ashes of Singularity and Total War, a gaming benchmark won't say much about the CPU aside from it's clock speed. Games are just too GPU dependent to mean anything aside from you are overspending on CPUs.
Never underestimate the ability of inefficient code to run poorly on very fast hardware. Plenty of games have created a CPU bottleneck where there shouldn't have been one.
Pcpartpicker.com lists when prices of items drop and they didn't pickup any price drops in intel chips past 7 days concerning this at all. And they monitor several webstores.
That's not a price cut. That's Micro Center. Micro Center's business model is to sell CPUs at cost, but only for in-store pickup, not online. The idea is to get you to come to their store to buy a CPU that they make nothing on, then get you to buy something else while there that they do make money on. CPUs have very low failure and return rates as compared to other computer hardware, so they probably don't lose much money that way.
I'm not one to usually hold leaks very reliable but. There's a ton of leaks and they have all agreed with the display that AMD gave us the other day. Indeed they are competing with the chips they claimed and yes they are as fast as those i7 chips as well. Its looking really good and the hush from intel and zero rumors spreading around makes me think intel has no viable counter this year.
Looks good honestly, Ryzen can nearly compete with Intel as far as gaming is concerned. We will need some real-life gaming benchmarks though.
As a side note...the comments on that site under those benchmarks are their own kind of "special" and make this forum look competent and professional.
Originally posted by nethaniah
Seriously Farmville? Yeah I think it's great. In a World where half our population is dying of hunger the more fortunate half is spending their time harvesting food that doesn't exist.
I'm not one to usually hold leaks very reliable but. There's a ton of leaks and they have all agreed with the display that AMD gave us the other day. Indeed they are competing with the chips they claimed and yes they are as fast as those i7 chips as well. Its looking really good and the hush from intel and zero rumors spreading around makes me think intel has no viable counter this year.
I'm not one to usually hold leaks very reliable but. There's a ton of leaks and they have all agreed with the display that AMD gave us the other day. Indeed they are competing with the chips they claimed and yes they are as fast as those i7 chips as well. Its looking really good and the hush from intel and zero rumors spreading around makes me think intel has no viable counter this year.
Looks good honestly, Ryzen can nearly compete with Intel as far as gaming is concerned. We will need some real-life gaming benchmarks though.
As a side note...the comments on that site under those benchmarks are their own kind of "special" and make this forum look competent and professional.
What CPU Instructions does Ryzen have vs Intel?
This is the wrong question. As far as PC gaming is concerned the differences in instruction sets are pretty much aesthetics and don't affect performance.
The right questions are: What frequency can Ryzen actually achieve for gaming? How well can games create threads?
High frequency is important for gaming because it translates into single-threaded performance. Single threaded performance is important because many game processes are impossible/very hard to code in a way that will split them into many threads.
The man-hour cost of writing multi-threaded software is not worth it for game companies when the game will be GPU bottlenecked. As a result of this, many game developers don't actually get much experience with writing multi-threaded code, which again makes it harder to write multi-threaded code in future projects.
The best metaphor is driving: If you need to transport something large that can't be split into parts and requires a single truck (process) it's better to have a single, good, high-speed lane on the road. This will allow the truck to get your item from A to B very fast. Unfortunately, if the traffic on the road is very high this single lane is more like to get traffic jammed.
It's what Intel's architecture excels at. They build a few very expensive lanes with high speed limits.
If you have something that can be split into many parts (threads) then it's better to use a slightly low speed limit 8-lane highway. You are very unlikely to get a traffic jam there and as far as electronics are concerned building a lane with lower speed limits is many times cheaper.
This is what AMD architecture excels at. They build many cheap, low-speed limit lanes.
Unfortunately for AMD, many games can't use that many lanes and prefer a single lane. It's slowly changing but unless we see some huge breakthrough in how games handle data, it's not going to change fast.
Originally posted by nethaniah
Seriously Farmville? Yeah I think it's great. In a World where half our population is dying of hunger the more fortunate half is spending their time harvesting food that doesn't exist.
That's why you don't know the real power/flaws of the Ryzen yet.
Gaming and Computing are totally different areas.
You can run a benchmark and totally trash Intel/AMD, and in gaming you hardly see any difference, if at all.
The price differences are nice though.
AMD is banking on 4k gaming and the future with these chips. We know right now most games won't take advantage of an 8c16t processor. They are hoping that going forward they will and that is where will see the difference.
AMD is banking on 4k gaming and the future with these chips.
Wrong. Game's resolution affects the GPU's workload, not the CPU's workload.
I'd say AMD is not banking for gaming at all with these chips. AMD has just made the most cost-effective CPU for several solutions that scale well to 16 threads, why do you think that solution would be aimed for gaming?
AMD is banking on 4k gaming and the future with these chips.
Wrong. Game's resolution affects the GPU's workload, not the CPU's workload.
I'd say AMD is not banking for gaming at all with these chips. AMD has just made the most cost-effective CPU for several solutions that scale well to 16 threads, why do you think that solution would be aimed for gaming?
Well that is what they said in their presentation. So Guess they are lying?
AMD is banking on 4k gaming and the future with these chips.
Wrong. Game's resolution affects the GPU's workload, not the CPU's workload.
I'd say AMD is not banking for gaming at all with these chips. AMD has just made the most cost-effective CPU for several solutions that scale well to 16 threads, why do you think that solution would be aimed for gaming?
Well that is what they said in their presentation. So Guess they are lying?
I agree with Vrika. The fact they say they "aim for 4k gaming" is just trying to squeeze keywords into their presentation. The press likes it, the marketing likes it and many people who don't know much about PCs like it.
So yes, they are lying, in the sense that their CPUs were not made with primary focus being 4k gaming.
Originally posted by nethaniah
Seriously Farmville? Yeah I think it's great. In a World where half our population is dying of hunger the more fortunate half is spending their time harvesting food that doesn't exist.
AMD is banking on 4k gaming and the future with these chips.
Wrong. Game's resolution affects the GPU's workload, not the CPU's workload.
I'd say AMD is not banking for gaming at all with these chips. AMD has just made the most cost-effective CPU for several solutions that scale well to 16 threads, why do you think that solution would be aimed for gaming?
Well that is what they said in their presentation. So Guess they are lying?
I agree with Vrika. The fact they say they "aim for 4k gaming" is just trying to squeeze keywords into their presentation. The press likes it, the marketing likes it and many people who don't know much about PCs like it.
So yes, they are lying, in the sense that their CPUs were not made with primary focus being 4k gaming.
I'm not trying to debate the validity in their claim. Yet this is their claim. And I don't feel like searching the entire video but at 14:49. "having a cpu that can keep up with the best graphics cards in the industry, is really what we set out to do"
As I see it, AMD's priorities in designing Zen cores are:
1) servers 2) laptops 3) desktops 4) embedded
And in that order. And I'm not entirely certain that desktops rate higher than embedded. The most recently released chip to be primarily targeted at desktops, rather than primarily for some other market and also available in desktops, is Thuban (Phenom II X6), way back in 2010.
Now, that's not to say that AMD doesn't care about desktops at all. Of course they do. You put in all of the work of designing a chip and you want to sell it in as many markets as you possibly can.
So I called a good friend who works over at Microcenter Corporate. He is a buyer over there. He says that Intel has told them that price cuts are coming soon, so their price cuts are just trying to clear out some inventory.
So for the people who said it was just Microcenter doing it, you were wrong.
So I called a good friend who works over at Microcenter Corporate. He is a buyer over there. He says that Intel has told them that price cuts are coming soon, so their price cuts are just trying to clear out some inventory.
So for the people who said it was just Microcenter doing it, you were wrong.
There is an enormous difference between:
1) unspecified and probably mostly small price cuts are coming soon, and 2) Intel has already cut prices on basically their entire lineup by 30% or so.
Even if the former is true (which is plausible), the article claiming the latter is still wrong. If I predict a rainstorm tomorrow and it's beautiful weather instead, but a rainstorm comes a month later, that doesn't mean I was right.
So I called a good friend who works over at Microcenter Corporate. He is a buyer over there. He says that Intel has told them that price cuts are coming soon, so their price cuts are just trying to clear out some inventory.
So for the people who said it was just Microcenter doing it, you were wrong.
Naturally we are all to assume the prices will be cut. But when is the real question and like quiz said if you keep saying it then at some point you will be right.
If we are wrong then where's the link to another company doing it?
So I called a good friend who works over at Microcenter Corporate. He is a buyer over there. He says that Intel has told them that price cuts are coming soon, so their price cuts are just trying to clear out some inventory.
So for the people who said it was just Microcenter doing it, you were wrong.
There is an enormous difference between:
1) unspecified and probably mostly small price cuts are coming soon, and 2) Intel has already cut prices on basically their entire lineup by 30% or so.
Even if the former is true (which is plausible), the article claiming the latter is still wrong. If I predict a rainstorm tomorrow and it's beautiful weather instead, but a rainstorm comes a month later, that doesn't mean I was right.
Rant all you want, Microcenter is getting reembused by Intel because it is their intention to cut prices across the board on processors, That is directly from a buyer! So dither all you want, what I said is a fact not supposition.
So I called a good friend who works over at Microcenter Corporate. He is a buyer over there. He says that Intel has told them that price cuts are coming soon, so their price cuts are just trying to clear out some inventory.
So for the people who said it was just Microcenter doing it, you were wrong.
There is an enormous difference between:
1) unspecified and probably mostly small price cuts are coming soon, and 2) Intel has already cut prices on basically their entire lineup by 30% or so.
Even if the former is true (which is plausible), the article claiming the latter is still wrong. If I predict a rainstorm tomorrow and it's beautiful weather instead, but a rainstorm comes a month later, that doesn't mean I was right.
Rant all you want, Microcenter is getting reembused by Intel because it is their intention to cut prices across the board on processors, That is directly from a buyer! So dither all you want, what I said is a fact not supposition.
I'd be very surprised if Ryzen led Intel to cut prices across the board. Cut prices on Broadwell-E, certainly. But on Kaby Lake, so soon after launch, when Intel knew very well that Ryzen was coming? Maybe $10 on this SKU or $20 on that one, but I'd be surprised if they slash prices dramatically there.
There's also a history that lead to that. Hard OCP only benchmarks 4 or so games in a video card review, and measures by how high they can turn settings in a fixed game on a fixed video card. Basically, they benchmark the games they're interested in at the time, without worrying about whether that is unduly favorable to AMD or Nvidia.
Then they hit a run where nearly all of the games they were interested in relied heavily on Nvidia Gameworks. So their reviews comparing GPUs were largely a comparison of which games did best at Nvidia Gameworks. The reasons why AMD would be upset over that should be obvious, though at times in the past, they've happened to have a relatively pro-AMD set of games.
Then they decided that VR was interesting, and did a bunch of reviews comparing video cards in VR. For whatever reason, AMD's GPUs doesn't handle the VR they use very well, so the reviews looked very pro-Nvidia, more so than just about anything else you'd find.
Like many other companies in many other markets, AMD and Nvidia both try to manipulate reviews to be more favorable to their products. At some point, AMD decided, if this is how you're going to review our hardware, we're not sending you review samples anymore.
There have been cases were dodgy reviewers did artificially skew hardware reviewers in favor of one vendor or another. Hard OCP wasn't an unethical case of this, as they merely emphasized what they were interested in at the time. It was surely important information to someone who was primarily interested in VR, even if it wasn't representative of normal games, and it just happened to be unfavorable to AMD.
The Core i7 4770 has been pointless for years, as it was replaced by the Core i7 4790 that is a higher clocked version of the same thing for the same price. The 4770 is mostly out of stock, and what's left is just stupidly overpriced stuff that hasn't sold precisely because it's overpriced. Even on the price list you listed, the 4790 is cheaper still cheaper than the 4770. The change isn't a price cut coming from Intel; it's an obsolete SKU that shouldn't even be on the list.
There's also a history that lead to that. Hard OCP only benchmarks 4 or so games in a video card review, and measures by how high they can turn settings in a fixed game on a fixed video card. Basically, they benchmark the games they're interested in at the time, without worrying about whether that is unduly favorable to AMD or Nvidia.
Then they hit a run where nearly all of the games they were interested in relied heavily on Nvidia Gameworks. So their reviews comparing GPUs were largely a comparison of which games did best at Nvidia Gameworks. The reasons why AMD would be upset over that should be obvious, though at times in the past, they've happened to have a relatively pro-AMD set of games.
Then they decided that VR was interesting, and did a bunch of reviews comparing video cards in VR. For whatever reason, AMD's GPUs doesn't handle the VR they use very well, so the reviews looked very pro-Nvidia, more so than just about anything else you'd find.
Like many other companies in many other markets, AMD and Nvidia both try to manipulate reviews to be more favorable to their products. At some point, AMD decided, if this is how you're going to review our hardware, we're not sending you review samples anymore.
There have been cases were dodgy reviewers did artificially skew hardware reviewers in favor of one vendor or another. Hard OCP wasn't an unethical case of this, as they merely emphasized what they were interested in at the time. It was surely important information to someone who was primarily interested in VR, even if it wasn't representative of normal games, and it just happened to be unfavorable to AMD.
Yeah I mean as long as they're upfront that they're not trying to provide a scientifically designed review/study of the cards, I'm ok with it. If they're going, "look, here are the games we're interested in, here's how these cards perform" that's fine, the reader has enough information to add to their decision making process.
Now if they were cherry picking certain data and then going on a crusade to denigrate one companies product over the other, that would be unethical and a problem.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
Comments
Edit: Thanks for the insight below
https://pcpartpicker.com/products/pricedrop/week/
That's not a price cut. That's Micro Center. Micro Center's business model is to sell CPUs at cost, but only for in-store pickup, not online. The idea is to get you to come to their store to buy a CPU that they make nothing on, then get you to buy something else while there that they do make money on. CPUs have very low failure and return rates as compared to other computer hardware, so they probably don't lose much money that way.
As a side note...the comments on that site under those benchmarks are their own kind of "special" and make this forum look competent and professional.
The right questions are:
What frequency can Ryzen actually achieve for gaming?
How well can games create threads?
High frequency is important for gaming because it translates into single-threaded performance. Single threaded performance is important because many game processes are impossible/very hard to code in a way that will split them into many threads.
The man-hour cost of writing multi-threaded software is not worth it for game companies when the game will be GPU bottlenecked. As a result of this, many game developers don't actually get much experience with writing multi-threaded code, which again makes it harder to write multi-threaded code in future projects.
The best metaphor is driving:
If you need to transport something large that can't be split into parts and requires a single truck (process) it's better to have a single, good, high-speed lane on the road. This will allow the truck to get your item from A to B very fast. Unfortunately, if the traffic on the road is very high this single lane is more like to get traffic jammed.
It's what Intel's architecture excels at. They build a few very expensive lanes with high speed limits.
If you have something that can be split into many parts (threads) then it's better to use a slightly low speed limit 8-lane highway. You are very unlikely to get a traffic jam there and as far as electronics are concerned building a lane with lower speed limits is many times cheaper.
This is what AMD architecture excels at. They build many cheap, low-speed limit lanes.
Unfortunately for AMD, many games can't use that many lanes and prefer a single lane. It's slowly changing but unless we see some huge breakthrough in how games handle data, it's not going to change fast.
Gaming and Computing are totally different areas.
You can run a benchmark and totally trash Intel/AMD, and in gaming you hardly see any difference, if at all.
The price differences are nice though.
"going into arguments with idiots is a lost cause, it requires you to stoop down to their level and you can't win"
I'd say AMD is not banking for gaming at all with these chips. AMD has just made the most cost-effective CPU for several solutions that scale well to 16 threads, why do you think that solution would be aimed for gaming?
So yes, they are lying, in the sense that their CPUs were not made with primary focus being 4k gaming.
1) servers
2) laptops
3) desktops
4) embedded
And in that order. And I'm not entirely certain that desktops rate higher than embedded. The most recently released chip to be primarily targeted at desktops, rather than primarily for some other market and also available in desktops, is Thuban (Phenom II X6), way back in 2010.
Now, that's not to say that AMD doesn't care about desktops at all. Of course they do. You put in all of the work of designing a chip and you want to sell it in as many markets as you possibly can.
So I called a good friend who works over at Microcenter Corporate. He is a buyer over there. He says that Intel has told them that price cuts are coming soon, so their price cuts are just trying to clear out some inventory.
So for the people who said it was just Microcenter doing it, you were wrong.
1) unspecified and probably mostly small price cuts are coming soon, and
2) Intel has already cut prices on basically their entire lineup by 30% or so.
Even if the former is true (which is plausible), the article claiming the latter is still wrong. If I predict a rainstorm tomorrow and it's beautiful weather instead, but a rainstorm comes a month later, that doesn't mean I was right.
If we are wrong then where's the link to another company doing it?
This is interesting.
Then they hit a run where nearly all of the games they were interested in relied heavily on Nvidia Gameworks. So their reviews comparing GPUs were largely a comparison of which games did best at Nvidia Gameworks. The reasons why AMD would be upset over that should be obvious, though at times in the past, they've happened to have a relatively pro-AMD set of games.
Then they decided that VR was interesting, and did a bunch of reviews comparing video cards in VR. For whatever reason, AMD's GPUs doesn't handle the VR they use very well, so the reviews looked very pro-Nvidia, more so than just about anything else you'd find.
Like many other companies in many other markets, AMD and Nvidia both try to manipulate reviews to be more favorable to their products. At some point, AMD decided, if this is how you're going to review our hardware, we're not sending you review samples anymore.
There have been cases were dodgy reviewers did artificially skew hardware reviewers in favor of one vendor or another. Hard OCP wasn't an unethical case of this, as they merely emphasized what they were interested in at the time. It was surely important information to someone who was primarily interested in VR, even if it wasn't representative of normal games, and it just happened to be unfavorable to AMD.
https://pcpartpicker.com/products/pricedrop/week/
Yeah I mean as long as they're upfront that they're not trying to provide a scientifically designed review/study of the cards, I'm ok with it. If they're going, "look, here are the games we're interested in, here's how these cards perform" that's fine, the reader has enough information to add to their decision making process.
Now if they were cherry picking certain data and then going on a crusade to denigrate one companies product over the other, that would be unethical and a problem.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
- Friedrich Nietzsche