GHz still > everything? Wait for RYZEN?

[Asset]

hi all,

 

investigating into upgrading my systems. Back in the days clock frequency was everything. Is that still the case, especially with 2.0 and 2.5 on the horizon?

I wanted to get a i7 6700K, but with AMD's new tech coming up I was wondering if that is actually something I should wait for.

 

Currently I am running 8GB of RAM. Is that enough? SystemMonitor tells me 7GB are used when playing.

I also have a horribly old GPU (don't even know the model) with 1 GB of RAM. But does it actually help to get a new card? Is the processing performance important or just the RAM?

 

Thanks all

[Drona]

GHz is still the king and always will be for DCS. Get 16GB RAM to be safe and get a 4gb video card minimum.

[SkateZilla]

GHz is not the King anymore.

 

my 5.31GHz FX8350 barely matches Intel I7s Running at 3GHz in performance.

 

IPC is the King,

 

Ryzen has a Vastly Improved IPC over FX CPUs, couple that with the CPU being placed on a Mainboard environment w/ faster memory, faster busses. you get the idea.

 

AMD's Ryzen Matched Intel's $1100 i7 in Multiple Benchmarks and Games. and Used Less power to do so.

[cichlidfan]

Skates, your intentions are good but AMD is still inferior no matter what you tell yourself or what you get out of the benchmarks.

 

You could not pay me to buy an AMD chip.

[SkateZilla]

Skates, your intentions are good but AMD is still inferior no matter what you tell yourself or what you get out of the benchmarks.

 

You could not pay me to buy an AMD chip.

 

well, in 3 months, when my $300 Ryzen CPU spanks Intel's $1300 i7,..

 

Dont come crying to me.

[razo+r]

Don't trust AMDs benchmarks, maybe it will be the same as they did with their new GPU series

 

When they did a benchmark, they set the graphics lower for their GPU to make more frames and outperform NVidia

 

Maybe they've done the same with the CPU on a benchmark

 

Also, there are a lot of I7 out there, they could have used an old one, and we still don't have a correct prize, nor do we have the real specs and comparsion of it against the Intel CPU, unless i missed that, please post a link

[cichlidfan]

Dont come crying to me.

 

Have you ever seen me cry about the performance of my machine? Nope.

 

I currently have three desktops, two laptops and a Surface Pro 4. I am quite happy with the performance of my Intel chips.

[SkateZilla]

Don't trust AMDs benchmarks, maybe it will be the same as they did with their new GPU series

 

When they did a benchmark, they set the graphics lower for their GPU to make more frames and outperform NVidia

 

Maybe they've done the same with the CPU on a benchmark

 

Also, there are a lot of I7 out there, they could have used an old one, and we still don't have a correct prize, nor do we have the real specs and comparsion of it against the Intel CPU, unless i missed that, please post a link

 

They specifically released the links to the Actual Benchmark Files which are managed by independent company and not AMD nor Intel.

 

And they Specifically Chose the i7-6900K because it's also 8c/16t

 

For all the Anti AMD people, without AMD your next i7 will be $2500.

 

no competition = no price caps on parts.

 

you cant run a CPU bench mark on lower settings.

 

Everyone with Press Samples are saying the same thing AMD's 8c/16t Ryzen matches or beats Intel's current i7 8c/16t 6900K

 

 

No where did AMD State their RX480 was going to compete w/ the GTX1080 or 1070s,

 

Did you really think a $200 GPU would magically compete with one that is $300 more, and had 2.5 Billion more invested in research?

[cichlidfan]

I won't argue that AMD is less costly for decent performance, but I also don't care what my Intel chips cost, though I don't think I have ever paid more than $350 for the CPU.

 

To each their own. If you are happy with your rig then you made the correct choice. I am happy with mine, so I also made the correct choice.

 

Btw, Merry Christmas.

 

:santa:

Edited December 20, 2016 by cichlidfan

[razo+r]

The next gens are coming out, so you better wait for both Intels and AMDs new CPU's

 

Both are just getting released and are designed for their own specific task or customer market

 

While AMD is more on more cores, less money but with lower efficiency (Current gens), you can only guess atm, how the Rayzen will be

 

Intel is more on more money=Quality (But that ends with the X-versions) and well, have more efficiency (Current Gens)

 

Even if Intel is more expensive than AMD and even if it has a lower bangs-for-buck ratio, it is more efficient in both energy saving and therefor generates less heat, but of course, we can't say anything yet about specs (except threads and cores and speed) and that's why we should wait for the release

 

with the release, a lot of comparsions and benchmarks are coming, and then we can compare between those benchmarks, and then we can say more about which is the better gen...

 

@OldE24

 

I'm not a peasant, I'm not prefering Intel, nor do i prefer Nvidia over AMD

 

@Skate

 

I'm refering to this video: https://youtu.be/rVlsdwEDRI8?t=495

 

He told, that two cards can outperform the 1080, with lower graphics though, but he didn't say anything about graphics

 

And IMO, a comparsion between old and new tech is fine, but a comparsion between both new gens will be better, but then they should minizime all influences, who could make a difference on the result, which might can be hard to do

 

The speed of a CPU isn't the most important thing anymore, now it's mostly the Cores and the threads with the speed of the Core, and then comes the 64-bit technique and all the other technique-goodies

[razo+r]

Also Asset, can you give us your current system specs so we can help you what you should upgrade and what not yet

 

Also, for your RAM, maybe you should lower your preload radius a bit or lower settings in general, it should reduce the amount of RAM being used

[SkateZilla]

actually in that SBS Video, the nVidia GPu was not correctly rendering the geometry.

 

AMD Went on a Limb with Clustered Multi-Threading, Unfortunately no one wanted to follow, hardware or software wise, and it failed, miserably, and the fact that the BD, PD, Cores all used old Phenom and PhenomII Designs for Controllers, Cache and Prefetch designs, which caused IPC and Cache Latency to further drag down performance.

 

AMD had a good idea, but the old CEO's cost saving measures of using old designs killed that idea, if the per thread IPC of the PD was on par with Intel, more companies would have supported CMT directly,

 

 

Jim keller Designed the Zen Chip from the ground up, everything is new, nothing is re-used from the Phenom/PhenomII Designs, and Adopted a Custom Version of SMT Similar to Intel's Implementation.

(Jim Keller, has Never in his career designed a FLOP CPU Architecture)

 

AMD's Stupidity in design of the Construction Cores gave Intel 6 years of no competition, and the iSeries CPU's slowly started climbing in prices from $300+ top end to $1100+ top end.

 

The fact that they Abandoned Desktop completely with exception of re-bins of the piledriver CPU's at 4.8/5.0 GHz with no updated Mainboard Platforms to use new interfaces only helped Intel.

 

 

How long do you think Intel's 6900K and Upcoming 7900 CPU's are going to stay at $1000+ when AMD has a Chip with Competitive Performance for 60% off the Intel's MSRP.

 

Not Long.

 

Intel will likely start dropping prices to be competitive.

Edited December 20, 2016 by SkateZilla

[Chief1942]

C'mon guys...

 

Shades of Ford versus Chevrolet:music_whistling:

I have used both AMD and Intel CPU's over the years and unless I am willing to put in numerous hours testing between the two myself on MY system, then it has been my personal experience they are hard to distinguish one from the other , performance (FPS) wise. I currently am using Intel, but when I upgrade my system in the future, I will do as I always do, compare between the two based on the experience of others and of course what the budget will allow at that point in time.

 

Merry Christmas to all my acquaintenances here on the ED Forums. And to ED, I am so looking forward to what you folks are going to give us in the coming months. Pardon the drool. It happens when I start anticipating.:smilewink:

[remon]

Skates, your intentions are good but AMD is still inferior no matter what you tell yourself or what you get out of the benchmarks.

 

You could not pay me to buy an AMD chip.

 

Well, Kaby Lake certainly isn't an improvement over Skylake, in fact they have the exact same IPC. Ryzen won't have to be that much faster than older Intel cpu's to catch up to their more modern ones.

[BitMaster]

IPC is the cornerstone to count with and DirectX will be the wall you run against.

 

Taking PASSMARK's IPC ( single thread perf. test ) as a measurement, anything above 2500-2600 IPC points is FATSER than the current Caucasus map can handle, you will run against a wall defined by algorithm rather than lack of pure power.

 

I have to admit, chiclidfan has a valid point which has been written in concrete by AMD itself over the past 7-10 years. It's been them cheating us with glorious announcements that fell very very short once released and independently tested.

 

Still, I am hoping AMD for the sake of all, will deliver some serious oooomps.

 

Be assured, that much marketing we all understand, AMD will not sell a 1150€ i7 Killer chip for 300€..no way...it will much more be like 60-75% of the Intel price..in my understanding of the past.

 

In addition, the CPU is only half of what you need. The chipset will be the 1st series and we all know about those many things that went wrong on those initial releases...quickly followed by a Version-2 of whatever it was.

 

 

Put the CPU & Board on the table and we will judge it by what it IS and not what AMD claims it is. Those worlds have been very far apart in the past and it's AMD's fault that we have to think about it this way.

 

 

Still, if Ryzen rocks...and the boards are stable and fast...why not...I just doubt it out of experience.

 

 

I trust in Intel, Nvidia and Asus and whenever I stray aside I punish myself. That's how the past has been, future is to be written.

[SkateZilla]

IPC is the cornerstone to count with and DirectX will be the wall you run against.

 

Taking PASSMARK's IPC ( single thread perf. test ) as a measurement, anything above 2500-2600 IPC points is FATSER than the current Caucasus map can handle, you will run against a wall defined by algorithm rather than lack of pure power.

 

I have to admit, chiclidfan has a valid point which has been written in concrete by AMD itself over the past 7-10 years. It's been them cheating us with glorious announcements that fell very very short once released and independently tested.

 

Still, I am hoping AMD for the sake of all, will deliver some serious oooomps.

 

Be assured, that much marketing we all understand, AMD will not sell a 1150€ i7 Killer chip for 300€..no way...it will much more be like 60-75% of the Intel price..in my understanding of the past.

 

In addition, the CPU is only half of what you need. The chipset will be the 1st series and we all know about those many things that went wrong on those initial releases...quickly followed by a Version-2 of whatever it was.

 

 

Put the CPU & Board on the table and we will judge it by what it IS and not what AMD claims it is. Those worlds have been very far apart in the past and it's AMD's fault that we have to think about it this way.

 

 

Still, if Ryzen rocks...and the boards are stable and fast...why not...I just doubt it out of experience.

 

 

I trust in Intel, Nvidia and Asus and whenever I stray aside I punish myself. That's how the past has been, future is to be written.

 

 

Ryzen SR7 CPUs will be $349 and $499 (8c/16t)

 

The Top End SR7 has Base Clock of 3.4 GHz (Boost clock yet to be revealed), and will sell for $499 and Equal or Surpass Current Intel i7-6900K 8c/16t Performance.

This is being reported by more than AMD, as some Review sites and AMD Enthusiasts have already gotten a Review Sample.

 

 

It's not that AMD is selling the Ryzen CPU's at a loss for $500,

 

it's Intel has had not competition since 2010, and has since inflated their prices accordingly every year to maximize profits while they have no performance competition.

[cichlidfan]

I trust in Intel, Nvidia and Asus and whenever I stray aside I punish myself. That's how the past has been, future is to be written.

 

Indeed. Those are my most trusted brands as well.

[cichlidfan]

it's Intel has had not competition since 2010, and has since inflated their prices accordingly every year to maximize profits while they have no performance competition.

 

You should ask yourself why Intel has had no competition in the past six years (your words not mine). Did it really take AMD that long to figure out how to make a decent chip, probably not. AMD has yet to be able to deliver consistent drivers for anything they sell. What difference does it make if the hardware is awesome if the the software behind it sucks?

 

No thanks.

[MegOhm_SD]

The old standing joke use to be "AMD heats up the neighborhood"

 

Is that still true? Did they ever "beat the heat" issue?

 

I've admittedly been out of touch and I'm Intel Biased being a former employee.

 

Ill buy AMD GPUs but never their CPUs.

Edited December 21, 2016 by MegOhm_SD

[Chief1942]

"Put the CPU & Board on the table and we will judge it by what it IS and not what AMD claims it is." That is the right approach. Otherwise we simply leave ourselves vulnerable to marketing hype. And that applies to both AMD and Intel. Like I said previously, unless I bench test them myself, I can seldom actually see, in a sim, any notable difference. I am just not that good at seeing the difference between 50 FPS and 60 FPS. Your milage may vary.

[SkateZilla]

You should ask yourself why Intel has had no competition in the past six years (your words not mine). Did it really take AMD that long to figure out how to make a decent chip, probably not. AMD has yet to be able to deliver consistent drivers for anything they sell. What difference does it make if the hardware is awesome if the the software behind it sucks?

 

No thanks.

 

A from scratch chip design takes 3-4 years to design, test, fab, test, tweak, release.

 

AMD's Old CEO decided to Push the Clustered Multi-Threading for 3 years before finally waving the white flag Resigning, and AMD Brought in Dr. Su and she started developing the Zen Program and Re-structuring AMD to regain marketshare, Bringing back Jim Keller to design the Zen Architecture from the ground up.

 

So 3 years of Hoping they could fix the IPC and Latency Problems of BullDozer/Piledriver before ditching AM3+ Development completely and taking the development path to low power/mobile only environments.

 

Leaving High End desktop AM3+ Enthusiast Segment to sit and squander under high binned FX8350s for 4 more years.

 

But it was necessary to abandon the CMT Architecture, it was failing and failing miserably.

Edited December 22, 2016 by SkateZilla

[Asset]

my system

 

Also Asset, can you give us your current system specs so we can help you what you should upgrade and what not yet

 

Also, for your RAM, maybe you should lower your preload radius a bit or lower settings in general, it should reduce the amount of RAM being used

 

Certainly can:

i5 750@3.2GHz

Asus P7P55D

8 GB DDR3 RAM (it's actually 16GB, but the mainboard can only deal with 8GB)

Radeon HD8660 1GB

128GB Samsung SSD

Win7

Corsair H110i 280mm water-cooling (installed yesterday in anticipation of new system :smilewink:)

 

The graphics settings are pretty low already. Only the texture quality is high, because I want to be able to read the switch labels.

 

After some testing yesterday I get around 40 fps which would be ok in itself. But I have these multiple-second-freezes. My harddrive is constantly working and the system monitor shows HDD writes up to 100MB/s. My system is even too slow to join the BlueFla server when it is busy. It keeps loading until I get a "connection timed" out message. Works ok when server is only sparsely populated.

[cichlidfan]

A from scratch chip design takes 3-4 years to design, test, fab, test, tweak, release.

 

You pretty much made my point by that sentence. AMD has been behind for a lot longer that 3-4 years.

 

Seriously, if they produced something worthwhile I would buy it in a heartbeat but my experience with their GPUs makes me want to run away, rapidly.

 

I do have to admit that I have never used an AMD CPU. After the 486 my next chip was a Celeron 300A, which could be overclocked to amazing levels.

 

I would not care who made it if I could get a chip that could be OC'd by 50% more than it originally clocked at.

[remon]

AMD has yet to be able to deliver consistent drivers for anything they sell.

 

Again with that lie. Especially from someone that doesn't use AMD hardware. Nvidia for the past year has produced much worse drivers than AMD. And this thing about bad AMDs drivers goes back to ATIs days. That was 10 years ago.

Edited December 22, 2016 by remon

[BitMaster]

I only had 1 AMD, a 1.4GHz Thunderbird chip with the infamous VIA-686B Southbridge error.

 

That alone was enough trouble for me to resign that Gamer-PC and installed SuSE 8.2 on it, without any flaw that machine was one of the BEST servers I ever had, hands down.

 

With bypassing the inferior drivers through the Linux Kernel and putting in Adaptec 2940 UW-Hardware accel. SCSI drives I bypassed the glitch of 686B ( also no soundcard etc.. you wanted to save those IRQs so they dont misfire ).

 

Mind you, this is what that server was doing...all-in-1, lemme list it:

 

SuSE 8.2 OS::

- Samba File Share ( compiled myself )

- HylaFAX ded. Fax server ( compile myself )(Fax-2-PDF-2- SMTP )

- Apache Web server ( stock )

- PureFTPd ftp server ( compiled myself )

- Postfix Mailserver as FrontEnd SMTPd with Avira Antivir for Linux ( Dazuko module ) and

SpamAssassin --> Exchange as Backend SMTPd in VMware ( see below )

- VMware Workstation Linux ( dont remember the version back then, think it was 4 or 5 )

-- Windows Server 2003 as VM

-- Active Directory

-- Exchange Server with full mobile access for the back-in-the-days Windows based handhelds

with Exchange connector.

 

Basically, this thing was doing it all, including watching cracked Premiere TV on a PCI TV card :))

 

In german we say "WollMilchSau" a pig that gives meat and also has wool like a sheep and drops some milk too....more than you could ever ask for.

 

 

That is what AMD was good for, stay away from Windows if you ran AMD back then, avoid VIA chipsets and their drivers.

 

It was rocksolid, performance wise very good, could handle it all and didnt fail a single time.

 

I was using ReiserFS back then ( man...wished Reiser hadnt killed his wife, that FS was so superior ).

 

 

Today, I use Ubuntu SRV LTS for such scenarios, its sleeker for business, but none got ever close to what that AMD did all-in-ONE Server.

 

 

I later had a Dual-CPU Opteron from Siemens, TX330 I think it was... the board was miserable and got killed by a add-on PCI-X non-certified Diva ISDN card for HylaFAX...it fried the 3.3V circuits.

 

Ever since...only Intel.

 

The AMD chip itself was never the real reason..but the inferior chips and chipsets compared to Intel driven systems.

 

Still...if Ryzen rocks....I will look into it.

 

 

You cant say I havent ridden the AMD horse, I did with good success on servers & Linux

Edited December 22, 2016 by BitMaster