Did you notice I said 4.7Ghz old i5? At that speed it keeps up with new games at 1080p more than fine, beats Ryzen. I know that in future games that don't heavily favor one core, then I may need an upgrade to more cores. I thought Ryzen would be it, but going from a 4.7Ghz i5 to a 3.9Ghz Ryzen just is a sidegrade at best for gaming NOW.
This is anecdotal, but I swear the 1700X feels smoother for me when playing BF1 and Siege than my i7 3770K. Maybe its placebo, but sometimes I used to get stuttering on my OCed 3770K even when frames were high, but Ryzen seems to have eliminated that for me. (I have it on a second PC with a GTX980 and a new Crosshair mobo from Asus).
0. Perform the NOR and we land that you do not care about CPU performance in games. The fact that you use fx-6300 verifies it, and as such we come to conclusion that ryzen is indeed a better deal for you. Logic!
1. Full core turbo of 4Ghz on what CPU? If you really want to know, turbo max makes it have 4Ghz on a single core, MCE makes it have 3.7Ghz on all cores, if you were talking about 6900k. Not 4Ghz, as you seem to think. By the way, thanks for reminding me that BF1 results in GN review were really not that bad, /r/AMD had me thinking otherwise for some reason.
2. It took Intel 2 months to devise a patch that by some dark sorcery adds AVX support to Blender. 2 months after seeing Ryzen ES compete with 6900k in a workload that did not use AVX at a time. I give it 2 years before Intel spends it's dollars on getting all the big productivity software to use AVX actively. It won't affect me since it is borderline impossible to make compilers use it in meaningful sense. But rendering, photo editing, encoding, hell even some rare games? It's already started going this way and hell, it would be more effective than any amount of bribing Intel would otherwise do.t.
Don't you start too lol, the HBM APU is absurd.
Some folks want a pink elephant to keep in their bathroom and refuse to accept that it won't work.
Take a 11CU APU towards 2TFLOPS at X TDP vs a 16CU APU +HBM at same X TDP.
The memory BW is not that limiting, especially if Vega saves on that so in practice you go wider but lower clocks and maybe you gain some perf on memory but overall the gain is relatively small. I do expect that you won't agree on how limiting the BW is.
The comparison gets worse from a perf perspective if both are 16CU.
From a cost perspective you more than double the manu costs and you got very high dev costs.
For an APU with a large GPU, the memory BW is the barrier so you would think a monolithic APU with HBM would work but only if you don't consider alternatives.
They could just use a traditional MCP to pair an existing CPU die and a Vega 11 with minimal costs Higher latency between CPU and GPU but they compete with discrete so the latency here is much lower.
It would have a TDP penalty with both CPU and GPU in the same package but there are form factor and design costs advantages for OEMs
In high end GPU it works from the classical perspective of perf power and cost.but , to use in any other area, you need a good reason.
The chiplets angle for lower costs and increased flexibility works if you have cheap enough packaging and preferably relatively affordable memory (the OS being able to take advantage of it and save on DRAM costs would help too). Si interposer and HBM are not that and scale doesn't help much.
Aside from that , AMD can't afford to do different implementations in high end desktop and server, can't do a native quad in desktop or a native 16 cores in server. Can't do a HBM APU in server either.
They are not gonna invest in a consumer APU that makes no sense.
When they gain access to packaging solutions that make financial sense, they'll use them to pair CPUs, GPUs, memory and so on- the chiplets angle.
So is that real? I mean if Intel is going to release a 6 Core for the 7700K price I can wait til August or so
Nobody knows what will be the pricing of Skylake-X. Bear in mind that Intel HEDT motherboards are quite expensive. You pay to play. Even if they have a 6c Skylake-X for the same price as the 6800k, expect $250 minimum for the board.
If you want "affordable" hexcore action from Intel, Coffeelake offers that in early 2018.
fwiw I game at 1600x1200 with whatever settings I can get away with. By pixel count, that's very close to 1080p. Though I might get a better monitor someday. Maybe.
I have a 4.7gh i5 that has seen 4 graphics cards and am now on a Nvidia 1080 on the same 1080p monitor.
HBC != HBM.
HBM would be awesome for performance, but it would have a very small market. An exascale APU, however, may have enough of a market to make it worthwhile.
HBC is specifically designed by AMD to enable bandwidth restricted scenarios to perform MUCH better (+50% avg, +100% min according to AMD... so 20%/40% better ).
XBone does exactly that, but with a strict reliance on software support. If AMD has required software support for the HBC, then they would be stupid to even develop it - a waste of resources (unless it's just for consoles...).
APUs are insanely limited by memory bandwidth. To the point that the lowest APU and highest APU in the same generation perform about the same, despite 33% more resources on the higher end APUs. My A8-7600 with DDR3-2133 CL9 is much better than with DDR3-1600 CL9. It took Hitman Absolution from laughably unplayable to reasonably playable.
I don't care how fast your cpu and monitor is, when you have a game and put settings to ULTRA , like hairworks and shadows, distance, etc. even a Nvidia 1080 goes below 60 fps in some games. Now I agree with you that if you are a professional twitch gamer that sets all the eye candy off so you can get 144 fps with shittier imagery so you can frag other professionals, then ok. But myself and most normal gamers certainly can tell that 30 fps sucks (whether pc, xbox one, or ps4) and can tell that a solid 60fps or higher looks buttery smooth. That is all that matters. I have played DOOM at 200 fps on a 60hz screen and a 144hz screen and they look and play the same. So my target is the best possible image at 1080p and 60+ fps, NOT 144+ fps and sacrifice imagery. I like the art and beauty in a game, I don't just run around shooting people with LOW settings to get the edge on them and tea bag them. I am not 17 years old, but I get why that niche would like it. Now I do realize my i5 will need an upgrade soon, so I was looking at Ryzen, but the loss of clock speed and all the problems right now is holding me back. I have the money, I just don't want the headaches (and I've built over 20 systems). If Ryzen improves in gaming and compatibility of parts before Intel releases a new 6 or 8 core or lowers price significantly, I will go Ryzen, if not I will go Intel. Either way my 4.7ghz i5 is more than fast enough with my 1080 to get over 60 fps for now. We will just see if Ryzen delivers sooner than Intel. And anyone thinking they can get over 60 fps at 4K with Ultra settings from a Nvidia 1080, think again. Maybe in old games, but not in nice looking new ones. That is why I haven't moved to 4K
1. The guys that really value gaming performance and do stay at the enthusiast part of the market follow closely the changes in both software and hardware. The whole idea of futureproofing is moot for someone that his main task is gaming and is regularly changing a 700$ GPU every year or so. Those people will simply buy what gives them the best performance every month.
2. The other (non enthusiast) parts of the gaming market - which btw make up the majority of it as far as software sales are concerned - use a lot more modest hardware (take a look at the averages in steam for resolution, CPUs, GPUs etc to understand what I am talking about). Also, they change hardware much slower than the enthusiast segment. The software providers know this very well, and the rate of adoption on tech that destroys their own client base's ability to pay them is - not surprisingly - much slower than the "future is now, your expensive four cores will stutter in a year or so" crowd wants to admit.
.
This is patently false. I have explained this earlier, so I won't go into details, but a 720p testing is a drawcall benchmark that is in no way indicative or current or future gaming performance. It would be like pointing to cinebench, and saying it's a good benchmark to test gaming performance.With regards to gaming reviews.
The only way to test a processor for gaming is to provide a - partly unrealistic, ok - CPU bottleneck. This is done by removing AA and resolution while keeping the other graphical settings up. Thus, your CPU has to work overdrive so as to keep up with the huge number of frames that the GPU is providing in such a setup.
The relevance of such a test for real life scenarios goes as follows: A CPU that performs markedly worse in such an environment will have reduced lifetime performance and endurance for the consumer, since gamers tend to change GPUs faster than CPUs and a future upgrade together with more demanding games will introduce a bottleneck (and a worse real life performance) faster.
Having said that, there is a benefit for the consumer to also see gaming testing in real life scenarios too, simply because these will be his own experience if he purchases the product. For this reason, I value reviews that tend to show performance in both scenarios. Remember, the gaming reviews are in the end trying to extrapolate holistic gaming performance by focusing on the specific object rated, be that a monitor, a GPU, a CPU etc. What you get now by using this or that is still valuable info, since PC gamers tend to use many different resolutions, aspect ratios, monitor refresh rates etc etc.
At the same time, there has been an argument around concerning gaming for some time now (I think since the bulldozer architecture was introduced). This goes like "as time passes by, game engines and APIs take advantage of more parallelization thus a good performer right now is not as valid as we might think, unless it has the spare resources (that current games don't utilize and future games will) to be "future-proof". This is partly a loaded argument, for two reasons.
1. The guys that really value gaming performance and do stay at the enthusiast part of the market follow closely the changes in both software and hardware. The whole idea of futureproofing is moot for someone that his main task is gaming and is regularly changing a 700$ GPU every year or so. Those people will simply buy what gives them the best performance every month.
2. The other (non enthusiast) parts of the gaming market - which btw make up the majority of it as far as software sales are concerned - use a lot more modest hardware (take a look at the averages in steam for resolution, CPUs, GPUs etc to understand what I am talking about). Also, they change hardware much slower than the enthusiast segment. The software providers know this very well, and the rate of adoption on tech that destroys their own client base's ability to pay them is - not surprisingly - much slower than the "future is now, your expensive four cores will stutter in a year or so" crowd wants to admit.
Somewhere inside the whole debacle there is an additional argument about the software market being driven by the consoles that have that many cores so in the future the games will--- but I'm really tired of typing now.
Not really strange at all. I bring my laptop to work every day where I have a lot of down time. I had a 2 year old laptop with a 970M in it. When I buy a laptop I want the best (within reason) as I know it will have to last 2-4 years. I don't mind spending the money on a 7700HQ/1070 laptop at 1080p because I KNOW it will last at least a few years. I bought 3 different models with same specs and returned two of them. One died in 2 months, the other ran at over 80C. The best 15" gaming laptop is MSI Dominator by far, beats Asus, Gigabyte, and even Clevo/Sagers for cool and reliable as well as overall build. When going to dinner with the wife is $100 or the family is $200, well I would rather skip a few dinners and have something I really want that is not gone in an hour. I also don't go on $2000 vacations that are gone in a week. I would rather have a new laptop and build a new 6 or 8 core desktop, still waiting on Ryzen to be no broken or Intel to come down in price. I am not cheap but I am not stupid about my purchases, not gonna buy a $1000 cpu unless it was like 10 times as fast as my current one.
I am totally fine with this test as a datapoint. Where I have a problem is when it's not contrasted with the benefit of more cores.With regards to gaming reviews.
The only way to test a processor for gaming is to provide a - partly unrealistic, ok - CPU bottleneck. This is done by removing AA and resolution while keeping the other graphical settings up. Thus, your CPU has to work overdrive so as to keep up with the huge number of frames that the GPU is providing in such a setup.
Why do you think hexa Coffee Lake would be cheap? It still has a GPU and if they price it at 350$, they got to push down all desktop prices and it's sill on 14nm so that would be a problem for margins.Maybe if it has a very small GPU it could work out for Intel but less than ideal. We'll shall see how CfL is and how Zen+ is...
This is anecdotal, but I swear the 1700X feels smoother for me when playing BF1 and Siege than my i7 3770K. Maybe its placebo, but sometimes I used to get stuttering on my OCed 3770K even when frames were high, but Ryzen seems to have eliminated that for me. (I have it on a second PC with a GTX980 and a new Crosshair mobo from Asus).
With regards to gaming reviews.
The only way to test a processor for gaming is to provide a - partly unrealistic, ok - CPU bottleneck. This is done by removing AA and resolution while keeping the other graphical settings up. Thus, your CPU has to work overdrive so as to keep up with the huge number of frames that the GPU is providing in such a setup.
The relevance of such a test for real life scenarios goes as follows: A CPU that performs markedly worse in such an environment will have reduced lifetime performance and endurance for the consumer, since gamers tend to change GPUs faster than CPUs and a future upgrade together with more demanding games will introduce a bottleneck (and a worse real life performance) faster.
Having said that, there is a benefit for the consumer to also see gaming testing in real life scenarios too, simply because these will be his own experience if he purchases the product. For this reason, I value reviews that tend to show performance in both scenarios. Remember, the gaming reviews are in the end trying to extrapolate holistic gaming performance by focusing on the specific object rated, be that a monitor, a GPU, a CPU etc. What you get now by using this or that is still valuable info, since PC gamers tend to use many different resolutions, aspect ratios, monitor refresh rates etc etc.
At the same time, there has been an argument around concerning gaming for some time now (I think since the bulldozer architecture was introduced). This goes like "as time passes by, game engines and APIs take advantage of more parallelization thus a good performer right now is not as valid as we might think, unless it has the spare resources (that current games don't utilize and future games will) to be "future-proof". This is partly a loaded argument, for two reasons.
1. The guys that really value gaming performance and do stay at the enthusiast part of the market follow closely the changes in both software and hardware. The whole idea of futureproofing is moot for someone that his main task is gaming and is regularly changing a 700$ GPU every year or so. Those people will simply buy what gives them the best performance every month.
2. The other (non enthusiast) parts of the gaming market - which btw make up the majority of it as far as software sales are concerned - use a lot more modest hardware (take a look at the averages in steam for resolution, CPUs, GPUs etc to understand what I am talking about). Also, they change hardware much slower than the enthusiast segment. The software providers know this very well, and the rate of adoption on tech that destroys their own client base's ability to pay them is - not surprisingly - much slower than the "future is now, your expensive four cores will stutter in a year or so" crowd wants to admit.
Somewhere inside the whole debacle there is an additional argument about the software market being driven by the consoles that have that many cores so in the future the games will--- but I'm really tired of typing now.
Intel will push down all the desktop prices. 14nm cost per transistor should drop as time goes by, mitigating the impact of using more wafers to provide the same amount of product to the consumer.
Intel is basically stuck. They can't do it any other way.
This is anecdotal, but I swear the 1700X feels smoother for me when playing BF1 and Siege than my i7 3770K. Maybe its placebo, but sometimes I used to get stuttering on my OCed 3770K even when frames were high, but Ryzen seems to have eliminated that for me. (I have it on a second PC with a GTX980 and a new Crosshair mobo from Asus).