That pretty much describes them, terrible site that garners far too much traffic. They're the Facebook clickbait site of the PC tech world.
That pretty much describes them, terrible site that garners far too much traffic. They're the Facebook clickbait site of the PC tech world.The folks around here don't like that site at all as it's not reliable and is less than tech savvy.
What i dislike the most about them is that they present their own speculations as facts. They find a a bit of news and they expand on it at will without noting that it's just their own speculation.
They spot some leaks before others sometimes but other than that it's not a good site.
So did you compare with a buddy's system? Or did you build a new Ryzen system? I'm confused. I don't even think Ryzen can run DDR4-3000 at CL14. 2933 or less and/or 3200 and higher.
You may want to double check the memory settings to make sure it wasn't gimped at 2133.
Haha, I feel ya. I'm still using a set of OEM desktop speakers from 2001 that look about like this:P.S. I buy $2 audio cables and use a decade+-old pair of Sony MDR-V6 headphones with Beyerdynamic pads to replace the OEMs that flaked away many years ago.
Well I understand your position on this matter and can't say that I blame you. The fanboys will fan away and find some skewed angle to attack you and me for opposing their positions. I run a lot of heavily threaded software and my 4790k feels bogged down every now and then so I really want an 8 core or higher cpu in the not so distant future. I was really hoping that Ryzen would actually be the product that those hypeville folks were touting but it seems to have fallen short.The 3770K Rig had 16GB (2 sticks) of DDR3 2300 RAM CAS 16 or 18 timings (I forget exactly, but I bought it in 2012 so it's old)
The 1800X Rig had 16GB (2 sticks) of DDR4 3000 RAM and CAS 14 1T
The thing that really surprised me was 400 Mhz on a 6 year old CPU was significantly faster than any IPC gains made over that same time period, based on my tests, for processes that weren't as multi threaded. My test wasn't perfect but it was a very fair and controlled "real world" test, using the same images and everything, doing exactly what I use it for. Anything heavily multi-threaded though and the Ryzen destroyed it, but that was in line with expectations.
I REALLY want to buy Ryzen haha but this test kind of took the wind out of my sails given that it is basically what I would be buying a new computer to help speed up. Some processes are faster but some are slower. Overall it's probably a bit faster or equal once you average both processes (HDR Merge & HDR Create). Exporting is of course massively faster, as expected.
This is my graph (A NEF is a Nikon RAW image file, in this case 36 megapixels each):
Is there any GPU acceleration in play on either system?
Assuming you're talking to me, the 3770K system has a Titan X (Maxwell) and the 1800X system has dual GTX 950's in SLI. Both should be enough Photoshop GPU usage, but the process does use GPU so it's possible that is some of the difference.
That means your benchmark results above are useless for comparing CPU performance. Please redo the tests with the same GPU.Assuming you're talking to me, the 3770K system has a Titan X (Maxwell) and the 1800X system has dual GTX 950's in SLI. Both should be enough Photoshop GPU usage, but the process does use GPU so it's possible that is some of the difference.
2x 950 is half the computing power of a Titan X. less VRAM and no idea how well Photoshop plays with dual cards. Can you force HDR on the CPU or test both systems with the same GPU?
The way your HDR results scale makes a lot more sense now too.
That means your benchmark results above are useless for comparing CPU performance. Please redo the tests with the same GPU.
Edit -> Preferences -> Performance -> Untick Use Graphics Processor.I realize my tests aren't perfect, but it's the best I will ever be able to do without significant effort or disruption to the other person's PC and the best thing I have to try and make a decision off of.
Well I understand your position on this matter and can't say that I blame you. The fanboys will fan away and find some skewed angle to attack you and me for opposing their positions. I run a lot of heavily threaded software and my 4790k feels bogged down every now and then so I really want an 8 core or higher cpu in the not so distant future. I was really hoping that Ryzen would actually be the product that those hypeville folks were touting but it seems to have fallen short.
A great product for the price but it can't consistently beat Intel's better chips and with the infinity fabric cache speeds so handicapped we won't see high throughputs until bus speeds are raised significantly and that's just how it is. Those early cache benches revealed this weak spot and this bottleneck plays a role in poor gaming performance. Technology is a great thing so perhaps we'll see additional innovation in the near future that will help us poor consumers get more for less.
I actually can, (you can turn off GPU acceleration, but then it's not a real-world test for my purposes since I would never run that process CPU only), but unfortunately I didn't think of that when I was doing the testing. I am fairly certain the GPU wasn't much of a factor, if at all (See below).
The process uses little to no GPU. When I moved from a GTX 560Ti (1GB) to a Titan X (12GB) this exact process did not speed up in a way I was able to notice or measure. Running GPUz during this process shows a tiny blip of 30% GPU usage for a split second, and then pretty well nothing after that.
I realize my tests aren't perfect, but it's the best I will ever be able to do without significant effort or disruption to the other person's PC and the best thing I have to try and make a decision off of. I am fairly confident that the GPU is not making much, if any, difference based on no difference being observed moving from a GTX 560Ti to the Titan X for this particular process on the 3770K machine.
That's the most unreliable source possible. Better sites and pre-order listings have the 1600 at 65W.
LOL... Sourcing Wccftech...
Man you guys are just too much. You call anybody that doesn't agree with you a troll....SAD!You have to be trolling. Skewed angle?
I can confirm, I think, that it's true.
At least in Paraguay (and others south america countries) if you know where to go you can already buy one.
SAD!
That's total and utter BS and on purpose as facts have no relevance to you and it's all about defending Intel. If only i wouldn't have just explained one post above yours why there is less variance in games that scale to more cores.
Let's try with pictures maybe that's easier for you.
Crysis 3 Ryzen (red) vs 7700k, the average FPS is similar but the 7700k has a wider variance between scenes.
Just imagine that the Ryzen is an 8 cores Intel so it doesn't tickle you the wrong way.
Man you guys are just too much. You call anybody that doesn't agree with you a troll....SAD!
Are all Intel trolls Trump fans? Or are they all BK undercover?
The current test is worse for real word than disabling GPU support.
Look how the test scales on the 2 systems from 3 to 5 and then to 7, Ryzen has increases of some 25% while the Intel system barely moves.
PS: maybe check to make sure that GPU acceleration was enabled on the Ryzen system.
GPU acceleration was definitely enabled on both - it defaults to "on" as well. Based on seeing no measurable difference between a 560Ti and a Titan X for this particular process on the same PC, I am going on the assumption that the GPU was not a significant factor.
So the plug-in I use for HDR creation is two-stage. The first process is aligning and merging the files, and that is where Ryzen has an advantage so this must be a well threaded process. When that is complete, the second process I start is the HDR creation, which tone maps the merged images - this process appears to love clock speed. So, regarding my chart, the Merge 7 and Create 7 are proportionately faster on each CPU with respect to their advantages but it does look like the Ryzen scales better (the 'merge' is over twice as fast on Ryzen, but the 'create' is only about 50% faster on the 3770K. Overall, I do believe the Ryzen would be slightly faster, and perhaps more-so as time goes on, but I guess I was just expecting a significant difference across the board given that the 3770K is 6 years old and only at a 400 Mhz advantage. I think my expectations were too high. Anything that *is* well threaded though, Ryzen just rips through like nothing (saving files is extremely well threaded, and you can see the Ryzen was twice as fast there). So overall it's probably a bit faster, but I can't help but wonder if I should wait for 6 core CPUs with really high clocks and get a piece of both advantages.
Simulating AMD Ryzen 5 1600X, 1500X Gaming Performance
http://www.techspot.com/review/1360-amd-ryzen-5-1600x-1500x-gaming/
GPU acceleration was definitely enabled on both - it defaults to "on" as well. Based on seeing no measurable difference between a 560Ti and a Titan X for this particular process on the same PC, I am going on the assumption that the GPU was not a significant factor.
So the plug-in I use for HDR creation is two-stage. The first process is aligning and merging the files, and that is where Ryzen has an advantage so this must be a well threaded process. When that is complete, the second process I start is the HDR creation, which tone maps the merged images - this process appears to love clock speed. So, regarding my chart, the Merge 7 and Create 7 are proportionately faster on each CPU with respect to their advantages but it does look like the Ryzen scales better (the 'merge' is over twice as fast on Ryzen, but the 'create' is only about 50% faster on the 3770K. Overall, I do believe the Ryzen would be slightly faster, and perhaps more-so as time goes on, but I guess I was just expecting a significant difference across the board given that the 3770K is 6 years old and only at a 400 Mhz advantage. I think my expectations were too high. Anything that *is* well threaded though, Ryzen just rips through like nothing (saving files is extremely well threaded, and you can see the Ryzen was twice as fast there). So overall it's probably a bit faster, but I can't help but wonder if I should wait for 6 core CPUs with really high clocks and get a piece of both advantages.
Did you really just take the worst results of that review?