Support NeoGAF

[blu]

Well at least the 4-core chips should be decent i3/i5 alternatives

The 8-core Ryzens are indecent?

 

[cyen]

The 8-core Ryzens are indecent?

Some people in this thread like to led others to believe that Ryzen is a bad CPU comparing oranges to apples cherry picking benchmarks and even getting 720p results to say its a bad CPU.

Ryzen in its current state (a completly new platform) is not a pure gaming CPU, and its not the intention, its a excelent all around CPU for every task you want (if rendering is a task you do it will basically destroy the 7700K in the majority of this kind of tasks), if you are the 1% rocking a 1080GTX class GPU with a 1080p 144hz monitor you will probably get lower fps than a 7700K for example, but we are talking about fps in excess of 100 fps for both cpus.

This is not a Bulldozer case were the CPU would even struggle to get decent framerates.

There is not a bigger bang for the buck CPU than a 1700, specially if you intent to overclock since they all get within 100mhz of each other.

 

[DonMigs85]

The 8-core Ryzens are indecent?

They at least won't have the weird inter-CCX issues

 

[blu]

They at least won't have the weird inter-CCX issues

While I'd have preferred better latency performance across clusters, where I come from (vast NUMA land) these 'issues' are laughable. Every software written with NUMA in mind (i.e. high parallelism) will feel at home on multi-cluster Ryzens.

 

[dr_rus]

Is the report that the issue doesn't rely on Scheduler bad news because that would have been 'easy' (or easier) to fix? If this is a more complex issue, can we ever expect a fix at all?

Some improvements are possible through game code and compilers optimization but generally is unlikely that Ryzen's performance will ever be "fixed". For that they'll need a new chip, without the CCXs in it.

 

[cyen]

Some improvements are possible through game code and compilers optimization but generally is unlikely that Ryzen's performance will ever be "fixed". For that they'll need a new chip, without the CCXs in it.

So if cannot be "fixed" (and fixed is a strange term since nothing is broken) why we are seeing regression between Win7 and Win10 if we compare the total war benchmarks?

And can you explain what perfomarnce will not be "fixed"? Are we seeing bad performance across the board in all benchmarks and tests? Because what im seeing is specific cases were performance is not inline with the rest of the tests. Or are we only relying on the bad results to its a bad cpu ignoring the rest of the cpu performance?

 

[Coulomb_Barrier]

Some improvements are possible through game code and compilers optimization but generally is unlikely that Ryzen's performance will ever be "fixed". For that they'll need a new chip, without the CCXs in it.

Performance doesn't need fixing tbh, these Ryzens kick ass for a massive discount on Intel HEDT prices.

I would also say it's more likely 1080p gaming performance will improve not the opposite .

 

[Paragon]

Is the report that the issue doesn't rely on Scheduler bad news because that would have been 'easy' (or easier) to fix? If this is a more complex issue, can we ever expect a fix at all?

That's basically it, yes.
If the issue was that the scheduler was unaware of the SMT and treating all threads the same, or unaware of the CCX structure and assigning/moving threads across CCX groups without being aware of the performance penalty associated with doing so, then a scheduler update could potentially have resolved some of the strange performance issues that show up in some applications.

Since the scheduler appears to be handling things correctly, it suggests that it's going to be inherent to this architecture - which would mean that you'd probably need developers to write code specifically with Ryzen in mind to get the best out of it.
I can imagine a scenario where, in a game engine, you would be able to get better performance by grouping certain tasks to run on a single CCX instead of allowing them to run on the first available core.


I'm not a developer, so I'm sure this is not the most accurate way of looking at things, but let's say that you have:
game logic, audio, two physics threads, and four render threads.

Your engine might currently assign these on a first-come first-served basis, so you may end up with:
CCX1: game logic, physics 1, render threads 1 & 2
CCX2: render threads 3 & 4, physics 2, audio

If you were developing with Ryzen in mind, you might set that up so it runs as:
CCX1: game logic, audio, physics 1 & 2
CCX2: render threads 1-4

That would probably perform much better, since all your render/physics data is kept on the same CCX instead of having to send data back and forth over the infinity fabric, which comes with a performance penalty.
That's probably one of the reasons that AMD are sending engineers out to game developers to help them optimize for the platform - but it also means that the performance issues showing up in many existing games are unlikely to be resolved unless those games are still being updated.

While I'd have preferred better latency performance across clusters, where I come from (vast NUMA land) these 'issues' are laughable. Every software written with NUMA in mind (i.e. high parallelism) will feel at home on multi-cluster Ryzens.

The issue is that consumer software and games are not written with that setup in mind, and from PC Perspective's comments, it sounds like software which is not written specifically to be NUMA-aware, would only run on 4 cores on a Ryzen CPU if it was treated as two NUMA nodes by the OS.

They at least won't have the weird inter-CCX issues

There's nothing preventing you from setting the affinity of a game/application so that it only has access to 4 cores and 8 threads on an R7 CPU.
I would be surprised if doing that improved performance, but even if it did, the R7 would still have four cores spare for anything else running on your PC.

I don't think any of this means that the Ryzen CPUs are a bad purchase, just that they excel in some types of workload buy may not perform as well as you might expect an 8-core CPU with that IPC to do, in others.
If they tried to price these like Intel's 8-core CPUs that might have been problematic, but you're getting an 8-core CPU for the price of a 4-core from Intel.

 

[Übermatik]

That's basically it, yes.
If the issue was that the scheduler was unaware of the SMT and treating all threads the same, or unaware of the CCX structure and assigning/moving threads across CCX groups without being aware of the performance penalty associated with doing so, then a scheduler update could potentially have resolved some of the strange performance issues that show up in some applications.

Since the scheduler appears to be handling things correctly, it suggests that it's going to be inherent to this architecture - which would mean that you'd probably need developers to write code specifically with Ryzen in mind to get the best out of it.
I can imagine a scenario where, in a game engine, you would be able to get better performance by grouping certain tasks to run on a single CCX instead of allowing them to run on the first available core.


I'm not a developer, so I'm sure this is not the most accurate way of looking at things, but let's say that you have:
game logic, audio, two physics threads, and four render threads.

Your engine might currently assign these on a first-come first-served basis, so you may end up with:
CCX1: game logic, physics 1, render threads 1 & 2
CCX2: render threads 3 & 4, physics 2, audio

If you were developing with Ryzen in mind, you might set that up so it runs as:
CCX1: game logic, audio, physics 1 & 2
CCX2: render threads 1-4

That would probably perform much better, since all your render/physics data is kept on the same CCX instead of having to send data back and forth over the infinity fabric, which comes with a performance penalty.
That's probably one of the reasons that AMD are sending engineers out to game developers to help them optimize for the platform - but it also means that the performance issues showing up in many existing games are unlikely to be resolved unless those games are still being updated.

The issue is that consumer software and games are not written with that setup in mind, and from PC Perspective's comments, it sounds like software which is not written specifically to be NUMA-aware, would only run on 4 cores on a Ryzen CPU if it was treated as two NUMA nodes by the OS.

There's nothing preventing you from setting the affinity of a game/application so that it only has access to 4 cores and 8 threads on an R7 CPU.
I would be surprised if doing that improved performance, but even if it did, the R7 would still have four cores spare for anything else running on your PC.

I don't think any of this means that the Ryzen CPUs are a bad purchase, just that they excel in some types of workload buy may not perform as well as you might expect an 8-core CPU with that IPC to do, in others.
If they tried to price these like Intel's 8-core CPUs that might have been problematic, but you're getting an 8-core CPU for the price of a 4-core from Intel.

Right, this all makes more sense now. To sum it up, terribly, the architecture of the Ryzen chips has processes jumping a 'gap' between the 2x4 cores causing a drop in performance, because the speed to do that is less than the speed of the two respective 'clusters'?

Anyway, as many have pointed out, all this is unlikely to effect me anyway(?). I'm using an RX 480, so my performance above 60fps is bottlenecked in games, and I'll be making use of the 1700s 8 cores for rendering more than anything else. At the price the 1700 is at, it seems I can't really go wrong...

 

[blu]

The issue is that consumer software and games are not written with that setup in mind, and from PC Perspective's comments, it sounds like software which is not written specifically to be NUMA-aware, would only run on 4 cores on a Ryzen CPU if it was treated as two NUMA nodes by the OS.

And such software works happily on a single cluster most of the time. For software that can benefit from higher parallelism NUMA awareness will need to be introduced (which is precisely what highly parallel sw has been doing for ages). I continue to not see how and why this is a Ryzen issue, and why people who are looking for an *overall* good performer should be dissuaded from going Ryzen. I would not turn down a CPU which allows me to do my work twice faster at the expense of 10% lower fps in some game. People looking at games *only* (or other low thread count, latency-critical tasks) can buy whatever suits their specific needs.

 

[Coldfriction]

New article from PC Perspective: AMD Ryzen and the Windows 10 Scheduler - No Silver Bullet

Doesn't look good for people holding out for a scheduler fix.

I'm shocked.

There is one place where AMD has undeniably performed far and away better than Intel, and that's its stock performance over the last year. I recommended to everyone and their dog to buy it after it climbed to $5 a share. One cousin listened to me and bought at $9 a share. I stopped recommending it to people after Ryzen launched as I expected it to grow quite a bit more slowly from here on out, particularly with the press emphasizing Ryzen's weaker gaming performance. Yesterday surprised me.

http://pasteboard.co/I9AKozFC8.png

When buying a stock, you buy it to perform as you want a stock to perform. When buying a CPU you buy it to perform as you want a CPU to perform. If you bought AMD last February, you'd have over a 700% increase in value, if you bought Intel, you'd have gotten 13% in the last year. That's not too shabby at all for Intel, but AMD's stock makes it look like a joke. When I believe AMD's rally is over and there's a better investment elsewhere for my money, I'll get out. AMD was relisted to the S&P500 yesterday, Goldman Sachs purchases something like $750M more of AMD stock yesterday, the Mubadala group committed another $250M. These aren't small numbers when AMD's market cap is what it is. Monday morning it's going up some more despite my recent belief that it would flatline after the Ryzen release until the Q1 earnings report.

All AMD needs to produce products equivalent to Intel and NVidia are more financial resources; primarily to hire more software engineers. NVidia long ago stated that it's turned into a software company. Their strength is in the software stack behind their cards. AMD has long had higher theoretical TFLOPs in their GPUs, but don't have the software guys they need to take advantage of them. AMD recently announced that it was looking to hire some 300 more people.

Intel still has the top performing CPUs out there, but they charge far too much for them. Intel can easily do many different things to really hurt AMD's marketshare. Locking all the motherboard factory's production up is one thing. Upping their marketing budget a couple of percent of their total revenue is another.

It will take time for AMD to truly return to the table with a hand as powerful as their competitors', but they are actually pulling it off with Ryzen. It's like a pair of Aces beating a full house.

I still haven't recommended anyone buy Ryzen right now as there are too many kinks to be worked out over the next several months. I still won't recommend anyone buy AMD stock either, because nobody listened to me when it made the most sense, they certainly won't listen to me now. Research and buy what you need for performance and what works with your finances. I should go back to lurking, takes far too much of my time to post and try to contribute.

I was big into tech in the early 90's, I didn't start buying stock until something like 5-6 years ago. I'm not into tech because of the stocks I hold, I hold the stocks I do because I like reading about the tech.

BTW Ryzen is a true 8 core chip, the CCX that ties them isn't anything like a 4x2 system. It's a new way of doing things that Microsoft has the burden of figuring out. The delta in performance between Windows 7 and Linux, and Windows 10 is ample evidence something is wrong that will need to be fixed in the OS. There are performance increases to be had in optimizing the software stack on top of Ryzen, nobody is saying otherwise.

Odd how I said PCPer was biased before he puts up a headline that looks like this "AMD Ryzen and the Windows 10 Scheduler - No Silver Bullet". Tell me that title doesn't have a bias. Like I normally do, I jumped down to the comments to verify the validity of the article, I suggest anyone reading that do the same.

 

[PnCIa]

If the infinity fabrics speed is indeed (partly) responsible for the ccx to ccx interconnect "problem", future Zen iterations should have less latency simply by an improved infinity fabric.

 

[ethomaz]

So if cannot be "fixed" (and fixed is a strange term since nothing is broken) why we are seeing regression between Win7 and Win10 if we compare the total war benchmarks?

About the Windows 7...

The video I saw it was clear the Win7 only used the 8 real core (the others 8 that I guess are SMT are not used) while Win10 used all 16 core (real and SMT).

That can be the difference... I guess Win7 just doesn't work well with SMT and that makes it run faster than Win10 because the real cores are indeed faster than the SMT ones.

That is all guesses from my part looking at the use of CPU in the video.

It is easy to test too... just disable SMT on Ryzen in Win10 and run the bench again to see if the fps will be similar to these showed in Win7.

PS. lol at somebody selling AMD stocks here.

 

[Coldfriction]

About the Windows 7...

PS. lol at somebody selling AMD stocks here.

What are you selling here exactly? Tearing things down around you only gives the illusion of being higher; if you really want to improve your life you have to build the world up around you so there is higher ground to walk to. Bashing a company and/or its products when you have no intent to buy those products or have financial incentive to do so is very odd irrational behavior.

 

[ethomaz]

What are you selling here exactly? Tearing things down around you only gives the illusion of being higher; if you really want to improve your life you have to build the world up around you so there is higher ground to walk to. Bashing a company and/or its products when you have no intent to buy those products or have financial incentive to do so is very odd irrational behavior.

That is inside of your mind... nothing of that is happening here.

I just find odd you doing all this marketing and defense control for AMD.

 

[Coldfriction]

That is inside of your mind... nothing of that is happening here.

I just find odd you doing all this marketing and defense control for AMD.

Some people believe in a fair fight and honest competition. There are a lot of readers here who don't know the FUD from the reality. I'm not selling AMD CPUs or AMD stock, and I don't really care for AMD in general. I wish half of its board were fired for example. I don't like Mubadala having the influence they have over the company. I don't like that they had to take money from China to stay afloat last year.

The problem I have is that NVidia has a following somewhat similar to Apple. Their fanclub is terrible at putting AMD down at every opportunity. Keep it fair here and I won't post again, keep the bias up and I'll keep ripping into it. Every company needs to be kept honest, and that means reducing dominant players in any market so that honest competition can occur. Any company with profit margins above 50% has too strong of a market position in my opinion. They'll keep spending marketing money to keep their margins there as well.

Capitalism fails without honest market competition, and everyone gets hurt except the owners of the companies that dominate the market.

 

[Datschge]

Doesn't explain why performance is better under Windows 7 though. Clearly something is wrong with Windows 10 if it's not the scheduler it's something else.

This. The article reads like it wants to put the speculation to rest but answers nothing about why Windows 10 fares as bad as it does. Useless! /s

Yeah the PCPer guy came on Reddit to agree with this, W7 is still a mystery for now.

How is Windows 7 the mystery here? It's Windows 10 that's behaving out of the line in all the gaming benchmarks while Windows 7 shows that the difference between synthetic and gaming benchmarks as well as SMT on and off ought not to be that big.

How would this affect benchmarking where results are done by frame analysis?

If the frame analysis is done with another computer it will be unaffected. It's the time taking on the same computer that's off.

While I'd have preferred better latency performance across clusters, where I come from (vast NUMA land) these 'issues' are laughable. Every software written with NUMA in mind (i.e. high parallelism) will feel at home on multi-cluster Ryzens.

Really unfortunate Windows 10 is worse at it than 7 and nobody appears to be able to pin it down why exactly.

The video I saw it was clear the Win7 only used the 8 real core (the others 8 that I guess are SMT are not used) while Win10 used all 16 core (real and SMT).

That's not what this benchmark showed, there is a significant increase in average FPS when SMT is used under Windows 7.
https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/ryzen-strictly-technical.2500572/page-8#post-38775732

Windows 10 - 1080 Ultra DX11:

8C/16T - 49.39fps (Min), 72.36fps (Avg)
8C/8T - 57.16fps (Min), 72.46fps (Avg)

Windows 7 - 1080 Ultra DX11:

8C/16T - 62.33fps (Min), 78.18fps (Avg)
8C/8T - 62.00fps (Min), 73.22fps (Avg)

 

[ethomaz]

That's not what this benchmark showed, there is a significant increase in average FPS when SMT is used under Windows 7.
https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/ryzen-strictly-technical.2500572/page-8#post-38775732

I understand there are differences but this guy needs to post the CPU utilization for all cases... that is what I saw in the video... SMT on but not using it at all.

I will find the link.

Edit - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XAXS8rYwGzg&lc=

See there are a lot of 0% CPU use (that I guess are the virtual core).

 

[Durante]

While I'd have preferred better latency performance across clusters, where I come from (vast NUMA land) these 'issues' are laughable. Every software written with NUMA in mind (i.e. high parallelism) will feel at home on multi-cluster Ryzens.

The flip side of your statement is that basically no desktop software or games are developed with NUMA in mind.

And while I see your point about that software often not needing more than 4 cores, results like the following do indicate that depending on what you are looking for it can be a pretty big hindrance to desktop performance (especially considering that this is a stock clock comparison with a significant clock speed advantage for the Ryzen platform, and that its OC potential is lower):

 

[cyen]

That is inside of your mind... nothing of that is happening here.

I just find odd you doing all this marketing and defense control for AMD.

I understand there are differences but this guy needs to post the CPU utilization for all cases... that is what I saw in the video... SMT on but not using it at all.

I will find the link.

Edit - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XAXS8rYwGzg&lc=

See there are a lot of 0% CPU use (that I guess are the virtual core).

Why a source engine game? Not a good example of MT.

 

[Datschge]

I understand there are differences but this guy needs to post the CPU utilization for all cases... that is what I saw in the video... SMT on but not using it at all.

So how would that case magically result in the by some distance highest average FPS across all four tests? Meanwhile Windows 10 which supposedly uses SMT correctly falls on it face and fares worse than with SMT disabled (which also still fares worse than the same test under Windows 7)?

 

[shark sandwich]

Please DO NOT BUY the Asus PRIME B350M-A motherboard. This thing is a piece of shit. It fails to detect the correct XMP memory timings. The BIOS and Asus "AI" software report differing XMP settings and they're both wrong (CPU-Z reports the correct settings). It insists on running my 2400 MHZ memory at 2133. And I am using memory specifically listed on the Asus product page as having been tested on this motherboard at its correct speeds (2400 MHz 14-16-16-31).

It also reports my CPU temp as being ridiculously high (55-60 idle, ~75 load). I'm using the AM4 edition Noctua tower cooler w/ 120mm fan and the thing is cool to the touch. Even removed it and replaced the thermal paste to make sure it's making good contact, seated properly, etc.

This is all using the latest BIOS (0502).


Anybody else have better luck with any of the other mATX boards? If the next BIOS update doesn't fix this board it's going back to Newegg as defective.

 

[Übermatik]

Please DO NOT BUY the Asus PRIME B350M-A motherboard. This thing is a piece of shit. It fails to detect the correct XMP memory timings. The BIOS and Asus "AI" software report differing XMP settings and they're both wrong (CPU-Z reports the correct settings). It insists on running my 2400 MHZ memory at 2133. And I am using memory specifically listed on the Asus product page as having been tested on this motherboard at its correct speeds (2400 MHz 14-16-16-31).

It also reports my CPU temp as being ridiculously high (55-60 idle, ~75 load). I'm using the AM4 edition Noctua tower cooler w/ 120mm fan and the thing is cool to the touch. Even removed it and replaced the thermal paste to make sure it's making good contact, seated properly, etc.

This is all using the latest BIOS (0502).


Anybody else have better luck with any of the other mATX boards? If the next BIOS update doesn't fix this board it's going back to Newegg as defective.

Man, the past like, six pages has been a back and forth between me and GAF members reaching the conclusion that the new Asus B350 boards are shit. I hear good things about Gigabyte, MSI and even Asrock's offerings (their PRO B350 board being highly recommended on the r/AMD subreddit).

 

[Nostremitus]

Man, the past like, six pages has been a back and forth between me and GAF members reaching the conclusion that the new Asus B350 boards are shit. I hear good things about Gigabyte, MSI and even Asrock's offerings (their PRO B350 board being highly recommended on the r/AMD subreddit).

Heard anything about the MSI Carbon board?

 

[Sinistral]

Please DO NOT BUY the Asus PRIME B350M-A motherboard. This thing is a piece of shit. It fails to detect the correct XMP memory timings. The BIOS and Asus "AI" software report differing XMP settings and they're both wrong (CPU-Z reports the correct settings). It insists on running my 2400 MHZ memory at 2133. And I am using memory specifically listed on the Asus product page as having been tested on this motherboard at its correct speeds (2400 MHz 14-16-16-31).

It also reports my CPU temp as being ridiculously high (55-60 idle, ~75 load). I'm using the AM4 edition Noctua tower cooler w/ 120mm fan and the thing is cool to the touch. Even removed it and replaced the thermal paste to make sure it's making good contact, seated properly, etc.

This is all using the latest BIOS (0502).


Anybody else have better luck with any of the other mATX boards? If the next BIOS update doesn't fix this board it's going back to Newegg as defective.

I'll be putting my Asus PRIME B350M-A system together in a couple hours. No other MATX motherboards were available last weekend, or now as I was wanting the Gigabyte but got impatient. The fact that the latest Bios is still from Feb 28, while being one of the cheaper boards with no VRM heatsinks, I was preparing for some disappointment. But, will have to tolerate not tweaking too much until more boards come into stock and the bios/software matures.

 

[shark sandwich]

I'll be putting my Asus PRIME B350M-A system together in a couple hours. No other MATX motherboards were available last weekend, or now as I was wanting the Gigabyte but got impatient. The fact that the latest Bios is still from Feb 28, while being one of the cheaper boards with no VRM heatsinks, I was preparing for some disappointment. But, will have to tolerate not tweaking too much until more boards come into stock and the bios/software matures.

Good luck! Please let us know if your memory speed/timings are correct and what temp it shows your CPU idling at.

I already reported the issue to Asus along with a bunch of screenshots last night. Will report back as soon as I hear something.

 

[kotodama]

Level1Linux — Ryzen: PCIe Passthrough Working, But...*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ep_2dDaqBU4

Didn't know this was a thing, but then again haven't followed virtualization much. Darn, if it wasn't so hacky I'd love to have a Linux Host with a Windows VM just for gaming.

--

Who's pumping out Bios updates the fastest? I see that ASRock did 3 updates in quick succession (2 betas), and perhaps are taking the weekend off. ATM I'm leaning more on getting the ASRock Taichi once all the dust settles.

 

[Übermatik]

Heard anything about the MSI Carbon board?

Nothing really, but that also means nothing bad, haha. MSI have really caught up with Gigabyte, I hear. Plus their Mobo design is less, uh, garish.

Who's pumping out Bios updates the fastest? I see that ASRock did 3 updates in quick succession (2 betas), and perhaps are taking the weekend off. ATM I'm leaning more on getting the ASRock Taichi once all the dust settles.

This could be why I've heard so many recommend the Asrock PRO. Hmm, I'm very tempted, especially as the board fits my colour theme.

 

[blu]

The flip side of your statement is that basically no desktop software or games are developed with NUMA in mind.

And while I see your point about that software often not needing more than 4 cores, results like the following do indicate that depending on what you are looking for it can be a pretty big hindrance to desktop performance (especially considering that this is a stock clock comparison with a significant clock speed advantage for the Ryzen platform, and that its OC potential is lower):

Ok, screw NUMA. Short of Starcraft 2 LotV, I see a list of perfectly playable games, and a list of productivity benches that are neck-and-neck with a $1K Intel part. I don't overclock. So where's the drawback?

 

[Steel]

Ok, screw NUMA. Short of Starcraft 2 LotV, I see a list of perfectly playable games, and a list of productivity benches that are neck-and-neck with a $1K Intel part. I don't overclock. So where's the drawback?

Keep in mind in that comparison both chips are underclocked to 3.2 ghz(which is the base clock, not the turboclock, of the 6900k, but lower than the base clock of the 1800x).

 

[Übermatik]

Alright, about to pull the trigger on the 1700.

If anyone can show cause as to why I shouldn't, SPEAK NOW OR FOREVER HOLD YOUR PEACE.

 

[Lmo911]

I'm just going to stumble into this thread and ask Why is Starcraft such a monster for both of these? 33 fps max?

 

[Steel]

I'm just going to stumble into this thread and ask Why is Starcraft such a monster for both of these? 33 fps max?

It sucks at using multiple cores.

 

[ethomaz]

Why a source engine game? Not a good example of MT.

Because the guy on AnabdTech choose this game I guess lol I couldn't find any other video showing CPU usage.

So how would that case magically result in the by some distance highest average FPS across all four tests? Meanwhile Windows 10 which supposedly uses SMT correctly falls on it face and fares worse than with SMT disabled (which also still fares worse than the same test under Windows 7)?

That is why I want to see the guy tests CPU usage.

Without that there is no way to make any conclusion... the only video with CPU usage with Win7 vs Win10 shows only the first SMT core using 3% while all others 0%.

Edit - I found this draw calls graph.

Win10 noSMT > Win7 SMT > Win10 SMT

Sad they didn't test Win7 noSMT.

https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/part-2-measuring-cpu-draw-call-performance.2499609/

 

[ethomaz]

Alright, about to pull the trigger on the 1700.

If anyone can show cause as to why I shouldn't, SPEAK NOW OR FOREVER HOLD YOUR PEACE.

You should buy it... from your needs is the best option... I recommend it over 1700x ou 1800x for e.g.

 

[Nostremitus]

I'm just going to stumble into this thread and ask Why is Starcraft such a monster for both of these? 33 fps max?

Valid question... What's going on with this? It can't be that bad in normal use...

 

[ethomaz]

Another video.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CXDxZxFqhdY

Doom... in Win7 it didn't use the SMT core... in Win10 all of them are being used.

Win10 shows better fps too.

 

[Durante]

Ok, screw NUMA. Short of Starcraft 2 LotV, I see a list of perfectly playable games, and a list of productivity benches that are neck-and-neck with a $1K Intel part. I don't overclock. So where's the drawback?

Well, other than SC2, there are the 28 minimum FPS in Anno 2205, drops below 60 in Far Cry 4, and rather massively lower performance in The Witcher 3.

And, well, I do overclock

That said, the 8 core Intel chips are simply far too expensive, there's no arguing that.
But for a mixed workload that includes a large dose of gaming and no distaste of overclocking, I think Intel's 6-core HEDT CPUs still deserve consideration.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Alright, about to pull the trigger on the 1700.

If anyone can show cause as to why I shouldn't, SPEAK NOW OR FOREVER HOLD YOUR PEACE.

Buy whatever you want. You're getting a new CPU, it's not like you're getting married or something.

 

[ethomaz]

Another one.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=URBZaFhizGc

Deus Ex... Win7 and Win10 using all core (even SMT)... similar fps.

In summary:

CS:GO
Win10 uses SMT
Win7 didn't use SMT
FPS Win 7 > Win10

Doom
Win10 uses SMT
Win7 didn't use SMT
FPS Win 10 > Win7

Deus Ex
Win10 uses SMT
Win7 uses SMT
FPS tied

 

[Coulomb_Barrier]

Well, other than SC2, there are the 28 minimum FPS in Anno 2205, drops below 60 in Far Cry 4, and rather massively lower performance in The Witcher 3.

And, well, I do overclock

That said, the 8 core Intel chips are simply far too expensive, there's no arguing that.
But for a mixed workload that includes a large dose of gaming and no distaste of overclocking, I think Intel's 6-core HEDT CPUs still deserve consideration.

Drawback there is you don't have an upgrade path on X99 as it's about to be replaced with Skylake-E's new platform this year. And HEDT boards are more expensive.

Whereas with AM4 if the cheap Zen 1700 isn't cutting it in 1.5 years, you can drop in a Zen+ CPU with a clockspeed rumoured to be 5.8Ghz according to the reliable WCCTECH. Who's gonna turn that down given that fact?

 

[opticalmace]

Drawback there is you don't have an upgrade path on X99 as it's about to be replaced with Skylake-E's new platform this year. And HEDT boards are more expensive.

Whereas with AM4 if the cheap Zen 1700 isn't cutting it in 1.5 years, you can drop in a Zen+ CPU with a clockspeed rumoured to be 5.8Ghz according to the reliable WCCTECH. Who's gonna turn that down given that fact?

I'll wait for the 7.8 GHz Zen++.

 

[Datschge]

Zen+ CPU with a clockspeed rumoured to be 5.8Ghz according to the reliable WCCTECH.

I'll wait for the 7.8 GHz Zen++.

Oh you guys.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Well, other than SC2, there are the 28 minimum FPS in Anno 2205, drops below 60 in Far Cry 4, and rather massively lower performance in The Witcher 3.

And, well, I do overclock

That said, the 8 core Intel chips are simply far too expensive, there's no arguing that.
But for a mixed workload that includes a large dose of gaming and no distaste of overclocking, I think Intel's 6-core HEDT CPUs still deserve consideration.

I wonder if Intel will lower HEDT pricing at all or not.

 

[Durante]

I wonder if Intel will lower HEDT pricing at all or not.

I guess that will depend on what impact they see in terms of sales.

At the very least, I don't think they can maintain the current 8 core premium.

 

[ethomaz]

I guess that will depend on what impact they see in terms of sales.

At the very least, I don't think they can maintain the current 8 core premium.

Intel top HEDT is based in Broadwell yet, no? It is "5th-generation Core" while descktop is at 7th.

When the Skylake or Kybe Lake HEDT will launch???

 

[Nickerbocker98]

I currently have an i7-4930K. Would it benefit me better to upgrade to a Ryzen CPU or should I just hold off? Also, I have tried looking around and found no answer, but is there a Ryzen-supported motherboard that also supports DDR3 RAM?

 

[ezodagrom]

I currently have an i7-4930K. Would it benefit me better to upgrade to a Ryzen CPU or should I just hold off? Also, I have tried looking around and found no answer, but is there a Ryzen-supported motherboard that also supports DDR3 RAM?

Unless you really need an upgrade for heavy multithreaded tasks, with your current CPU it's better to just wait, especially if your focus is gaming (Ryzen would be more of a sidegrade than an upgrade when it comes to gaming).

 

[LelouchZero]

I currently have an i7-4930K. Would it benefit me better to upgrade to a Ryzen CPU or should I just hold off? Also, I have tried looking around and found no answer, but is there a Ryzen-supported motherboard that also supports DDR3 RAM?

I would hold off unless you can benefit from having 8 cores, like if you need it to do heavy multi-threaded tasks as mentioned above.

Have you OC'd your CPU at all? Also, what speed is your memory?

 

[Nickerbocker98]

I would hold off unless you can benefit from having 8 cores, like if you need it to do heavy multi-threaded tasks as mentioned above.

Have you OC'd your CPU at all? Also, what speed is your memory?

I have not overclocked my CPU (or my 780 Ti for that matter) yet. I am a little afraid of doing it because I fear that throttling it could break it.

Also, really stupid question, would live streaming on YouTube or Twitch be considered a heavy multi-threaded task?