Next Generation Emulation banner

41 - 60 of 81 Posts

·
I mustache you a queshtion
Joined
·
1,972 Posts
Actually they are beginning to own the gaming community as well, especially thanks to its multiple cores, for streaming, and not just that, most new builds i see lately are focused on Ryzen, and the most recommendations are made in Ryzen's favor, in fact the only Intel CPU that still has some recommendations going for it is the G4560 and even that is with the idea in mind "if you don't want to wait for Ryzen 3". Its pretty crazy lol.
That's because it's future proof. AMD are never going to beat Intel pound-for-pound with older games, but newer games ryzen is going to shine. The old maxim "games only use at most 4 threads" is going to crumble.

At the moment a brand new 16/32 core/thread i9 is going to set you back $1700. Nearly twice as much.

The only way Intel are going to compete is heavily cutting the cost of their processors. All around this is going to help prices no end.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,868 Posts
The AMD 1950x will have the same MSRP as Intel's 7900x (999$).
The 1920x will have a MSRP of 799$.




Intel also led to the creation of a meme, when they were called out for saying that AMD's dies were "glued-together": https://www.techpowerup.com/235092/intel-says-amd-epyc-processors-glued-together-in-official-slide-deck


But for a more serious subject, people believe that some benchmarks may not accurately show the performance of AMD's cpus. More specifically, they believe that their performance is lower than it should be. The reason for that is, if those people are right, that some benchmarks are compiled using Intel's compiler. It's an excellent compiler, but it has one issue, which is described like this:
The reason is that the compiler or library can make multiple versions of a piece of code, each optimized for a certain processor and instruction set, for example SSE2, SSE3, etc. The system includes a function that detects which type of CPU it is running on and chooses the optimal code path for that CPU. This is called a CPU dispatcher. However, the Intel CPU dispatcher does not only check which instruction set is supported by the CPU, it also checks the vendor ID string. If the vendor string says "GenuineIntel" then it uses the optimal code path. If the CPU is not from Intel then, in most cases, it will run the slowest possible version of the code, even if the CPU is fully compatible with a better version.
Now if someone were to use that compiler for a CPU benchmark, they could find themselves in a scenario where they'd see the real performance of an Intel CPU, but not of an AMD CPU. And it seems as if this might truly be happening based on some results that were seen after people spoofed their AMD cpu. For example, here's the Ryzen 1700x when detected as an AMD CPU:
https://compubench.com/device.jsp?benchmark=compu15d&os=Windows&api=cl&cpu-arch=x86&hwtype=CPU&hwname=AMD Ryzen 7 1700X Eight-Core Processor&did=46906627&D=AMD Ryzen 7 1700X Eight-Core Processor

Here's the same 1700x but detected as an Intel CPU:
https://compubench.com/device.jsp?benchmark=compu15d&os=Windows&api=cl&cpu-arch=x86&hwtype=CPU&hwname=Intel(R) Ryzen 7 1700X Eight-Core Processor&did=47050789&D=Intel(R) Ryzen 7 1700X Eight-Core Processor

I don't know much about benchmarks. This could simply be hysteria.
 

·
Aim 4 the stars...
Joined
·
569 Posts
Discussion Starter #44
Yeah, the Intel's "cripple AMD" function.

Well, anyone who earned a living by personalizing PC in the years 2000-2004 knew this. Software like AutoCAD did not work during those years on AMD processors, unless you "faked" the vendor ID string.
That's one of the many reasons why it's best to use open source software and not rely on proprietary software.
They should've gotten sued for that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
238 Posts
That's because it's future proof. AMD are never going to beat Intel pound-for-pound with older games, but newer games ryzen is going to shine. The old maxim "games only use at most 4 threads" is going to crumble.

At the moment a brand new 16/32 core/thread i9 is going to set you back $1700. Nearly twice as much.

The only way Intel are going to compete is heavily cutting the cost of their processors. All around this is going to help prices no end.
For older games it really does not matter that much since Ryzen's single threaded performance is good enough anyways to match the Intel CPUs those games were made for. But for "NEXT GENERATION EMULATION" Intel's single-threaded performance still reigns king and unfortunately there is only so much multi-threading you can do (well maybe the PS3 emulator can do a bit more then most). So an unlocked i5 is still one of the better Emulation CPUs if you want the most games to run at the highest framerates (not all and not always full speed). But I will fully admit this is a very niche market and one of the lessening situations that Intel's higher single-threaded performance makes a difference.

Also I can not see a single reason for the i9 or really almost any x299 processor to exist, but that is generally because Intel is desperately trying not cannibalize their other market sections (xeon in this case).
 

·
ヒット激しく速く
Joined
·
19,429 Posts
Freaking hell do reviews go out of their way to paint make Ryzen feel superior... One of the most common trends nowdays is to imply that Ryzen's are future proof for further upgradability while intel isn't, you will notice i didn't say its a better choice for future proof choice, but the way its presented is like its the only option that allows for future expansions, saying things like that with intel you can only upgrade to a 7700k and that implies buying a new mobo ? But what about the 7700 non k ? Not everyone wants or needs to overclock, even without the OC intel's IPC performance is still better. Now i'm not saying that AMD's upgradability towards an 6 core or 8 core cpu doesn't sound more tempting for future proofing (depending though on what you do), but don't ignore all of the intel options either damn it...
 

·
ヒット激しく速く
Joined
·
19,429 Posts
Just as a heads up msi is at it again, subpar vrm's, if you're building a ryzen system stay away from their boards, especially the 350 ones.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,868 Posts
Now that people have had time to play around with them, do we know how far the difference goes in term of overclocking for the 1600 and 1600x? I've been thinking of replacing most of my PC, and over here I see that I have a choice between 1600+stock cooler for 260$ or 1600x with no cooler for 290$. I'm wondering just how much further I can go with 1600x + custom cooler, or if there's only a tiny difference when overclocking is added.
 

·
ヒット激しく速く
Joined
·
19,429 Posts
Now that people have had time to play around with them, do we know how far the difference goes in term of overclocking for the 1600 and 1600x? I've been thinking of replacing most of my PC, and over here I see that I have a choice between 1600+stock cooler for 260$ or 1600x with no cooler for 290$. I'm wondering just how much further I can go with 1600x + custom cooler, or if there's only a tiny difference when overclocking is added.
Ryzen 1600x is a waste of money, its not even better binned, not to mention that with the 1600 you get a good Cooler that in most cases can keep up with oc which is at the 4ghz mark (I'll give them this, its the best stock cooler ever made), rarely some people have gotten 4,15 ghz out of them, but realistically its between 3.8-4 ghz. Btw for mobo you need an asus prime b350 minimum if you want to play it safe and have a good upgrade path, turns out the vrm's for most b350 boards aren't that reliable for long time usage, seems that for ryzen the most reliable boards are asus and asrock, with MSI again being a down right fire hazard. Also take note that in most cases performance per core/ipc its around ivy bridge level, so for emulation or games that rely more on up to 4 cores will do a lot better on what you have now, i dunno if this is because indeed to intel sneaking in codes in apps that favors them or not, but that's what it is. In multithreaded work loads however though it rocks, or streaming. Another thing to note is that to get the most out of the cpu and for best oc potential you need 3000 mhz+ ram.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,868 Posts
Most ryzen won't go past 3.9-4.0ghz anyways so yeah it doesn't matter which you get to be honest
Ryzen 1600x is a waste of money, its not even better binned, not to mention that with the 1600 you get a good Cooler that in most cases can keep up with oc which is at the 4ghz mark (I'll give them this, its the best stock cooler ever made), rarely some people have gotten 4,15 ghz out of them, but realistically its between 3.8-4 ghz. Btw for mobo you need an asus prime b350 minimum if you want to play it safe and have a good upgrade path, turns out the vrm's for most b350 boards aren't that reliable for long time usage, seems that for ryzen the most reliable boards are asus and asrock, with MSI again being a down right fire hazard. Also take note that in most cases performance per core/ipc its around ivy bridge level, so for emulation or games that rely more on up to 4 cores will do a lot better on what you have now, i dunno if this is because indeed to intel sneaking in codes in apps that favors them or not, but that's what it is. In multithreaded work loads however though it rocks, or streaming. Another thing to note is that to get the most out of the cpu and for best oc potential you need 3000 mhz+ ram.
Yeah, I was looking at people's experience and many of them say:
1) Most 1600 will reach around 3.8ghz. Rarely they'll reach 4ghz.
2) The stock cooler does fine at 3.8ghz.

The situation regarding my current cooler and AM4 compatibility is confusing (there's an upgrade kit but I think it only works with newer versions of my cooler). So being able to save money on both CPU AND Cooler with the 1600 instead of 1600x would be a huge help.

I also imagine that settling for a mid-overclock instead of going HARD for overclocks means I can stick to a b350 instead of going with 370 and paying more. The mobo I used as stockholder until I made final choices was the Asus Strix B350-F Gaming. It seems slightly more expensive and more popular than the Asus Prime B350-Plus. I dunno if its more reliable than the Prime.

For the ram, I saw people mention the need to go for Samsung B-die. The ones I saw recommended and temporarily listed down were the G.Skill Trident Z 3200mhz.
I'm seeing a lot of conflicting info about IPC, but most of them have it higher than ivy-bridge. With that said, I agree I can't expect an improvement in games using 4 or less cores since the 1600 would likely be between 3.8 to 4ghz. I would have considered Intel's 7600k had it been 4 cores / 8 threads instead of 4c/4t. Sadly, I'd be going from my current 4c/4t @ 4.4ghz to what would most likely be a 4c/4t at 4.9 or 5ghz. Even with IPC improvements, that's not worth the hassle of upgrading. The 7700k is more attractive, but the CPU *alone* would cost me as much as the 1600+motherboard.

Nothing is set in stone since I'll keep my current build as long as I can, I just made a test list in case my recent issues eventually lead to a force upgrade. That's the test list, I'd be keeping my current GPU + drives: http://i.imgur.com/IBeBxse.jpg
 

·
ヒット激しく速く
Joined
·
19,429 Posts
Well there's always the used Market for intel cpu's i don't mind using it, though only for CPU's. Good luck though, ryzen cpu's are nice but i just wanted to warn you that some things are overhyped.

Edit: the test list sounds nice but make sure to check ram compatibility with the mobo.
 

·
ヒット激しく速く
Joined
·
19,429 Posts
Also great choice on the mobo, the strix b350-f gaming has a better power phase design then the prime. And that counts both for heat output and future upgrades.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,868 Posts
Well there's always the used Market for intel cpu's i don't mind using it, though only for CPU's. Good luck though, ryzen cpu's are nice but i just wanted to warn you that some things are overhyped.

Edit: the test list sounds nice but make sure to check ram compatibility with the mobo.
I cropped the picture, but the website says no compatibility issue were detected. The website isn't perfect, but for example they give warnings for incompatibilities, a warning when a CPU doesn't come with a stock cooler, and when a cooler requires a separate compatibility kit to work with a particular motherboard. I'll double-check if/when I do make the purchase. I also checked the power requirements, just in case.

To make the list I used pcpartpicker.com and http://www.logicalincrements.com/.
While they're probably not absolutely perfect, I looked at the power requirement shown on pcpartpicker + used this calculator to figure out what kind of PSU I'd need: https://outervision.com/power-supply-calculator
 

·
...
Joined
·
302 Posts
Let's blame Foxconn and its practices "to lower production costs" like (incert Motorola, Apple, etc. reference there).

Whatever it was, in this case the bad propaganda is for Gigabyte and AMD. But when it affects Intel, it tends to "disappear mysteriously".
I remember videos on YouTube that show how different motherboards with the X99 chipset burned, smoked or formed electric arcs from nowhere. Now I can't find any.
 

·
ヒット激しく速く
Joined
·
19,429 Posts
Oh i'm used to that, unfortunately all of them do it, MSI is the worst of the worst, most of their AMD mobos have shity VRM phases that are a fire hazard.
 
41 - 60 of 81 Posts
Top