Hey guys,
Please don't flame me because there are already people posting about Ryzen. I am going to ask a specific question that I wanted to ask over a week ago but decided to wait on more facts to even bother....
Anyway....yes yes....Ryzen has improved IPC and single threading and is as good as an i7....etc....etc.
IF everything is as good as it seems, how long will it take for Ryzen built PCs to match Intel built PCs emulating Dolphin? Is it as simple as the single thread performance has improved and it will catch up, or are there more variables involved? Or do we just not have a damn clue until we run Dolphin on some Ryzen CPUs and see what happens?
And please, don't get mad at the question. I am legitimately wondering if the advantage Intel has is simply that it has better single threaded performance or now that AMD catches up there might be more variables involved?
You're not going to get anything out of this . Be patient and wait for Dolphin Benchmark from Anandtech.com .
Even the single thread benchmark is useless . Dolphin Benchmark is completely different from the rest , keep in mind that Haswell is 30% faster than Ivy Bridge in Dolphin
Now let see how it performs in other applications
Wiki Wrote:Up to 5% faster single-threaded performance
6% faster multi-threaded performance
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haswell_(m...hitecture)
See why I tell you Dolphin Benchmark is different now
Never believe benchmarks released by the company selling a product. It's WAY too easy to game benchmarks! Until 3rd party outlets run a variety of benchmarks and real world tests, we know basically nothing! We'll find out how good it is next week, so it's not a long wait!
Also, don't preorder CPUs, motherboards, or GPUs. Ever. If something is exaggerated, as is usually the case, you could be burned hundreds of dollars.
Anyway, as for a realistic guess... Better IPC but not as good as current Intel chips, with more cores, at a lower price than Intel, and no iGPU. I would say that's a pretty realistic guess for the time being!
I like how AMD has released one benchmark comparing one chip to a processor released two years ago. A very niche class CPU thats slower than standard i7s at that due to the insane complexity of circuit pathing with that many physical cores.
Anyways, I'm mostly interested how they managed to fit 8 cores on a process while keeping interconnect manageable. They were able to do it with Vishera because the cores were simple in comparison. HW design is interesting and they figured out something pretty impressive.
I don't see the point of getting hyped up. If it's good, it's probably not going to be better than the bench AMD has already released. Meaning, Intel already has better offerings. If it's like Bulldozer and Vishera, I'll be laughing at everybody who pre-ordered a bad chip.
I want to see AMD start focusing on laptops again tbqh. They've pretty much been non-existent there for years and I want an AMD laptop for testing purposes.
(02-23-2017, 03:51 PM)MayImilae Wrote: [ -> ]Never believe benchmarks released by the company selling a product. It's WAY too easy to game benchmarks! Until 3rd party outlets run a variety of benchmarks and real world tests, we know basically nothing! We'll find out how good it is next week, so it's not a long wait!
Also, don't preorder CPUs, motherboards, or GPUs. Ever. If something is exaggerated, as is usually the case, you could be burned hundreds of dollars.
Anyway, as for a realistic guess... Better IPC but not as good as current Intel chips, with more cores, at a lower price than Intel, and no iGPU. I would say that's a pretty realistic guess for the time being!
It isn't about believing benchmarks or not. I have an i5-6600K right now so I don't really care from an investment standpoint.
I'm just asking ASSUME AMD matched, or came within a close range of Intel's single core performance would it automatically mean things even out, or is it more complex than that? The way admin89 puts it, it is kind of a crap shoot......I wonder why.....
I'm more just curious as to what makes things a certain way or doesn't. I never cared before because it was easy to say AMD should not perform as good as Intel. Now that the gap can close I wonder WILL it, or may it remain? Also, I understand that "we don't know" is kind of an acceptable answer.
(02-23-2017, 04:08 PM)Helios Wrote: [ -> ]I like how AMD has released one benchmark comparing one chip to a processor released two years ago. A very niche class CPU thats slower than standard i7s at that due to the insane complexity of circuit pathing with that many physical cores.
Anyways, I'm mostly interested how they managed to fit 8 cores on a process while keeping interconnect manageable. They were able to do it with Vishera because the cores were simple in comparison. HW design is interesting and they figured out something pretty impressive.
I don't see the point of getting hyped up. If it's good, it's probably not going to be better than the bench AMD has already released. Meaning, Intel already has better offerings. If it's like Bulldozer and Vishera, I'll be laughing at everybody who pre-ordered a bad chip.
I want to see AMD start focusing on laptops again tbqh. They've pretty much been non-existent there for years and I want an AMD laptop for testing purposes.
I'm very intrigued if AMD can put out a chip that comes within a close range of Intel's single thread performance, while also providing 8 cores at a reasonable price. I have an i5-6600K and I am perfectly happy with it. But, if AMD could provide similar performance with more cores, or force Intel to release a more affordable 8 core chip I'd be VERY happy. I'm interested in gaming and (amateurish) content creation. The idea of having a CPU that could perform similar to Intel with gaming/emulation while also having extra cores for streaming/encoding/etc. really interests me. But, I believe it when I see it.
EDIT:
I just replied to your previous post....but why don't we know...I"m curious. I realize I probably seem annoying...but I'm just wondering. Computers seems like such a logical thing to me. (IE.....X CPU has Y Single Threaded Performance and yields Z results)....so how can a similar X and Y yield a different Z.
Gregtastic Wrote:Computers seems like such a logical thing to me. (IE.....X CPU has Y Single Threaded Performance and yields Z results)....so how can a similar X and Y yield a different Z.
We don't know the X, Y, or Z of the Ryzen equation.
Also, computers don't work that simply. It's more like A+BxC÷D=W^X+Y-Z. Ok maybe that's a little exaggerated, but there are a lot of variables! Even a bunch of the same exact chip from the same exact arch at the same exact speed will have variations and quirks (silicon lottery).
Also, one application does not perform like another.
Although I do appreciate seeing cinebench numbers over the stupid cpubench leak.
(02-23-2017, 04:30 PM)MayImilae Wrote: [ -> ]We don't know the X, Y, or Z of the Ryzen equation.
Also, computers don't work that simply. It's more like A+BxC÷D=W^X+Y-Z. Ok maybe that's a little exaggerated, but there are a lot of variables! Even a bunch of the same exact chip from the same exact arch at the same exact speed will have variations and quirks (silicon lottery).
Definitely understood. So basically event though I don't leave understanding the exact reasons why, we can assume that AMD increasing it's single threaded performance might not automatically mean it starts performing as well as Intel in Dolphin.
(02-23-2017, 04:33 PM)Helios Wrote: [ -> ]Also, one application does not perform like another.
Although I do appreciate seeing cinebench numbers over the stupid cpubench leak.
I just feel like an affordable multi-core (more than 4 core) CPU with respectable single core performance is where we should be in the CPU market by now. I don't really understand how AMD misread things so much and had these 8 core processors that can't do crap on a single core. However, I think Intel is pretty much in cruise control at this point lol. I would love for AMD to "disrupt" the CPU market, but if they can't I'll just stick to my 6600K and see what happens.