Ryzen

jtr1962

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 25, 2002
Messages
3,696
Location
Flushing, New York
#41
But what if you don't want a gaming PC? Both these chips require a standalone graphics card, which currently is the Nvidia GT710 at US$35-37. This is a terrible excuse for a graphics adapter, but the more reasonable GT1030 starts at roughly US$75. An i5-9400 CPU (including IGP) costs me US$181, which compares with US$188 for the Ryzen 2600 + GT710 combo. I could well be wrong, but I suspect the Intel IGP is superior to a GT710.
Or just get a Ryzen 2400G APU for about $136. If you don't want a gaming PC, you likely won't notice the difference between 4 cores/8 threads and 6 cores/12 threads. The IGP on the Ryzen is superior to anything from Intel.

In fact, nowadays if you don't want a gaming PC I'm not seeing much reason not to get a CPU with an IGP.
 

snowhiker

Storage Freak Apprentice
Joined
Jul 5, 2007
Messages
1,505
#42
Photo editing, graphics rendering, audio ripping & transcoding, etc, may/can use a GPU to get some of the work done. So no GPU depends on applications you are going to use.
 

sechs

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
4,690
Location
Left Coast
#43
I think that this just points out that AMD's life no longer depends on pricing its processors so cheaply.

They've gained some pricing power because Intel won't lower its prices to compete.
 

Stereodude

Not really a
Joined
Jan 22, 2002
Messages
10,495
Location
Michigan
#44
I think that this just points out that AMD's life no longer depends on pricing its processors so cheaply.

They've gained some pricing power because Intel won't lower its prices to compete.
Exactly, price is no longer their main selling point because they seem to have better performance and better power consumption than Intel so they can charge comparable prices to Intel and still win out on overall value.
 

time

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 18, 2002
Messages
4,836
Location
Brisbane, Oz
#45
Or just get an i3-8100 for US$125? The 2400g (Raven Ridge) is not at all the same chip as 2700/2600 (Pinnacle Ridge); RAM is limited to 2666MHz and L3 cache is only 4MB. An i3-8100 @3.6GHz matches or slightly out-performs it up to 4 threads.

But that's last year's chip. The i3-9100 should be available any week now (the IGP-less i3-9100F is already available). That adds turbo to 4.2GHz, which makes it for all intents and purposes a rebadged i5-7600/i5-7600K. About 13% faster than a 2400g.

The IGP on the Ryzen is superior to anything from Intel.
It's about the same as a GT1030, which offers roughly double the performance of the Intel graphics. The problem is, I'm not sure this level is actually good enough to offer a credible gaming experience - even though it's OK for YouTube demos. A $95 RX550 nearly doubles the performance again (if you can find one, of course).

In fact, nowadays if you don't want a gaming PC I'm not seeing much reason not to get a CPU with an IGP.
This is my point: if you don't want a gaming PC, AMD's Vega 11 IGP offers nothing that Intel's 630 IGP also has. And if you want more than 4 cores, the sub-par SMT on Raven Ridge is not really a great alternative to actual processors.

So if I'm after a business PC, the Intel 9100 or 9400 smashes it. If I'm after an entry-level gaming PC, IGP doesn't make it to the list.
 

time

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 18, 2002
Messages
4,836
Location
Brisbane, Oz
#46
They've gained some pricing power because Intel won't lower its prices to compete.
I think you'll find that in fact Intel *has* lowered their prices, as well as offering far better bang for the buck than not so long ago. I'm concerned that AMD appears to be drifting out of touch - they still need to meet the market.
 

time

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 18, 2002
Messages
4,836
Location
Brisbane, Oz
#47
they seem to have better performance and better power consumption than Intel
They had significantly better performance when they were pitting a 6-core/12-thread CPU against a 4-core/8-thread CPU. Ryzen 2nd generation has performance comparable with Intel 8th gen. Intel has been able to offer higher clock speeds to somewhat counter AMD's higher thread count, eg. 4-4.6GHz.

But better power consumption? I don't think so. It is true that AMD has demonstrated a sample that appeared to use less power to perform the same task as a specific Intel CPU, but out in the real world, AMD needs more juice - it's just not as significant as it used to be.

For example, the entire i5-9400 PC I just built pulls 20W from the wall while sitting at the desktop. Benchmarking all 6 cores at a reported 3.9GHz nudges 60W. That's rather a lot less than the last Ryzen 2600, even allowing for a dedicated graphics card and 80+ white vs 80+ Gold.
 

Stereodude

Not really a
Joined
Jan 22, 2002
Messages
10,495
Location
Michigan
#48
They had significantly better performance when they were pitting a 6-core/12-thread CPU against a 4-core/8-thread CPU. Ryzen 2nd generation has performance comparable with Intel 8th gen. Intel has been able to offer higher clock speeds to somewhat counter AMD's higher thread count, eg. 4-4.6GHz.
Except now we're talking about 3rd gen Ryzen which seems to have better performance on a core for core basis even with Intel's higher clocks. They no longer seem to need 1.5x as many cores and twice as much power to outperform Intel.

But better power consumption? I don't think so. It is true that AMD has demonstrated a sample that appeared to use less power to perform the same task as a specific Intel CPU, but out in the real world, AMD needs more juice - it's just not as significant as it used to be.

For example, the entire i5-9400 PC I just built pulls 20W from the wall while sitting at the desktop. Benchmarking all 6 cores at a reported 3.9GHz nudges 60W. That's rather a lot less than the last Ryzen 2600, even allowing for a dedicated graphics card and 80+ white vs 80+ Gold.
It's nice that you don't think so, but the evidence (so far) is not on your side. Unless you've build a 3rd gen Ryzen with comparable core counts to the i5-9400 you're making a wild guess that appears to fly in the face of the data that exists. AMD is showing under load number that directly contradict your claims. PCIe 4.0 is going to increase idle power consumption though.
 

time

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 18, 2002
Messages
4,836
Location
Brisbane, Oz
#49
To clarify, I was referring to AMD chips that are available now, rather than Ryzen 3000, which clearly has some significant architectural advantages.

And I didn't mean to suggest that the Ryzen 2000 series were power hogs, just that they are not quite as good as I *thought* you were implying.
 

time

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 18, 2002
Messages
4,836
Location
Brisbane, Oz
#50
I also checked the specs of the upcoming 3400g (not available for at least 3 months) and IMO it looks like a better all around package:

* Architecture refinements more at Pinnacle Ridge level
* 7.5% higher turbo clock (4.2GHz)
* 12% higher GPU clock (1.4GHz)
* L3 cache increased to 6MB

I'm betting all this will make it a fair bit more attractive than the i3 range, even for applications that don't need gaming capability.
 

sechs

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
4,690
Location
Left Coast
#51
Exactly, price is no longer their main selling point because they seem to have better performance and better power consumption than Intel so they can charge comparable prices to Intel and still win out on overall value.
No. You're working under the assumption that -- somehow -- Intel's prices are the "correct" ones. No such thing. The customer *is* price sensitive. AMD isn't stupid; they're raising prices because Intel won't lower theirs.

Intel could put out an inferior product at a lower price, but, instead, choose to put it out at a higher price. They're literally pricing their desktop processors so that you shouldn't want to buy them.

But if you do buy them, they'll happily separate you from your money....
 

Stereodude

Not really a
Joined
Jan 22, 2002
Messages
10,495
Location
Michigan
#54
No. Just what you're writing. :cool:
Where did I say that Intel's processors were priced right or correct? I simply pointed out that AMD had no reason any longer to drastically undercut Intel on price because they can still make their traditional value argument but now at a comparable price to Intel. Hence the higher prices. Which is basically the same thing you said about them raising prices.
 

time

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 18, 2002
Messages
4,836
Location
Brisbane, Oz
#56
Is AMD undercutting Intel, or is Intel overpriced compared to AMD?
Right now, I don't think either is true, especially in Oz. Hardware Unboxed discussed this in excruciating detail a couple of weeks ago. Their conclusion boils down to both companies are tweaking their pricing pretty well. I suspect Intel has already discounted bread and butter CPUs like the i3-9100F and i5-9400F in anticipation of Ryzen 3000 - which will not be discounted.
 

sechs

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
4,690
Location
Left Coast
#57
In my opinion, just as in discrete graphics cards, the market leader is greatly overpricing. AMD is just coming behind and taking more profit where they can.

We should be paying much less.
 

Stereodude

Not really a
Joined
Jan 22, 2002
Messages
10,495
Location
Michigan
#59

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
15,187
Location
USA
#60
I'm guessing that the top two slots share lanes and operate as either a single x16 or two x8.

The other two are probably a x8 and a x4, sharing lanes with the M.2 slots.
So the 24 is hard limit? Somebody mentioned that Intel has more than 24 lanes on their consumer setups since some are coming from the chipset. Is that right?
 

Stereodude

Not really a
Joined
Jan 22, 2002
Messages
10,495
Location
Michigan
#62
Reviews are out. It looks like if you're a gamer and want the absolute fastest Intel is still the leader by a small bit. In multithreaded non-gaming workloads Ryzen 3xxx takes Intel to the cleaners.
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
15,187
Location
USA
#66
Windows 7 is expiring and my primary computer sometimes fails to boot. I'm living on borrowed time with primary and secondary machines from January 2015. I plan to be in the states in mid-November and then build a new system if it doesn't die before then. Perhaps if the internal video is good I may just not need to use up any PCIe slots on video.

I've come to the conclusion that the HEDT CPUs will be crazy with cores and have less frequent update cycles, not giving me the advantages it did years ago when mainstream was only 4 cores.
 

Stereodude

Not really a
Joined
Jan 22, 2002
Messages
10,495
Location
Michigan
#67
Windows 7 is expiring and my primary computer sometimes fails to boot. I'm living on borrowed time with primary and secondary machines from January 2015. I plan to be in the states in mid-November and then build a new system if it doesn't die before then. Perhaps if the internal video is good I may just not need to use up any PCIe slots on video.

I've come to the conclusion that the HEDT CPUs will be crazy with cores and have less frequent update cycles, not giving me the advantages it did years ago when mainstream was only 4 cores.
Wait, if you're not in the states, how did you feel the earthquake in CA/NV the other day?
 

Stereodude

Not really a
Joined
Jan 22, 2002
Messages
10,495
Location
Michigan
#68
I looks like the Ryzen 3900X might be 3x as fast as my E5-2687W v2 at x265 encoding. A few reviews that use the x265 FHD Benchmark show it getting almost 60fps and my E5-2687W v2 gets 19.05fps. The benchmark uses a much faster x265 preset than I normally use for x265 so it's hard to say if the performance delta will remain consistent (percentage wise) with slower presets.

If so, I should be on my way to the store to buy one right now.
 
Last edited:

Stereodude

Not really a
Joined
Jan 22, 2002
Messages
10,495
Location
Michigan
#70
The Zen 2 performance looks to be good for x265 as more data trickles in. More cores mean more performance. I'm torn on whether I should go for the 12 core 3900x, wait for the 16 core 3950x, or wait even longer for the next gen Threadripper.
 

sechs

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
4,690
Location
Left Coast
#71
Unless you need the additional PCIe lanes or memory bandwidth/amount, the AM4 parts make a lot more sense.

A 3900x on an x470 board looks to perform pretty decent. Only you can determine whether it'll be worth the extra cost for the four more cores of the 3950x.
 

Stereodude

Not really a
Joined
Jan 22, 2002
Messages
10,495
Location
Michigan
#72
Unless you need the additional PCIe lanes or memory bandwidth/amount, the AM4 parts make a lot more sense.

A 3900x on an x470 board looks to perform pretty decent. Only you can determine whether it'll be worth the extra cost for the four more cores of the 3950x.
50% more money on the CPU (supposedly) for something like to 33% more performance... Depending on the pricing of the Zen 2 based Threadripper they still might make more sense. Even if the 32 core one is 2x the price of the 3950X for ~2x the performance it'll still likely be cheaper to build one TR system than two 3950x systems.
 

sechs

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
4,690
Location
Left Coast
#73
It seems clear that the new Threadripper chips will be squarely aimed at workstations. Translation: They won't be cheap.
 

sechs

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
4,690
Location
Left Coast
#75
The 12- and 16- core models, at least, were more HEDT than workstation. Those core counts are now just "desktop."
 

Stereodude

Not really a
Joined
Jan 22, 2002
Messages
10,495
Location
Michigan
#76
When did $300-400 become the price for a mainstream enthusiast motherboard? The X570 boards seem to be quite expensive and the Ryzen 3xxx chips see to have a noticeable performance drop when use in the other chipsets.
 

sechs

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
4,690
Location
Left Coast
#77
You'll have to take that up with the motherboard manufacturers. While there is some additional cost expected due to the chipset and implementing PCIe 4.0, I think that, at the high-end, there's a bit of raising prices because they think that people will pay. And it does seem like they are paying.

Unless you need PCIe 4.0 -- and very few people really do -- then x470 is the smarter choice.
 
Top