Hacker News Reader

Comment by wmf | Hacker News Reader

Ryzen leaks conspicuously don't mention gaming or the i7-7700K. AMD may win in a very small market yet lose the mainstream.

View on HN

The "mainstream" market doesn't buy 7700K's. The "mainstream" market doesn't even know what hyper-threading is.

People will see two identical laptops, one with the 2-core Intel i3, and one with the 4-core Ryzen, with similar clock speeds and similar prices. The Ryzen model might even give the illusion that it comes with an AMD graphics card even though it's integrated. That's all that matters.

Especially since AMD's APUs' integrated graphics have stayed superior to Intel's.

Is it still true?

http://www.hardwarezone.com.sg/feature-integrated-graphics-f...

I think I've seen news about intel negotiating with AMD to integrate their GPU design in place of intel iGPU/IRIS.

All those consoles are bound to have some benefit

>newest Intel iGPU vs two-gen old AMD iGPU, barely keeping pace

Yes, it's still true. That should've been plainly obvious.

Both are from 2015:

https://ark.intel.com/products/88040/Intel-Core-i7-5775C-Pro...

http://cpuboss.com/cpu/AMD-A10-7870K

That Broadwell-cpu is an exception. It is the only series for the desktop where Intel produced capable integrated graphics. Btw, it is also a very strong processor.

But it was released immediately before the next cpu generation was released. It got no real marketing, and support for it was abysmal – some to many games just produced a black screen with it. Based on its performance and pricing I'd have liked to recommend it, but given its socket and its support issues that was almost never a good idea.

Normally you'd compare the A10-7870K to the integrated HD graphics of a Skylake or Kaby Lake cpu, it beats those easily.

The R7 GPU architecture is not from 2015. R7 came from 2013 with the 200-series of AMD GPUs, and was the second generation of GCN.

Not to mention the few available Intel parts with those GPUs cost an arm and a leg.

If it has a K in the part number it is by definition not mainstream.

Those are made for overclockers, enthusiasts, which are a tiny segment of the market. For every K-part Intel produces they must make six E-series Xeon chips and fifty low-power notebook ones.

The i7-7700K has only 4 cores. The comparison with the 6900K is more fair.

6900K has 40 PCIE lanes and that's raison d'etre of this chip. So it is not really fair to compare the more expensive chip and then ignore exactly that thing, that makes it expensive.

Many more people care about core count than PCI-E lanes… Core count is the probably the most important thing about a CPU.

Not if you game, develop, or anything else where single thread is more important. If core count is the most important thing about a CPU then everyone would be buying bulldozer with its "8" cores.

Bulldozer is just old at this point.

Why is single thread more important in development? Large project builds typically spawn as many compiler processes as there are CPU cores.

If you want to keep these 8 cores busy, you need I/O to feed them.

Otherwise, your cores will be either waiting for something or just getting hot running synthetic benchmarks.

What I/O are you going to do with all these PCI-E lanes? 16 for a graphics card, 4 for an NVMe SSD if you have one (still 2x as expensive as a SATA SSD at the same capacity), a couple for a network card maybe… The only reason to have ~40 lanes is multi-GPU setups, which are absolutely not necessary to keep 8 cores busy.

Where I live, NVMe and SATA drives are at the same price and many boards come with two M.2 slots (plus of course you can put additional drive with adapter into plain old PCIE slot). Network card or two, maybe thunderbolt port or two...

All the other chips have 16 PCI-E lanes, which you max out just with the graphic card.

Intel's desktop (not X99) boards have some extra lanes on the chipset, Ryzen will be a similar setup. (Also graphics cards perform fine with 8 lanes, the performance difference from 16 is tiny)

Where I live, the price of a 256GB NVMe drive == 512GB SATA drive :(

> The comparison with the 6900K is more fair.

It's also pointless if consumers will be choosing between a 7700K and the closest equivalent Ryzen part.

Gaming performance is irrelevant for top CPUs, the difference appears only in low resolutions and old games.

The "games don't use CPU" line is only really true for multiplatform games that must also run on the low performance PS4/XBox One AMD Jaguar CPUs.

If we look at PC exclusives [1] then we can see that these are extremely CPU-hungry games. This hunger only goes up if we want to achieve a framerate higher than 60, say going for 144.

I personally have an i7 @ 3.8 GHz with GTX 1060 and none of these games can hold a stable 1080p @ 144 Hz. What's more, I've benchmarked the effect of changing GPU/CPU and increased CPU power increases FPS far more than increased GPU.

I upgraded from Radeon R270X to GTX 1060. In multiplatform games this is a huge leap. Battlefield 4 (1080p Ultra) goes from 43.1 to 94.8 [2], a whopping +120% increase. While in Dota 2 (1080p Ultra) that only netted me a +11% gain. Then when I overclocked my i7 from 2.8 GHz to 3.8 GHz I got a +23% increase.

[1] For example Dota 2, H1Z1, DayZ, Civilization 6, Guild Wars 2.

[2] http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1043 & http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1771

Just curious: why do you want to run a turn based game like civ6 at 144fps? Or for that matter anything except super reaction-dependent FPSs?

You're correct that it has a significantly bigger impact in reaction-dependant games. [1] Civilization 6 was just a good example of a CPU-heavy game, regardless of whether those frames are that useful. However there's also the case of normalization. After using a high refresh rate monitor, even something as simple as moving the cursor in Windows feels laggy with lower refresh rate monitors.

[1] This being all reaction-dependant games, doesn't have to be FPS. Even fast paced pong qualifies.

Does it matter that every piece of scientific evidence shows that humans can't see anything at more than ~70hz?

This is false.

Well, I guess that decides it

The thing is, anyone with a 144 Hz monitor [1] knows from experience that what you're claiming here is complete bullshit. Then there's also the fact that 70 Hz causes demonstrably more nausea in VR users than 90 Hz or more.

Beyond that, if you wanna act innocent and play a citation game, I can throw you a bone. I'll give you this [2], what do you give me in return?

[1] This was already evident back in CRT days when 70 Hz was garbage and 100+ Hz was what every serious gamer was after.

[2] http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm

Really? Your first citation is youself[1] and the second one is a random website that's clearly not scientific or published.

How about the NIH? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2826883/figure/...

Gap detection thresholds for different age ranges. Notice that the average for vision is around 20ms, or 50fps. Yeah some people are lower but the large majority of people don't see any faster than 60fps

[1] so its not actually a citation it's just annoying.

This gap detection tests pretty much the same thing as CRT flicker. It tests at which point does a light source seem continuous. This doesn't cover the full extent of human vision capabilities. What's more, if you wouldn't have dismissed my link as "random" and actually read it, you would have seen that it covers this very same case and gives pretty much the same numbers. It's under Test 2: Sensitivity to darkness.

I could explain further, but I get the feeling that you've made up your mind and aren't willing to read much. If you change your mind, start with the link I gave earlier. [1]

In addition, this thing is pretty easily testable with home equipment. Get yourself a 144 Hz or faster monitor and construct the following program with OpenGL: two identical boxes moving side-by-side, one updating its position at the full 144 Hz and another at 60 Hz. [2] You'll see the difference yourself.

[1] http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm

[2] There's a web app as well, but unfortunately browsers don't support frame rates higher than 60 Hz that well. My chrome is limited to 60 Hz even on 144 Hz for example. https://www.testufo.com/#test=framerates

lol? Your CPU can absolutely bottleneck your GPU. And new games start to use hpyer threading more and more, see Battlefield 1 for example. There is a huge difference between i3/i5/i7

http://www.gamersnexus.net/game-bench/2673-battlefield-1-cpu...

I can agree with this. I went from a Pentium G3258 clocked at 4.8GHz to a box-clocked i7-4790S. Battlefield 1 went from unplayable to dead smooth with a GTX750Ti.

Unless you have a 144p display then all of the high-end configs there will appear identical.

Do you mean 1440p or 144Hz? I'll assume 144Hz. First, that would be enough – gamers are flocking to those like crazy. Second, you have to really look at Multiplayer benchmarks here, not single player. In those Hyperthreading of the i7-7700K helps a lot when compared to the i5-7600K. If Ryzen can place a better model in between those two processor, that would be very nice.

144p (144 fields, progressive scan) as in 144Hz, in contrast to things like 60i (interlaced).

I know people love their 144Hz screens, but if you're generating 170FPS then the remainder is utterly wasted. You're "bottlenecking" the monitor.

So at some point you're spending money on stuff you don't need, the extra frames are simply thrown away.

You'd think, but there's an appreciable difference between i3/5/7 at the same level, even with discrete graphics.

http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=24115

I've been looking into a new CPU to play Overwatch because my is 4(670?)K is struggling with even high. Bottlenecks around the gpu pegging all 4 OCd cores out at 100% constantly without even hitting 144fps.

It's not just old games that need good cpus these days, though I will admit I'm probably more than just the enthusiast market.

Something is wrong with your pc. I'm running ultra gpu settings constant 70fps at 2560x1440. I've got the same cpu, not overclocked at all, and a 980GTX. I'm also running 4 of those monitors off of the gpu, one with the game, one usually with netflix at the same time and I sit at 20% cpu the whole time.

Yeah, I'm running 1080@120hz on a GTX1080 with a 2500k@4.5ghz on all cores and the GPU maxes out before the CPU. Google around a bit for OW competitive settings and you should be able to achieve something similar :)

The guy you're replying to looks like he wants 144 fps on 4K. Which is prolly not doable with current hardware.

They didn't say 4k resolution they said 4(xxx)K model CPU which is a very standard enthusiast Intel CPU.

You are correct if they're trying to do 4k 144hz they're not going to have any luck. Stick with 1080 or 1440 max resolution 144 hz gaming.

Also personally I think 144hz is a waste. I work for Twitch so I have access to and play on 144hz hardware a ton and I could easily afford it. I instead go for max screen real-estate and high end color reproduction. I'm totally fine with my 60hz gaming on my dell u2714 at home and at work where I can walk 10 feet and use nice 144hz gaming rigs I generally just play on my 30" dell instead.

Totally anecdotal but my coworker was all about the big glorious 1440 display, bought a raptor or whatever and a 1080 gpu. Then because the raptor had an issue he bought a 48" 4k tv instead. The raptor has been replaced but sits idle because having equivalent 4 screens with no border on the tv is much more useful to him.

144hz is like 3d in movies, if it doesn't distract you (glasses for movies, smoothness for games) then it's immersive. And that's the problem. Immersive things you forget about, they bleed away. Gaming is already very immersive so you're just forgeting about more things.

Go with more screen real estate if your desk will fit it. I've convinced 30+ friends to go with more monitors over better single monitors, friends who thought that 2 monitors was ridiculous, friends who thought that 3 was ridiculous. No one has ever come back and said I was wrong.

Final point: Overwatch, I believe, is capped in the engine at 60fps. This means that if you run over 60fps you're not getting additional information. I don't think they even do sub-frame interpolation, so you're likely just seeing the same frame multiple times. But best case even sub-frame interpolation is just showing you predictions for 6.49 milliseconds at a time, but these are not actually accurate, they're interpolations.

Yeah I guess I'm just trying to run it on high which is a bad move. If I kill everything then I'll get better frames I'm sure. I'll try it out. It would be nice to actually have the ability to leave chrome open while playing overwatch without killing my framerate from the CPU overwork.

Nope. Just tried and I'm still capping at around 100 fps. I don't know what's going on. It'll fluctuate wildly and still uses 100% cpu.

Sorry to say this but "Reinstall windows" is a good place to start.

How much ram do you have?

16gb ram.

It's DDR3 1600.

Reinstalling windows is not really something I want to do.

Yeah I hear you. I just got used to doing it years ago. It helps if you keep your docs on a separate drive so you only have to reinstall the OS.

I've mostly migrated things since I have a 120gb ssd that I've installed the OS on... I just don't want to haha

Yeah there's something wrong then. Because I'm just trying for 1080 144hz... I shouldn't have this issue but it KILLS my cpu. Just runs away with it.

You're running at close to 144 FPS - what FPS are you hoping to hit???

Probably going for the 144 FPS worst case (meaning frame times below 6.944ms at all times).

I'm trying to get a rock solid 144 FPS because 144hz monitor.

Many good monitors have a 144 Hz refresh rate these days.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com