AMD Ryzen 5 1600X vs Core i5 Review
anandtech.com
anandtech.com
http://www.anandtech.com/show/11244/the-amd-ryzen-5-1600x-vs...
<= better
better =>I can't remember where I saw it first, but for me at least it makes quite a difference.
But really, the best way to read the graphs is to look at the labels on the left and see the ranking. You can glance at the bars to get an idea of the magnitude of the difference, but these graphs are really designed to emphasize the ranking.
Even piledriver had this advantage, at least considering the price over the last several years. My FX-8320e was ~$120 when I got it a couple years ago, and overclocked to 4.1ghz without any difficulty. Sure, the IPC is not great, but with 8 threads at that price, it's been well worth it. I won't be upgrading this system for a while, and by then I will almost definitely be going to Ryzen.
Furhtermore turns out that the Ryzen 5 matches the price that my current CPU is selling for at the moment. I have an Intel i7 860 (1st gen). I still don't think that I would benefit from upgrading at this point.
Of course, I use my system mostly just for writing code. Friends of me who are into computer animation and design follow changes in the hardware world more closely than I do. (And gamers as well).
If you use more performance-critical applications I think the best way to future-proof would be to buy an "unlocked" CPU that you'll be able to overclock when you want to juice out a bit more power (maybe at the cost of a better cooling system). At least that's what I do.
2007 is the era of the Core 2 Duo, which really are dated and slow compared to today processors.
5 years is reasonable, the evolution has been kinda slow lately.
I have an old crappy 32bit celeron laptop with 1GB of RAM that's about 10 years old and runs Debian. I still use it from time to time when I want to code on the go, it runs Emacs and Firefox just fine. If I were to change something I'd probably replace the crappy HDD with an SSD before I touch the CPU. And the screen resolution is pretty poor too. But performance-wise it just works.
I guess the key element for me is that I basically use the same software stack now that I did 10 years ago. Same shell, same window manager, same OS, same editor, same compiler. Only the web browser has significantly evolved in this time span.
Builds might become memory bound. C++ compilers use lots of ram, and you might not be able to run one per core in parallel (assuming this machine has 2+ cores). I suspect some other languages are similar.
So it's not just the "pushing text into a file" which you could of course just do from the terminal as well if you were so inclined to do.
The idea of buying an overclockable CPU does sound like a pretty good strategy. ;-)
Which mainly consists of running : IntelliJ, Spotify, and maybe a few tabs in chromium on Ubuntu.
[1] http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Pentium-G4560-vs-...
The Phenom cost me... $220. So the Ryzen 5 1600 has my name written all over it. But really, it would just make some things I do on my computer a little quicker. It would not have the profound effect that switching to an SSD did, in my opinion. I'll let the idea bake for a while.
I should switch to a 256GB SSD as well though, that is on my list of things I want to upgrade.
The only issue is that I tried using the Oculus, and it won't work. Apparently the CPU doesn't have some instructions required for VR. I tried using a hacked version of the Oculus setup program that bypasses the CPU check, but it still won't work.
Which is why I've been thinking about a Ryzen 5...
Safe to say it had superb price/performance (IIRC paid like 150 € for it).
When you say this has your name written on it, are they socket compatible? The idea of changing motherboards/ memory etc isn't compelling - I'd just get a new system - but if you can drop these in then it's really tempting.
I believe the socket I have now is AM2+, which is not at all compatible with AM4. I'd also need new RAM. Overall, I'd expect to spend close to $400.
Stagnation in improvements is amazing ? :\
The 860 is feeling a little sluggish these days for me. My laptop is about as fast... I'm excited about the jump once I decide to upgrade though and I've pretty decided that if it isn't a 2x improvement it's not worth jumping.
Right now, I think the Ryzen 1700 with some overclocking is the best deal in the market. The R5 1600 and 1400 might be similar.
This video has a quite interesting comparison of the price/performance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RRt5WkVxuk
http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i7-860-vs-Intel-Core-i5-2...
Truth is, IPC growth has almost completely stalled, only 20% since Sandy Bridge https://www.hardocp.com/article/2017/01/13/kaby_lake_7700k_v... and so these ancient machines still serve us very well. And the E3 1245 had HT on which the i5 doesn't...
Everyone has different values, but for me maximizing the time a system is viable and my work environment is stable is most important; I'll pass on the latest shiny until absolutely needed.
My year old (cheap) laptop is actually significantly slower.
I also have an i7 7th gen in my laptop, to be honest there is no noticable difference between the two for my use cases.
I'll probably get one of these new fangled AMD raisens so I can have USB 3.0 and onboard LAN.
Just to make my wants clearer, I would love to have a Ryzen-based APU in a NUC like form factor. I have a 6th gen Intel i5 NUC, but would happily scrap it for a graphics system that plays nicer with linux.
The ram capacity is the only reason I don't have 2 or 3 NUC's right now for playing with.
AMD has been going through this cycle of down-and-turnaround for decades now. They tend to be like Microsoft OSes in that every other CPU architecture is the one that does really well, giving Intel some trouble... until Intel decides to crush AMD with lower prices and existing OEM/supplier relationships.
Give it a couple years, AMD stock will be back down pushing new lows, at which point you can scoop up some shares and ride it out a few years for the next big win. AMD sticks around moreso because Intel needs them to exist, otherwise Intel would be a straight monopoly.
Interesting -- Intel integrated graphics have always been the gold standard for graphics systems that play nicely with Linux (and other open source systems). As far as I know, they're still the only vendor with complete documentation.
No one ever got fired for buying Intel (2000)[0]
It seems this is still AMD biggest issue ?
[0]: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2000/11/27/no_one_ever_got_fir...
This is huge for the NAS market. Mainstream intel parts do not support ECC.
Also NAS systems often have check-summing and redundancy on the disk, but if an error happened in RAM, then that error will be propagated into the checksum and redundant copies.
[edit for highest DRAM frequency offered by Apple]
Only if your tests modify global state / aren't thread safe. Good unit tests can be ran multi-threaded.
That very much depends on the IDE and testing framework
Which languages fall on your list? (Just curious)
I use:
* C (make and gcc can thread)
* Python (no real thread story)
* JS (depends)
* Scheme (usually threads)
Python. Lint is mono threaded. The virtualenv setup is mono threaded (running requirements.txt).
Java. Mono threaded for package generation (jar files). Not sure about compilation and running tests. Most of Eclipse is mono threaded (last I used it) like indexing and rendering and auto completion.
Outside of that, opening any IDE, tool, application or browser is a mostly single threaded operation. The rendering of most GUI is also single threaded.
This is actually not the case -- modern linkers (e.g., lld) can take advantage of multiple cores.
Most recursive make systems can't be run in jobserver mode because the graph is not well-specified.
For video editing multi threads is HUGE.
If you have several single thread applications open then multi thread is better. Multiple of tabs multi threads is better.
Most of the time single thread performance is more important.
Edit: http://www.anandtech.com/show/11244/the-amd-ryzen-5-1600x-vs...
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ryzen-180...
Ryzen is reasonably priced & has one socket for the 4, 8 and 6 core CPUs.
But ok, I see what you mean: anything with more than 4 cores that is affordable.
The only reason LGA 1151 has been so successful is that most of the market consists of "gamers" who are convinced that they need higher clock speed and IPC.
AM4 should only be compared to LGA 2011v3, which has a very inflated price.
If you care more about core counts than single thread clock you can find used x58 dual socket workstation MBs which also have support for large amounts of server ECC ram which is very cheap.
Get a second hand workstation on ebay, don't get individual components.
Anyway, the machine runs an, admittedly overkill, GTX 1070 with a TDP of 150W, so the CPU power usage is the least concern.
Also, since CPU's are idle more of the time than under load the savings by using a newer CPU like Kaby Lake or Ryzen could be interesting. There is also the motherboard. Newer boards consume less power because the chips are on a smaller node.
But I guess the money you saved on buying the CPU will outweigh the electricity costs even in countries where electricity is expensive.
Unless he's running 24/7 and paying way too much, yeah, by a large margin. Even these older Xeons weren't that bad at energy saving.
- Ryzen is weaker in single-core IPC than KL, (it's at Broadwell levels) and many benchmarks are single core optimised. - There are lots of optimisations by software vendors as well as fixes by AMD yet to come, (a couple were already released) - Most of the coverage focuses on gaming, where Intel wins hands down, because of the better single-core performance - The Ryzen i7 is really aimed at content creators who export a lot of photos or 4K video and developers who do a lot of compilation, basically tasks that require and benefit from multiple cores - in those categories, the $500 Ryzen is neck and neck with the $1000 i7 Extreme CPU, this is where it really shines and is worth considering.
The reason why most of the benchmarks are aimed at gamers and thus favour single-core IPC is because the PC market is such that if you want anything decent, you have to be a gamer.
Want a good mechanical keyboard? It's going to be a gaming keyboard etc. because the Pro market is much smaller than the gaming market and thus these CPUs are rarely shown in comparisons where they really shine, one exception is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIIb5uZfukU
I agree on most other points. It is sad that good equipment is hard to get without a bunch of lights and MEGA-XXXTREME!!! stickers/labeling all over the place.
I think the thing is that the gaming market is the largest "prosumer" market in the space. For real enterprises, they charge ridiculous markups on something similar to the gaming parts but labeled "professional" or "enterprise". For normal people, they produce the budget parts, because most people don't really care as long as Facebook works. The middle market in PC parts is gamers, enthusiasts who are willing to spend a little more to get decent quality/performance.
Not really. Basically, if you want the fastest CPUs money can buy you go with Intel. If you want a $500 CPU that can hold it's own against Intel's $1000 CPUs you get a Ryzen 7.
(Heaven Unigine and Prime95 at the same time)
Personally, I use my GPU for video encoding and mostly play games in the categories where Ryzen seems to underperform, so I won't be picking one of these up. But it's nice to know that AMD is bringing the heat on this front.
That's due to the all the Intel-specific optimizations that game companies have done. Here's an article about it:
http://www.pcworld.com/article/3185466/hardware/heres-proof-...
"Every processor is different on how you tune it, and Ryzen gave us some new data points on optimization," Oxide’s Dan Baker told PCWorld. "We’ve invested thousands of hours tuning Intel CPUs to get every last bit of performance out of them, but comparatively little time so far on Ryzen."
The CPU is the thing that provides work for the GPU to do (draw lists or draw bundles). Not every frame is fill bound (GPU bound) but some are and some aren't.
As for desktop, I'd give Ryzen a serious consideration, but the motherboards are still at a premium or out of stock.
Premuim? Not at all. Compare AM4 motherboards with Socket 2011v3, and you will see a huge price difference. There are plenty of decent AM4 boards to be had around $100. The cheapest 2011v3 board on newegg.com is $140. Higher end 2011v3 boards approach $600.
Out of stock? A quick glance at newegg doesn't show any out of stock. Where are you looking?
Super stable and very good performance for relatively little money. Web stuff is one of those places where multi-threading and lots of cores is an easy win due to the nature of the workload.
[0] https://twitter.com/CPCHardware/status/844618089618722816
[1] https://videocardz.com/67649/amd-ryzen-cpu-with-12-cores-and...
For example, how many people these days actuall just run with one monitor and do just one thing at a time? I certainly don't, and for example, on my i7 laptop, if I have firefox up on the second monitor and play cs-go, I get 20fps less. That never happened on my AMD FX system...
In essence what I am saying is parallel workloads are becoming the norm, and thats why I'm betting on AMD in the long run.
The world where everything is single-threaded is quickly shrinking, and the world where people only do one thing is as well. For example, lots of game engines traditionally had this problem, but they are getting better and better and multi-threading for perf gains.
6 cores and 12 threads vs my current i5-3570K starts to look interesting, very interesting.
And actually, the difference is less performance-per-clock now, but more that higher Intel cpus, the 7600K and 7700K, have a higher clock to start with.
They went from a 50-60% advantage to 5-6% advantage for kabylake and near parity with Broadwell (current high thread count Xeons and Extreme consumer platforms).
Who exactly do you think visits these forums? One-tab open in the browser grandmas?
I imagine most people here can make full use of at least 4-cores/8 threads, at all times, between compiling, rendering, editing, video streaming, joggling between 50 browser tabs and other programs, opening one or two VMs for testing, running local web servers, and so on.
I'm considering getting a i3 or i5 based setup and upgrading to a 1151 i7 a year or two later.
Right, the AM3 socket started being sold February 2009, and AM3+ was entirely compatible with that.
[edit] Also: FM2, targeting a different range of performance, came out in 2012. Again, FM2+ was backwards compatible there too. Still five years since a non-backwards-compatible AMD chipset.
You might be thinking about Intel's practices.
Thanks for pointing out the FM series, though; I've modified my comment to reflect this.
AM1 was very niche, but a socket for ~20W CPUs is outstanding. You can pair any AM1 motherboard (down to $20 crap) with any AM1 CPU ($20 crap to $100 less crap). Good for HTPCs and NAS machines... when you need a "serious" Raspberry Pi ish machine with x86 compatibility, AM1 was my choice.
In the time between AM2 and AM3 AMD's socket strategy was pretty straight forward. Don't know what they tried with FM/FS stuff. I am looking forward to the success of AM4.
1151 has the budget options right now, yes you can get a Ryzen 3 and upgrade to Ryzen 7 in future but the performance bump bang per buck will be less in my opinion.
AM4 has just been released while 1151 has been around for some time. If I plan to upgrade later on, I would rather buy a newly released socket.
And I'm not even touching on server stuff here.
Counting the individual SKUs is kinda pointless, they're just cut down versions of the same chip.
Absolutely buy an intel processor if it is the right fit for you (=you are a gamer), but don't expect to re-use the mainboard for your next processor - only plan with that if you go with a Pentium G4560 for now. Then you can upgrade to a better processor of the current generation.