Hacker News Reader

Comment by eddieoz | Hacker News Reader

What is better? Ryzen 5000 or Core i7-10700K?

The Ryzen 5900x bests the 10900K on price, power usage, single-threaded performance and multi-threaded performance.

https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/amd-ryzen-5900x-vs-i...

My biggest gripe with amd is that I need to think about gfx card when buying one. I’d love to have a simple vega 8 in all of their cpus.

I have a hard time believing that most purchasers of high-end consumer CPUs wouldn't use a discrete GPU. What's the use-case you're envisioning where an integrated GPU is a good use of die space?

It's mostly that there isn't a cheap discrete GPU worth buying. So if you're doing a software development rig, where yes those 12 or 16 cores will be put to good use, you're stuck with spending $100+ on a new GPU that'll spend its entire life idling or scrounging the used markets. The low-end discretes are crap rebranded from 5+ years ago. Which means outdated display connections and bad hardware video decoders.

Nobody cares. That's really it. There is too few people that would want it, therefore its fiscally irresponsible to offer it.

Is $100 really that much? Get a second hand gpu from 5 years ago for less. Those don't have issue with video though you might have to look for right connectors.

If you want to get into corporate market, no company would spend extra $100 on GPU if you can have it integrated. I'd say vast majority of consumers really do not want separate GPU. I personally am very happy with Intel HDs on all my computers.

I think we underestimate (or, overestimate) low end GPUs.

a geforce 1030 will be adequately taxed on desktop loads: https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/geforce-gt-1030.c2954

Can get them for 40eur, they barely do 1080p.

You can't connect 2+ 4k/60fps monitors to it, which is the only thing I expect from non-gaming GPU, besides being silent.

Dual 4k/60fps is still very niche at this point. Last I checked the cheapest option is to just get 2 x 15$ graphics cards. The next low end graphics card refresh is expected in Q1 which should solve this for you.

How about just dual any monitors? The GT 1030 only has a single HDMI 2.0B port and DVI which I haven't seen on a recent monitor in a while now. So 1 monitor connection from the last 10 years. And no display port connections, which is just wtf.

Even cheap 4K monitors like Samsung UR55 (260$) can handle DVI.

You can go DVI to HDMI with either a 5$ adapter or a single DVI to HDMI cable. Only real difference is DVI doesn’t carry sound, but as long as one monitor has sound that’s irrelevant.

No it doesn't:

"Number of DVI inputs 0" ( https://www.bestbuy.com/site/samsung-ur55-series-28-ips-4k-u... )

And the GT 1030 is only single-link DVI, not dual-link, so you can't even drive 2560x1600 with it.

So it tops out at 2x 1080p monitors (or 1 high-res + 1 1080p secondary, whatever). Literally worse than GPUs from 10 years ago. Which since all I want a GT 1030 for is to drive monitors makes no sense at all.

I meant it was backwards compatible with the protocol not that it had the physical connector on it. Even dual link DVI is rather bandwidth limited when you’re talking 4K resolution so having the physical port would be largely pointless.

But, again the cheapest dual 4K/60fps video card costs more than buying 2 of the cheapest HDMI 2.0+ cards. Which is why graph is card companies don’t really cater to that market. Unless your case and motherboard only has slots for a single card it’s effectively a non issue.

Ok. But there are two things that you want to be true then “onboard graphics are a requirement” and “it needs to do dual screens at 4k60”

I still don’t hear an argument here for having it all in one package. There are APUs in the Ryzen series, they perform worse, but everything is a trade off, you can’t have your cake and eat it.

You can get new and adequate GPUs for less than 100eur which will do what you want and “won’t sit idle” because they’re taxed. This GPU would struggle with even 1 screen. I think you underestimate the load a desktop has on a GPU, 2D rendering isn’t “free” and can take a lot of CPU die space and add to the heat/power delivery issues of a modern cpu.

> There are APUs in the Ryzen series, they perform worse, but everything is a trade off, you can’t have your cake and eat it.

From what I've seen, the APUs perform pretty similar to the CPUs they're derived from. The thing is the APUs are the last thing AMD releases, and the model numbers are confusing, and Zen2 APUs aren't widely available. Zen+ quad core isn't very exciting anymore, but it's the APU you can buy at retail in the US.

I doubt anyone wants to make a sub-$100 GPU a la GTX 1650 when the demand is sky high for the chips... And what's wrong with buying a used card?

90% of low tech corporate business users with bloated spreadsheets and resource hogging antivirus. Anyone doing virtualization/containers.

Those people are not buying top of the line components though.

If you don't need much GPU power then having a GPU on your CPU has some benefits:

- No need for a separate component, no hassle finding a "proper" card and buying it (I.e. you only need basically a integrated GPU as a PCI card, but good look getting one, you always can get older "cheap" GPUs but then there is always the chance that because them being older the driver support started to rot.)

- Integrated GPUs tend to have reasonable good Linux driver support, at least for newish CPUs for a view years.

- No extra fan or other components which can make unwanted noise.

- One less component makes trouble shooting easier.

Tbh. if AMD would ship something like a large package (not on-die, but chiplets or otherwise packed) combining a 16+ core cpu (+hyperthreading) with a reasonable integrate GPU and ~2GB low latency RAM pro core + 3year waranty I would be quite interested in that. Some companies I worked with before would like that too as far as I can tell.

I have a few primary use cases in mind:

- developer machine (I don't game)

- server in the basement

- htpc, no gaming (maybe some retro)

In all of these (and probably more), a discrete GPU feels like a detriment. More space, more heat, more drivers, more hassle, more money.

Mos of the workload for my domain involved just a ton of Ram and CPU compute only.

Ofcourse there are related subdomains where I need the graphics, but we are talking about 1 in 1000 use case.

I just need the gfx card to drive the display only.

An interesting feature if you want to just play Windows games once in a while is "PCI passthrough" aka VFIO. With that you can assign a PCI device to be used directly by Windows emulated within a VM, which lets you play game in Windows in emulation with almost no performance penalty.

But then you need another graphics card for your main Linux system.

A developer's machine doesn't really require a lot of graphic horsepower, as long as it can drive multiple high resolution monitors.

I see the use case at least, but I agree that I rather AMD use the die space for a faster CPU and release cheap (sub $100) and low power graphics cards with multiple display outputs.

> rather AMD use the die space for a faster CPU

They don't have to use die space for it. CPU cores are in a separate die already. They can easily slap a Vega 3 IC (which they already have the designs for) alongside the 12nm I/O die.

> release cheap (sub $100) and low power graphics cards with multiple display outputs.

The problem is they're not doing that, either.

Last time they released a "low" end GPU was 5 years ago with RX 550. And it wasn't actually low-end, price-wise (It had $80-100 MSRP and never got cheaper thanks to crypto miners)

> What's the use-case you're envisioning where an integrated GPU is a good use of die space?

These CPUs are using a multi chip design. There'd be no waste of die space. They can slap a small Vega3@12nm die alongside I/O die.

I don't get why AMD refused to sell the Ryzen 4000 APUs directly. They would make a great CPU for some small builds that aren't going to game...

Probably:

- limited production capabilities

- maybe not-so-perfect yield

- self-competition to their still selling 3000 processors and their son to (theoretically) sell discrete graphics cards

To get a chance to chip Ryzen laptops AMD needs to chip a APUs to OEMs similar for the office pre-build desktop marked. So chipping APUs to them is necessary, on the other-hand shipping it to end users is not necessary and in context of limited production capabilities it's a bad idea to ship an additional product to a marked where (in difference to OEMs) it's hard to judge how many will be sold beforehand and where selling them can negatively affect selling other AMD products.

I built two systems recently with the 4650G that I imported via Aliexpress. I paid a little more than MSRP and shipping was slow and nerve racking, but the sysrems work nicely, and no GPU made it fit in a smaller ITX case (heatsink selection is tricky though)

While I agree with your sentiment adding a simple Vega 8 to their CPUs is a lot more work and expense than you'd think.

They have a thing going where they manufacture Zen core chiplets, and that put together X number of chiplets to make a processor. This is very attractive in terms of cost.

As best I know they don't have a GPU chiplet, and so they can't just add one to a CPU. All their processors containing both CPU and GPU are designed like the M1 - one big chip with both.

Hopefully this will change soon, and we'll have Navi 2/3 chiplets going around.

I wonder if there's a way for motherboard manufacturers to add an integrated GPU to the boards today. I think I remember seeing some nvidia chip on a really old motherboard once, but maybe that was before a lot of the PCIE stuff was moved directly into the CPU die?

Some Chinese frankenboards for Xeons have very crappy videocards onboard.

A lot of mainstream server boards have very crappy videocards onboard too; usually the IPMI chip has something with vga output (and network console).

That's an understandable complaint but I believe that using a built-in GPU means it can't use ECC memory.

I'm planning to build my workstation and I'm settled on 5950x, but the fact that I need to get a gfx card separately is irritating, given that I'm in India and it adds a ton of money that I could be spending elsewhere!

The Ryzen 5000 is basically across the board superior to the nearest Intel competitor.

That is, 5600X > 10600k, 5700X > 10700k, etc... This is, however, assuming MSRP pricing for both. If the Ryzen is being marked up due to shortage while the Intel is being discounted a significant enough price gap could warrant still going with Intel.

Even better the 5600x is only very slightly behind the 10700k in multi-core workloads while being ahead on performance and power consumption (and price).

Which Ryzen model exactly? I have some comparison benchmarks in my meta benchmark.

Gaming: https://www.pc-kombo.com/us/benchmark/games/cpu/compare?ids%...

Applications: https://www.pc-kombo.com/us/benchmark/apps/cpu/compare?ids[]... (that's a rather small selection though)

The 5800X is clearly faster.

It's the straightforward comparison, 8 cores/16 threads for both. Surprisingly, the 5600X is still faster - at least in games.

5800X is faster than 10700K and 3700X is better value than 10700K. It's pointless to buy Intel.

I do not need external GPU. I want integrated. So intels are better value to me, keeping in mind that intel MOBOs are alsos cheaper.

A 4750G or 5750G would be good for you but unfortunately you won't be able to buy them.

Precisely my point.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com