CoolJWB
Veteran Member
Cool guys don't look back at explosions.
Posts: 734
| Likes: 330
|
Post by CoolJWB on Sept 29, 2019 13:02:51 GMT
You throw away your argument when you mention transistor nm, which is where CPU arguments go to die and do not measure the satisfaction users receive in their processors in any meaningful or coherent way whatsoever on the planet that we live in. That's not my point. If you would research why transistor sizes matter you would know that it's not only for "the satisfaction users receive", even if that is quite literally the result of power-efficient and faster CPUs. Citing a Linus video for CPU information is also where arguments go to die because there also is no intellectual or realistic basis in that information. I do not know what you draw that conclusion on. If you see the CPU comparison (where they compare the specifications from AMD and Intel), their Cinebench 20 test or maybe the test where they ran two Blender renders simultaneously then you'll pretty clearly see that there's pretty solid statistics. You are right in that AMD roasts well, that's what happens when you throw cores together because your single-threaded performance sucks, all you get is a throttling radiator. It's ridiculous that you have yet failed to provide proof of your claims. You say that "your single-threaded performance sucks" which were correct, but this is actually 2019.I will also refer to the section where it's explained why the new Epyc CPUs aren't "throttling radiators". |
|
_Windows
Club 4000 Member
Posts: 7,881
| Likes: 9,611
|
Post by _Windows on Sept 29, 2019 15:01:24 GMT
Just going to say that I've been using this Ryzen 7 in some games, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with its single-thread performance. It is also not a "throttling radiator", even with the stock cooler. Mine stays in turbo mode most of the time even with said stock cooler running at low speeds. Its quite an efficient CPU. Once I get a better cooler, it should be even faster as that would allow higher turbo speeds.
|
|
|
|
Post by Polaris Seltzeris on Sept 29, 2019 17:42:57 GMT
You throw away your argument when you mention transistor nm, which is where CPU arguments go to die and do not measure the satisfaction users receive in their processors in any meaningful or coherent way whatsoever on the planet that we live in. That's not my point. If you would research why transistor sizes matter you would know that it's not only for "the satisfaction users receive", even if that is quite literally the result of power-efficient and faster CPUs. Citing a Linus video for CPU information is also where arguments go to die because there also is no intellectual or realistic basis in that information. I do not know what you draw that conclusion on. If you see the CPU comparison (where they compare the specifications from AMD and Intel), their Cinebench 20 test or maybe the test where they ran two Blender renders simultaneously then you'll pretty clearly see that there's pretty solid statistics. You are right in that AMD roasts well, that's what happens when you throw cores together because your single-threaded performance sucks, all you get is a throttling radiator. It's ridiculous that you have yet failed to provide proof of your claims. You say that "your single-threaded performance sucks" which were correct, but this is actually 2019.I will also refer to the section where it's explained why the new Epyc CPUs aren't "throttling radiators".The article you linked says that transistor size now matters more with mobile CPUs and that it won't scale well with performance with AMD/Intel, which makes me think you didn't read the article you linked. You also link to a few benchmarks which don't help us here when benchmarks are only realistically important in a world which doesn't exist where every operating system and application utilizes multithreading and multiprocessing in the most super-efficient way possible, in which AMD would now be leading, except we're in a world where people use Windows 10 and millions of applications that will never be updated to use it (think about the game this forum is about). |
|
|
|
Post by Polaris Seltzeris on Sept 29, 2019 17:43:56 GMT
Just going to say that I've been using this Ryzen 7 in some games, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with its single-thread performance. It is also not a "throttling radiator", even with the stock cooler. Mine stays in turbo mode most of the time even with said stock cooler running at low speeds. Its quite an efficient CPU. Once I get a better cooler, it should be even faster as that would allow higher turbo speeds. Exactly my point. AMD's cheap high core count sure is great until you have to pay for the liquid cooler in order to get the better speeds which will be the amount that you would've paid for Intel's single-threaded performance. |
|
_Windows
Club 4000 Member
Posts: 7,881
| Likes: 9,611
|
Post by _Windows on Sept 29, 2019 18:08:26 GMT
Just going to say that I've been using this Ryzen 7 in some games, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with its single-thread performance. It is also not a "throttling radiator", even with the stock cooler. Mine stays in turbo mode most of the time even with said stock cooler running at low speeds. Its quite an efficient CPU. Once I get a better cooler, it should be even faster as that would allow higher turbo speeds. Exactly my point. AMD's cheap high core count sure is great until you have to pay for the liquid cooler in order to get the better speeds which will be the amount that you would've paid for Intel's single-threaded performance. Not really. Intel CPUs need good cooling to make the most out of their turbo speeds too. Intel stock coolers are also complete garbage, so buying another cooler is needed. Even if they were not junk, the K series do not even come with a cooler anymore. Add the already high price of the chips to that, and even with liquid cooling on the AMD Ryzen it comes out cheaper |
|
|
|
Post by Polaris Seltzeris on Sept 29, 2019 18:24:43 GMT
Exactly my point. AMD's cheap high core count sure is great until you have to pay for the liquid cooler in order to get the better speeds which will be the amount that you would've paid for Intel's single-threaded performance. Not really. Intel CPUs need good cooling to make the most out of their turbo speeds too. Intel stock coolers are also complete garbage, so buying another cooler is needed. Even if they were not junk, the K series do not even come with a cooler anymore. Add the already high price of the chips to that, and even with liquid cooling on the AMD Ryzen it comes out cheaper Except regular coolers are cheaper than liquid coolers. Point is that you shouldn't need a complicated cooling system in order to use the most of the performance, everyone is already used to using non-stock fans with Intel and that's all that is needed. |
|
StevenNL2000
Forum Admin 
Posts: 6,415
| Likes: 6,936
IGN: StevenNL2000
Timezone: UTC+01:00
Member is Staff. Need immediate assistance? Send a PM
|
Post by StevenNL2000 on Sept 29, 2019 19:36:28 GMT
You also link to a few benchmarks which don't help us here when benchmarks are only realistically important in a world which doesn't exist where every operating system and application utilizes multithreading and multiprocessing in the most super-efficient way possible, in which AMD would now be leading, except we're in a world where people use Windows 10 and millions of applications that will never be updated to use it (think about the game this forum is about). If you don't trust benchmarks, what are you even basing the claim on that Intel is better than AMD? |
|
|
|
Post by Polaris Seltzeris on Sept 29, 2019 19:37:39 GMT
You also link to a few benchmarks which don't help us here when benchmarks are only realistically important in a world which doesn't exist where every operating system and application utilizes multithreading and multiprocessing in the most super-efficient way possible, in which AMD would now be leading, except we're in a world where people use Windows 10 and millions of applications that will never be updated to use it (think about the game this forum is about). If you don't trust benchmarks, what are you even basing the claim on that Intel is better than AMD? Single-threaded performance benchmarks, which are guaranteed to be significant because that's what's always going to be used 100% of the time. |
|
StevenNL2000
Forum Admin
Posts: 6,415
| Likes: 6,936
IGN: StevenNL2000
Timezone: UTC+01:00
Member is Staff. Need immediate assistance? Send a PM
|
Post by StevenNL2000 on Sept 29, 2019 19:42:31 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Polaris Seltzeris on Sept 29, 2019 19:47:49 GMT
You're slightly off. Intel has a marginal lead at worst, that is an objective fact. |
|
StevenNL2000
Forum Admin
Posts: 6,415
| Likes: 6,936
IGN: StevenNL2000
Timezone: UTC+01:00
Member is Staff. Need immediate assistance? Send a PM
|
Post by StevenNL2000 on Sept 29, 2019 19:54:58 GMT
You're slightly off. Intel has a marginal lead at worst, that is an objective fact. And all current-generation Intel processors that have a lead over current-generation AMD processors in single-thread performance cost twice as much as their AMD counterparts for a 5% performance increase. |
|
|
|
Post by Polaris Seltzeris on Sept 29, 2019 20:04:44 GMT
You're slightly off. Intel has a marginal lead at worst, that is an objective fact. And all current-generation Intel processors that have a lead over current-generation AMD processors in single-thread performance cost twice as much as their AMD counterparts for a 5% performance increase. You're paying for graphics because most people pair with NVIDIA along with the integrated graphics as a backup, as well as the convenience and compatibility that Intel tends to have over AMD since everything has been suited for it over the past two decades. |
|
- Apr 25, 2018 05:24am TPAS by Pramire.
- Nov 01 2018 20:52:02 GMT+0100 (Central European Standard Time)
- Jul 20 2020 15:14:17 GMT+0
