Jay Taylor's notes

back to listing index

AMD’s $499 Ryzen 7 1800X Beats $1700 i7 6950X with 1-Click OC on Air Cooling | Hacker News

[web search]
Original source (news.ycombinator.com)
Tags: memory intel workstation amd ryzen news.ycombinator.com
Clipped on: 2017-02-25

Image (Asset 1/2) alt=

Image (Asset 2/2) alt=
I just hope this lives up to the hype. I built my last machine using Phenom II X6 1090T but I always regretted it after; as the 6 core advantage that I thought future games will use, never materialized and per core performance of that was not as good as the Intel CPUs of the same generation. Most of the benchmark leaks have focussed on top of the line Ryzens, I would be interested in seeing how the mid level Ryzens are comparing to Intel I5s.

There are already reports of Intel CPUs getting price cuts, so this looks good for now at least.

Just a reminder that wccftech.com is notoriously pro-AMD. I would caution against taking their word as proof.

I'm not an AMD hater (actually own AMD stock), just cautious.

It's more of a rumor/gossip tech site with a reputation for immediately publishing almost anything you could put a click-baity title on.

As a result it does look pro-AMD, because there is significantly more hype (the infamous hype train) in AMD community (just compare /r/amd and /r/nvidia on Reddit). I can't say if it's something that emerged organically in those communities and embraced by corporate or the other way round.

And of course https://www.reddit.com/r/AyyMD/

Right now the hot topic is this gem:


Haha. Amused to see the hype train Ryzen has created.

I won't be replacing my i7 6800K build any time soon, but I'm very happy to see AMD looking competitive again. There hasn't been much excitement about the recent generations of i7 for good reason, and hopefully this forces them to start pushing the envelope again.

Exactly. Ridiculous Intel pricing and artificial limitations were a consequence of de facto monopoly.

I absolutely hate how they cap maximum RAM on consumer machines, so that you need to pony up for a Xeon workstation if you need more than 64 GB.

The recent generations can address 128GB as long as your motherboard supports it (my X99 board does).

FWIW consumer Zen is also limited to 64GB, to go higher you'll need to step up to AMDs Xeon-esque Naples platform.

Recent i7 chips support 128GB (my 6800K does).

I know, but competition would hopefully raise these limits in consumer machines.

There is no free lunch. Moving to quad channel incurs more costs in pins, mobo traces, etc.. It's targeted product development.

Nah, it's just artificial limits. Would totally just work if they flipped a bit in the processor. /s

Less sarcastically, what do people need >64 gigs for on a consumer desktop? I'm a dev and work on a pretty memory intensive service and don't need 128 gigs. Holding an entire double layer blu-ray in memory would only require 50 gigs.

Their worst crippling so far is ECC being unavailable on even costly customer parts...

64gb workstation ought to be enough for anybody. Jokes aside, what do you do if you are interested in >64gb workstations?

I use a sound sampler (Hauptwerk) that loads tens of thousand of wavefiles and needs a polyphony (simultaneous samples being played) of thousands of voices to simulate a pipe organ. The minimum configuration for the smallest instrument (one voice) with natural acoustics (ie. original ambient reveberation recorded) is 4gb. The normal requirements for some good instruments are 64-128gb for 24-bit 6-channel uncompressed audio.

> 24-bit (...) uncompressed audio

Do you really need this much headroom for producing music professionally? (If so, why are you arguing over the $50-100 extra for a Xeon?)

Because for listening, it's proven fact that even professional musicians and mixing engineers using equipment costing >$100k can't tell 24 bit from 16 bit in a proper double-blind A/B test. Presumably you use a high sample rate as well (maybe 192 kHz), which is equally useless. Drop both of those, and you're within 64GB easily with no noticable SQ loss.

Some examples that can easily push you beyond 64 GB: - high resolution photo editing: when you start with a 80 mpix / 48 bit photo from a medium format camera pushing beyond 16 GB requires only a couple layers and a couple undo steps being available - high resolution video processing. 1 second of uncompressed 4k 60fps video is almost 1.4GB - very large application compilation: building Android requires 16GB of RAM/swap - I'm sure there are apps that push that requirement even further - development environment for a complex system that requires you to run dozens of VMs if you want all components running locally (I've had to run 2 VMs with 12GB requirements each once)

If you can afford a $30,000 medium format camera, you can afford the Xeon workstation it usually needs. The kind of person that work with those systems would pay $6,000 for an umbrella that doesn't even have any electronics in it: https://www.adorama.com/bcb3355203.html?gclid=CLKvmd2erNICFY...

Absolutely no one that owns one of these professional cameras uses them with non-Xeon CPUs.

Really the only use for greater than 64Gb for non-Xeon CPUs would be student animation or machine-learning projects.

Just because someone can afford to rent a $30,000 camera doesn't necessarily mean they have unlimited cash to burn on other things.

Rent an Azure G5 and remote in perhaps?

It's 25 pounds so not really an umbrella. It's like calling Xeon's just sand.

Genomics. E.g. building a genome index of k-mers (n-grams) usually requires more than 64 GB.

It can be quickly done on a consumer workstation, but you do need 128 GB in many scenarios.

Who is doing this and can't afford a Xeon system? And why should Intel and AMD be making everyone else pay more so that these people can pay a little less?

With that much RAM, you'd be insane not to use ECC, which is another good reason for Xeon.

You won't be replacing your i7 6800K anytime soon, but will you be changing your username to skylake?

That TDP is unreal. 95 Watts?

Looks like AMD has made a real performance breakthrough here. When is general availability expected?

And 65W for the Ryzen 7 1700, which is an absolute feat for 8 cores

Would the 1700X and 1800X also be 65W if they were downclocked to 3GHz, or is the 1700 fundamentally different from them?

They will also be 65W in that case, they are made from the same dies

That depends, the binning process means that products using the same die layout can have different characteristics. We don't yet know to what extent Ryzen is binned but here's a possibility: the 65W 1700 is made from cherry-picked dies that tolerate especially low voltages, the premium 1800X is made from dies that tolerate especially high clocks, and the 1700X is made from leftovers that didn't qualify for either.


It's a hard launch on March 2. I believe preorders are already sold out though.

TDP would be for stock clock, but still that is very good.

Lots of skeptical comments below. I tend to believe the result, given that Intel has slashed prices on its Kaby Lake/Skylake processors in anticipation of the Ryzen launch:


That shows 'Microcenter' slashing prices, not Intel.

If Intel slash prices it will presumably be at the bulk "tray" level and reflected on their ARK website.

Microcenter has a tradition of getting really good cuts before/just after a new product comes out. I remember the Surface RT + Keyboard sale they had for Black Friday:


Not saying this is predictive of an Intel price cut, but I do think that MicroCenter knows its audience.

I can't wait to see the result this will have on the CPU market especially with the rest of their CPU line up coming later this year

Intel could just drop their prices, but it looks like Intel will [also] rush out their 8th-gen stuff this year, even though it's still on 14mm: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2017/02/intel-coffee-lake-14...

This article doesn't actually list any benchmarks and the link/URL is totally broken for the "Ryzen offers even better single-threaded performance per clock than Intel’s Kaby Lake." - http://single-threaded/

Yes, customer Ryzen CPUs support ECC.

No confirmation on ECC with ECC checks enabled so far though. Just the ability to use the RAM.

I pre-ordered 1800x + the Asus TOTL mobo for Ryzen. It doesn't support ECC: https://www.asus.com/us/Motherboards/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VI-HERO/s...

Memory AMD Ryzen™ Processors 4 x DIMM, Max. 64GB, DDR4 3200(O.C.)/2933(O.C.)/2666/2400/2133 MHz Non-ECC, Un-buffered Memory * AMD 7th Generation A-series/Athlon™ Processors 4 x DIMM, Max. 64GB, DDR4 2400/2133 MHz Non-ECC, Un-buffered Memory * Dual Channel Memory Architecture Refer to www.asus.com for the Memory QVL (Qualified Vendors Lists).

AFAIK, Ryzen won't support ECC, sadly.

Hmm, the cheaper ASUS boards are listed as supporting ECC, according to this page: http://geizhals.eu/?cmp=1582178&cmp=1582183&cmp=1582185&cmp=...

Unfortunately even the most expensive ASUS board I could find at the time I pre-ordered my Ryzen claims no support for ECC: https://www.asus.com/us/Motherboards/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VI-HERO/s...

AMD Ryzen™ Processors

4 x DIMM, Max. 64GB, DDR4 3200(O.C.)/2933(O.C.)/2666/2400/2133 MHz Non-ECC, Un-buffered Memory

I'm guessing the demand isn't there and won't be there unless some company can market it as some new gimmick with more mainstream appeal.

If the 32 core Naples server Zen, due Q2, has anything like this kind of price/perf versus Xeon, Intel is in trouble.

Anyone knows where can I get detailed information about the processor? I tried to search in AMD page but the information is very scant.

Namely do these processors support ECC and what virtualisation capabilities do they have (for KVM with full GPU access).

IIRC they will not reveal this until March 2.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact