are you going to abandon intel for ryzen?

If the new AMD chip is significantly faster than my Intel Core i5 3570k CPU then I'll consider it.
 
Aren't they pretty cheap already with the MicroCenter bundle prices?

Yes amazingly cheap, but you know, a couple of dollars here and there taken away wouldn't be too bad. I live in a tiny island in the Pacific so I can only get computers stuff in from online vendors such as certain shops in Amazon. Forget about buying anything electronic here, prices are up to 3 times the actual prices online.
 
It seems you're in such a blind rage that you're spinning hilarious straw man fallacies. The last time I checked, Amazon and Newegg are not Hardforum.

Are you not able to comprehend words properly or something? Or is it your blind rage stopping you? I'm talking about one thing and you're going off on topics that were never part of the original discussion.

No, that's what you want to see that was never said.

You know, if you would have comprehended what I posted, you wouldn't blindly assume I was talking solely about game workloads.

Now I talk about games? Do you even remember what you posted just a page ago about games? It was in response to something you posted. And for clarification, when I said "CPU/thread" I meant a single core on a CPU or a thread. Pretty much every demanding game made for the last 20 years is going to use 100% of a CPU core/thread on said CPU.

We get it that you're a hardcore AMD fanboy who's currently in a tantrum because someone, somewhere on the internet insulted AMD. You can keep your rose tinted glasses on if it makes you feel any better.
If you want to be disrespectful, try to put words in my mouth and use inane straw man fallacies then it's not worth talking with you any longer.

What's the point of this even? I said the power usage and heat output is higher, which is correct and your source confirms it. What it doesn't talk about however (and I've yet to see someone talk about it), is the power usage of the associated heat output being removed by HVAC or window unit A/C systems. I can run 4 Intel quad systems in a 99 SQ foot room and a 5000 BTU window unit has no problems keeping it at 75F by cycling on a couple of times an hour. On the other hand, I can run ONE FX8370 and the poor window unit has to run nearly constantly to keep it at 80F.
The old Phenom II quads had the same problem with heat output. I used to hate dealing with my buddies x4 955 at my house because his rig would crank out so much heat. I eventually put him in another room, which would get ridiculously hot.

I am not even going to try to further prove anything more in all this blabbering or further try to discern who has reading comprehension problems. Speaking of blindness though, your blue glasses haven't even allowed you to read, what 2 other posters in this very thread wrote. I will leave you the arduous task to find which 2.

What you have, is a rampant case of this:

http://www.wds.co/post-purchase-rationalization-we-all-want-to-believe-we-made-the-right-choice/

You could argue, that i have the same, although i am not as blind as you are. In this very thread though (i am not even asking to read more of the forum), you could notice 2 posts, that don't come under the post-purchase rationalization. They are actually the opposite of it. This alone should make you question yourself.

I sympathize with your cooling problems. Maybe a cheaper CPU and a more expensive A/C is in order. You know, the watt difference, if you noticed in those videos, isn't exactly massive for a 99 SQ room. Anyway, you always have may problems with AMD computers.

Good luck.

P.S: I loved the "when I said "CPU/thread" I meant a single core on a CPU or a thread". Thanks for the laugh.
 
Currently running on an i5-3570k. I've always been a fan of AMD and would abandon Intel.. if Ryzen ever comes out xD
 
I am not even going to try to further prove anything more in all this blabbering or further try to discern who has reading comprehension problems. Speaking of blindness though, your blue glasses haven't even allowed you to read, what 2 other posters in this very thread wrote. I will leave you the arduous task to find which 2.

What you have, is a rampant case of this:

http://www.wds.co/post-purchase-rationalization-we-all-want-to-believe-we-made-the-right-choice/

You could argue, that i have the same, although i am not as blind as you are. In this very thread though (i am not even asking to read more of the forum), you could notice 2 posts, that don't come under the post-purchase rationalization. They are actually the opposite of it. This alone should make you question yourself.

I sympathize with your cooling problems. Maybe a cheaper CPU and a more expensive A/C is in order. You know, the watt difference, if you noticed in those videos, isn't exactly massive for a 99 SQ room. Anyway, you always have may problems with AMD computers.

Good luck.

P.S: I loved the "when I said "CPU/thread" I meant a single core on a CPU or a thread". Thanks for the laugh.


I'm sorry man, but if you are trying to rationalize the performance of current chips you are the one who is being biased or willfully blind.

They have been seriously behind since 2006, hopelessly so since 2011 and it has only gotten worse.

In 2006-2010 or so they were still good bang for the buck chips, especially if you overclocked and unlocked cores, but since the launch of dozer they haven't even had the budget argument, with Intel's low end i3 chips outperforming even the top end FX chips in everything but highly threaded rendering/encoding workloads.

I'm hoping Zen changes all this. I want to go back to AMD. I have great memories of running AMD systems back when AMD was briefly on top from 2000-2005.

I am rooting for Zen to be a massive success, and hoping to buy one, hoping that the performance previews we have seen this far actually hold up when these chips wind up in independent reviewers and end users hands, unlike some previous AMD publicity stunts.

I am very pro-AMD, but even I can't defend anything AMD has released since Phenom II, except for under very narrow well threaded usage scenarios.

As mentioned, my programmer friend had go back to his old Phenom II x4 because after "upgrading" to an FX8350 his compile times were unbearably long.

Sure, in games, in most titles you probably wouldn't notice the difference. But in some you would. I had a terrible time in Red Orchestra 2 and I heard StarCraft 2 also had serious CPU requirements.

But for most, if you are vsyncing at 60hz, you'd never know the difference. But we don't live in a 60hz works anymore. People are buying 144hz gsync and FreeSync monitors and expecting to make the most of them.

In the end the PC is a general purpose platform. It makes no sense to buy a CPU that only performs well under a specialized set of circumstances. You buy a CPU that performs equally well in all circumstances. AMD hasn't had that chip in quite some time.

I've owned 2000-2005 era Athlons and they were great. I've also owned Phenom II and Bulldozer era chips and they were not, which is why I reluctantly moved back to Intel in 2011.

Hopefully 2017 will be the year I can choose AMD again without making any sacrifices.
 
I'm sorry man, but if you are trying to rationalize the performance of current chips you are the one who is being biased or willfully blind.

They have been seriously behind since 2006, hopelessly so since 2011 and it has only gotten worse.

In 2006-2010 or so they were still good bang for the buck chips, especially if you overclocked and unlocked cores, but since the launch of dozer they haven't even had the budget argument, with Intel's low end i3 chips outperforming even the top end FX chips in everything but highly threaded rendering/encoding workloads.

I'm hoping Zen changes all this. I want to go back to AMD. I have great memories of running AMD systems back when AMD was briefly on top from 2000-2005.

I am rooting for Zen to be a massive success, and hoping to buy one, hoping that the performance previews we have seen this far actually hold up when these chips wind up in independent reviewers and end users hands, unlike some previous AMD publicity stunts.

I am very pro-AMD, but even I can't defend anything AMD has released since Phenom II, except for under very narrow well threaded usage scenarios.

As mentioned, my programmer friend had go back to his old Phenom II x4 because after "upgrading" to an FX8350 his compile times were unbearably long.

Sure, in games, in most titles you probably wouldn't notice the difference. But in some you would. I had a terrible time in Red Orchestra 2 and I heard StarCraft 2 also had serious CPU requirements.

But for most, if you are vsyncing at 60hz, you'd never know the difference. But we don't live in a 60hz works anymore. People are buying 144hz gsync and FreeSync monitors and expecting to make the most of them.

In the end the PC is a general purpose platform. It makes no sense to buy a CPU that only performs well under a specialized set of circumstances. You buy a CPU that performs equally well in all circumstances. AMD hasn't had that chip in quite some time.

I've owned 2000-2005 era Athlons and they were great. I've also owned Phenom II and Bulldozer era chips and they were not, which is why I reluctantly moved back to Intel in 2011.

Hopefully 2017 will be the year I can choose AMD again without making any sacrifices.



Since people have short memory, i will repeat what i am arguing all this time:

https://hardforum.com/threads/are-y...ntel-for-ryzen.1919989/page-4#post-1042735298

I am also sorry about your friend, i could bring the opposite experiences from google, but wouldn't change anything. I will just say that there is NOTHING, that could explain your friend's experience, other than VRM throttling at high load on the FX, due to poor motherboard. I have already admitted my bias, contrary to others.

Examples:

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/913-7/cpu-performances-applicatives.html

http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/770/AMD_FX-Series_FX-8350_vs_AMD_Phenom_II_X4_965_(125W__BE).html

I am sorry, they are just numbers, but some things don't change.

If i were to say that an FX has better single threaded performance than i6600 , because my friend told me, would you believe me, based on any available data? I don't think so. But, i am pro AMD too. Maybe...more than you. :D

You see, nowhere did i try to say FX beats Intel. I didn't even say about whether it's a better buy today. I actually talked about prices up to 2 years ago, always. For my use, it IS the best buy, since i paid 125 EUR and got x264 performance which is today on i5 6600 levels, with the FX at 4Ghz.

My entire arguing, was whether it was trash or not and i always replied to specific points. What were my points you were replying to? Could it be you are trying to just say "Intel is faster"? Cause i never said it wasn't...

I even said about Intel being better for games, even mentioned Arma3. So to what end your reply here? Maybe because you are not immune to this either?

http://www.wds.co/post-purchase-rationalization-we-all-want-to-believe-we-made-the-right-choice/
 
Last edited:
Since people have short memory, i will repeat what i am arguing all this time:

https://hardforum.com/threads/are-y...ntel-for-ryzen.1919989/page-4#post-1042735298

I am also sorry about your friend, i could bring the opposite experiences from google, but wouldn't change anything. I will just say that there is NOTHING, that could explain your friend's experience, other than VRM throttling at high load on the FX, due to poor motherboard. I have already admitted my bias, contrary to others.

Examples:

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/913-7/cpu-performances-applicatives.html

http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/770/AMD_FX-Series_FX-8350_vs_AMD_Phenom_II_X4_965_(125W__BE).html

I am sorry, they are just numbers, but some things don't change.

If i were to say that an FX has better single threaded performance than i6600 , because my friend told me, would you believe me, based on any available data? I don't think so. But, i am pro AMD too. Maybe...more than you. :D

You see, nowhere did i try to say FX beats Intel. I didn't even say about whether it's a better buy today. I actually talked about prices up to 2 years ago, always. For my use, it IS the best buy, since i paid 125 EUR and got x264 performance which is today on i5 6600 levels, with the FX at 4Ghz.

My entire arguing, was whether it was trash or not and i always replied to specific points. What were my points you were replying to? Could it be you are trying to just say "Intel is faster"? Cause i never said it wasn't...

I even said about Intel being better for games, even mentioned Arma3. So to what end your reply here?



This is the only link you need to look at when it comes to single threaded AMD performance as it stands, pre-Zen.

The fastest AMD chip on that list is the FX-9590 which falls below an Ivy Bridge Intel Pentium G2030.
 
This is the only link you need to look at when it comes to single threaded AMD performance as it stands, pre-Zen.

The fastest AMD chip on that list is the FX-9590 which falls below an Ivy Bridge Intel Pentium G2030.

Please explain me why you reply by showing me the single threaded performance of PentiumG. To what exactly from all you read is this a reply to? Did i say the opposite? That's your reply to what you quoted? Ok. Everyone thinks in different ways. Maybe i implied somewhere that FX has better IPC than Intel? No? I thought so. Does this relate anything to 8350 vs Phenom X4 or whether the FX is trash? No? I thought so. So why do you reply like this? Because you self trapped yourself in a discussion, where you want to shout "Intel is faster". Well, don't bother, i never said the opposite. I don't even know why you even bother to quote others, since you reply to things that don't exist.
 
Please explain me why you reply by showing me the single threaded performance of PentiumG. To what exactly from all you read is this a reply to? Did i say the opposite? That's your reply to what you quoted? Ok. Everyone thinks in different ways. Maybe i implied somewhere that FX has better IPC than Intel? No? I thought so. Does this relate anything to 8350 vs Phenom X4 or whether the FX is trash? No? I thought so. So why do you reply like this? Because you self trapped yourself in a discussion, where you want to shout "Intel is faster". Well, don't bother, i never said the opposite. I don't even know why you even bother to quote others, since you reply to things that don't exist.

Because single threaded performance is the end all of performance, unless you do special case rendering/encoding/scientific work, and it makes no sense to select a general purpose computing platform based on a special purpose workload.

Your argument that ti works well for what you do NOW is all good and well, but what if you do something different tomorrow? I don't know about you, but most people are continuously getting new software etc. on their machines. As such, you never know what you might need to run over the life of a computer, and should select the best general performer, not one that requires special circumstances to perform adequately.

Thus, even if the majority of what you do is rendering/encoding/scientific type of work, it is foolish to select a $195 at launch (in October 2012) FX-8350 that only performs well in multi-threaded tasks, when a six month old (at the time) Ivy Bridge i5-3570 performs almost as well in multithreaded tasks but absolutely kills the fx8350 in single threaded tasks and could be had for $185.

Oh and it was also quieter and cooler.
 
Because single threaded performance is the end all of performance, unless you do special case rendering/encoding/scientific work, and it makes no sense to select a general purpose computing platform based on a special purpose workload.

Your argument that ti works well for what you do NOW is all good and well, but what if you do something different tomorrow? I don't know about you, but most people are continuously getting new software etc. on their machines. As such, you never know what you might need to run over the life of a computer, and should select the best general performer, not one that requires special circumstances to perform adequately.

Thus, even if the majority of what you do is rendering/encoding/scientific type of work, it is foolish to select a $195 at launch (in October 2012) FX-8350 that only performs well in multi-threaded tasks, when a six month old (at the time) Ivy Bridge i5-3570 performs almost as well in multithreaded tasks but absolutely kills the fx8350 in single threaded tasks and could be had for $185.

Oh and it was also quieter and cooler.

So in other words, you ADMIT that you replied to NOTHING quoted, but you just thought to "reply" by throwing in single threaded performance "the end of all performance". Well, tell that to AMD and Intel that keep adding cores more than they improve IPC and tell that to the PentiumG users that sell in panic their CPUs because they encountered games that won't launch on dual core anymore.

Maybe opening your task manager and selecting to show you thread count will be a shock about your theory. On my book a general purpose PC, must be able to run a bit of anything. Which is not the case with dual cores that literally fall on their knees with multitasking or, some new games that can't play at all. But that's just me. Have you noticed btw, some guy earlier who has both i5 and FX and can't see a difference for general purpose? Do you think he is AMD biased and that's why he bought Intel ? This should be puzzling for you and your theory.

I bought my 8320 at 125EUR and overclocked it to 4Ghz. The motherboard i already had from Phenom era. The FX@4Ghz is 30% faster in x264 than the i5 .So why should i go to i5, coming from a 1090T? It would be a sidegrade.

http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/369/AMD_FX-Series_FX-8350_vs_Intel_Core_i5_i5-3570.html

The i5 was 5% faster than the 1090T in x264:

http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/464/AMD_Phenom_II_X6_1090T_vs_Intel_Core_i5_i5-3570K.html

So was it foolish?

I would also like to note, that i have been primarily bitching about professional use of computing, which by coincidence is all multithreaded (including your friend's compiling). Just another reminder. Today, the FX makes no sense for a new generic build, for the simple fact that at least in Europe, the price of i5 is very close to the FX.

"Single thread performance is the end of all performance" is a gamer driven motto and even in Intel, you see i7s having lower clock than i5s and gamers prefer the i5. Those who buy the i7, are people who run particularly heavy software, that can benefit from the more cores and hyperthreading. The newer games even, if you noticed, have started to load past the "usual" 2-4 cores, for the simple fact that even Intel hasn't managed to make leaps in IPC, but rather started adding "moar coars". You 'd be hard pressed to find many software today that use only 2 cores, so that your "awesome PentiumG" can make the lowly FX look badly. Especially not when asked to run several at the same time ("help, my Pentiun stutters a lot when i try to stream Witcher 3!).

EDIT: This is the difference between Cinebench and real life:

http://imgur.com/a/W4TO9

Yes, the 4th column is thread count. This is what your PentiumG will never show in Cinebench, but in reali life, every page i load, runs at double digit threads in FX. It's a whole new world and dual cores are not made for it. PentiumG users can keep their 2 cores.
 
Last edited:
Multi-threaded task are becoming far more common and finally games are starting to embrace using those extra cores. Simple fact is that AMD went core heavy a bit too soon and now it looks like Zen will give you good IPC and multi-threaded output.
 
Currently rocking an i5-2500K and have little to no incentive to upgrade, but those preview makes me wonder... I love new toys and we need to encourage red team :)
Im Playing BF1 BF3 at 1080p high and happy enough on a old Quad 6600 at 3.4 More cores dont mean more speed. If I upgrade it will be a 2nd hand 4790k, still the best price performance out there. Its the Graphics card you have to dump money on and they are silly cash. Need serious competition on the graphics front at a affordable price . Sick of reviews of Titan and 1080s who nobody can afford. Pure wanking !
 
In Ryzen, most likely, people will be called to decide. Do they want lower clock and more cores or higher clocks and lower core count? Zaratustra's gaming mentality (IPC is the end of all), dictates to take the higher clock. For me, it's not even an issue. I will take any lower clocked 8C/16T anyday over a higher clocked 6C or 4C. Because i am not a gamer. I am a heavy multitasker. I want threads, i can use them. Of course the 8C won't be the best price/performance Ryzen, but that's another story. If AMD is clever, it will be considerably cheaper than Intel.
 
Im Playing BF1 BF3 at 1080p high and happy enough on a old Quad 6600 at 3.4 More cores dont mean more speed. If I upgrade it will be a 2nd hand 4790k, still the best price performance out there. Its the Graphics card you have to dump money on and they are silly cash. Need serious competition on the graphics front at a affordable price . Sick of reviews of Titan and 1080s who nobody can afford. Pure wanking !

More cores mean more speed, only if use software or combination of softwares that can load said cores. In games, for the most part up until last year, 2-4 cores was the usual load. Hence why the i5 series was so popular and in most games it was showing on par or better than lower clocked i7s.

This doesn't mean that this trend will remain as such forever of course. For a pure gamer, a 16thread Ryzen will be most likely useless in the forseable future, as it is unlikely that the game developers will start coding for 16 threads. It would mean that dual core CPUs would fall on their knees and quads would find themselves in severe difficulty. The next years are more likely 4-8 core usage of variable load. For multitasking and running professionist applications, this is another story. Most probably new software versions will try to make use of every single available thread, just like they did before. Ever since Intel went 8 core, you can expect software to follow. After all, even Intel has to be able to explain to a customer, as to why there is reason to buy an i7 instead of an i5.

EDIT: This is my current screenshot from the task manager (except for Windows system processes). Not running anything particular, just background applications and browser. Thread count:

http://imgur.com/a/3ityx

I have 3 (three) single threaded programs. This is what Single thread Cinebench doesn't explain well and why even an 8 core FX feels more nimble than a 6 core FX (i have both).
 
Last edited:
I have an Intel Xeon W3690 6core.
Asus P6T WS Pro
48GB DDR3 1600
2 AMD Fury's
Multiple Crucial SSD's and large spindle drives.


My old Xeon is at 4.275 Ghz and it holding its own given its age. I have been watching AMD for years as I had a AMD K6, K6II, K6III, Thunderbird aka Athlon XP, and even a Opteron (939 socket) but AMD's price to performance ratio sank below Intel. Even with overclocking you could get better performance per dollar from Intel after they started into the Core processors and greater. I was super happy to hear about bulldozer and then found it was designed with so much latency and overhead and wasn't prepared to drive single threaded applications appropriately. Once again AMD had no price to performance argument to make. So I have waited and wondered if the AMD of old would ever show again?

Once again I am somewhat giddy... AMD looks to be making a run at Intel once again.. The early benchmarkes look good.. once again...

After Steve gets his hands on it and punishes this cpu for awhile and shows us not only what the cpu can do but what the underlying platform AM4 can do underneath it.... then I will consider making the jump. 500 dollars for a top notch AMD cpu that is overclockable is fine. But if I can spend 500 bucks and blow it away with a Intel CPU then its dead to me.

I am no fanboy of brands. I am a fanboy of PRICE TO PERFORMANCE!.

Can they deliver?
 
"Single thread performance is the end of all performance" is a gamer driven motto...

Games, yes, but also most other general purpose desktop loads, like archiving,. Rowser tabs, excel calculations, etc. etc.

Yes, having multiple threads helps in general desktop loads as well, but having 8 isn't much - if at all - better than having 4, again, unless we are talking multithreaded rendering/encoding/scientific computation.
 
Because single threaded performance is the end all of performance, unless you do special case rendering/encoding/scientific work, and it makes no sense to select a general purpose computing platform based on a special purpose workload.



Your statement about single threaded performance exceptions is way too limited. Did you ever hear of databases??? All good databases are multithreaded and would never be productive if they were not. That is a pretty big exception that you completely forgot about.
 
Your statement about single threaded performance exceptions is way too limited. Did you ever hear of databases??? All good databases are multithreaded and would never be productive if they were not. That is a pretty big exception that you completely forgot about.

Yes, but we are talking about desktop loads, and it is rare to run huge databases on the desktop. They usually reside on servers.

And I would agree with you, more smaller cores are great for server workloads. That's why I have 12x 2.2 (2.7 turbo) GHz cores (24 logical) in my server.
 
abandoning Intel implies some form of relationship. I'm simply chosen the best product for my needs and budget.

I'm not abandoning Intel if at all, Intel abandoned me by not pushing the performance/dollar envelope

My story to the est of my meory:
AMD 386sx 25mhz
Pentium 133
Pentium MMX 166
Celeron 300a
Celeron 366
Dual celeron 366 (abit bp6 was sweet)
Dual athlon XP (MP mod.)
Pentium 4C (might be before the athlon XP dual system im a bit unsure)
Athlon64 x2
Core 2 Duo
Core I7 920
Core i5 2500k
LOOONG pause cause...well... meh progress
Core i7 2700K (just because i got it for free)
Core I7 3770k (just because i got it for free)
 
Last edited:
Games, yes, but also most other general purpose desktop loads, like archiving,. Rowser tabs, excel calculations, etc. etc.

Did i say anything being better than 4? No, i didn't. It's your impulse to shout "intel is faster" again? But i 'd take the FX today over any dual core intel, any day. And this includes i3. The Intels took better advantage of the "older" software. Because roughly, the FX needed 2 threads to do job of 1 Intel thread. But the future lies in more threads. Singlethreaded applications have been the minority for some years now.

Yes, having multiple threads helps in general desktop loads as well, but having 8 isn't much - if at all - better than having 4, again, unless we are talking multithreaded rendering/encoding/scientific computation.

Archiving? Like 7zip? This is perfect for FX. It's fully multithreaded and loads close to 100% all cores.

51137.png


This is mine (real life):

http://imgur.com/a/lyeMF (it's one of my favourite applications, i use compressed archives daily, up to 20GB per file).

I don't have MS Office, so i don't know about Excel. However, like i said, most modern software isn't singlethreaded. The FX may lag behind, but i don't think it would be terrible. If the same software that spawns 4 threads on an Intel, can spawn 8 in an FX, then more or less, the FX will perform close. Certainly better than a dual core in many occasions, because often, in a PC, you don't run only 1 application per turn, but it happens that more than 1 use CPU cycles at the same time. You run 1 program at a time, only when you make software benchmarks. In real life, as soon as i launch a program, automatically, the antivirus also runs its own scanner to make sure the executable is clean for example. Or, i will be downloading something, while encoding or watching a film. These all run their own threads. That's more threads at the same time. It's something along these lines, that makes a "trash" CPU as an FX, strangely appear "like an i5" to several Intel users in a desktop enviroment. I mean, if you run a PentiumG or an i3, if you multitask, you can feel the drag compared to both i5 and FX. It's the drag causes by having to process "too much at the same time". The FX for instance, will encounter the game or single threaded application that will make it run lower FPS or take longer. But you won't see it stutter or freeze like a dual core Intel, no matter how much stuff you make it run at the same time. This is exactly what happens in game streaming. You force many threads at the same time and they are there to stay. The quad core Intels, are more balanced chips than the dual cores, exactly because they have 2 more cores. If i were to buy today and Ryzen wasn't available, i would buy 6600. Because it's more balanced than FX for a wide variety of scenarios. If i were a gamer, i would also go i5 or maybe i7.

Overall performance depends on IPC, clock and core count. The problem in FX, is that it chose to go first to higher core count and not for IPC, while the software lagged behind. Now Intel goes the opposite way. From IPC moves to more cores. But for what it costed, the FX was very good, especially for non gamers or for gamers on a budget.
 
Last edited:
Excel is only multi-threaded if your spreadsheet is doing tons of independent calculations. Any inter-dependencies between cells and other sheets cut the multi-threaded scaling to nothing.

And VBA is inherently single-threaded, so any scripting will leave all other cores idle.

And when was the last time you encountered a monster of an Excel workbook that didn't have dependent formulas, or VBA?

See here for more details:

http://www.passmark.com/forum/pc-ha...-is-best-processor-for-complex-excel-workbook

If you get anything AMD for complex office operation, you're really shortchanging yourself. A Core i3 could get the work done in half the time, and costs exactly the same as an AMD quad-core. Because Word and PowerPoint are stuck in single-threaded land permanently.

The vast majority of users don't use 7zip on a regular basis. And when they do, they're almost always hard-disk limited. A daily extraction of 20GB file is the exception really, not the rule, and usually means you ponied-up for an SSD.
 
Last edited:
I'm hoping AMD can add some performance/$ come-back. I'm not a fanboy per-se, but for some reason I just tend to lean RED. Probably because my first ever build was AMD. God I wish I could accurately remember my full history of CPUs...too many beers I guess.

Started with I think an AMD Duron as a poor high school kid using paper route money
Then to and Athlon XP
Then jumped ship to Pentium D
Then to Core 2
Now to an FX for whatever reason...mostly because it is a great space heater in my basement. Clocked to 4.6ghz so it isn't a slouch for any of my 1080p gaming.

Just bored and want to upgrade.
 
faildozer......Wait before you buy. After Faildozer and Fury I would honestly wait
 
Excel is only multi-threaded if your spreadsheet is doing tons of independent calculations. Any inter-dependencies between cells and other sheets cut the multi-threaded scaling to nothing.

And VBA is inherently single-threaded, so any scripting will leave all other cores idle.

And when was the last time you encountered a monster of an Excel workbook that didn't have dependent formulas, or VBA?

See here for more details:

http://www.passmark.com/forum/pc-ha...-is-best-processor-for-complex-excel-workbook

If you get anything AMD for complex office operation, you're really shortchanging yourself. A Core i3 could get the work done in half the time, and costs exactly the same as an AMD quad-core. Because Word and PowerPoint are stuck in single-threaded land permanently.

The vast majority of users don't use 7zip on a regular basis. And when they do, they're almost always hard-disk limited. A daily extraction of 20GB file is the exception really, not the rule, and usually means you ponied-up for an SSD.

If i were trapped using single threaded programs, i would pick i3 too. So i agree with you. Although, it's the other way around. In really complex stuff, in the link you posted, one guy says he can load 32 cores. But i doubt ordinary stuff as so complex, so more mundane scenarios are probably in the singlethreaded realm.

You should try 7zip with any big file that is compressible. You are not HDD limited. You are CPU limited. You would be HDD limited, if you were doing simple copying or writing on the disk. You are processing files through and algorithm before writing them to a disk. This is why it's slow and doesn't remotely become HDD limited in any SATAIII HDD anyway. Don't believe me. Download the program (it's open source) and try it. On the upper right corner, it tells you the speed in MB/s.

As for its use, contrary to what others do, i simply replied to what was told to me. I 've already covered video/image manipulation, compiling, audio creation, rendering, which are all multithreaded.

And with this, i think i have replied to everything and to the original assertion about FX being trash for any real workload. Or rather easy to verify, one as soon as he sat in front of an FX desktop, he would feel the awful drag compared to the double IPC of an i3, PentiumG or worse i5, wouldn't he.
 
Last edited:
I'm hoping it forces Intel to release a Kaby Lake - E at a significantly lower price that I can just use as a drop-in replacement for my Haswell-E.
 
I'm hoping it forces Intel to release a Kaby Lake - E at a significantly lower price that I can just use as a drop-in replacement for my Haswell-E.

There is no Kaby Lake-E, there is Skylake and Cannon Lake before Icelake. And no, it wont fit in your current mobo.
 
I might given that im still using a i7 860 @ 3.4. My biggest hangup switching to AMD is MOBO reliability. Maybe that is a thing of the past since the last AMD chip I ran was an Opteron 144.
 
We maintain 9 PCs in our office
Costly migration? You have 9 machines that need 9 licenses. Please excuse my ignorance but how is that a huge deal to migrate over to Windows 10? Are you running some trash legacy software that needs XP?

Once you add phones to the count then windows is going to loose.
IOS is overrated too. We support hundreds of IOS devices. Can't stand it.
 
There is no Kaby Lake-E, there is Skylake and Cannon Lake before Icelake. And no, it wont fit in your current mobo.

There is no Kaby Leak-E yet! And also, do you know for a fact that it wouldn't go in a LGA 2011-v3 package?
 
I really wanted to build a Zen + Vega build Q1 2017,

but since Vega is late, i won't make the effort anymore.

I'll just go with what's best comes summer 2017.
 
There is no Kaby Leak-E yet! And also, do you know for a fact that it wouldn't go in a LGA 2011-v3 package?

Because Skylake-X (new enthusiast platform separate from high end server platform) is a new socket lga2066.
 
I really wanted to build a Zen + Vega build Q1 2017,

but since Vega is late, i won't make the effort anymore.

I'll just go with what's best comes summer 2017.
that makes no sense what so ever. you basically said "I'm tired of waiting but I'm waiting till summer". they'll prob be out by then and youll probably have to hem-n-haw over vega vs 1080ti.
 
Archiving? Like 7zip? This is perfect for FX. It's fully multithreaded and loads close to 100% all cores.

51137.png


This is mine (real life):

http://imgur.com/a/lyeMF (it's one of my favourite applications, i use compressed archives daily, up to 20GB per file).

I don't have MS Office, so i don't know about Excel. However, like i said, most modern software isn't singlethreaded. The FX may lag behind, but i don't think it would be terrible. If the same software that spawns 4 threads on an Intel, can spawn 8 in an FX, then more or less, the FX will perform close. Certainly better than a dual core in many occasions, because often, in a PC, you don't run only 1 application per turn, but it happens that more than 1 use CPU cycles at the same time. You run 1 program at a time, only when you make software benchmarks. In real life, as soon as i launch a program, automatically, the antivirus also runs its own scanner to make sure the executable is clean for example. Or, i will be downloading something, while encoding or watching a film. These all run their own threads. That's more threads at the same time. It's something along these lines, that makes a "trash" CPU as an FX, strangely appear "like an i5" to several Intel users in a desktop enviroment. I mean, if you run a PentiumG or an i3, if you multitask, you can feel the drag compared to both i5 and FX. It's the drag causes by having to process "too much at the same time". The FX for instance, will encounter the game or single threaded application that will make it run lower FPS or take longer. But you won't see it stutter or freeze like a dual core Intel, no matter how much stuff you make it run at the same time. This is exactly what happens in game streaming. You force many threads at the same time and they are there to stay. The quad core Intels, are more balanced chips than the dual cores, exactly because they have 2 more cores. If i were to buy today and Ryzen wasn't available, i would buy 6600. Because it's more balanced than FX for a wide variety of scenarios. If i were a gamer, i would also go i5 or maybe i7.

Overall performance depends on IPC, clock and core count. The problem in FX, is that it chose to go first to higher core count and not for IPC, while the software lagged behind. Now Intel goes the opposite way. From IPC moves to more cores. But for what it costed, the FX was very good, especially for non gamers or for gamers on a budget.


Whatever man.

Whenever I give you an example of something that generally doesn't work well multithreaded you pick the one exception that does (like 7-zip) and use it as being representative of everything in its category.

I don't know what to say. I'm tired of this argument. You are happy with your FX chip. Good for you. I wasn't when I had one, and I don't think most people on here who have tried them have been. If you want to keep justifying your purchase and that's what makes you happy, go for it.

As far as I am concerned, bulldozer and everything based on it was an absolute disaster for client workloads, and it has shown in AMD's sales.

(I repurposed my FX8120 and later FX8350 as a VMWare server for a few years and was very happy with it in that regard, except for the 32GB RAM limit, which is why I eventually stopped using it)

I'm done having this argument.
 
Last edited:
If i were trapped using single threaded programs, i would pick i3 too. So i agree with you. Although, it's the other way around. In really complex stuff, in the link you posted, one guy says he can load 32 cores. But i doubt ordinary stuff as so complex, so more mundane scenarios are probably in the singlethreaded realm.

You should try 7zip with any big file that is compressible. You are not HDD limited. You are CPU limited. You would be HDD limited, if you were doing simple copying or writing on the disk. You are processing files through and algorithm before writing them to a disk. This is why it's slow and doesn't remotely become HDD limited in any SATAIII HDD anyway. Don't believe me. Download the program (it's open source) and try it. On the upper right corner, it tells you the speed in MB/s.

As for its use, contrary to what others do, i simply replied to what was told to me. I 've already covered video/image manipulation, compiling, audio creation, rendering, which are all multithreaded.

And with this, i think i have replied to everything and to the original assertion about FX being trash for any real workload. Or rather easy to verify, one as soon as he sat in front of an FX desktop, he would feel the awful drag compared to the double IPC of an i3, PentiumG or worse i5, wouldn't he.

But JUST encoding. Decoding is vastly easier, and is invariably disk-limited, even on an SATA SSD.

Yes, I did plenty of tests on 7zip. I could max-out my Core i5 2500k encoding, but the processor never topped 40% DECODING. People tend to unpack archives a whole lot more than encoding an archive, so how does this really help your life? You'll barely max-out a Core i3 / AMD quad core unpacking, even on an SSD.

The larger the archive, the more I/O limited you become. Because you can blow through the Windows write cache quick.

Wg70CHK.png


You're not going to get around this, because the unpacker is reading, then decoding, then writing. No inexpensive disk is good at this simultaneous operations, which is why the vast majority of these decoding benchmarks use ramdrives to make the test processor-limited.

You're running out of cases here where MOAR THAN FOUR COARS = noticeable. Archive encoding, video encoding, and rendering, and GTA V. That's a pretty short list.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I did plenty of tests on 7zip. I could max-out my Core i5 2500k encoding, but the processor never topped 40% DECODING.

You're running out of cases here where MOAR THAN FOUR COARS = noticeable. Archive encoding, video encoding, and rendering, and GTA V. That's a pretty short list.

I believe decoding with 7-zip is only 2 CPU heavy threads due to the serial nature of decoding. one is for the demodeling and the other context decoding
I might be wrong here.but i think its in the documentation somewhere.
and before you say. you should hit 50% with 2 threads you have to realise those threads works in serial so its depending on the speed of the other threads and the modeling is a lot heavier than the coding stages. so one thread will always utilize the core a little less than the other which would perfectly describe you 46%
it might not be of I/O bottleneck. but because its simply not threaded enough.

Try starting 2 decoders from an ssd ( or different HDD's as seeking would be horrible otherwise) and it hink you would now see that you can infact utilize more than 46%




PNG optimizing.
JPEG optimization.
Audio encoding.
Picture Filtering.
Audio mixing

Pretty much any CPU intensive task. where information is not need in a specific order and you have enough sepeerate lumps of input data, can be threaded up at the cost of memory usage. its not real multi threading its its more like multitasking but you can still utilize the full amount of cores for performance
that is exactly how 7-zip does its when it uses more than 2 threads. LZMA2 compression can only utilize 2 threads on itself. one for modeling and one for encoding.. if you enabler more threads you are just seperationg the data and starting 7-zip multiple times ( in the background)

But FX CPU's are great for multithreaded integer load (7-zip), but as soon as we pull in Floats, the CMT design and the slow FPU shows its horrible nature.. sadly this is where games are a lot



--- edit ---
Well i went ahead and tested it for you

mage2.png




19% with 1 7-zip seession
36% with 2 7-zip sessions
53% with 3 7-zip sessions
all on the same Samsung 850 PRO drive

So no you are in fact incorrect when you address it to I/o bottleneck
It a simple facts that LZMA2 decoding just a 2 threads process only. one being a little bit less CPU heavy So if you decode multiple 7-zip files you cores can still be beneficial.


another hint would be if you had actually looked at you own screenshot and saw you are currently decompressing 27MB/s I'm pretty sure you Storage units can deliver more than that
or that you Disk I/O usage was only at 1% and not near 99% I/O usage
 
Last edited:
Back
Top