QOTW: Has 2nd Gen Ryzen done enough to sway you towards AMD?

[3dcandy]

And my point was you can spend very little and make a huge boost. I don't see a sub 50 beer tokens price point as expensive any more (and this of course could be the issue).
The statement wasn't made with people in your boat in my mind. The amount of people I know who still have no idea about ssd's is huge.
I beg to differ with your experience because in my experience the amount of difference an ssd makes is huge. I would not go back to not booting from ssd if I could help it. I now only have one system that is used occasionally that boots from a spinning platter hard drive and only because that system is used to store video data and spit it out over a network to another computer to project that for gigs. It is a sff pc and can only easily take 1 hard drive or ssd. Sometime this year it will be retired and replaced with something that boots from ssd. Even in my tests this machine would benefit from an ssd which goes against your testing, as latency across the network is reduced and I can also play back higher bit rate videos even though they are stored on a hd. So again, I stick by my figures. Heck even pc's that are predominantly used in offices are speeded up by using an ssd boot drive - but again Win 10 is much better at using one and it gets more of a boost than other os's. The only bit of your argument I agree on is cost, but even then to me I don't see the cost being too prohibitive. A 500 gig Samsung ssd is now around the £130 mark. That is less than the cost of some decent memory and to a lot of people would improve the experience more than a memory boost would

[barakar42]

For me, I'm upgrading. My pc literally just died last weekend, and I was due an upgrade anyway. My i7 920 has lasted longer than I expected and it's about time I upgraded

[Hamtaro]

For me, hell no, Intel all the way, the only thing I like is the fan, but no one is going to be using those anyways, most people use the Radiator cooling as it is more efficient.

[Saracen]

And my point was you can spend very little and make a huge boost. I don't see a sub 50 beer tokens price point as expensive any more (and this of course could be the issue).
The statement wasn't made with people in your boat in my mind. The amount of people I know who still have no idea about ssd's is huge.
I beg to differ with your experience because in my experience the amount of difference an ssd makes is huge. I would not go back to not booting from ssd if I could help it. I now only have one system that is used occasionally that boots from a spinning platter hard drive and only because that system is used to store video data and spit it out over a network to another computer to project that for gigs. It is a sff pc and can only easily take 1 hard drive or ssd. Sometime this year it will be retired and replaced with something that boots from ssd. Even in my tests this machine would benefit from an ssd which goes against your testing, as latency across the network is reduced and I can also play back higher bit rate videos even though they are stored on a hd. So again, I stick by my figures. Heck even pc's that are predominantly used in offices are speeded up by using an ssd boot drive - but again Win 10 is much better at using one and it gets more of a boost than other os's. The only bit of your argument I agree on is cost, but even then to me I don't see the cost being too prohibitive. A 500 gig Samsung ssd is now around the £130 mark. That is less than the cost of some decent memory and to a lot of people would improve the experience more than a memory boost would

Thing is, I'm not disputing your experience, or that it makes a huge difference to you. What I'm telling you is that it makes little or no difference to me.

For instance, you've repeatedly mentioned boot times. My system books (after hardware POST) in about 15-20 seconds on SSD, and 90-120 seconds on HD.

How much time does that save me? 0 seconds.

Why 0? Because I don't sit there waiting for it. I'm making my morning brew, and maybe checking phone messages.

And my usage of the PC the vast bulk of the rest of the day my PC is about 90% idle, even when I'm using it. Why? Little that I do is disk-bound.

Now considerva friend's company. Their accounts team has 6 members in credit control, all of whom spend most of their day either thumbing through files, or on the phone to customers. Their PCs are .... erm, .... elderly, but that doesn't sliw them uo because the critical part of the work is the phone conversations. Sure, they do lookups of account data, and input changes and conversation audit trails, etc, but their PC CPU's will be idling, waiting fir input, about 99% of the workinv day. And, those PCs are powred up by whoever gets to the office first, while they're taking coats off, making coffee, visiting the cloakroom, saying hi, discussing last night's TV, etc.

So, upgrading to SSDs makes no appreciable difference to work achieved, will cost (even at £50, per) £300 for that one team alone, and on top of that, they probably have to pay someone external to come in and fit them. And fir what?

Again whether boot time is 10 seconds or 10 minutes makes no difference


If you are videi editing, rendering, etc, then for you, the benefit is no doubt huge. But don't make the mistake of transferring that to the millions that use a PC for run-of-the-mill stuff, especially where the job involves a PC as necessary, but where it'sca small part of the job.

Some of your acquaintances may well not be aware of the benefits of SSDs but that makes me wondet, how many of that category use a PC is a high-demand, intensive, disc or RAM-to-disk-swap intensive way? My bet is if PC performance made a "huge" difference to their work, they'd know and be SSD'd up already.

[Slivver]

Not only has Ryzen swayed me towards AMD but all the parts for 2 new Ryzen 7 2700X PCs turned up today.
This will be my first AMD processor since the original Athlon!

[3dcandy]

Thing is, I'm not disputing your experience, or that it makes a huge difference to you. What I'm telling you is that it makes little or no difference to me.

For instance, you've repeatedly mentioned boot times. My system books (after hardware POST) in about 15-20 seconds on SSD, and 90-120 seconds on HD.

How much time does that save me? 0 seconds.

Why 0? Because I don't sit there waiting for it. I'm making my morning brew, and maybe checking phone messages.

And my usage of the PC the vast bulk of the rest of the day my PC is about 90% idle, even when I'm using it. Why? Little that I do is disk-bound.

Now considerva friend's company. Their accounts team has 6 members in credit control, all of whom spend most of their day either thumbing through files, or on the phone to customers. Their PCs are .... erm, .... elderly, but that doesn't sliw them uo because the critical part of the work is the phone conversations. Sure, they do lookups of account data, and input changes and conversation audit trails, etc, but their PC CPU's will be idling, waiting fir input, about 99% of the workinv day. And, those PCs are powred up by whoever gets to the office first, while they're taking coats off, making coffee, visiting the cloakroom, saying hi, discussing last night's TV, etc.

So, upgrading to SSDs makes no appreciable difference to work achieved, will cost (even at £50, per) £300 for that one team alone, and on top of that, they probably have to pay someone external to come in and fit them. And fir what?

Again whether boot time is 10 seconds or 10 minutes makes no difference


If you are videi editing, rendering, etc, then for you, the benefit is no doubt huge. But don't make the mistake of transferring that to the millions that use a PC for run-of-the-mill stuff, especially where the job involves a PC as necessary, but where it'sca small part of the job.

Some of your acquaintances may well not be aware of the benefits of SSDs but that makes me wondet, how many of that category use a PC is a high-demand, intensive, disc or RAM-to-disk-swap intensive way? My bet is if PC performance made a "huge" difference to their work, they'd know and be SSD'd up already.

But of course a boot time of 10 mins makes a difference...they're at work wasting 10 mins. Unless they come to work 10 mins early that's nearly an hour a week they could be doing something. Just because you don't think that's a waste I do. I'd be thinking that's an hour lost each week. Same as I'd think the same about my time. I just think we're coming at this debate from slightly different angles - and I honestly believe that many people still don't actually care about waiting 10 mins to boot because they enjoy the wasting time... I'm just saying that you personally don't see it, but for nearly everything I do I see vast improvements, noticeable improvements. And in every single circumstance I've sorted out a system with an ssd it has changed how they interact and work with their pc. Saracen - you go off and make a brew. I don't because I'm already sorted with my emails checked, responded to and work started before you've got going. It's just a different mind set. Nowt wrong with your way of thinking, I can see the benefits of caffeine intake
But I still stand by my comments. It changes nearly every aspect of how a computer system can be. I can have a brew whilst my work pc boots or I can choose not to. I like the fact I have a choice. I'm pretty sure we won't see eye to eye on this but hey, it's a debate. I still stand by my side and I'm sure you will - in fact I'd be disappointed if you didn't. But for me - ssd all the way. And to get my argument back on topic AM4 and Ryzen 2 brings more pci lanes available for storage. Hexus has just reviewed the WD black ssd.... and it will run nicely on Ryzen 2 and has some insane speeds... which on an older Intel system (or AMD) will not be utilised to it's full!

[aidanjt]

It's not just boot time speed ups that improve massively with SSDs, and that's neither here nor there really, as Saracen said, there's always something else you can be doing while it's doing that. No, it's also software initialisation times, and even GUI feedback latency is noticeably reduced. Reading and writing memory pages to disk, too, is massively improved. Even if it's just a cheapo little £30 120GB SSD, it makes such a difference to the general system performance. All those millions of little frustrating idle wait states that block user interaction that systems do while waiting for random disk I/O to complete are compressed down to an imperceptible degree, it literally makes any machine feel like a new machine. Stupidly fast boot times is just a nice side benefit.

[aidanjt]

Out of curiosity, what do you need on intel MATX boards that you can't find on B350 boards?

The chipset isn't much of an issue, whether it's B350, X370, or X470 isn't particularly concerning. My main concerns are VRM circuitry that will last up to 10 years, neatly stacked angled SATA ports, audio that doesn't make me cringe, avoiding Realtek NICs like the plague, WiFi/BT module, avoiding certain on board components that are either cheap junk, or doesn't play well with Linux. There are LGA1151 mATX boards that can tick all those boxes, while AM4 mATX boards hardly tick any at all. As a side bonus, CL has a perfectly serviceable IGP for when it's time to upgrade and it can be passed down to server duty. It isn't a dealbreaker or anything that I would knock against Ryzen, but it's a nice tidy bonus that'll free up a PCIe slot for something more important.

[Saracen]

But of course a boot time of 10 mins makes a difference...they're at work wasting 10 mins. Unless they come to work 10 mins early that's nearly an hour a week they could be doing something. Just because you don't think that's a waste I do. I'd be thinking that's an hour lost each week. Same as I'd think the same about my time. I just think we're coming at this debate from slightly different angles - and I honestly believe that many people still don't actually care about waiting 10 mins to boot because they enjoy the wasting time... I'm just saying that you personally don't see it, but for nearly everything I do I see vast improvements, noticeable improvements. And in every single circumstance I've sorted out a system with an ssd it has changed how they interact and work with their pc. Saracen - you go off and make a brew. I don't because I'm already sorted with my emails checked, responded to and work started before you've got going. It's just a different mind set. Nowt wrong with your way of thinking, I can see the benefits of caffeine intake
But I still stand by my comments. It changes nearly every aspect of how a computer system can be. I can have a brew whilst my work pc boots or I can choose not to. I like the fact I have a choice. I'm pretty sure we won't see eye to eye on this but hey, it's a debate. I still stand by my side and I'm sure you will - in fact I'd be disappointed if you didn't. But for me - ssd all the way. And to get my argument back on topic AM4 and Ryzen 2 brings more pci lanes available for storage. Hexus has just reviewed the WD black ssd.... and it will run nicely on Ryzen 2 and has some insane speeds... which on an older Intel system (or AMD) will not be utilised to it's full!

The 10 minutes is utterly irrelevent, because whatever the boot time, up to that, they're doing something else.

It's not that they're doing something else while waiting for bootup, it's that they're doing something else, period.

Same as me. My morning office routine, as I keep saying, involves putting the coffee on, checking out calls and several other things. Only once those are done, and they need to be done, do I even think about using the PC. Because I turn it on first, it's ALWAYS sitting there ready when I want it. It would make no difference if a quantum processor booted up in 1.3 nanoseconds, because I still would spend 10 mins or more making coffee, checking calls and foing those other tasks.

If you walk in, turn on the PC and sit there watching it boot up, waiting to work, then 10 seconds or 2 minutes makes 1 min 50 seconds difference to you. But I don't.

I don't know how many times I need to tell you this. Boot time, within the range defined by my HD boot isutterly irrelevant. It saves me zero time. If it booted instantaneously, the PC would sit there for 10 mins or so doing naff all, because I'm elsewhere doing other things.

As for the office I mentioned, they all typically arrive about 30 minutes before official start time. The vagaries of traffic are such that if they tried to arrive on time, they be late about half the time, or more, so they get in early, start the PCs, then, as I said, take their time getting ready for the day, with coat removal, kettle, chats, etc. Again, by the time they're ready to work, PCs have long completed booting, and the SSD would mean the PCs were ready 9 minutes before needed, instead of 8 minutes before needed. Either way, they're sitting there idling, waiting for users. Boot time is irrelevant.


You're still missing the point. My routine is not defined by boot time. I am working. Like I said, checking messages, and other tasks. They need doing. In that office, arrival time is determined by traffic, but when they get there, they're on their own time, so the spend it how they wish. Which involves a gentle easing in to the day.

If you want to time-and-motion study your day around getting every last second of PC time, fair enough. But I neither do, nor want to. Nor do those office staff, and I can tell you they're far from alone.

My routine would not change with an SSD because I have the routine I want. If I decide to change my routine, maybe I sit in the garden all day, or go fishing. Nobody can telk me "no".

I have SSDs here. I could boot ftom one easily. It takes me about 5 seconds to change my boot disk, from one HD to another, or from HD to SSD. But as I keep telking you, SSDs make no practical difference to my work life. If you find them helpful, great. Most people probably do.

But what I'm telling you, for a flat-out fact, is NOT EVERYBODY DOES.

And the assertion that "anybody" not using them needs to wake up to the benefits if flat-out offensive. I'm fully aware of the benefits, and I'm telling you they aren't worth it to me. It's not about lack of waking up.

[Saracen]

It's not just boot time speed ups that improve massively with SSDs, and that's neither here nor there really, as Saracen said, there's always something else you can be doing while it's doing that. No, it's also software initialisation times, and even GUI feedback latency is noticeably reduced. Reading and writing memory pages to disk, too, is massively improved. Even if it's just a cheapo little £30 120GB SSD, it makes such a difference to the general system performance. All those millions of little frustrating idle wait states that block user interaction that systems do while waiting for random disk I/O to complete are compressed down to an imperceptible degree, it literally makes any machine feel like a new machine. Stupidly fast boot times is just a nice side benefit.

I'm aware of that. I mentoned it some time back. Thing is, the vast bulk of my PC usage is text entry. It's .... creative writing, for lack of a better term. And a good chunk of that time is thinking about what to say, then either typing it or dictating it. That's after planning, plotting, etc, none of which requires a PC at all.

So, meantime, the system sits there, waiting. And waiting.

I doubt, in my typical working day, if more than 5% of the PCs uptime it is actively being used.

Were it not for the voice-dictation software, and I don't always use that, I could do what I need to, most if the time, on DOS 6 and Wordstar.

As I said, I have SSDs. I've ysed the same system with one installed, and while the system msy have been quicker, it made no difference to usage, and absolutely no perceptible difference to productivity.

As I said several posts back, if I was using multiple applications and constantly flipping back and forth, an SSD would probably help. But I don't. Most days, Word loads after boot, and it's all I use. Some days, I might spend half hour in Excel, then an hour in my accounts software, but not switching back and forth.

As well as boot time not mattering, my PC usage doesn't offer much other oppirtunity for the undoubted speed advantages of SSD to show. And that has been my entire point - not everybody uses a PC in a way that SSD makes much difference. Many do, but not everybody.

[aidanjt]

Were it not for the voice-dictation software, and I don't always use that, I could do what I need to, most if the time, on DOS 6 and Wordstar.

I could quite happily live in a Linux pseudo-terminal, and still consume h.264 video. But I'd still want an SSD for my root partition. Maybe it's just because I'm younger and more impatient with all those compounding seek delays, or maybe I hammer my systems much harder. But I can understand that if your system is mostly just a blinking carot you can get by with a HDD. I'd still be a bit concerned with reliability though, repeated spin ups and spin downs that's inevitable with system drives takes its toll on them.

[Saracen]

I could quite happily live in a Linux pseudo-terminal, and still consume h.264 video. But I'd still want an SSD for my root partition. Maybe it's just because I'm younger and more impatient with all those compounding seek delays, or maybe I hammer my systems much harder. But I can understand that if your system is mostly just a blinking carot you can get by with a HDD. I'd still be a bit concerned with reliability though, repeated spin ups and spin downs that's inevitable with system drives takes its toll on them.

Ah.

But on reliability, is there any evidence that SSDs are more reliable? I mean, solid state still fails, and the most likely time is on powrr-up.

Oh, and by "reliable", I mean in like-for-like usage profiles. The best way, IMHO, to ensure solid-state reliability is probably to never power it down. That's not a viable strategy for me.

What you describe as a blinking carrot () is perhaps marginally overstating it, but is exactly the point I've been making, or trying to.

Since, the vast bulk of the time, the system is idling, waiting for me, an even faster system would still spend the vast bulk of it's time idling.

It's like upgrading from a hot-hatch to a Ferrari if you only ever use it to go 2 miles down the road to the supermarket, and usually queue nose-to-tail, stop-start, to do it.

I don't dispute the speed benefits of SSDs if a user uses the machine hard enough to benefit. I don't, these days, and while many people no doubt do, quite a few are like me, where any benefits will be minimal. At best.

[Saracen]

Oh, and I don't do video editing on PC much these days. I'm editing something or other most days, but on dedicated hardware. I also rarely watch video on PC. Never films, or TV footage, and maybe half a dozen youtube clips a year. And it wouldn't worry me of it was 0 youtube clips a year.

[Spreadie]

I moved to AMD with the 1st gen. Returning to a competitive state deserves support.

Even those who are buying Intel today owe thanks to AMD for forcing the prices down.

[Minus]

I would not touch any Ryzen 2xxx cpu. They are all behind even i7-4790k in games, which is 4 years old.

And yes, more than 90% of people are using their high-end cpus mainly for gaming, and not for content creation, making Ryzen irrelevant again.

I will switch back to AMD (yes I was using AMD cpus from 2003 to 2014) when they will show at least 10% more performance in games, compared to Intel.

Just like the RX and Vega series, Ryzen cpus are far from being appealing to me.

[Minus]

My main reason for ever upgrading is for gaming performance. Everything else still runs good enough for me, so I care little about it. Therefore because Intel still wins overall in gaming performance, I'd still use them in my 'next build'. As much as I'd like to support AMD, I'm not a charity, and performance is key rather than simply being 'good enough', since if I'm simply going for 'good enough', then my current 8 year old PC has that base covered.

Well said.