Read more.Quote:
The new chips are here, will you be buying?
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
The new chips are here, will you be buying?
I have finished with my build for now but currently have a project going with my brother in law for a gaming rig, the single core performance still has him wanting the 8700k I am afraid. As some people have said here, whilst AMD are doing a great job with professional multi core workloads, unless they can actually beat Intel by a noticeable difference in gaming performance for a similar or better price, not as many people as AMD would like are wanting to bite. It is sad but true, I did the same thing with my rig, I ended up getting the 7700k instead of the 1800x.
It's definitely on my shortlist for the next rig, but that'll (hopefully) be far enough out that ryzen 3 will be available
Intel can't beat intel with a noticeable difference in gaming, even an i3 won't be a noticeable bottleneck these daysQuote:
Originally Posted by EvilCycle
The thing with the single threaded performance is that it becomes irrelevant on anything above 1080p, but no outlets seem to want to show that. Hexus is one of the few that does test multiple resolutions. If you are going above 1080p (which you should be with a CPU like this) the difference is almost 0.Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilCycle
I'm still considering the APU route as an interim.
For me it's a yes, multi threaded workload for me on this "work" pc. 8c 16t will be a decent upgrade from my 6c 12t machine based on x58/X5645/24 gig DDR3
It will come down to what I can afford.
Were I in the position to just buy whatever I want, then yes it is the most tempting it has been in a long time though I am not entirely sure given what I believe to be my usage, that it would still be a better choice than the 8700K.
100% correct but his thinking is that when his shiny new 4k capable GPU is not so shiny new and no longer running the latest AAA's at 4k, he will still be getting the frames and general game settings he wants by going back to 1080p instead of upgrading again, he isn't quite the enthusiast as some of us are here and wants more mileage than most would expect. It was a bit different for me as the first gen of Ryzen was a little iffy in some areas so I just thought I was playing it safe for a gaming rig.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wozza365
If he wants more mileage in the latest games then the more powerful processor is going to make the most sense. Newer games are only becoming more multi threaded, and those that are can often perform better on the Ryzens than Intel because they are better in terms of raw power. I bought the 1700X for that exact reason. The i7's from before this gen look almost pathetic now that Intel finally released 6 cores, and how long before more cores are wanted? I think the jump from 6-8 will be less than 4-6.
I think Ryzen 2 (the next one) is almost definitely going to include a mainstream 12c/24t CPU option and once again, Intel's high end offerings are going to look pathetic in anything but gaming.
Maybe,as FO4 performance is noticeably better(although Intel has the edge).
I use my rig for gaming, just plain o'gaming. I would stick with Intel if I had to upgrade today for this reason only. Now if your wanting to do some workload heavy stuff too then Ryzen +(its not really Ryzen gen 2, that's coming out later). After watching GamersNexus review on Youtube i would also advice someone who wants to game/stream or is thinking of doing in the near future on the same PC to go with Ryzen +. Ryzen+ has its uses, just not good enough for my gaming needs.
Resolution has nothing to do with with ryzen performance - the only time a gap opens up between intel and ryzen is at ultra high refresh rates. If you go down to 1080p the chip doesn't commit sudoku.Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilCycle
It's also worth considering the longevity of the platform - if you want a system to last longer "than most would expect", you should be buying the platform that will have new motherboards & CPUs released for it for years to come
I read this comment a lot and can only assume people like yourself play mainly single player games. Play any 64+ multiplier game online (planetside 2, Squad, PUBG etc.) and single threaded performance is a must even when playing at the low frame rates of 4k where the world simulation time still far exceeds GPU draw time. "Outlets" should showcase benchmarks where IPC actually matters, not the same old benchmarks that show marginal differences between CPUs generation. Easier said than done mind. I don't know of any benchmark that showcase the online workloads of large scale multiple games, only benchmarks that test their graphics engines offline.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wozza365
Unfortunately no. My pc is purely a gaming pc and most of the games I tend to play (mainly simulators) are mostly single threaded. AMD has a long way to go to catch up with Intel on single threaded performance and the 2700x is behind my 4790k let alone a 8700k in single threaded tasks. Saying that I wouldn't buy Intel at the moment either as the performance gain is not worth the huge price I would have to pay so I shall be sticking with what I have for a good couple of years yet.
Well, considering the subsystem pricing, they're pretty close between a higher end X470 mobo and the 2700X vs an average middle priced Z370 mobo and the 8700K.
I guess it depends on usage scenario, do you need higher single core IPC, or do you need more cores for multi-threaded workloads? Personally I'd opt for the 2nd gen Ryzen for more than just the pricing or IPC / all-core performance, I'd also opt for it due to the way Intel has handled the whole Meltdown / Spectre issue. Even for gaming, the 2700X is a great performer, it looks like they've produced a great cpu for the price.
Now if only memory and gpu pricing wasn't so ridiculous, I'd almost be tempted to semi-retire my Sandy Bridge system.
It's probably not something that sees a benchmark due to inconsistency between passes.Quote:
Originally Posted by een4dja
I'm going to have to wait until the next releases from intel and AMD to see if I want to upgrade my 3570k, hopefully ram, ssd and gpu prices can fall by then. Ryzen 1 was nice to see on release, but as time has passed and intel added more cores, if I had to buy one, I may have to reluctantly side with intel as a gamer. I would still need to think it over though.
Nope, my 4+ years old FX-8320 system is still good enough and when it eventually does get replaced it will be because I want to move to an ITX sized box, be it Intel or AMD.
1st Gen was enough to sway me.
But I haven't made the switch yet. I might do it near the end of year or something.Quote:
Originally Posted by Smasher27
What they did for first gen ryzen was enough to sway me :)
I built to Ryzen systems last year one Ryzen 3 and one Ryzen 5 for friends and family . both great systems. I am not in the market for a CPU at the moment as my pc is working well for 1080P gaming and may get a gpu upgrade later on in the year as i am limited by 2gb vram atm.
My system is mostly used for gaming so wouldnt really need the extra multi tasking especially as I intend to get a server for the VMs i currently use on my current i7 system.
I wouldn't rule out Ryzen thou.
It is nice for AMD to be able to compete with Intel again and force them to stop trickle feeding.
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.
1st gen had me, 2nd gen still has me, DDR4 prices block me.
Despite not really being in the market for a new system, I was already swayed by the first generation Ryzen processors. I crave ECC memory support for my system and just as earlier AMD doesn't make me jump through hoops to have that. With Ryzen 2 ECC even seems officially supported instead of "we've not validated it but it should work".
Although a blurb in the manual for the ASRock Tai Chi X470 has me scratching my head a little.
Considering Raven Ridge is the APU series with integrated graphics it would've been clearer to refer to them as such and not as CPUs. Also, this apparently means the current Ryzen G desktop processors with integrated graphics do not support ECC. And ASRock seems to have outed the, to my knowledge, unannounced Ryzen PRO desktop APU series.Quote:
- AMD Ryzen series CPUs (Pinnacle Ridge) support DDR4 3466+(OC)/3200(OC)/2933/2667/2400/2133 ECC & non-ECC, un-buffered memory*
- AMD Ryzen series CPUs (Summit Ridge) support DDR4 3466+(OC)/3200(OC)/2933(OC)/2667/2400/2133 ECC & non-ECC, un-buffered memory*
- AMD Ryzen series CPUs (Raven Ridge) support DDR4 3466+(OC)/3200(OC)/2933(OC)/2667/2400/2133 non-ECC, un-buffered memory*
* For Ryzen Series CPUs (Raven Ridge), ECC is only supported with PRO CPUs.
For me its a no, but to each their own.
Funnily enough, not too interested in the new CPUs (my OC'd ryzen 1700 @3.95ghz is plenty for now)
But i am very interested in the new motherboard chipsets, specifically the Store MI tech...
I currently use a cheap 128GB SSD to cache a 4TB HDD in software, via primocache, but it's flakey at best and has a tendency to reset the cache at random...
I assume a gen 1 Ryzen CPU would work on a gen2 motherboard?
And any news on mATX Ryzen gen2 motherboards? Seems to be ITX and ATX variants aplenty, not seen a mATX variant yet...
I would've bought a 1st Gen Ryzen if RAM and GPU prices were not obscene.
...What you're seeing is a $229 processor keep up with a rival $349 one... from the sentence we can see AMD is the clear winner. Although it lacks integrated graphics getting a $50 entry level graphics card (which performs way better than intel HD620) you still have cash left to get 4Gigs of DDR4.
They had me at first gen. I only built the rig a couple of months ago, as I was waiting for the platform to mature (that and it was clear I needed a new machine with many cores for VMs), so I won't be going to second gen. I'll probably go straight to third gen.
That does look interesting, I am also currently using an SSD cache using intel rapid storage and wanted to continue when I went Ryzen, problem solved.Quote:
Originally Posted by fail_quail
I think not calling them APU's maybe down to AMD, it seems they want to move away from that nomenclature.Quote:
Originally Posted by azrael-
There's been Ryzen G Pro's since around January (Ryzen 3 PRO 2200G and the mobile variant PRO 2300U, Ryzen 5 PRO 2400G and the mobile PRO 2500U, and mobile Ryzen 7 PRO 2700U) so ASRock haven't outed anything, i guess they didn't receive much attention at the time as everyone was focused on the more mainstream SKU's.
My current rig is still going strong with a core i7 2600k.
However, since beginning of this year i have begun buying all the parts for a new rig. And the 2nd gen Ryzen is what i been waiting for :)
I have already chosen the Ryzen 7 2700X as the processor. Now i just need to find a suited motherboard and RAM.
Since i bought the core i7 2600k years ago(7 years now?) i havent seen a single cpu from intel that would make me upgrade.
AMD itself isn't officially aware of any Ryzen G PRO processors for the desktop. They do exist for mobile, but I knew that already. I recall checking up on this back when Ryzen G for the desktop was announced.Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky34
Could be that they're OEM parts. Just had a look at the Wikichips page you linked to and there it's claimed that the memory controller doesn't support ECC, which directly contradicts ASRock's statement. Also, on Wikichips the PRO 2400G isn't listed as having been launched. I wonder if they didn't simply extrapolate the information from the regular 2400G.Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky34
If they have BioStar seems to have done the same as they're the only other results Google throws up when i searched for the model number, it's all very confusing.
Maybe they were announced back in January but not launched yet.
Even a 1700 at 3Ghz all the modern games were running fine anyway. Now at 3.8Ghz it seems to run fine also. I don't really think people need 4 GHz for games if you have more than 4 cores. I will say more is better with CPU's, even though most of the time it's not really needed. My memory won't go past 3000MHz though. Even 3200 makes the system unstable it seems. A new problem I'm have is that my Crosshair VI does not want to flash to newer bios and is stuck. I'd rather not use the Bios/UEFI flashing when the system is on. I may have no other choice and try it. If the system doesn't want to do it turned off, a problem may occur while flashing with it on. I may also try flashing backwards and going for the latest Bios and see if that fixes the problem. I'm happy the new Ryzens are doing well. I will likely wait for the other Ryzen releases in 2020/2021.
The main reason i chose AMD is because of the low cost for an 8 core CPU compared to Intel: $300 AMD vs $600 Intel. Seemed like a no brainer. I may never go back to Intel because of the greedy price they charge.
Still running an FX8350 and a geforce 970. See no urgent need to upgrade yet. Would gladly go Ryzen. Been a fanboy since Thunderbird.
Um, no, but it's more a case that nothing I've seen recently has me convinced an upgradec is justified at all. So it's more a case of not upgrading than what I upgrade to.Quote:
Originally Posted by QOTW
Put it this way. My next "upgrade" will effectively be a new PC. Oh, case and PSU will survive, but an upgrade effectively means, at a minimum, MB, processor and RAM, and unless I want to settle for 10-year old graphics, a GPU too.
Sooooo ..... not cheap, then.
And the question is, what benefit do I get?
Gaming? Not really any longer a gamer. Steam, and the associated DRM changes of this era, ruined PC gaming for me. I do not have Steam, or any similar (EA, etc) type platforms and never will. So, that effectively locks me out of most gaming, and I can get by with scratching my gaming itch with my current museum-piece PC, and a few GOG releases .... and my vast choice of old games to replay.
So, gaming isn't a justification, because if some kind, passing billionaire dropped in and donated the most powrrful, full-featured and impressive gaming PC on the planet, free, gratis and for nothing, I'm still not going to use Steam. Ever.
Outside of gaming, what justification for a new PC do I have? Not much. My 'main' PC is really only required to run applications I was running years ago on a Q6600-generation PC, and as it was running what I need quite satisfactorily back then, why wouldn't it do so now?
What does it do?,Usual office stuff (WP, spreadsheete, a bit of database), my photo editing (pretty much hobby only these days), a bit of audio and video editing and so on. Put it this way - I still use Cooledit (v2.x IIRC) and that must be about 15 years old. But, I know it, it does everything I want/need, so why upgrade?
And that is the fundamental sticking point.
Given that my needs haven't increased, and in fact have decreased in several ways, exactly what benefit do I get, that I want or need, from spending a lot of money on a new/upgraded PC?
Note: I am NOT suggesting that my logic applies to anyone else (though it probably will to some). If you, dear reader, need, can justify or simply want a new CPU, PC or whatever, go for it. If you have so much spare cash that a grand or so on a new/upgraded PC means about as much as an extra cup of coffee to your weekly spend, then what the hell.
But for me (and most of us) opportunity cost applies. That grand will only spend once, and in my list of options to spend it on, a PC upgrade comes a long way down the list.
If I win £100m on the lottery, okay, new PC it is. Gold-plated, probably. But seeing as I don't do the lottery I'm not holding my breath for a jackpit win.
The 7700k unless overclocked is actually even slower than 1800x in many of the newer games. Again more and more games are utilizing more than 4 cores and even games that do not utilize more cores do tend to benefit from more cores as background stuff can eat up cpu resources needed for the game.Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilCycle
So its to put it bluntly to you really, really stupid to go for a 4 core cpu these days no matter if Intel or AMD, its just a really dumb and ignorant thing to do, period!
That said the 2700x for example is within 0-5% of the I7-8700k IF boost drive is disabled for the 8700k in the bios, boost drive is essentially a cheat for Intel on some mobo's as it automatically overclocks the CPU beyond its specifications!
I think if you did need to build a new desktop PC now if one of your old desktops went kaput and you play mostly older games,something like a Ryzen 5 2400G for under £130 would probably do the trick. The IGP is good enough for even some newer games,at lower settings and resolution,and it seems a recent effective 4C/8T CPU for the outlay.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saracen
Also TBH,the performance of a Q6600 still is enough even today - that A6 3670K APU I won in a competition on Hexus in 2012,is still fine as a general purpose PC,and that is roughly equivalent to a Q6600.
I would have thought Ryzen only being supported on Windows 10 would have put Saracen off more than anything, I've not looked into what features you lose by trying to run Ryzen on other OS' as i couldn't afford an upgrade even if i wanted to.
If that's true (not doubting you, just not looked closely enough, or indeed, at all, to know) then it's not so much "put off" as "kill stone dead".Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky34
My stance on W10 is that unless MS change their stance on a number of things, such as attitude to privacy, user-data, inregrating their cloud services and most importantly, their arrogant presumption, no, usurpation, of control over configuration of user's PCs, then hell will freeze over before I use W10, regardless of supported hardware, available software, or market share.
I have, however, noticed a slightly less arrogant stance from them recently, so I suppose possible. But to be honest, I don't hold any setious hope that they'll change direction anything like enough.
So, currently, my PC OS choices are :-
1) Legacy, like W7.
2) Linux, or
3) Give up computng entirely, and go offline.
Unless MS change, and I don't expect it, I'll do 3) before I'd do W10.
You don't need a new motherboard for StoreMI. It works on B350/X370 motherboards too but costs $19.99.Quote:
Originally Posted by fail_quail
StoreMI is in fact FuzeDrive from Enmotus. An enterprise level tiered (not cached) storage accelerator solution. Only available for Windows 10. Its got an easy setup and is reversible. You could add a 128GB SSD to a 1TB HDD for a 1.1TB drive. Then if you decide its not for you, the files will be copied to the HDD before you remove the SSD.
More details on AMDs forums: https://community.amd.com/community/...-for-amd-ryzen
Buy FuzeDrive here: http://www.enmotus.com/amd
Although current Linux support is a bit behind Windows support,APUs like Raven Ridge are supported by AMD using the open source driver,although you are looking at June/July at the release of the Linux 4.17 kernel,for some of the graphics niggles to be solved.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saracen
Neither have i, looked to closely that is, IIRC it's just a case of not "official" supported on other OS' so were not talking about it not working or anything just it probably being a little more of PITA.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saracen
Yes.
To be honest, my plan, if I get in that situation, is to drop a certain Moose of my acquaintance a PM saying something like "HELLLP - What chip do I buy?"Quote:
Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH
:)
However, you're probably right about IGP given my needs. A tiny clarification. I said "Q6600 generation". It's not a 6600. I just can't renember the exact model without looking it up, but it was a 'mobile' chip of that series, very low TDP (about 65W, IIRC, and a slightly higher clock speed). Considerable higher pricetag, too, but that's another story.
Though different chip, I don't see it as different enough (by a country mile) to change your recommendation.
Thanks, Cat.
That would've been my expectation. Even I don't expect backwards 'official' support for dead products.Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky34
It's the PITA bit that worries me a tad, though.
These days, I am extremely averse to my A getting any Ps. I mean, in days gone by, getting 'this' to work with 'that' was both a challenge, a hobby, and a good chunk of how I made a living. But these days, unless I'm getting paid to do it, I just want to buy things, have them work, first time out of the box, and minimum, or better yet zero, faffing about.
I find, as I get older, my priorities have changed. I've gone from fiddling about getting it working, to life's too short, and I've got too mamy other things I'd rather do and not enough time to do them.
Early onset old-fart syndrome, I expect.
For many the problem is any half decent pc from the last decade is fine for many things. But for me, although I'm not cutting edge by any means the "work" I need to do is dependant on many cores to work well. And I'd never go back to a normal hard drive as my boot device either and anybody who still has a hard drive as a boot device needs to wake up to the huge benefits it provides
Considering my CPU is overclocked to 4.8ghz and that even though it has 4 cores, still has 8 threads - I think you will find my choice is perfectly fine for gaming for the foreseeable future, I think the exaggerations in your comment is quite the dumb and ignorant thing to do in all honesty.Quote:
Originally Posted by SlickR
Yep several points in that:Quote:
Originally Posted by 3dcandy
My five year old AMD FX system is still quite overkill for general usage. As is my old 2nd gen i7 thinkpad laptop.
For many cores, that rules out my laptop, but the 8cores on my old FX8120 system still do quite well for multi-core tasks, (ie rendering, encoding)
"And I'd never go back to a normal hard drive as my boot device either and anybody who still has a hard drive as a boot device needs to wake up to the huge benefits it provides"
Cannot emphasise that enough. Even the very cheapest 120GB SSD you can get your hands on for an OS drive will be noticeably better than any HDD.
If you're short of cash: Get a combo of a cheap SSD for the OS and a HDD for everything else.
Even the worst SSD is magnitudes better than a HDD for the OS
The CPU itself has, absolutely. But the utter lack of decent mATX motherboards has snuffed out my enthusiasm. I'll be doing a new build next month, if there's no sign of a good AM4 mATX board incoming by then, I'll have to go with Intel.
There is this X370 based one for around £80:Quote:
Originally Posted by aidanjt
https://www.gigabyte.com/Motherboard...ng-3-rev-1x#kf
I was already all set to buy a first generation Ryzen, but then unexpected expenses came up and so an upgrade wasn't in the cards in 2017. I'd still go Ryzen now; I'm willing to take the slight hit in gaming performance to get better performance for video editing, an application that uses all the cores effectively. Though it remains to be seen whether it will happen in 2018; it might end up waiting for 2019 and Ryzen 2...
B350 has a wide range of motherboards, and should perform almost identically* to the X470 motherboards used in the 2000 series reviews. The lack of 400 series MATX motherboards is a bit naff, but AMD still has a competitive MATX platform (and there's always MITX, if you're desperate)Quote:
Originally Posted by aidanjt
*as PB:O isn't enabled yet, so beyond multi-GPU support (on MATX?) there's not much to differentiate them
Oh, hogwash. It ALL depends on what you do and how you do it.Quote:
Originally Posted by fail_quail
I have, and have had SSDs for years, and do I care if I boot from one or not? No.
Why? For a start, my morning routine is :-
- power up PC,
- go make a cuppa,
- check messages.
That takes a good 10 minutes most days, and 6 or 7 if there are no messages. By which time, my HD-based PC has booted in 90-120 seconds, including loading default applications, and been sitting there idle fir 5+ minutes.
So, on to my work routine. Mostly, it's either WP or spreadsheet work, but rarely both together. I don't switch between them much, and when I do it's all but instantaneous.
I might, as a writer, then spend the next several hours typing, or dictating via voice-recog software, and the machine does not struggle to keep up with me. I struggle to keep up with it.
Are SSDs faster? Yes. Will they benefit many users? Yup. Most? Very possibly. But to.... sweeping statements like that demonstrate a lack of understanding that not everybody will benefit, or at least, not enough to justify the cost.Quote:
anybody who still has a hard drive as a boot device needs to wake up to the huge benefits it provides
As I say, I have SSDs. I have alternate OSs and OS configurations on them. I've tested them in my work environment, and would I buy tgem again? No. Because HD performance is perfectly adequate for me and while I do need a relatively high storage capacity, I don't need high performance.
Put it this way. I do need several TB of storage. To do that vua SSD is way too expensive. That means I need HD for storage, and to add SSD just for booting means tgat the performance gains gave to justify the SSD price. I measure performance gains in what it does for my working productivity, my page-count written, or how long I spend on accounting or spreadsheet analysis, and certainly not via benchmarks. And by my productivity measure, SSD make zero difference.
Despite how much faster they are, if it doesn't aid my productivity, it doesn't justify the cost. As HD speed is not a bottleneck, speeding it up makes no difference.
It's all down to the user, and I for one don't need to wake up to SSDs. I'm fully awake to them, and they make no difference to me.
When I hear someone built an AMD system it just means they did not have enough $$$ for an Intel....Guess watching all the YouTube tech channels burned that into my mind
Hey Saracen it is a sweeping statement because for many it is a noticeable difference. I can't really see any conceivable reason how you can say that it doesn't impact your day to day computing because even a slow ssd is a magnitude of times faster than a hard drive. Mind you you're not a Win 10 person and I'd not want to go back to that wait after a sub 10 second boot on my work pc. Hell my work pc boots and I've got all my messages before I can make a coffee these days. But you're an oddity in many ways on a tech site like this. We've said it before, we don't see eye to eye on many things but on this I think you're behind the curve a tad. Also it's a sweeping statement because for a large percentage of users it makes that big a difference...Quote:
Originally Posted by Saracen
In my line of work I find the ssd speeds up MY productivity hugely. Heck even editing photos is a magnitude faster as the boot drive and cache works for me. Rendering video out is much quicker. I'm not a big user of office stuff so for me I'd never ever in a million years consider
booting from a hard drive again. Horses for courses....but I still stick by my sweeping statement, that 99.9% of people will find a huge benefit to booting from an ssd. I admit that the one Win 7 machine I have left is so slow compared to Win 10 to boot and generally sluggish even though it has a fairly good spec that perhaps your judgement is based on your OS choices as well. Heck even my Linux box doesn't enjoy as much of a boost as the Win 10 machines. The biggest speed increase however has been on a small itx box that is used for my projector setup at gigs. I use some software (heavym) that is used to projection map and control lights. The transformation has been huge - no lag, no wait just smooth all around. The time to set up a projection mapping scene has dropped hugely. In fact it is probably 5 times as fast to achieve what I need to do now compared to before. All I have changed is the boot device and all it cost me was £30 for a second hand ssd.
But it is horses for courses - and for web work in WP I see no benefits. But I still stand with what I said. My first go to speed booster is an ssd boot drive. But I'd also recommend Win 10 too as I turn off a lot of the nasty stuff.
Yeah I checked that one out as well. Far too many corners cut, even compared to a number of mini-ITX boards.Quote:
Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH
I'm not too concerned with performance, most of the performance limiting parts are in the CPU, after all. No I'm far more concerned with board quality, features, and component choices. They're all sub-par. ITX is a no-go, I need more than 1 PCIe slot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xlucine
Out of curiosity, what do you need on intel MATX boards that you can't find on B350 boards?Quote:
Originally Posted by aidanjt
On sweeping statements, the comment I objected to was that "anybody" booting from an HD needs to "wake up" to the benefits of SSD. The clear message is that anyone that doesn't boot from SSD hasn't woken up. I know quite a few people that don't, and it isn't because they're ignorant of the benefits.Quote:
Originally Posted by 3dcandy
I boot from HD most of the time, and I'm fully aware of the benefits of SSD. They just don't make any difference to me, and won't make any, or enough, difference to quite a lot of people.
Just because something is faster doesn't mean it's worth paying to upgrade. Suppose I do 3000 miles a year in my car, most of it local, with a few 100-ish mile trips up the motorway. Currently, I do it in an M3, limited to 155mph, on a road limited to 70mph and where going over 100mph is likely to get me banned.
So, I could upgrade to a 200+ mph Bugatti Veyron, but it'd cost me a million quid, and the road is still limited to 70, and I'll still loose my licence at 100+.
My cousin, on the other hand, lives in Germany, does 30k miles a year much of it commuting between Germany and Switzerland on unlimited autobahns.
For my usage, given my driving, the M3 is already overkill, and the Veyron, while much faster, offers no real-world benefit to me. My cousin, on the other hand ....
As I said in the last post, will many benefit from SSD? Yes. Most? Very possibly. Everybody? No.
You've changed your sweeping statement from "anybody" to "99.9%". That's an improvement, but I still very much doubt that 99.9% is correct. It certainly doesn't tally with my exoerience.
My view is there are three categories of user
a) heavy users for whom SSD makes a huge difference
b) mixed users for whom SSD woukd be better, but not by enough to justify the cost
c) light users who will gain no perceptible benefit.
You, and many users here, will be in group a). But not everyone is. Some, including (these days) me, are in group c). My wife would be in group b).
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
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
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 3dcandy
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.
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!
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 ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Saracen
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! ;)
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xlucine
The 10 minutes is utterly irrelevent, because whatever the boot time, up to that, they're doing something else.Quote:
Originally Posted by 3dcandy
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by aidanjt
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saracen
Ah.Quote:
Originally Posted by aidanjt
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 (:D) 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.
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.
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.
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.
Well said.Quote:
Originally Posted by =assassin=
Just started gathering the components for my first new build in 10 years. It's going to be a Ryzen 2600 build.
A no-brainer really. What i will save on comparable Intel parts will get me a much better graphics card.
If the past 5 years tell us anything...The current Intel architecture is going nowhere. Yields are terrible, and 10nm has been delayed ANOTHER year.
Brian Krzanich sold his Intel shares for a reason.....
yep looking at the 2600, but ram is still quite expensive may have to wait a bit longer
Just about - it's still tricky as my balance between media creation and games is changing so much.
I bet you and your brother are the type of people that don't realise that any performance gap is:Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilCycle
A. Actually only 10% using a GTX 1080 while gaming at 1080p, which would be unnoticeable to the naked eye.
B. The gaming performance gap would be totally negligible at 1440p/4k or if you're using cards under the GTX 1080, which is like 95% of people.
So please, I hope you game with a 1080 or 1080 Ti at 1080p res, otherwise your choice is based on false assumptions, like a lot of people. That, or it's wilful ignorance taking this line 'Ryzen is still behind in gaming' when you know that to eek out a small (unnoticeable) performance gap between the 2700X and 8700K, you have to have a very niche and expensive set-up.
A mini-ITX x470 and a sale would be enough for me to jump.
It's achieved a good 90% of my expectations and it a fantastic product from a relatively well run public company (as in, they aren't swimming in money like Apple and Intel currently mess with).
R5 1600 is even more of a bargain since the price drop.
Would it be worth getting a 2nd gen board and pairing it with that.
'Worth' is very subjective. For someone who would neither upgrade nor overclock their CPU, there's no compelling reason to look past a cheap A320 motherboard. Beyond that you're trading off price v feature set on a board by board basis....Quote:
Originally Posted by pp05
Not enough for me yet.
I'm having to replace my main PC and Intel is the only chip I'm looking at.
If AMD brought out a chip that out-performed Intel by 10% then I would reconsider, but until then......
I'll certainly be using one of these for my next build, I do a lot of photo/video editing and rendering so this is a huge boost to me at a decent price.
With regard to the whole single-threaded/gaming performance, the fault doesn't lie with AMD or Intel, it's the developers. What strikes me is that while multi-core CPUs have been around for over a decade, game developers still don't utilise them, most professional software does and utilises CUDA too so for me I really do feel for gamers. SW houses should be using multi core support and there really is no excuse for not doing so.