Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

AMD vs Intel: MDD1963 vs Drillingmachine


  • Please log in to reply
114 replies to this topic

#16 MDD1963

MDD1963

  • Members
  • 663 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:09:03 AM

Posted 01 September 2017 - 09:05 PM

 

BF1 results at 6:12 , graphs at 6:51

 

An R5-1400 vs. the R5-1600 (with a powerful GPU)...

 

Maybe this would demonstrate core and clock speed scaling in BF1 in unbiased fashion for some (i.e., no systems or brands left to bash or make excuses for)....and as only premium quality Ryzen CPUs are used, perhaps you could note the 21% greater average performance from the and 6 core/12 thread R5-1600 system vs. the quad core/8-thread R5-1400 even when both are clocked the same 4.0 GHz, when NOT GPU limited...

 

(note the percentage of increase is greater with the jump to more cores, 29% jump with stock R5-1400 jump to R5-1600, than with the increase in clock speed alone)


Asus Z270A Prime/7700K/32 GB DDR4-3200/GTX1060


BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


m

#17 MDD1963

MDD1963

  • Members
  • 663 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:09:03 AM

Posted 01 September 2017 - 09:32 PM

Any more misleading innuendos, 'facts', suppositions, allegations, GPU-limited CPU benchmarks, etc, that need 'taken care of'?

 

:)


Asus Z270A Prime/7700K/32 GB DDR4-3200/GTX1060


#18 Zone_86

Zone_86

  • Members
  • 303 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:07:03 PM

Posted 02 September 2017 - 12:50 AM

Apparently everyone missed the sarcasm in my previous post. "By the way MDD1963 Any more misleading innuendos, 'facts', suppositions, allegations, GPU-limited CPU benchmarks, etc, that need 'taken care of'?" --- is what Drilling does all day. best part? Bleeping staff allows this and is therefore complicit.


Edited by Zone_86, 02 September 2017 - 12:57 AM.


#19 Zone_86

Zone_86

  • Members
  • 303 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:07:03 PM

Posted 02 September 2017 - 12:52 AM

So next time you see the old bearded fellow chime in with "well we have a lot of intelligence here continue on with your conversation" you can disregard that. Zero credibility here but you know that already.


Edited by Zone_86, 02 September 2017 - 12:55 AM.


#20 MDD1963

MDD1963

  • Members
  • 663 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:09:03 AM

Posted 02 September 2017 - 01:39 AM

I for one find the continued 'point and counterpoint' exchanges/debates at least mildly humorous, and, certainly no one is forced to read our assorted technology-centered performance debates/musings/rants on either side, right? :)

 

I half expect to see a modern comparison of 999 fps-limited Quake 3 benchmarks posted in an attempt to prove that an R3-1200 at 3.2 GHz is as fast as an 7900X at 4 GHz....at 512 x 384 resolution.....


Edited by MDD1963, 02 September 2017 - 01:40 AM.

Asus Z270A Prime/7700K/32 GB DDR4-3200/GTX1060


#21 yu gnomi

yu gnomi

  • Members
  • 532 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago suburb
  • Local time:07:03 PM

Posted 02 September 2017 - 02:43 AM

my $.02 = building with AMD CPU helps to fund competition between AMD and Intel.

 

Intel has dominated for years, but recently has done nothing but re-issue improved versions of Skylake CPUs. AMD was lagging for years in terms of CPU design, specifically lagging in computational power per core (more specifically in instructions per clock pulse), but recently made a great stride in catching up with their Ryzen processors.

 

Ryzen still lags a little behind Intel, but could be a better value for money anyhow. Regardless of that, $ sent to AMD help to fund genuine competition with Intel (aka Chipzilla), which should benefit everyone - resulting in better chips for less $ in the long run.



#22 rqt

rqt

  • Members
  • 349 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK
  • Local time:12:03 AM

Posted 02 September 2017 - 03:37 AM

"So next time you see the old bearded fellow chime in with "well we have a lot of intelligence here continue on with your conversation" you can disregard that."

 

If the "old bearded fellow" had directed his original post that caused this thread in my direction then my keyboard fingers would have retracted into my hands soooo fast - and they would probably still be retracted. For quite some time



#23 MDD1963

MDD1963

  • Members
  • 663 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:09:03 AM

Posted 02 September 2017 - 05:10 AM

What would life be without such 'debates'? :)

 

(These sorts of debates raged endlessly in the original version of the earliest Toms Hardware forum, which transferred/morphed into some Delphi Forum called "The Jungle" in the late 90's/early 2000's in the prime time of the Athlon 600-900 P3-600-933 , etc, the TNT2 Ultra, Voodoo2/3, GF2MX, etc....; the debates were still well raging well into the Athlon 64/3500+ days, and, on into the X2 series, thru Intel's Conroe core, etc...  The debates were just as spirited then, and, no moderation was required... Those with soft skin perhaps left. Some originals are still there after 18 years, I searched for and found it, and, check in to see what is posted periodically) 


Asus Z270A Prime/7700K/32 GB DDR4-3200/GTX1060


#24 Drillingmachine

Drillingmachine
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 2,090 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:02:03 AM

Posted 02 September 2017 - 08:32 AM

:)
 
Interesting. Before even reading the results, I had an intuition/inkling feeling you would not have chosen it unless it in fact displayed a complete lack of CPU scaling so as to make AMD processors look 'more equal', based on your last 'trends'; one good way to do that would certainly be to choose an utterly and completely GPU-bound title's results, perhaps.
 
Now, lets look at the 1080P results, shall we?
 
https://www.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchmarks/page6.html
 
Based on this very first example when searching for "battelfield 4 processor scaling', I note an almost complete lack of scaling even at moderate 1080P with better/faster processors.  it seemed here that almost any 8 threads at a moderate speed' would suffice, as we seemed mostly GPU-bound in even this 1080P example.... (That seemed to be the authors conclusion too, as Intel's stopped demonstrating better performance at 2.4 GHz or so, while the weaker CPUs did scale upward in clock speed somewhat.)
 
So BF4 is your 'better core scaling example' gaming example?
 
A scaling example of 4 fps total spread  (with the X6 at the bottom, oddly enough) ranging from 94 fps to 98 fps (a grand 4.2% spread), from slowest to fastest? (I discounted the results of the weakest X2/X3 and X4 Athlons as they were notably and pathetically behind the others, so as to only discuss the cpus that seemed 'strong enough' to feed the GPU.
 
Do you have some other shining examples of core scaling? (Maybe we can find some 800x600 results that demonstrate your hypothesis)


There might have been GPU bottleneck, still BF4 supports 8 cores and FX-8350 is keeping up with i7 CPU's:
 

For example, the AMD FX-8350 had all eight of its threads allocated to BF4 with a total CPU utilization of around 60% in our benchmark. This is likely the reason why AMD's processors perform so well in this game, as the FX-8350 roughly matched the powerful Core i7 processors.


and dual cores have no chance against quad cores.

Then going for Battlefield 1, i3 dual cores have no problems heavily beating FX-8350. What this means is that BF1 does not support cores nearly as well as Battlefield 4 does.

Can't find any comparisons of much more recent processors compared in BF4, and, with strongest GPUs....(which is known to actually allow some cpu scaling, btw)
 
It would have been nice to see even lower res examples pitting the R3/R5/R7 compared to perhaps see some alleged core scaling in the game, ....perhaps. Hope springs eternal, however.


Why not, but not often sites test with old games, pity. Still i3 beating FX on BF1 tells multi-cores support is not very good.
 

You con't actually state that you suspect/ think that the reviewer in question actually used old versions, but merely state that 'some sites use old benchmarks'...; shall we just assume you are correct, or do you have some recent comparisons showing vastly differing results with your allegedly updated 6 months ago version? (Glad they updated it apparently even before Ryzen's launch, that was quite nice of them)


It was hard to find Dota 2 results much after Ryzen launch when I checked last time. That site probably has published then on elsewhere too if they have them. So that's why I assume they used old results on that video.
 



BF1 results at 6:12 , graphs at 6:51

An R5-1400 vs. the R5-1600 (with a powerful GPU)...

Maybe this would demonstrate core and clock speed scaling in BF1 in unbiased fashion for some (i.e., no systems or brands left to bash or make excuses for)....and as only premium quality Ryzen CPUs are used, perhaps you could note the 21% greater average performance from the and 6 core/12 thread R5-1600 system vs. the quad core/8-thread R5-1400 even when both are clocked the same 4.0 GHz, when NOT GPU limited...

(note the percentage of increase is greater with the jump to more cores, 29% jump with stock R5-1400 jump to R5-1600, than with the increase in clock speed alone)


That still doesn't explain why dual cores are trashed on BF4 but not on BF1.

R5-1400 also have half of L3 cache compared to R5-1600, so it's not just cores.

Edited by Drillingmachine, 02 September 2017 - 08:34 AM.


#25 Drillingmachine

Drillingmachine
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 2,090 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:02:03 AM

Posted 02 September 2017 - 08:42 AM

Question for the chaps using Ryzen. How is platform stability now? Have you had any stability issues? Did you have any problems with memory compatibility or otherwise getting the machine built and in a working state?

Hypothetically, if your job depended on system stability, and performance and price were secondary, would you still go with Ryzen?


No memory problems, works fine. Some stability issues, perhaps freezing once in two weeks or so (machine is always on). Reason seems to be that virtual machines and/or video card sometimes refuse to co-operate. I'm running 4-5 virtual machines all time and game when they are on, some games seem to cause problems. Additionally, as updating BIOS is always risk, I'm still using bios from April. Will update when I upgrade my machine.

For question, I would still go with Ryzen. Rare stability issues are easily explained by using old BIOS/AGESA and (not so recommended) combination of using two different Virtual machine software same time while gaming.

#26 MDD1963

MDD1963

  • Members
  • 663 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:09:03 AM

Posted 02 September 2017 - 06:08 PM

"There might have been GPU bottleneck, still BF4 supports 8 cores and FX-8350 is keeping up with i7 CPU's:"

 

The fact that the FX8350 kept up absolutely confirms the GPU bottleneck. (I knew there had to be some reason you favored the game for comparing CPUs; it's total unsuitability for the comparisons was only mildly surprising.)

 

It's like testing CPUs at 4k Ultra....the R3 is not really the R7's equal, is it?

 


Asus Z270A Prime/7700K/32 GB DDR4-3200/GTX1060


#27 MDD1963

MDD1963

  • Members
  • 663 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:09:03 AM

Posted 02 September 2017 - 06:29 PM

 

Question for the chaps using Ryzen. How is platform stability now? Have you had any stability issues? Did you have any problems with memory compatibility or otherwise getting the machine built and in a working state?

Hypothetically, if your job depended on system stability, and performance and price were secondary, would you still go with Ryzen?


No memory problems, works fine. Some stability issues, perhaps freezing once in two weeks or so (machine is always on). Reason seems to be that virtual machines and/or video card sometimes refuse to co-operate. I'm running 4-5 virtual machines all time and game when they are on, some games seem to cause problems. Additionally, as updating BIOS is always risk, I'm still using bios from April. Will update when I upgrade my machine.

 

What hypervisor are the VM's run within/under, or are they run purely within Virtual Box or HyperV under Windows for training/home lab fun?

 

Any of the stability issues solely within Windows?

 

(I ask only because there was at least one known Ryzen/Linux compatibility bug that caused crashing under certain tasking loads....)


Edited by MDD1963, 02 September 2017 - 07:53 PM.

Asus Z270A Prime/7700K/32 GB DDR4-3200/GTX1060


#28 Drillingmachine

Drillingmachine
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 2,090 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:02:03 AM

Posted 02 September 2017 - 08:28 PM

"There might have been GPU bottleneck, still BF4 supports 8 cores and FX-8350 is keeping up with i7 CPU's:"

 

The fact that the FX8350 kept up absolutely confirms the GPU bottleneck. (I knew there had to be some reason you favored the game for comparing CPUs; it's total unsuitability for the comparisons was only mildly surprising.)

 

It's like testing CPUs at 4k Ultra....the R3 is not really the R7's equal, is it?

 

 

Considering we have integer heavy software with "equal" optimizations for AMD and Intel and software uses 8 cores/threads. Then FX-8350 is faster than i7-4770K (both at stock speeds). So basically if any i3 is faster than FX-8350, then software does not use 8 cores/threads properly, speed is depending on single thread or software is Intel optimized or non-AMD optimized.

 

http://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/battlefield-4-test-gpu.html

 

bf4_proz_2.jpg

 

As you can see, dual cores have no chance against quad cores. This is why:

 

bf4_intel.jpg

 

And

 

bf4_amd.jpg

 

You can clearly see that game almost maximizes 4 thread CPU's but as i3 only has two cores and four threads, it has not enough processing power to match FX-8350 with 8 cores. If BF1 uses cores equally effective, i3 would have no chance against FX-8350. While modern i3 CPU's are faster than i3-2100, it really doesn't change big picture as FX-8350 is more than 100% faster there than i3-2100 and modern i3's are not twice as fast compared to i3-2100.



#29 Drillingmachine

Drillingmachine
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 2,090 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:02:03 AM

Posted 02 September 2017 - 08:45 PM

What hypervisor are the VM's run within/under, or are they run purely within Virtual Box or HyperV under Windows for training/home lab fun?
 
Any of the stability issues solely within Windows?
 
(I ask only because there was at least one known Ryzen/Linux compatibility bug that caused crashing under certain tasking loads....)


VM's are VMWare and Virtualbox. Hyper-V is disabled because Virtualbox crashes entire system immediately if Hyper-V is enabled.

Hard to say about stability issues "solely within Windows" because everything that happens on internet are run on virtual machines and at least three, usually four, virtual machines are always on. Stability comes into concern generally with certain games or more severely when gaming and same time playing video within virtual machine on secondary display. Virtualbox doesn't have good support for video playback or video acceleration in general, so that's expected. I have had no crashes when AFK or when not using heavy load for video card. New BIOS possibly could solve some of those problems and now I have learned to avoid those situations.

It's not even recommended to run two hypervisors simultaneously but this machine is more about security than stability so rare crashes are not major problem.

#30 Zone_86

Zone_86

  • Members
  • 303 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:07:03 PM

Posted 02 September 2017 - 09:47 PM

It's simple. Intel is better at gaming in most resolutions up to about 4k where the CPU matters not. AMD have finally once again caught up to Intel on some key areas and surpassed Intel in others. Gaming is not one of them though, though I would throw in that if one actually has some VM's running and streams while gaming, and perhaps also does a lot of rendering than an AMD 1700 is a no brainer. Although it is behind Intel in regards to gaming that gap is now much closer. AMD Ryzen is a better all around processor but for a vast majority an Intel I7 does rendering-streaming good enough while still giving an advantage with gaming.

 

*AMD unbelievable value with R7 with overall performance and very good with games. Even R5 1600 is a great processor.

 

-Advantage is overall computing prowess and performance superior with rendering or any CPU intensive type tasks.

 

 

 

* Intel solid value for a primary gamer that also does some rendering -- good with rendering. Fantastic with gaming

 

-Advantage is gaming and some multimedia. Gaming prowess is legendary. Ok with some CPU intensive tasks not as good as RyzenR5-R7 series for those.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users