z31maniac

This one is looking is very good.

https://www.cyberpowerpc.com/system/...fund-Special-I

Girz0r

iTrader: (1)

For what it's worth, definitely go through and check the items that you want.

Same goes for a PSU, don't skimp and get a name brand one.

Full_Tilt_Boogie

iTrader: (1)

Fixed that for you

Erat

iTrader: (5)

Can't we all.

z31maniac

I did same more reading today, I think I'm going to go for an AMD Ryzen processor.

z31maniac

• CPU: AMD Ryzen 7 1700X 3.4GHz [3.8GHz Turbo] Eight-Core 16MB L3 Cache 95W Processor
• HDD: 120GB WD Green SSD + 1TB SATA III Hard Drive Combo (Combo Drive)
• MOTHERBOARD: GIGABYTE GA-AX370-Gaming AM4 ATX W/ Intel LAN, 2 PCIe x16, 3 PCIe x1, 8 SATA3, 1 M.2 SATA/PCIe
• VIDEO: GeForce® GTX 1060 6GB GDDR5 (Pascal)[VR Ready] (Single Card)

Thoughts on this?

Erat

iTrader: (5)

My thoughts are the next gen ryzen processors just came out. You should compare. They're doing better than the latest Intel chips almost completely across the board. Cost is extremely competitive to last gen chips .

If you do not buy an M.2 drive as well for a boot drive you're missing out.

z31maniac

I did just read an article regarding that, basically it seems 10% increase in efficiency and clockspeed. So not revolutionary it seems.

On my old computer in the closet, with the 8 years old MOBO and old AMD and SSD, Win 10 would go from the computer being completely off to the desktop in ~20 seconds. Is it really worth the added cost?


Remember I still need monitors/Oculus Rift, chair setup, etc.

triple88a

iTrader: (2)

I had nothing but problems with ryzen. Most unstable **** i've ever ran.

I had the 1700 clocked at 3.6ghz

Erat

iTrader: (5)

It was just you.

2slow

I'm sticking with Intel. AMD has moments of brilliance and sometimes they get slightly ahead of Intel in performance, but the problem is that you can't rely on them delivering this with the next round of CPUs. So you are buying into platform that has very poor historical track record of delivering best performance. Intel may not have most cores or best benchmarks per dollar spent at this moment, but you can always rely on them having solid performance. So you won't need to upgrade mobo just because you want to get a new chip. With AMD - there is a very high chance of them been overtaken by Intel again and that means much higher expenses.

Erat

iTrader: (5)

*ahem x299 ahem*

I'm sorry, continue.

But really, give credit where credit is due. AMD has a seriously competitive chip per dollar. Lets not play the "track record" game because that can go both ways.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

This is just the same tick-tock cycle we've been seeing since the 90s. Intel spends time doing a process optimization on their previous architecture, during which AMD manages to crank out a processor that slightly exceeds Intel's performance (at great cost of heat and power), then Intel releases the next architecture (based on the previous process) and totally resets the bar.

It has happened many times before, and it will continue to happen again and again.

AMD chips, like Hyundais, are often less expensive than the competition.

Erat

iTrader: (5)

Are you kidding Joe? I would argue the exact opposite. AMD comes along and offers something great, about every 10 years. Intel takes a couple years to catch up and builds off that for the next 8. THAT is the cycle.

Intel DID release their next architecture, hence my x299 joke. It was to "counter" the zen release. And they failed, totally. Then they continued on with coffee lake BUT WAIT, you can't use your old motherboard with coffee lake. I'm sorry Joe, but Intel does not get my money for these reasons (among many others). They screw their customers over and over and over. It's the iPhone / gopro / whatever effect. Microscopic incremental increases with absolutely no backwards comparability all for a premium price. Oh and do i need to mention the heat issues? I feel like you are not up on anything here lately Joe, Intel CPUs run HOT AS ****. All because they decided to use a manufacturing process which is cheaper and yields higher CPU temperatures.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

No.




History, and verifiable 3'rd party benchmarks, have proven otherwise.

Don't get me wrong; AMD is great at copying previous-generation CPU technology and offering it at a desirable price point to the lower and middle-range markets. They've done this for decades, and they do it well.

And AMD is a dominant force in the GPU marketplace, an arena which Intel has not seen fit to join in any significant capacity to date.

But it's quite fallacious to project this success into an illusion that they are leading the CPU market in either process innovation, efficiency, or high-end performance.




Intel has been using a 10nm process since last year. AMD just got on board with 14nm. (Edit: they announced a 12nm process chip, the Zen+, a few weeks ago. It's not shipping yet, and still behind Intel's efforts from Q4 of 2017.) All else being equal, process size directly correlates to thermal efficiency.

(Of course, all else is not equal. Intel has always led the market in architectural efficiency; pre-fetch, speculative execution, pipeline efficiency, etc.)

Or, put another way, Intel CPUs consume less power (and therefore run cooler) than AMD products of equivalent performance, pretty much without exception since the AM5x86 of the mid 1990s. That was one that AMD really got right.



Let's look at a specific example. AMD's absolute most awesome CPU as of this moment is the Ryzen Threadripper 1950X. This is a 16-core die with a TDP of 180 watts, and costs $948.63 from NewEgg. Its Passmark score is 22066.

Now, Intel has a lot of CPUs with higher total performance than this, but we'll pick the one that happens to be most closely matched in Passmark score with the AMD 1950X. That'd be the i9-7900x, a 10-core chip. It has a slightly higher Passmark score than the Ryzen (22284), while consuming 22% less power (TDP 140 watts), and costs 3% less than the AMD ($921.99 from NewEgg.)


This is a fair comparison. Both processors were released between June and August of 2017, and we're comparing AMD's flagship CPU to Intel's second-string offering which is nearest in performance to it. The Intel chip is cheaper, faster, consumes less power, and generates less heat.



This is pretty much how it's always been at the top-end of the performance spectrum. As you move down the line, AMD gains a price advantage over Intel for comparable performance (due to using older process technology) at the cost of a great loss of power / thermal efficiency. Which is exactly what you'd expect given the present market dynamics.


Sure, you can argue that different benchmarks perform differently on different CPUs. And this is true. I challenge you to show me a consistent series of any benchmark in which AMD does not lag behind Intel in performance-per-watt at any market segment, and in both performance-per-watt and performance-per-dollar at the top end.

2slow

I've been around long enough to have observed this cycle over and over. I'm not an Intel snob - I had AMD based computers and video cards, but I found that Intel is reliably ahead in this race. I remember AMD K5, K6, Athlon, Duron, etc. I mean - I worked at the computer shop building custom rigs. I had access to hundreds of CPUs and would bench them to find true OC gems! If i see AMD come out with a processor that does 20%+ better than Intel, at lower TDP for equally priced Intel CPU and it's a new architecture and not just last ditch effort to squeeze juice from an old one - yea, I'll switch. But otherwise, it's just not worth jumping back and forth.

Erat

iTrader: (5)

Wait. You want similarly priced and TDP to be 20% better. Yo do know that AMD has been absolutely curshing that right? Im talking their desktop, affordable, consumer grade parts. That has literally been my argument this entire time. Price per performance.

Joe,
Zen+ IS out now.
AMD is not a market leader in GPUs, they are runner up in a 2 man race.
Yes, Intel wins the IPC race, I'm guessing that may change.
Yes, Intel has a higher performing high end CPUs, they dominate the corporate and server market. They also have a bigger budget.
Intel CPUs do not run cooler. Per clock yes, but overall no. They can, but Intel decides not to let that happen.
Joe, I feel like you still aren't really up to date on what is happening today. That's okay, let the competition do it's thing because it isn't a bad thing.

I'll be here when Zen2 launches and while I do know it's got some very ambitious goals I think it will surprise more people than the Zen launch did .

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

I stand corrected. They started shipping two days ago. I'd been looking at places like CDW, NewEgg and Tiger Direct, which don't show them in stock yet. Amazon does.




Ok, we'll look at the Ryzen 5 2600X, which is one of the new Zen+ models that just became available on Wednesday. Passmark score is 16297, with 6 cores clocked at 3.6 - 4.2 Ghz, and a TDP of 95 watts. Price is $230 at Amazon.

To achieve similar performance from an Intel CPU, you'd need to spend a bit more ($299) for an i7-8700. This unit was released last October, so similar in age, similar specs, but the TDP is only 65 watts, so it runs cooler.

I feel like we're sort of in a loop here. I just proved that your premise is true (AMD is good at producing mid-range CPUs cheaply) and also that my premise is true (Intel CPUs tend to deliver higher efficiency, in the form of lower power consumption / less heat for a given performance spec.)

Or, put another way: at the mid-range market segment, Intel builds high-quality CPUs and prices them accordingly, AMD builds cheaper CPUs for those willing to accept trade-offs.

You & I are both making the same argument, just with different words.




I don't know where you're getting the "Intel CPUs run hot as ****" thing from. Every comparison I've made thus far has proved that Intel CPUs consume less power for equivalent performance than AMD. Can you show me an example of where the opposite is true?

Girz0r

iTrader: (1)

On the Passmark scores above, are these single or multi-threaded tests?

Fwiw, both cpus do better in different tests, and single vs multi-threaded applications from what I've seen when compared to similar cpus. If I had the money, baller intel $etup. Value per dollar, AMD nails it. While not the best, it's something.

I welcome the Zen+ cores higher clock speeds. Just means more FPS for games while also being a workstation capable cpu even on the low end.

Erat

iTrader: (5)

The ryzen CPUs use a larger IHS and it is also soldered. Intel has been and still is using the thermal paste between the dye and IHS. This is why lower TDP intel chips are running a hotter core temp. And also higher clock speed.

I don't like your comparison. You need to use the K variant for the X variants. And non k for non x. Both are 14nm. Both are 95 and 65w respectively. Then you step way up in price difference. Get closer to price difference and you trade off performance and power draw. In fact you need to move down to an i5 to get close in price. Also, you have to compare first gen ryzen to kabey lake. Only compare Zen+ to coffee lake .

Scroll down for thermals .

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews...ew,4987-8.html