|
wargames posted:What does 134,699 feet convert to real money? Watermelon Daiquiri posted:Gah good loving lord that 'quantum well' gate https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260829824_Triple-Junction_Quantum-Well_Solar_Cells_In_Commercial_Production PC LOAD LETTER fucked around with this message at 15:32 on Jun 10, 2017 |
#
?
Jun 10, 2017 15:27
|
|
growing a layer of si in the middle of all that? 
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 14:26 |
|
|
PC LOAD LETTER posted:Google says $490. That seems like a good price for that CPU and mobo and here I thought everything electronic was usually lots more expensive in the EU. Does it not include VAT in that price? 27% VAT is included, you can see the pre-VAT values to the left of the VAT values.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2017 15:39
|
|
|
Eh I don't read Hungarian though. drat all the PC enthusiasts must be stoked over in the EU then with AMD's prices. Seems like you guys normally get boned hard over there on cost. edit: so VAT still bones you some then eh? That is too bad.\/\/\/\/\/ PC LOAD LETTER fucked around with this message at 15:57 on Jun 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2017 15:42
|
|
|
PC LOAD LETTER posted:Eh I don't read Hungarian though. drat all the PC enthusiasts must be stoked over in the EU then with AMD's prices. Seems like you guys normally get boned hard over there on cost. Well, you say that however the same components on newegg cost $390. 390×1.27 = 495.3.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2017 15:47
|
|
|
PC LOAD LETTER posted:Eh I don't read Hungarian though. drat all the PC enthusiasts must be stoked over in the EU then with AMD's prices. Seems like you guys normally get boned hard over there on cost.  That is $592. Biggest online retailer here in Greece. gently caress my country. That is why I bought most of the hardware for my 1600X rig from ze Germans.  Add to that about 30€ for shipping to Greece, the total comes to $488. Dante80 fucked around with this message at 17:19 on Jun 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2017 17:11
|
|
|
Dante80 posted:
Would it be cheaper to pick it up from germany since 30 euros to ship is kind of insane?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2017 18:17
|
|
|
If I had someone in Germany, or if the tickets to go there and back were cheaper, I would have done it when I bought my rig a month ago. In other news...a temp report. I did a test around two hours ago or so, ambient here was 29C (Athens, Greece). The Corsair H110i with 2 Noctuas NF-14A industrial is keeping the CPU at 36.2C idle. And that is because I have chosen (via the Taichi BIOS) to run the fans at ~425rpm. Under Prime95 (SmartFFT), the CPU gets to a Tdie of 60.5C after half an hour or so.  But, the fans are still working around 1300rpm then. I can change the profile to send them to 2000rpm and get even cooler, but I don't think the extra noise is worth the hassle. Overall, I am very impressed. Granted, we are talking about stock speeds here, but still.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2017 18:53
|
|
|
R7 1700 is $422 in Croatia. ASROCK AB350 Pro4 board is $135. I'm obviously itching to retire my FX-8350 rig, yeah, I know, don't ask. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2017 19:01
|
|
GAY 4 ORGANS
|
A SWEATY FATBEARD posted:R7 1700 is $422 in Croatia. ASROCK AB350 Pro4 board is $135. I'm obviously itching to retire my FX-8350 rig, yeah, I know, don't ask. I'm so sorry, hell this bundle with 16gb of ram on newegg is 500 https://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboBundleDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.3406453
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2017 19:06
|
|
|
Dante80 posted:
Here in romania that combo is about 450 euros / 500 dollars, so I guess we're also worse off than germany (even tho we have the same VAT) edit: this is the combo I want to upgrade to  R5 1600 - $254 Asus B350M - $107 Corsair 16GB - $147 (already bought) I'm not sure about the motherboard but since I've heard bad stuff about all other manufacturers I think I'll stick with Asus 3peat fucked around with this message at 00:44 on Jun 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 00:15
|
|
PC LOAD LETTER posted:Google says $490. That seems like a good price for that CPU and mobo and here I thought everything electronic was usually lots more expensive in the EU. Does it not include VAT in that price? yeah that metal fuckery is par for the course for photo-diodes. You need all of those energy levels to get the precise voltage/current/wavelength, though its not like LEDs need very fine features. However all of those different metals are expensive, especially when you have to make sure it etches away anisotropically through every layer so you can get that buried gate, form the very small features, etc
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 00:57
|
|
|
Measly Twerp posted:
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 01:13
|
|
|
The i3 is only at 3.7GHz and the R7 can usually hit around 3.9-4 so they're probably pretty even in single-threaded performance.
MaxxBot fucked around with this message at 01:28 on Jun 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 01:23
|
|
|
Stock vs stock the difference is 20%ish: https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html So OCing the ryzen from 3.7 (stock turbo) to 4.0 (8% increase, highest likely OC) is not going to be enough to catch up. 8 cores is A Thing though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 02:09
|
|
|
Col.Kiwi posted:Stock vs stock the difference is 20%ish: https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html In practice the i3-6100 is completely unremarkable with not enough cores or clock speed to actually matter.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 02:52
|
|
|
"in practice" depends on your workload. Clock speed means absolutely nothing. As shown by the 6100 hitting significantly higher single threaded performance than the 1700 at the same clock speed. Performance difference between the two depends on whether you have largely single or 2-threaded workloads or workloads that can actually use more cores. If you are playing Overwatch or Counterstrike or a myriad of other games with nothing significant in the background and your other use is web browsing and other light tasks, from the 6100 to the 1700 is a downgrade. If you are doing heavy multitasking of nontrivial tasks or using any productivity software that can seriously load several threads, the 1700 is a serious upgrade. Col.Kiwi fucked around with this message at 04:59 on Jun 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 04:56
|
|
|
Col.Kiwi posted:"in practice" depends on your workload. Very few workloads on a 6100 would be better than a 1700. 2 cores really doesn't do it anymore unless you are on a serious budget and have a hateboner for AMD.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 05:34
|
|
|
Risky Bisquick posted:Very few workloads on a 6100 would be better than a 1700 I gave some examples that apply to millions upon millions of PC users including many who post on this forum so rather than beat a dead horse I'll leave it at that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 05:40
|
|
|
if you do anything more strenuous to a PC other than "play stupid video games and browse web pages" the ryzen 7 will be better in anything that doesn't absolutely demand every cycle of thread #1 there are considerations other than "getting the most FPS in benchwarmermark" to be made
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 06:19
|
|
|
Anime Schoolgirl posted:if you do anything more strenuous to a PC other than "play stupid video games and browse web pages" the ryzen 7 will be better in anything that doesn't absolutely demand every cycle of thread #1 When was the last time browsing the Web was light duty?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 06:22
|
|
|
For office use / surfing / probably a majority of gaming I'm unsure what the difference could be, beyond game frametimes being better on the 1700. I guess if you're streaming, heavily multitasking, rendering or compiling which I wouldn't count as a typical workload the 1700 would blow it away. Weirdly though I want a 1700 (but will hang on until Ryzen+) just for game frametimes. GRINDCORE MEGGIDO fucked around with this message at 06:28 on Jun 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 06:23
|
|
|
I am actually kinda thinking about building an i3-7350K rig for single-threaded games, I can get one for $130 - $30 bundle discount at Microcenter, maybe put a 1060 3 GB in it. Or I could go full nuclear and get a Kaby Lake-X.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 06:25
|
|
|
Paul, what's the deal with game frametimes and sync and res and poo poo like that. As far as I can tell the AMD chips are doing better with frametime consistency, but I'm not sure if gsync or freesync negates that or not. Also how does frametime consistency change with res? is there a point at which AMD loses out as res goes up? Mostly for 1440p. I'm not looking at HEDT from either manufacturer and it's just idle chit chat really. GRINDCORE MEGGIDO fucked around with this message at 06:32 on Jun 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 06:29
|
|
|
GRINDCORE MEGGIDO posted:Paul, what's the deal with game frametimes and sync and res and poo poo like that. *Sync makes minimum frametimes much less of a big deal, but they can't actually generate frames that aren't there so if you stutter hard enough you'll still notice. If your framerate is like 80fps average then dropping to 60fps momentarily isn't really a huge deal, but if your average framerate is like 40 fps then dropping to 30 fps is going to be a bigger problem. AMD chips are indeed doing better with frametime consistency, a lot of which really comes down to more cores being able to handle "difficult" game events (sudden load-in, etc) more easily (and as such, the Intel HEDT chips have similar advantages as well). This does assume a degree of threading being present in the games, it won't help in single-threaded games. I think Intel could improve things somewhat by bringing back Crystalwell's L4 cache, but there's no denying that modern games are going to be using more and more threads, 4C4T is still decent for the moment but 4C8T is definitely the minimum you'll want for a "long term" rig. I don't think resolution has a major impact on CPU bottlenecking at all. The CPU doesn't directly handle graphics at all, geometry all happens on the GPU. CPU framerate is largely determined by the number of game objects that need to be checked (and drawcalls made, etc) and that's independent of the resolution. People say "Ryzen isn't good at 1080p" gaming and that's not quite accurate IMO, it would do 1080p 60 Hz just fine. It's really more correct to say "Ryzen isn't good at high-refresh gaming", whether that's 1440p 144 Hz or 4K 144 Hz or whatever. But that's not as good a spin, given that everyone and their dog are buying high-refresh gaming monitors nowadays and high-refresh monitors are obviously the direction the premium gaming market is headed. (I don't actually think Ryzen's single-threaded deficit is terrible to the extent they're unplayable, especially with *Sync, but Ryzen's single-thread performance is behind the Intel HEDT chips, which are behind Intel's Small Kaby Lake chips, and it's probably correct that a high-clocking i3 is going to do better on single-threaded games than a super-parallel 8-core machine with slower clocks. Which is why I'm thinking quasi-seriously about doing a cheap 7350K or 7640X build for a second machine.) Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 06:56 on Jun 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 06:43
|
|
|
If / When Vive2 has higher res panels, I wonder what would be the best chip to drive it. Perhaps Ryzen+ might be out by then, it'll be interesting to see. So very much idle curiosity. Thank you. GRINDCORE MEGGIDO fucked around with this message at 07:00 on Jun 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 06:56
|
|
|
dont be mean to me posted:When was the last time browsing the Web was light duty? Before browsers started to use GPU acceleration,.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 07:01
|
|
|
GRINDCORE MEGGIDO posted:If / When Vive2 has higher res panels, I wonder what would be the best chip to drive it. Well again, my take is that resolution doesn't really drive CPU bottlenecking, framerate drives CPU bottlenecking. Higher-res panels are fine, higher-refresh panels would be problematic. Fortunately, I think VR game devs are probably very conscious of the need to keep their games running fast.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 07:10
|
|
|
Oops. I meant to put refresh there. So the correct way to do it for vr would be to match a chip to the refresh you want to drive. If they both can put out over the min refresh rate of the display, you'd choose the one that offered the best frame time consistency. Is that correct?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 07:13
|
|
|
GRINDCORE MEGGIDO posted:Oops. I meant to put refresh there. In general yes, but there's really no globally-applicable rating here that Ryzen is good for 80 fps, 6800K is good for 85 fps, and 7700K is good for 100 fps, it all depends on the game. And if a game threads well, it's possible that Ryzen could come out on top, although fairly unlikely given the way games currently tend to bottleneck on single-thread performance first (DX12 does not fully solve this problem, there is always a "main" thread that takes disproportionate amounts of the load and eventually Amdahl's Law kicks in and that becomes the bottleneck). And again, *Sync does tend to minimize apparent minimum-framerate issues (as long as they don't turn into multiple dropped frames, which will be perceptible). If you are running at 100 fps normally then dropping to 80fps for an instant isn't really an issue. VR is a bit trickier because current *Sync implementations aren't really compatible with VR due to latency. Also, with Oculus Rift in particular you actually do need a fairly large amount of cores to handle the positioning (processing a pair of USB 3.0 camera streams in realtime is not an easy task). You can assume that eats at least one core full-time, if not two. Vive is a lot lighter on CPU time because of the inside-out tracking system which can be implemented almost entirely in hardware, you would probably want to go with a 7600K or 7700K for a dedicated Vive PC. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 07:30 on Jun 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 07:22
|
|
|
Anime Schoolgirl posted:if you do anything more strenuous to a PC other than "play stupid video games and browse web pages" the ryzen 7 will be better in anything that doesn't absolutely demand every cycle of thread #1
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 07:26
|
|
|
Cool. It might be good to wait for a shootout between coffeelake and Ryzen+ / 2. Thank you for the good info.
GRINDCORE MEGGIDO fucked around with this message at 07:39 on Jun 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 07:35
|
|
|
Col.Kiwi posted:That is simply not correct. Nah, most games these days will use more than 2 cores, and background tasks will always be chewing up CPU time. The reality is that if you're simply comparing raw FPS in a few single threaded games, then you might have a point, but that's completely meaningless. The entire rest of the experience when using the machine will be immeasurably better. Not to mention the fact the 1700 has way more cache, which will help in minimum frame times anyway. The clocks and IPC are otherwise fairly similar. There's basically almost no scenario in which one would genuinely want the i3, and if your computing load is so light that i3 could possibly beat out the 1700, then you're not the sort of person looking at an upgrade anyway. vv I didn't make any hard claims with numbers. Is this really worth our time? Not to mention the 1700 can be overclocked to ~3.9GHz making it much more compelling all round. HalloKitty fucked around with this message at 08:15 on Jun 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 07:38
|
|
|
HalloKitty posted:Nah, most games these days will use more than 2 cores, and background tasks will always be chewing up CPU time. quote:There's basically almost no scenario in which one would genuinely want the i3, and if your computing load is so light that i3 could possibly beat out the 1700, then you're not the sort of person looking at an upgrade anyway. I posted hard data, if you are going to make claims like "immeasurably better" please do the same. Moar cores is not a magic ticket to moar better.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 07:49
|
|
|
Is there someone in thread saying a i3 is better then a 1700x?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 08:28
|
|
|
You can pick corner cases to prove almost anything. In reality there is enough stuff that you might want to do with a computer that having at least four cores is well worth it for the vast majority of desktop computer users.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 09:08
|
|
|
For people who suggest web browsing does not benefit from more cores I don't know what to say. Please open resource monitor and look at what all your cores do when you do anything in a browser. My i5 gets usage on all it's cores nearly evenly divided. More cores will absolutely make web smoother all of the time. I mean browsers do tile based rendering now sow it performs and scales exactly like those blender demos AMD does (more cores = more tiles processed at once) Like facebook can do 50% load on all cores if you as much as scroll it... TheCoach fucked around with this message at 09:13 on Jun 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 09:09
|
|
|
TheCoach posted:For people who suggest web browsing does not benefit from more cores I don't know what to say. Please open resource monitor and look at what all your cores do when you do anything in a browser. My i5 gets usage on all it's cores nearly evenly divided. More cores will absolutely make web smoother all of the time. Firefox tends to peg one core in my experience, based on my usage.. edit: It also depends entirely on your browser usage and how parallelisable each browser can make it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 09:20
|
|
|
Col.Kiwi posted:[citation needed] Here's your citation: You claim that the i3-6100 will outperform a 1700 in most single threaded tasks, and logically you'd be correct. However as benchmarks demonstrate the R7-1700 will beat even an i5-7500 let alone an i3-6100 across a large range of applications and games. Oh and as for games, things are only getting better for Ryzen as time goes on, more modern games are embracing additional cores to get better performance and some existing games are being patched to drastically improve performance. Nam Taf posted:Firefox tends to peg one core in my experience, based on my usage.. For me, when watching a YouTube video Firefox tends to use all 4 threads at about 40%.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 10:07
|
|
|
Measly Twerp posted:Here's your citation: You claim that the i3-6100 will outperform a 1700 in most single threaded tasks, and logically you'd be correct. However as benchmarks demonstrate the R7-1700 will beat even an i5-7500 let alone an i3-6100 across a large range of applications and games. There's also the question of if you are upgrading from i3-6100 would something like i5-7600K or i7-7700K be a better option than an R7 system. You could skip buying a new motherboard. It also partially depends on what is the resale market. Someone will probably buy an i3 with motherboard, but how much market is there for single i3 processors?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 13:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 14:26 |
|
|
Since it might be interesting to others I'm going to benchmark my system before and after the upgrade. My current system is as follows:
I'll be running all of the recommended Processor Test benchmarks from the Phoronix Test Suite:
And additionally I'll be running a Xonotic benchmark at 1080p with low settings, since the game relied heavily on a single core. Additional benchmark suggestions are welcome. Saukkis posted:There's also the question of if you are upgrading from i3-6100 would something like i5-7600K or i7-7700K be a better option than an R7 system. You could skip buying a new motherboard. It also partially depends on what is the resale market. Someone will probably buy an i3 with motherboard, but how much market is there for single i3 processors? That was my original plan for this computer, but at the time there were not good cheap 8 core processors available. Also, I'm not going to resell the i3, just put it into storage, because gently caress trying to sell poo poo. Anarchist Mae fucked around with this message at 13:46 on Jun 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 13:42
|
|