Recommended Posts

Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

I was contemplating a new PC build with the I7-6700k as well, but with the release of AMD Ryzen in the first quarter of 2017, I think it would be prudent to wait and see what the new processor will bring to the FS world. Meanwhile my present 1+ year old I7-4790k is still running well and doing the job! 

So even though I am never satisfied with the status quo, I can wait.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First CPU benchmarks are out -- 

 

http://www.dsogaming.com/news/amd-ryzen-first-cpu-benchmarks-surface/

 

Looks like it will match the Intel i7 6900k at some say half the price. Outstanding. 

 

However the question to ask is --- will P3D take advantage of these extra cores? Am I correct in stating that performance in the form of a greater clock speed would be the most desirable? 

 

The Intel 6700k can clock up to 4.2 ghz. The Ryzen was benchmarked at 3.5 ghz. I guess we would be unable to do a straight forward computational ghz speed comparison. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First CPU benchmarks are out -- 

 

http://www.dsogaming.com/news/amd-ryzen-first-cpu-benchmarks-surface/

 

Looks like it will match the Intel i7 6900k at some say half the price. Outstanding. 

 

However the question to ask is --- will P3D take advantage of these extra cores? Am I correct in stating that performance in the form of a greater clock speed would be the most desirable? 

 

The Intel 6700k can clock up to 4.2 ghz. The Ryzen was benchmarked at 3.5 ghz. I guess we would be unable to do a straight forward computational ghz speed comparison. 

AMD's new architecture as benched against Intels best shows big promise. Remember the difference in wattage at the same clocks. If AMD wanted to increase performance it's an easy case. They could bump the speed up to 4-5.5 or more GHz at the cost of a bit more power.  Don't be surprised if they do so if they have to at a later date.  Jim Keller is the guy behind the Ryzen, As he stated, they brought me back and said they wanted to make a big swing, he did! The structure allows multi threading with all cores at the same time. Keller was a principle in the design and engineering of the Athlon 64. IMHO too many folks talk down AMD but many are younger kids who do not remember when all corporate users insisted on a second source. Intel enlisted AMD, run at the time by Jerry Sanders. Having licensed Intels tech they were free to make em go, and make em go they did! AMD was first to 1 GHz. They produced a x486 CPU that was faster than Intels. Did not please Intel, period. Intel had more than 1 fab by then so decided not to deal with AMD and renew any licensing arrangements. AMD did stumble a bit and built a fab they could hardly afford and at a bad time in the financial sense. The board hired a new CEO who had, IMHO a name in tech more by association than actual knowledge. They came to the conclusion more cores would cure all problems with sales in all segments of industry, I think, it did not.  They then bought ATI that was a big Financial swing. Damn near put em out of business, but, in time saved their bacon. AMD was first and gave us 64bit's, Intel's people told me directly that Intel was actually first but AMD got hold if it and released it first. That was a lie! Water marks and time stamps told a different story. Intel was in such a hurry to grab the 64 bit glory they released a version that was missing some final code and attributes included in AMD's release.  At the same time AMD intended to give it to the public for the good of all.  Intel did grow to be a huge corporate entity. AMD was a midget in comparison, but, Intel was afraid of em so they did everything they could to crush a business 1/10ths it's size, they failed. AMD sued and won!

The new CEO Dr. Sue Lu is not only a highly educated business woman, she is also an MIT graduate and Electrical Engineer who knows what she is talking about and listens to you, the user, the gamer, the innovative game developers. 

AMD/ATI next year are coming out with the Vega series of video cards. The AMD guy was holding a video graphics card with stacked memory the size of a brick.  Turns out it has as many teraflops of graphics power as NVidia's unit that powers one of the driver less cars, but barley fit in it's trunk. Wont be the consumer version any time soon, maybe a year or two??? However a 12 Teraflop version I believe will be. that's double what we can get today.

Yes indeed, I will indeed build a new Ryzen based AM4 socket based rig. I want to fly PMDG's and other good payware aircraft at a 100FPS like I used to with PMDG.s 747 in FS9. The two FX-57's were barn burners, some thought i was crazy, didn't care then, wont care next year.

That Intel rep never got his wish, my AMD signs stayed on my doors and windows!

Have a good New Year.

BaldyB

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AMD used to smoke Intel. I had an AMD 3700+ for FS9 that was awesome. Sandy bridge and the core duo really smashed AMD in flightsim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It certainly would be nice to see AMD beat Intel once again.  Competition is a good thing.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the proof will be in the pudding. Maybe resurrect this thread in March.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First CPU benchmarks are out -- 

 

http://www.dsogaming.com/news/amd-ryzen-first-cpu-benchmarks-surface/

 

Looks like it will match the Intel i7 6900k at some say half the price. Outstanding. 

 

However the question to ask is --- will P3D take advantage of these extra cores? Am I correct in stating that performance in the form of a greater clock speed would be the most desirable? 

 

The Intel 6700k can clock up to 4.2 ghz. The Ryzen was benchmarked at 3.5 ghz. I guess we would be unable to do a straight forward computational ghz speed comparison. 

 

 

It's not proven that extra cores make a significant enough difference in the sim to justify hyper expensive multi-core CPU's, although some like to post unproven hypothetical arguments in favour.

 

However... given that Ryzen is expected to be half the cost of the equivalent Intel CPU, may well be worth hanging fire on any purchase, so that a comparison between Ryzen, Skylake and Kaby Lake can be made. Why not, they may be similar prices, so if not in a hurry, no reason to commit just yet.

 

My own feeling is that for those of us that run the sim or games, we will probably be better off with Skylake or kaby Lake and the higher frequency offered by both of them, especially overclocked. 6 cores won't overclock as well as 4 cores due to thermal constraints. I feel we will still be favouring Kaby Lake or Skylake at 4.6 to 5 GHz. despite Ryzen.

 

If you happen to be someone that runs applications that are desperate for extra cores though, Ryzen could well be a godsend. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

 

My own feeling is that for those of us that run the sim or games, we will probably be better off with Skylake or kaby Lake and the higher frequency offered by both of them, especially overclocked. 6 cores won't overclock as well as 4 cores due to thermal constraints. I feel we will still be favouring Kaby Lake or Skylake at 4.6 to 5 GHz. despite Ryzen.

 

If you happen to be someone that runs applications that are desperate for extra cores though, Ryzen could well be a godsend. 

 

 

My thoughts exactly. I think Ryzen will have a hard time beating a 6700K at or around 5ghz when it comes to simming/gaming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i am using a 6600k, and i usually upgrade every cycle or every other cycle. i have decided to wait for ryzen myself.I am wanting to get oculus rift very badly to see what all the hype is about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love to see AMD release a CPU that blows the processor market wide open. The Athlon 64 was a superb processor when it was released well over a decade ago, and the 3200+ model powered the PC I was using between 2004 and 2008.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


My thoughts exactly. I think Ryzen will have a hard time beating a 6700K at or around 5ghz when it comes to simming/gaming.

It\s been demonstrated that Ryzen runs at in much lower power envelope. It does have lots of headroom to run at a much higher frequency because of that fact. Game developers have been a  lazy lot when writing code for games. The name of the game was ' Make single threaded apps., go fast, period. Most games are 32 bit, single threaded!  They are starting to run out room and see the value in engines like the Vulkan  you can only offer so much with single 32 bits. DX12 with Vulkan will offer so much more. It's able to utilize sym., multi core threading. If memory serves the first 4 cores can operate in a multi threaded way at the same time. That along with 64 Bits gives you Tera Bytes of memory usage as opposed to 3-4 with 32 bits  Bigger games/ larger worlds, way, way, less HD file swapping which results in much lower latency game wise.  RYZEN has demonstrated the 40% increase in IPC. I see folks on the net saying I have to see this or that, it's not proven. The facts are that AMD did prove the 40% increase in IPC!

My grandson works for Oracle. He said Intel  was the only one who ever made good sever chips. He is in sales! I told him to ask around, he did. Only to discover that LE was one of the first to employ AMD's Opterons in a huge service center. He said "I was surprised, I never knew that." I said you were not born yet. 

I will not make a mistake and judge any chip until the dust settles. I know Jim Kellers work. Screw up when building a new machine and you may find yourself paying a lot more money for a lot less.

A buddy has a GTX 970, it's a nice card. He was blown away when he tried my machine with the RX-480. I needed a better card for Oculus's Rift VR setup. Needed the card and some good 3.0 USB ports in order to pass the Oculus test. Didn't want to pay $$$ for NVidia. Picked up the RX-480 for $239.00.  My friend was surprised. I told him I' waiting for AMD Vega or the RX-490 which may be like the R-290Pro only much faster. The RX-490 may be a dual GPU setup?

FSX with Flyinside VR blew everyone mind Xmas eve. "Wow I'm sitting IN the plane", "This is too much", she was waving her hand around, asked what she needed, " I'm trying to put my glasses on the other seat" , of course her hand falls thru empty space! A few actually got a little sick from motion sickness. The next round of CPU's and Graphics power will create a surge in VR. It wont  be for everyone but for those who like flight sims it is as real as it gets.

 

Happy new year!

BaldyB 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, let's see how this all shakes out. I personally don't care whose hardware executes the software. I'm a bit skeptical that AMD will catch up to Intel/Nvidia in the next iteration, but would be happy to be wrong.

 

VR is still relatively young technology. When I have more than 1080 vertical pixels per eye, am untethered, have 360 degree obstacle avoidance and touch technology is miniaturized; I'll sell my vehicle to buy a headset (probably have to :) Having said that, I salute early adopters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I salute early adopters.

Thanks for the early adopter salute!

What you say is all true to a point and may be correct in a technical sense. My point is I was able to make it flyable enough for me to enjoy to the point I would rather use it than not.

it is true that early adopters drive the whole works. When you are a small firm requiring kick start funds to get going you may need to go with a public Beta.

Best!

BaldyB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It\s been demonstrated that Ryzen runs at in much lower power envelope. It does have lots of headroom to run at a much higher frequency because of that fact. 

 

Happy new year!

BaldyB 

 

 

Higher frequency probably, but not necessarily "much" higher frequency. Overclock limits aren't always thermal.

 

It's worth remembering that, so far, all we have is one or two leaked reports from engineering samples. We won't know the full picture until the platform is released to the public. A lot can change. Then we will have a better idea as to IPC, multi-core performance, single core performance and overclockability. At this point, we have no idea how good the initial yields will be.  

 

Ryzen is said to be 95W TDP. Skylake is 91W TDP. Kaby Lake is expected to have a lower TDP than Skylake. So Skylake and Kaby Lake are thermally more efficient and will probably overclock higher.

 

Ryzen's thermal efficiency must be seen in context, compared to the Intel's 6 Core equivalent or the previous AMD 6 core equivalent.

 

 

Game developers have been a  lazy lot when writing code for games. The name of the game was ' Make single threaded apps., go fast, period. Most games are 32 bit, single threaded!  They are starting to run out room and see the value in engines like the Vulkan  you can only offer so much with single 32 bits. DX12 with Vulkan will offer so much more. It's able to utilize sym., multi core threading. If memory serves the first 4 cores can operate in a multi threaded way at the same time. That along with 64 Bits gives you Tera Bytes of memory usage as opposed to 3-4 with 32 bits  Bigger games/ larger worlds, way, way, less HD file swapping which results in much lower latency game wise.

 

 

 

True, but you're talking about future implementation, future games. As you said, "most games are single thread".. What concerns most of us here, especially those deciding between Ryzen, Skylake or Kaby Lake is performance in the sim and games... now! Coding new games takes years, so don't expect a sudden dramatic shift in strategy from game makers that suddenly makes Ryzen or the 6 core Intel equivalent, the architecture to adopt.

 

 

RYZEN has demonstrated the 40% increase in IPC.

 

 

 

Yes but you must consider the context!  Plus 40% compared to what? Compared to the Intel 6 core equivalent, Skylake, Kaby Lake or what? Actually it's none of the aforementioned, the 40% IPC increase is compared to the previous AMD Excavator Core. 

 

As you said, "most games are single thread", so how does Ryzen single thread performance compare to Skylake or Kaby Lake? 

 

At this point, with limited info, I see Ryzen as a competitor to Intel's 6900K as long as it's cheaper. But I don't see it as an alternative for PC gaming enthusiasts, perfectly served by 4 cores, considering Skylake or Kaby lake.

 

For those requiring 6 cores, it could be great news indeed though.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.