AMD Ryzen performance in KSP

[He_162]

I would like to know if the 16mb of cache on a Ryzen CPU (which is shared, so all 16mb can be used with a single core if need be) will improve frames on KSP over say a equal IPC intel processor.

 

Basically, will the extra onboard cache improve performance of KSP, or will it not matter?

[diomedea]

Disclaimer: can't provide factual evidence on the subject; believe a proper answer requires a comparative test, done in a laboratory environment, between systems based on the different processors running a same KSP version and same game situation.

In theory, a large common cache would help. I/O from RAM could be less frequent (and in larger chunks), though such operation is required for each thread being processed in parallel, meaning the improvement will be great when a single thread is active, not so much when all cores are working in parallel with different threads. Needless to say, the width and frequency of the main data bus (linking RAM and CPU) and sum of latency cycles with RAM chipset is what gives I/O performance: modern DDR4 SDRAM modules can transfer data at up to 4266MB/s (not-overclocked), which is vastly inferior to L3 speed. L1 and L2 cache speeds are clearly even faster then L3's, but their limited size means more frequent access to the slower external RAM. In the end, all the opcode/data is fetched from RAM, through the cache levels, to the ALU and registers in each CPU core: if there were no jumps in code, doing less often larger transfers (L3) or more frequent smaller ones (L2) wouldn't change CPU performance. But jumps make for non-linear access, and if the new position required wasn't yet loaded in cache, would require to wait until it is (more slowly) transferred from RAM.

In practice, seems Ryzen's L3 common cache is underperforming when compared with Intel's PC (see article here, i7 6900K L3 cache is faster in both read, write and definitely has less latency than that of a Ryzen7 1800X). More in general, this and this article hint at Ryzen's performance being lower than IPC in FpS with some games (and we all know how crucial FpS is in KSP) and requiring a good GPU to alleviate the gap.

Conclusion: should I buy a new CPU now, it would definitely still be Intel. If AMD proves able to improve on the Ryzen design performance, the choice may change (but will first still see if a Ryzen gets full support from software libraries currently optimized for performance with Intel PC).

[HunHarcos]

AMD Ryzen is better, heck , my old AMD Phenom II X4 3.4 Ghz processor can rival any I5 of 6th generation.

[StahnAileron]

24 minutes ago, HunHarcos said:

AMD Ryzen is better, heck , my old AMD Phenom II X4 3.4 Ghz processor can rival any I5 of 6th generation.

Are you sure you're not biased in anyway? Last I recall, ANYTHING from AMD lagged behind Intel's equivalent (much less the top end.) This was true until recently when Ryzen came out and it was considered at least competitive in some cases (mainly if you need a ton of cores). Single-thread IPC from AMD still lags behind Intel from my understanding, so high-end Intel CPUs are still probably the best investment for something like KSP (which tends to be more CPU-limit than GPU-limited in my experience.)

As for the topic at hand: I would imagine the cache would help make up for the overall lesser IPC of Ryzen compared to Intel, but consider how much data KSP can crunch, I don't think 16MB would make too much of a difference.

However, as @diomedea notes, it's best if someone actually did tests with both platforms in a lab environment for conclusive data and evidence going in either direction. My understanding of how KSP works and how AMD and Intel CPUs are designed would logically make me think Intel has the advantage. I would LOVE to be wrong though (Intel prices would hopefully drop if they had competition at the high-end...)

[HunHarcos]

25 minutes ago, StahnAileron said:

Are you sure you're not biased in anyway? Last I recall, ANYTHING from AMD lagged behind Intel's equivalent (much less the top end.) This was true until recently when Ryzen came out and it was considered at least competitive in some cases (mainly if you need a ton of cores). Single-thread IPC from AMD still lags behind Intel from my understanding, so high-end Intel CPUs are still probably the best investment for something like KSP (which tends to be more CPU-limit than GPU-limited in my experience.)

As for the topic at hand: I would imagine the cache would help make up for the overall lesser IPC of Ryzen compared to Intel, but consider how much data KSP can crunch, I don't think 16MB would make too much of a difference.

However, as @diomedea notes, it's best if someone actually did tests with both platforms in a lab environment for conclusive data and evidence going in either direction. My understanding of how KSP works and how AMD and Intel CPUs are designed would logically make me think Intel has the advantage. I would LOVE to be wrong though (Intel prices would hopefully drop if they had competition at the high-end...)

Intel is overpriced, and unreliable, i personally asembled, and repaired, diagnosed many many pcs.

Many of my friends been using Intel PCs, and over the course most of them gone to trash, i mean the pcs, they changed over to AMD.

Its cheaper, its 1000% more stable, and it can do its job well.

Even the cheapest AMD, like the Athlon II X2 or X3 OUTPERFORMS the excrementsty Intel Celerons.

My AMD Phenom II X4 965 black edition 3.4ghz processor was the fastest amd processor of 2010, and it still can handle very well Battlefield 1 and many other new titles. Even if I would have lot of spare money, I would buy a Ryzen of the best kind, rather than a excrementsty Intel.

Ofcourse there are excrementsty AMDs too, like the A series processors, those are trash.

Or the AMD RADEON R series of videocards, trash aswell.\

Also, Intel are a bunch of liars, they dont even have real 8 core processors. Their magnificient i5 only uses 2 real cores.

Edited April 26, 2017 by HunHarcos

[Harry Rhodan]

1 hour ago, HunHarcos said:

AMD Ryzen is better, heck , my old AMD Phenom II X4 3.4 Ghz processor can rival any I5 of 6th generation.

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+Phenom+II+X4+965&id=370

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i5-2400+%40+3.10GHz&id=793

Nope. It can't even rival a mediocre second generation i5. A modern Pentium is faster than your Phenom. And the desktop i5 cpus are quad cores, the M and U series laptop chips are dual cores.

[diomedea]

Would have hoped this thread to not sink (at least not this soon) in a fight between AMD enthusiasts against Intel ones. Factual proof is required when asserting opinions that are suitable to be considered incendiary (forum rule 2.2.m), certainly not claims about one own "experience" without any evidence or actual data (or even worse, contrary to plenty of data coming from certified independent labs that run such comparative tests in a professional way). Also, rule 2.2.n, avoid to post in a manner to sound trolling; and 2.2.o, stay on subject: this thread is only about what performance to expect from a Ryzen CPU when running KSP, not about relative merits of different brands whole production.

If the discussion again goes to such low as seen above, it will have to be closed earlier than could be useful in the community interest. Or probably better, let it open only for users who abide to rules.

 

[LoSBoL]

When I wanted to upgrade for KSP I looked thoroughly into the thread below, a Ryzen 7 has recently been benchmarked there. And it's doing great compared to earlier AMD's processors

 

 

[HunHarcos]

1 hour ago, Harry Rhodan said:

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+Phenom+II+X4+965&id=370

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i5-2400+%40+3.10GHz&id=793

Nope. It can't even rival a mediocre second generation i5. A modern Pentium is faster than your Phenom. And the desktop i5 cpus are quad cores, the M and U series laptop chips are dual cores.

No. I5s with the exception of 2 OLD REALLY OLD 1th generation models are all DUAL cores. 2 physical and 2 digital cores. Its a joke, I had a 2410 I5, and it sucks.A modern pentium is noway faster than my phenom! 

[Numerlor]

@HunHarcos Stop this, Intel haswell was better than AMDs bulldozer etc. Rizen is great competition to intel now which is good for market but old amds definetly aren't better than intel ones. Maybe for something that could utulize it's cores but there aren't many applications like that. Rizen is great thing but bulldozer and bobcat weren't

Edited April 26, 2017 by Numerlor

[HunHarcos]

Just now, Numerlor said:

@HunHarcos Stop this, Intel haswell was better than AMDs bulldozer etc. Rizen is great competition to intel now which is good for market but old amds definetly aren't better than intel ones. Maybe for something that could utulize it's cores but there aren't many applications like that. Rizen is great thing but bulldozer and bobcat weren't

Im pretty sure, that you would say that an excrementsty intel core 2 duo is better than a phenom ii too . Howewer in the past, AMDs ruled everything, first real dual core processor was made by : AMD , first real GDDR5 Videocard was made by: AMD. I was biased with the better than a 6th generation thingy, i meant that it can still hold itself up, to this day. The phenom II , or any FX processor is the best choiche for economic and long lasting projects. All of the dumb people supporting intel, even whom cant even take apart a GPU or a PC to repaste it with thermal paste lol. These kind of people support Intel.

[LoSBoL]

11 minutes ago, HunHarcos said:

No. I5s with the exception of 2 OLD REALLY OLD 1th generation models are all DUAL cores. 2 physical and 2 digital cores. Its a joke, I had a 2410 I5, and it sucks.A modern pentium is noway faster than my phenom! 

You are comparing your I5-2410M(obile!)  CPU to an AMD Phenom Desktop CPU. Most Intel Mobile CPU's are indeed dual core, the desktop variants like linked by Harry Rhodan are quadcores.

here is the comparison between the two, it's not really a wonder that the AMD Desktop cpu beats Intels Mobile 2410M 

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-2410M-vs-AMD-Phenom-II-X4-965

 

 

[Harry Rhodan]

14 minutes ago, HunHarcos said:

No. I5s with the exception of 2 OLD REALLY OLD 1th generation models are all DUAL cores. 2 physical and 2 digital cores. Its a joke, I had a 2410 I5, and it sucks.A modern pentium is noway faster than my phenom! 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Bridge#Desktop_platform

All but the single 35W model and the mobile CPUs genuine quad cores without SMT.

Really, look at benchmarks and at the real specs. Yelling that a 35W mobile processor is no match for a 125W desktop processor is pretty pointless.

[diomedea]

14 minutes ago, HunHarcos said:

No. I5s with the exception of 2 OLD REALLY OLD 1th generation models are all DUAL cores. 2 physical and 2 digital cores. Its a joke, I had a 2410 I5, and it sucks.A modern pentium is noway faster than my phenom! 

I may want to believe what you claim, if only you showed EVIDENCE supporting it, as already was made clear above. Unsupported claims like this, even worse when clearly contradicted by evidence as linked above, aren't any different than trolling. Now you are REQUIRED to show proof, not empty talk about your supposed knowledge, to avoid your reputation be damaged on this forum.

Further violations of forum rules WILL have consequences.

[HunHarcos]

12 minutes ago, LoSBoL said:

You are comparing your I5-2410M(obile!)  CPU to an AMD Phenom Desktop CPU. Most Intel Mobile CPU's are indeed dual core, the desktop variants like linked by Harry Rhodan are quadcores.

here is the comparison between the two, it's not really a wonder that the AMD Desktop cpu beats Intels Mobile 2410M 

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-2410M-vs-AMD-Phenom-II-X4-965

 

 

Not to offend you, but I stated that almost all I5s have only 2 Physical cores, all of em are 4 cores, but only 2 of the 4 cores are TOUCHABLE. the other 2 are digital.

The first i5 series, had some models with TRUE 4 physical cores, but intel instead decided to boost up the 2 cores, instead of using 4 real cores, for electric usage efficiency, thats why Intel processors requre less W to use. I acknowledge that 6th generation I5s with 2 real cores, and 2 digital ones are better than my old Phenom CPU from 2010, but still, more or less AMD FX 6000 and 8000 series are on par with the I5 6th gen and I7s of their time,

From what I experienced, AMD CPUs are made to LAST, for an eastern european like myself, this matters the most, since I dont got the spare money to spend on PCs and dont even want to. With 300 euro, i built my pc back then in 2013, and it runs like a charm, most of its parts date back to 2009.

9 minutes ago, diomedea said:

I may want to believe what you claim, if only you showed EVIDENCE supporting it, as already was made clear above. Unsupported claims like this, even worse when clearly contradicted by evidence as linked above, aren't any different than trolling. Now you are REQUIRED to show proof, not empty talk about your supposed knowledge, to avoid your reputation be damaged on this forum.

Further violations of forum rules WILL have consequences.

I5 750, this is that 1th generation I5 i talked about, this is the only I5 with real 4 cores. http://ark.intel.com/products/42915/Intel-Core-i5-750-Processor-8M-Cache-2_66-GHz 

Uhh, sorry, they all really do have 4 real cores? I was quite misinformed then!  

Edited April 26, 2017 by HunHarcos
apologizing, or something like that :O

[diomedea]

7 minutes ago, HunHarcos said:

Uhh, sorry, they all really do have 4 real cores? I was quite misinformed then!  

Yes, seems like they all do (.eg. https://ark.intel.com/products/88184/Intel-Core-i5-6500-Processor-6M-Cache-up-to-3_60-GHz)

[HunHarcos]

56 minutes ago, diomedea said:

Yes, seems like they all do (.eg. https://ark.intel.com/products/88184/Intel-Core-i5-6500-Processor-6M-Cache-up-to-3_60-GHz)

Oh no, i made a fool out of myself. Sorry guys.

Apart from that, AMDs are still better for price/perfomance ratio.

Edited April 26, 2017 by HunHarcos

[StahnAileron]

3 hours ago, HunHarcos said:

Intel is overpriced, and unreliable, i personally asembled, and repaired, diagnosed many many pcs.

Many of my friends been using Intel PCs, and over the course most of them gone to trash, i mean the pcs, they changed over to AMD.

Its cheaper, its 1000% more stable, and it can do its job well.

Even the cheapest AMD, like the Athlon II X2 or X3 OUTPERFORMS the excrementsty Intel Celerons.

My AMD Phenom II X4 965 black edition 3.4ghz processor was the fastest amd processor of 2010, and it still can handle very well Battlefield 1 and many other new titles. Even if I would have lot of spare money, I would buy a Ryzen of the best kind, rather than a excrementsty Intel.

Ofcourse there are excrementsty AMDs too, like the A series processors, those are trash.

Or the AMD RADEON R series of videocards, trash aswell.\

Also, Intel are a bunch of liars, they dont even have real 8 core processors. Their magnificient i5 only uses 2 real cores.

EDIT: Well, I'm stupid... For whatever reason, I didn't notice all the comments/replies after his post that I'm replying to before starting off on my rebuttal. Because I didn't want to waste it, the spoiler contains my original content. It's there for posterity if anyone cares. You can disregard it at this point since @HunHarcos admitted his error about the i5 and apologized. (Please don't take it as an attack. I did try to sound and come across as civil as possible given the limits of text.) I ask the topic addressed in it be dropped at this point. 

Spoiler

Okay, I'm gonna be civil about this, because that's the right thing to do. If you decide to be more aggressive about this, it's all on you. That said:

• I'll agree Intel overprices their stuff, but that's partially due to AMD not providing anything truly competitive at certain price points. (The high-end being the prime case; low-end isn't too bad.) All my systems have been reliable and I run Intel. But reliability is a measurement that only means something if you have a large enough sample size. Personal anecdotes don't really matter too much if that's all one has to back up claims. I've done plenty of PC help for people and I've comae across VERY few hardware faults that got tied to either AMD or Intel directly. In fact, the biggest cause have been the HD failing (old age) or video cards. (My AMD HD5770 died on me after 4 years or so. A notebook had it's GPU crap out completely.) So I can't argue for or against anyone personally because my experience hasn't shown either to be faulty to any degree. (It's always been a software issue, user errors, or other hardware.)
• When a user is financially limited, it affects their purchasing process.
  • Unless you normalize and know the reason WHY they changed platforms, saying, "My friends had Intel but swapped to AMD," doesn't hold much weight. For all I know, it could've been a clearance fire sale that convinced them to switch rather than performance.
  • AMD is definitively "GOOD ENOUGH", I can't argue that. If that's all a person needs, Intel vs AMD is a moot argument because I can agree AMD is cheaper in the "good enough" market.
• I'll agree it's cheaper. I can't comment on stability. (Every platform has its own issue due to implementation. I'll chalk that up to the actual MB OEM manufacturers and whatnot.)
  • For the record, I've built 4-5 pure Intel systems (CPU and MB from Intel) and didn't have many problems other than things I did myself or were cause by other hardware. Of course, my experience is only one of thousand, if not millions, in the world, so it's not indicative of anything. I wouldn't be surprise if others had issues (but I haven't met many who went Intel with the MB as well. Most I know went with other OEMs like MSI, Gigabyte, etc.)
  • How well a part can do its job is partially dependent on a user expectations and use case, so I can't really argue anything there.
• Athlon vs Celeron: Well, yeah, the Athlon would win. Anyone interested in tech knows that Celerons are barely a step above Atoms. (In fact, some Celerons ARE Atoms. Heck, might be all of them at this point. Haven't kept up with the extreme low-end lately.) This comparison isn't really useful since it's comparing two products targeting different markets. The equivalent AMD line would've been the old Duron line. Athlons were closer to the current Pentium brand and the original Core2 series. (Remember, Athlons were the impetus for Intel to produce the Core-series.)
• I can't argue that because, technically, everything you said is or could be very much so true. (I don't play intensive games on PC nor do I have a Phenom, so I'll have to take you word there.)
  • But if I recall, the Phenoms weren't really competitive with Intel's top chips and the Phenoms were positioned to compete in the high-end. They were a good alternative, but not competitive. (Anyone with better memory or search skills, do correct me if I'm wrong.)
• Opinion on AMD products, so no comment from me.
• Same as above (Though I've been an ATI/AMD GPU user for a long time...)
• When did Intel ever say they had 8-cores?
  • You have to be in their LGA2011vX platform to even consider that prospect.
  • On the Core i7-series, it always stated as 4-core, 8-threads. (If anything, AMD was closer to lying with the whole "module" design in Bulldozer. Those were not true cores the way they advertised them.)
  • Your comment on i5's is half correct. The higher-end i5's DO have 4-cores (4-thread, no hyperthreading). Their low-end i5's mimicked the i3's at one point with 2-cores, 4-threads. (Others: Is that still the case now?) However, every tech spec from Intel makes it clear to me. If I had to blame anyone for lies, it would probably be bad retailers not know what they were talking about.

Let me make this clear: I'm not really FOR OR AGAINST INTEL OR AMD in this discussion. Intel is my personal preference from over 15 years or experience with them. But I won't disagree with a comment about them if it's a well-informed and formed argument with facts, data, and/or examples to back it up. (Just typing up the words doesn't make them fact.) I WANT AMD to success to drive down prices. That hasn't happened since the Core2 vs Athlon64 days. Ryzen is a glimmer of hope.

I KNOW AMD has their good points and Intel its bad points, but please portray them in a manner that isn't overly argumentative or fairly clear in personal bias. Opinion may be louder than fact (because people tend to scream opinions), but fact holds far more weight (or so I like to believe...)

That said, if I'm factually wrong about something, do correct me. (A decade of tech is an eon of memories...)

EDIT2: Dammit! Missed another post while I was typing this up.

Yes, if anything, AMD definitively gives you the best bang for you money overall. Intel is a premium tax for the raw performance.

Edited April 26, 2017 by StahnAileron

[HunHarcos]

8 minutes ago, StahnAileron said:

EDIT: Well, I'm stupid... For whatever reason, I didn't notice all the comments/replies after his post that I'm replying to before starting off on my rebuttal. Because I didn't want to waste it, the spoiler contains my original content. It's there for posterity if anyone cares. You can disregard it at this point since @HunHarcos admitted his error about the i5 and apologized. (Please don't take it as an attack. I did try to sound and come across as civil as possible given the limits of text.) I ask the topic addressed in it be dropped at this point. 

  Hide contents

Okay, I'm gonna be civil about this, because that's the right thing to do. If you decide to be more aggressive about this, it's all on you. That said:

• I'll agree Intel overprices their stuff, but that's partially due to AMD not providing anything truly competitive at certain price points. (The high-end being the prime case; low-end isn't too bad.) All my systems have been reliable and I run Intel. But reliability is a measurement that only means something if you have a large enough sample size. Personal anecdotes don't really matter too much if that's all one has to back up claims. I've done plenty of PC help for people and I've comae across VERY few hardware faults that got tied to either AMD or Intel directly. In fact, the biggest cause have been the HD failing (old age) or video cards. (My AMD HD5770 died on me after 4 years or so. A notebook had it's GPU crap out completely.) So I can't argue for or against anyone personally because my experience hasn't shown either to be faulty to any degree. (It's always been a software issue, user errors, or other hardware.)
• When a user is financially limited, it affects their purchasing process.
  • Unless you normalize and know the reason WHY they changed platforms, saying, "My friends had Intel but swapped to AMD," doesn't hold much weight. For all I know, it could've been a clearance fire sale that convinced them to switch rather than performance.
  • AMD is definitively "GOOD ENOUGH", I can't argue that. If that's all a person needs, Intel vs AMD is a moot argument because I can agree AMD is cheaper in the "good enough" market.
• I'll agree it's cheaper. I can't comment on stability. (Every platform has its own issue due to implementation. I'll chalk that up to the actual MB OEM manufacturers and whatnot.)
  • For the record, I've built 4-5 pure Intel systems (CPU and MB from Intel) and didn't have many problems other than things I did myself or were cause by other hardware. Of course, my experience is only one of thousand, if not millions, in the world, so it's not indicative of anything. I wouldn't be surprise if others had issues (but I haven't met many who went Intel with the MB as well. Most I know went with other OEMs like MSI, Gigabyte, etc.)
  • How well a part can do its job is partially dependent on a user expectations and use case, so I can't really argue anything there.
• Athlon vs Celeron: Well, yeah, the Athlon would win. Anyone interested in tech knows that Celerons are barely a step above Atoms. (In fact, some Celerons ARE Atoms. Heck, might be all of them at this point. Haven't kept up with the extreme low-end lately.) This comparison isn't really useful since it's comparing two products targeting different markets. The equivalent AMD line would've been the old Duron line. Athlons were closer to the current Pentium brand and the original Core2 series. (Remember, Athlons were the impetus for Intel to produce the Core-series.)
• I can't argue that because, technically, everything you said is or could be very much so true. (I don't play intensive games on PC nor do I have a Phenom, so I'll have to take you word there.)
  • But if I recall, the Phenoms weren't really competitive with Intel's top chips and the Phenoms were positioned to compete in the high-end. They were a good alternative, but not competitive. (Anyone with better memory or search skills, do correct me if I'm wrong.)
• Opinion on AMD products, so no comment from me.
• Same as above (Though I've been an ATI/AMD GPU user for a long time...)
• When did Intel ever say they had 8-cores?
  • You have to be in their LGA2011vX platform to even consider that prospect.
  • On the Core i7-series, it always stated as 4-core, 8-threads. (If anything, AMD was closer to lying with the whole "module" design in Bulldozer. Those were not true cores the way they advertised them.)
  • Your comment on i5's is half correct. The higher-end i5's DO have 4-cores (4-thread, no hyperthreading). Their low-end i5's mimicked the i3's at one point with 2-cores, 4-threads. (Others: Is that still the case now?) However, every tech spec from Intel makes it clear to me. If I had to blame anyone for lies, it would probably be bad retailers not know what they were talking about.

Let me make this clear: I'm not really FOR OR AGAINST INTEL OR AMD in this discussion. Intel is my personal preference from over 15 years or experience with them. But I won't disagree with a comment about them if it's a well-informed and formed argument with facts, data, and/or examples to back it up. (Just typing up the words doesn't make them fact.) I WANT AMD to success to drive down prices. That hasn't happened since the Core2 vs Athlon64 days. Ryzen is a glimmer of hope.

I KNOW AMD has their good points and Intel its bad points, but please portray them in a manner that isn't overly argumentative or fairly clear in personal bias. Opinion may be louder than fact (because people tend to scream opinions), but fact holds far more weight (or so I like to believe...)

That said, if I'm factually wrong about something, do correct me. (A decade of tech is an eon of memories...)

EDIT2: Dammit! Missed another post while I was typing this up.

Yes, if anything, AMD definitively gives you the best bang for you money overall. Intel is a premium tax for the raw performance.

My fresh bought AMD Radeon HD 7750 1GB GDDR5 entry - level card died on me after 3 years, with no big usage at all.

Now I use a mid level AMD Radeon HD 6870 1GB GDDR5 256 bit card, wich I got for only like 30 bucks, from a friend. It outperforms my previous card 3 times on certain aspects of area. Its almost on par with the Nvidia Geforce GT 750 ti . Nevertheless, if I would be before buying a videocard, and I would have that much money, I would buy a new Nvidia GPU, since AMD isnt great anymore for mid- level cards, I mean my 6870 outperforms most ''new'' gpus from amd at the store.  

http://www.game-debate.com/gpu/index.php?gid=2508&gid2=1424&compare=Nvidia GeForce GTX 750 MSI OC 1GB Edition-vs-AMD Radeon HD 6870 PowerColor 1GB Edition Almost on par with the GTX 750.

[diomedea]

Now, could we return to the subject of this thread (about Ryzen performance in KSP) before is definitely forgotten?

Another post still about AMD vs Intel, this thread goes locked, sorry for the original poster.

[Regor]

[deleted]

Edited April 26, 2017 by mabdi36

[Numerlor]

http://www.techradar.com/news/amd-vs-intel-showdown-whats-the-best-gaming-cpu?utm_content=bufferfeb05&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=buffer-trfb

Here Ryzen didn't gain much from its cache in games that utulize more cores better, so it is still more focused on higher clocks than more cores and cache as suggested in other thread

Something on cache here as you can see on that graph (also in spoiler) cache performance doesn't matter that much after 1MB
 

Spoiler

 

Edited April 26, 2017 by Numerlor

[ondert]

38 minutes ago, Numerlor said:

http://www.techradar.com/news/amd-vs-intel-showdown-whats-the-best-gaming-cpu?utm_content=bufferfeb05&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=buffer-trfb

Here Ryzen didn't gain much from its cache in games that utulize more cores better, so it is still more focused on higher clocks than more cores and cache as suggested in other thread

Something on cache here as you can see on that graph (also in spoiler) cache performance doesn't matter that much after 1MB
 

  Hide contents

 

I think comparing an i7-7700k to Ryzen 7 1700 for gaming is not fair. i7 can go easily up to 5ghz with proper cooling and has 95w tdp while the ryzen model has 65w tdp. For this one, comparing the Ryzen 5 1600X to i7 is much fair for gaming.

[StahnAileron]

1 hour ago, ondert said:

I think comparing an i7-7700k to Ryzen 7 1700 for gaming is not fair. i7 can go easily up to 5ghz with proper cooling and has 95w tdp while the ryzen model has 65w tdp. For this one, comparing the Ryzen 5 1600X to i7 is much fair for gaming.

Not quite. AMD is marketing Ryzen in a style similar to Intel's branding. It should have been a i7-7700K vesus Ryzen 7-1800x. The Ryzen 5-series seem to targeting the i5 market.

The problem for Ryzen in terms of KSP is that KSP is mostly single-thread limited (the physics). Clock-for-clock, Ryzen seems to have a 10% or so deficit in IPC versus Intel. They attempt to make up for it with more cores. So it's a problem of Single- vs Multi-threaded performance and KSP can't take advantage of that many cores to boost performance better than just raw single-threaded performance. The larger L3 cache helps (less hits to main Memory), but KSP is a memory hog as well, so you'll be hitting main system RAM often anyway. (I can't imagine ALL the physics calculation being able to fit into 16MB.)

If you want good performance for a limited budget, Ryzen is great. If you're trying to justify Ryzen on just performance, then that depends on your typical use-case and workload. For KSP, I don't think it's beneficial. You'd need a bigger cache. And that cache won't help much when you need to brute-force physics calculations on a large vessel or multiple complex vessels within physics range. (You might get a slight boost from the lower latency, but you'll still be limited by raw CPU throughput.)

Ah... Wait... I think Ryzen could help with multi-vessel scenarios, now that I think about it. Don't separate vessels get their own thread? (Though it'd only help if you had lots of vessel within physics range of one another if that's the case.) The limiting factor there is the largest, most complex vessel in the scene. Though 90% of the time I think users would just be dealing with one or two vessels. I think you'd be better off trying to find and use the highest performing/clocked CPU instead of worrying about it's cache. (Really, cache is more for keeping performance consistent rather than "boosting" it in the typical sense.)

[steve_v]

9 hours ago, HunHarcos said:

Intel is overpriced, and unreliable, i personally asembled, and repaired, diagnosed many many pcs.

Many of my friends been using Intel PCs, and over the course most of them gone to trash, i mean the pcs, they changed over to AMD.

Its cheaper, its 1000% more stable, and it can do its job well.

Even the cheapest AMD, like the Athlon II X2 or X3 OUTPERFORMS the excrementsty Intel Celerons.

My AMD Phenom II X4 965 black edition 3.4ghz processor was the fastest amd processor of 2010, and it still can handle very well Battlefield 1 and many other new titles. Even if I would have lot of spare money, I would buy a Ryzen of the best kind, rather than a excrementsty Intel.

Ofcourse there are excrementsty AMDs too, like the A series processors, those are trash.

Or the AMD RADEON R series of videocards, trash aswell.\

Also, Intel are a bunch of liars, they dont even have real 8 core processors. Their magnificient i5 only uses 2 real cores.

LOL. That's my daily amusement sorted.

Clearly, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Sounds like garden variety AMD fanboyism to me.

Got any real benchmarks? Or evidence to back up that "no 8 core CPUs" bit?