CPU Hierarchy 2018: Intel and AMD Processors Ranked

[Sky89]

Hello..

Read this:


CPU Hierarchy 2018: Intel and AMD Processors Ranked

Intel Core i7-8700K and Intel Core i9-7900X and Intel Core i7-8700
have scored the best

Read more here:

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html



Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.

[Bruce Hoult]

On Monday, June 4, 2018 at 5:03:33 AM UTC+12, Sky89 wrote:
> Hello..
>
> Read this:
>
>
> CPU Hierarchy 2018: Intel and AMD Processors Ranked
>
> Intel Core i7-8700K and Intel Core i9-7900X and Intel Core i7-8700
> have scored the best
>
> Read more here:
>
> https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html

"Gaming" performance ... pffft. Tell me how long they take to do a debug build of LLVM...

It's all pretty boring, other than finally getting some decent core counts in consumer CPUs. The i9's have still got AMD pipped if you care about single-threaded performance and don't care about paying twice the price.

For me the exciting thing now is CPUs such as the quad core i7-8650U in the NUC I bought last month (and in a lot of new laptops now). It has a 15W TDP but performs essentially the same as a 65W i-6700 released 2.5 years earlier and still standard-issue in many corporate offices (it's what Samsung gave me in the middle of last year as an upgrade from an i7-3770). My own GeekBench runs show the 8650U to be 20% faster than the 6700 on single-core, and 2% slower multi-core.

And I've got it in a package with 32 GB RAM and an M.2 SSD that literally fits (easily) into my jeans pocket!

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DcVHwHRU0AA2XDq.jpg

[MitchAlsup]

On Sunday, June 3, 2018 at 6:42:02 PM UTC-5, Bruce Hoult wrote:
> On Monday, June 4, 2018 at 5:03:33 AM UTC+12, Sky89 wrote:
> > Hello..
> >
> > Read this:
> >
> >
> > CPU Hierarchy 2018: Intel and AMD Processors Ranked
> >
> > Intel Core i7-8700K and Intel Core i9-7900X and Intel Core i7-8700
> > have scored the best
> >
> > Read more here:
> >
> > https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html
>
> "Gaming" performance ... pffft. Tell me how long they take to do a debug build of LLVM...
>
> It's all pretty boring, other than finally getting some decent core counts in consumer CPUs.

pffft:: what percentage of consumer PCs (or Apples) need more than 4 cores to
keep that customer happy.

My own home desktop is at least 6 year old, has 6 CPUs at 2.8 GHz, and only
8GB of memory, yet when I look only 60% of memory ever seem to be "allocated".

I think we have reached that point where my next CPU/PC will need be no faster
or bigger than my current one.

[Quadibloc]

On Sunday, June 3, 2018 at 5:42:02 PM UTC-6, Bruce Hoult wrote:
> and don't care about paying twice the price.

The trouble for AMD is that paying twice the price for the CPU isn't noticeable when one is buying the case, the motherboard, and the memory... and a graphics card... at the same time.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

On Sunday, June 3, 2018 at 7:29:38 PM UTC-6, MitchAlsup wrote:

> pffft:: what percentage of consumer PCs (or Apples) need more than 4 cores to
> keep that customer happy.

Yes, very little software uses more than 4 cores. About the only class of users to
get real benefits right now are people who live stream themselves playing computer
games; it used to be they had to tie two computers together to get high gaming
performance from one computer while using the other to encode the video.

A few games, though, now can use more threads. And of course there are other
classes of user that can benefit - lots of cores are nice on a database server.

John Savard

[Bruce Hoult]

On Monday, June 4, 2018 at 1:29:38 PM UTC+12, MitchAlsup wrote:
> On Sunday, June 3, 2018 at 6:42:02 PM UTC-5, Bruce Hoult wrote:
> > On Monday, June 4, 2018 at 5:03:33 AM UTC+12, Sky89 wrote:
> > > Hello..
> > >
> > > Read this:
> > >
> > >
> > > CPU Hierarchy 2018: Intel and AMD Processors Ranked
> > >
> > > Intel Core i7-8700K and Intel Core i9-7900X and Intel Core i7-8700
> > > have scored the best
> > >
> > > Read more here:
> > >
> > > https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html
> >
> > "Gaming" performance ... pffft. Tell me how long they take to do a debug build of LLVM...
> >
> > It's all pretty boring, other than finally getting some decent core counts in consumer CPUs.
>
> pffft:: what percentage of consumer PCs (or Apples) need more than 4 cores to
> keep that customer happy.
>
> My own home desktop is at least 6 year old, has 6 CPUs at 2.8 GHz, and only
> 8GB of memory, yet when I look only 60% of memory ever seem to be "allocated".
>
> I think we have reached that point where my next CPU/PC will need be no faster
> or bigger than my current one.

Did you miss the part, which you quoted below, where I said the exciting part is that my current home PC is a 15W TDP box that fits in my jeans pocket yet performs as well as a 65W TDP tower from two years ago?

[Quadibloc]

On Sunday, June 3, 2018 at 7:29:38 PM UTC-6, MitchAlsup wrote:

> I think we have reached that point where my next CPU/PC will need be no faster
> or bigger than my current one.

The problem is that software developers find it hard to make good use of more
cores to put more features in applications.

If it weren't for the demise of Dennard Scaling, though, things would be
different.

It would be quite easy for the next generation of programs to bog down on any
CPU slower than 10 GHz, if there were 10 GHz processors to be had.

John Savard

[MitchAlsup]

On Sunday, June 3, 2018 at 8:39:47 PM UTC-5, Bruce Hoult wrote:
> On Monday, June 4, 2018 at 1:29:38 PM UTC+12, MitchAlsup wrote:
> > On Sunday, June 3, 2018 at 6:42:02 PM UTC-5, Bruce Hoult wrote:
> > > On Monday, June 4, 2018 at 5:03:33 AM UTC+12, Sky89 wrote:
> > > > Hello..
> > > >
> > > > Read this:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > CPU Hierarchy 2018: Intel and AMD Processors Ranked
> > > >
> > > > Intel Core i7-8700K and Intel Core i9-7900X and Intel Core i7-8700
> > > > have scored the best
> > > >
> > > > Read more here:
> > > >
> > > > https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html
> > >
> > > "Gaming" performance ... pffft. Tell me how long they take to do a debug build of LLVM...
> > >
> > > It's all pretty boring, other than finally getting some decent core counts in consumer CPUs.
> >
> > pffft:: what percentage of consumer PCs (or Apples) need more than 4 cores to
> > keep that customer happy.
> >
> > My own home desktop is at least 6 year old, has 6 CPUs at 2.8 GHz, and only
> > 8GB of memory, yet when I look only 60% of memory ever seem to be "allocated".
> >
> > I think we have reached that point where my next CPU/PC will need be no faster
> > or bigger than my current one.
>
> Did you miss the part, which you quoted below, where I said the exciting part is that my current home PC is a 15W TDP box that fits in my jeans pocket yet performs as well as a 65W TDP tower from two years ago?

No, I did not miss that point.

[MitchAlsup]

On Sunday, June 3, 2018 at 8:40:11 PM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Sunday, June 3, 2018 at 7:29:38 PM UTC-6, MitchAlsup wrote:
>
> > I think we have reached that point where my next CPU/PC will need be no faster
> > or bigger than my current one.
>
> The problem is that software developers find it hard to make good use of more
> cores to put more features in applications.

Most of the software I use on my PC harkens from the 1996-1999 era, with
one office suite from 2003, and a draw program from 2006.

When I was working I got the latest and greatest windows office suite.
Nothing in that new suite was any better than the stuff in 2003 office
for the ways I use office-like products. The most annoying thing about
MS products is that MS changes which menu drop down one feature or another
is placed in from version to version. Why can't they simply leave well
enough alone?

> If it weren't for the demise of Dennard Scaling, though, things would be
> different.

And power dissipation would be in the 400W range.

> It would be quite easy for the next generation of programs to bog down on any
> CPU slower than 10 GHz, if there were 10 GHz processors to be had.

And 400 watt cooling systems.

[George Neuner]

On Mon, 4 Jun 2018 08:20:28 -0700 (PDT), MitchAlsup
<Mitch...@aol.com> wrote:

>Most of the software I use on my PC harkens from the 1996-1999 era, with
>one office suite from 2003, and a draw program from 2006.
>
>When I was working I got the latest and greatest windows office suite.
>Nothing in that new suite was any better than the stuff in 2003 office
>for the ways I use office-like products. The most annoying thing about
>MS products is that MS changes which menu drop down one feature or another
>is placed in from version to version. Why can't they simply leave well
>enough alone?

Most annoying thing about MS Office is that nearly every version has
compatibility issues with LATER versions as well as previous.

Unless you stick to the ancient formats (doc,xls,etc.) AND restrict
yourself to features only in Office97, sharing a file with someone who
is running a different version of Office is like rolling dice.

The half-assed XML formats (docx,xlsx,etc.) used in 2k3..2k10 were the
worst offenders. During that period it often seemed like no version
of Office could reliably read any files other than its own.

Thankfully Microsoft finally implemented OpenDocument in 2k13 ... but
2 releases hence it still isn't fully compatible with the OD formats.

YMMV,
George

[MitchAlsup]

On Monday, June 4, 2018 at 4:07:50 PM UTC-5, George Neuner wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Jun 2018 08:20:28 -0700 (PDT), MitchAlsup
> <?????@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >Most of the software I use on my PC harkens from the 1996-1999 era, with
> >one office suite from 2003, and a draw program from 2006.
> >
> >When I was working I got the latest and greatest windows office suite.
> >Nothing in that new suite was any better than the stuff in 2003 office
> >for the ways I use office-like products. The most annoying thing about
> >MS products is that MS changes which menu drop down one feature or another
> >is placed in from version to version. Why can't they simply leave well
> >enough alone?
>
> Most annoying thing about MS Office is that nearly every version has
> compatibility issues with LATER versions as well as previous.

Anyone who wants to send me a document can use save-as and use WORD
97-2003 and produce a *.doc.

If they don't I ignore them and their documents.

>
> Unless you stick to the ancient formats (doc,xls,etc.) AND restrict
> yourself to features only in Office97, sharing a file with someone who
> is running a different version of Office is like rolling dice.

You train them to use save-as.

>
> The half-assed XML formats (docx,xlsx,etc.) used in 2k3..2k10 were the
> worst offenders. During that period it often seemed like no version
> of Office could reliably read any files other than its own.
>
> Thankfully Microsoft finally implemented OpenDocument in 2k13 ... but
> 2 releases hence it still isn't fully compatible with the OD formats.
>
> YMMV,
> George

But the trick is the FRAMEMAKER has never changed its file formats (1985-ish
to present)

[David Brown]

On 04/06/18 23:07, George Neuner wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Jun 2018 08:20:28 -0700 (PDT), MitchAlsup
> <Mitch...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> Most of the software I use on my PC harkens from the 1996-1999 era, with
>> one office suite from 2003, and a draw program from 2006.
>>
>> When I was working I got the latest and greatest windows office suite.
>> Nothing in that new suite was any better than the stuff in 2003 office
>> for the ways I use office-like products. The most annoying thing about
>> MS products is that MS changes which menu drop down one feature or another
>> is placed in from version to version. Why can't they simply leave well
>> enough alone?
>
> Most annoying thing about MS Office is that nearly every version has
> compatibility issues with LATER versions as well as previous.
>
> Unless you stick to the ancient formats (doc,xls,etc.) AND restrict
> yourself to features only in Office97, sharing a file with someone who
> is running a different version of Office is like rolling dice.

I've had Excel documents made by older versions of the program which
can't be opened at all with newer versions. The trick is simply to use
LibreOffice - it opens all versions of MS Office documents, with far
better compatibility than MS ever achieved.

And it doesn't change the menu system each version and it doesn't have a
pointless screen-wasting "ribbon".

And it's free.

And it is /far/ better for pdf creation and for making structured documents.

And it doesn't chew up large documents and corrupt them.

And it doesn't bugger up your machine by installing all sorts of
nonsense in your Windows and system directories.

And it works the same on Linux, Windows and MacOS.

If I can't use LaTeX, I use LibreOffice. I haven't had an MS Office
program installed on a PC since Word for Windows 2 for Win3.1.

[Noob]

On 04/06/2018 23:07, George Neuner wrote:

> Most annoying thing about MS Office is that nearly every version has
> compatibility issues with LATER versions as well as previous.
>
> Unless you stick to the ancient formats (doc,xls,etc.) AND restrict
> yourself to features only in Office97, sharing a file with someone who
> is running a different version of Office is like rolling dice.
>
> The half-assed XML formats (docx,xlsx,etc.) used in 2k3..2k10 were the
> worst offenders. During that period it often seemed like no version
> of Office could reliably read any files other than its own.
>
> Thankfully Microsoft finally implemented OpenDocument in 2k13 ... but
> 2 releases hence it still isn't fully compatible with the OD formats.

George, Mitch, do yourselves a favor, and give LibreOffice a try.
You might never look back.

https://www.libreoffice.org/download/download/

Regards.

[George Neuner]

On Wed, 6 Jun 2018 09:18:16 +0200, Noob <ro...@127.0.0.1> wrote:

>George, Mitch, do yourselves a favor, and give LibreOffice a try.
>You might never look back.
>
>https://www.libreoffice.org/download/download/
>
>Regards.

I have been using LibreOffice since ~2013.

Except for 2002, I used all the versions of MSOffice from 97 to 2010.
I experienced first hand a host of compatibility problems exchanging
complex documents with people who used other versions.

There still are glitches exchanging documents between LO and MS. But,
in my experience, LO is better than MS itself at reading/writing the
half-assed XML formats.

Things have become very much better with the OpenDocument formats. But
only MSOffice versions from 2013 on support them.

George

[BGB]

My last build (~ early 2017):
AMD FX-8350
RAM: got 16GB of DDR3-1333 with it.
Scavenged an additional 16GB from another PC.
MOBO: ~ $50
Case: an old tower case from the 90s (scavenged, free)
Had to hot glue some stuff due to minor mounting mismatches.
It seems 90s ATX isn't exactly modern ATX regarding screw placement.
Graphics card: reused an older GTX 460.
Since then got a used GTX 970 (free).

Budget: ~ $350 or so IIRC.


Later got a 1TB SSD, which cost about as much as the whole rest of the
computer, but was a fairly noticeable improvement to overall
performance, except in cases where FireFox is just randomly like "LOL,
gonna eat 40GB of RAM now" and then starts swapping pretty bad.

Now annoyed though that recent versions of Minecraft have gotten rather
prone to lag/stalls though (and mobs/physics sometimes going in
slow-motion), as it seems the recent updates have began engaging in
CPU-eating behaviors.


> John Savard
>

[Melzzzzz]

On 2018-06-13, BGB <cr8...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/3/2018 8:35 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Sunday, June 3, 2018 at 5:42:02 PM UTC-6, Bruce Hoult wrote:
>>> and don't care about paying twice the price.
>>
>> The trouble for AMD is that paying twice the price for the CPU isn't noticeable when one is buying the case, the motherboard, and the memory... and a graphics card... at the same time.
>>
>
> My last build (~ early 2017):
> AMD FX-8350
> RAM: got 16GB of DDR3-1333 with it.
> Scavenged an additional 16GB from another PC.
> MOBO: ~ $50
> Case: an old tower case from the 90s (scavenged, free)
> Had to hot glue some stuff due to minor mounting mismatches.
> It seems 90s ATX isn't exactly modern ATX regarding screw placement.
> Graphics card: reused an older GTX 460.
> Since then got a used GTX 970 (free).
>
> Budget: ~ $350 or so IIRC.
>
>
> Later got a 1TB SSD, which cost about as much as the whole rest of the
> computer, but was a fairly noticeable improvement to overall
> performance, except in cases where FireFox is just randomly like "LOL,
> gonna eat 40GB of RAM now" and then starts swapping pretty bad.

Get rid of adblock+ it eats RAM. I use privoxy instead and am happy with
it ;)

--
press any key to continue or any other to quit...

[Anton Ertl]

BGB <cr8...@hotmail.com> writes:
>On 6/3/2018 8:35 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Sunday, June 3, 2018 at 5:42:02 PM UTC-6, Bruce Hoult wrote:
>>> and don't care about paying twice the price.
>>
>> The trouble for AMD is that paying twice the price for the CPU isn't noticeable when one is buying the case, the motherboard, and the memory... and a graphics card... at the same time.

If that was the case, everybody would be buying only the most powerful
CPUs, because its price would not be noticable.

But it isn't the case. The CPU is usually a sizable chunk of the cost
of a computer. For my latest home PC (with Intel CPU), about half the
money went into the CPU. For the servers we built last year
<https://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/ryzen-server.html>, about a
quarter of the money went into the AMD CPUs (a lot went into the
32/64GB of ECC RAM and into SSDs with power-loss protection). In
addition, for these servers, if we had gone for Intel Xeons with 8/6
cores, the motherboard would have cost five times as much as the
motherboard we took, while a Xeon Gold 6134 would have cost more than
the whole box with Ryzen 1800X, 64GB ECC RAM and two 480GB SSDs with
power-loss protection.

>My last build (~ early 2017):
>AMD FX-8350
> RAM: got 16GB of DDR3-1333 with it.
> Scavenged an additional 16GB from another PC.
>MOBO: ~ $50
>Case: an old tower case from the 90s (scavenged, free)
> Had to hot glue some stuff due to minor mounting mismatches.
> It seems 90s ATX isn't exactly modern ATX regarding screw placement.
>Graphics card: reused an older GTX 460.
> Since then got a used GTX 970 (free).
>
>Budget: ~ $350 or so IIRC.

Two years ago we built a system with a Phenom II (for our CPU
microarchitecture collection), CPU, Motherboard, 8GB RAM and cooler
together cost EUR125, and the graphics is included on the motherboard.
Case, PSU, and HDD were scavenged and are worth maybe another EUR 100.

- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl Some things have to be seen to be believed
an...@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at Most things have to be believed to be seen
http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html

[George Neuner]

On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 04:03:07 GMT, Melzzzzz <Melz...@zzzzz.com> wrote:

>Get rid of adblock+ it eats RAM. I use privoxy instead and am happy with
>it ;)

Or uBlock Origin.

[skybu...@hotmail.com]

Most people are idiots and will need at least 1 million cores and even than they will manage to stuff it full with crapware.

HAHA !

You a total noob, which is obvious from your post.

[gamero...@gmail.com]

On Monday, June 4, 2018 at 1:03:33 AM UTC+8, Sky89 wrote:
> Hello..
>
> Read this:
>
>

>CPU Hierarchy: 5 Tiers Of Great War
Part 1- CPU hierarchy 2018: 5 tier:
Part 2 Desktop & Laptop CPU Hierarchy Lists (Updated)
Part 3 CPU roundup time
>
> Read more here:
>
https://www.gameroe.com/cpu-hierarchy