AMD Ryzen 7 Series Processor Reviews Go Live, Zen Looks Strong Vs Intel (hothardware.com) 175
MojoKid writes: AMD has finally lifted the veil on independent reviews of its new Ryzen series of desktop processors that bring the company's CPU architecture back more on competitive footing versus its rival, Intel's Core series. The initial family of Ryzen processors consists of three 8-core chips, the Ryzen 7 1800X at 3.6GHz with boost to 4.1GHz, the Ryzen 7 1700X at 3.4Ghz with boost to 3.8GHz, and the Ryzen 7 1700 at 3GHz with boost to 3.7GHz. Each has support for 2 threads per core, for a total of 16 threads with 16MB of L3 cache on-board, 512K of L2 and TDPs that range from 65 watts for the Ryzen 7 1700 at the low-end, on up to 95 watts for the 1700X and 1800X. In comparison to AMD's long-standing A-series APUs and FX-series processors, the new architecture is significantly more efficient and performant than any of AMD's previous desktop processor offerings. AMD designed the Zen microarchitecture at the heart of Ryzen with performance, throughput, and efficiency in mind. Initially, AMD had reported a 40% target for IPC (instructions per clock) improvement with Zen but actually realized about a 52% lift in overall performance. In the general compute workloads, rendering, and clock-for-clock comparisons, the Ryzen 7 1800X either outperformed or gives Intel's much more expensive Core i7-6900K a run for its money. The lower clock speeds of the Ryzen 7 1700X and 1700 obviously resulted in performance a notch behind the flagship 1800X, but those processors also performed quite well. Ryzen was especially strong in heavily threaded workloads like 3D rendering and Ray Tracing, but even in less strenuous tests like PCMark, the Ryzen 7 series competed favorably. It's not all good news, though. With some older code, audio encoding, lower-res gaming, and platform level tests, Ryzen trailed Intel -- sometimes by a wide margin. There's obviously still optimization work that needs to be done -- from both AMD and software developers.
strong til ... (Score:1)
Re:strong til ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:strong til ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Looking more like crappy game code than crappy processor. Reviews show Ryzen doing particularly well on high quality settings. Regardless of gaming, which really is all about the GPU especially with Vulkan games coming down the pipe, Ryzen by all appearances is a kickass workstation chip at a gimme price. Because of Ryzen, I expect to pay less for my next desktop than my next phone.
Vulkan and threads (Score:2)
Regardless of gaming, which really is all about the GPU especially with Vulkan games coming down the pipe, ...
Vulkan has even another reason: it supports better multithreading, and Ryzen seems to shine under those circumstances.
(That's also why older, more single-thread-oriented games don't work better)
Re: strong til ... (Score:2)
Reviews show Ryzen doing particularly well on high quality settings.
Those tend to be tests where the GPU - and not the CPU* - are bottlenecked. Did you only look at the graphs and not actually read the reviews?
*Don't get me wrong; I'd still pick it over anything Intel for all but the priciest builds but I wouldn't mind seeing two more DDR4 channels and more PCI-E lanes added to the processor northbridge (as opposed to the motherboard chipset/southbridge)...
What's an end-user application to you? (Score:5, Insightful)
Rendering and video encoding is not an end-user application
Watch for "no true Scotsman" fallacies. How exactly do you define "an end-user application"? One focused on viewing works of authorship made by others rather than creating works?
Re: (Score:2)
Most users do not do rendering or video encoding, but they probably do play video games.
Re: (Score:3)
Most users do not do rendering or video encoding, but they probably do play video games.
On laptops? No I think most people are not gamers.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know how you inferred that I was talking about laptops specifically because I wasn't, but sure. Modern laptops are very capable gaming machines. My own gaming PC is in fact a laptop.
Even if they are only playing Solitaire or web-based games, they are still gaming.
Re: (Score:2)
I was singling out PC's rather than mobile platforms. I would be skeptical about the claim that most PC owners use them for gaming.
Re: (Score:2)
If that's the case, then think about how few do things like video encoding or rendering. It would be a fraction of a fraction of users.
Hangouts and Skype (Score:2)
think about how few do things like video encoding
Hangouts, Skype, and other video chat applications encode video in real time during a call. Or do you claim that most use only the text and audio features of those applications?
Re: (Score:2)
But they might buy a much lower cost Ryzen expecting it to work as well as a 6900K for gaming due to the misleading video encoding and rendering benchmarks.
Public performance crackdowns (Score:2)
actually with the advent of streaming everything, and instant replays of entire gaming sessions
How long will this remain true once video game publishers crack down on infringement of the publisher's exclusive right to perform a video game or audiovisual work publicly?
Re: (Score:2)
Since publisher's already DID do that (most publishers have a specific set of terms available covering streaming for all their games) and most decided to grant permission to do it... how is that still a problem?
Because the grants aren't permanent; the publisher can revoke them at any time for any reason. In addition, the fact that you wrote "most decided" rather than "all decided" is telling.
publishers do describe what you can stream for financial gain and it's usually fairly permissive
Until they change the description without notice.
Re:strong til ... (Score:5, Interesting)
single-thread performance is king for games
It was, some time last decade. Apparently you have not heard about Vulkan. [imgtec.com] Applications are going that way too, and, well, everything.
Re: (Score:2)
Vulkan/DX12 etc take a long time to become ubiquitous and were not at that point yet, most games are still on dx9-11 which is largely due to console architecture as developers usually don't go with the latest api just for porting over to PC.
That may be your theory, but it does not correspond to facts on the ground. Every major game engine already has a Vulkan port, and in many cases the results [youtube.com] are jaw dropping. [youtube.com] Within a year, all tier one publishers will be shipping Vulkan builds. Bottom line: gamers know about Vulkan and gamers know they want Vulkan.
What this means if you are building a game box is simple: if your budget is limited, spend big on the GPU, not the processor.
End-user application (Score:3)
Rendering and video encoding is not an end-user application
No, indeed. Spending time online on Facebook/Whatsapp/instagram/etc. is the more typically end-user application.
And that has been already solved for quite some time.
Including by CPUs that run into your pocket.
Now please, can we go back to what modern CPUs have to offer ?
Intel clearly retains the crown for single thread and high-end performance. - And single-thread performance is king for games and end-user applications.
Was.
Multithreading is slowly entering other fields.
Games start to make better use of multiple cores.
That was one of the main argument for Vulkan : better multithreading support.
Re: (Score:2)
Erm, no. Outside of gaming, Ryzen kicks Intel up and down the block outside of 2 or 3 real world applications. With gaming, once the BIOS, opcode, and MS drivers have had time to shake down and be updated it will trump everything but the 7700k. Which will probably be beaten by one of the Ry5 or Ry3 chips when they are released..
Re: (Score:2)
Outside of gaming, there is a wide swath of applications where the i7-7700k beats the Ryzen 1800X by 10% to 20%, and the Intel chip is 30% lower in price. I think it's unlikely that a Ryzen 3 or 5 can take enough advantage of lower heat generated by fewer cores to make up for that 10% to 20% deficit.
I want to buy an AMD CPU; the disrespect Intel shows its customers by using an inferior thermal interface irks me. Alas, these AMD chips don't quite make the grade.
Re: (Score:2)
You didn't bother looking at the price of a 7700k did you...
Last I checked $350 (i7-7700k) is less than $500 (Ryzen R7 1800x).
The 7700k does better in most games due to it's better per-core performance (slightly better IPC, much higher clock), but tends to do worse in programs that can use all 8 cores/16 threads on Ryzen. We're hoping for the gap in single-core performance to be reduced slightly with bios updates, Windows updates, and software optimization, but we don't expect an 1800x to ever be better tha
Re: (Score:2)
Show me a game that isn't bottlenecked by the GPU. Artificially creating a set up where the cpu becomes the bottleneck is like the OPPOSITE of real world testing. It's a stupid way judge (or buy) a CPU.
Re: (Score:1)
The vast majority of games usually becomes bottlenecked by the GPU if you use a ton of post processes, high super sampling or huge resolutions. If you don't do that, the CPU is usually the limiting factor when it comes to minimal FPS. For a
Re: (Score:2)
Show me a game that isn't bottlenecked by the GPU.
Any Super FX or SA-1 game running in higan.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
$500 R7 1800X vs $340 i7 7700k.
http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwr... [gamersnexus.net]
The 1800X is a shitty choice for gaming. Perhaps drivers, coptimized software, and more mature motherboards/BIOSes will help over time. AMD's shit does tend to improve with age, but there's a huge delta there.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Don't forget Vulkan, which effectively puts the CPU in the back seat. And there are lots of great Ryzen reviews [wccftech.com] out there, in contrast to the Intel dicksuck site you picked.
Re:strong til ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't forget Vulkan, which effectively puts the CPU in the back seat. And there are lots of great Ryzen reviews out there, in contrast to the Intel dicksuck site you picked.
1. Links to wccftech (the 4chan of tech sites)
2. Uses the word "dicksuck"
3. A poor CPU is still a poor CPU after Vulkan
And I say that as someone planning to buy a Ryzen.. is it perfect? No. But it's close enough that AMD deserves a sale so Intel doesn't get to monopolize the high end again. Just deciding on whether I'll hold out for Vega or not...
Re:strong til ... (Score:5, Insightful)
> $500 R7 1800X vs $340 i7 7700k.
The 1800X is like 8 cores to the 7700K's 4 cores. The 7700K, having half the cores, will presumably do better on single threaded tasks, such as the benchmarks in question. Future code, especially that which makes requests to the GPU in a multithreaded fashion, will perform better with more damned cores. For single threaded (or basically that), the 7700K also blows away Intel's 6950X, their top desktop CPU offering with 10 cores.
A better comparison per price point would be the 1700X or 1700 to the 7700K. Again, you find that the 8 core chip blows away the 4 core chip on multiprocessing, with less amazing results from a single thread.
There's a ton of applications that scale well with cores, and games will begin to do so more in the future. There will always be tasks that can't be parallelized, but the question is, when do they matter versus the ones that can? The question of cores versus speed per dollar is about as old as CPUs, and the answer is always "what is your use case".
Re: (Score:2)
I wish they would offer more PCIe lanes though. Intel isn't any better. Top end Ryzen mobos give you one 16/8x8 slot for a GPU or two, a 4x slot and a few 1x slots. Apparently the combo of 16x GPU and 8x RAID card isn't catered for.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
No, the answer is that single threaded is nearly always more important than multi-threaded, because you are doing single threaded tasks about 99% of the time.
Even tasks that are multi-threaded benefit from having good single threaded performance.
The best scenario is having a CPU that is good at both. (but it's not the only thing, memory and cache is also important)
From what I read in the reviews is that AMD has improved their single threaded performance by 50%, which brings it close to Broadwell levels. Tha
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
> Games have notoriously been single threaded for ever, because it's a lot easier to program a linear algorithm and keep memory use clean.
Some things games have to do are fundamentally single threaded, but you are correct: it's easier to program a single thread, and often the gain from another thread doesn't help much. 3D games are a little different, because much of the CPU tasking involves doing stuff so that data can be pushed to the graphics card. Those scale VERY well with extra cores, but only i
Re: (Score:1)
An example is the MMO Star Wars: The Old Republic. ...inter In an area where there's a ton of players, your frame rate drops below 60 fps, and sometimes even below 30 fps, and the graphics card fan is silent.
That case is exactly where an asynchronous model would excel, keeping the framerate steady and offloading all object rendering to external pieces. It should be easy enough to do so, but the re-assembly is where it gets hard. However, that still doesn't get around the base issue that 100K+ things are being rendered for a frame when only a few hundred, at most, will ever be seen. Those particular game devs only know 1 way to solve a problem, which is the core problem.
Re: (Score:2)
> No, the answer is that single threaded is nearly always more important than multi-threaded, because you are doing single threaded tasks about 99% of the time.
The answer is nowhere near that simple. If your single threaded task is any manner of I/O bound- disk, network, or memory, then you can't speed it up any further with a faster CPU, on clock or IPC. If PARTS of it are bound in those ways, then a faster processor will help, but not linearly.
But in general, if you had a choice between a 4 GHz 8 core
Re: (Score:3)
The 1800X seems to be extremely strong in compile benchmarks: https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ryzen-1800x-linux&num=1 [phoronix.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Look at the delta from i7 7700k to R7 1800X to FX-8370. It's a reminder of how far AMD has come.
And if the best thing that comes out of Ryzen is that Intel lowers its prices, then we all win anyway.
I'll probably pick up an R7 1700 or the R5 later this year, because yes I'm an AMD fanboy.
Re: (Score:3)
Plus anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows you'll get better bang for the buck throwing that extra $500 at a good video card on the Ryzan box instead of dumping it into minor gains on the CPU side with Intel.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:strong til ... (Score:5, Insightful)
The "bad" review? Was from hothardware....you ever went to that site without adblock? Last time I did the entire page was NOTHING but Intel ads.
From what I've seen there is 4 sites you should never listen to, hothardware, Ars Technica, and the worst are Tom's Hardware (where their "expert" told a person asking what CPU to buy for GAMING that he should buy a Pentium dual core over a lower priced AMD X6 even though he admitted that most games the person wanted to play required a quad) and Anandtech who went so far as to drop several new triple A titles from their benchmark that so happened to play better on AMD hardware and replaced them with older titles that were expressly built with Nvidia Gameworks (which has been shown to have "cripple AMD" code baked in)...you wanna guess who their biggest advertiser is?
Its sad that I have to even say this but you really have to do some digging before you can actually take any "news" as credible as we have had so many cozy deals with advertisers and companies affiliated with those they are reviewing that a good chunk of what you see and hear these days is just corporate propaganda or FUD.
Toms Hardware is excellent, from my experience, for their hardware reviews. I've been building my own systems for a long time now and have used their reviews as primary source for selecting hardware components and have never had a problem with their findings. As for their "forum experts", I've had no experience with them. Saying that a whole site is horrible based on one bad experience is a tad on the extreme side, though.
From a PC gaming perspective, until recently, very few games have taken full advantage of multi-core processors. Even if a game uses multi-core, they tend to be poorly optimized such that the load is not spread evenly across all cores. Your still better off getting the fastest CPU that you can buy even if it means getting a quad-core vs an octa-core.
Re: (Score:1)
What he's talking about is obvious bias towards particular builds rather than empirical comparisons involving $ amounts as a divisor of performance numerals, rather than simply a small subset/collection of intentionally skewed benchmarks to make a case for something that in effect is an artifact of the analysis.
If you want fanboyism you will find it in every flavor. Including integrated into specific benchmarking applications, intentionally. Do the reviewers know enough about the underlying use-cases to a
Re: (Score:1)
I would really like a Ryzen gaming system with top of the line Nvidia graphics. I'm going to ask my dad tomorrow to buy me one. He's in the hospital with something wrong with his kidney. The family wants me to get tested to see if I could donate a kidney. If he says no to me, I'm going tell him straight out, no gaming system, no kidney. He can go fuck him self. Fucking old bastard.
There may only be so much they can optimize (Score:3)
Not all tasks can simply be split out in parallel. I mean you can see that with physical tasks, just like computer tasks: Some things just have to be done in sequence, you can't speed them up by doing them at the same time.
Well with some kinds of games it may well be there's only so much you can spin off to run in parallel and you are still going to have one or two threads that hit the hardest, so they'll be the limiting factor.
Now that said, it looks like this processor is still plenty fast enough for gami
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know what you're on about (or your ulterior motive), but I just read Peter Bright's summary on Ars, and it was just fine—yeoman's work—modulo 2017. BTW, "never" is a long time and a broad brush and also a brush that points in both directions.
I miss Jon Stokes from way back something fierce, but that's not even true: I miss the era where the articles that Jon Stokes was writing could be written. AK-47[*], more than a billion
Re: strong til ... (Score:1)
No wonder I saw (and recognized) 3 of these 4 sites top of my first 'ryzen' search today! (Ars, Anand and Tom). I'm new to PC building and so I'm not aware who are the Intel shills. Thanks for the enlightenment!
Re: (Score:2)
To be honest Hairy I have not seen 1 positive review for games.
Tomshardware did not totally bash it. It mentioned it as a big improvement and great workhorse CPU.
The Joker did another video here [youtube.com] and I made a comment after I noticed something? This was evident in the last game tested but I noticed in Tom Clancy's THe Division cpu utilization was higher on the Intel while lower on the 1st core for Ryzen
"I think I figured out what Ryzen's issue is? Look at the CPU core usage? On the Ryzen the first core has a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Pfff. This is all garbage. A half decent CPU is all you need for gaming these days. The real grunt work is all done on the GPU - and it's getting more and more the case.
CPUs these days are close to being irrelevant - and Intel knows it - even though they've done their best to convince people it's not the case. Monster processing tasks are all GPU based - and you shove in a mediocre CPU with multiple cores to coordinate things.
Freedom of choice (Score:2, Interesting)
Ryzen isn't quite perfect but it's nice that AMD has burned their white flag of surrender and once again gotten fit to fight against chipzilla.
Waiting To See Some Multi GPU Benchmarks (Score:5, Informative)
I have a feeling feeding a multi GPU rig will show some of its muscles. STH has some nice benchmarks showing it holding its own against a lot of Xeons.
Re: (Score:1)
At-least for 8 vs 16 threads more games are limited by / core performance rather than the number of cores/threads so no, it won't.
Re:Waiting To See Some Multi GPU Benchmarks (Score:5, Informative)
There are supposed to be up to 32 core Zen parts. Eventually.
Re: (Score:2)
The code name for server Zen is "Naples" and it's supposed to be out in the first half of 2017.
Re: (Score:2)
And it should be interesting to see how they matchup against the Xeon line. If these 'little' 8 core guys are any indication, Intel may be ordering up a few truckloads of adult diapers for all the pants-shitting that will be going on. I welcome the chaos.
Are they on top of the software? (Score:5, Interesting)
After a while the virtualization code I was working with just stopped being maintained upstream for AMD because the value proposition was just so ludicrously bad vs. Intel and nobody was using them.
Has AMD, perchance, contributed code to KVM or Xen to get a running start or are we going to be waiting until after Intel's next chip rev. before Zen stands a chance again in this arena (at which point, it's already lost its advantage)?
Re:Are they on top of the software? (Score:4)
Re: Are they on top of the software? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
But when?
Re: (Score:1)
What problems has AMD with virtualization? -- this is not a rhetorical question, I'm using qemu+kvm and amd everyday, but apparently I'm too stupid to figure out how wretched I am. Has it anything to do with that piece of shit android emulator?
from where i stand (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Glad to see AMD having some success (Score:2, Interesting)
Certainly good to see AMD come out with a real positive chip for a change. Still early yet, and Ryzen is more a chip for desktops and gamer's. But it's going to go up against Intel pretty well which has to be good for end users.
This just in... (Score:3, Insightful)
Intel releases the 8-core i7-7900K for $499 which blows all the Ryzen 7 1800X away in every performance metric...
This is not probably too far off, and based on single threaded performance of the i7-7700K which is already 18% faster than the 1800X, an 8-core i7-7900K (if the price was right) would push AMD's best back to being #2...
However, the good news will be Ryzen will be a strong enough competitor to force chipzilla into a pricing war, and that'll make every buyer happier, no matter which horse you back.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
still need to up the pci-e lanes. 16 + DMI is to low. and give the Skylake-X cpus 44 in ALL cpus.
Re: (Score:1)
"which blows all the Ryzen 7 1800X away in every performance metric..." - WRONG.
Re: (Score:2)
You're saying his hypothetical headline for a fake chip is wrong? Really? What next, point out that Huckleberry Finn is a work of fiction?
Re: (Score:3)
The i7-7700k runs at a turbo frequency of 4.5GHz. Thats 10% faster than the maximum frequency of the X1800. The rest of the performance gain is better IPC. However the i7700K also has a TDP of 91W which is almost the same as the 95W TDP of the X1800. If intel doubles that chip it will melt down unless they scale back the clock speed. And you wind up with something that performs less than the i7-9600 which performs at about the same level as the X1800. So nope, not going to happen any time soon. What I'm won
Re: (Score:1)
AMD's TDP != Intel's TDP
Or, maybe TDP does, power consumption definitely does not.
65W 1700 ends up using a bit more power than 91W 7700K.
95W 1700x/1800x are using power roughly in the same range as 140W 6900K.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, but that won't happen til next year... by which time AMD have Zen2
Horses, held (Score:2, Funny)
"AMD multithread optimized games" is right up there with "Year of Linux desktop".
Ryzen a prelude to a juggernaut server CPU ? (Score:1)
Ryzem Worthy (Score:2)
Obviously, when I edit and compress video, as I often do when starting a youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCALWDnHfbhcpdPco0cXIeOQ/videos?sort=dd&view=0&shelf_id=0
...and raytrace images from Rhino 3D, compress music, it will quite an upgrade.
I am glad AMD is competitive again because I like competition in the marketplace.
Re:Nope (Score:5, Interesting)
In general, the reviews are negative. We knew Ryzen would be behind in single-threaded performance, and it is. But it's also behind in multi-threaded performance in a lot of benchmarks for some reason. It beats out Intel's offerings in certain workloads (primarily video encoding), but it gets its ass handed to it in games.
On FP-heavy workloads it's toe-to-toe with Intel processors costing twice as much. On integer-heavy workloads Intel still has the better technology but on price/performance it's correctly priced between the i7-7700k and Intel's HEDT offering. On memory-heavy workloads the dual channel is no match for Intel's quad channel but the price/performance is still okay as far as I've seen.
Where it does fall short is single/few-threaded games if you game at low resolution/high frequency but since hardly any gamer would spend $1000 on an 8C Intel processor it's no surprise games don't really take any advantage of the last four cores, even hyper-threading 4C/8T doesn't do much for gaming. But if you move to 1440p the difference is less, at 4K you're GPU limited [kitguru.net] anyway.
Basically if you'll only be using it for gaming and have a Sandy Bridge or newer just save your money and use it for a 1080 Ti or Vega. I find the reviews are trying really trying to make games CPU bound when they're mostly not, at least the way I prefer to play them. Maybe the FPS addicts with 144Hz monitors see it differently, I prefer higher quality as long as frame rates are reasonably smooth.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, dumbass. I don't have a 7700k. I do have Windows (7), and an old i7-2600k.
And if you had read my post, you'd realize that I fucking mentioned other workloads. I call out the 7700k and gaming performance specifically because that's the worst situation for Ryzen. I also point out the best situation for Ryzen.
Re: (Score:2)
No.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Ayy (Score:2)
Same thing I said wh n the 486 came out.
32 bits!!!! 1mb of ram!!!
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X Linux Benchmarks (Score:5, Informative)
Too bad Ryzen only supports Windows 10
Source? My sources say GNU/Linux runs on it [phoronix.com].
Re:AMD Ryzen 7 1800X Linux Benchmarks (Score:5, Informative)
I believe he refers to the fact that it will not run Windows 7: http://www.pcgamer.com/amd-con... [pcgamer.com]
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Why the everlasting fuck does a CPU require a driver in order to "support" an operating system anyway?! It's not as if it's not x86, after all. The damn thing should run DOS if I try hard enough!
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't. This is nothing more than the latest from MS's department of dirty tricks. And old OS may not take advantage of new capabilities, but it should run just fine.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're just talking CPU, power management comes to mind. Consider how the SMT and amd's turbo equivalent work. Power management is another reason.
Even in open source systems, cpu frequency/power management, scheduling decisions in the kernel and obviously chipset support for new SATA/PCI controllers are all needed.
AMD hasn't had hyper-threading before so how would windows 7 know that? It would need to schedule processes on real cores when possible to minimize performance loss.
Then there's SATA controlle
Re: (Score:2)
It was a crap move by Microsoft to sneakily renege on their advertised support schedule for Windows 7. "Yes, sure we support Windows 7 over the agreed lifecycle, but don't dare buy a new PC".
I at first understood it to mean that Microsoft includes new support for brand new PC hardware during the "mainstream support" phase, which for Windows 7 ended in January 2015 (source [microsoft.com]). The rest is extended support, which is mostly security updates and updates to the means of delivering security updates. But then I saw that Windows 8.1 is not getting hardware enablement while still in its mainstream support phase.
Re: (Score:2)
A driver for a CPU... what an interesting and utterly frigging pointless idea.
Windows 7 will run just fine on Ryzen. I'll bet you a mars bar so will Windows XP.
Re:AMD Ryzen 7 1800X Linux Benchmarks (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And therein lies the problem. Linux is a technical OS, for technical people who can solve technical problems.
And therein lies the problem, people that think Linux is a technical OS only for technical people, and those that perpetuate that vision.
The real elephant in the room problem are those people that use the latest version of Office whose documents have interoperability issues with pretty much everything else. That takes some minor finagling to fix most of the common errors that put people off (unsupported fonts) and for 99% of regular people that will address everything they need.
Re: (Score:1)
When my mother can use it without me walking her through changing her monitor resolution, it will be on par with windows as far as usability goes.
And therein lacks the problem in the first place. Linux has better support for detecting the resolution and picking the right one. The fact that you even suspect you would need to change the resolution shows you haven't really been using Linux lately. That's a problem Windows users have.
Basically all you said was "I can't fix the problem that I have on Windows when I use Linux"... because it doesn't *have* the problem to begin with. Next you'll tell me you don't know how to defrag your Linux filesystem so
Re: (Score:1)
I don't use windows and I don't know your mother, but I know dozens of windows users who bitterly complain about not being able to use their 21" or 23" monitors because the fonts are too small, and not a single one of them was able to figure out by themselves (or even google it) how to change that horrible 96dpi default. In windows it's something like 3 clicks away (and they don't need to change the "resolution"; that w
Would DEFPOTEC give a better experience? (Score:2)
NOT forcing some 96dpi default just because some moron webdesigners weren't able to design things that scale
Then what should be the default? A 1080p panel with a (1920^2+1080^2)^.5/96 = 23 inch diagonal visible image size does indeed display 96 dpi. Should a user instead be shown an eye chart when logging in for the first time in order to set the display's virtual density?
Multi-monitor and TV use cases (Score:2)
If a window spans two screens that have different DPI values, how should the window system behave?
If a PC is connected to a physically large monitor, such as an HDTV, the user is likely to be sitting significantly farther away than arm's length. If the virtual DPI is then set equal to the physical DPI, body text drawn under the assumption that the display is at least 72 dpi is unlikely to be readable.
Re: (Score:3)
My Mom uses Linux regularly. She is certainly not a programmer or even a "power user". She browses the web and emails. Occasional light word processing. Nothing hard about any of that. My experience as the "computer guy" is that Windows users don't know how to change their screen resolution either, even though it is nearly as simple as doing it in Linux.
Xfce: Start > Settings > Display (Score:3)
When my mother can use it without me walking her through changing her monitor resolution
In Xubuntu, it's Start > Settings > Display. But because modern monitors have fixed pixels, you usually want to keep it at the highest supported resolution and change the scaling. That's in Start > Settings > Appearance > Fonts. And in either case, I'd have to do the same amount of "walking her through" under Windows.
x86 (Score:3)
It's a CPU running x86 instruction.
It basically works.
The rest is just drivers for the various parts (for the northbridge that's inside the CPU package, or for the chipset on the motherboard).
And drivers can be provided by the motherboard manufacturer.
So basically there's no reason why a Ryzen won't run on your Windows 8.1 or 7 (once you loaded the appropriate chipset drivers), nor why it won't run on older versions of Ubuntu (kernel 4.4, predates Ryzen, doesn't have any Ryzen specific code, will output a f
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Don't smoke weed before posting on Slashdot please.