By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
HoloDust on 21 April 2017
Edit Thread
Soundwave said:
Would TOPS (trillions of operations per second) have any relevance? Nvidia claims Xavier will be able to do 20 TOPS at 20 watts.

I'm not programmer (well, not for last 25 years), so I can't say with certainty, but I don't think 8-bit integers (the way TOPS are measured) have a lot of use in games.

Pemalite said:
HoloDust said:

As for Ryzen - not sure who expected what, but Ryzen do smash Intel, especially if price is taken into account, in quite a few tasks - just not in gaming.

Do they really though? AMD has no high-end motherboard/chipset. (Yet.)
AMD has no Chips that exceed 8-cores. (Yet.)
AMD has no chips with integrated graphics. (Yet.)
AMD Ryzen in a fair few benchmarks performs like a Core i5, especially in the majority of games.
AMD's chips are shit at overclocking. Most top out at around 4ghz.

But you are right, once you factor in price then it's a completely different ball game.

But as it stands, I would still opt for Intel over AMD if price isn't an issue.

HoloDust said:

Indeed it does, it's just that it doesn't smash Intel in gaming as opposed to tasks such as rendering and encoding...for the price, of course.

Encoding can leverage a ton of Threads, it's only natural AMD's chips shine in those scenario's when AMD is willing to sell you more cores for the price than Intel.

AMD's Quad and Hex core chips are amazing value for money. It's made Intels entire Core i5 and i3 lineup redundant.

Well yeah, I'm kinda looking at Ryzen for what it offers for price - 1800X with 8 cores goes toe to toe (and wins in many cases) with 6900K with 8 cores in heavily multi-threaded tasks, at half the price.

And as you said, i5s and i3s are rendered almost completely useless...well, except for games, until devs really move on from 4 cores.