Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ryzen 5 vs Core i5

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #21
    Feedback ... the Ryzen 5 performance during updates, restarts, miscellaneous software installs, Settings changes, window displays - pretty much everything seems to be at an i5 performance level of responsiveness at the price of an i3.

    Nothing negative to report so far.

    Comment


    • #22
      Sounds like you have hit the sweet spot, right price and performance for the task you have in mind for the folks who will use computers like this. Unless you are doing heavy processing like video or commercial tasks you don't need big processor grunt.
      hutch at movsd dot com
      The MASM Forum

      www.masm32.com

      Comment


      • #23
        I ran two benchmarking tests:

        UserBenchMarks - performed well except Graphics, which performed only at the 11% level. Fine it seems for most general graphics but not a candidate for gaming.

        Novabench score of 1561 - which seems to be similar to i5-ish kinds of performance. It's GPU score was 251 which seems pretty poor.

        Both of those low scores surprise me because in the limited testing I've done so far, I can't see anything that would make me think "low graphic scores". I have no games at all to test it on. When i do some webcam viewing, there's no noticeable lag time.

        I'm just not a very sophisticated PC tester, especially when it comes to graphics.





        Comment


        • #24
          The hardware for gaming costs a fortune, decent graphics cards come in at over $1000 US, then you need big processor grunt to do it. I gather the target user is a non technical old timer so gaming benchmarks don't matter much. A decent low cost video card is an AMD RADEON RX 580 and in OZ they cost around $250 AU but its matching between CPU power and fast graphics that makes the difference and to pick up gaming performance, you are into big money to buy all of the bits.

          The "bees knees" of video testing is "Cinebench" and it heavily favours multi core hardware. Measuring cooling solutions is a toy called "Core Temp" and there are a few others.
          hutch at movsd dot com
          The MASM Forum

          www.masm32.com

          Comment


          • #25
            If you want a ryzen that has a build in gpu you have go to with the x series, ie 3600x. The cost is about 50 to 70 more. When I bought the motherboard, cpu combo for my new system I didn't notice that is was a 2600 not a 2600x. I had to buy a gpu card for the system.

            Comment


            • #26
              Howdy, Steve!

              I gather the target user is a non technical old timer ...
              Yep, that's the gist of it. So responsiveness matters (users at any age are impatient) but slugging power does not because none of the software they use is very video/CPU intensive.

              And, howdy, Keith!

              Yes, better solutions almost always cost more. As Steve noted, this Ryzen PC is a sweet spot for my users, even with the lower graphics capability.

              Comment


              • #27
                I must apologize to the AMD Graphics for besmirching it's reputation! My own i7 machine has an Intel UHD Graphics 630, which performs worse than the AMD Graphics.

                I'm totally surprised. I wonder what it would be like to put a "real" graphics card in my i7 machine? Would I notice any difference? I and my PC are definitely graphically challenged!



                Comment


                • #28
                  Gary,
                  forget graphics cards, for the software you write it'll make no difference.
                  If you switch to writing games then the graphics performance counts.

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    Video graphics performance depends upon a lot of factors.

                    (1) Cost

                    The use of integrated Graphics (system on a chip) is popular because is costs much less. Laptops especially lean towards integrated graphics. All in all, the performance is quite decent for most tasks. The real benefit though is cost and usually low power requirements (important for laptops).

                    (2) What type of graphics

                    Gaming is a totally different animal compared to normal Windows apps. It is all about 3D (OpenGL or DirectX). If a programmer had to do 3D without the 3D features in graphic chips it would be almost impossible to accomplish what PC's do today. The raw power needed for even the simplest 3D game today is huge. Integrated graphics can handle minimal 3D needs and pretty well, but they will choke on really demanding gaming, especially at high resolutions and high frame rates.

                    Now normal Windows apps is different. Most integrated chips do quite well in this area. If an app does lag, I would venture to say it says more about the app than the graphics chip. Well written Windows app can perform very well even on the most rudimentary of graphics chips. I do most of my development on a very low end PC and having written a 2D sprite engine, I find the performance is very good. It is how the app is written which matters here.

                    (3) RAM memory

                    A lot of PC's and laptops when using integrated graphics don't have their own video memory. They use shared memory. The graphics chip uses normal RAM memory and steals it from the system. This means you really don't have as much RAM for Windows available. If you have a computer with 4 GB RAM and it has an integrated graphics, it may steal half that memory away from Windows. This means you really only have a 2GB system, not 4GB. And we all know that memory is critical to Windows performance. So how much RAM memory you have will make a big difference. Also the speed of the RAM also is important, since the Graphics chip is using it for Video memory.

                    (4) Desktop vs Laptop

                    Laptops have different needs than do desktop PC's. They are less easily expanded, so what you get is all you get. Space is limited, so integrated is preferred over a separate graphics chip. Also use of power is vital. So laptops under $500 will always be limited by this and something has to give and that is raw power.

                    Desktops have more options. They can use more power. They can be upgraded easily. Now be careful with lower end desktops which are small in size, since they have small power supplies and you can't just throw in a video card because the PS may not have enough wattage.

                    But if you have a desktop PC with integrated graphics, you can install a cheap graphics card and you will see significant performance improvement. You also tend to get more bang for your buck with a desktop since Laptops require everything be compact and that always increases the price of things.


                    Chris Boss
                    Computer Workshop
                    Developer of "EZGUI"
                    http://cwsof.com
                    http://twitter.com/EZGUIProGuy

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      Howdy, Chris, and thanks for the comments!

                      you can install a cheap graphics card and you will see significant performance improvement.
                      Can you clarify? Do you mean in 3D stuff only? Outside of better 3D performances, would there be any difference at all in most other apps? And I don't just mean "significant" differences, but rather would there be any observable difference at all? Would CPU load be improved, as quantified in Task Manager? Would WIndows "pop" more quickly on the screen?

                      And on the topic of shared RAM, is there a clear point (4GB, 6GB, 8GB) at which the amount of RAM begins to matter? Or quits mattering?

                      I've only found generic comments on these topics - nothing very concrete.

                      I'm not expecting to find out out anything earth-shattering. As Paul suggests, in my typical applications, graphic hardware capabilities don't seem to pay a part. But I also don't think I've been very observant in this topic. so some differences may have escaped my attention.

                      Comment


                      • #31
                        3D Stuff: Usually 3D games, games where your main character moves in a 3D virtual world and a 2D perspective needs to be generated for your screen depending on what the character is doing and where he is looking.
                        A better Video card will permit to have a wider view (use full screen resolution in 4K) with higher details, that gets refreshed at a faster rate. So you can see why 3D Gaming requires better graphic card it give you an advantage in the game. You see more, better and see danger sooner.

                        For day to day usage, watch videos, Internet, office work, etc. in general, it makes no difference. (no observable difference, no CPU load be improved)

                        You can do almost, everything with the base video cards that come with the processors, but some specific things will be slower, to substantially slower.
                        • 3D gaming (as described above)
                        • bitcoin mining
                        • password cracking
                        • some analysis software that require complex calculations on a large amount of data.
                        • Augmented reality.
                        • Virtual reality.
                        • Video encoding
                        • etc.
                        The amount of ram for the video card, which is usually faster that the computer ram for dedicated GPU's, helps move and process the data faster by the GPU.
                        the amount needed for a dedicated GPU will depend on how you are planning to use it.
                        Example for a gamer that wants to play at highest resolution (4K, 8K) on 2 screens will need 6-8Gig of dedicated ram.

                        Computer RAM: Again for day to day usage going from 4 to 8Gig you will notice a speed gain, 8 to 16Gig will not notice much.
                        if doing data intensive processing (Video encoding, Big-data analysis, etc) then going to 32Gigs or more you will notice a speed gain. But if you are doing this you probably will also want a faster CPU with more logical threads.



                        Comment


                        • #32
                          Gary,

                          For you own box, do yourself a favour, go out and buy yourself a decent graphics card, you don't have to spend multi-thousand dollars, a couple of hundred buck$ will do the job just fine. My own choice is an 8 gig AMD RADEON 580, gamer model of a few years ago but colour accuracy, screen upgrade speed and running high quality video, save your eyesight and give up on built in video before you go blind. The only use I have seen with built in video is the VGA port on the back of servers that displays a console with no problems at all.

                          The CAD folks use decent video cards as well so you don't have to feel guilty about buying it.

                          Now with memory, don't be without ambition, on Win10 you can struggle along at 16 gig but 32 gig makes your computer "feel" fast, you go to 64 gig if you are bashing around large data. Long ago I have learnt not to model a computer of current circumstances, think of some years in the future and build it big enough and fast enough and you will get more years out of it. My current DEV box is nearly 5 years old running a 6 core 5820k i7 clocked at 3.8 gig. New cooler for it next week and I will clock it up to 4 gig. Apart from replacing a couple of hard disks, its a perfect DEV tool, for tasks where sheer grunt matters, I have built a box with a 12 core E5-2690v3 Xeon on a high end Gigabyte board and it rips through gigabytes of MP4 video like a rocket.
                          hutch at movsd dot com
                          The MASM Forum

                          www.masm32.com

                          Comment


                          • #33
                            Howdy, Steve!

                            At your suggestion, I probably will buy a card to replace the integrated 630. However, I'll have to give my wife a better reason than that I would just like to see what kind of difference it makes. I've not mentioned graphics performance as an issue in the last 20 years, so she will ask why I bring it up now?

                            Worse, she will ask whether she should get one too!!!

                            Comment


                            • #34
                              That's an easy one Gary, tell her the truth about aging eyesight and how a decent graphics card will reduce eyestrain and eyesight damage and I think you will do OK but you will have to buy 2 of them. You know how it works, you can't fool the ladies.
                              hutch at movsd dot com
                              The MASM Forum

                              www.masm32.com

                              Comment


                              • #35
                                Steve,

                                I did not notice less eye strain using a graphics card compared to Intel HD graphics 3000.
                                I do no gaming at 3840 x 2160 with a scale of 175% on a 43 inch dell monitor.
                                I removed a GTX 1050ti because it causes update and installation problems with 32-bit Windows 10.
                                If there are settings that improve clarity, I will put the card back in.
                                If using 64-bit Windows will make a difference, I will reinstall it.

                                Gary,
                                I have two sets of computer glasses.
                                I use one pair for laptops and monitors under 27 inches.
                                I use another pair if using my 43 inch monitor.
                                I can program all day without eye strain using the correct glasses for the size of the monitor.

                                This may not apply to the eyes of everyone.
                                One pair of computer glasses does not work for me.

                                If there was an speed improvement with the EVGA Geoforce GTX 1050 ti graphic card, I did not notice it.
                                I used the 1050 ti because it didn't require any additional power connection in my older computer with a 2700K.

                                I may buy a new computer when USB4, PCI 4.0 and thunderbolt 4 are common.
                                I'm guessing 3-years.
                                How long is an idea? Write it down.

                                Comment


                                • #36
                                  Mike,

                                  I would be inclined to load the 64 bit version as it gives you more software options, graphics being one of them. I don't have anything to compare Intel HD graphics to but with an old Nvidia GTX 960, it has always been an excellent graphics card and of late with the new boxes I have built, I have been using 8 gig RADEON RX580s and the result is much the same, really clear and with good colour saturation. The rest is setting your monitor to the brightness that best suits your eyesight.
                                  hutch at movsd dot com
                                  The MASM Forum

                                  www.masm32.com

                                  Comment

                                  Working...
                                  X