Ryzen 1700 for minecraft hosting

Discussion in 'Hosting Advice' started by DimasEveryWhere, Apr 19, 2017.

  1. Hello, I've saw this Ryzen 1700 benchmark on linux with newer kernels on https://www.servethehome.com/amd-ryzen-7-1700-linux-benchmarks-zen-buy/ and the final words of the author made me think if there's any reason to not use it for minecraft hosting it instead of a now overpriced quad core intel 7700k since it has an good per core performance, alot of cores and they're cheap, not mentioning they consume less energy.

    What are your thoughs about Ryzen for minecraft hosting?
     
  2. AMD has never really been the "thing" for hosting.
    I'd just go with Intel, price for quality :)
     
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 3
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. Did you even read the article?

    What processor would you choose from Intel instead of Ryzen 1700 and why?

    I'm really curious, I think that people are so used to use an Intel processor that they do not look around for other options.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. The Single Thread Rating is 1750 not the best not the worst but for sure there are more powerful cpu's out there take a look at an i7-7700k for example now that is a powerful cpu for minecraft (Single Thread Rating is 2335)

    Edit: And about that overpriced thing it's the exact same price
     
    #4 FreeKillGR, Apr 19, 2017
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2017
  5. Brands and what some people that call themselves the majority say should not influence your opinion. AMD has always produced well-working quality products that are in my experience very reliable. This does not mean they are the best ones or better than Intel processors, though. They are clearly not according to what I know, but depending on what you need, they can still be a good choice.
     
  6. That's why I'm so into Ryzen 1700, Intel offers a minor gain on single thread but has only FOUR cores for the same price! Also they're much much hotter than Ryzen 1700, I have seen videos that with the box cooler it's possible to make the Ryzen 1700 to 4.0ghz maintaining a low temperature!

    Edit: Some motherboards are capable of work with ECC memory on Ryzen 1700!
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. Ohh, well to be really honest, I was too lazy to read it all haha.
    The I7-6700K would be fine. You don't need many cores for MC hosting.
    Minecraft is a single-threaded game, in case you did not know. :)
     
  8. electronicboy

    IRC Staff

    Because benchmarks, time and time again, have been proven to literally be the worse measurement of real-world performance?

    There is also this amazing cycle, which anybody in the industry will see time and time again: AMD is a cornerstone of cheap hardware that people go to because gotta save a few (admittedly hundred) bucks, AMD finally push out something with a great price -> performance ratio, especially in comparison to intel, generally just below or above, and everybody goes crazy, few months down the line, Intel drop something out that smashes AMD back into the corner.

    AMD CPUs are also known to have issues with thermal dissipation, which for a server is a bit of a concern given that servers generally have tight enclosures and aren't really designed to handling the thermal dissipation of a space heater. that CPU in a server might be fine for you, but in the enterprise world, it has several dozen areas of issues, AMD on the tagline being one of them.

    over the years, AMD has made a name for themselves as budget hardware, however, they generally have concerns in regards to thermal dissipation, benchmarks saying something completely opposite to the real world, and general performance issues over threading (or applications not threading) and overall have somewhat of a gray name beyond the budget gaming world.

    Intel offers several CPUs of the same caliber (Well, even better than the ryzen), only pinch from them is in the wallet; but considering the issues that AMD tend to have, as well as intel CPUs generally getting more love from stuff like compilers to take advantage of the crazy advanced features of the CPU that might actually give it the leading edge, information literally on intels page as to the limitations of the chip from a technological view (e.g. how much ram can this CPU take), the longer time it takes for them to earn the price of the box (Also remembering that hosting companies also generally get these chips for a nicer price via bulk sales then end users might see), intels offering really isn't all that bad, especially with the reputation that intel have of actually delivering what they say they're going to deliver.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  9. Partially agree on this with you, but right now Ryzen TDP lower, so it's way better than the expensive Intel counter part, one does not compare Intel temperatures with any Ryzen and say it's a problem, clearly Intel is the hot guy and energy hungry now, it takes 140w for Intel to compete with 95w Ryzen eight core.

    I'm really impressed by the article I mentioned, I was expecting a good product but not that good! They're competing against Dual Xeons.

    As you probaly have more knowledge on these matters, what Intel counterpart would you pick to outprice and outperformance agains't Ryzen 1700 ? I don't see any real competitor on Intel counterpart.

    Only small servers worries too much about single thread performance, large servers tends to have multiple spigot instances ;)
     
  10. electronicboy

    IRC Staff

    I never said that intel directly outprice AMD, Intel do so with their namesake. E5-2673 is a few hundred bucks more, yet has performance advantages over the ryzen from a benchmark site that I visit often, https://www.cpubenchmark.net, I use these guys because their results are generally more accurate than sites which rely on others benchmarking on often poor computers. I can't find many specific benchmarks for that model other than one that is somewhat concerning, (and from a user benchmark site, where you have to trust that the users hardware is setup properly and that they're not using bad/faulty hardware somewhere).

    You go to the shop for some shoes, what do you grab; the supermarkets clothing lines pair, or a pair from a company that you see advertised all over and know dozens of people wear without complaint? I feel that we all know the option most would pick here if money wasn't a concern, and for hosting, people would rather not concern over saving cash as much as they are concerned about the reliability of the chips inside their machines.

    You have to remember, the reputation of a companies name means a lot, especially on hardware that you want running 24/7, while yes, Ryzen may have finally delivered on AMDs promise, delivering a CPU with a lower power usage and TDP (unless you overclock, apparently that turns around quickly), the problem is: in the past, they've promised and promised, and shit has generally hit the fan. first platform releases are generally a mess, e.g. the clock bug (an instance of a software bug causing issues with the CPU), and have various other issues such as potential CPU firmware issues that haven't been caught yet, that first platform releases for a server are just a no-no for most companies. Wouldn't really be nice to have a server running and then you get hit with some edge-case microcode issue and the machine drops.
     
  11. First of all its not a minor gain it's a lot and especially when you are talking about minecraft since all the servers are single-threaded and remember we are talking about the exact same price point

    Second its not only 4 cores its 4 cores with Intel's Hyper-Threading Technology


    BTW let me remind you who has the the worst reputation about over heating

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]










     
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
  12. electronicboy

    IRC Staff

    When it comes to more than a handful of servers, throwing more cores towards the issue is generally the best solution. We're always going to be limited between number of cores vs core performance (at least for the foreseeable future), single core performance means jack sh** if you have 10 processes trying to squeeze all they can out of a thread when you only have 8 of them on your CPUs. I generally say to budget 1.5 cores per instance, which is somewhat of a "much more than generally needed", think the lowest I'd ever say is probably around ~.8 cores per instance, even on that you get to the point where having a few instances makes you question if a cpu with a ton of cores is better than a CPU with a few powerful cores.
    nb: worth noting that you also need to leave cores for the OS itself, because you know, OSes generally have services running, like networking...

    Ironically speaking, I did have a friend who built an AMD rig a few years back when everybody thought that we'd seen be seeing CPUs with more cores than transistors who used to keep his bedroom window open in winter in order to offset the heat his machine was creating... (He also had a GPU or two that didn't really help with the matter either). FOR THE MEMES!
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  13. Hyperthreading is shit and does nothing except slow down the cpu when it is running under a full load. Oh, and Ryzen has logical processors as well.
    The only time splitting a core in half makes sense is when you are under a load so light it does not matter anyway, and nobody will ever notice the nanoseconds saved.
    Ryzen does not overheat unless you do something horribly wrong. It can reach maximum clock speeds with the stock air coolers.
    Fact check before you shitpost.

    Unless you need that 5% higher single-core performance to get 400 FpS in DotA 2, there is no reason to buy an i7 right now, and a xeon is on an entirely different price level for a small performance gain.
     
  14. I never said that Ryzen over heats i just pointed out that reputation thing mentioned above and hyper threading has some pros but cons as well, of course its better to have physical cores but you can't say that an Intel cpu has just 4 cores
     
  15. electronicboy

    IRC Staff

    erm, it literally does have 4 cores. 2 threads per core, but still only 4 cores.
     
  16. Also hyperthreading is no shit at all and it dosen't slow down the cpu in any way, also hyper threading is nothing like splitting a core its more like splitting the work load

    You have 2 helicopters one has guns one doesn't it would be a shame to call the one with the guns just a chopper. You get my point :p
     
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
  17. Yes, i can, because it does.
    Hyperthreading gives dubious performance gains in situations with light loads, and does nothing under heavy loads except reduce performance by an equally negligible amount.
     
  18. I can agree on the part with the light loads but i doesn't slow down the cpu under heavy loads it just doesn't help as much.

    How can two threads slow down the cpu if its under load ?? They will just wait until the process is finished and throw in the next process it doesn't make any sense to me.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  19. Isn't the 1700(X) 8 cores / 16 threads !?

    Thinking of more than one server instance and/or network threads / obfuscation... i don't know much about specific details of real server load, but it could be a crafty alternative that also supports (unbuffered unregistered) ECC memory for some budget. Single core still is important and most of the Bukkit event stuff and server internals processing runs in it, though.

    Concerning hyper threading ~ in theory it should reduce the cost of switching between threads of the same server instance (jvm), so it could help a little in scenarios where that is necessary (... uh ... Orebfuscator, networking threads, plugins that make use of asynchronous processing extra to networking threads ...). Has anybody ever done or seen a comparison under a "model load", i.e. what HT is supposed to be good for? (Wild guess medium load, lots of io/other waiting threads occasionally processing something ... things sum up to seemingly high load due to context switching <- that idea, but has anybody seen a comparison of HT with HT switched off with Minecraft?)
     
  20. electronicboy

    IRC Staff

    the problem with HT is that all of the bulk mass of transistors where the actual work occurs is shared, it's only really the pipelines and a few less important stuff that are actually "duplicated". The problem is, while the actual processing core is being used, the thread that isn't using it is blocked, hence why kernels generally specifically need to be aware of the fact that a CPU is hyperthreaded in order to schedule work between threads in a way that doesn't hurt performance too bad just because a single thread is getting taxed.

    the problem is that there is no real way to nicely handle features such as HT, while applications can be designed to take advantage of them and avoid the disadvantages, for general computing and software, it's generally hard to do, especially when you're not really working in an area where you really wanna limit your threads to only running on certain threads so you can finely tune it. while a nice feature to have in most workloads where you're not really pounding the CPU much, it has advantages, the moment you start throwing a lot of work, the sooner you'll notice that a computing core can only do so much.

    There have also been numerous cases where people have disabled HT and gained a nice performance boost in heavy workloads. for MC, the advantage of disabling HT would likely be marginal at best, for the server, most likely depends exactly on your server and the amount of load.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1