I am excited for the launch of AMD's 3rd-gen Ryzen CPUs in 3 days. In theory, these may be able to outperform Intel at similar power consumption. Where Intel has the advantage of Quick Sync providing H.264 decoding hardware acceleration, AMD should have the advantage of more cores and significantly better energy-efficiency (finally), so I am thinking the 12 and 16 core models will probably be a step above the 9900K in
Blue Iris. However, to take full advantage of better efficiency, it will be necessary to use a very efficient graphics card and maybe also an older AMD motherboard. The new X570 motherboards are said to draw 15 watts all on their own.
This is interesting to me,
I like all things computer related,
I have a ryzen gen2 cpu desktop as a daily user for work and play circa £800 build approx 2 years ago, but nothing fancy.
My BI machine is a HP elite desk with 6th gen i5 in there.
The ryzen pc has 16gb ram and the HP has 8.
Whst I found really interesting is that as a bit of fun I loaded BI on to both machines the ryzen only has the demo mode as I wasnt going to pay for a second license to just have a bit of fun.
The interesting part is the HP with all 9 cams loaded 2x3mp 6x2mp and 1x720p camera runs at about 40-50% cpu load this is using direct to disk and also quick sync.
On the rysem system same BI setup with all cams at same frame rates etc. Obviously no direct to disc and no quik sync,
Has all my other stuff on it and emails etc syncing in the background.
This runs at 30-35%
Haven't done any specific test for energy or anything as I was basically doing a fun test on CPU load.
I found that interesting because of the general conceous on here with regards Intel CPU's
Be interesting to hear
@fenderman thoughts on this as I appreciate his knowledge around these areas.
I'm not saying this is conclusive or trying to persuade anyone to actually use a ryzen system over an Intel as theres no proof other than my fun little load test to back anything up.
Just found it interesting