If its faster than a £300 8 core? Yes.
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
AMD Zen 3 (5000 Series), rumored 17% IPC gain.
- Thread starter AStaley
- Start date
- Status
If its faster than a £300 8 core? Yes.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Nov 2018
- Posts
- 2,841
The 5000 series have all had a 19% IPC increase over Ryzen 3000. So the 5600X @ 4.6GHz will perform like a 3600X @ 5.52GHz (4.6 + 19%)
Obviously a 3600X @ 5.52GHz would beat Intel's top line in single core. That's what a 5600X @ 4.6GHz is like.
I don't understand the fixation on number of cores. For a given performance level it's better to have as FEW cores as possible.
Not sure where you're getting the equal from as from what I can see the 3700X is still 13% faster in multicore and cheaper.
So long as its as fast as the previous gen 6 core then I guess some people are happy with this
Realistic results 24/7 clocks.
Score 547: Intel Core i7 8700K at 5.2Ghz, Radox-0
The best score.
Score 601: Intel Core i9 9900K at 5.7Ghz, RSR
Current Zen 2 the best score.
Score 559: AMD Ryzen R9 3900XT at 4.8Ghhz, MrPils
Zen 3 scores 640 at 4.9Ghz.
Zen 3 scores 10% higher than Intel with 16% higher clocks, a difference in IPC of 26%. Intel would have to be running at 6.2Ghz to match Zen 3's 4.9Ghz performance.
Score 547: Intel Core i7 8700K at 5.2Ghz, Radox-0
The best score.
Score 601: Intel Core i9 9900K at 5.7Ghz, RSR
Current Zen 2 the best score.
Score 559: AMD Ryzen R9 3900XT at 4.8Ghhz, MrPils
Zen 3 scores 640 at 4.9Ghz.
Zen 3 scores 10% higher than Intel with 16% higher clocks, a difference in IPC of 26%. Intel would have to be running at 6.2Ghz to match Zen 3's 4.9Ghz performance.
That is a very, very general statement. It depends on what you do on your PC. If you just game and browse then yeah, you can get away with 4-6 cores. But the moment you start doing productivity tasks of some significance and those apps are multi-threaded and take advantage of more cores, then going to 8-12 cores will wipe the floor with them. Games are also slowly starting to take advantage of additional cores.
An 8-core CPU is the current sweet spot for gaming and productivity performance... it's a shame the 5800x is so pricey at launch.
Yep, in a perfect world, we'd be running blisteringly fast single cores. There's nothing to commend multi-core, the only reason why super computers went down this route 40 years ago and PCs more recently is the limits of single core performance. There are overheads in multi-core architecture.So long as its as fast as the previous gen 6 core then I guess some people are happy with this
That is literally one of the most ignorant and/or hyperbolic statements I have ever seen on this forum. I mean really, just... lol...
No, this wrong. A single core CPU with the same raw performance as an 8 core will be faster, in everything. There's a overhead to multi-threading better to avoid.
1800X: $499 CB R20 ST score: 381 (100%)
2700X: $329 CB R20 ST score: 411 (108%)
3800X: $399 CB R20 ST score: 506 (133%)
5800X: $449 CB R20 ST score: 631 (166%)
The 2700X was $170 cheaper than the 1800X with 8% higher performance
The 3800X was $100 cheaper with 33% higher performance
The 5800X is $50 cheaper with 66% higher performance
The 1800X was $500 because it kicked the $350 7700K arse in MT.
The 2700X got a huge price reduction because Intel responded with the 8700K.
The 3800X got a $70 jump back up in price because it beat the $360 8700K.
The 5800X is getting a $50 price hike because Intel have nothing that can compete with it, yet its still $50 cheaper than the 1800X was.
2700X: $329 CB R20 ST score: 411 (108%)
3800X: $399 CB R20 ST score: 506 (133%)
5800X: $449 CB R20 ST score: 631 (166%)
The 2700X was $170 cheaper than the 1800X with 8% higher performance
The 3800X was $100 cheaper with 33% higher performance
The 5800X is $50 cheaper with 66% higher performance
The 1800X was $500 because it kicked the $350 7700K arse in MT.
The 2700X got a huge price reduction because Intel responded with the 8700K.
The 3800X got a $70 jump back up in price because it beat the $360 8700K.
The 5800X is getting a $50 price hike because Intel have nothing that can compete with it, yet its still $50 cheaper than the 1800X was.
Associate
- Joined
- 12 Jan 2003
- Posts
- 2,095
I think you've totally missed the point he is trying to make.
Multi-core is a necessity at this time because AMD / Intel have struggled with high IPC, high-frequency cores. In order to keep improving performance for multi-threaded applications, they have had to increase the core counts. Applications that don't have many threads suffer as a result.
If you had a sufficiently fast single core, it could do the same amount of work on a single thread in a fraction of the time freeing up other cycles for the other threads meaning it can execute just as many threads in the same time as a lower IPC, lower frequency multi-core.
This theoretical core would also process less threaded applications much more quickly.
You don't need more cores because you have more threads. You need more threads to make use of more cores.
And why not???
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2003
- Posts
- 20,167
- Location
- Woburn Sand Dunes
There's also an overhead when trying to processing multiple threads on a single core.
uh huh - if you watched AMDs presentation you'd know that a 4.8ghz zen 3 cpu puts up 630 in CB20 compared to 530 for the 10900k and yet you have some doubt that 4.6ghz zen 3 won't beat 530 points in CB20, uh huh. I'm so confident I'll take the 1k bet with you
So basically what you are saying is: "In a theoretical fantasy world that does not exist, a single 6 or 10 or whatever ghz core with insane IPC would be the best option", despite there being no such thing in the x86 world and likely never will be due to clear technological liitations? That wishful thinking makes multiple cores have "nothing to commend", despite the fact that they DO offer a lot of processing power?
You and him are engaging in fantasy and then making very silly hyperbolic statements off the back of it.
)
Indeed, but if we had supper fast single cores, we wouldn't have multi-threaded software.
Yes, that's the example to illustrate the point. Back in the real world it means that a suitably fast cored 6 core is a better choice than a slower cored 8 core. There's nothing specific to commend lots of cores. For a given number of GFOPS, it's better to have them delivered by a 4 or 6 core part than an 8 or 12 core.
Associate
- Joined
- 12 Jan 2003
- Posts
- 2,095
What fantasy?
Someone questioned if you would buy a 6 core over an 8 core if it is faster in ST & MT applications. The simple answer is yes you would and everybody buying a desktop PC should.
The rest was used to illustrate that it doesn't matter what you say about 8 core being a sweet spot, the number of cores is irrelevant when assessing the value of a purchase which can only be made against it's ST & MT performance.
Any hyperbole is your doing by failing to grasp the point being made, and talking about 'sweet spots' and the like which have no impact on the statement.
I know what point is attempting to be made, but I think it is irrelevant to the reality of the current CPU landscape.
- Status