Soldato
Same here.
Apparently intel is rumoured to be releasing a 12 core 24 thread Skylake-X cpu in future to try to counter Ryzen.
-
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" thread (inc AM4/APU discussion) ***
- Thread starter Boomstick777
- Start date
Same here.
Apparently intel is rumoured to be releasing a 12 core 24 thread Skylake-X cpu in future to try to counter Ryzen.
Soldato
Genuine question here, is 4k points difference in single thread a big deal? Only reason I ask, my 3770k still seems decent enough, obviously gets annihilated in multi thread, but single thread will I really see a big difference upgrading to a 1700x/1800x?
Soldato
so whats all the fuss about single threaded scores on various forums then? who really cares lol.
Who just uses one core these days on a mutli core chip? Only thing worth looking at is the multithreaded scores, I didn't really get the focus on just one core hence why I asked the question.
Who just uses one core these days on a mutli core chip? Only thing worth looking at is the multithreaded scores, I didn't really get the focus on just one core hence why I asked the question.
Caporegime
The memory in the Chinese leak was apparently running at 2133MHZ.
The hype tram has now become the hype Maglev - everybody lower their harnesses for the ride ahead!!
The hype tram has now become the hype Maglev - everybody lower their harnesses for the ride ahead!!
Not all applications are multithreaded (although almost all modern ones are)
A lot of older games would only Peg one, maybe two cores for usage. Hence people still going about about single core performance; although from last year, more and more games are becoming multi-threaded.
Some would gobble up any and all you can provide, even if those 8 cores are up to 1Ghz slower overall e.g 7700K 4.2Ghz base 4.5Ghz boost vs 5960X 3.0Ghz base 3.5Ghz boost.
IPC is important yes, but you need to find the balance for your average usage. I game a lot, love it all, and play WoW a lot which is horribly dependant on strong single core performance and IPC; but I also do video editing, and play other games were Multi-core is important.
So looking at both Single core and multi core is important, and you need to find the balance between the two for your needs.
https://www.computerbase.de/2017-02/cpu-skalierung-kerne-spiele-test/#diagramm-f1-2016-fps
Soldato
There a quite a few popular games that still rely on having good single threaded performance, world of tanks has already been mentioned. A lot of mmo's don't use more then 2 cores so this is why people care about single thread.
It also helps when developer release a ****** console port, in the past i7's and the like would have just brute forced it.
Not all computer tasks can really be multi-threaded so it is relevant. It depends on your workload. If all you do is use Microsoft Office you might want higher single threaded performance compared with multiple cores. Some tasks like encoding video can use as many threads as you can throw at them. Some tasks such as network tasks inherently run on a single core and can't really be spread out amongst multiple cores. As a general rule if something is basically a serial process like taking an input and outputting an output it will run on a single core. If something is parallel like encoding video (split each frame up by the number of cores and have each core work on that part of the frame) it can use as many cores as you have. Some tasks are sort of inbetween like a programming environment. You can run the editor and other processes on different cores and then when you compile you can split compilation over multiple cores.
Caporegime
Yet as mentioned PS2 is like that - remember earlier in the thread somebody mentioned going from an overclocked SB CPU to an overclocked SKL one didn't really help. It mirrors my experience with the game using SB and IB CPUs,mates having Haswell and FX ones too.
I have played other games which are like that - if performance crashes during certain fights it tends to be a limitation of the game,and 10% or 20% here or there won't fix things.
Games like EVE are a famous example of that as are some RTS games which use time dilation to get around the excessive load.
People obsess about ST performance and it were the only massively important metric out there and games did not thread,everybody would buy a Core i3 7350K and overclock it to 5GHZ.
Its one thing having a 50% to 60% difference in ST performance but when it narrows to much less than that,you are starting to hit diminishing returns.
Last edited:
I do, I run a lot of emulators where single core performance is king and they rarely use more than 2 cores.
If I'm to switch from my i5 4690K (4.5Ghz) I want to know that a Ryzen 1600X will not mean taking a hit on frame rates in said emulators.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
If the chips are good then they sell anyway, pre-orders and post-orders are the same orders, selling the same chips.
I'll say this now, there will be a few places Zen beats the 7700k for single thread performance, there will be a lot of places it WON'T beat the 7700k for single threaded performance. If you pick the corner case scenario in which Zen is 50% higher in single thread performance(this could well happen with any benchmark that fits into a 512KB L2, but not a 256kb L2) then you've set an expectation AMD will fail miserably with.
AMD seems to have given reasonable comparisons and the 52% IPC increase is seemingly the lowest improvement over Excavator yet it's still incredibly impressive, so why use 64% or something that it's faster in cinebench then have people see it 54% faster in something else and complain.
There is nothing to win except a backlash when you use the best case scenario and when the worst case is SO good, you can only look better from reviews.
For all of these really, first up, it doesn't matter when the NDA is, if they brought it forwards, any potentially fake and misleading leaks would also be brought forwards that is how fake leaks work. Fake leaks can have more credibility once you know reviewers have them because you also know there will be more real leaks as well.
If the NDA finished on the 28th, leaks start on the 24th, if the NDA finished on the 2nd of Feb, leaks happen on the 28th of Jan, and on and on. End of NDAs isn't just arbitrary as people seem to think. You're talking about producing literally millions of chips which takes time, you're talking about binning, packaging, boxing and shipping them to hundreds of countries and thousands of stores in time for launch. You can't just decide to bring an NDA forwards a week because everything is planned to happen at a given time and if you suddenly break the NDA and push everything forward you screw everyone involved. Even simply the reviewers, if you ended NDA on the 24th you'd get a few extremely rushed reviews potentially full of mistakes or lacking enough benchmarks to give a fair comparison. IE if someone wants to beat everyone else they run superpi the Witcher 3 and something else that all show the 7700k winning, but a longer review with 3 more games and 3 more cpu benchmarks show better performance on Zen. You also anger all those reviewers who had other work to finish or other obligations so planned to do their testing a couple days later, they now miss out on revenue from traffic and they are upset with AMD.
NDA's aren't often just moved forward, if they are it's usually for a massive paper launch of something that isn't out for months anyway. Think Fermi's first 'launch' around AMD's real launch and 6 months before Fermi was really available, if you're lying you aren't ruining pre-existing plans anyway.
There comes a point when you have "enough" single thread performance to cover these games though. You don't need a 7700K to run World of Tanks/Warcraft.
Cemu is probably the most demanding emulator out there right now and runs just fine on a Sandy Bridge chip. Given that there's no extra performance to be gained due to the set framerates of the original games, as long as you're meeting the base requirement to run at full speed (which Ryzen will do, since it's certainly above Sandy Bridge in terms of IPC), you can't lose any performance due to the rigid ceiling. Things such as increasing internal resolution are purely reliant on the GPU.
Permabanned
How many of you are expecting to receive your new parts on the 2nd?
World of Warcraft is a prime of example for overly relying on a strong single core, and even with over the top GPU power can crash and burn at times where you FPS simply tanks into the ground.
Add in over 80 people all duking it out in one spot, or an overwhelming horde of enemies and your'e going to drop FPS into the teens, all the way down from averages of the Hundreds.
FPS in top right corner under the mini map- First image is with SLI 980Ti Superclocked cards, second is with Fury X - Both with 5820K @4Ghz
This was the case for me with everything from E8400, Phenom II 940 BE, Xeon W3680, and current 5820K 4Ghz.
With GPUs ranging from 6600GT, 8800 Ultra, 4870X2, GTX 470, GTX 680, GTX 980, GTX Titan X, GTX 980Ti SLI, and Fury X.
Those nasty drops are essentially down to the game's engine being extremely old, and relying on a single CPU core mostly, with lots of current tech bolted on over the years.
I have people in my WoW guild with new systems with 6700K overclocked over 4.5Ghz and GTX 1080's all still suffering the same nasty FPS drops in similar situations as other members with i5 2500Ks at stock, or 4670Ks.
Last edited:
Associate
Soldato
WoW is essentially a 13 year old engine with bits bolted on, while it does use multiple cores, it doesn't do it well. My 3770k barely see's more than 30% activity no matter what I am doing. GPU barely breaks 50% either but thats likely because I limit the FPS to 60 to stop my ears from bleeding with the coil whine of my Fury X
Soldato
Go into any one of the 25 man legion raids and tell me that a 7700k is enough.
Caporegime
World of Warcraft is a prime of example for overly relying on a strong single core, and even with over the top GPU power can crash and burn at times where you FPS simply tanks into the ground.
Add in over 80 people all duking it out in one spot, or an overwhelming horde of enemies and your'e going to drop FPS into the teens, all the way down from averages of the Hundreds.
FPS in top right corner under the mini map- First image is with SLI 980Ti Superclocked cards, second is with Fury X - Both with 5820K @4Ghz
This was the case for me with everything from E8400, Phenom II 940 BE, Xeon W3680, and current 5820K 4Ghz.
With GPUs ranging from 6600GT, 8800 Ultra, 4870X2, GTX 470, GTX 680, GTX 980, GTX Titan X, GTX 980Ti SLI, and Fury X.
Those nasty drops are essentially down to the game's engine being extremely old, and relying on a single CPU core mostly, with lots of current tech bolted on over the years.
I have people in my WoW guild with new systems with 6700K overclocked over 4.5Ghz and GTX 1080's all still suffering the same nasty FPS drops in similar situations as other members with i5 2500Ks at stock, or 4670Ks.
I used to play D3 quite a bit and I had an IB Core i7,I knew people who had Haswell CPUs,FX ones,Phenom II X6s,etc and during large Rifts performance would crater for everybody. First the FX and Phenom II X6 ones would go and within a second or two it was the same for all of us - people here mentioned it too in the D3 thread.
Planetside 2 is more of the same - we had this discussion earlier in the thread. You can have like 200 people fighting at one point and performance can crater - people would moan even on overclocked Core i5s,etc. Again its the same thing someone mentioned in this thread they went from an overclocked SB Core i7 to a SKL one and it still had problems.
This is why 10% to 20% here or there means nothing for me in reality - its not going to magically fix the problems in the game.
Also,I do know a lot of WoW players(even though its not my cup of tea),and only one of them has an overclocked CPU(an FX one BTW) and none of them have a card over £300(since most are not really into PC hardware that much),so it probably is running even worse for the average player.
Luckily,it has a cartoony art-style so you can drop settings without much of a visual difference. Interestingly one of my mates mentioned some of the add-ons are very poorly optimised and he just changed to another one and it actually had a decent performance boost.
That's the game's engine issues, it barely uses those two cores; even at 4.5-5Ghz though. Having run my 5820K at stock - 4Ghz and 4.3Ghz in those scenarios it'll tank to matter what in some cases.
The same applies to folks with 6700Ks, and 5960X's, or the little 2500K at stock; barely uses 2 cores as it is.
The engine is ancient by gaming standards, and the best thing they can do in the future is try and adapt it to Vulkan or DX12 to try and offset that horrible CPU dependency, or allow the use of more cores.