• 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) ***

Seriously considering downgrading my PC to a Ryzen 5 2400G on release. I use my PC for so little these days that it will be ideal for me. Only really play a couple of low demanding PC games that should be fine on 2400g graphics? Mainly use Xbox One X and N Switch these days.

Good time to re coup money on selling parts too. Yeah I think I'm gonna do this, when can I pre order ?!
 
I'm going to indulge in some Ryzen 2 speculation and what it might mean for competition with Intel, if i may?

Should Intel be concerned about Ryzen 2?
What would Ryzen 2 have to be to make Intel's Mainstream flagship, the 8700K look a bit daft if not completely ridiculous at their usual pricing?

To that last question i would argue: not a lot.

I have had a couple of weeks with my own 1600 now and for me it is a massive improvement over the 4690K its replaced, but its not competing with a fifth generation Core i5 is it?
We have to compare it to an eighth generation Intel, the 1600 is priced the same 'slightly less actually' than a Core i3 8350K but that's a 4 core 4 thread vs a 6 core 12 thread... which is a point of contention, the 8700K like the 1600 has 6 cores 12 threads but is it really not completely idiotic comparing a £165 CPU to a £360 one just because it has the same number of compute threads? What about the 8600K at £230?

Well, my argument right now is unless all you do is play old games the 8350K is out of it given aside from that the 1600 is better in every-other conceivable way, often vastly better.
The 8600K is more justifiable, it looses to the 1600 in Multithreaded workloads, don't believe me look it up, at 5Ghz the 8600K scores about 1200 points in Cinebench while at 4Ghz the 1600 scores about 1330 points, a difference of about 10%.
Having said that in single threaded workloads 'yes i do believe that also matters' the 8600K is scoring about 215 points vs about 170 points for the 1600 at 4Ghz, so the 8600K is about 25% faster in those low threaded workloads, for some people that is worth the extra 40% cost, that's perfectly reasonable.

Now here is the but, where Ryzen 2 comes in, if the 8700K is scoring 1620 in Cinebench then if the Ryzen 2600 just has a 10% higher clock rate the 2600 would already be scoring 1460, that would put Intel's £360 mainstream flagship just 10% faster in Multithreaded, 15% in low threaded workloads, again this is with AMD's sub £200 mid range 6 core just 10% better than it is now, i would argue 10 to 15% better for 80% more money makes the 8700K look ridiculous, and the 2800X in Multithreaded would humiliate it.

What if Ryzen 2 is 15% better? not at all inconceivable, that would make the £360 8700K just 5% faster than the £190? Ryzen 5 2600.
 
humbug said:
What would Ryzen 2 have to be to make Intel's Mainstream flagship, the 8700K look a bit daft if not completely ridiculous at their usual pricing?
Click to expand...

8700k would look daft vs a 4.5ghz 8-core with slightly higher IPC than in the current Ryzens. Narrow the single thread performance gap, keep to 65w, and it'll be killer chip, even for those of us (myself included) who find that 1-2 threads are their bottleneck.

Fingers x'd for later this year, tbh :)
 
d_brennen said:
10% uplift is possible with a mild clock bump alone, let alone any cache/infinity fabric/imc tweaks. According to AMD there is some "low hanging fruit" in Zen so 15% is more than possible
Click to expand...

15% in cinebench perhaps sadly does not translate to common programs that still require brute Force.
 
Well, considering I'm gaming at 4k then a 12c/32t Ryzen 2 mITX system is definitely an option for me in the Spring! I'm guessing at 4k there will be nothing in it between an Intel chip and one?
 
I just want to add right here; that, to come up with these numbers to then base my calculations on i used my own 1600, which is running on a £75 Motherboard with pretty slow and not great Corsair LPX 2933 CL16 Memory, its a long way from 'best case scenario' its actually very average.

I did this deliberately to avoid exaggerating the base line numbers to inflate the calculated end results, I didn't pull up higher scoring results from the internet because they are not realistic for the real 24/7 world. i would ask anyone wanting to challenge this to acknowledge that first. Or it will just turn into circular arguments about who can pull the most fantastical results out of their arse to win a completely ambiguous peeing competition. really, just no.
 
Last edited:
humbug said:
I have had a couple of weeks with my own 1600 now and for me it is a massive improvement over the 4690K its replaced, but its not competing with a fifth generation Core i5 is it?
Click to expand...
I think the generation argument is a bit redundant considering barely anything happened between Haswell and Skylake in terms of IPC (5% on average maybe), and nothing has happened since then. All that has improved is stock and maximum clock speeds (from around 4.5 to 5.0 GHz). That equates to ~10% more performance. The biggest difference really is the introduction of 6 core CPUs in Coffee Lake (something that Intel had to do to compete with Summit Ridge) and the subsequent shift in pricing.

humbug said:
We have to compare it to an eighth generation Intel, the 1600 is priced the same 'slightly less actually' than a Core i3 8350K but that's a 4 core 4 thread vs a 6 core 12 thread... which is a point of contention, the 8700K like the 1600 has 6 cores 12 threads but is it really not completely idiotic comparing a £165 CPU to a £360 one just because it has the same number of compute threads? What about the 8600K at £230?
Click to expand...
You can compare in any number of ways. Doing like-for-like core comparisons, Intel clearly wins. Doing price-for-price comparisons, AMD clearly wins.

humbug said:
Well, my argument right now is unless all you do is play old games the 8350K is out of it given aside from that the 1600 is better in every-other conceivable way, often vastly better.
The 8600K is more justifiable, it looses to the 1600 in Multithreaded workloads, don't believe me look it up, at 5Ghz the 8600K scores about 1200 points in Cinebench while at 4Ghz the 1600 scores about 1330 points, a difference of about 10%.
Having said that in single threaded workloads 'yes i do believe that also matters' the 8600K is scoring about 215 points vs about 170 points for the 1600 at 4Ghz, so the 8600K is about 25% faster in those low threaded workloads, for some people that is worth the extra 40% cost, that's perfectly reasonable.
Click to expand...
Agreed on all points, although you're only talking about CPUs here. There are other factors like the platform, the fact that Ryzen scales slightly better with quicker RAM, the fact that Intel motherboards are more expensive (at the moment), etc.

Also I assume your 215 single threaded score for the i5-8600K is at 5 GHz?

humbug said:
Now here is the but, where Ryzen 2 comes in, if the 8700K is scoring 1620 in Cinebench then if the Ryzen 2600 just has a 10% higher clock rate the 2600 would already be scoring 1460, that would put Intel's £360 mainstream flagship just 10% faster in Multithreaded, 15% in low threaded workloads, again this is with AMD's sub £200 mid range 6 core just 10% better than it is now, i would argue 10 to 15% better for 80% more money makes the 8700K look ridiculous, and the 2800X in Multithreaded would humiliate it.

What if Ryzen 2 is 15% better? not at all inconceivable, that would make the £360 8700K just 5% faster than the £190? Ryzen 5 2600.
Click to expand...
10% suggests maximum clock speeds of around 4.3 GHz for an R5 2600, which I think is reasonable. 15% would be 4.5 GHz, which I don't think will happen. I think we'll be lucky if the top-tier R7 2800X hits 4.5 GHz.
 
AMD vs Intel Performance comparisons will now need to state if the OS is patched for Meltdown/Spectre. AMD probably wont lose much, Intel cannot say the same. They should also benchmark game loading times and server pings as IO takes the biggest hit. After the OS patches and BIOS updates are out fully, things might look a bit different.
 
I recon 4.5 big ones is definitely on with the upcoming refresh, give another few points on top for architectural updates and 15% has got to be a good point for improvements.
And of course this is just a refresh to Zen v1, not the big update to 2 due in about 12 months or so.

Intel aught to be real worried.
 
If everything goes well for AMD, that 7nm zen could potentially take the top spot from Intel in a big way and without their historical process/fab advantages, Intel has to step up their game.
 
Frozennova said:
Architectural improvements, die shrink, different fab process.

15% is well within reach
Click to expand...

Yup, it's a die shrink, we're on v2 of some of the IPC type control processes and it's moving from "Low Power Plus" to "Lead Performance" fab process.
I personally think it'll be somewhere in the +10-15% range in gaming benchmarks over the equivalent gen 1 Zen.
All up in the air till we see benchmarks but even a straight 10% max reasonable overclock increase (so 4.3/4.4) seems about right. Add on minor IPC improvements with lessons learned from the first generation... 15% overall isn't at all silly.
 
Sumanji said:
Did they mention any dates for the Threadripper version of Zen+?
Click to expand...
2H of the year from the CES roadmap.

This is the CPU/APU product line, and along with new product lines, there are also some new refreshes.

  1. Ryzen 3 Mobile APUs: January 9th
  2. Ryzen Desktop APUs: February 12th
  3. Second Generation Ryzen Desktop Processors: April.
  4. Ryzen Pro Mobile APUs: Q2 2018
  5. Second Generation Threadripper Processors: 2H 2018
  6. Second Generation Ryzen Pro Desktop Processors: 2H 2018
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom