@humbug because that's how you do IPC differences between architectures or should we use 256bit wide instructions to make Intel seem light years ahead or should we use AES ones to make AMD seem light years ahead?
You do a little bit of everything to see proper differences in IPC, not just 1 workload.
If you took that Cinebench """IPC""" slide for granted you'd think the 2700X would be faster than an i5 8400 in gaming, given the Pinnacle Ridge to Coffee Lake """IPC""" difference, according to that slide, is only 2.7% but the R7 2700X turbos 300Mhz or 7.5% higher than the i5 8400, but it's not:
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_7_2700X/13.html
@Panos
I posted the summary with the CPUs at 3.5Ghz, and I'm not sure how that relative one shows anything different?
Agreed and that's not what you did, you quoted one slide and then said.
excl 256b is what's most relevant to consumer workloads.
No it isn't,
and its just one workload, across most productivity workloads the 2700X beats the 8700K, in games at 1080P with a 1080TI the 8700K is about 10 to 15% better.
On the 8400, TPU's results are all strangely clustered within 10% of each-other at the top, clearly the way they do reviews it more a GPU bottleneck than CPU, the fact that the 4 core CPU's result the same as the 6 core ones i think speaks volumes about the poor quality of the review, they also only used about 10 games. which again is strange as before Ryzen they used to do 25 games, is the selection of games Intel win in running very low?
When done right actually the 2600 is better than the 8400 for gaming.
I would never recommend the 2700X as a pure gaming CPU, the 2600 for £160 results in exactly the same performance, that's 15% slower than the 8700K for £200 less money.
The 2700X is a good all rounder, a better rounded CPU than the 8700K.
Oh and far more secure.
Anyway, why did you bring AMD vs Intel back into this thread?
You're off topic can we get back on topic please?
It was going so well before you started the same tired old arguments again.