Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Dec 2015
- Posts
- 3,043
It's just showing that the 8700K can almost match the multi-thread performance of the Ryzen 1700.
-
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.
Intel to launch 6 core Coffee Lake-S CPUs & Z370 chipset 5 October 2017
- Thread starter AthlonXP1800
- Start date
It's just showing that the 8700K can almost match the multi-thread performance of the Ryzen 1700.
Exactly this. And this is showing ryzen in its best light atm.
3.9ghz with 3466CL14 ram.
Having 2 cores less and matching it is impressive.
Associate
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2007
- Posts
- 966
Those console CPUs are very weak with less performance than an Intel Quad; actual performance counts not the number of cores.
The Ryzen 7 was ~£280 when I just looked and when you consider you can buy an Xbox One S console bundle for £175 from Tesco right now that puts it into pricing perspective.
Ryzen 7 is not mainstream pricing for the general market which enthusiasts forget.
I can’t see high performance 8 cores becoming truly mainstream until both consoles and PCs move to the next process node.
The 1700 is £260. If intel match AMD for £350 then that's not really impressive.
Mostly because of it's clock speed advantage I would imagine. Just some rough maths.
6 x 4.7 = 28.2
8 x 3.9 = 31.2
It's good no doubt but Ryzen is according to AMD a worse case scenario. Once that clock speed improves so will the performance difference, and it will still likely be cheaper.
Coffee lake is great for those upgrading from something much older, not so much for someone who has relatively new tech and you wouldn't move from Ryzen either due to Zen 2 and it's likely improvements.
6 x 4.7 = 28.2
8 x 3.9 = 31.2
It's good no doubt but Ryzen is according to AMD a worse case scenario. Once that clock speed improves so will the performance difference, and it will still likely be cheaper.
Coffee lake is great for those upgrading from something much older, not so much for someone who has relatively new tech and you wouldn't move from Ryzen either due to Zen 2 and it's likely improvements.
Take price out of the equation and it is impressive.
Is it really showing in it's best light ? Mine is running 3200 ram at 16-16-16 and still got within a few points ?
Well, yes it is. Its been shown that 3466CL14 is the fastest configuration for ryzen.
3.8-3.9 is the best overclock you are likely to achieve on a 1700, 4.0+ are unicorns.
Its matching an 8c/16t cpu in physics with 2c/4t less. How can people not be impressed with that?
Why? 6 cores or not it's still a fair bit more expensive and still not as fast. Ryzen is a first gen cpu after all not a 8th gen.
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 May 2007
- Posts
- 3,221
I thought you had one for a moment there.
Still not as fast? It will have a significantly better single core performance and better multicore performance once overclocked.
That compare I showed was the best your going to get out of a 1700. The i7 is stock.
It's still 8 cores. And AMD are offering 8 cores and 16 threads for less than Intel's 4 core 4 thread chips. Not to mention any i7 quad core can spin up 8 threads and we have had those chips along with the FX for a very long time.
Totally depends on chip and motherboard prices. £100 for a decent board and £280 for the 8700K and I'll be impressed.[/QUOTE]
Given the current posted prices on 2 difference etailers, in UK the 8700K will land north of £360, not £280.
So someone could buy a 1700 and good board to overclock it for the money of the 8700K alone.
Yes but it's likely going to be £100 more expensive, you don't know the exact speed that chip is running at, you'll need to delid to get the best from it and the single will be similar to kabylake. Not to mention it's on a dead end platform and not to mention that Ryzen is a 1st gen architecture, 2nd gen will be better still and you'll be able to use the same motherboard.
Like I said if you were coming from nothing or an older chip then fine, if you need outright single core performance and are willing to pay for it then fine, but other than that, the multicore performance in relation to the 1700 is not that impressive.
Tell ya what Gavin, you have already made your decision, enjoy it when you get it. Some of us have made an alternative decision this time round. In my case from X58 975 to AM4, i'm going to stick with because it can only get better in the future. Unless Intel come up with something that really grabs my attention i will stay put. My guess though that Intel will be struggling in a pool of there own making for the next 2 to 3 years.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Dec 2015
- Posts
- 3,043
Did you take the price of the 3400C14 modules into account?
Already been covered a little further back.
Associate
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2007
- Posts
- 966
From where as not from OcUK ** No Competitors **
It could just as easily be a decent quad core with the same performance so the number of cores in this case is not the major metric.
PCs are different as they are bumping into limits in terms of IPC and clock speed so the jump to more cores is the only way forward right now so it is the major metric.
Consoles can stay at 8 and increase IPC and clock speed and gain a lot without needing to add more cores although maybe the next gen will be an 8c/16t chip!
Again, the i7 is not mainstream pricing and those AMD chips are not worth a mention due to their performance.
The issue here is when will high performance 8 core chips become mainstream which doesn't mean around £300 just for the CPU.
I can’t see that happening until both consoles and PCs move to the next process node.
Last edited by a moderator:
LOL, I'm not telling you or nobody else to change to anything.
I'm merely pointing out that a 6 core beating an 8 core is impressive.