Intel to launch 6 core Coffee Lake-S CPUs & Z370 chipset 5 October 2017

[~>Dg<~]

and old x99 5820k beats ryzens ingames clocked.cant help but laugh at your amd fanboism sometimes humbug.

you also are forgetting other intel chips which are also faster than the whole ryzen / threadripper chips at gaming.also the new chips coming.on coffee lake very soon.

 

[gavinh87]

@gavinh87 read above you, even the 1600X @ 4Ghz is beating out the 4.8Ghz 7700K in those heavy scenes, all be it not much it is there.

Cores, beyond a point it becomes irrelevant how many you have and IPC comes into play.
When coffee comes and both have an equal amount of cores this will change.

*If it doesn't I'll eat my words*

 

[Journey]

Cores, beyond a point it becomes irrelevant how many you have and IPC comes into play.
When coffee comes and both have an equal amount of cores this will change.

*If it doesn't I'll eat my words*

Does this mean you'll print the screen shots of the forum off, and photograph yourself eating them?

 

[Hagar]

Cores, beyond a point it becomes irrelevant how many you have and IPC comes into play.
When coffee comes and both have an equal amount of cores this will change.

*If it doesn't I'll eat my words*

Not only IPC but optimisation, the arguments will go on, no doubt about it

 

[gavinh87]

Does this mean you'll print the screen shots of the forum off, and photograph yourself eating them?

If cofeelake doesn't beat the 1800x in games then yes

 

[humbug]

Cores, beyond a point it becomes irrelevant how many you have and IPC comes into play.
When coffee comes and both have an equal amount of cores this will change.

*If it doesn't I'll eat my words*

Sorry if this comes off condescending, not its intention, unless you're Ryan Shrout

IPC again... sorry but IPC is a complete misnomer, given that even mainstream reviewers still compare different CPU architectures as linier IPC comparisons its perfectly understandable that normal folk follow that, the problem is they have no idea what they are talking about.

If CPU A is clocked at 100% vs CPU B at 130% and CPU B is 10% faster than CPU A then people like Ryan Shrout say CPU B has a higher IPC, it doesn't, Ryan Shrout is an idiot, in fact CPU A has a higher IPC, some 20 percentage points given the difference in performance is 10% out of 30% higher clocks. CPU A is doing more work per clock Cycle than CPU B (IPC) Instruction Per clock.

The i5 KabyLake runs an all core turbo of 4.1, the 1600X at 3.6Ghz all cores, that is a clock speed difference of 14%, add that to the fact that when pushed the 1600X is about 95% faster, thats about 110% higher performance per clock, the 1600X has 50% more cores and yes even more threads but the core and threads do not add up to that much performance if you wanted to say "KabyLake has higher IPC" it clearly doesn't....

With that out of the way its all a nonsense really, because you cannot compare the IPC in one architecture to another different architecture, i said this before in this thread but i'll say it again differently, architecture A has a higher IPC performing task A but lower in task B than CPU B. AMD and Intel CPU's are different performing differently during different tasks... different tasks can be in the same game moments apart.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

If cofeelake doesn't beat the 1800x in games then yes

i should hope it beats ryzen in games seeing as a 7700k beats ryzen in (most) games!

It'll be interesting to see if coffeelakes improved ipc and clocks can get it close to ryzens perf in multithreaded apps.

 

[roysters]

and old x99 5820k beats ryzens ingames clocked.cant help but laugh at your amd fanboism sometimes humbug.

you also are forgetting other intel chips which are also faster than the whole ryzen / threadripper chips at gaming.also the new chips coming.on coffee lake very soon.

I get second this, my monitor is set at 2560x1440 165hz and the 1800x (on overwatch) dips to about 135 - 170fps (epic settings) but the 5820k with a 1080ti does not shift below 175fps, doesnt bother me but something i just noticed incase anyway was wondering.

 

[humbug]

I get second this, my monitor is set at 2560x1440 165hz and the 1800x (on overwatch) dips to about 135 - 170fps (epic settings) but the 5820k with a 1080ti does not shift below 175fps, doesnt bother me but something i just noticed incase anyway was wondering.

Absolutely, yes, in another game you get the opposite, maybe not in anything you own, just to pre-empt the "no i don't" retort.

_______ me this is the point i'm trying to make, Intel and AMD are not the same, so they are not going to behave the same doing the same thing, one is better at this, the other at that....

PS: DG spends his life here trying to get a rise out of me, i'm not flattered, he's not impressive enough... he bores me.
Don't get sucked into it

 

[gavinh87]

Sorry if this comes off condescending, not its intention, unless you're Ryan Shrout

IPC again... sorry but IPC is a complete misnomer, given that even mainstream reviewers still compare different CPU architectures as linier IPC comparisons its perfectly understandable that normal folk follow that, the problem is they have no idea what they are talking about.

If CPU A is clocked at 100% vs CPU B at 130% and CPU B is 10% faster than CPU A then people like Ryan Shrout say CPU B has a higher IPC, it doesn't, Ryan Shrout is an idiot, in fact CPU A has a higher IPC, some 20 percentage points given the difference in performance is 10% out of 30% higher clocks. CPU A is doing more work per clock Cycle than CPU B (IPC) Instruction Per clock.

The i5 KabyLake runs an all core turbo of 4.1, the 1600X at 3.6Ghz all cores, that is a clock speed difference of 14%, add that to the fact that when pushed the 1600X is about 95% faster, thats about 110% higher performance per clock, the 1600X has 50% more cores and yes even more threads but the core and threads do not add up to that much performance if you wanted to say "KabyLake has higher IPC" it clearly doesn't....

With that out of the way its all a nonsense really, because you cannot compare the IPC in one architecture to another different architecture, i said this before in this thread but i'll say it again differently, architecture A has a higher IPC performing task A but lower in task B than CPU B. AMD and Intel CPU's are different performing differently during different tasks... different tasks can be in the same game moments apart.

Not at all
I found this an interesting read.
https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/ryzen-strictly-technical.2500572/
Written by someone that knows an awful lot more than dare I say, 99% of this CPU forum?

It compares the Single thread, multi thread (4c4t) and SMT vs HT perf @ 3.5ghz for each between excavator, zen, haswell and kaby. Over a LOT of different tests.

 

[roysters]

yeah thats true! and life is to short for me to test evey game on both systems! As long as it runs smooooth! either way, you can't go wrong...

brand loyalty... meh, im loyal to myself! lol

 

[humbug]

yeah thats true! and life is to short for me to test evey game on both systems! As long as it runs smooooth! either way, you can't go wrong...

brand loyalty... meh, im loyal to myself! lol

My feelings too... as long as you get what you want out of what you got, who cares...

 

[gavinh87]

i should hope it beats ryzen in games seeing as a 7700k beats ryzen in (most) games!

It'll be interesting to see if coffeelakes improved ipc and clocks can get it close to ryzens perf in multithreaded apps.

If benchmarks are to be believed then 8700k is on the heels of a 1700. Once overclocked I imagine it will be above the 1800x in single and multi.
Its a fantastic time if your are looking at upgrading, so much choice!

 

[humbug]

If benchmarks are to be believed then 8700k is on the heels of a 1700. Once overclocked I imagine it will be above the 1800x in single and multi.
Its a fantastic time if your are looking at upgrading, so much choice!

Hmm careful, i'm not going to dispute what you are sying but don't forget out of the box the 1700 runs at a lowly 3.0Ghz, i don't know what the all core boost of the 8700K is but i seem to have 4.3Ghz in my mind? that doesn't leave a lot of room for overclocking, 11% to bring it upto 4.8Ghz?

The 1800X run's at 3.7Ghz, thats 23% higher than the 1700.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

If benchmarks are to be believed then 8700k is on the heels of a 1700. Once overclocked I imagine it will be above the 1800x in single and multi.
Its a fantastic time if your are looking at upgrading, so much choice!

An 8700k beating an 1800X in multi threaded apps would certainly make for a compelling chip. Let's hope Intel don't get greedy price wise if that turns out to be the case.

 

[Journey]

If cofeelake doesn't beat the 1800x in games then yes

So if for example, you got Hardware Unboxed's 30 game average review, and they were neck and neck you'll renege? Since you can't just use a single title as a fair comparison, and then also average that across both the 1080Ti and Vega 64? All at 1080p obviously!

 

[gavinh87]

Hmm careful, i'm not going to dispute what you are sying but don't forget out of the box the 1700 runs at a lowly 3.0Ghz, i don't know what the all core boost of the 8700K is but i seem to have 4.3Ghz in my mind? that doesn't leave a lot of room for overclocking, 11% to bring it upto 4.8Ghz?

The 1800X run's at 3.7Ghz, thats 23% higher than the 1700.

Single core boost is 4.7ghz I don't think its unreasonable for it to be able to this this on all cores when looking at kabylake.
All core boost is 4.3ghz
According to leaks the 8700k 4.3ghz is more or less the same as a 1700 in multi at 3.0ghz



It will be close.

 

[gavinh87]

So if for example, you got Hardware Unboxed's 30 game average review, and they were neck and neck you'll renege? Since you can't just use a single title as a fair comparison, and then also average that across both the 1080Ti and Vega 64? All at 1080p obviously!

Yeah, Looking at the 7700k which the 8700k is based upon, I don't think it will have any issues beating the 1800x in games.

 

[humbug]

@gavinh87 Thats what i thought, you're only going to get another 10% out of it from stock.

An 8700k beating an 1800X in multi threaded apps would certainly make for a compelling chip. Let's hope Intel don't get greedy price wise if that turns out to be the case.

Yeah depends.

I think AMD have over saturated their CPU lineup, really the 1400 and 1500X should have been the 1200 and 1300X at that price, because they have such a long train of a product line there is little movement for pricing, if Intel do fight AMD on their terms then the 8700K would be no more than £350, in which case i would like to see the 1800X come down to that level, the 1700X at £300, the 1700 to £250, the 1600X down to £200 or just under, the 1600 down to £160, the 1500X down to £120 and the 1400 down to £90.

The 1200 and 1300X are excess fat.

 

[humbug]

CPU are becoming like GPU's already are, clocked up about as far as they will go, the 7700K is already like this @ 4.5Ghz on all cores, 4.8 to 4.9 is reality on those, thats well under 10%. actually its little over 5%.