Ryzen "2" ?

[David Bisset]

Ryzen did it I think? https://www.pcper.com/news/Processo...r-Starts-Today-Specs-and-Performance-Revealed

 

[Martini1991]

Ryzen did it I think? https://www.pcper.com/news/Processo...r-Starts-Today-Specs-and-Performance-Revealed

So it's just AMD breaking convention then.

 

[humbug]

They are and they aren't imo, It's good to see it gaming okay but it's not gaming great & still get's left behind by an 8700k. They are using the 8700k at stock which is why the 6700k often wins out, We know the 8700k clocks fairly well while this review gives the impression that the 2700x doesn't

I the review you are talking about the 8700K/8600K wins once, it wins in BF1, by 5%. everything else its margin of error on par.

Now i'm sorry but if you're complaining an "at most 5% lead for the 8700K" is not good enough for you one has to wonder what is?

Personally i find this idea that its not good enough unless it beats Intel's finest at gaming bizarre.

The 2600 with its 12 threads at the same clock speed will match the 2700X since 16 threads are not what make its gaming performance, beyond 8 threads its just clock speed, the 2600 is a £170 CPU, £150 cheaper for 95% to 100% the gaming performance of a £330 8700K.

I think that's fantastic.

 

[David Bisset]

So it's just AMD breaking convention then.

I don't like preorders being open before reviews seems weird. On CPUs I don't see it beyond placeholder pre-order listings for Intel CPUs tho it seems to be true on most segments to some degree e.g. nvidia cards, various SSDs etc. Bleh.

 

[Martini1991]

I don't like preorders being open before reviews seems weird. .

Seems like because AMD's done it on their last few launches it's now considered the norm.
Why am I not surprised.

 

[prjwebb]

I the review you are talking about the 8700K/8600K wins once, it wins in BF1, by 5%. everything else its margin of error on par.

Now i'm sorry but if you're complaining an "at most 5% lead for the 8700K" is not good enough for you one has to wonder what is?

Personally i find this idea that its not good enough unless it beats Intel's finest at gaming bizarre.

The 2600 with its 12 threads at the same clock speed will match the 2700X since 16 threads are not what make its gaming performance, beyond 8 threads its just clock speed, the 2600 is a £170 CPU, £150 cheaper for 95% to 100% the gaming performance of a £330 8700K.

I think that's fantastic.

Are you talking about the review that used a GTX 1070? I wonder why most of the results are on par?

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Are you talking about the review that used a GTX 1070? I wonder why most of the results are on par?

TBH,the only games I could think off where Intel would be noticeably better than AMD in,would be based on ancient engines which don't thread very well,and where an overclocked Core i5 6600K/7600K or Core i7 6700K/7700K would more or less match an overclocked Core i5 8600K or Core i7 8700K.

Anything reasonably modern which threads well would probably be fine even on an IB or Haswell Core i7 TBH - its like with my IB Core i7,almost all newer games I play at qHD with a GTX1080FE are more GPU limited anyway,and only a small number of games like some older RTS ones,etc might show a useful improvement going to an overclocked Core i7 6700K/7700K,etc. Its not surprising when you consider many newer titles have to take the consoles into consideration too.

Its why if AMD can hit closer to 5GHZ with core IPC improvements,uncore improvements,etc with Ryzen 2,I suspect even that Intel advantage will be more or less not really be there either(unless OFC Intel manage to find some big core IPC or uncore improvements next year).

 

[humbug]

Are you talking about the review that used a GTX 1070? I wonder why most of the results are on par?

I am, and i have addressed that, don't get yourself worked up i'm forging my own proposition that because of that fact the review is useless. when someone looks at a review like that and sees Ryzen two 95 to 100% the performance of the 8700K and complains the performance is not good enough.... well read the post you quoted, in my view all things considered its a ridiculous thing to say.

 

[prjwebb]

TBH,the only games I could think off where Intel would be noticeably better than AMD in,would be based on ancient engines which don't thread very well,and where an overclocked Core i5 6600K/7600K or Core i7 6700K/7700K would more or less match an overclocked Core i5 8600K or Core i7 8700K.

Anything reasonably modern which threads well would probably be fine even on an IB or Haswell Core i7 TBH - its like with my IB Core i7,almost all newer games I play at qHD with a GTX1080FE are more GPU limited anyway,and only a few small number of games like some older RTS ones,etc might show a useful improvement going to an overclocked Core i7 6700K/7700K,etc.

As far as averages I'd say you're right. But I get some big drops in places on ryzen where I think an 8700k would not.

 

[Martini1991]

As far as averages I'd say you're right. But I get some big drops in places on ryzen where I think an 8700k would not.

Sometimes it can be where a few threads are dominant. If those threads max out the cores they're running on then they'd obviously run faster on one that has more grunt per core.

That said, thinking something wouldn't happen on another processor unless tested can't be taken as fact.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

As far as averages I'd say you're right. But I get some big drops in places on ryzen where I think an 8700k would not.

Again,some of those drops might be nothing to do with the CPU - some of the drops can be down to engine limitations or even I/O bottlenecks too. I remember when D3 came out,it did run better on Intel/Nvidia setups - I had higher FPS on my Xeon E3 1220/GTX660 than my mates overclocked FX6300/HD7870XT. However,during certain rifts FPS would plummet on his setup and mine,and even people with overclocked Haswell Core i7s saw the same. Yet play it now,and you wouldn't see the same issues.

Now fast forward to Overwatch and it runs really well on a lot of hardware.

Only titles based on older engines is where I even seen any realworld issues with an IB Core i7. Ryzen is faster than my CPU.

Edit!!

When I said Ryzen 2 I meant the 7NM Ryzen next year.

Sometimes it can be where a few threads are dominant. If those threads max out the cores they're running on then they'd obviously run faster on one that has more grunt per core.

That said, thinking something wouldn't happen on another processor unless tested can't be taken as fact.

Fallout 4 has that issue if you start pushing settlements,or NPC numbers,but also is I/O limited too(especially if modded). Its because the engine is ancient,ie,based on one which came out in the 1990s. It basically uses one to two threads at most,but they tried to make it multi-threaded but it only uses 4 more only very slightly,ie,its the worst of both worlds. Plus Bethesda has a history of poor optimisation too,so much so that modders can improve the visuals and also get better performance out of the game too. Then you have Sins of a Solar Empire which only uses one thread but is a 2008 game. Fast forward to AOTS and it actually runs much better than other RTS games we played like SupCom for example,so we now just play that instead.

Yet,all the newish titles based on remotely modern engines seem to run perfectly fine on my old IB Core i7 and a GTX1080 at qHD.

 

[humbug]

With a 1080TI at 1080P Ryzen one was never that far behind the 8700K, 10 to 25% and that's 25% for worst case older games, in fact i would challenge anyone to find 5 games where its worse than 15 to 20%.

If the gaming performance is 10% better on Ryzen 2 then its that much closer to the 8700K, yes of course the 8700K will retain its 'Gaming Performance' crown, if its by 10% i don't care about 10% not when its £170 vs £330 and that's not including the £150 cooling you have to put on the 8700K for it to maintain the clock speeds it needs to stay ahead of Ryzen 2.

If you're buying a 1080TI you're going to want the best, that is and will remain the 8700K, you don't care much about the £150 cooling you need for it when you're spending £1000+ on the GPU+CPU, or having to delid it if you want to overclock it by a bit more than a few %.

For everyone else, the 2600/2700 is perfect.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

People also need to consider,the saving on say buying a Ryzen 5 2600 over a Core i7 8700K can be put into a faster graphics card,a bigger SSD,etc which are just as important. Plus if you are buying a GTX1080TI it seems wasted at 1080p,ie,you should be aiming for qHD and 4K,IMHO OFC.

 

[sideways14a]

The 2700 is so much of a better cpu, it might not spit out quite as many fps in crap game engines as the 8700k but its more future proof, cooler, has threads a plenty and comes with a very decent air cooler that has RGB bits which is apparently all the rage... !
Intels response will be that special edition 8086k or something else wound up to a bajillion Mhz...

 

[humbug]

People also need to consider,the saving on say buying a Ryzen 5 2600 over a Core i7 8700K can be put into a faster graphics card,a bigger SSD,etc which are just as important. Plus if you are buying a GTX1080TI it seems wasted at 1080p,ie,you should be aiming for qHD and 4K,IMHO OFC.

Yes. There are a couple of people around here with 1080TI's and Ryzen CPU's, they have posted around here and they seem happy with their choice.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

The 2700 is so much of a better cpu, it might not spit out quite as many fps in crap game engines as the 8700k but its more future proof, cooler, has threads a plenty and comes with a very decent air cooler that has RGB bits which is apparently all the rage... !
Intels response will be that special edition 8086k or something else wound up to a bajillion Mhz...

Also the platform too,ie,the fact AMD will allow newer CPUs into existing boards,or the fact they said they will try their best to keep compatability on the platform,ie,it increases the chances of sourcing replacement motherboards easier if you have an older Ryzen CPU.

Yes. There are a couple of people around here with 1080TI's and Ryzen CPU's, they have posted around here and they seem happy with their choice.

Yeah one of them also posts on another forum I am on,and I helped out a bit with their upgrade.

 

[nashathedog]

I the review you are talking about the 8700K/8600K wins once, it wins in BF1, by 5%. everything else its margin of error on par.

Now i'm sorry but if you're complaining an "at most 5% lead for the 8700K" is not good enough for you one has to wonder what is?

Personally i find this idea that its not good enough unless it beats Intel's finest at gaming bizarre.

The 2600 with its 12 threads at the same clock speed will match the 2700X since 16 threads are not what make its gaming performance, beyond 8 threads its just clock speed, the 2600 is a £170 CPU, £150 cheaper for 95% to 100% the gaming performance of a £330 8700K.

I think that's fantastic.

No-one said that not beating the 8700k is not good enough,
All I'm saying is that that's how it does against a stock clock 8700k and as we know the 8700k is A, clocked low by default & B, A consistently good overclocker, Even the 6700k beats the 8700k in some of that reviews game results and that's because of the lower stock clocks, I don't think there's much of an IPC difference between the two Intel's mentioned but the 8700k's core count and overclock potential which makes it a 4.7 ghz or higher guaranteed chip will keep it beyond what the 2700x is likely to manage considering it's not going to have much left in the tank for overclocking. That's not me ragging on the 2700x it's me voicing my opinion based on what we know to date, I'll know more when I get mine but considering how closely priced it is to an 8700k if I wasn't planning on using it with my current motherboard & I was building new the 8700k would get the nod.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

No-one said that not beating the 8700k is not good enough,
All I'm saying is that that's how it does against a stock clock 8700k and as we know the 8700k is A, clocked low by default & B, A consistently good overclocker, Even the 6700k beats the 8700k in some of that reviews game results and that's because of the lower stock clocks, I don't think there's much of an IPC difference between the two Intel's mentioned but the 8700k's core count and overclock potential which is pretty much a 4.7 ghz or higher guaranteed chip which will keep it beyond what the 2700x is likely to manage considering it's not going to have much left in the tank for overclocking. That's not me ragging on the 2700x it's me voicing my opinion based on what we know to date, I'll know more when I get mine.

The clockspeed increase is around 10% which is not bad at all after only a year,but the bigger improvements might be when it comes to the IMC,etc.

Plus the cooler on the Ryzen 7 2700X itself looks fairly decent - remember you need to add cooling to the Core i7 8700K since Intel are cheapskates.

VRMs on the X470 boards also looking more beefy than the X370 ones,which might mean we will see some solid B450 ones too. I mean even X370 boards are now starting at £70!!

 

[humbug]

No-one said that not beating the 8700k is not good enough,
All I'm saying is that that's how it does against a stock clock 8700k and as we know the 8700k is A, clocked low by default & B, A consistently good overclocker, Even the 6700k beats the 8700k in some of that reviews game results and that's because of the lower stock clocks, I don't think there's much of an IPC difference between the two Intel's mentioned but the 8700k's core count and overclock potential which makes it a 4.7 ghz or higher guaranteed chip will keep it beyond what the 2700x is likely to manage considering it's not going to have much left in the tank for overclocking. That's not me ragging on the 2700x it's me voicing my opinion based on what we know to date, I'll know more when I get mine but considering how closely priced it is to an 8700k if I wasn't planning on using it with my current motherboard & I was building new the 8700k would get the nod.

The 8700K runs at 4.3Ghz all cores, provided the cooling is good enough, given that all reviewers use £150 of higher priced coolers when reviewing the chip what you see in all reviews is best case, some of those reviews on Asus boards the CPU is running at 4.7Ghz all cores.

4.3Ghz is not a low clock speed, pretty much all 8700K overclock to 4.8Ghz with good cooling, that's about a 10% overclock, not much more than what Ryzen 2 overclocks.

 

[Steveocee]

Yes. There are a couple of people around here with 1080TI's and Ryzen CPU's, they have posted around here and they seem happy with their choice.

I was one until my 8700K arrived this morning and what was going to be my 2700X drop in is now a full system rebuild. I was happy with the PC but all the fuss over 2700X performance etc got me looking at benchmarks and when I look at it, yeah the 2700X is shortening the gap but not by enough for me. I've spent £400 on a new CPU and board and will sell my old CPU and board without feeling too much of a wallet hit.

Yeah great a £300 drop in replacement part that can get closer to the current top spot. It's not the top spot though is it as you've pointed out many times? Although that does seem to be a variable placement depending on whether you are defending Ryzen or touting its merits.

I'm sure my <£150 Noctua will cope at 4.8Ghz just fine.