Ryzen "2" ?

[BongoHunter]

Good release, nice price point, probably not quite worth it for an existing Ryzen owner unless you upgrade to something that has more cores - unless your a hardware nut or enthusiast (e.g. everyone here then!)

Might be worth holding of on mobo upgrades until we know a little more about the 490 chipset and release dates - looks promising if you want more PCIE but don't want to move up to TR system)

 

[Scougar]

I actually wonder if they rebench these systems, or just take old results.

 

[BongoHunter]

So will there be a 2950x on a Z490 chipset later this year?

I'm only just catching up on AMD cpus..

Z490 sounds like it will be for Ryzen3/5/7, but 2950X would be in the Threadripper naming range, so that would probably be an X499 chipset, won't know more about new TR until later this year.

 

[Matrix]

Asked this yesterday with little reply hoping someone could shed some light on this please for me

I run at present a 1700X ( not overclocked) on a Asrock Taichi X370 with 32gig Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4-3000 MHz.

I run 9/10 Virtual machines off it as well for other things i do would i notice a huge difference if i swapped over to the 2700x and also could i just swap the CPU out of my current build ?

Thank you

 

[smilingcrow]

Identical for any serious gaming, the AMD chip is better everywhere else.
What's actually left for Intel here? Price..? Seen some hefty discounts already. They seem to consider themselves licked and have gone for being the budget option.

For DAW usage look at the Tech Report review. Intel win by a large margin and are better value plus you don't need to buy a dGPU. That's why I'm about to build a CL rig.

 

[chrcoluk]

This will make humbug go super hyper.

It certainly caught my attention.

To this end, we found that, at a given frequency of 4.0GHz, our R7 2700X held stable at 1.175V input at LLC level 4, which equated to 1.162V VCore at SVI2 TFN. The result was stability in Blender and Prime95 with torturous FFTs, while measuring at about 129W power consumption in Blender. For this same test, our 1700 at 4.0GHz required a 1.425V input at LLC level 5, yielding a 1.425VCore, a 201W power draw – so 70W higher – and pushed thermals to 79 degrees Tdie. That’s up from 57.8 degrees Tdie at the same ambient.

source gamersnexus

So basically if you run a ryzen 2 200mhz or so below its limits, you can run the vcore "way" lower.

I would definitely take 0.3v of the vcore for -200mhz. I did it on my 8600k for a much lower vcore gain.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

thanks cat the fifth, actually a good show of cpus there, 8700k shamed by 8600k
8400 over performing I expect due to been on a Z series board
AMD 2xxxx chips healthy boost over 1xxxx chips.

Its a Creation based game - so one to two cores used,and 4 cores/threads at a very low level. Your Core i5 8600K is the ideal CPU for it,and apparently the Core i7 7700K.

For DAW usage look at the Tech Report review. Intel win by a large margin and are better value plus you don't need to buy a dGPU. That's why I'm about to build a CL rig.

DAW performance has improved massively over Ryzen 1 though:

https://techreport.com/review/33531/amd-ryzen-7-2700x-and-ryzen-5-2600x-cpus-reviewed/7








The Ryzen 5 2600X is now consistently ahead of the Core i5 8400,and looking at some of those scores,I suspect you would need a Core i5 8600K probably overclocked to match it.

 

[Doobedoo]

Got my finger on the trigger if it wasn't for the pesky ram prices I wouldn't even hesitate. To wait for Zen 2 or not too, that is the question.

 

[BongoHunter]

Asked this yesterday with little reply hoping someone could shed some light on this please for me

I run at present a 1700X ( not overclocked) on a Asrock Taichi X370 with 32gig Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4-3000 MHz.

I run 9/10 Virtual machines off it as well for other things i do would i notice a huge difference if i swapped over to the 2700x and also could i just swap the CPU out of my current build ?

Thank you

I use my system (spec in sig) for Virtualisation and find I'm memory limited and not CPU limited myself, you might find more perf for VMs in adding faster disks, or more memory.

Kind of depends on how your current system is being used - I saw a huge increase in performance by moving all my VMs onto NVME storage

Not saying the 2700x won't be quicker - but there might be a better upgrade out there if your not currently CPU limited

 

[Matrix]

I use my system (spec in sig) for Virtualisation and find I'm memory limited and not CPU limited myself, you might find more perf for VMs in adding faster disks, or more memory.

Kind of depends on how your current system is being used - I saw a huge increase in performance by moving all my VMs onto NVME storage

Not saying the 2700x won't be quicker - but there might be a better upgrade out there if your not currently CPU limited

Thank you for your reply

Yes i have 2 x NVME storage one for my OS etc and the others to run the Vm's on .

Was just looking at the price for a the new 2700x and was more wondering what sort of overall performance it would give me if any as i don't play games etc really ( never got the time )

Thanks

 

[smilingcrow]

DAW performance has improved massively over Ryzen 1 though:
https://techreport.com/review/33531/amd-ryzen-7-2700x-and-ryzen-5-2600x-cpus-reviewed/7
The Ryzen 5 2600X is now consistently ahead of the Core i5 8400,and looking at some of those scores,I suspect you would need a Core i5 8600K probably overclocked to match it.

On average it's 14% better and a third more expensive.
Ryzen 2 improves only slightly in some tests and is noticeably better in others.
The 8700K is the best by about 28% making the 8700 non-K the best value by a decent margin.
I'll probably go with the 8400 but the 8700 at £249 is tempting for a DAW.

 

[chrcoluk]

Its a Creation based game - so one to two cores used,and 4 cores/threads at a very low level. Your Core i5 8600K is the ideal CPU for it,and apparently the Core i7 7700K.



DAW performance has improved massively over Ryzen 1 though:


The Ryzen 5 2600X is now consistently ahead of the Core i5 8400,and looking at some of those scores,I suspect you would need a Core i5 8600K probably overclocked to match it.

I think the same on say a 8 threaded game as logical cores dont help like real cores do in games. e.g. on FF15 a 8600k matches a 8700k yet if you have say a threadripper FF15 will use all its cores.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

On average it's 14% better and a third more expensive.
Ryzen 2 improves only slightly in some tests and is noticeably better in others.
The 8700K is the best by about 28% making the 8700 non-K the best value by a decent margin.
I'll probably go with the 8400 but the 8700 at £249 is tempting for a DAW.

Nah,I would not get the 8400 for that - even the Ryzen 5 2600 would be enough even if it is 10% slower than the 2600X,and since X370 boards are as low as £70,the 8400 is not very good value in comparison.

The Core i7 8700 probably makes more sense though.

I think the same on say a 8 threaded game as logical cores dont help like real cores do in games. e.g. on FF15 a 8600k matches a 8700k yet if you have say a threadripper FF15 will use all its cores.

They won't to the same degree as a proper cores since HT is only really a way of improving core utilisation to a degree. But it does have an effect,though in certain games and zero effect in others,ie,if you compare a 2C/2T CPU and a 2C/4T one and so on,even on a clean install,the latter on average will be faster. Even in FO4 it has a bit of an effect,but the game core scaling after 2 cores is tepid at best,but still has an effect.

 

[smilingcrow]

Nah,I would not get the 8400 for that - even the Ryzen 5 2600 would be enough even if it is 10% slower than the 2600X,and since X370 boards are as low as £70,the 8400 is not very good value in comparison.

The 2600 is £24 more plus I'd need a dGPU so the 8400 is better value for similar performance. Plus I want a board with dual M.2 x4 plus a decent array of video outputs.

 

[DoneADougalOnSofa]

Got my finger on the trigger if it wasn't for the pesky ram prices I wouldn't even hesitate. To wait for Zen 2 or not too, that is the question.

That was almost the dealbreaker for me. 16GB cost more than the motherboard... but it's done now, so hey-ho.

ALMOST opted for a mere 8GB to keep the costs down, but just couldn't do it. Go big or go home.

 

[chrcoluk]

Nah,I would not get the 8400 for that - even the Ryzen 5 2600 would be enough even if it is 10% slower than the 2600X,and since X370 boards are as low as £70,the 8400 is not very good value in comparison.

The Core i7 8700 probably makes more sense though.

to me the 8700 is pretty bad value, look at this data.

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-8700-vs-Intel-Core-i5-8600K/3940vs3941

Thats painting the 8700 in a good light as well as the multi tests are done on htt friendly workloads which are not common on a desktop.

If you willing to spend £80 more than a 8600k on a intel cpu you may as well get a 8700k.

htt is definitely not worth £80 "and" lower per core performance.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

to me the 8700 is pretty bad value, look at this data.

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-8700-vs-Intel-Core-i5-8600K/3940vs3941

Thats painting the 8700 in a good light as well as the multi tests are done on htt friendly workloads which are not common on a desktop.

If you willing to spend £80 more than a 8600k on a intel cpu you may as well get a 8700k.

TBH,anything over 8 threads(logical or not) is wasted in gaming,currently as consoles are limited to 8 threads,and Intel's HT tax has always been stupid.

The only reason I have a 4C/8T IB CPU since its one of the Xeon E3 ones,which basically Core i5 level pricing and I don't really overclock(SFF system).

 

[DoneADougalOnSofa]

The really annoying fact is that, despite just receiving my DPD text message, I have no time off til Tuesday, so you lot are going to have your new kit up, running, singing and dancing before I've even had a chance to open the box.

 

[chrcoluk]

I am saying it which was previously unknown to me, at the 8700 price point, if you have a htt friendly workload, spend it on ryzen 2 instead.

So yep my current thinking is if you need per core performance, then intel 8600k.
If you need highely threaded performance then go ryzen 2.
It gets in a gray area if you want both. Maybe a enthusiast intel chip or something.

To me ryzen 2 has sort of made 8700,8700k's position dodgy. I think no question intel need to make the i7 8 core on their next chips to compete with AMD now.

 

[Loque]

I literally just got my text message too