• 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.

Ryzen "2" ?

Doobedoo said:
Possibly :).

I'm not trying to over hype Ryzen anymore than I'm trying to downplay Coffeelake. Amd and Ryzen just excites me more than Coffee Lake and Intel does.
Click to expand...

Somewhat ironically coffeelake is the one Intel release that shouldn't be downplayed given it's 6 Intel cores on a mainstream platform capable of hitting 5GHZ.

But I agree. I'm much happier looking forward to a Ryzen refresh. I had considered selling up my AM4 set up to go for an 8700K. But I'm hopeful that unlike prior AMD platforms with "future proofing", this might be the one. If Ryzen 2 hits higher clocks and more IPC then I'm game with that type of improvement.
 
Doobedoo said:
Possibly :).

I'm not trying to over hype Ryzen anymore than I'm trying to downplay Coffeelake. Amd and Ryzen just excites me more than Coffee Lake and Intel does.
Click to expand...

Pre Meltdown I was going to buy a 8400 system but I might as well get a 2200/2400G and a B450 board.
 
gavinh87 said:
They are plastered over the net already, no fun in that!
In all seriousness though, low res testing used to be done to see how well they would age.
Click to expand...

Running at 720P with absolutely everything turned off on a 9 year old synthetic benchmark to prove Ryzen 1600 vs 8700K performance is only a measure for that one thing.

The 8700K is capable of running 300 FPS in Unigine Heave Benchmark, the Ryzen 1600 only 230 FPS.

That's it, nothing more.
 
humbug said:
Running at 720P with absolutely everything turned off on a 9 year old synthetic benchmark to prove Ryzen 1600 vs 8700K performance is only a measure for that one thing.

The 8700K is capable of running 300 FPS in Unigine Heave Benchmark, the Ryzen 1600 only 230 FPS.

That's it, nothing more.
Click to expand...

And we have to take into consideration the effect of DX11 and using Nvidia hardware and drivers to try and get a measure of an AMD CPU's performance. What could possibly go wrong :p
 
Martini1991 said:
Using higher performing threads first is the most logical thing when it comes to performance? So using physical cores before moving onto the logical cores.

If an application utilused 6 threads but was using 3 physical and 3 logical it would perform worse than a cpu with 6 cores with no logical cores
Click to expand...
So? Sometimes that does happen, depends on how the scheduler sorts things out. You'd be amazed how often threads are shifted between cores, for example. Probably because you're never running one application in a "vacuum", there are dozens running typically and thus lots of variables.
 
gavinh87 said:
It was more to show how these CPU's will fare with future GPUs. Back in the good ol' days this was how it was done.
Click to expand...
Maybe these tests made sense in the "ol' days" but I don't think it's a reliable future predictor any more. The number of games that will use larger numbers of cores well will only increase, and the number of games using more modern graphics APIs which decrease CPU bottlenecks will also surely only increase.

To say that a CPU that runs current games faster at 720p will perform better with future GPUs is a pretty bold claim to make.
 
DragonQ said:
Maybe these tests made sense in the "ol' days" but I don't think it's a reliable future predictor any more. The number of games that will use larger numbers of cores well will only increase, and the number of games using more modern graphics APIs which decrease CPU bottlenecks will also surely only increase.

To say that a CPU that runs current games faster at 720p will perform better with future GPUs is a pretty bold claim to make.
Click to expand...

We shall see :)
 
solado said:
Second this, still on a FX-8320 and just going to keep it as the DDR4 prices are unjustified.
Click to expand...


That was my biggest hurdle and that was when I could get 16GB 3200C14 DDR4 at £150. Still my FX CPU was showing signs of age and I became an early adopter of Ryzen. This meant I paid £312 for a 1700 and had a limited choice of motherboards and immature bios'.

Nearly a year later, I regret nothing. Though I did get good resale prices on the FX and DDR3, this has probably reduced since then.
 
Due in April. New fab process, and should be a 10-15% bump over current Ryzen, hopefully with a higher OC ceiling also.

Fingers crossed we'll see a 4GHz base clock 8C/16T 2800
 
AndreiD said:
Pretty sure that's the point of testing at lower resolutions, if you actually want a CPU-CPU comparison.

@Combat Fighter New Threadripper will probably come around end of summer/early autumn.
Click to expand...
CPUs all perform differently at different tasks hence more than one benchmark program exists. By changing what you're asking of the CPU you're not making it a fair comparison but biasing it towards whichever CPU is best at draw calls which in turn then is heavily GPU and driver dependant.This is not a good thing.
 
People seem to forget CPU are for more than just gaming, or synthetic game benchmarks from 2009 at settings and resolutions no one uses.

Having said that i do use my 1600 a lot for gaming on a GTX 1070 and i have yet to feel like the CPU is holding the GPU back, it isn't and because AMD's CPU's tend to be inexpensive and have long lasting Motherboard sockets i will be upgrading the CPU with the next generation before i do my GPU. In truth one of the reasons i upgraded from a 4690K is because it was 'in some instances' holding the GPU back.

Other than gaming i also use my computer for a lot of 3D work, this is why i have such a problem with writing Multithreading performance out of the equation, Cinebench is a built in benchmard for a real 3D application just like Blender, 3DSMax, Maya, Rhino3D, ZBrush, Substance Designer.... then there are standalone code compilers and those built into 3D engines like Unreal and Lumberyard, there is a massive catalog of applications that will load up more than 32 threads let alone a 12.

I like many people use a lot of them and with that the fact that Ryzen has the same 'bar 1.2%' IPC as Coffeelake is important in those instances, it does matter.

Since the switch to Ryzen my productivity in applications like that has gone up 'at least' two-fold.

image.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom