• 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" ?

So I’ve not been keeping up with this thread, what’s the rumoured price of the 2700/2800?

With the like ~10-15% performance bump from the 1700/1800 where will that put them in terms of the 8700k in mainly gaming terms(4K)? I don’t want/need the technical details(ipcs or whatever) like last time I tried asking this question.

I’ll be gaming on the Samsung 49mu6400 4K tv, will be using a evga 1080ti ftw3. Just waiting to see how these new cpu stack up against the 8700k before building my new pc, kind of got the build decided on just need to decide on the cpu.

They paper launch on the 21'st at GDC, 12 days. all will be revealed for real.
 
So I’ve not been keeping up with this thread, what’s the rumoured price of the 2700/2800?

With the like ~10-15% performance bump from the 1700/1800 where will that put them in terms of the 8700k in mainly gaming terms(4K)? I don’t want/need the technical details(ipcs or whatever) like last time I tried asking this question.

I’ll be gaming on the Samsung 49mu6400 4K tv, will be using a evga 1080ti ftw3. Just waiting to see how these new cpu stack up against the 8700k before building my new pc, kind of got the build decided on just need to decide on the cpu.

There isn't anything hard and fast yet. It's all still rumours which have been fuelled by fake news. 21st will see the paper launch where we should find out for real what to expect.
 
So I’ve not been keeping up with this thread, what’s the rumoured price of the 2700/2800?

With the like ~10-15% performance bump from the 1700/1800 where will that put them in terms of the 8700k in mainly gaming terms(4K)? I don’t want/need the technical details(ipcs or whatever) like last time I tried asking this question.

I’ll be gaming on the Samsung 49mu6400 4K tv, will be using a evga 1080ti ftw3. Just waiting to see how these new cpu stack up against the 8700k before building my new pc, kind of got the build decided on just need to decide on the cpu.

At 4K, you are starved for GPU power. Which means that no matter what a CPU above a certain level you throw at the configuration, at 4K you will get identical framerates.
Like the other members aforementioned.





https://www.anandtech.com/show/11697/the-amd-ryzen-threadripper-1950x-and-1920x-review/16
 
So I’ve not been keeping up with this thread, what’s the rumoured price of the 2700/2800?

With the like ~10-15% performance bump from the 1700/1800 where will that put them in terms of the 8700k in mainly gaming terms(4K)? I don’t want/need the technical details(ipcs or whatever) like last time I tried asking this question.

I’ll be gaming on the Samsung 49mu6400 4K tv, will be using a evga 1080ti ftw3. Just waiting to see how these new cpu stack up against the 8700k before building my new pc, kind of got the build decided on just need to decide on the cpu.

New AMD vs 8700k at 4k... you'll be almost splitting hairs for the difference. Good reply's above.
If you can make use of 2c4t extra for anything, or play games with good multi-core support the AMD likely pulls ahead (a tiny bit).
If it's purely for gaming, currently the 8700k by a nose (as best we're guessing it).
At 4k gaming, it's genuinely going to be so super close that the 2c4t extra might take it by a nose for the odd time you're unzipping a file or messing with a movie you downloaded.
At less than 4k, the 8700k likely still holds top spot and it becomes more about reasonable tradeoffs (if this was your case, probably the 8700k takes it).

Too hard to call directly. I'd land AMD side, it's where I'm going. There's plenty will be pulling in the other direction.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the replies, all pcs I’ve built have been intel based. Might be time to try amd, I have had an amd based prebuilt system but that was an athlon xp.
 
Same here, as much as this has frustrated me at times (although I have learned a lot more) getting it running good, for me personally I can't justify paying the intel premium charge and will
stay on amd till at least 2020 and probably for ever
 
Actually there is slightly more to it than that - if this is Actually the 2700x then we should be comparing it to the 1700x. That would be a 17% increase in multi and a 14% increase in Single thread IF that is actually what we should be comparing it against.

The question is is that a marketing play and there is going to be no 2800X or is this actually the 2800X?

It definitely shows an 8% and 12% gain over the last generation flagship product, which is very close to exactly what everyone was predicting. If that slide is right I guess you also believe the gaming benchmark slide is also right? If so that puts 2700x performance at 2-4% from the 8700k in gaming benchmarks - apart from 5 outlier games which are poorly optimized.

IF and it is a big IF there is actually a 2800X that can get another 3% single thread perfromance I think we will be at complete parity in Gaming and obviously there will be a big advantage on multithreaded productivity.

We also have no idea yet if there is going to be any real headroom above that 4.35Ghz clockspeed and we wont know that until someone does a proper review of the chip under water.
Not if You overclock. Its ******** that xfr does not work with overclocking. Thats why i got 1700x not 1700 was hoping for it to work...
 
8700K has an all core turbo of 4.3ghz at stock doesn't it?

If the 2700X is looking at an all core boost of say 4.0ghz then the gaming deficit isn't that bad.
 
8700K has an all core turbo of 4.3ghz at stock doesn't it?

If the 2700X is looking at an all core boost of say 4.0ghz then the gaming deficit isn't that bad.
All core turbo isn't important for gaming.
What matters most is performance from one or two cores running main threads of the game.
Simply very few games can load evenly lots of cores with most of the critical things running in one or two threads.
That's why memory latencies are also important for gaming performance.
(so that time main threads spend waiting for data are minimized)
 
All core turbo isn't important for gaming.
What matters most is performance from one or two cores running main threads of the game.
Simply very few games can load evenly lots of cores with most of the critical things running in one or two threads.
That's why memory latencies are also important for gaming performance.
(so that time main threads spend waiting for data are minimized)

I think you'll find most games use more than 2 cores and probably at least 4 these days. Every game I've played released in 2017 does, a consequence of games consoles. I don't doubt that some threads are more important than others but if lots of threads are even used slightly the single and 2 core boost becomes irrelevant.

So all core turbo matters unless you are playing Far Cry or something.
 
I think you'll find most games use more than 2 cores and probably at least 4 these days. Every game I've played released in 2017 does, a consequence of games consoles. I don't doubt that some threads are more important than others but if lots of threads are even used slightly the single and 2 core boost becomes irrelevant.

So all core turbo matters unless you are playing Far Cry or something.
What he means is that often, even if a game is using 8+ threads, there'll still be 1-2 threads that are more heavily loaded than the others, and thus they become the bottlenecks. Therefore, you probably only need a couple of your cores to be boosting high anyway for optimal performance.
 
What he means is that often, even if a game is using 8+ threads, there'll still be 1-2 threads that are more heavily loaded than the others, and thus they become the bottlenecks.

Even if that the case I don't see how the all core boost isn't relevant. The premise of the reply and the very first sentence.
 
Back
Top Bottom