Ryzen "2" ?

[4K8KW10]

What?

This, a quote below an article: https://www.techpowerup.com/242506/amd-ryzen-7-2700x-ryzen-5-2600-review-popped-up-ahead-of-time

Old and old, it's the exact same arch as Kaby Lake and Coffee Lake. Pretty much nothing has happened since Skylake arch and IPC wise - Clock for clock.

CFL is 4th 14nm release. 3rd release with same arch. CFL was all about the core bump (thank AMD for that)

My 6700 at 5 GHz performs almost 1:1 compared to 7700K at 5 GHz.
And 7700K beats 8700K in some games (because the quads generally clocks higher, both with turbo and manual OC - requires less cooling)

Can't wait for Ice Lake. New arch, 10nm and hopefully 8C on mainstream. This is what we have been waiting for, for years.
Hopefully they will fix the crappy TIM / gap between die and IHS too. Or else I will delid (sigh).

 

[Steveocee]

AMD aren't going to beat Intel in gaming with the new Ryzens but hopefully they will close the gap quite significantly to the point where you weigh up value, vs multicores vs gaming single core speed

 

[Jono8]

This, a quote below an article: https://www.techpowerup.com/242506/amd-ryzen-7-2700x-ryzen-5-2600-review-popped-up-ahead-of-time

I'm still waiting on an explanation of the "two mistakes" i supposedly made.

 

[BongoHunter]

Would be good to see these new chips benched against the i7-7820X - would be a fairer comparison!

 

[5punk3monk3y]

Err?! Two mistakes - first is that i7-8700K was released in Q4 2017, which means i7-6700K/i7-7700K was the latest and greatest thing till Q4 2017, nothing about 2015.
And second - the Ryzen 7 2700X has to be benched against an equivalent 8-core / 16-thread chip from Intel. Any suggestions which one it should be?

All this from the same guy that says HDR is a gimmick.

I have a 4K TV without HDR support and it's perfect. HDR is just a marketing gimmick for the clueless.
Sub 500 nits is the maximum brightness level which you normally will never ever reach.

Actually, I decrease the brightness level manually in order to protect my eyes from bleeding.

I would take everything he says with a pinch of salt

 

[sideways14a]

I dont see any reason why not to bench the top cpus from amd against intels, i also want to see the price points clearly laid out so we can see how much worse intels price performance ratio is.

 

[jigger]

This. The 2700x should be benched against the 8700/8700k as they are in the same sort of price bracket, not an EOL 6700k Seems rather pointless to bench AMD's new 2018 stuff with Intel's 2015 stuff.

Well they have the 1700X in the list and it's not like the 7700K made any kind of a leap over the 6700K.

 

[Jono8]

Well they have the 1700X in the list and it's not like the 7700K made any kind of a leap over the 6700K.

Again, though, what relevance does the 7700k have? Right now the 8700/8700k fills the 2700x rumoured price point as a top mainstream chip so that is where the comparison should be drawn.

Why bench against a nearly 3 year old EOL product ?

 

[jigger]

AMD aren't going to beat Intel in gaming with the new Ryzens but hopefully they will close the gap quite significantly to the point where you weigh up value, vs multicores vs gaming single core speed

Tiny gap to close. I'm not sure what you have to weigh up, AMD will pull away even more with a faster better value version of Ryzen.

 

[jigger]

Again, though, what relevance does the 7700k have? Right now the 8700/8700k fills the 2700x rumoured price point as a top mainstream chip so that is where the comparison should be drawn.

Why bench against a 3 year old EOL product ?

Coffeelake, Skylake, KabyLake are all the same chip. Intel have been regurgitating the same thing for years.

Edit: Looks like the 2700X will be priced under the 8700K.

 

[Curlyriff]

And that is the perpetual grey patch that means you can't "actually" bench them against one another. Ideal world, bench Intels top end i7 against AMD's top end Ryzen but the AMD fan bois will cry that it's not fair.

I want to see "real" benches of a stock 1700X vs a 2700X. Let that be the first difference, show an improvement against your own product before you go onto the offensive at another brand. Intel have a batter single core performance, Ryzen will naturally have better multi core as it has more cores. Yet more grey patches because X application uses multi cores better than Y.

There will always be pros and cons of each, I just hope that the gains over their own product are worth the hype train building.

As much as I agree that the bench should be done to latest CPU's and show the older CPU's because well it is what people likely have to options to upgrade too. It is not anything with fanboy rubbish.

Why even make that argument.

So yes you would want

• 1700x, 2700x, i7 7700k, i7 8700k & i7 7820x / All at stock and then all overclocked as high as possible with same AIO.
• 16GB & 32GB at stock 3600Mhz profile
• 16 & 32GB DDR4 at maximum Mhz
• Same install of W7 & W10 with same games and software
• 4 different GPU's, 2 AMD and 2 Nvidia at two different price points. Stock clocks and clocked as high as stable
• Rest of system same with M.2 OS drive and SSD games/software drive.
• 1080p / 1440p / 4k accordingly

That would be the real comparison to cover price and core counts accordingly with all available options pretty much covered on what people could possibly be looking at but the time to complete that would be weeks of benching and requiring 4 machines setup at least with a few people.

It just isn't done anymore because the amount of time and effort and people want info day one and not willing to wait for it, or at least that is how the media is persevered. I could imagine that if someone done this though that people would all pick at it anyways and make some excuse about something not being even.

 

[~>Dg<~]

it would be great for real life comparisions.i have asked before if someone at ocuk would do this so we get actually none biased benchmarks.it helps us all decide also if done well bring people here.

bench progs people actually use.bench the most popular games we all actually play. pubg.battlefield 1.overwatch.fortnite. you get the drift.show min max and avg fps.by doing this on ocuk you will also remove half of the bs , trolls on the forums. actual benchmarks we can look at and agree on.ahhh...the dream.

 

[HeX]

i7 7820X is a HEDT chip, so shouldn't really be compared with the mainstream 2600/2600X/2700/2700X. The 7820X equivalent at the moment is the 1900X (until next gen TR appears). Really Ryzen 2 should be compared to 7700K, 8400, 8600K, 8700K.

 

[Jono8]

Coffeelake, Skylake, KabyLake are all the same chip. Intel have been regurgitating the same thing for years.
.

....except CL has 6 cores and 12 threads and the 8700 has an all core turbo of 4.3ghz and 4.6/4.7 single.

Again, comparing the 2700x to the 6700k in a bench but not the 8700/8700k is largely pointless.

 

[4K8KW10]

....except CL has 6 cores and 12 threads and the 8700 has an all core turbo of 4.3ghz and 4.6/4.7 single.

Is there information that the Skylake and Kaby Lake dies have 4 cores enabled and 0 disabled or they are hexa-cores with two cores disabled?

 

[Curlyriff]

i7 7820X is a HEDT chip, so shouldn't really be compared with the mainstream 2600/2600X/2700/2700X. The 7820X equivalent at the moment is the 1900X (until next gen TR appears). Really Ryzen 2 should be compared to 7700K, 8400, 8600K, 8700K.

I think it should be shown though because we need to compare the cheapest Intel i7 8 core because that is still relevant. The fact it is a HEDT is not of interest. You want to find an 8 core chip then you have the choice of the 7820x or the 2700x.

Intel have left the space open and so it is the closest chip to compare at this time. Some people buy based on what core count they can get and don't want to know anything different. So the 8 core options need to be reviewed. You look around you can pick up the CPU for about £120 more than the 8700k. Some will pay for those 2 extra cores with Intel cause of what it is so how does the 2700x compare to me is then relevant in honesty.

 

[jigger]

....except CL has 6 cores and 12 threads and the 8700 has an all core turbo of 4.3ghz and 4.6/4.7 single.

Again, comparing the 2700x to the 6700k in a bench but not the 8700/8700k is largely pointless.

You seem under the impression Intel have improved architecture since Skylake, when really it wouldn't matter if you had a 4970K for comparison.

This second version of Ryzen will beat Intel by an increased margin over the first round of chips. You could say comparing with a ring bus based chip is pointless as we know an 8c16t Ryzen v1 will beat the ears off Intels 6 core stuff.

 

[gavinh87]

You seem under the impression Intel have improved architecture since Skylake, when really it wouldn't matter if you had a 4970K for comparison.

This second version of Ryzen will beat Intel by an increased margin over the first round of chips. You could say comparing with a ring bus based chip is pointless as we know an 8c16t Ryzen v1 will beat the ears off Intels 6 core stuff.

Except in a lot of cases it just doesn't. You are delusional.

 

[4K8KW10]

Except in a lot of cases it just doesn't. You are delusional.

I, for one, expect that Ryzen 7 2700X will be on par with i7-8700K in 4K and 1440p, and if it is slower, it will at 480p, 720p and 1080p

 

[gavinh87]

I, for one, expect that Ryzen 7 2700X will be on par with i7-8700K in 4K and 1440p, and if it is slower, it will at 480p, 720p and 1080p

Wait for next gpus to come and we shall see. Ryzen 1 loses at 1440p in a few titles even now.