3 percent is the single difference over last ryzens.most intel chips are 10 plus percentage on ryzen. so there you go.as TwsT said its a right move in the right direction.just dont expect them topping intel for quite a few years.
-
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" ?
- Thread starter beany_bot
- Start date
Caporegime
Ok, this is just speculation from the numbers we have.
6700K single core 4.2Ghz = 181
Ryzen 2700X single core 4.3Ghz = 180
with clocks the same thats 3% to the 6700K
Another way we can do this:
7700K single core boost 4.7Ghz = 193
Clock for clock that 5% to the 7700K (2% margin of error.)
Ryzen 1### at 3.9Ghz = 160
Ryzen 2### at 4.3Ghz = 180
Thats 13% high scores on 10% higher clocks.
If this is right Ryzen has gained about 3% and Intel are 5% ahead in IPC single core.
Its actually very easy to gain 3%, if i run my memory timing from CL16 to CL14 i gain about 3%. Ryzen 2### memory latency is 20% better than it is on Ryzen 1###.
6700K single core 4.2Ghz = 181
Ryzen 2700X single core 4.3Ghz = 180
with clocks the same thats 3% to the 6700K
Another way we can do this:
7700K single core boost 4.7Ghz = 193
Clock for clock that 5% to the 7700K (2% margin of error.)
Ryzen 1### at 3.9Ghz = 160
Ryzen 2### at 4.3Ghz = 180
Thats 13% high scores on 10% higher clocks.
If this is right Ryzen has gained about 3% and Intel are 5% ahead in IPC single core.
Its actually very easy to gain 3%, if i run my memory timing from CL16 to CL14 i gain about 3%. Ryzen 2### memory latency is 20% better than it is on Ryzen 1###.
Deleted member 66701
D
Deleted member 66701
For one specific metric. For MT performance / price, amd are ahead.
Hence why I have a threadripper.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 30,858
Good to know that the refresh is getting close to Intel's IPC now! Just the clockspeed advantage now, which proper Zen 2 should sort
Yikes, 4.25 GHz needs 1.46 V, 4.3 GHz needs 1.50 V.
I don't push my 32 nm chip past 1.35 V!
All fine to compare like that, but you are missing one important factor, (additional headroom).
It's too early to draw a conclusion of Ryzen 2***
Potential, but until we see a plot of scaling/voltage then we can only base on 4.2ghz/4.3ghz so far.
So yes it seems good coming from ryzen1, but no-one has measured the scaling Vs power consumption Vs voltage of this new process. I have to say I was hoping to see 4.5ghz as an average clocker, maybe we will.
My haswell still looks to outperform in in situations of apps or games that use lower thread counts, due to my additional clock headroom at 4.8ghz. @4.3ghz st=178
Caporegime
The power consumption on Ryzen 1### is very good, dare i say better than Intel, i don't mind a bit more. I really don't, it doesn't even cross my mind "oh but maybe the power consumption is higher" it no doubt will be, i don't care, at all.
Sure it is very good and better than Intel's upto it's ceiling.
But Intel's has the higher clock advantage to gain that additional performance. Ryzen2 no-one has plotted the graph, it could be dandy at 1.25v upto 4.1ghz then it hits a wall at 4.2ghz requiring 1.35-1.45v. Or there are better chips out there waiting to be given a kicking.
Caporegime
I'm not being funny with you when i say this, i still don't care.
It would have to be hugely more for me to even notice, what you see in my signature is sitting under an old cheap KRAKEN X31 AIO. This is with 1.425v. it doesn't get much past 60c, no matter what i do to it and its on a silent fan profile.
It would have to be hugely more for me to even notice, what you see in my signature is sitting under an old cheap KRAKEN X31 AIO. This is with 1.425v. it doesn't get much past 60c, no matter what i do to it and its on a silent fan profile.
Permabanned
Yikes, 4.25 GHz needs 1.46 V, 4.3 GHz needs 1.50 V.
I don't push my 32 nm chip past 1.35 V!
WWhat a wuss
my 2500k was runing on 1.48 constant no downclocking ect. And its still going what 6-7 years later same oc lol.My ryzen is on 1.425-1.44 since day one
I'm not disagreeing with anything you are saying, R5 1600 is the best chip out of the lot.
So long as it scales then it's a stepping stone towards refinement and a stronger Amd.
Caporegime
Ok
So, for someone heavily into running emulators, where single core speed & IPC are king & rarely ever utilise more than 4cores, Intel will still be the choice of champions then.
It's looking more and more likely that Zen 2 in 2019, where clockspeeds (hopefully) hit 4.5Ghz+, might be the crossover point where I wouldn't have to worry about running either AMD or Intel for emulation.
It's looking more and more likely that Zen 2 in 2019, where clockspeeds (hopefully) hit 4.5Ghz+, might be the crossover point where I wouldn't have to worry about running either AMD or Intel for emulation.
Caporegime
Yes but the question is is it enough?
In multithreading the 2700X will kick the 8700K's derrière, the 1800X is already faster, so is it enough to justify the price difference between the 8700K and 2700? not just for the price of the CPU but also the very expensive cooling solution need to to keep the Mhz up that the 8700K needs to be at its best, the 2700 will do that on a £30 air cooler, all this is also ignoring having to take the Heat Spreader off the 8700K.
If we just stick with gaming. The 8700K is the best gaming CPU, that fact while reduced will remain, so yes if you want the very best what you want is the 8700K, but that will cost you, a lot more.
The fact is for me the 1600 is every bit as good as the 8700K, i don't have the very best GPU's, its more than capable of providing what i do have with enough performance for it to run at its best. whats more i and those with lesser GPU's account for probably about 95% of PC Gamers, so for 95% of PC Gamers a Ryzen 6 core is just as good as Intel's best 6 core.
Soldato
I really don't get on with the 1600 but it's a top seller here for sure.
I game on an x99 Xeon so i can't really talk about wanting the best gaming perf obviously, I'm stuck on this chip for some time as there is not a lot that betters it beyond single core speed is about 13% better on TR but I am not spending £1200 for a 13% upgrade
I game on an x99 Xeon so i can't really talk about wanting the best gaming perf obviously, I'm stuck on this chip for some time as there is not a lot that betters it beyond single core speed is about 13% better on TR but I am not spending £1200 for a 13% upgrade
Caporegime
i really don't get on with the 1600 but it's a top seller here for sure.
I game on a x99 xeon so i can't really talk but obviously i'm stuck on this chip for some time as not much betters it beyond single core speed is about 13% better on TR but I am not spending £1200 for a 13% upgrade
Did it kick 'yer cat?
no. if you want big drops in mp on big games yeah gert ryzen.bf1 this can happen in big games. pubg upto 30 fps differenc
for gaming no. pubg shows upto 30 fps difference even on i5s.fortnite can also bf1.so basically a huge chunk of games most of us play.on a modern monitor the drops can be horrid on ryzens.in certain games.
pubg showing differences. https://www.techspot.com/article/1532-pubg-cpu-benchmarks/