• 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 IPC

geordiejc said:
What intel architecture is Ryzen IPC comparable to ? Haswell?
Click to expand...

They are not the same architecture so its workload dependant, however i think compared with Haswell its generally a bit higher.

Actually its very difficult to tell, for example when you look at this one could easily argue Ryzen has higher IPC than KabyLake, at 4.9Ghz the 7700K is clocked 22.5% higher than the Ryzen chip at 4Ghz, and yet the 7700K is only scoring 9% higher, that's a difference of about 13%, so does Ryzen have 13% higher IPC? technically yes but Ryzen has 12 threads to the 7700K's 8 and we don't know how many threads these games use, interestingly tho the 4.7Ghz 12 thread SkyLake-X is also slower than the 7700K by the same margin... these game are probably not using 12 threads.

There are other things where the 7700K is absolutely faster than the R5 1600 at any speed, even if you break it down to some of those 30 games that is true.

I don't think there is a blanket answer, its a case of "it depends"

But certainly because of the minimal performance difference between the 7700K and the R5 1600 and the massive price difference i would and do recommend the 1600 over the 7700K.

But if for example you have a 4790K and are looking to upgrade to a 1700, and its more for gaming... i would say no its not worth the outlay for what you get, but if you are like me on a 4690K i would say get the 1600, its much better.

Yes i am, when i can afford to switch platforms.

jliokhj.png
 
Has anyone compared a 4ghz 4 core Ryzen against a 4hz 4 core core Intel , Would that not be a good indicator of ipc?

Same frequency and core volume?
 
It's not straight forward really - Ryzen is above haswell but sometimes acts like kaby lake, even though the clock speed is lower.

Also Ryzen reacts to memory bandwidth wayyyyyyyyy better than Intel - so as zen starts accessing faster and faster mem its going to see more of a change, different architectures basically - faster in some stuff, slower in others, very sensitive to mem bandwidth, not really like for like.

EDIT: Although the above from gavin shows ryzen kicking butt - I suspect the mem bandwidth is being better used, hence why intel is mildly ahead a very tiny amount in theoretical benches, but as soon as you do something that starts using some ram, ryzen is a better design.
 
Yeah, they both trade blows on different tests. Give ryzen some faster than 2400 ram and it will stretch its legs a bit more but still it will hammer the i7 in some and lose in others.
There is no straight answer but I'd say its between haswell and kaby with intel having the clockspeed advantage.
 
gavinh87 said:
Looking around I found this. With the 1800x having 4 of its cores disabled

upload multiple image

http://www.zolkorn.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-vs-intel-core-i7-7700k-mhz-by-mhz-core-by-core/3/
Click to expand...

Well now that is very interesting, clock for clock the 7700K is just slightly better at Cinebench, but gaming, (who would have thought) Ryzen has a significant lead over the 7700K, even with slow memory.

It looks like the 7700K's massive clock speed is what gives it the edge in games, the IPC looks somewhat lower.
 
Ryzen is on par with Haswell, Devils Canyon..but the ability for the Intel chips to go to at least 4.5Ghz is what gives them the 10-20% edge in gaming at 1080p and Cinebench results.
 
Cooper said:
Ryzen is on par with Haswell, Devils Canyon..but the ability for the Intel chips to go to at least 4.5Ghz is what gives them the 10-20% edge in gaming at 1080p and Cinebench results.
Click to expand...

1080p test though should be taken with a grain of salt in my opinion as it's a bit of an artificial scenario as most people with these new systems will be gaming on 1440p or above. I understand from a testing scenario wanting to eliminate the GPU factor using 1080p, but it's about as relevant to actual usage as 32bit software, a relic of the past.
 
Scougar said:
What's the difference in perf (generally) between 3200 and 3466 ?
Click to expand...
Jono8 said:
Seem to react similarly to the memory speed increase here

http://www.zolkorn.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-vs-intel-core-i7-7700k-mhz-by-mhz-core-by-core/4/

What are you basing 40% on, that one screenshot of the hitman bench?
Click to expand...

The hitman, (humbug had more)
68n8LJN.png

In addition to AMD blog

https://community.amd.com/community...emory-oc-showdown-frequency-vs-memory-timings

where even Dual Rank shows performance gains over Single Rank ram.
 
Scougar said:
What is LL, Low Latency? so like 12 or 14 CAS or something? (Because that jump on the green bar is quite significant)
Click to expand...

Yeah low latency. It will be CL14, I dont think anyone has managed CL12 on anything higher than 3200.
If you can manage 3466 CL14 there is no point go for 3600, bigger improvements come from tightening the subs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom