• 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 Sandy Bridge IPC

IPC is a very simplistic term, Ryzen has higher IPC than Skylake in some applications, whereas it's more like Sandy Bridge in others. Broadwell is probably about average though.
 
I think the performance per core would depend on the games, but over a wide enough test I don't think you'd see much of a swing between any of the usual suspects. I wouldn't upgrade from one quad core to another if thats what your thinking.
 
@Panos

- Can you share your insight?

@DragonQ

- I'm strictly talking about gaming.

@jigger

- Im confused as to why people are buying the 4 core Ryzen if tech from 2011 is the same performance (aside form platform upgrade benefits) - have AMD pulled the wool over peoples eyes?
 
'Gaming' is not one use-case. While gaming it will sometimes be Skylake IPC and sometimes Sandybridge. Also the 4 core 8 thread ryzen is much cheaper than anything Intel offer with comparable threading (and plenty games like more than 4 threads)

Bearing in mind the differences have been small for ALL cpus in the last 7 years or so. Your logic can apply to anyone buying any Intel just as well.
 
geordiejc said:
@Panos

- Can you share your insight?

@DragonQ

- I'm strictly talking about gaming.

@jigger

- Im confused as to why people are buying the 4 core Ryzen if tech from 2011 is the same performance (aside form platform upgrade benefits) - have AMD pulled the wool over peoples eyes?
Click to expand...

Pick a chip from Sandy to Kaby and almost certainly coffee lake too and guess what, they offer almost the same performance per core. People are buying Ryzen because AMD have brought the costs down, have a better platform and offer overclocking on all the chips.
 
Subjectively, my Ryzen's all-core 3.69ghz is noticeably smoother in 1-2 threaded games than my 2500k @ 4.3. I thought it would be about the same, but it genuinely feels better :)
 
GamersNexus have a review with an overclocked 2600K vs 7700K and 1700 (plus other Ryzens): https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/2867-intel-i7-2600k-2017-benchmark-vs-7700k-1700-more/page-3

In my opinion, if you have an Ivy/Sandy/Haswell unlocked i7, you should just overclock it instead of side-grading to Ryzen. Ryzen only becomes a good upgrade if you can use the many threads, and by that I mean if you have any kind of rendering, encoding, etc. workloads, for gaming it's not really worth it.

Ryzen tends to be a great upgrade if you have Bulldozer or something older. It could be a good upgrade over a Sandy or Ivy unlocked i5 if you play lots of AAA games.
 
AndreiD said:
GamersNexus have a review with an overclocked 2600K vs 7700K and 1700 (plus other Ryzens): https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/2867-intel-i7-2600k-2017-benchmark-vs-7700k-1700-more/page-3

In my opinion, if you have an Ivy/Sandy/Haswell unlocked i7, you should just overclock it instead of side-grading to Ryzen. Ryzen only becomes a good upgrade if you can use the many threads, and by that I mean if you have any kind of rendering, encoding, etc. workloads, for gaming it's not really worth it.

Ryzen tends to be a great upgrade if you have Bulldozer or something older. It could be a good upgrade over a Sandy or Ivy unlocked i5 if you play lots of AAA games.
Click to expand...


All those benchmarks are "best case scenario" in a lab environment. The moment you have on the background a browser streaming radio, heaven forbid a video, or teamspeak, Steam, Uplay etc, a 6+ core CPU will provide better experience than a 4c/8t. I saw than when moved from 6700K @ 4.9 to 6800K @ 4.3. Everything run better even single thread games like WOT.
 
[QUOTE="geordiejc]

- Im confused as to why people are buying the 4 core Ryzen if tech from 2011 is the same performance (aside form platform upgrade benefits) - have AMD pulled the wool over peoples eyes?[/QUOTE]

People just don't know. Newer CPU's are just likely to be all round better, even at gaming. Even if there's no change in some games (performance) there may be in others. Just seeing a single minium, average and max figure and comparing doesn't tell the whole story either.
If you look around youtube there's at least one video comparing a 2500k to 3770k..etc etc to 6700k and if the test was any good it actual proves some pretty decent performance improvements between the lot. We're now nearly two gens on from the 6700 too. Sure, it's only a few games and there's probably many more games that show little different but to ensure the best performance you'd want something fairly new.
I'm convinced some of those that say "no difference in gaming" just don't want to buy a new CPU - it's a psychological thing :).
Also, the GPU that's being run probably makes a difference too. Ie, even if no change 2500k to say 7700k in gaming when using a 1070.....what if the user has a TX? Nobody tests all scenario's and people just speculate
 
Panos said:
All those benchmarks are "best case scenario" in a lab environment. The moment you have on the background a browser streaming radio, heaven forbid a video, or teamspeak, Steam, Uplay etc, a 6+ core CPU will provide better experience than a 4c/8t. I saw than when moved from 6700K @ 4.9 to 6800K @ 4.3. Everything run better even single thread games like WOT.
Click to expand...

Some people keep repeating this misconception, but unless you have something very heavy on CPU usage in the background, it's going to make no difference. Discord, VOIP apps, Chrome and whatever else you have open will barely have any impact even on older CPUs. I'm not sure what you had running that you saw an improvement, but going to a '6800K at 4.3Ghz from a 4.9Ghz 6700K' should be a down/sidegrade unless you're doing some mutlthreaded workloads like rendering or encoding.
If you're rendering in the background then sure, but for general use it's just plain silly.
 
The problem with Ryzen isn't it's IPC (Because it's fairly "good" given the deficit AMD had) it's how low it clocks.
For an out and out gaming rig, it's not going to give the best performance against a modern Intel (Unless you're select games where the i5's struggle when they're maxing out because you've got GPU left in the tank). I imagine there's plenty of games where my 1700 falls short of the 4770K I replaced.
 
id say haswell with newer games almost match x99 in many and slightly slower in others. if you want a true comparison to chip its sort of a 5820k. when you overclock any cpu past a 5820k intel wise you have a faster gaming chip.
 
geordiejc said:
Setting aside platform change benefits, are Ryzen CPU's IPC comparable to Intels Sandy Bridge for gaming?

In this video it appears to be the case (2500k @4.4 vs Ryzen 1400 @ 4.0) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jiXkrRoD4w

Can anyone shed any light on this subject ?

Thanks you.
Click to expand...

This is probably the worst example anyone could use as a measure of CPU performance given that in 7 out of 10 of his results the GPU is the bottleneck, its actually a completely pointless video.

Back in the days when Bulldozer was on the shelves people liked Cinebench Single Threaded to illustrate IPC differences, using that Ryzen is 5% faster than Haswell and 8% slower than KabyLake.
However Ryzen's SMT is better than Intel's so an 8 thread Ryzen 1500X @ 4Ghz scores 900 points in Cinebench MT, compare that to the 8 thread KabyLake 7700K which at 4.5Ghz scores 990 points, so with a 12.5% higher clock the 7700K is scoring 10% higher than Ryzen, so in MT Ryzen has 2.5% higher IPC.

Comparing IPC of one CPU to another entirely different CPU is not as simple as pointing at one benchmark result.

Ryzen vs [______] Intel CPU IPC is higher or lower depending on [______]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom