-
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
- Thread starter geordiejc
- Start date
Yes but you won't get that at launch because reviewers don't get much time with the hardware before NDA expires, and for traffic and monetisation purposes they have to release videos ASAP. You might get something like that a few weeks in though.
Well Intel and motherboard makers apparently get a little upset if you throw the latest chips in with a 5.5Ghz 2500K.
Last edited:
Right, because they would be much quicker than Haswell.
Yup.
What is a 'decent' overclock? And what do you mean by 'see off', as this implies beating it. (the 5.5Ghz?)
Fast DDR3 and 5Ghz plus. Yeah beats it.
Yeah no, the only current gen CPUs a highly overclocked Sandy with fast DDR3 has a chance against are the Ryzens.
Sandy would top out around 5Ghz if you had a good chip, anything over required some pretty extreme voltages and a big AIO or a CLC.
You have to be living in la la land if you think a 5Ghz Sandy could outperform a 4.8Ghz Skylake i7.
About 15% separates sandy from Kaby. Most of that comes from the move to DDR4 and the rest can be more than offset with the extra clock speed the 2500K offers. Ryzen is in the mix with everything else.
I already posted a GamersNexus article earlier that showed an overclocked Sandy doing well, but being outclassed by Kaby/Skylake and Haswell.
A 4.7Ghz 2600K is slower than a stock 6700K, and closer to a stock 4790K performance wise: https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/2867-intel-i7-2600k-2017-benchmark-vs-7700k-1700-more/page-3
It's basically good enough to make spending ~£600 on a new gen i7 a bit questionable, but at the same time the performance difference is there and it's not negligible.
A 4.7Ghz 2600K is slower than a stock 6700K, and closer to a stock 4790K performance wise: https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/2867-intel-i7-2600k-2017-benchmark-vs-7700k-1700-more/page-3
It's basically good enough to make spending ~£600 on a new gen i7 a bit questionable, but at the same time the performance difference is there and it's not negligible.
So that's at 4.7Ghz. I take it you think Sandybridge will get slower as you increase the clock speed. Most 2500K chips will crack 5Ghz no problem.
Ivy was ~15% faster than Sandy @ same clocks wasn't it, my OC'd 4.7Ghz ivy i5 can't see off my OC'd Ryzen @4.1 in single core tests (they are very close ) and I have the 1900X which should be slower than an x1800 in games OC'd to similar levels due to split die latencies, so I would imagine you need a very very fast Sandybridge, approx. 5.4Ghz just to match that, never mind beat it, not very common.
Yeah 300mhz will make up that 23% difference in watchdogs 2
I don't hold a grudge, I just point out the bs you type.
There just happens to be a lot of it.
Haha. You can't hold any level of context to topics can you. It must be nice to be amazed by a few percent performance.
Interesting. That is impressive if it keeps up. In what games/applications is that working? I ask, because in games like Planetside 2, an SB i5 was destroyed by slower clocked Ivybridge chips, and the i7 Ivybridge onwards really showed it up.
Maybe in some situations but defiantly not across a wide range. Nowhere near.
I wouldn't call 25% a "few"
Now its a maybe in some situations, keep digging that hole.
Show me 1, just 1 and I'll never question another statement you make.
Sorry Gavin what are you trying to say is 25% faster. Sandy to Ivy?
The increase the stock 6700k gets over the 2500k @ 4.7 in the gamersnexus benchmarks.
Still waiting for this 1 situation, or is this another jigger claim with no substance?
I feel sorry for people new to this hobby, reading crap like you post could result in making a bad purchase.