Ryzen vs Skylake-X clock for clock comparison.

[humbug]

More interesting results from Steve, he compared Ryzen 2600X and 2700X to Intel 7800K and 7820K at 4Ghz with 3200Mhz memory to see the IPC difference.

Before commenting please read what i'm saying.

Both these CPU's with their high core counts use different than standard ways to connect the cores to eachother, AMD call theirs "Infinity Fabric" Intel theirs "Mesh Interconnect", Both have a higher than normal Inter core latency which can make a small difference to the CPU's IPC, AMD have improved their inter core latency with Ryzen 2 and with that IPC.

It should be said, and i agree with Steve here, the Skylake-X CPU's do enjoy higher clock frequencies so keep that in mind when viewing this, this is purely academic.

On productivity Skylake-X win some, Ryzen win some, that is predictable, what isn't predictable was the gaming results, again this is something that one might automatically think Skylake-X walks away with across the board.
No, not so, Skylake-X starts well in AoTS beating Ryzen by about 10%, however in Assassins Creed 'Ultra Quality' while the 7800 is again about 10% faster than the 2600X the Ryzen 2700X beats out the 7820K by a small margin.

The next slide need some explaining as this is where i think Steve fails to understand what he is seeing, reducing the quality settings to High from Ultra the 2600X closes the gap to the 7800K, this is a falsehood, i have explained this in another thread, his reasoning is by reducing setting there is less work for the GPU to do so more work is loaded onto the CPU, what he doesn't realise is by doing this you also reduce the load on the CPU allowing weaker CPU's, in this case the 2600X to catchup.

Next BF1, Ultra Quality settings the 2600X and 2700X are about 10% ahead of the 7800K and 7820K.

BF1, Medium Settings, no Steve.

FC5, Ultra Settings, again Ryzen vs SkyLake-X is 10% ahead, another result for Ryzen.

Overall it looks like Ryzen's Infinity Fabric is better than Intel's Mesh Interconnect resulting in higher IPC in games, however none are as good as the Ring Bus on Coffeelake.

 

[gavinh87]

Skylake x is a joke. Only worth purchasing if you have very specific productivity needs

 

[humbug]

Skylake x is a joke. Only worth purchasing if you have very specific productivity needs

Yeah, the problem is Intel face the same problem AMD do when making high core count CPU's, and so far AMD seems to be doing a better job of it, not least with that fact that AMD's solution already gets beyond the need to make them monolithic, which is a huge problem if Intel can't solve that, and with that still manages to keep a higher level of IPC while at it.

 

[ljt]

I've said this in other threads that Zen's architecture is far similar to Intels Skylake-X HEDT platform than it is to Intels mainstream ring bus CPU's.

This is the reason why in general there is a performance deficit in games between Ryzen and Kaby/Coffee lake etc CPU's. It even shows in the clock for clock comparisons. Unfortunately games prefer the ring bus architecture over mesh.
For example if a Ryzen 2600x could theoretically be clocked to 5Ghz and you put it against even a 4.8Ghz 8700K, let alone a 5Ghz one, the 8700k would win in the majority of games, purely down to it's architecture.

If AMD stay with their mesh style design (which I believe they will) and Intel stick to ring bus up to 8 cores on their mainstream CPU's, then I can't really see AMD ever really overtaking them in games, even if AMD can increase the frequencies.

It will be interesting however if Intel do switch their mainstream CPU's to a mesh type design as it would mean a fairer comparison for mainstream users between AMD and Intel.

This isn't a pro Intel post by the way! I'm glad AMD are now back in the running, as it meant I could get finally a 6c/12t CPU for below £200! For me the saving in £££ was worth more than a few extra FPS in games I wouldn't really notice.

 

[gavinh87]

I believe the ringbus is good for upto 10 cores. After that it's a mesh design and tbh, you're better off going ryzen then.
Until that happens ringbus is the way for gamers.

 

[humbug]

I have no doubt Intel will improve theirs and AMD again further with Zen 2.

This is just purely academic to what is true now, next it looks like we will get 8 core mainstream from Intel, still on the better Ring Bus, it looks like AMD are going 12 core Mainstream with their next release next year.

The mainstream core wars is on and Intel will not want to lose it so Intel's Mesh Interconnect is going to be critical to them because AMD pretty soon are going to be mainstreaming CPU's with core counts deep into Intel's HEDT range with ridiculous core counts on their HEDT range.
CannardPC who correctly predicted Ryzen 1### and 2### said AMD will be at 64 cores 128 thread next year on 7nm, that's 32 core HEDT.

Intel must respond.

 

[muon]

No point comparing to Skylake X these days. Was okay when coffeelake wasn't out, but pountless now.

Skylake X competes against threadripper and neither is meant for gaming.

 

[0h_no_not_again]

If AMD stay with their mesh style design (which I believe they will) and Intel stick to ring bus up to 8 cores on their mainstream CPU's, then I can't really see AMD ever really overtaking them in games, even if AMD can increase the frequencies..

I suspect AMD's infinity fabric will just about to Intel's ring bus, mostly because Infinity Fabric is very recent and Intels Ring Bus is quite old. There will be a lot of low hanging fruit for Zen 2 to optimise on from Zen 1.

What I find more exciting is the future of Threadripper and EPYC style multi-die packages, where the RF libraries on GloFo 7nm are looking top notch and will allow much faster die-to-die interfaces. Further, AMD appear to be improving their silicon interposers, again improving die-to-die interfaces.

It is really looking like 8-core CPUs are the practical limit for 12nm, where maybe 10 or 12 might be practical for 7nm, however multi-die packages are definitely going to be more dominant in the future - way better yields.

 

[chroniclard]

This is the reason why in general there is a performance deficit in games between Ryzen and Kaby/Coffee lake etc CPU's. It even shows in the clock for clock comparisons. Unfortunately games prefer the ring bus architecture over mesh.
For example if a Ryzen 2600x could theoretically be clocked to 5Ghz and you put it against even a 4.8Ghz 8700K, let alone a 5Ghz one, the 8700k would win in the majority of games, purely down to it's architecture.

If AMD stay with their mesh style design (which I believe they will) and Intel stick to ring bus up to 8 cores on their mainstream CPU's, then I can't really see AMD ever really overtaking them in games, even if AMD can increase the frequencies.

This is just not the case, Ryzen+ is already nipping at the heels of the 8700k, even with its clock speed deficit.

 

[ljt]

This is just not the case, Ryzen+ is already nipping at the heels of the 8700k, even with its clock speed deficit.

Really? In gaming? I've just watched a video of a 4ghz 6c12t 2600x Vs a 4Ghz 6c12t 8700k and I'm sure in every game they tested the 8700k was ahead.

To me the only difference between those CPU's in the test was the architecture. One being mesh, the other ring bus, everything else was the same.

 

[Troezar]

Exciting times now in CPUs. Glad I'm due an upgrade just need to decide when to jump back in...

 

[chroniclard]

Really? In gaming? I've just watched a video of a 4ghz 6c12t 2600x Vs a 4Ghz 6c12t 8700k and I'm sure in every game they tested the 8700k was ahead.

To me the only difference between those CPU's in the test was the architecture. One being mesh, the other ring bus, everything else was the same.

Yes, its still behind in some things but its much closer on the heels of the 8700k. May well be that the mesh design limits it somewhat however further improvements in clock speed/ipc with Ryzen 2 should surpass the "current" Intel offerings. Maybe.

 

[ljt]

Yes, its still behind in some things but its much closer on the heels of the 8700k. May well be that the mesh design limits it somewhat however further improvements in clock speed/ipc with Ryzen 2 should surpass the "current" Intel offerings. Maybe.

Oh in the video it was anywhere from 7-15% slower clock for clock. I'm not saying that's terrible, considering the price gulf between the CPU's in question, the 2600X is over £100 cheaper, so thats about 40%ish cheaper?

I'm wondering how architecturally different Zen 2 will be to Zen 1/Zen 1+. I doubt it's a complete redesign from the ground up again, perhaps a similar architecture to Zen+ but on a smaller node. More than likely have extra cores for the current price segments and maybe a few hundred Mhz clocks.

 

[Radox-0]

Impressive seeing things at like for like clocks, always nice to see such competition in the CPU space

With that said, the Skylake-X CPU's can clock higher (as Steve mentioned) so will close any gap and the Mesh can be overclocked which gains a few % in my experience. In actual gaming use, I can disconcern little difference between my 7980XE and 8700k rigs though mostly because both are beyond my monitors refresh rate (120hz) and the GPU's are the limit. Makes me want to get a 2700x and add into into the Mix now having got rid of a 1800x rig.

Still, it is very exciting seeing the reduced latency between CCX cores which is the important thing. Keeping the latency down will be an advantage I expect when increasing core count vs the monolithic method Intel has to use at the moment.

 

[humbug]

Without a doubt Coffeelake with its ring bus is ahead.

AoTS:
2600X: 100%
2700X: 110%
8700K: 113%

Assassins Creed:
2600X: 100%
2700X: 110%
8700K: 114%

BF1:
2600X: 100%
2700X: 102%
8700K: 107%

FC5
2600X: 100%
2700X: 102%
8700K: 109%

So yes actually if we are comparing clock for clock thread for thread then we have to compare it to the 2600X, and on average the 8700K is 10% faster.

I don't think that's a lot tho

 

[Troezar]

10% is not enough to be noticeable for most people. Certainly close enough to make other attributes more of a factor in which platform you choose. In my experience AMD hardware ages quite well. If as I suspect software is only going to become more multithreaded Ryzen should stay competitive.

The best news to come out of all of this is the consumer now has a choice.

 

[Radox-0]

10% is not enough to be noticeable for most people. Certainly close enough to make other attributes more of a factor in which platform you choose. In my experience AMD hardware ages quite well. If as I suspect software is only going to become more multithreaded Ryzen should stay competitive.

The best news to come out of all of this is the consumer now has a choice.

To be fair, that is 10% at like for like clocks. Coffeelake will usually be able to clock 700 GHz -1.2 GHz higher and add couple of 100 MHz to the ring bus overclock, similarly Skylake-X will be able to overclock 600 MHz - 800 MHz higher and overclock the Mesh couple of 100 MHz higher. Ryzen, will be able to clock 100 MHz -200 MHz higher it seems and the Infinity Fabric is already benefiting from 3200 MHz kit.

But with that said, yes I agree, to an extent in actual use it may not be noticeable and it is great to see how close things now sit at similar clock speeds. I expect it will get only closer as AMD manage to increase clock speeds, though I doubt Intel will not sit on their laurels (or one hopes). I notice little difference between my 7980XE and 8700k systems with 1080Ti's when gaming on a 100hz panel as usually the GPU is the limiting factor or I am sitting above 100hz, I expect Ryzen would be very similar and only difference may be for those trying to hold 144hz + where the 8700k may come into its own.

 

[humbug]

To be fair, that is 10% at like for like clocks. Coffeelake will usually be able to clock 700 GHz -1.2 GHz higher and add couple of 100 MHz to the ring bus overclock, similarly Skylake-X will be able to overclock 600 MHz - 800 MHz higher and overclock the Mesh couple of 100 MHz higher. Ryzen, will be able to clock 100 MHz -200 MHz higher it seems and the Infinity Fabric is already benefiting from 3200 MHz kit.

But with that said, yes I agree, to an extent in actual use it may not be noticeable and it is great to see how close things now sit at similar clock speeds. I expect it will get only closer as AMD manage to increase clock speeds, though I doubt Intel will not sit on their laurels (or one hopes). I notice little difference between my 7980XE and 8700k systems with 1080Ti's when gaming on a 100hz panel as usually the GPU is the limiting factor or I am sitting above 100hz, I expect Ryzen would be very similar and only difference may be for those trying to hold 144hz + where the 8700k may come into its own.

Coffeelake will usually be able to clock 700 GHz -1.2 GHz higher

I think that's a bit much, a realistic overclock on Ryzen 2### is 4.1 - 4.3Ghgz, that would make your coffeelake 4.8 -5Ghz to 5.5Ghz, a realistic overclock on coffeelake without deliding is 4.8 - 4.9Ghz.
What you also have to remember is this is vs the 2600X, vs the 2700X there is margin of error levels in it, the 2600 is the same chip as the 2600X and its half the price of coffeelake.

At the moment Intel very much are sitting on their laurels, the 8700K is over £300 because people think IPC is a lot higher and they overclock out of the box to over 5Ghz no trouble, they get this information not just from forums like this but even people like JayZ2Cent's who keep saying "Intel has higher IPC" because like everyone else just assume they do to a significant extent, its an unconscious bias they relate to the brand and so they reinforce it to others when reviewing.

I think AMD will find it a lot harder to get past that ^^^^ than they will getting to or even past Intel's actual performance, i think they will achieve performance parity by Zen 2 (Ryzen 3###) next year, and Intel will not care enough because most reviewers will continue along the "Intel if you're serious, AMD to save money" line, the perception of a product over rides reality and most reviewers are unconsciously bias to Intel.
This is AMD's own fault for not competing for so long and not managing thier image better with reviewers by being more forceful, like Intel and nVidia are.

 

[Radox-0]

I think that's a bit much, a realistic overclock on Ryzen 2### is 4.1 - 4.3Ghgz, that would make your coffeelake 4.8 -5Ghz to 5.5Ghz, a realistic overclock on coffeelake without deliding is 4.8 - 4.9Ghz.
What you also have to remember is this is vs the 2600X, vs the 2700X there is margin of error levels in it, the 2600 is the same chip as the 2600X and its half the price of coffeelake.

At the moment Intel very much are sitting on their laurels, the 8700K is over £300 because people think IPC is a lot higher and they overclock out of the box to over 5Ghz no trouble, they get this information not just from forums like this but even people like JayZ2Cent's who keep saying "Intel has higher IPC" because like everyone else just assume they do to a significant extent, its an unconscious bias they relate to the brand and so they reinforce it to others when reviewing.

I think AMD will find it a lot harder to get past that ^^^^ than they will getting to or even past Intel's actual performance, i think they will achieve performance parity by Zen 2 (Ryzen 3###) next year, and Intel will not care enough because most reviewers will continue along the "Intel if you're serious, AMD to save money" line, the perception of a product over rides reality and most reviewers are unconsciously bias to Intel.
This is AMD's own fault for not competing for so long and not managing thier image better with reviewers by being more forceful, like Intel and nVidia are.

I am not talking about 700 - 1.2 GHz higher then what ryzen can achieve, I am saying that based on 4GHz as a base point as that is what has been mentioned, so 4.7 GHz - 5.2 GHz is the range that is achievable for Coffeelake when I say 700 MHz - 1.2 GHz higher (though 5.1 and 5.2 GHz would need a delid), Skylake-X I mentioned 600 - 800 MHz higher, so 4.6 GHz - 4.8 GHz and for Ryzen 2 I mentioned 100-200 MHz higher, so 4.1 GHz - 4.2 GHz.

In regards to Intel sitting on their Laurel's I disagree. They are rapidly releasing platforms and CPU and I doubt Intel would have launched the 8700k as early as they did without the threat from Ryzen. Similarly I doubt the 12-18 core Skylake-X CPUs repurposed from XCC CPU's would even exist without AMD Ryzen / TR and pretty obvious given how they came out so much latter. If Intel had thier way the 7900x would have been sitting pretty at $1700. Similarly with the 8 core Maintream CPU coming out (rumors sure, but I expect it to appear) if it uses the same architecture of Ring bus + 8 cores + high clock speeds, it will be a powerhouse. Now in a few years however, I expect AMD may be able to better leverage the CCX cores / Infinity Fabric to create much more massive CPU's compared to the monolithic method Intel has to use and I imagine this is where they will fall behind, more so if AMD can continue to drive down latency on the Fabric.

 

[humbug]

I am not talking about 700 - 1.2 GHz higher then what ryzen can achieve, I am saying that based on 4GHz as a base point as that is what has been mentioned, so 4.7 GHz - 5.2 GHz is the range that is achievable for Coffeelake when I say 700 MHz - 1.2 GHz higher (though 5.1 and 5.2 GHz would need a delid), Skylake-X I mentioned 600 - 800 MHz higher, so 4.6 GHz - 4.8 GHz and for Ryzen 2 I mentioned 100-200 MHz higher, so 4.1 GHz - 4.2 GHz.

In regards to Intel sitting on their Laurel's I disagree. They are rapidly releasing platforms and CPU and I doubt Intel would have launched the 8700k as early as they did without the threat from Ryzen. Similarly I doubt the 12-18 core Skylake-X CPUs repurposed from XCC CPU's would even exist without AMD Ryzen / TR and pretty obvious given how they came out so much latter. If Intel had thier way the 7900x would have been sitting pretty at $1700. Similarly with the 8 core Maintream CPU coming out (rumors sure, but I expect it to appear) if it uses the same architecture of Ring bus + 8 cores + high clock speeds, it will be a powerhouse. Now in a few years however, I expect AMD may be able to better leverage the CCX cores / Infinity Fabric to create much more massive CPU's compared to the monolithic method Intel has to use and I imagine this is where they will fall behind, more so if AMD can continue to drive down latency on the Fabric.

Ah i see, ok
And yes you have a point.
Some of this must actually be quite frustrating for Intel, not only are they now having to fight a competitive AMD in the mainstream space (AMD are gaining market share, quite a lot if The Mind Factory is anything to go by) AMD also seem to be quite disruptive in the HEDT space.

Despite offering a lot more cores from last gen and at much lower prices, if you look on Rain Forest Threadripper is out selling almost all the Skylake-X chips, right now on US everyone but the 7820K.

That will get worse for them, 48 Cores are already on the cards next year, Starship, consists of 4x 12 core dies, that inevitably means 12 core mainstream and CanardPC said 64 core will also appear in the same year, that surely would make Intel crap themselves.