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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[humbug]

The performance is close enough and the price difference so large IMO the only way the 8700K makes sense is if you're actually running a GTX 1080TI at 1080P, or you have so much money you don't care about it and just want braging rights, in which case you're buying a GTX 1080TI anyway.

For everyone else you're getting the same performance from a 2600, which is half the money, £150 saving on the CPU goes a long way.

 

[humbug]

2700x vs 8700k build for me works out very close, maybe £20 going with the parts I would choose, basically nothing.

Which is why you wouldn't buy the 2700X, not unless the productivity performance it has over the 2600 is worth the extra money to you, otherwise again unless money is no object the 2600 gives you all the 8700K will for a lot less money.

You would buy the 2700X as a more cost effective alternative to Intel's HEDT line, like the 7800K and 7820K, not as an apex gaming CPU.