Ryzen vs i7 (Mainstream); Threadripper vs i9 (HEDT); X299 vs X399/TRX40; Xeon vs Epyc

naw man, not just because of the ivr.

 

I'd say that OC'ing reaching 110c is *not* useful, and makes OC'ing on the i9 / x299 a complete abject failure.

How could you imagine spinning the power and heat issues ruining the chip OC any other way?

Will delidding a $1k CPU become popular? I guess this is the kind of situation that would get closest to making that happen.

Intel would love this, since delidding voids the users warranty, and Intel is now completely off the hook for their i9 CPU failure.

But, I think most people's common sense will have them steer completely clear of Intel i9 and x299, and wait for Intel to come out with a completely fixed version before buying.

That's the magic of AMD's solution, it doesn't require OC'ing to use 100% of the power of the CPU, AMD get's it all to the user right out of the box

We've had this discussion in the past. Should the CPU / GPU maker work out how to get all of the power to the user out of the box, or should they hold 10%-15% back, and give the users something to hunt for on their own?

OC'ing fulfills the hunter in us all, but most people like getting their kill's pre-dressed and table ready for the feasting

 

Actually, pay the overclock insurance on the chip from Intel, ride it hard and put it up wet until it quits on you, then repeat. If Intel's going to pull this ****, push it to 95C+. F-em!
https://click.intel.com/tuningplan/

Edit: you actually only get 1 replacement within a year, but why not bomb one to make them pay for being an a** with the toothpaste...

 

That's a completely useless plan in this case, it doesn't cover delidding - that voids all warranties including this extended coverage for "running outside Intel specification's", what we call OC'ing.

This plan has been available for many years, and when it was first announced I called and asked if it included delidding, and they said "NO!"

It also only is available for Intel "Boxed" edition CPU's, no other form's are covered, including those built into laptops and desktops, unless you have the original "Boxed" information to go along with it.

As I recall Intel also won't cover "burnt" or "cooked" CPU's, overvolted and/or undercooled. It's completely within Intel's rights under the plan rules to deny coverage for "misuse" - decided by Intel.

Intel's extended coverage plan is a waste of $.

Anyone using common sense care during their OC'ing won't damage their CPU, and it won't fail.

Intel knows this, and is playing on people's fear's to extract more money from them.

 

I've only ever killed one CPU, but it was an entire laptop death. Took everything, mb, cpu, gpu, display. Ram survived only (talk about an odd win; Kingston ram ftw). But, yeah. Overall, I wouldn't get Intel this round.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

AMD R7 1700 vs. Intel i7-7700K Game Streaming Benchmarks
http://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/2993-amd-1700-vs-intel-7700k-for-game-streaming
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/6ojdq9/amd_ryzen_7_1700_vs_intel_i77700k_game_streaming/

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/6ojd4e/r7_1700_vs_i77700k_game_streaming_benchmarks/

 

AMD Ryzen 5 1600 vs. Intel Core i7-7800X: 30 Game Battle!

 

You mean just glue them together?

Already said similar like this for mainstream i7 in earlier post #885

 

Interesting how some people focus on a a comparison between a 5GHz quad-core and a 4GHz eight-core completely forgetting the fact that achieving 5GHz without some serious modding and voiding the warranty is nigh impossible. The 7700K, even at stock, is insanely hot. A friend of mine has one and even under a 240mm AIO it gets to about 80*C when rendering. In contrast, on the same cooler, a 1700/1700X/1800X doesn't really go above 55-60*C. Combine that with the fact they offer more than twice the overall performance and near perfect per-core scaling results in what I can only describe as MUCH better value. As for snappiness, there are tests where the 7700K is tested at the stock 4.5GHz Turbo and to be frank, the difference diminishes really quickly and evidently.

I mean, I may be in the minority here but I would NEVER pay 330-2000$ for a CPU that can barely keep itself from melting at stock and requires modding to be able to do anything beyond. Furthermore, Intel's frankly offensive statements to people who bought the "K" chips which are MEANT for OC was also quite disappointing. I won't even touch on the fact that Intel is asking double or triple the price for their own equivalent 6/8-core CPUs which are on a platform with more issues than features at the moment.

Overall, Kaby Lake was decent at best before Ryzen but now Kaby Lake, Krappy Lake X and Skylake X all just seem like a lousy attempt at milking the market one last time. And this is why competition is good. Do you think Coffee Lake would've been 6-core for the mainstream if Ryzen hadn't arrived? Hell no! Intel have been keeping the masses on 4 cores for 10 years now. And they haven't innovated in 6 ever since Sandy. Let that sink in...

 

Why should they? Now, they are on the heels and underperforming until next gen arrives. It had to be the way it is now. Dangerous, lying on the lazy side. They will lose more cash now than necessary. Put this on greed.

 

Because NVIDIA has been innovating steadily, even though they basically had a large portion of the market.

As shady as the company may be, even with all of its monopoly, if you do not keep the pace, you will be outrun. One way or another.

NVIDIA has kept a significant performance increase at each release (to a certain extent).

 

Probably because the competition has been harder in the graphics segment (regarless of nvidia's large portion of the market). Totally opposite for processors the last decade.

 

If you are a gamer it seems you need a high FPS monitor at 1080P and a GTX 1080 to justify the slightly better frame rates of Intel Skylake-x offerings.

 

That logic only applies to the 7700K though as other Krappy Lake X and Sky Fail X CPUs cannot even outperform their equivalent Ryzen counterparts by enough to be worth the investment and tolerating the heat issues and absurd prices.

 

Yup, it was a surprise to see how badly the 7800 did against Ryzen, and the 7700k, and I expect now that the higher core count i9's will be progressively lower OC'ing and lower performing, whereas the Ryzen will hang in there at 4.0ghz for 8-core and beyond.

Watching this video through was an eye opener:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/thr...399-xeon-vs-epyc.805695/page-91#post-10568592

 

yep gaming performance seems very poor atm and for gaming isnt worth getting x299 platform. which makes me wonder how it'll do in other software application really and i'll be the one to find out lol. gonna grab a 5ghz asap when 8-10c hit siliconlottery and then grab coffeelake 6c 5ghz laptop with traditional non-mesh cache rework design and compare the performance with my own software so i've an idea.

 

I shudder to think what SiliconLottery is going to need to charge for a 5.0ghz 7900x Unicorn...maybe double the MSRP??

Right now, SiliconLottery.com looks like the shelves are bare, hardly much of a range of choices.

You might want to put in a bid now for the CPU you need @ 5.0ghz... there're probably not going to be many available.

 

i know, there are pepole that buy the cpus without letting them know b4 hand when they launched the votes for stocks on overclock.net and now out of stocks, sucks

 

A 5GHz 6-core in a laptop will NOT happen with CoffeeLake. Hell, even the desktop 6-core mainstream chips won't hit 5GHz. Mark my words. I called the 6-core thing, you'll see I'm right here as well.

 

in vague terms, no it will not. because to get 5ghz 6c u'll have to get cherry chips from silicon lottery. if you do get one, it sure is possible in a laptop as long as the cooling allows it. and since we have been talking about silicon lottery and their highly overclocked chips, i'd disagree with you here that for the top % of chips 6c 5ghz is actually very possible.

 

And how much will those cost? Double? Triple? And what about voltage? I personally don't like running Intel CPUs at settings such as 1.45v or above. And what about heat and Intel's Toothpaste TIM? The hassle to get 5GHz is so large and so expensive that it's basically meaningless as the percentage of people who are skilled enough and willing to invest in it are less than 1% of users.

 

Silicon lottery use Conductonaut No more Coolaboratory Liquid Ultra. Due work better on the new chips. 1% users or not doesn't matter.

 

another one of those typical argument.

i said i want 5ghz 6c laptop without including cost
you said its not possible, without including cost.

now i said its possible for top% of chips, without including cost, of course i know its going to cost more. we are talking about if its possible or not, not the value of it so lets not confuse the two and put into the same argument/debate.

so we can both conclude that, even it will be expensive, it is possible, yes?

 

Yeah, I'm with @don_svetlio on this one, I *don't* think it's at all possible in the sense that you'll be extremely lucky to find a 5.0ghz OC'able part on your own, and I think SiliconLottery is gonna sell out before you can nab one there too.

Besides, you'll need to carefully select your x299 melting pot so as to make sure it can supply the power and cool itself without throttling and shutting down before the CPU does.

Seems like a lot of trouble just to run slower than a ThreadRipper that costs far less...that you'll be able to pick up just about anywhere.

 

It does though - an open market is driven by consumers. If a 6c 5GHz CPU costs 1000$ - the vast majority of people will settle for 4.4GHz or lower for 200-250$. That's just how most consumers are.

 

yes, if you put in a sense that majority of people wont be getting it that is correct. also 6c 5ghz will prob not cost 1k and thats because coffeelake will simply become mainstream and replace 7700k which is at a cost of $500 for a 5.2ghz chip from silicon lottery i think. even if they want to charge a bit more $550 for 5ghz (not 5.2 mind u) 6c imo is worth it, even if its rare i'll probably still get it if i can catch it in time.

and as to your previous statements, 5ghz 6c will be upper 1.45v only if you have a junk chip. x299 and skylakex a good 6c will have 5ghz at 1.3v ish or lower, much better than sandy/ivy-E era.

if people are too use to mobile BGA junk then they would think its not possible and unrealistic, but little do they know thats what intel wanted them to think. by forcing everyone to BGA and give them the worst of the worst silicon, people eventually forget how good desktop chips were and had low expectation, in which the high frequency btw its one of the BIGGEST reason i still go for intel this yr instead of AMD. @Mr. Fox @Papusan would know what we're talking about.

 

If I should gess. Let's say normal price for 8700K is around $380, I can't see 5.0GHZ will be over $750 in the start. But none of us know what the price will be. I think the best SL 7700K cost around $650 in the beginning. I haven't the prices or can't remember in my head.

 

Wait, what??

Intel is the driver of BGA, not AMD.

AMD's Ryzen laptop CPU's are AMD B350 PGA - just as replaceable as Intel LGA.

ROG Strix GL702ZC
https://www.asus.com/Laptops/ROG-Strix-GL702ZC/

You can buy the 8 core Ryzen RX 580, kicking 6 core Intel CPU's butt's

 

Or buy the 6-core version for cheaper which still annihilates 99% of Intel mobile CPUs

 

I wouldn't touch Asusbook. Locked R1700 can't give me what I want. What with later upgrade? We talk about Asus!!

 

You need to imagine with out shackling yourself with old history.

It's got a socketed CPU, so it's CPU is as replaceable upgradeable as any other socketed laptop. And, OC isn't needed, let it sing it's song out of the box.

And, Asus is the first, not the last - let's hope!!

 

Not locked? Have you seen the same as me? And the cooling, yeah, wait and see. Whom unlock firmware for Asus?

 

I've lived with desktop motherboards with lots of tuning capabilities, and at the same time I've lived with laptops with next to zero tuning capabilities, and I've got no complaints against either one.

We don't know what Asus / AMD are going to provide for managing the Ryzen 1700/1600 / RX 580/570 in whatever the range of models that will be released, and likely it will take time to build up those tools.

You keep *****ing about Asus, but I don't see the problems you've seen, and I've OWNED 7 Asus laptops, and helped 1000's of Asus owners get the best out of the laptops, with very few failures.

I think you've built up an animosity for so much for little reason, it's really a waste of time to discuss those things with you, you're locked in your personal BIOS and made it completely untuneable

 

huh? i did say intel right? not amd in my comment.

i said the one of the only reason im going intel is because of the high frequency and better silicon quality.

 

thats the $1000 question, cause usually, nobody will for asus LOL. gonna stuck on a crappy bios with default clocks LOLOLz.

and honestly, 8c is great, power consumption is great, but the frequency? 4ghz? EWWWWWWWWWWWW

 

You spit on BGA, which is brought to us by Intel, then said that's why you are getting Intel... it didn't make any sense.

If you were making sense, you'd be getting a Ryzen / ThreadRipper AMD part, and get nothing from those BGA dealing Intel'ian's.

Why give Intel money when AMD is working so hard to make your purchases with them worthwhile?

Why let Intel extract more cash from you than their products are worth?

Choose a better destination for your cash, turn the car around before you go off the Intel i9 x299 cliff of doom.

 

3.7ghz stock

We know nothing of what's in store for tuning the Ryzen mobile CPU / GPU, likely not much to start, but it's the first of it's kind, it'll take some time.

Besides you'll be running rings around Intel BGA and Intel 6 core LGA with a stock AMD 8-core CPU.

Not to mention your new desktop ThreadRipper, with i9's flopping over like they were thermal throttling wattage swilling nuclear piles.

 

Finally, I will step in.

First, @ole!!! the use of IVR lowers the voltage amount so you cannot compare it directly with a skylake mainstream chip. The voltage needs are better compared to the FIVR of HW/BW. Also, voltage does not directly tell you heat until you have the reference of the specific line, which is why AMD using 1.4V still has temps so low.

Second, coordinate dreams with reality. Your 10-core chip won't reach 5.0 for real world load unless you go custom loop, chiller, or phase. The 7900X is a **** chip on heat, although I do commend it on clocks of 4.6+ on a 10-core with AIO. Nevertheless, we get what you are looking for. I wish you well in your goals. Also, the 4.8 chips from Siliconlottery.com (also, you should check importing from caseking as an alternative) will likely get you 5.0 for benchmarks, just not a daily driver. You don't need 5.0, you want 5.0.

Third, Intel sucks on mobile with BGA. AMD is releasing BGA chips in the next 6 months. This means both suck. Unless an ODM puts a desktop chip in the form factor, that is the end of the discussion.

Fourth, @hmscott - @Papusan is right in the world of laptop overclocking. It used to really just be AW and Clevo (at one time, before dell bought AW, AW bought their laptop forms from Clevo, so all hail Clevo, the laptop savior). Now, Clevo is the last man standing on socketed equipment, except for MSI, which has a couple whitebooks and none in mainstream. Asus locks down the firmware hard, and the normal firmware modders cannot unlock it. Now, if they made the firmware the same quality as desktop boards, I wouldn't complain. But they don't. Period. They also pulled the proprietary card BS years ago, then went to soldered gpus (not sure if all lines or not). But, because MXM can no longer be complied with for the new mobile cards, we have no standardization and things are in flux. It is why I WILL NOT BUY A LAPTOP UNTIL RESOLVED! The Asus lockdown is but one reason I will not use them.

@ole!!! as to your comment on the 8 core around 4GHz, I point you to the Panther (Clevo P570WM). That held the Intel HEDT chips. This chip from AMD produces much less heat then those chips. So, please, stop. 8 core and 6 core chips have their place in laptops. There are many reasons not to buy an ASUS laptop, but this crap you keep pushing with Intel is just that, crap.

We know NOTHING about coffeelake, and at this point, it is as much vapor as the cannonlake that was supposed to be out in January originally, and that should have been in all lines right now. AMD took longer to get to market than expected (by about 9 months), so no one should also completely absolve AMD for crap either. But this line has devolved today, moreso than I am used to seeing. Let's bring it back up so it isn't just side versus side, but analyzing known info on products, known predictions, and truly comparing platforms.

Edit: as to pricing of CPUs, we saw $500+ on them regularly. But, for the best ones in the world (one's in competition under LN2 setting records), you regularly see $650-800. I think the one used at the last world championship sold for $783 or around there on the quad core. Pricing is fickel, so we cannot yet know how far it will go, but double is not unreasonable for the top 10chips (or around that) in the world. That is the price to pay to compete. With that said, $500-550 was fairly normal.

 

Yup... even at 3.7 GhZ turbo, we will likely be able to undervolt (and overclock?) the thing through AMD Ryzen Master Utility.
And Wattman can be used to undervolt the 580 (unless it's already been set to lowest possible voltage by Asus, though I doubt that this would be the case).

I'd rather play around with the undervolt and find the lowest voltage that works on stock settings so the turbo clocks can be maintained for as long as you are using them and extend longevity of the system.
1700 is already plenty powerful at stock, I doubt we will need to overclock it.

Do we actually NEED the unlocked BIOS to undervolt Ryzen or 580 considering the software is primarily Windows based?
I doubt it.
I think the only thing needed for a BIOS unlock would be the ability to overclock RAM if you wanted to - which would of course save us time and money instead of buying more expensive RAM sticks (unless Asus offers higher speed RAM by default - which they really should)

 

First, overclocking from BIOS/UEFI is not the same as software OC. There are many benefits. Second, the software changes the firmware settings. If Asus locks it down, you WILL NOT be able to use all of the features of the Ryzen Master Utility. We've seen this on XTU and laptop overclocking for AGES!!! So, don't get your hopes up yet.

So, let's give it some time to find out, as right now it is speculation.

 

Overclockers are a strange bunch, I know I was one. We may not have the best or fastest chip but we must have the fastest of its kind. If we can't have the fastest of its kind then we do not want any common system even if it is 50% faster than the fastest in the world of the other type of system. Now that I have grown up, well, guess what system I would want?

 

I will follow up my own post.
Intel Coffee Lake Core i7-8700K Flagship 6 Core Specifications Leaked – 4.3 GHz Single Core Boost, 4.0 GHz Six Core Boost


Intel Core i7-8700K – The Flagship and First Six Core Mainstream CPU With 4.3 GHz Boost Clocks.

"This chip has 6 cores and 12 threads. The chip is clocked at a base frequency of 3.7 GHz and has a minimum core frequency set at 0.8 GHz which is for idle mode. The chip features a boost clock of 4.3 GHz on a single core, 4.2 GHz in dual core mode while quad and hexa core boost clocks are rated at 4.0 GHz which is impressive."

"Six core coming to mainstream platforms sounds great but there’s still a lot that needs to be done. AMD has six and eight core processors on their mainstream platform that perform great and do so at amazing prices. If Intel really wants to show their support for desktop mainstream users, then it may have to be a mix of great performance and competitive pricing otherwise Ryzen may take the cake once again."


6 core as highest core count on Intel's brand new Flagship in the mainstream platform, is all too weak although hexa core boost clock can run 4.0GHz. Not much to be happy for regarding Intel's new mainstream FLAGSHIP!!

Around 50% faster than the old 6700K due the 6 cores, running base clock at 4.0GHz isn't much you can compete vs. Amd's mainstream platforms 8 core flagship R7 1800X(even against R7 1700X will this be a bloodbath). Of course the new 6 cores coffee Intel i7 will OC easier-higher than AMD Ryzen, but Intel you will have to run after your money. And you have to run very fast!! Too little and too late!!!

 

As I said, personally, I'm not worried about OC-ing... the main thing I would like to see on the Asus Stryx laptops is the ability to UNDERVOLT both the CPU and GPU.

 

that i disagree. i am a hardcore gamer but i play at like 40-50fps with like 900p. as long as its playable doesnt reallyl bother me. i play to win though.

 

woah i came back to many notifications! it seems a lot of people want ryzen and let people know (me) the value of ryzen, which is fine cause i already know it then i made my decision from that point on and i still end up choosing intel chip for this gen.

3.7 stock is not an issue, since i'll be overclocking it right who really look at stock nowadays when we are getting the chips to overclock them lol thats just a silly thing to point out.

also comparing performance, i'd say big chance Asus ryzen 8c with crappy bios will net you 3.8-3.9 ghz at most, lets consider the upper limit of 4ghz 8c would be aorund 32 for 100% scaling. 8700k 6c 5ghz would be 30 at 100% scaling. assuming it is 100% scaling, ryzen is only around 6.7% faster in multithread but intel is 25% faster in ST imo thats a huge trade off not worth it. @tilleroftheearth likely already considered everything and possibly more from the list below. I dont list stability because i probably upgrade within 1-2 yrs time anyway if something much better comes along.

now putting everything back in:
- currently software are less optimized for AMD's cpu
- i use a lot of ST software which will not get updated
- 8c scale a little worse than 6c, more cores means less performance per core.
- prema bios support in Clevo vs crappy Asus
- better storage performance in single/ raid/ IRST
- intel cost a bit more and possibly use more power, meh

overall i think the advantage is rather clear for this gen, next gen will have to wait and see. the downside is once again more cost, possibly more power hungry but i can live with it, WORTHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

 

Erm - have you looked at Ryzen benchmarks for multi-core? It scales near perfectly core-wise...

 

yea but thats.. benchmark. i dont use benchmark daily, i use the software i use daily.. a great software will need near 100% perfect optimization for scaling to have AMD's cpu to be ahead of intel by a bit.. thats way too hard to come by bro

 

No?... Multi-core application NEVER put the quad-core Intel CPUs ahead of the 8-core Ryzen or 6-core Ryzen. Hell, the 8-core furnace from Intel is barely 10% ahead of the 1700 at 2-3 times the prices...

 

2-3x the Cost overall, double the power from 230w to 450+ watts, motherboards that can't put out the power or cool the draw, redesign that gives up any previous advantages.

Making Skylake-x (Kabylake-x) at best a stop gap to avoid until Intel takes the time to do it right.

At worst, a total waste of money and time

 

That is the point, if you are buying into Intel for the higher frame rates alone you need a high end GPU, If however you are satisfied with slightly lower FPS, like 40-50, a lower end Ryzen system should satisfy that need. In the end though to each their own.