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

Battle of The 16 Core CPUs – Intel’s Core i9-7960X Takes 8 Out of 9 Records Versus AMD’s Ryzen Threadripper 1950X

 

Intel's kinda overdoing it on the cooling, wouldn't you say

I guess Intel CPU's now need LN2 to perform...

 

I expect Threadripper as well need LN2 when the multi passing a certain clock speed Or maybe I have missed something?

 

They both are in the way too early release phase. But that is ok as if , like in Vega, you hold on too long the silicon looses its edge, so too say. Just can't wait to hopefully see AMD actually no longer loosing money this quarter. With this now maybe they can stay in the game for a bit longer rather than having everything fall by the wayside.

With 14nm+, or further out, hopefully the clocks will be improved where IPC becomes more of a wash between Ryzen and Intel offerings. As it is to be honest most OEM systems will not have a decernable difference in usability to the consumer. This should end up being a real boon for AMD based systems in over the counter sales. So after back to school sales CPU market share should start seeing an equalization.

Edit; They can have LN2 records, I again am only interested in what it could do for me. Benchmark a normal system with say an AIO and let's see what is what!

 

^^This^^

 

Thirded, a decent AIO is about all most users are going to do with it (probably myself included). Real-world data is what will decide this.

 

So far, 360mm AOIs seem to work best. They have a couple TR specific ones, so once we get reviews.

 

Thought that might be the case, seems like a standard astek cooler covers most of the hot zones, but a wider base that's TR specific will still be better.

 

Seems to me that Intel got relatively pathetic 'win' here... and it still managed to operate at over 100 Mhz higher clock speeds than AMD... so that can easily account for the differences in scores.
Kudos to Intel for being able to reach higher clock speeds, but ultimately, the difference is so small that it doesn't matter... especially in the face of the massive cost differential.

Plus, at stock speeds, do we know if intel's cpu will still behave like this?
They will likely end up reaching similar or much lower clock rates in multithreading while having a much higher boost on a single core (whooho... Intel beats AMD on the sole ground of being able to boost higher on a single core for nearly double the cost).

Point being, these CPU's won't likely be used for gaming or for single core tasks... but multithreaded loads.

Indeed... have Intel have their 'win' here at LN2... I also wonder what their power consumption will be in relation to AMD.

 

Dude those are multi-threaded benchmarks. Can you stop repeating this fallacy already?

 

I'm reasonably sure Intel with equal amount of cores will Oc average up to 10% higher than Ryzen. But of course at a much higher prices.

 

And not representative of how the actual CPU will behave because both TR and i9 were overclocked to the maximum with liquid nitrogen, and 0 testing was done on STOCK settings.
What will all 16 cores on i9 be able to reach and maintain on stock exactly?

 

Stock 3.6 GHz all-core boost on the i9-7960X (16C/32T), same as TR 1950X.

 

Seriously, expect 4.3-4.5, while 4.0-4.2 is AMDs with proper cooling. That is my prediction WITHOUT delid. But, we'll find out.

 

What's the IPC difference, like 5-10%?

 

See

 

7.34% differential in IPC... while also taking into account the fact that most software was optimized primarily for Intel over the past decade or so - which could be the reason why Intel still has this advantage.

Question: has Cinebench instruction sets been optimized for Ryzen?

P.S. What other features Ryzen has/supports that hadn't been implemented in software? Perhaps HSA/HUMA for one (though that would apply to an APU).

 

Not sure. But look on Hwbot and compare scores between TR and 7960X (16 cores). Not many results, but you can see the direction. F.eks TR is killed by Intel in Wprime 1024M. Same in 32M.

You have to see how the mainstream Ryzen do it vs. Intel if you want to see how well bench software works with Ryzen.

 

time to wait for coffeelake-HEDT? lmao.
though its cpu monkey. http://www.cpu-monkey.com/en/compare_cpu-amd_ryzen_7_1800x-705-vs-intel_core_i7_8700k-763

CB15 ST 8700k at 4.7 against ryzen at 4ghz.. 13.7% IPC difference, assuming intel didn't lie about their 8700k performance.

 

The problem here is there will be nothing on the shelves for back to school sales. I think this needs a new chipset too, so where are the boards?

 

Ok, so, 13.7% IPC difference with a 700 Mhz higher clock (is this for just 1 core or are we talking multi-core performance?).
That should give Intel overall performance advantage of what... 20-24%?
Performance scaling with core overclocking has been minimal at best... noted on both CPU's and GPU's recently.
In my perspective, not worth pushing it unless this 20% would make a crucial difference for business or time crunches... but even then, Intel would need to price those CPU's competitively - and given how they currently price their hardware... it doesn't look good.

Seems to me like Intel is pushing/announcing new products fast and hard, and cannibalizing their existing lineups in the process.

So, it will come down to (at least in the short run) how AMD responds with a 14nm+ refresh of Ryzen.
This refresh should (at least in theory) allow AMD to increase clock frequencies nicely without compromising power draw (hopefully) - but I don't hold out much for IPC improvements (at least not until Ryzen 2).

 

If this were out today, then yes, Ryzen would have to re asses its market position. The performance would too closely match the 1800x at a similar cost.

But it is not here, the boards and chipset are not here. The specs (PCIe lanes etc.) are not here. Ryzen still has time to mature and possibly see a refresh too.

Intel carefully omits the fact it is not a simple upgrade from you 7700K to a 8700K. With the timing of the paper release and omitted information my guess is this is to save those possible lost back to school sales.

 

it is single core performance, one is clocked at 4ghz ryzen, the other is 8700k at 4.7ghz. maybe u need to look at the chart, properly calculate what the IPC is per 100mhz and figure it out from there. its actually 13.8% rounded up ha

 

well its not the 8700k that is a good value tbh its the i5. since pricing stayed pretty much the same other than inflation, i5 will have 6 cores and a iGPU, which is huge for 99% of laptop out there without a dGP when comes to market share. AMD's ryzen + vega APU wont be out till 2018, they need to bring that out fast asap. so intel has declared new CFL will be out around early october, hope they are not lying this time.

 

Canadian etailer publishes Intel 8th Gen Desktop CPU prices


In CAD prices!! So the 8700K at 484.44 would be 389 USD and 329 Euro. These prices would be exclusive of vat.

 

These are so far out that we need a block of salt for these prices. Admitedly the chips looks to be a winner, but that usually is the case with paper releases.

 

http://www.tweaktown.com/news/58827/final-fantasy-xv-pc-recommends-gtx-1080-ti/index.html

Now that Vega and the Ti can be compared, I wanted to post about a game who's recommended specs are an i7 with a higher clock than 3.4GHz or a Ryzen 1700, 16GB of ram, and a 1080 Ti. Native 4K HDR, designed from the ground up for the PC (not a console port). Do you think that Volta will be out by then or guesses on how it will compare to the Ti?

Edit: wonder how optimized the multi-threading will be on it...

 

I was off the grid for a while; but after reading what I've missed in the last few weeks I see I didn't miss much.

AMD is still swinging for the fence and some connect and some don't. Similarly, Intel is also floundering with mostly announcements at this time.

but... The future looks great!

And choice for us mere consumers has increased greatly; just as I hoped when AMD announced Ryzen so long ago (~138 pages back).

If a new platform isn't needed 'today' - first quarter of 2018 looks like a good time to upgrade what is currently being used.

(At least in an objective manner).

I'm wondering what AMD can offer for pure performance/productivity of my workstation class workloads though?

Is anything else expected from AMD that I've missed while catching up with this and other threads on NBR?

 

More info/rumors regarding IPC on next Intel mainstream.
Intel Core i3-8350K CPU Performance Leaks Out – Multi-Threading Performance Almost on Par With A Core i7-7700K, Single-Thread Results Shows IPC Lead

"Coming to the benchmarks, we will first be looking at the CPU-z benchmark where the Core i3-8350K scores 503.3 points in single threaded and 1982.0 points in multi-threaded benchmark. Comparing the single-threaded score, we can see that the Core i3-8350K is faster than the Intel Core i7-7700K which does 492 points with a higher rated clock speed of 4.2 GHz base and 4.5 GHz boost while the i3 only boasts a 4.0 GHz clock and 503.3 points. In multi-threading, the Core i7-7700K scores 2648 points but we can see that it is solely due to the higher thread count and within the range that i3 can easily overcome with a slight overclock."

 

Do you remember how I mentioned months ago that Coffee would be the one to get and sit on until the 10nm+(+) or 7nm Zen 2 or 3?That is mainstream of course.
Price/performance - Ryzen 5 or 7 (especially if a view to future upgrades)
Performance Mainstream - Coffee (Until Ice at the earliest, but potentially tiger)
HEDT Price Performance - TR 16 (recommended)
HEDT Performance - 14+ core SK-X (not recommended without a DAMN good reason; overpriced for performance, less PCIe lanes, shorter platform lifespan)
HEDT Gamers - 12 Core SK-X (standing by this still unless the heat is too much and doesn't clock up as well as needed, but may do better than what the 7900X did, so I'm hopeful on it living up to the recommend status here)

 

8700k hope to see that IPC increase intel promised, at least 3-4% is what im hoping for over 7700k. now just have to wait for bigger optane m.2 SSDs...

cpuz shows cpu default clock but we donno what 8350k turbos to, sucks.

 

Is It Worth the Upgrade? Ryzen 3 vs. Core i5-2500K vs. FX-8370

 

Sounds about right, waiting for solid CL numbers instead of rumors before I commit though.

 

Intel Core i7-8700K Benchmarks Show a 6 Core CPU Blazing Past AMD’s 8 Core Ryzen 7 1700 and Intel’s 6 Core HEDT Core i7-7800X CPU

 

Meanwhile at Intel HeadQuarters...

Spoiler: Welcome...

While we are waiting for the release of Coffin-Lake in laptops (2018?), let's practice shooting some womp rats, for our next assault on the DeathStar.

Got one!!

 

I'm pretty sure those results wouldn't come from my next laptop

 

again this could be an awesome CPU. We need more info on the chipset features and cost. Also for whaat I can see by the time this is out it will probably be more a comparison of it and the 1800x, not the 1700. But this all has to be seen as of yet.

 

Maybe AM4 CPU's Rev II will release, with a few hundred more mhz... just enough to keep the Intel Sith busy conjuring up more evil marketing shenanigans

 

Or oc'd 1700x in a desktop. But not in a laptop Intel will win there. R1700 is out of this game!! Both for desktops and laptops.

Edit. FYI Single threaded Cinbench scores is all too low for the mentioned clocks for 8700K. Need optimizing or IPC is decreased, who is not in the cards

 

Vega vs nVidia, Intel's "8th" Gen & More!!
Starts @ 3:50

 

Assuming these BM 'scores' are the real deal; these are the kinds of 'answers' and 'reply's' that I was expecting from Intel to AMD's Ryzen.

No doubt, AMD will announce a better performing platform soon (I hope it doesn't just want to keep competing on price) and then we'll have another reply from Intel...

Can't wait for the next few iterations from both...

 

Well, I'm sure you've seen my recommended list a couple pages back.

The truth is that the 14nm+ will be nothing more than addressing the larger issues on trying to squeeze out more performance (I give a low recommendation on purchasing these if you already possess one of the other chips on the list). This is all building to the main event: Zen 2 versus Ice Lake! That is where it likely will no longer just be competing on the price/performance ratio, but taking it to Intel hard (if not trading blows, closing the gap even more on performance). They are still quite competitive in certain segments, but some will still pay the Intel premium at the moment. That may change in the main event, though.

 

But, but Intel should really launch a 8 core/16 threads chips for mainstream as well Shouldn't need have to Oc for reaching AMDs 1700x/1800x BM scores.

 

Exploratory Multitasking Benchmark Issues - G4560 & R3 1200

 

Here's the result for Ryzen 1700 vs 8700k:

And, the source video:
Intel I7-8700K Benchmarks Leaked! Coffee Lake vs Ryzen

 

Level1 Linux: Livestream - Now Recorded
Setting up PCIe Passthrough on Fedora on X299 and Threadripper systems
2 hours 23 minutes...

 

I can't say that that list jumped out at me (link, please)?

I'm not looking at this today as an upgrade from an existing system (too many variables and assumptions here; need actual hardware to compare to the hardware/platform I'm actually using to give that kind of recommendation).

I'm looking at this as a completely new purchase for someone... and the options that we have today and in the very near future have been greatly increased already.

Zen 2 vs. Ice Lake is so far into the future right now/today that we may as well be discussing fiction novels. Note that I don't care how long a platform and/or socket 'lasts'. As long as it gives me the highest performance possible during ownership. If/when a significantly higher performing package comes out; I'll make the business decision to buy it then (and I won't feel 'ripped off' or taken advantage of either).

The link Papusan provided and I commented on justifies my thinking so long ago; wait for both sides response (with actual and available products) before deciding on a new platform. YMMV.

Note that 'features' such as a socket that can be used over many CPU generations isn't a priority for me (as a matter of fact; I find that that kind of 'upgradability' generally limiting. A new chipset/socket more than likely delivers a better user experience (once mature 'enough'...).

The 'premium' I pay for is for productivity. My $$$$ nor I care where they go to as long as I get the productivity I paid for.

 

I have no doubt that is being concocted up as we speak.

But 8C/16T is very firmly in the non-mainstream right now and the immediate future for most of the notebook users out there (can't include ourselves in the 'mainstream', right?...)

 

Going from z170 to z270 was a minor or almost no change. And the same will it be for Z370. Only big advantage is the 6 cores. Without AMD this year pushing Intel, would the newcomer Z370 be a no go. Aka we would still be on 4 cores this gen also.

 

Actually, Intel's plan was to add 4 core chips on HEDT to step up consumers (epic fail), while giving coffeelake, which was not originally a full lineup, as a 6 core chip alternative to mainstream while having cannonlake do the quad and lower skus. Plans change!

So, it isn't fair to say Intel would have stayed on quad core, as coffee was known to be a six core for a long while now. But, it was all to segment the market and eventually upsell consumers.