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

They may not have broken NDA but Intel may not look favorably on them in the future, or maybe they will? I did think, before this came out, overclocked to 4.7 GHz that R15 would have been more like 2550 or so, is there a memory speed wall being hit?

2187 = all cores 4.0 GHz under load
2488 = 4.7 real world overclock
2187 / 4 * 4.7 = 2569 if 100% scale

Just sayin'

 

What was the embargo date anyways? What does this say for the next refresh of laptops? Is it worth waiting for Coffeelake?

 

Embargo date is Monday the 19th. Same day as pre order for the new lineup. Coffee was pushed to 2018, then magically the 14-18 core chips moved to October release. What they did is shuffle fab time.

I didn't work that out yet, so thank you for that. It is hard to say, but I don't think the ram would have been a bottleneck, as they've shown Intel doesn't get vast improvements with faster memory speeds like AMD. It could have to do with the automatic control of the chip versus forced all core or just needing some optimizations for firmware, software, etc. But, with using mesh, it is hard to say, maybe memory will impact these chips more.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

So Coffeelake is definitely Q1 2018?

 

Maybe either a bit moe than 1.25V needed or dial back to 4.6 for safety.

 

so that means they must tested with their own chip, be ES or an early chip from an overclocker

 

thats right, its a real shame intel pull a fast one on us. first they get pressured into saying coffeelake will release Q3 2017 from their original date of Q2 2018 because of AMD, now they change it back say its Q1 2018.

 

It also could be QS or final silicon they got from someone that reviewed it already, then sold into the private market. (I suppose that is what you meant from an overclocker).

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

That's lame. Is Skylake/Kabylake-X worth the upgrade if you're sitting on a Skylake or will Coffeelake be the agreed upon next go-to or is ti all just guesses now?

 

Depends on your purpose. Kaby wasn't worth it from Skylake. Assume the same for KB-X. Skylake-X has 6+ cores. For current games, 6 is about the highest you need before you lose performance. But, that may change for the future as game companies have been designing for Ryzen with an 8-core mainstream and Intel's Coffeelake being 6-core mainstream. With HEDT platform, you would get quad channel memory, but that doesn't help much with Intel and still no word if that helps AMD. More PCIe lanes is nice, even though the 6&8 core Intel chips don't have the full 44 lanes, whereas AMDs has 64 on the whole TR line. But, if you don't need the cores, you would spend more on cooling, MB, ram on AMD than needed if you are looking at simple gaming performance. So, I can't answer your question as I don't know your needs. But, I can say that if building now, wait. Give it a month or two to knock off the cobwebs of the Skylake-X platform and to see if TR lowers the pricing at all. Now is the worst time to build. August to October is a good time to build, with October bringing the 14-18 core Skylake-X, if you need it. Otherwise, wait for Coffee, Ryzen refresh, or 7nm Zen2.

 

I'm primarily interested in new GPUs, I'm running a 970m while perfectly fine is beginning to feel insufficient. I'd like to move up to an MXM (from a BGA book) notebook to get that upgradability to increase longevity. I know Volta is coming soon but is it going to be backward compatible with 3.0b?

 

This is for a different thread, but the only two manufacturers still using MXM is Clevo and MSI. Neither has shown whether they will use MXM on the next generation, or if the cards will fit in the older laptops. Waiting for the fall or early next year will likely serve you better on finding out which it is.

 

like ajc9988 mentioned, cpu dependent on your usage purpose. thoiugh theres probably not going to be a skylake-x laptop however there might be a coffeelake laptop for 6c..

if MXM stop to exist in laptops and all BGA then i guess its time to say good bye to laptops and go mobile desktop. S9T portable comes to mind.

 

There was some in the forum who expressed that Ryzen were not optimized before and during launch and should have been fixed beforehand, LOL
Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones

http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/cpu/107017-intel-core-i9-7900x-14nm-skylake-x/

"Wouldn't it be nice if the world's leading chip giants launched new processor series that worked perfectly and made implicit sense?"

"That's the hope, but having witnessed AMD's Ryzen arrive with teething issues ranging from memory support to hesitant in-game performance, it is frustrating to find that Intel's Core X-Series isn't immune to certain missteps, either."

Regarding missed performance. See bolded text below! As well the bolded text above.

 

The question is, which Coffee Lake CPU sku's, when, and in which order?

First ULV? Desktop? Laptop, what's the rollout mix in what order? Was the whole schedule pushed in 1H18, or just part of it?

Anyone seen any updates on the Coffee Lake rollout schedule?

If it was Q2 and is now back to Q1, I'd bet on end of Q1 announce and availability starting in Q2, but for which ones?

 

Not that I live in a glass house, not am I touting a performance advantage of Ryzen vs. Intel. I am open to either and only mention there is an anomaly that should be looked at. Again if I were to get an i9-7900 I would have been happy with slightly lower numbers and 4.5 GHz.. Maybe that is where the CPU needs to be, who knows.

 

I thought this was interesting too, along the same lines - bug fixes in the field are still going on for i9 - to be fair it's still unreleased

"...but why is the Core i9 off the pace in VRMark? At the time of writing we can only put this down to a lack of software maturity. In the interests of full disclosure, readers should note that the Core i9-7900X initially scored just 4,015 in the VRMark test and the result climbed to 10,191 courtesy of a new motherboard BIOS. There's clearly still work being done to optimize performance."
http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/cpu/107017-intel-core-i9-7900x-14nm-skylake-x/?page=5

 

It was not you Tanware I had in mind when I posted regarding "There was some in the forum who expressed that Ryzen were not optimized before and during launch and should have been fixed beforehand"

Exactly

 

lol hmscott, thats not hard to argue at all.

you see the ULV and other SKUs you're looking for, they are for mobile devices and called cannonlake. as intel stated before that only high end mobile and desktop will not get 10nm but 14nm yet again.. well tbh it sounds terrible but now i think about just how bad the yields were, those 10nm chips probably has junk silicon like first gen broadwell 14nm.

so that Q1 2018, it will be for 6c SKU desktop/mobile, overclockable type.

 

The other issue here is Intel 6/16 has the 7900x shipping, giving until TR ships the performance advantage over clearly. Now this is until TR ships and if announcement is not until 8/10/17 how long before all are truly available to ship. Being as Intel is looking at October for up to 18 core launch it may not give AMD much time at the top with a fairly new platform to start developing consumer trust and relationships. IMO the delays for AMD are going to hurt them, not help.

No new platform ever gets released 100% on the money. There are always some issues to address. If not we would never need a bios revision, Main board versions etc. etc..

 

IDK, Coffee Lake is supposed to be full line Kaby Lake refresh...Cannon Lake same, so it seems like a real uncertain mess.

I guess we will see them for sure when they go on sale, and not before.

 

Agreed I am in no hurry to jump to 10nm or even 7nm. You in either have to get all the fab issues settled out before seeing great silicon. I am happy for now staying with 14nm but 14nm+ for AMD will hopefully be a nice update and painless transition.

 

intel still has a nice pipeline of products

• ulv quads (think quadcore surface pro)
• 6c/ 12t mainstream dt/mobile chips

that amd will not have an answer for.reality is that TR/i9 setups will be niche

 

Agreed, the TR/I9 competition setups for now are niche. Way beyond what the average consumer needs to spend on. Now all the 8 core variants though are mass consumer targeted. It is just a matter of time before games and other software catches up and eventually the mobile market may have to come along for the ride.

I am not sure what Ryzen mobile is going to be yet, so we can't count our eggs just yet. They did show it in a tablet though, so who knows.

 

www.bit-tech.net
7900X tested but with lower Overclock. 4.6GHz - 2464cb

 

That is somewhat better. Still out a bit but much closer. 2187/4*4.6 is 2515. 2464 is only 50 points off here before from 2488 to 2569 we were 81 points off. For consistency 4.5 GHz may be it, it could be a thermal throttle etc. too. Still a substantial bump from a Ryzen7 but at what overall cost?

Come on AMD we need further info soon to prevent people jumping on the x299 train. I might just have to be one of them too, awful tempting to get a ticket and go for a ride.

 

That looks cherry picked. Considering the 1700 Ryzen is present in single core, but not multi, I'm calling not perfect on it. I still need to go through the article to compare settings on Ryzen, but...

That does show something is off. But, considering this is a 10 core (25% more cores), and getting around 1900 on the 8 cores is more common since AGESA 1.0.0.6, allowing 3200mhz ram, you have Ryzen right behind, marginally, at a scaled score on cores, while comparing 4.0-4.2 to Intel's 4.5-4.7. I'd wait on that basis alone, or see if the Epyc chips are unlocked.



Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

I need to start another thread, but I have yet another major concern. I will probably wait though as it is spurred on only by the two instances of overclocking, the delided 5.0 and this now 4.6 GHz.

 

Switching from 14nm to 14nm+ should be relatively painless.
Generally speaking (and if I'm not mistaken) it's the same process with various tweaks that improve efficiency and possibly density.

You know, to a certain extent what is generally being done here is that most benchmarks are actually comparing a regular 14nm process Ryzen products, with Intel's 14nm+ (or is it 14nm++?) the 7700k.

Intel is ahead AMD in this regard that they can release their i9's on 14nm+... so technically, we'd be better off comparing Ryzen on 14nm+ (when its released) with i9's to get a better outlook of performance and overall efficiency.

Still, I doubt that Intel will hold too much of an advantage for long. Ryzen will definitely be competitive again at half the cost essentially while offering most of Intel's performance.

 

I disagree. Comparing market availability is proper. The calls to compare to unrealized hardware when the numbers are not even available is wrong. But we do want more. Also, calling for as much data as a chip on presale on the 19th, released on the 26th when the chip you want information on is about 7 or so weeks from release is equally improper. Epyc will have any scaling issues amplified with four dies present. So, we will have enough to start figuring out where they stand on the 20th.

But, you can't give infinite time then say compare them. That is why Intel at 10nm and AMD at 7 is where all the fun is. I'm also wondering whose hardware will be used to show DDR5 on the 19th.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

http://hwbot.org/submission/3569697_spectre__cinebench___r15_ryzen_7_1700_1855_cb/
They have 1760 at 3000mhz ram. They did good on the controls, using roughly equivalent setups, but all of their tests were done by the April release of the 1600X. Because of this, it does not include major improvements. Further, they used looser ram timings.
https://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2017/03/08/amd-ryzen-7-1700-review/4
http://www.corsair.com/en-us/vengea...00mhz-c15-memory-kit-black-cmk16gx4m2b3000c15
They likely used this model of the Corsair with 15-15-15-35. So, not bad, but as you saw in the 1855 score, they used 3000 CL14 16 16 28 1T. This means other factors must be controlled for, as this score is 100 points over the score bit-tech generated. It also calls to question whether the 7900K could score higher. But that is trying to break down factors to give perspective.

 

By the time TR is here, if it is on time, they will get to compare against the 12 core variant of Intel's x299. Also x299 will have had a couple of months already to mature. I speculate to one change that may be coming up soon as well.

If what is true in OC with the 7900x with the two we have seen then Intel shortly will, like it did with the 7700K,, recommend not to overclock the SkylakeX for heat issues. The normal internal and external safeguards that are overly protective of the CPU's are letting them hit the 100c wall hard and fast causing the CPU not just to slow down slightly but killing the paste inside. Paste at those temps get back to a fluid state and starts to boil out. As time goes by this then even will reduce thermal efficiency.

The end solution for OC'ers is if they get to it early enough before silicon degradation is to delid, saying bye bye to the warranty.

 

That's because they'd rather have people void the warranty than buy the overclocking insurance. In that regard, Intel is being...

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

Intel is scared enough to talk Cascade Lake. They say 14nm+, but prior articles discussed 14nm+ on skylake-SP already, like Kaby, meaning this would be 14nm++, while also suggesting cannonlake-sp is scrapped. Considering 10nm cannot compete with 14nm++, I'm saying more 10nm woes, so going with the strongest process to compete with AMD at 7nm next year. This article also suggests Epyc will be one of the first lines with the 7nm (like I predicted).<br /> http://wccftech.com/intel-cascade-lake-xeon-scalable-platform-optane-dimm-2018/<br /><br />Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

You mentioned this a few times, did you miss the Asus ROG Strix G702ZC with Ryzen 1700?

Asus ROG Strix G702ZC with Ryzen 7 1700 8-core CPU and a Radeon RX580 GPU



There are a number of the Ryzen 3/5/7 CPU's with 65w TDP that will work in a laptop.

Of course the missing piece is a GPU over the RX580 in performance to compete with the 1070 / 1080, otherwise we are going to have CPU performance heavy laptops.

 

No, I had not. I mention Ryzen mobile as the OP was saying no AMD competition against Intel ULV.

 

@TANWare @hmscott - no need for arguing on this. Tanware is right that I'm trying to keep platform to platform comparisons in this thread, so running the dtr against Intel mobile was not envisioned. Putting that laptop against Clevos with desktop chips or the one MSI is proper. But, seeing the desktop chip does not give us insight into the mobile offerings, which will not be revealed until after the APUs, which will likely give us a better understanding of mobile than the lower tdp desktop offerings. So, keep the peace and remember that dtr are a specific market, but as we all know, you cannot really compare a DTR to a regular laptop. The disparity in performance is too great!

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

It wasn't an argument, I was pointing out the mobile laptop Ryzen is already here in the form of a PGA socket solution

Just because Intel decides to make a Desktop CPU BGA doesn't mean Ryzen must do that with their full power non-DTR laptop solutions.

Ryzen APC models may be just as fast as PGA Ryzen, or not, but I don't think we can classify a RX580 + Ryzen as a Desktop Replacement, since an RX580 is about a 1060, more or less, and I don't think anyone considers a 1060 laptop as a DTR, it's just a mobile laptop.

I am not mentioning ULV except in the context of what models / sku's of a new architecture will release, Kabylake+ (Coffeelake?), Coffelake, Cannonlake, etc.

Just because rumors are saying things that Intel isn't doesn't mean they are correct.

When Intel lists an architecture release starting on a date, that doesn't mean Desktop / Laptop is first, quite often it's ULV first, which is the context I am using when I say it could be much longer than the first release for Desktop / HEDT versions of new architectures.

Ryzen mobile doesn't need to have a BGA component for mobile, it may never come out as such, and the other AMD mobile offerings with igp will take over from there.

When you say mobile Ryzen, I include the 65w PGA solutions already being used in mobile laptop solutions. These aren't quite DTR's in the sense I think of an Intel DTR.

Ryzen mobile is already here in the form of ASUS GL702ZC
https://www.asus.com/Laptops/ROG-Strix-GL702ZC/

 

Actually, the 1060 is the lowest end of DTR. It is offered in a couple, but not all, DTRs, with 1070 being normal. Also, if you need the high multi-thread performance, you don't always need graphics performance. So, I wouldn't put it as otherwise just because of the graphics. But point taken.

Now, AMD has specifically stated they have a mobile line. So, regardless if the chip is in a mobile platform like a laptop, you cannot say it is a different line. Since Ryzen mobile is defined by the company, referring to something else as that can be confusing. Desktop in mobile or DTR signifies that difference, I believe.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

Did Asus/AMD call the GL702ZC laptop a desktop replacement? No, they called it a laptop, no mention of desktop replacement or DTR in anything I've seen from AMD or Asus about the GL702ZC, all laptop.

Laptops have been mobile, long before phones and tablets were also mobile.

1060's / 1070's / 1080's are all the same - per Nvidia - for desktop and mobile, same name same performance - within the capabilities of the laptop / desktop to provide power and cooling.

Few 1060 laptops are in chassis defined as Desktop Replacements. Most 1060's are in as slim a laptop as possible, none I would consider a Desktop Replacement, and I haven't seen any of those 1060 slim laptops called a DTR.

It's a matter of opinion, and not a set qualifier, to call something a desktop replacement. It's still a mobile laptop. And, I don't think we can use the BGA vs PGA criteria with AMD as we do with Intel.

 

That I agree with, and I consider no thin and light a DTR. ...

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

Actually a DTR is determined by the users use. but here is the Wiki;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desktop_replacement_computer

 

"A desktop replacement computer ( DTR) is a personal computer that provides the full capabilities of a desktop computer while remaining mobile."

It doesn't say DTR is determined by the users use...

Spoiler: Short story long...

I have had heavy duty powerful desktop / deskside computers that always remained packed in cases for mobile / portable use. Deployed into locations other than my desktop, that are actually "mobile" in use, or "stationary" in use at a destination.

They aren't laptops nor are they strictly fixed immobile desktops, and so my use suggests that I could call them mobile and desktop replacements, but I wouldn't call them DTR's.

I guess I've never liked the DTR moniker, maybe that's why I'm not satisfied with any definition I have seen so far. Any laptop, tablet, even a phone can be outfitted as a desktop replacement.

If I am using a mobile laptop on a desk as a desktop "replacement", it can be somewhere that's not my typical desk or my actual desk, and it's not considered a DTR laptop it's still my desktop replacement computer.

If I am using a laptop at my desk at home, and it's more powerful than 90% of the desktops in use, it's just a laptop I am using at my desk

If the CPU is in a self-contained independent chassis, with screen, keyboard, trackpad, everything needed for independent use except for the power supply brick, it's a laptop, no matter the power.

There are plenty of people out there using ULV "laptops" that run independently, on their desk with a keyboard, mouse, and monitor.

For them that puny CPU underpowered computer is their desktop replacement.

And, there are lots of people using desktops that are far less powerful than their laptops that aren't typically considered DTR laptops even though they are more than powerful enough to be replacements for their underpowered desktops.

DTR is just a silly marketing term

 

My interpretation there is if it has the capabilities you are more than likely using them. A ULV could be used as a DTR but in my experience most that do use a ULV would be severely hampered try do do all desktop capabilities.

My last 3 systems were laptops being used as DTR's. They have permanent place on the desktop but they remain to be mobile machines. None of them are ULV's. I will say the first one, a Turion, had about that performance.

 

CASH GRAB! An Original Game by Intel!

 

Links;
http://segmentnext.com/2017/06/17/amd-threadripper-vs-intel-i9/

 

That is perfect!!!

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

What I find funny is all these articles arguing i9 or TR aren't for gaming, but doesn't Intel market the i9 as the "ultimate gaming, content creation and etc..." chips? I agree that if you are going to pay for an i9 or TR chip, you should have workloads that benefit from them but the 7900X is starting to look a bit better in my eyes.

 

The 7900x is a bit too much of a cash jump at $999... the 7820X @ $599 looks like a better deal overall, but I guess it depends on your need.
https://ark.intel.com/products/1237...X-X-series-Processor-11M-Cache-up-to-4_30-GHz

A $400 jump for 2 more cores from 7820X to 7900X is just a bit too much. 8 cores is "enough" right? Pretty much the same as a Ryzen 7 at higher clock rate, with 4 channels of memory for $100 more, more or less.

A $210 jump for 2 more cores from 7800X to 7820X is a bit less outrageous. 6 cores and competitive with the Ryzen 5.

A $50 jump from that joke of a Kaby-lake-X 7740x to a 7800X for 2 more cores seems like a real bargain, and defeat's the whole idea of Kaby-lake-X.

If it weren't for the fact that AMD needs our money and support for Ryzen, ThreadRipper, and Epyx...

Intel on paper sounds good - except the 7820x / 7800x only have 28 PCIe lanes instead of 44 PCIe lanes like on the 7900x.

AMD Ryzen has 24 PCIe lanes and all the ThreadRippers have 64 PCIe lanes!!

Forget Intel and their $999 minimum ante up for a CPU configuration with 44 PCIe lanes.

Go AMD!!

 

I disagree and argue from another angle: if you need 10 cores, the 12 core is a better value this round. An extra two cores, all the lanes, quad channel memory. That isn't released until August. So you might as well wait to see what comes.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk