DoNotBeFooled
Posts: 13 +12
AMD holds all the cards here and they can easily do this by simply doing:
4GHz CPU Battle: AMD 2nd-Gen Ryzen vs. Intel 8th-Gen Core
- Thread starter Steve
- Start date
AMD holds all the cards here and they can easily do this by simply doing:
errr ZEN+ is backwards compatible mate, you can put a 2600x on a x370 (just a reminder)
Sausagemeat
Posts: 1,597 +1,423
I didnt like this test. You say they are clocked the same but the reality is you underclocked one and overclocked the other, clock speed is unique to every chip, I dont see how making them both go at 4hz is a fair comparison, Intels advantage is in its core quality and speed and AMD's is in its core count. I understand that you were trying to determine IPC but all it proves to me is that even if AMD had the same IPC their engineers arent getting enough clock speed for it to mean anything, its like comparing car engines at the same RPM, pointless. Personally I think that a core for core test is better. 6 cores with hyperthreading vs 6 cores with smt etc. But then again looking at the results from Ryzen plus its very apparent to me that if Intel drop an 8 core chip its going to slaughter the Ryzen 8 cores by quite a margin. Or maybe a power consumption test? This test had the Ryzen setup using far more power to run its chips at 4ghz than Intel used to go at the same frequency. Whats even worse is that these numbers are from Intels ageing core architecture compared to Ryzen which turned 1 this month. Meaning that AMD's latest brand new architecture performs worse core for core than Intels nearly 10 year old core stuff. AMD are not out of the woods yet.
Anyone in the market for a new CPU really ought to wait for the Intel 8 core coffee lake to arrive, it will be easily faster than anything from Ryzen and will probably push down the prices of everything out right now.
Anyone in the market for a new CPU really ought to wait for the Intel 8 core coffee lake to arrive, it will be easily faster than anything from Ryzen and will probably push down the prices of everything out right now.
ShagnWagn
Posts: 1,297 +1,085
I agree, but as I eluded to, this means less money for development. If they had the cash flow Intel has, I would believe they would surpass Intel. I have always considered AMD to be a "budget" CPU.
DoNotBeFooled
Posts: 13 +12
I believe a lot of hard problems are not solved by simply more money. Both Intel and AMD are for-profit corporations. The one with better cash flow will surpass the other in financial terms and provide a better return for their investors, but they will not necessarily produce a better product, but rather they will use that money to try to create a monopoly, manipulate politicians, litigate in the courts, suppress their suppliers, etc. etc.
GreenNova343
Posts: 454 +336
http://www.microcenter.com/product/..._AM4_Boxed_Processor_with_Wraith_Spire_Cooler
http://www.microcenter.com/product/486089/Core_i5-8600K_Coffee_Lake_36_GHz_LGA_1151_Boxed_Processor
With the "compatible motherboard" bundle (but ignoring the motherboard price), Zen+ is $10USD cheaper than Coffee Lake...but AMD didn't have to slash the MSRP by 37%, either. Guess Intel is feeling the pinch a bit.
But since they have them, let's look at the actual Intel bundles (http://www.microcenter.com/site/brands/intel-processor-bundles.aspx) vs. AMD bundles (http://www.microcenter.com/site/products/amd_bundles.aspx). The cheapest R5 2600X bundle will run you $270 USD...about $35 USD cheaper than the Intel version. AMD's bundle options top out at $395 USD, while the Intel top-line bundle costs $75 more ($470 USD)...& doesn't include the cooler you'll have to buy just to use the 8600K, let alone OC it (since the 2600X comes with a stock cooler). Even with the jump from the 2600X to the 2700X being slightly bigger than the jump from the 8600K to the 8700K ($100 USD vs. $80 USD), the AMD bundles are still cheaper, especially with Intel's need for a CPU cooler (again, comes stock with the R7 2700X).
To put it into financial perspective, assuming $40-50 USD is needed for a cooler for the Intel, the AMD bundles will save you $100-120 USD. That's enough of a margin to let you improve your GPU purchase...say from a GTX 1060 to the GTX 1070, or at least part of the way up from a GTX 1070TI/1080 to a 1080TI.
ShagnWagn
Posts: 1,297 +1,085
I agree with you again. Once AMD gets close, then they will leverage their extra cash towards keeping them under the rug.
DoNotBeFooled
Posts: 13 +12
It's quite the sleight of hand trick to go from $35 cheaer to $120 now isn't it?
The stock coolers with the Ryzen are garbage. They are loud and they are inadequate. I know because my R5 1600 uses the same crap, it gets really loud really quick. I replaced it with an old Hyper 212 that I removed from an old 1155 build, replaced the stock cooler master fan with a old Cougar CF-V12HPB I had lying around and was able to overclock to 4.0 Ghz at 1.295V Vcore(as reported by CPU-Z), which I could not do with stock AMD HSF and be stable and get good temps and keep the noise level down.
If you are really into saving money, you are better off with the 1700x bundle with CPU at $230, or better yes the 1700 at $200. But 2700x, 2600x, 1700x, 1700, they will all fail to achieve the gaming performance the 8600K will get you. For compute load, that Ryzen will be the better choice, but for gaming value is on the 8600k side.
Last edited:
wiyosaya
Posts: 9,782 +9,680
Absolutely. Take Intel's piddling processor performance improvements over the past several generations.
AMD has made some gains since the bullsnoozer fiasco, but Zen has been a giant leap for them - note that I said, "FOR THEM."
I have to say that having a technically clueless, business wonk CEO, Rory Reed, before Lisa Su was most of the problem for AMD. Su's technical prowess makes Reed look like an imbecile.
The thing that gets me is with reviewers, etc, in games no one is going to buy a high end GPU such as a 1080TI and put it to work running lower resolutions and detail levels. Gamers are also more likely to tweak their RAM timings on the AMD board. I don't even think they sat down to design things like that. Given the high frames in that region anyway, the entire topic is overdone in the media and in reviews. Going forward that gap will not open, software is catching up ect, and a lot of developer work was done between developers and AMD.
Benchmarks are great but they still need to be interpreted.
To get the best out of the 8700k (but someone may just as well use an 8600k or other from intel) they would need to get a good cooling solution. In certain places this could cost over 100 local dollars; because not everyone is near/close by (I.e local to the good price range) the distribution for a cheap/quality cooler from say newegg: so they will invariably pay slightly more through their channels. Thats why the cooler on top of that is another unit of hundreds for them, taking a high 400 dollar local currency processor to a high 500 or even a low-mid 600 dollar one.
I don't think Intel will get high clocks on the 8 core as some may think. Its not simply an 8700k with 2 extra cores, it will be slightly redesigned or it would be far too toasty and inefficient, and the 8700k already uses a fairly high power draw especially when over clocking, it could also require a new socket. Whether Intel needed to come up with new user-facing solutions is anyone's guess, but the 8 core I am pretty sure will be somewhat different in its use than the 6 core.
The 14nm node is a good one and its been upgraded umpteen times so its like 14+++++++, and their node is good for high clocks, but an 8 core will be a bit different. There's a few other niggles different than an 8700k too, so its not like slapping in two more cores and calling it a day; things need to be adjusted. The trouble is when cutting out the silicon it just reaches a point of when you add too many cores to these lines of processors for something that was not designed finance-wise to do so, its introducing overheads that dont stack up. I.e you make something for X amount and intend to sell it for X amount to make money, but now you are adding in extra cores which decreases money in your pocket again. Its good for the consumer though, and of course the 8 core Intel is a stop gap until they - well they seemed to have gotten Keller - until they can design something as modular as AMD, perhaps with what Keller puts in place.
The power draw and all that is one of the main reasons the CFL 6 core was limited to 6 cores, too. As it is CFL is a mish-mash of different 'borrowed' engineering as this era has been transformative and transitional. Even so, such an 8 core mainstream chip is expected later this year. Its at the point now where since its all been brought forward, their prior products will take a hit in the kaby lake realm.
Next year AMD go to a high clocking node too, but their chip design is very modular. The difference is AMD is ready to roll on higher clocked high core count chips, with an efficient node and manufacturing process, and this just limits what Intel can respond with for now. Also with AMD EPIC ramping up in servers, its complimentary to the whole product stack. Typically the best silicon goes into higher tier products, like Threadripper and HDEP chips. Its a credit to the node maturity that an 8700k is possible at all given some chips are hitting high clocks.
So the AMD production is very vertical in its integration, its really nice for them. And the Intel for one reason or another has a wider remit (and because they're large and do many things); so the way they would go about this current generation of mainstream CPU's is different.
I mention that because from all this in telling it, I want to make it clear to not expect some 5.3 Ghz overclocking 8 core chip from intel sending C15 results through the roof. Not only do I think its not doable at all right now, even if they did, they would not be charging you anywhere near a Ryzen for it since they couldn't possibly do that and remain happy.
well it didn't go off the radar, but people are choosing to either ignore it or wait for the next designs from Intel that stomp it out at the hardware level.
Ice lake I think is designed to pretty much fully mitigate it innately.
__
But to state: I think the 8 core intel will be a nice bump. Its true any chip atm will be a good chip for the buyer. And intel chips are great too, though I focussed on AMD here.
We've got to look at the 8 core intel as being a reallocation of resources for a cpu. If it reaches 4.5, be happy. To previously get the advantage they had to clock to 4.8 ish.
Benchmarks are great but they still need to be interpreted.
To get the best out of the 8700k (but someone may just as well use an 8600k or other from intel) they would need to get a good cooling solution. In certain places this could cost over 100 local dollars; because not everyone is near/close by (I.e local to the good price range) the distribution for a cheap/quality cooler from say newegg: so they will invariably pay slightly more through their channels. Thats why the cooler on top of that is another unit of hundreds for them, taking a high 400 dollar local currency processor to a high 500 or even a low-mid 600 dollar one.
I don't think Intel will get high clocks on the 8 core as some may think. Its not simply an 8700k with 2 extra cores, it will be slightly redesigned or it would be far too toasty and inefficient, and the 8700k already uses a fairly high power draw especially when over clocking, it could also require a new socket. Whether Intel needed to come up with new user-facing solutions is anyone's guess, but the 8 core I am pretty sure will be somewhat different in its use than the 6 core.
The 14nm node is a good one and its been upgraded umpteen times so its like 14+++++++, and their node is good for high clocks, but an 8 core will be a bit different. There's a few other niggles different than an 8700k too, so its not like slapping in two more cores and calling it a day; things need to be adjusted. The trouble is when cutting out the silicon it just reaches a point of when you add too many cores to these lines of processors for something that was not designed finance-wise to do so, its introducing overheads that dont stack up. I.e you make something for X amount and intend to sell it for X amount to make money, but now you are adding in extra cores which decreases money in your pocket again. Its good for the consumer though, and of course the 8 core Intel is a stop gap until they - well they seemed to have gotten Keller - until they can design something as modular as AMD, perhaps with what Keller puts in place.
The power draw and all that is one of the main reasons the CFL 6 core was limited to 6 cores, too. As it is CFL is a mish-mash of different 'borrowed' engineering as this era has been transformative and transitional. Even so, such an 8 core mainstream chip is expected later this year. Its at the point now where since its all been brought forward, their prior products will take a hit in the kaby lake realm.
Next year AMD go to a high clocking node too, but their chip design is very modular. The difference is AMD is ready to roll on higher clocked high core count chips, with an efficient node and manufacturing process, and this just limits what Intel can respond with for now. Also with AMD EPIC ramping up in servers, its complimentary to the whole product stack. Typically the best silicon goes into higher tier products, like Threadripper and HDEP chips. Its a credit to the node maturity that an 8700k is possible at all given some chips are hitting high clocks.
So the AMD production is very vertical in its integration, its really nice for them. And the Intel for one reason or another has a wider remit (and because they're large and do many things); so the way they would go about this current generation of mainstream CPU's is different.
I mention that because from all this in telling it, I want to make it clear to not expect some 5.3 Ghz overclocking 8 core chip from intel sending C15 results through the roof. Not only do I think its not doable at all right now, even if they did, they would not be charging you anywhere near a Ryzen for it since they couldn't possibly do that and remain happy.
well it didn't go off the radar, but people are choosing to either ignore it or wait for the next designs from Intel that stomp it out at the hardware level.
Ice lake I think is designed to pretty much fully mitigate it innately.
__
But to state: I think the 8 core intel will be a nice bump. Its true any chip atm will be a good chip for the buyer. And intel chips are great too, though I focussed on AMD here.
We've got to look at the 8 core intel as being a reallocation of resources for a cpu. If it reaches 4.5, be happy. To previously get the advantage they had to clock to 4.8 ish.
Last edited:
Just on the issue above, its almost certain we will STILL be having the price/performance conversation next year. If intel release on the new z390 mainboard socket/chipset, you can bet its going to be a tricky sell for intel compared to Ryzen refresh's. You will still need to have a reason for paying more; even if its a dubious one or you just want the 'better' part dependent upon how you define better.
To get the 8 core intel will require the newer board.
An 8 core intel will not change things overly much; which is not to say it won't be a good chip. It will probably best the Ryzen refresh score by a low margin in multi threading.
The Zen 2 though will probably go above that and be cheaper. There's a larger performance uplift with Zen 2. There's plenty of low hanging fruit, including the newer AVX implementation and closer bits on the chips, as its a true die-shrink.
So next year there will again be a need to for more IPC benchmarks. But its my assumption from what's happening the Zen 2 will be a game changer again such as Zen 1.
Not much will hold a candle to Zen 2 for some time. But we will need IPC benchmarks going forward. Lots of them.
To get the 8 core intel will require the newer board.
An 8 core intel will not change things overly much; which is not to say it won't be a good chip. It will probably best the Ryzen refresh score by a low margin in multi threading.
The Zen 2 though will probably go above that and be cheaper. There's a larger performance uplift with Zen 2. There's plenty of low hanging fruit, including the newer AVX implementation and closer bits on the chips, as its a true die-shrink.
So next year there will again be a need to for more IPC benchmarks. But its my assumption from what's happening the Zen 2 will be a game changer again such as Zen 1.
Not much will hold a candle to Zen 2 for some time. But we will need IPC benchmarks going forward. Lots of them.
You can stop with the super microcenter finds. Most do not have access to microcenter.
Notice that EVERY reviewer base their prices off of newegg or sometimes Amazon. Yet you keep pushing these crazy microcenter prices.
R5 2600 = i5 8400 in price
R5 2600x = i5 8600 in price
b350 = b360 in price.
z370 and i5 8600k are pricier than all of the above.
Generic claim?
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i5_8600/20.html
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.techspot.com/amp/review/1614-ryzen-2600/
But of course your microcenter finds carry more weight, right?
I don't know why they think that. I have tried to bring sense to the argument, but it looks like its not washing. Ryzen is absolutely - er - 'phenom.inal" value right now, irrespective of just how good the intel is, the ryzen is only a few % off. They did it all without a kidney punch, too. And the next 8 core Intel will need a new motherboard.
The next Zen 2 Ryzen will get a 5% increase to IPC just by moving to the 7nm process. The total IPC increase will be a bit more, around 10%?, and it will clock to the high(er) 4's or more because, again, the new process. Then it will have new RAM by the end of the Zen's (maybe need a new board for that? dont know yet) and the Infinity Fabric is very scalable. Then there's a rumour they may have more cores at some point
Intel cannot match that. It won't be able to do anything about any of that for price/performance for a little while yet. This does not make the 8700k junk, but it does make the notion of value being against the Ryzen just now a bit of a long shot
So ^ When someone says that the Ryzen is poor value, considering you can dump the Zen 2 in the board and get an uplift, they must not be looking at things from a good viewpoint. They may be valid in saying that it holds up for them somehow in some way (maybe brand?), but the odds are stacked against that considerably.
Not only is the IPC there, but a gamers best friend, higher clocks, is there as well. All this from putting a chip into the old board. Right now with memory timings you can get into a whisker of Intel's IPC so much that if it didn't matter in the article to you [for real], it won't matter then more so.
Even if they wait for Intel to get the best bits of core into something more modern, they'll be waiting some time.
Beside the fact, that inter-core or single-thread latency is relevant at some point.
I will not throw 5GHz+ at non-modern software.
This whole, multi-threaded vectorized code comes over a decade late.
Pentium D and Athlon 64 X2 released around 2005
Core2Quad 2006/2007
Phenom 2007
Phenom II X6 1090T 2010
it about time
I will not throw 5GHz+ at non-modern software.
This whole, multi-threaded vectorized code comes over a decade late.
Pentium D and Athlon 64 X2 released around 2005
Core2Quad 2006/2007
Phenom 2007
Phenom II X6 1090T 2010
it about time
DoNotBeFooled
Posts: 13 +12
Most to have access. They have stores in most major metro areas. And they have a web online store too. You act as if people can not order the stuff online.
I don't know what environment you are in that convinces you to pay the price gouging prices at Amazon or Newegg. Call them up demand them to pricematch. Microcenter will pricematch both Amazon and Newegg, all you need to do is talk to person. There is no good reason to overpay.
DoNotBeFooled
Posts: 13 +12
[QUOTE="Techguy10, post: 1681484, member: 417942"....
The next Zen 2 Ryzen will get a 5% increase to IPC just by ... blah blah.[/QUOTE]
Haven't we heard this before. This was said at the time of the original ryzen. And then coffeelake happened, and we are back to where we started. And now you parrot the same lines again. The more it changes the more it stays the same.
Just because ryzen is not the complete debacle that Bull_____dozer/excavator/Pileof___driver was, does not mean we, the rest of the world, needs to worship Ryzen like you do.
The next Zen 2 Ryzen will get a 5% increase to IPC just by ... blah blah.[/QUOTE]
Haven't we heard this before. This was said at the time of the original ryzen. And then coffeelake happened, and we are back to where we started. And now you parrot the same lines again. The more it changes the more it stays the same.
Just because ryzen is not the complete debacle that Bull_____dozer/excavator/Pileof___driver was, does not mean we, the rest of the world, needs to worship Ryzen like you do.
DoNotBeFooled
Posts: 13 +12
And you think AMD does NOT do the same thing. Look at that Vega launch. They tried so hard hyping Vega to get people to wait and noy buy nVidia cards, but that didn't work out too good because AMD has lost most of itself credibility and goodwill. Don't get mad at Intel for conducting a successful paper launch of coffeelake that actually stalled Ryzen sales. Coffeelake CPUs and boards got to mass availability on the schedule Intel claimed, as in Jan 2018 you could get the stuff at MSRP or lower.
Pricing Ryzen 1800x at a MSRP of $500 and now you can get them for essentially $230, only make the $330 2700x price $100 too high. And it is obvious for those who observed AMD's pricing trends for the past year, not to mention those who have been monitoring AMD for past two decades.
Until AMD will top the benches across the board, they have to be 30% less to be convincing enough for people to take the risk with AMD.
Last edited:
DoNotBeFooled
Posts: 13 +12
What does backwards compatible really mean? Why bother getting a x470 and when a B350 will do then? Ah... the memory bandwidth is going to be gimped on older boards. Well what kind of backwards compatibility is that? Sure you got faster CPU, but it will be gimped by slower memory. Since everyone knows that it is an open secret that the 1700 is equivalent to an 1800x, and since you won't be getting the higher performance from gimped memory on old board, might as well go with old 1700 for essentially $170 that have been shown by this review to match the 2700x in IPC at 4.0Ghz for all the compute workloads.
http://www.microcenter.com/product/..._AM4_Boxed_Processor_with_Wraith_Spire_Cooler
What is compelling reason to spend $330 on a 2700x when the 1700 is so much better value? Neither of them will top Intel for gaming.
My answer was for DoNotBeFooled who claimed intel's current gen platform holds better value, so yeah I agree you too
Sausagemeat
Posts: 1,597 +1,423
Reading the comments it seems that people are hyping up Zen 2. Even if the AMD engineers can achieve a 5% IPC increase it needs to also address the clock deficit with Intel to hope to catch up with it. Hopefully it will be a bigger bump than Zen plus, which isnt really very much faster than last years stuff at all. Of course we could just be seeing a tick tock cycle unfolding, which if I remember correctly the tech community condemned Intel for.
Personally I think that an 8 core Intel chip will come along, humiliate Ryzen in the benchmarks but cost like $420 or something. Meaning all the tech reviewers will say Ryzen wins for being better value for money but then everyone will go out and buy the Intel part because the kind of people who buy these sorts of parts arent really looking to save $90 on the overall cost of the build and give up having "the best". The fact is currently Intels 6 cores can almost beat AMD 8 cores at multithreaded tasks. Adding 2 more cores to Intels solutions with zero other enhancements (I understand its not that simple) will thrash Ryzen. It wouldnt surprise me if it beats the 10 core threadripper parts. And whilst it probably wont hit the 5.3 of the 6 core parts. It only needs to go to 4.3 to beat its competition and I dont think it will have too much trouble doing that.
Personally I think that an 8 core Intel chip will come along, humiliate Ryzen in the benchmarks but cost like $420 or something. Meaning all the tech reviewers will say Ryzen wins for being better value for money but then everyone will go out and buy the Intel part because the kind of people who buy these sorts of parts arent really looking to save $90 on the overall cost of the build and give up having "the best". The fact is currently Intels 6 cores can almost beat AMD 8 cores at multithreaded tasks. Adding 2 more cores to Intels solutions with zero other enhancements (I understand its not that simple) will thrash Ryzen. It wouldnt surprise me if it beats the 10 core threadripper parts. And whilst it probably wont hit the 5.3 of the 6 core parts. It only needs to go to 4.3 to beat its competition and I dont think it will have too much trouble doing that.
Sausagemeat
Posts: 1,597 +1,423
If he was an Intel employee he would get sacked for commenting in the fashion he has. Most corporations have strict social media restrictions in place for their staff. Its sensible really.
But also, do you really think Intel HQ would resort to commenting on Techspot? They have just enjoyed a record sales year, something which this site hasnt covered as far as I am aware but did post an article showing that AMD are performing well but did not break any records. Is that a bias I wonder? Probably not but I am unsure why the fact that Intel is now selling more than it ever has isnt newsworthy on a tech site. Still, with numbers like that I dont really think they care about comments on Techspot.
Similar threads
- Locked
Latest posts
-
FTX customers could get back all the money they lost in the scam- GodisanAtheist replied
-
Minisforum crams Windows 11, an Alder Lake CPU, and DDR5 RAM into an iPhone-sized PC
- GodisanAtheist replied
