would say future speculation maybe makes the 8700k not look as good, given for say productivity multi threaded workloads, even at 5ghz the 17xx/1800x at 3.8-4 is still competitive, that 400$ kinda seems a rip for not even actually being able to straight up win against last gen 329$ launch price 1700 if you got a decent over clock
that with zen+ on the horizon, if they can tune the silicon, maybe decouple the cache from the core speed(is why zen was able to get the 8 core cinebench world record at a lower speed then intels 8 core, because with the cache speed increasing the whole way, it was able to achieve a higher ipc then the intel chip), maybe decouple the fabric speed from memory etc might be some other stuff aswell(havent looked that fully into the architecture) to try to allow higher clocks
maybe some tuning to the prefetch/prediction stuff, besides bug fixing etc. if the consumer is lucky maybe another bulldozer>pile driver type improvement(like 10~13%, mostly clock speed) would be enough to once again edge out intels consumer flagship at a lower price and probably drawing less power again. but not nearly as impressive margin, as intel now has a not completely stupid flagship, but still probably gonna be a win from a company that shouldnt be winning
but the raven ridge is looking interesting aswell as i had assumed. people getting quad core laptops standard, and amd in a perfect position(basically no market share in laptops) to just completely drop out the entire market below the higher end intel quad core laptop stuff, just decimate everything with like 5-700$ laptops
right, which then makes it seem silly to talk as if gaming is just one edge case of how desktop CPUs perform. It is frustrating to see how little useful information there is out there right now in terms of CPU and game performance. There is the classic debate that was in my discussion with Sheep in this thread, where there is the question of just how well current CPUs take advantage of current threads, and how soon we should expect games to take more advantage of it. I think the number of cores in consoles has a large part in game engine design and that work to thread the game for consoles carries over to PCs while Sheep disagrees and think that the reason for poor threaded support on PC is the low percentage of PC gamers with more than 4 cores. Either of us could be right, none of us really know anything other than that making games threaded well for games is very difficult.
i don’t remember where i read the rumor but i remember reading that zen+ should have higher clock speeds and I wonder just how high we could realistically expect. It seems like even at 4.0 the R7 chips were producing quite a bit of heat. Even if the silicon allowed for higher clocks, wouldn’t the heat still be an issue, and maybe very very good consumer cooling could get an extra couple hundred mhz, but anything beyond like 4.4ghz probably impossible for consumers?
Also with so many generations on the 14nm process and so many refinements on the process producing better clock speeds, what should we expect from the 10nm and 7nm processes on the verizon? Is it likely to take an extra generation for companies to get it to the speeds Intel has their 14nm process working at?
Not compared to a stock 7700k. “Quite a bit of heat” for the standard Wraith cooler perhaps, but there are plenty of beefier air coolers that can do the job with no issues, and any decent liquid solution can keep temps under 60°C.
Well I’m running a 1700X at 3.95GHz on all cores on a custom loop, and before that a Corsair H100iV2, and before that an old FX 8350 stock cooler (before Corsair shipped the adapter brackets out), and never saw temperatures like that. I ignore anything out in that timeframe, as the chips were so new, no one knew about the 20°C reading offset yet and noone’s software knew how to read Ryzen. In a synthetic test, I have pushed mine to around 70°C but under real world full load at current speeds, maybe 62°.
Edit: I should note that I didn’t do any overclocking on the FX cooler, as it was a fairly bland air cooler with a downdraft fan configuration. However it handled the 95w TDP of the 1700X just fine.
Zen+ wont just be zen with higher clocks. they are going to improve on the current architecture in a big way. I fully expect Zen+ to reach about 4.6 - 4.8Ghz. Intel will still 100% be on the top of the hill for single core performance because intel cant compete with amd on core counts with their current cpu fab process
nah the heat isnt bad at all way less then intels comprable chips(5960x 6900 etc)
like if they are running a 7700k at 5 on water they will hit just as high or higher temps then if i run my 1700x at 4 on a d15, other than the earlier on people running like 1.45 volts or whatever
if your running like 1.35-1.38 or so no big deal like d14 3.8-4ghz no problem silicon lottery depending.
atleast for my chip it seemed heat wasnt the issue at all(was still idling uper 30s/low 40s c) and just wouldnt go for 4.1 without going over 1.4, where went from 3.5>4 at 1.375. seems an arch/silicon thing, more than if you put it on water you can go higher cause its temp limited.
not sure really still seems anything much over 4 is really diminishing returns
example, the torture loop, it drawing like 35% more power than an oc’ed 1800x. x299 is crazy, hopefully they can reign in the power draw/heat output with their 10nm stuff
ex: look at the temp chart and then realize this is the cooler they were using…
and still hitting upper 80s
*couldnt find pic right away that was actually the 420 lol but you get the idea, pretty high end aio
@Atatax
The heat the R7 chips produce at 4.0 has to do with the chips being outside of the efficiency curve. Even before they hit the voltage wall, anything over 3.7 iirc is going to take substantially more voltage to stabilize due to the nature of the node the CU are produced with. Zen+ is using a different node, so there could potentially be more headroom there, different efficiency zone, voltage wall could be gone, a number of factors influencing overclocking performance and heat. And the heat of these chips really isnt bad, my 1600 runs at 3.9 at almost a 100% load for at least 8 hours a day, with a single tower air cooler and a single fan.
@Dje4321
As much as I would like to see that, I dont know about 4.8. I’m trying to be a bit mor ereserved here in my expectations, if they can manage something like 5-10% IPC gains like bulldozer -> piledriver and average overclock to 4.5 these chips will be very interesting. If they can manage 4.8 with that kind of IPC gain as well they very well may almost catch up to intel on single core. A quick google search shows a R7 at 4.0 getting roughly 160 for the single core performance, the new intel chips get around 200-205 at around 5ghz. so, even if AMD "only manages to get 10% IPC gains and another 500mhz, that puts the total gain on the platform at around 23.75% faster, which would put the single core performance at around 198. (someone might want to double check my math here) We’ll have to see what zen+ brings to the table, but I’m excited to see, especially if they release Threadripper refreshes.
I would just disagree with you a bit. You make it seem like there’s tons of tiers but actually there’s less tiers IMO as compared to 5-10 years ago. Here’s my take:
POVERTY: J1900/NUC/Apple A9 or similar ARM processors/Duo Core AMD/Intel CPUS
Mid/Low budget: Any quad core processor 3+ ghz made in last 10 years (2500k, AMD X4 640, Pentium Q9650)
Enthusiast Range: i7 3770K, amd 1090T, 4Ghz possible quad core or 6+ cores processor
High End: i9s & TR4 AMD chips
For me There’s very little difference between say a 1700x or 7700K or a OC 4930K or 5820K anymore. Sure some i7 has quad core memory but most processing is being done on openCL or cuda cores now. As compared to say years ago when you literally finished 2X the speed due to the dual channel vs. quad channel memory bandwidth.
I would put mid/low and Enusiast range in the same group as well considering there’s almost very little performance gain on say a 2500K OC’ed comapred to a 6 core 4930k when it comes to gaming nowadays with almost no optimized games anymore.
I’m tempted to upgrade to a TR4 system myself but really can’t afford too. I don’t see myself as an upgrader that every 2-3 years. More like if I see performance gain of 50% or greater. Why spend $600+ dollars to get 10-20% gain and the hassle of selling your old gear or giving them to relatives etc…
The younger generation are moving into mobile gaming nowadays and games aren’t as optimized as they used to be.
For the most part this was an exercise in just looking at the new hardware available on the desktop platform. Yeah, i know that realistically things like NUC and A9 and all that need to be considered, and that used hardware and older hardware does matter for price/performance arguments as well. But realistically so much of that comes down to local availablity and prices that outside of rough guidelines I’m not sure how detailed a “guide” could be, and that would make this already incredibly long post longer. Like, you can go with a 2500k off of ebay and an old motherboard for a little less than a R3 1200 and b350, and get better gaming performance, but your upgrade path is non-existent, and power draw needs to be considered, as well as the fact that you’re buying used hardware and have no idea how it’s been used or handled, a whole slew of things that not everyone would be comfortable with.
I do think it would be interesting to see though, I might do some research and come up with a little list sometime.
Interesting write up. My take is ignore the chips and look at the m/boards first. X299 is a nightmare and looks halfbaked. Definitely wait for a second phase of these puppies before going whole hog on the i9’s. Even Threadripper is a little problematic with the Foxconn/Lotes debacle. Choose carefully.
X370 is really expensive for what you get. I think that Intel is overcharging a ton for their chipsets and that has really let AMD go wild. The difference between an AB350 board (which will still allow OC) and the unlocked x370 is ridiculous in terms of value. It looks to me that Intel rushed their CPU’s to combat Ryzen and did a pretty decent job but really dropped the ball against the AM4 platform, still expecting the same lame boards that plagued the FX series for so long. In 6 months I expect the situation to fix itself but if I was buying a system right now I’d have to go AMD all the way.
