# New Ryzen 2600 gets 17% single core performance boost



## R4k4n0th (Feb 19, 2018)

> As you guys know, AMD is to release the Ryzen 2000 or let's just call it Zen+ In April. In January the Ryzen 5 2600 already surfaced in the SiSoft Sandra database. The entry showed a processor called Ryzen 5 2600, which obviously is Zen+, the model listed is a six-core twelve threaded processor.
> 
> The very same processor once again has surfaced and seems to be the counterpart of the Ryzen 5 1600. The Ryzen 5 1600 shows Family 23 Model 1 Stepping 1, the new Ryzen 2600 reads out as Family 23 Model 8 Stepping 2.
> 
> ...



Source: http://www.guru3d.com/news_story/amd_ryzen_2600_benchmark_spotted.html

Please look at the images at the link. I could not copy the images here as I was rushing to post this awesome news.

Old Ryzen 1600 score: 3636
New Ryzen 2600 score: 4269 !!!!!

The boost: 17% !!! Wow wow wow


----------



## phanbuey (Feb 19, 2018)

Niiice.

10%ish though - the clockspeed diff is making up the rest.

That cache reading looks funky AF


----------



## cucker tarlson (Feb 19, 2018)

Lol.
17% would be nice if it came from just 200MHz higher frequency but keep your pants on dude, this is just a leak.


----------



## Hockster (Feb 19, 2018)

Uhhh, it's not even a test, it's a report in a database.


----------



## dirtyferret (Feb 19, 2018)

the 1600x @ 3.9ghz does 4300 single core on the same test so the 2600 is pretty much inline considering it's at 3.8ghz.  

https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/7096327


----------



## ArbitraryAffection (Feb 19, 2018)

Not expecting much IPC boost from Zen+ on 12nm, wouldn't be surprised if the most, if not all of the performance uplift is from higher clocks. Though lower L2 latency will help a little bit.


----------



## cdawall (Feb 19, 2018)

dirtyferret said:


> the 1600x @ 3.9ghz does 4300 single core on the same test so the 2600 is pretty much inline considering it's at 3.8ghz.
> 
> https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/7096327



Yep it is spot on for nothing more than a clock bump.


----------



## Vayra86 (Feb 19, 2018)

ZOMGROXXOR someone bought the next rumor mill nonsense.

Rumors luckily still don't beat common sense. This is of similar quality to Intel putting +30-40% performance jumps on their slides because they added cores and bumped clocks.







That's a nuclear bomb.


----------



## xkm1948 (Feb 19, 2018)

Better OC headroom plus better RAM compatibility that is for sure. Anything more will be icing on the cake.


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Feb 19, 2018)

I like how ryzen is adopting the sandy bridge number scheme.



Vayra86 said:


> This is of similar quality to Intel putting +30-40% performance jumps on their slides because they added cores and bumped clocks.


But technically, they're not wrong or in the wrong.


----------



## Tomgang (Feb 19, 2018)

lovely if true. Then i so just hope for AMD´s sake that they also have OC this time at better levels. First gen Rizen has trouble getting over 4.2-4.3 GHz while Intels chips happily runs around 4.7 and up to over 5 GHz deppending on chip and what cooling you have.


----------



## dirtyferret (Feb 19, 2018)

trouble getting over 4.2-4.3ghz?  Most of the reviews I read had unstable chips once they hit 4.1ghz.


----------



## Final_Fighter (Feb 19, 2018)

3.9ghz is the sweet spot on first gen. if you get 4ghz you have a good chip and 4.1ghz is cherry.


----------



## Space Lynx (Feb 19, 2018)

Final_Fighter said:


> 3.9ghz is the sweet spot on first gen. if you get 4ghz you have a good chip and 4.1ghz is cherry.



If we can get an 8 core 16 thread at 4.4 ghz in April. I am making the move to AMD even if it costs me another $100-200  over the 8700k. At this point, even if min fps is a little slower than Intel in most games... I just want to support the team who actually cares about gamers and listens to our feedback.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Feb 19, 2018)

Makes me wonder what I could get out of it by non Turbo Overclocking.


----------



## Johan45 (Feb 19, 2018)

Looking at the numbers it's being compared to a slower 1600 CPU and one thing I noticed about the Precision boost 2 on the Raven ridge was that it works more like XFR  if cooling etc are all good that could be an all core boost to 3.8 plus it makes no mention of memory 3200 VS 2666 on the test system will do wonders in GB. I wouldn't get too excited just yet.


----------



## dirtyferret (Feb 19, 2018)

lynx29 said:


> If we can get an 8 core 16 thread at 4.4 ghz in April. I am making the move to AMD even if it costs me another $100-200  over the 8700k. At this point, even if min fps is a little slower than Intel in most games... I just want to support the team who actually cares about gamers and listens to our feedback.



AMD, Intel, Nvidia are all publicly traded companies.  The only thing they care about is their stock price.  The only one who cares about your gaming is you.  So save your money and build the best PC you can, for your budget, that delivers the performance you want.


----------



## Space Lynx (Feb 19, 2018)

dirtyferret said:


> AMD, Intel, Nvidia are all publicly traded companies.  The only thing they care about is their stock price.  The only one who cares about your gaming is you.  So save your money and build the best PC you can, for your budget, that delivers the performance you want.



This is ultimately true, but I don't see Intel rushing to provide us soldered CPU's again, and still giving us crap paste generation after generation. AMD may be inferior RnD wise, but they still seem to care more. so eh... also not sure AMD has been caught Insider Trading and got away with it by standing behind Trump smiling signing a new factory for their $7 Billion factory in Arizona... or there lies about motherboard compatibly... when AM4 works until 2020...

and I forgot to mention AMD had the respect to include Wraith Cooler with all ther CPU's even the new APU's... which keep temps down so well you don't need aftermarket... Intel still gives you little piece of junk cooler... they care the same amount as AMD for gamers on PC? No they do not.


----------



## Vayra86 (Feb 20, 2018)

lynx29 said:


> If we can get an 8 core 16 thread at 4.4 ghz in April. I am making the move to AMD even if it costs me another $100-200  over the 8700k. At this point, even if min fps is a little slower than Intel in most games... I just want to support the team who actually cares about gamers and listens to our feedback.



Here's the feedback:
- Intel's processors keep selling regardless of TIM
- Intel still is single thread king
- Intel still holds the Ghz crown in current gen (by far)
- Intel still provides the highest in-game performance at every price point in midrange and high end
- Delidding has become its own separate business now
- Even with TIM, the hottest CPU of the current line up still remains within safe ranges with a decent OC.
- AMD's Ryzen CPU was openly declared by many not to be a stellar gaming CPU for high end systems

AMD doesn't care for gamers, they play into the PR for gamers. Vega is the ultimate example of how they do not care for gamers at all: almost all of the production capacity is going towards the non-gamer versions of this card. First in high end, now we have Vega on-die as an IGP. 'For the gamers'. Gaming GPU has been bleeding money for the past decade with hesitant signs of improvement that never make it to market or take ages to arrive in a small handful of games. Should I go on with facts? Or do you prefer marketing and emotion to decide.


----------



## Readlight (Feb 20, 2018)

If it can run unreal photorealistic graphics then ist ok.


----------



## phill (Feb 20, 2018)

I'm just looking forward to seeing what the later release of Ryzen comes with..  Hopefully a nice surprise and hopefully not a 5% increase as we have become used to...


----------



## EarthDog (Feb 20, 2018)

Read the first post only...

1. Its from a clockspeed increase.
2. Zen+ does not have nktable IPC gains, nor better overclocking...that is for zen2.


...and then read the thread.

1. Amd cares about gamers??? 
2. Lol tpu....


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 20, 2018)

Yep, minor increases in clock speed and IPC.  Hey, it has worked for Intel for what, over a decade?


----------



## EarthDog (Feb 20, 2018)

Exactly... just tempering expectations as some seem to think Zen+ is the second coming, when all that was mentioned (better IPC, better OC headroom) will be on Zen2.


----------



## Space Lynx (Feb 20, 2018)

EarthDog said:


> Exactly... just tempering expectations as some seem to think Zen+ is the second coming, when all that was mentioned (better IPC, better OC headroom) will be on Zen2.



I am only curious to see if the min fps in games at all resolutions improves with this Ryzen refresh, because if Intel is still winning that battle at 10 fps better min across the board... in many cases much more... ugh... I know freesync and gsync change the ball game on what matters and what doesn't but still...


----------



## EarthDog (Feb 20, 2018)

I highly doubt it will. Very few changes here.


----------



## Vya Domus (Feb 20, 2018)

lynx29 said:


> I just want to support the team who actually cares about gamers and listens to our feedback.



I personally look at this the other way around. I wouldn't support the company that literally bought market share with billions upon billions and pulled off god knows how many other illegal stunts to put a spanner in the works of their competitor. Other than that , I don't think neither AMD or Intel or anyone else for that matter care about their customers.


----------



## HTC (Feb 20, 2018)

Let's say that @ the end, the new Ryzen refresh gives 10% better performance VS the current Ryzen: you dudes do realize that's actually better then what Intel has been offering for several generations, right?

That said, 10% doesn't seem that much, specially if it comes solely from increase in frequency. I'd much prefer it it came form something else, even if the frequency remained the same, but that's me.

If this 17% does turn out to be true (and i highly doubt it), that's actually quite good, IMO.


----------



## Vayra86 (Feb 21, 2018)

HTC said:


> Let's say that @ the end, the new Ryzen refresh gives 10% better performance VS the current Ryzen: you dudes do realize that's actually better then what Intel has been offering for several generations, right?
> 
> That said, 10% doesn't seem that much, specially if it comes solely from increase in frequency. I'd much prefer it it came form something else, even if the frequency remained the same, but that's me.
> 
> If this 17% does turn out to be true (and i highly doubt it), that's actually quite good, IMO.



No, its nothing that special - Intel pushed that out *on IPC improvements alone* at the beginning of Core, until Haswell. 

https://www.anandtech.com/show/7003/the-haswell-review-intel-core-i74770k-i54560k-tested/6


----------



## HTC (Feb 21, 2018)

Vayra86 said:


> No, its nothing that special - Intel pushed that out *on IPC improvements alone* at the beginning of Core, *until Haswell*.
> 
> https://www.anandtech.com/show/7003/the-haswell-review-intel-core-i74770k-i54560k-tested/6



Exactly!

But, since then, it has been *mostly* frequency increase that accounts for total increase VS previous generation.


----------



## Vayra86 (Feb 21, 2018)

HTC said:


> Exactly!
> 
> But, since then, it has been *mostly* frequency increase that accounts for total increase VS previous generation.



Boy I do wonder how that came to happen... surely I don't need to jog your memory on AMD's presence on CPU the past decade  Its easy to overinflate Ryzen's achievements and compare them to an architecture that is already 7 years on the market... On top of that; Intel manages to still keep up on that basis, and then some...

What really happens here, and I know, rose-tinted glasses have difficulty showing that to people, is that AMD is already rebadging the same CPU with small clock bumps. Its NOT a bad thing don't get me wrong, but its precisely what Intel is doing and what you complain about - except Ryzen is gen 1


----------



## Vya Domus (Feb 21, 2018)

Vayra86 said:


> Boy I do wonder how that came to happen... surely I don't need to jog your memory on AMD's presence on CPU the past decade  Its easy to overinflate Ryzen's achievements and compare them to an architecture that is already 7 years on the market... On top of that; Intel manages to still keep up on that basis, and then some...
> 
> What really happens here, and I know, rose-tinted glasses have difficulty showing that to people, is that AMD is already rebadging the same CPU with small clock bumps. Its NOT a bad thing don't get me wrong, but its precisely what Intel is doing and what you complain about - except Ryzen is gen 1



There is a difference , Intel has had much smaller bumps in performance in the past couple of years on bigger node improvements. 17% increase in performance from clock speed on something  that is effectively a refined node is impressive.


----------



## HTC (Feb 21, 2018)

Vayra86 said:


> Boy I do wonder how that came to happen... surely I don't need to jog your memory on AMD's presence on CPU the past decade  Its easy to overinflate Ryzen's achievements and compare them to an architecture that is already 7 years on the market... On top of that; Intel manages to still keep up on that basis, and then some...
> 
> What really happens here, and I know, rose-tinted glasses have difficulty showing that to people, is that *AMD is already rebadging the same CPU with small clock bumps*. Its NOT a bad thing don't get me wrong, but its precisely what Intel is doing and what you complain about - except Ryzen is gen 1



That would be a no, dude.

For starters, it's in a new process, which is where the small clock bumps come from, so it's not possible for it to be a re-badge. If it were the exact same CPUs but better binned, then it would be a re-badge.

Intel was so far ahead that they could afford to take the "let's just increase the performance of our new chips ever so slightly VS previous generation" and still be able to sell. We consumers fell for it because the alternative had too low performance.

That said, i really do hope the increase in performance for these new chips *does NOT come solely from frequency increase*, but i wouldn't hold my breath on that.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Feb 21, 2018)

Don't matter where it comes from, frequency or IPC, but 17% would be good enough.


----------



## IceScreamer (Feb 21, 2018)

I'd be happy with just ironed out kinks of the first gen. They did a pretty good job with the microcode updates, now to see that out of the box and with a small clock bump and it's all good.

Either a Ryzen 2600 or the 2200G is most likely my next CPU, or my brothers' to be more precise, so I can have the FX6300 all to myself.


----------



## dj-electric (Feb 21, 2018)

To me, this sort of jump is required for a new yearly series. Jumps have to be made, otherwise Chipzilla will start chopping heads again.


----------



## HTC (Feb 21, 2018)

cucker tarlson said:


> *Don't matter where it comes from*, frequency or IPC, but 17% would be good enough.



It does because, if it doesn't come from frequency, then increasing frequency (overclocking) nets you even MORE performance.

If the increase in performance comes from frequency alone, then overclocking won't gain you as much.



IceScreamer said:


> *I'd be happy with just ironed out kinks of the first gen*. They did a pretty good job with the microcode updates, now to see that out of the box and with a small clock bump and it's all good.
> 
> Either a Ryzen 2600 or the 2200G is most likely my next CPU, or my brothers' to be more precise, so I can have the FX6300 all to myself.



That would be my hope but i have serious doubts: they may have improved some bits but most likely, the performance boost will come from frequency increase.

We shall see ...


----------



## Melvis (Feb 21, 2018)

lynx29 said:


> I am only curious to see if the min fps in games at all resolutions improves with this Ryzen refresh, because if Intel is still winning that battle at 10 fps better min across the board... in many cases much more... ugh... I know freesync and gsync change the ball game on what matters and what doesn't but still...



Are you sure about that? as pretty much all online reviews ive seen show the opposite that AMD has better 1% lows then intel does.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCI8iQa1hv7oV_Z8D35vVuSg


----------



## phill (Feb 21, 2018)

I think the best thing for me to do is to just sit and wait..  Reviews are one thing, so I'll wait for those   I just hope they can make the difference....


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 21, 2018)

HTC said:


> It does because, if it doesn't come from frequency, then increasing frequency (overclocking) nets you even MORE performance.
> 
> If the increase in performance comes from frequency alone, then overclocking won't gain you as much.



Especially if they have just bumped clock speed to the point that they have pretty much eliminated the overclocking headroom.


----------



## HTC (Feb 21, 2018)

newtekie1 said:


> Especially if they have just bumped clock speed to the point that they have pretty much eliminated the overclocking headroom.



Indeed: that would make it even worse.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Feb 22, 2018)

Let's just wait until the parts are in our hands instead of speculating over all of it, it's pointless at this point.


----------



## dirtyferret (Feb 22, 2018)

cucker tarlson said:


> Don't matter where it comes from, frequency or IPC, but 17% would be good enough.


It's not a 17% increase on frequency or IPC.  The 17% comes on a Geekbench test score going from 3636 to 4269.  The issue is the ryzen 1600 OC to 3.9 gets a notch above 4300 on the same test so it makes sense the 2600 @ 3.8ghz would score 4269.  It's the equivalent of a cinebench single core score going from 160 to 170 from the i5-6600k to i5-7600k.  The IPC is the same and the chip received a small bump in frequency, the exact same bump you can give your current 1600.


----------



## Vayra86 (Feb 23, 2018)

HTC said:


> Indeed: that would make it even worse.



You realize that is effectively what Ryzen's at right now yes


----------



## HTC (Feb 23, 2018)

Vayra86 said:


> You realize that is effectively what Ryzen's at right now yes



*Supposedly*, we'll be getting higher base clock and turbo but also higher overclock ceiling. How much higher? Dunno


----------



## evernessince (Feb 23, 2018)

Vayra86 said:


> Here's the feedback:
> - Intel's processors keep selling regardless of TIM
> - Intel still is single thread king
> - Intel still holds the Ghz crown in current gen (by far)
> ...



1) And call of duty still continues to sell regardless that it's shit
2) Yep
3) Doesn't mean jack.  AMD was able to reach 5GHz long before Intel and it didn't mean anything
4) This is the same as point 2, you are just inflating you list size
5) This is a negative point, not a positive.  It represents the added time and money you need to spend to get the performance you paid for in addition to voiding your warranty
6) With the purchase of a good cooler.  AMD Ryzen will OC with the stock cooler and still get lower temps
7)  Who said this?  TechSpot?  TechPowerUp?  No, I'm sure they said it was a good gaming CPU.  No one is going to complain that they are getting 172 FPS instead of 189 FPS except for eSports gamers.  If anyone is saying Ryzen isn't a good gaming architecture it's because they are chasing numbers and not real work performance, where 99% of PC gamers don't have a monitor capible of taking advantage of the framerates over 144FPS.

Facts

Ryzen is more power efficient than Coffee Lake
Ryzen runs cooler than Coffee Lake
Ryzen provides more performance per dollar
Ryzen provides 2 more cores compared to similarly priced Intel processors
Ryzen doesn't require a delid
Ryzen comes with a good stock cooler you can OC on
Ryzen's platform has an upgrade path, Coffee Lake does not
Ryzen isn't affected by the Meltdown security issue.
All Ryzen processors are unlocked

Also, on Vega, any company is going to go for the profit.  It's why Nvidia isn't releasing Amprere/volta for gamers right now and it's why Intel waited for Ryzen to actually offer gamers true upgrade.  Stop taking bullshit about not following marketing and emotion and actually do it.  Nvidia has fucked over gamers, AMD has fucked over gamers, and Intel has fucked over gamers.  They are companies, they want your dollars.


----------



## heky (Feb 23, 2018)

newtekie1 said:


> Especially if they have just bumped clock speed to the point that they have pretty much eliminated the overclocking headroom.



Just like what Intel did with the 8700k. - the 2 more cores obviously.



Vayra86 said:


> You realize that is effectively what Ryzen's at right now yes



You realize that is effectively what the 8700K`s at right now, yes?


----------



## EarthDog (Feb 23, 2018)

HTC said:


> *Supposedly*, we'll be getting higher base clock and turbo but also higher overclock ceiling. How much higher? Dunno


Zen2, not Zen+. 2019 is when we hope to see that. 



heky said:


> Just like what Intel did with the 8700k. - the 2 more cores obviously.
> 
> 
> 
> You realize that is effectively what the 8700K`s at right now, yes?


?????

8700k will overclock all cores to 4.8-5GHz+ from a 3.7 ghz base with all cores running around 4ghz. AMD chips all top out at 4-4.1ghz typically 100-200 mhz over its own all core boost or maybe a few hundred mhz total over its base. Id call it plenty of headroom. Its more than amd chips from base or all core boost clocks to max overclock. You also have to consider the boost range is obviously different as well. 8700k and starts at 3.7 with a natural boost to 4.7 on one core. 1ghz. 1800x goes from 3.6ghz to 4ghz +100 mhz xfr single core if you are lucky. 500 mhz. And that is TOTAL. No mas for 95% of amd chips. According to silicon lottery, 72% of 8700k will hit 5ghz and be stable. 43% 5.1 ghz. Id say its pretty clear the total range is notably more. Amd cannot seem to get anything past xfr, while intel can get 300mhz+ if thats the way you want to slice you pie...a myopic take if anything.


----------



## dirtyferret (Feb 23, 2018)

evernessince said:


> 1) And call of duty still continues to sell regardless that it's shit
> 2) Yep
> 3) Doesn't mean jack.  AMD was able to reach 5GHz long before Intel and it didn't mean anything
> 4) This is the same as point 2, you are just inflating you list size
> ...


You seem to be confusing facts with hyperbole, opinion, and biased marketing...


----------



## ratirt (Feb 23, 2018)

Weird thing about that benchmark or report, whatever you wanna call it, they were done with different versions or am I missing something here? 4.1.4 vs 4.0.3. Does this matter and has anyone noticed that ?
Oh and one more thing. We don't know memory speed they used except for the amount which can also boost score I guess.


----------



## HTC (Feb 23, 2018)

EarthDog said:


> *Zen2, not Zen+. 2019 is when we hope to see that.*
> 
> ?????
> 
> 8700k will overclock all cores to 4.8-5GHz+ from a 3.7 ghz base with all cores running around 4ghz. AMD chips all top out at 4-4.1ghz typically 100-200 mhz over its own all core boost or maybe a few hundred mhz total over its base. Id call it plenty of headroom. Its more than amd chips from base or all core boost clocks to max overclock. You also have to consider the boost range is obviously different as well. 8700k and starts at 3.7 with a natural boost to 4.7 on one core. 1ghz. 1800x goes from 3.6ghz to 4ghz +100 mhz xfr single core if you are lucky. 500 mhz. And that is TOTAL. No mas for 95% of amd chips. According to silicon lottery, 72% of 8700k will hit 5ghz and be stable. 43% 5.1 ghz. Id say its pretty clear the total range is notably more. Amd cannot seem to get anything past xfr, while intel can get 300mhz+ if thats the way you want to slice you pie...a myopic take if anything.



Perhaps i'm confusing things but, wasn't Zen+ supposed to be in the 12nm process? If so, that alone *should* enable the raise in base / turbo clocks, as well as overclock ceiling.


----------



## EarthDog (Feb 23, 2018)

Yes. It is 12nm. I don't believe it will have more oc headroom. They are already pushing those chips to the limit for real. It will be slightly raised baseclocks and boost. I don't expect Zen+ to break 4.3Ghz for the  most part and little to no difference in OC headroom. This is where AMD Needs to be on these CPUs and I don't see them releasing something with minimal IPC increases without raising  the clocks.


----------



## Vayra86 (Feb 23, 2018)

evernessince said:


> 1) And call of duty still continues to sell regardless that it's shit
> 2) Yep
> 3) Doesn't mean jack.  AMD was able to reach 5GHz long before Intel and it didn't mean anything
> 4) This is the same as point 2, you are just inflating you list size
> ...



You are confusing facts with opinion, buddy. Also 'inflating my list'...the discussion here is not about positives or negatives, its about the merit of solder versus TIM and whether that is in any way an indicator of performance. And it is not - my list points that out with facts under a pasted CPU... You're missing the point it seems. Saying FX could be pushed to 5 Ghz under solder also doesn't really help your argument, I hope you realize this... because competitors do it under TIM as well - again underlining the irrelevance of it all.

I'm not going to repeat myself but I will say something about your 7)  - It was AMD itself who said this. Don't take it from me...
https://www.pcworld.com/article/317...ming-performance-it-will-only-get-better.html

Or take it from the numbers
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i7_8700K/14.html
These are not 'insignificant gaps' in any shape or form. These are real gaps, and these are based on Ryzen post-launch, patched up after the article I linked above. The take-away is this: Ryzen is _inconsistent _in gaming performance. That does not inspire confidence outside of the tested set of games - who knows, it may suck, it may be equal to intel; but in the latter cases you're also fine with a quad core from three years ago because the game is entirely not CPU bound or just frame limited from its engine.

The point being, if you build a high refresh gaming PC Ryzen isn't optimal. It will do the job. But its not the best and there is also not a single version of it that exceeds that. For 60 FPS, absolutely Ryzen is a cost effective choice. But cost effective is not optimal; two different metrics, and AMD agrees on all of this. There's no need to argue it. Back to the core of the argument you were trying to debunk: TIM or solder - you've literally not progressed an inch in that regard. Ryzen does not require a delid - you just simply can't, and Intel allows it, while also performing better out of the box AND in any OC scenario. To each his own, but I prefer versatility and options + top performance over a jack of all trades that does not shine in its primary purpose for my rig. And so it turns 85 C from time to time under the IHS...who cares, so does my GPU and so do all other chips in most rigs across the planet. Laptop CPUs often run into their 90s...

Remember, the whole point of AMD retreating from the 'high end' of CPUs for awhile is precisely the segment of the market we're discussing. If 17% more performance or a higher core clock pops up, again, this is the segment for which it matters. For everything below this you can compete on price because the performance in Ryzen is there anyway; +17% or not. The irony is that this puts AMD in a remarkably similar position as it was during AMD FX - versus - Intel Sandy and Ivy: AMD is the cost effective choice that will perform a bit less and Intel holds the performance crown. The gap still exists except now both the market and the gap has moved to 60-120 FPS instead. High refresh rate gaming is really catching on, look at the massive amount of attention and products in that segment: from Fast Sync /Gsync and FreeSync to a marketing push for ever higher monitor refreshes, etc etc etc. Its not just Esports, and I dare say for moving images it has a greater impact than moving up in resolution in terms of experience. Another important and often forgotten item here is VR that relies heavily on consistency and CPU performance to maintain min. FPS, and realistically wants to run at 90 FPS or more. Ryzen has trouble catering to that growing segment.



evernessince said:


> Also, on Vega, any company is going to go for the profit.  It's why Nvidia isn't releasing Amprere/volta for gamers right now and it's why Intel waited for Ryzen to actually offer gamers true upgrade.  Stop taking bullshit about not following marketing and emotion and actually do it.  Nvidia has fucked over gamers, AMD has fucked over gamers, and Intel has fucked over gamers.  They are companies, they want your dollars.



Correct. So statements such as 'we are for the gamers' are worth nothing and pure marketing/PR. Glad we agree on that at least - because again, thát was what I responded to...


----------



## Space Lynx (Feb 24, 2018)

I know this is slightly off topic, but does anyone know the roadmap for Vega 2 launch date? I really could use a nice high end GPU at MSRP... ugh... hopefully they mass produce them in such great numbers even the miners can't buy them all, I mean if I was AMD and Nvidia, I would just be cranking GPU's out as fast as I can and laughing all the way to the bank, eventually the market will saturate, and then we can get some breathing room as gamers.

Just such a frustrating time right now to be doing a new build. I am assuming Intel HD 630 graphics can run Stardew Valley at 60 fps. I still need to play that game, so I guess I can do that in the mean time lol


----------



## trparky (Feb 26, 2018)

I agree with @EarthDog , if you want good gaming performance you have no other choice but the Intel Core i7-8700K. Anyone who's willing to take off the AMD branded rose colored glasses can see this.


----------



## mad1394 (Feb 26, 2018)

trparky said:


> I agree with @EarthDog , if you want good gaming performance you have no other choice but the Intel Core i7-8700K. Anyone who's willing to take off the AMD branded rose colored glasses can see this.



Don't ignore the i5 8400 and 8600k. I still don't trust hyperthreading for gaming and I wouldn't pay the price increase from 8600k to 8700k.


----------



## Space Lynx (Feb 26, 2018)

mad1394 said:


> Don't ignore the i5 8400 and 8600k. I still don't trust hyperthreading for gaming and I wouldn't pay the price increase from 8600k to 8700k.




Speak for yourself mate, I got my 8700k $313 free ship no tax with a price match.

8600k is only what $50-$70 cheaper? The price of one game gives me a decent bump in minimum frame rates while gaming 5-6fps min frame rate (not avg or high fps) min only but still thats important ---- above 8600k across the board.


----------



## xrror (Feb 26, 2018)

Good grief guys, Zen+ is just the move to 12nm process. If we're lucky the new process will _also_ give us greater clock headroom with a power savings. As others have said, fingers crossed maybe 4.2Ghz could be the new sweet spot for just "normal parts" (ie - not high binned ThreadRipper dies). Something like 4.5Ghz would be amazeballs but I *seriously* doubt that... (I'd love to be wrong).

And THAT'S just assumption. Realistically we have no idea how GF's 12nm process will behave when we torture it. The big win for AMD will be 12nm lowering TDP for mobile Ryzen parts. OEM's want less heat/power/more battery.

Honestly, what would be uber-awesome is IF Zen+ can tweak the Infinity Fabric / L3 Cache on Ryzen to not be so dependant on memory speed, but I'm pretty sure we'll have to wait until Zen2 for that. I'm guessing AMD would have done that for the APU's if it was something that didn't need a major redesign.


----------



## trparky (Feb 26, 2018)

xrror said:


> As others have said, fingers crossed maybe 4.2Ghz could be the new sweet spot for just "normal parts" (ie - not high binned ThreadRipper dies).


Unfortunately 4.2 GHz isn't enough, we need closer to 5 GHz to make the cap between AMD and Intel smaller.


----------



## xrror (Feb 26, 2018)

trparky said:


> Unfortunately 4.2 GHz isn't enough, we need closer to 5 GHz to make the cap between AMD and Intel smaller.


 Sure, but is that really important to OEM sales? "We" as enthusiasts care cause yea, it's fun to us. And sure IF others ask us about what computer/parts/laptop/whatever maybe our opinion matters. But I'm pretty sure the majority of the market doesn't ask us...

I'm not trying to troll you saying that either, I guess... this is an honest question actually. Do John and Jane Doe care if the manufacturer of the processor used in their laptop currently has a/the "performance Halo" cpu (in whatever arbritrary metric) or are they more about which specific laptop (as a unit) is best?

I guess that's a long winded way of saying that for the general buyer, does it matter?

Though sadly, I think the average buyer now only cares whatever portable device is faster plowing mal-ware when they get back on facebook.


----------



## trparky (Feb 26, 2018)

Well yes, to the general public it may not matter but to us enthusiasts it does matter. We want the best performance for our money and though AMD is cheaper they still don't have what it takes to go up against Intel where it really counts; raw performance. AMD still trails Intel by at least 15 to 20 percent. That may not seem like much but when it comes to triple-A game titles that small percentage means everything.

Unfortunately that leaves us with Intel and all of the associated baggage that comes with it.


----------



## xrror (Feb 26, 2018)

trparky said:


> AMD still trails Intel by at least 15 to 20 percent. (...) when it comes to triple-A game titles that small percentage means everything.
> 
> Unfortunately that leaves us with Intel and all of the associated baggage that comes with it.


I get ya now, yea if AMD magically had something that they could market as "stomping Intel in games" somehow, and shout that from the rooftops - hyperbole or not that could catch on so if random person decides "hey, i want to do theze PC gamez, i need gamez machine, what get?" then bam, common Internet "wisdom" would be "I hear AMD is best for the gamez" etc.

Hah, Intel Baggage... that ... I like that term hehe.

I feel like I'm pulling the thread too Off Topic now though.


----------



## trparky (Feb 26, 2018)

As much as I hate Intel for being "The Man" we really have no other choice. It's either choose AMD Ryzen and deal with the fact that even with these tweaks this time around game performance isn't going to be anywhere near what we want it to be or just choose Intel. As much as even mentioning the word Intel leaves a bad taste in my mouth, we have no choice.


----------



## ratirt (Feb 26, 2018)

trparky said:


> As much as I hate Intel for being "The Man" we really have no other choice. It's either choose AMD Ryzen and deal with the fact that even with these tweaks this time around game performance isn't going to be anywhere near what we want it to be or just choose Intel. As much as even mentioning the word Intel leaves a bad taste in my mouth, we have no choice.


Other choice? You have AMD and it doesn't suck in gaming. I'd worry more about the GPU than a CPU. Besides it depends which res you play and if you have above 60Hz monitor then maybe you can see the difference. Otherwise Zen is a good CPU even for gaming.


----------



## trparky (Feb 26, 2018)

It's good enough but it's not the best. If you're still playing at 1080p then an AMD chip isn't the best option. AMD certainly doesn't suck but still it's not the best option if you're playing games especially older games that aren't very much multithreaded and rely on high single threaded performance.


----------



## ratirt (Feb 26, 2018)

trparky said:


> It's good enough but it's not the best. If you're still playing at 1080p then an AMD chip isn't the best option. AMD certainly doesn't suck but still it's not the best option if you're playing games especially older games that aren't very much multithreaded and rely on high single threaded performance.


Yes it isn't the best option if you are looking only on number and you want highest. 1080p in some titles suck for AMD but like I said 60Hz and you are still good. Beyond that and intel is better. 
Honestly. I'm looking at the benchmarks of older and new games. It would seem to me that the multithreaded games have yet to come. There's so few titles that utilize more than 4c not mentioning more than that.


----------



## TheGuruStud (Feb 26, 2018)

CrAsHnBuRnXp said:


> I like how ryzen is adopting the sandy bridge number scheme.
> 
> 
> But technically, they're not wrong or in the wrong.



Don't excuse their lies. Every year it's "15% faster", but it was 5% or 0%.


----------



## Vya Domus (Feb 26, 2018)

trparky said:


> If you're still playing at 1080p then an AMD chip isn't the best option.



And high refresh rate and even then you can still get by just fine. Essentially a small percentage of people do really require something like a 8700.


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Feb 26, 2018)

TheGuruStud said:


> Don't excuse their lies. Every year it's "15% faster", but it was 5% or 0%.


If you add more cores to make a 6 core CPU its going to be x% faster than one with 2 or 4 cores. Just because youre overlooking the technicality of it and want to find an excuse to bitch and call intel a liar doesnt make them wrong.


----------



## trparky (Feb 26, 2018)

Yet people around here say that anyone who's still playing at 60 FPS is a pleab and that they must upgrade so that they can play at 120 (or more) FPS.

I plan on getting the Intel Core i7-8700K so that once this system is built it will stand the test of time. I want to build with the best right from the start so that I can have a system that will last for a good long while much like my current system that's been in operation for nearly six years.


----------



## dirtyferret (Feb 26, 2018)

trparky said:


> Yet people around here say that anyone who's still playing at 60 FPS is a pleab and that they must upgrade so that they can play at 120 (or more) FPS.



Anyone who says that is the south end of a horse headed north.  Gaming is all about what you enjoy not what other people enjoy.


----------



## EarthDog (Feb 26, 2018)

Some just dont want thsir cpu holding anything back... its just that simple. 


trparky said:


> It's good enough but it's not the best. If you're still playing at 1080p then an AMD chip isn't the best option. AMD certainly doesn't suck but still it's not the best option if you're playing games especially older games that aren't very much multithreaded and rely on high single threaded performance.


This. And those (few) who chase after every fps for high refresh rate gaming, a few % is a few percent. 

Of course it all depends on the title res and settings, but weve seen the amd cpu lag behind. Its far far from sucking, but as said above, is second in a two man race.


----------



## dyonoctis (Feb 26, 2018)

Sometimes it feels like some people are more scary of buyers remorse than anything else. When you buy a 8700k you know that you got the best thing on the market(at a cost) period. Ryzen isn't up there, but it's not handicaped. Sure Ryzen isn't a gaming centric cpu, but it would only prevent you from some luxurious, comfort bonus feature, but those are not essential to just enjoy playing. 
Those guys made a great experiment  in 3 part about intel vs Ryzen for gaming :








The bottom line is:  unless you are really deep into numbers, high refresh rate, it doesn't matter that much.


----------



## EarthDog (Feb 26, 2018)

**Wonders how many times the same thing will be said in the same thread...**


----------



## dyonoctis (Feb 26, 2018)

EarthDog said:


> **Wonders how many times the same thing will be said in the same thread...**


(That will probably happen again when zen+ will launch.)


----------



## dylricho (Feb 27, 2018)

I say part IPC and frequency (10-15%), and part memory (3-5%).


----------



## ratirt (Feb 27, 2018)

I'd go for Ryzen. For me it has so sexy price and so many cores. I'd use that. I decided to wait for Zen+ to see what will be the changes. But the fact is I could go strait to Zen now and if the zen+ turns out to be good then just change the CPU because I could do it with same gear and that is so good. Having a path to upgrade without unnecessary expense involved. With intel that's forbidden. Change CPU and all other stuff follows. That sucks for me.


----------



## las (Feb 27, 2018)

4 GHz should be a breeze on refreshed versions. Hopefully 4.2ish will be the new 3.9ish, with some of the chips hitting 4.3-4.5. If this happends, Intel should hurry with Ice Lake for Desktop...

The much better memory support and higher speeds will probably bump up performance too.

The best part is that you can drop a Zen2/Zen3 CPU in the same slot later (Spectre Proof).


----------



## AppleTree (Mar 28, 2018)

Tomgang said:


> lovely if true. Then i so just hope for AMD´s sake that they also have OC this time at better levels. First gen Rizen has trouble getting over 4.2-4.3 GHz while Intels chips happily runs around 4.7 and up to over 5 GHz deppending on chip and what cooling you have.



This isn't as great as you'd think anyway. Intel performance doesn't scale linearly with clock speed, and you hardly get anything more at 5 GHz vs. 4.5 GHz, if you look at the actual benchmarks.

Basically - it's not worth cooking the processor for.


----------



## trparky (Mar 28, 2018)

So you're saying that as you go past 4.5 GHz you start seeing diminishing returns.


----------



## R-T-B (Mar 28, 2018)

trparky said:


> So you're saying that as you go past 4.5 GHz you start seeing diminishing returns.



In gaming he may be right.  In general CPU performance I am quite skeptical.  It should scale linearly there unless unstable.


----------



## trparky (Mar 28, 2018)

Well that kind of makes sense, game developers do try and optimize as much as they can for the hardware that we have on the market and anything past that point is just wasted. Productivity, that's a different story.


----------



## las (Mar 28, 2018)

AppleTree said:


> This isn't as great as you'd think anyway. Intel performance doesn't scale linearly with clock speed, and you hardly get anything more at 5 GHz vs. 4.5 GHz, if you look at the actual benchmarks.
> 
> Basically - it's not worth cooking the processor for.



For gamers wanting the highest possible fps (120-240 Hz users) the difference between 4.5 and 5.0 is clear.
People are chasing 5.0-5.4 GHz for a reason. Pretty much all esport games scale well with high clocks. Higher fps is better. Lower input lag. Does not matter what Hz your monitor runs at. 120 fps feels more fluid and responsive on a 60 Hz monitor compared to 60 fps. Again, lower input lag. Higher minimums.

These people won't choose Ryzen anyway tho. Intel is still king here.

For GPU bound gaming it's not, obviously. Ryzen is fine for GPU bound gaming...

So, it depends on workload.  My CPU at 5 GHz / 1.45v is >50C load avg across cores... Long live delid and custom water

5 GHz on newer mainstream Intel CPU with stock TIM = Crazy temps unless you do serious cooling overkill
(I see people using 240mm-360mm AIO's to cool CPUs with stock TIM when aiming for 5 GHz and they still hit 85-90C load LOL insane how bad Intel's TIM is - post DELID and temp is 60-70C, headroom for another 200-400 MHz)


----------



## AppleTree (Mar 28, 2018)

R-T-B said:


> In gaming he may be right.  In general CPU performance I am quite skeptical.  It should scale linearly there unless unstable.



Let's say stock speed is 4 GHz. The jump you see going 4 GHz to 4.5 GHz, isn't as great when going from 4.5 GHz to 5 GHz.

In the benchmarks I've seen for FPS (first person... not frame rate), the machine at 5 GHz was hardly ahead of the same machine at 4.5 GHz. Considering what it takes to get to 5 GHz, it's not worth it.

eSports are an exception rather than the rule, I'd suggest.


----------



## R-T-B (Mar 28, 2018)

AppleTree said:


> Let's say stock speed is 4 GHz. The jump you see going 4 GHz to 4.5 GHz, isn't as great when going from 4.5 GHz to 5 GHz.
> 
> In the benchmarks I've seen for FPS (first person... not frame rate), the machine at 5 GHz was hardly ahead of the same machine at 4.5 GHz. Considering what it takes to get to 5 GHz, it's not worth it.
> 
> eSports are an exception rather than the rule, I'd suggest.



So gaming vs raw CPU arithmetic, as I suspected.

You'd be correct for that yes.


----------



## las (Mar 28, 2018)

AppleTree said:


> eSports are an exception rather than the rule, I'd suggest.



People chasing high fps will be CPU bound in pretty much all games and they will see a diff going from 4.5 to 5 or 5.4 no doubt - higher min max and avg


----------



## phill (Mar 28, 2018)

Are they releasing the new Ryzens in the next few weeks/month?


----------



## infrared (Mar 28, 2018)

This isn't even an intel thread  

Thread ban issued, cleanup pending


----------



## trparky (Mar 28, 2018)

So is it worth it to go with a Ryzen 2xxx-series processor now in hopes that Ryzen 3xxx-series (Zen 2) is going to solve all of these issues with much higher clocks?

*Edit*
If that's the case then it would make my buying decision so much easier in a month or so. Why I ask is that I've been figuratively banging my head against the wall for the last year when it comes to deciding between going Intel (8700K) or AMD and I'm still nowhere close to making that decision.

*Edit #2*
I've been looking at benchmark numbers for the past year and I'm in benchmark number overload here.


----------



## I No (Mar 28, 2018)

trparky said:


> So is it worth it to go with a Ryzen 2xxx-series processor now in hopes that Ryzen 3xxx-series (Zen 2) is going to solve all of these issues with much higher clocks?
> 
> *Edit*
> If that's the case then it would make my buying decision so much easier in a month or so. Why I ask is that I've been figuratively banging my head against the wall for the last year when it comes to deciding between going Intel (8700K) or AMD and I'm still nowhere close to making that decision.
> ...



Like in all things, it depends on what you want to do with it. Squeezing the last ounce of FPS out of games, Intel, productivity wise, AMD. Mix of both 2600X looks like a good thing. Although there are those rumors floating about that 8 core Intel part that's gonna be released, I for one would wait to see how that one turns up, if the price is right it that is . But at the end of the day it all comes down to the planned usage of said CPU. Besides when going above  1080p you won't be able to tell the difference between them in most titles anyway.


----------



## trparky (Mar 28, 2018)

I No said:


> Like in all things, it depends on what you want to do with it. Squeezing the last ounce of FPS out of games, Intel, productivity wise, AMD. Mix of both 2600X looks like a good thing. Although there are those rumors floating about that 8 core Intel part that's gonna be released, I for one would wait to see how that one turns up, if the price is right it that is . But at the end of the day it all comes down to the planned usage of said CPU. Besides when going above  1080p you won't be able to tell the difference between them in most titles anyway.


I'm still playing on a 60Hz monitor (HP 2311x, I know... laugh if you want but I got it *cheap*!) so that pretty much locks me to 60 FPS with VSync enabled to reduce screen tearing. I do plan on going 1440p with a new monitor in the future but it's not going to be any time soon.


----------



## I No (Mar 28, 2018)

trparky said:


> I'm still playing on a 60Hz monitor (HP 2311x, I know... laugh if you want but I got it *cheap*!) so that pretty much locks me to 60 FPS with VSync enabled to reduce screen tearing. I do plan on going 1440p with a new monitor in the future but it's not going to be any time soon.



Don't worry about it ... I for one kinda regret going to 1440p since gaming on a high refresh panel on 60 FPS feels choppy AF (if I crank up the settings to max in some titles) with G-Sync and Fast Sync even if I have a 1080ti behind it I would still get more mileage out of the card on 1080p even though it would be overkill at this time... but in a couple of years down the road ... you may never know...


----------



## trparky (Mar 28, 2018)

I can't help but to think that much of this high resolution tech is still too immature and that it needs more time to evolve and get better.

The question... if I'm pretty much locked to 60 FPS with VSync enabled is the question of which processor (AMD vs. Intel) is best not even worth worrying about?


----------



## I No (Mar 28, 2018)

trparky said:


> I can't help but to think that much of this high resolution tech is still too immature and that it needs more time to evolve and get better.
> 
> The question... if I'm pretty much locked to 60 FPS with VSync enabled is the question of which processor (AMD vs. Intel) is best not even worth worrying about?



For 60 FPS I wouldn't worry too much and just go with the best thing that fits into my budget. Rule of thumb (at least for me) if you don't get bottlenecked by the GPU at that resolution grab the best performer. The first thing you'll end up upgrading would be the GPU anyway down the road and it's always nice to get a couple of gens worth of GPUs without worrying that the CPU will bottleneck them.


----------



## Vayra86 (Mar 28, 2018)

trparky said:


> I can't help but to think that much of this high resolution tech is still too immature and that it needs more time to evolve and get better.
> 
> The question... if I'm pretty much locked to 60 FPS with VSync enabled is the question of which processor (AMD vs. Intel) is best not even worth worrying about?



Generally speaking no, but at that point it all depends on how annoyed you get with games that drop to 55 or even 45 fps on a rare occasion. If that bothers you, Intel + highest possible clocks. Future content won't see CPU load going down, that is for sure, so rare occasions today will become more frequent in future.

This is also why I feel it is SO very important for AMD to get Zen up to a comfortable 4.5 Ghz. This will virtually eliminate that one tiny problem that they have, which will help them bigtime in sales and overall PR/marketing of the chips. What you see right now is people ripping the Ryzen gaming performance out of context and some wrongly conclude that Ryzen shouldn't be in a gaming rig, regardless of FPS or resolution targets when in fact most people really don't even notice the momentary drops in fps below refresh. I have high hopes for Zen2 in that regard, its clear they are pushing for it. If they can get that done, Ryzen clearly has an edge over Intel Core on an architectural level, because it simply runs circles around it in some very specific workloads and equals it in most others.


----------



## Vya Domus (Mar 28, 2018)

Vayra86 said:


> Generally speaking no, but at that point it all depends on how annoyed you get with games that drop to 55 or even 45 fps on a rare occasion.



I seriously doubt that there is any game out there that would drop to such low fps on a current AMD CPU and not on an Intel one.


----------



## Vayra86 (Mar 28, 2018)

Vya Domus said:


> I seriously doubt that there is any game out there that would drop to such low fps on a current AMD CPU and not on an Intel one.



They exist, but you can debate on whether the game or the CPU is at fault. Regardless, higher clocks will reduce that problem in a big way, it just brute forces it faster and the clockspeed gap is rather significant, its that 4-6 FPS that you lack in such occasions. And strictly from a cost/benefit point of view: is the investment for the fastest overclockable Intel worth that tiny issue? No.


----------



## Vya Domus (Mar 28, 2018)

Vayra86 said:


> They exist



I can't really think of any , I'm curious if you have found one. One where the gap is so big , as you described it , that it drops below 60 fps.


----------



## Vayra86 (Mar 28, 2018)

Dawn of War 3 is a good example. The 8700k manages 68-70 99th percentile and Ryzen 53-58



trparky said:


> My thoughts on Ryzen came from the fact that I had really high hopes that Ryzen was not only going to take the crown from Intel but also kick them in the balls so hard that they would be apple sauce. Sadly that didn't happen.



Give it time! These things don't happen overnight, sales results need to accumulate and the idea of buying AMD again needs to get popular. That provides the confidence to push it even harder and invest more into it, because that is what AMD needs right now. Money and investor's trust.


----------



## trparky (Mar 28, 2018)

Vayra86 said:


> This is also why I feel it is SO very important for AMD to get Zen up to a comfortable 4.5 Ghz.


I don't really see this happening until Zen 2 (Ryzen 3xxx-series) comes about. The only good thing is that if you buy into the Ryzen 2xxx-series with the 4xx-series chipsets you have the very real option to do a drop-in upgrade with the 3xxx-series Ryzen (Zen 2) chips in a year or so, something you absolutely cannot do with Intel because of their incessant need to push out new motherboards and chipsets every time the traffic light and the end of the road turns red.


Vayra86 said:


> This is also why I feel it is SO very important for AMD to get Zen up to a comfortable 4.5 Ghz. This will virtually eliminate that one tiny problem that they have, which will help them bigtime in sales and overall PR/marketing of the chips.


My thoughts on Ryzen came from the fact that I had really high hopes that Ryzen was not only going to take the crown from Intel but also kick them in the balls so hard that they would be apple sauce and thus singing soprano. Sadly that didn't happen.


----------



## Vya Domus (Mar 28, 2018)

Vayra86 said:


> Dawn of War 3 is a good example. The 8700k manages 68-70 99th percentile and Ryzen 53-58



Curiously , I haven't really been able to find any benchmarks that show that.






*

*


----------



## Vayra86 (Mar 28, 2018)

Vya Domus said:


> Curiously , I haven't really been able to find any benchmarks that show that.
> 
> View attachment 98900
> 
> *View attachment 98901*



The tiny little detail in this, is that this is a benchmark and not a long gameplay session. As matches run towards the end, the CPU load increases as everyone has fully decked armies. Already you can see in the Techspot bench that Intel's 8700k is miles ahead and Ryzen 5 drops to 53. The 1600X puts down a much higher score, directly as a result of clockspeeds.

Don't blow it out of proportion, but this is what I meant. Momentary drops, on rare occasions where you can clearly see that Intel has a serious amount of headroom above 60 fps. You can contest that its a bench done on Vega 64, but even then, look at the 1080ti bench where an overclocked 1500X puts down 63 min fps and 1700 adds another 1-2 fps.


----------



## Vya Domus (Mar 28, 2018)

Vayra86 said:


> The tiny little detail in this, is that this is a benchmark and not a long gameplay session. As matches run towards the end, the CPU load increases as everyone has fully decked armies..



To me it seems you have to struggle really , really hard to find what you described. The realty is , the difference is no where as dramatic as many seem to make it look like. Point is Ryzen or Coffe Lake , you are guaranteed 60 fps in pretty much every practical sense.


----------



## Vayra86 (Mar 28, 2018)

Vya Domus said:


> To me it seems you have to struggle really , really hard to find what you described. The realty is , the difference is no where as dramatic as many seem to make it look like. Ryzen or Coffe Lake , you are guaranteed 60 fps in pretty much every practical sense.



No you don't have to struggle, if you play DoW 3, you will have sub 60 FPS in virtually every match on those rare occasions. If you play that game, then it is a significant drawback to Ryzen for you. That is also what I mean, people that never play the game are STILL going to have a tiny worry that they might at one point touch on a game they DO play that shows similar performance gaps. And that is why for PR reasons AMD needs to push clocks.

Is it rational? NO. But its how people think.


----------



## trparky (Mar 28, 2018)

Vya Domus said:


> Point is Ryzen or Coffee Lake, you are guaranteed 60 FPS in pretty much every practical sense.


Well that makes my build decision a lot more narrowed down than it ever has been.


----------



## Vario (Mar 28, 2018)

trparky said:


> Well that makes my build decision a lot more narrowed down than it ever has been.


Coffee Lake has better memory compatibility, but with either an Intel or AMD system just aim for the Samsung B Die DDR4 regardless.
Do you want more cores or faster cores?  Which is more likely to benefit you?


----------



## trparky (Mar 28, 2018)

As far as gaming is concerned, I'm a gamer only in the sense that I play games. I'm not into the whole Triple-A gaming scene and all of that eSport stuff. I'm much more a heavy-multitasking user than a gamer so more cores (threads) is going to benefit me more. High clock speed is just icing on the cake.


----------



## Vya Domus (Mar 28, 2018)

Vayra86 said:


> Is it rational? NO. But its how people think.



Well, I definitely am more of the pragmatic type then.


----------



## Vario (Mar 28, 2018)

trparky said:


> As far as gaming is concerned, I'm a gamer only in the sense that I play games. I'm not into the whole Triple-A gaming scene and all of that eSport stuff. I'm much more a heavy-multitasking user than a gamer so more cores (threads) is going to benefit me more. High clock speed is just icing on the cake.


I'd get the AMD then but make sure you get ram that is compatible.


----------



## Gerolf (Mar 28, 2018)

trparky said:


> I'm much more a heavy-multitasking user than a gamer


Are you a video content producer or a streamer?


----------



## trparky (Mar 28, 2018)

No, I just do a lot and demand a lot of my computer.


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 28, 2018)

trparky said:


> No, I just do a lot and demand a lot of my computer.


Thats vague... what does 'do a lot' mean? Like a broswer with 20 tabs, email, music, streaming at the same time? A quad would handle that. 

Id be surprised if a 6c/12t cpu wasnt enough. What is the actual price difference between AMDs 6c/12t and Intel? $100? Sounds like a lot until its mixed in with a mobo and ram.

Then it simply comes down to $600 vs $700... and is the higher clocks and better overclocking worth it


----------



## trparky (Mar 28, 2018)

I also do virtual machines to do software testing. I also have anywhere from ten to fifteen browser tabs open at any moment in time.


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 29, 2018)

Well, you would know better than us how many threads that VM needs. If you assign 2-4 threads, then running everything else I said would be fine as well.


----------

