ratirtBTW: 8700k is not the cream of the crop :) It's got flaws. Surprised you haven't spotted it yet :)

OK sure... there's Spectre and Meltdown but who really cares? It's going to get fixed and that's all that matters. And how do you go about saying that the 8700K isn't the cream of the crop? You can overclock the shit out of the 8700K with speeds approaching 5 GHz quite easily with very minimal boosts in voltage. OK sure, I get the whole "toothpaste vs. solder" argument but as long as you put a good liquid cooling kit on that chip you're going to be able to overclock that 8700K like nobody's business. Meanwhile you have AMD and they're still limited to being close to 4 GHz and combine that with Haswell-like IPC numbers and you have a recipe for the 8700K kicking the shit out of this Ryzen chip.

I'm not saying that it's going to be this way forever, however it will be this way for this year. Zen+ is just not good enough. However Zen 2 on the GloFlo 7nm process is what is going to be really interesting. Why? Because it will be able to clock close to 5 GHz. We need clock speed, there's no doubt about this!!! Only by getting to 5 GHz will Ryzen be able to deliver the thorough ass kicking that Intel so richly deserves, unfortunately that won't happen until 2019 with Zen 2.

So in single threading Modus according to cinebench and flops (imho opinion mich more important than int as the floats are the huge slowdowns in algorithms) the new Ryzen ist 15% slower than the i7-8700k for roughly 100 USD higher price.

Up to 6 cores, 99% of the software doesn‘t use more except the few benchmarks specifically turning on all cores to their max, Intel is 15% faster for 100 USD less.

Only for the 7th and 8 Core you get slight improvements up to 5-6% for a 25% higher price.

Just pointing out a few facts from the pictures most Intel Bashers seem to ignore.

Note, most games eben the multi cores on it‘s the main single thread performance that‘s the bottleneck. Civilization 6, Supreme Ruler and many more it‘s really the first core that‘s Most important, the main thread! One can now argue: but having 2 more threads I can spread math out over even more cores. Yeah, sure, true, for video coding and rendering I can split up either screen or timeframes. Not however in most normal user scenarios.

Even Profi Software like premiere or photoshop you really gotta focus on the flops of the first 4 cores.

I‘m sure in 5 years we‘ll see a change in software development, thus far they not even started and civ just moved to split main game thread from GUI.

So, you gain 5% performance for a 25% higher price only applied if the software using the additional 2 cores.

Not really impressed I must say and I rather wait for the i7-9700k which with 8 cores and a price under 400 usd and another 20% single threading performance to kill off AMD finally and for good, as damn sad as that is because I set all my hopes on AMD competition to kick Intel.

But these analyses, they won‘t even tickle Intel for 99% of the user and game appliances and most better wait till Q3 2018 to buy the 9700k.

windwhirlI may actually build my first AMD system later this year, if this is true..

If you wait for later this year wait for the i7-9700k which will be in the same price range, 8 cores and a 25% higher single threading performance.

trparkyHow is that even possible? The 8700K is the cream of the crop, the best money can buy! How the heck are people like you having those kinds of issues?

Wrong motherboard, wrong DDR, combination of both not working well, wrong Bios settings, etc.

Some people think just making cables to fit and start the computer and if it runs through windows/Linux Installation you done everything right.

The real pc builders of course for them it starts with not just buying some ddr because it has the highest numbers or ratings or came through compatibility but select and buy their DDR specifically selected for that specific motherboard and that specific cpu.

Latter ones are the ones without issues.

n-sterExcept if the 8700K beat Ryzen by 5%, no one would be saying the Intel chip annihilates the Ryzen chip... Sure AMD's feat to come back from so far behind is unbelievable, doesn't make their chip better. AMD's 5% lead isn't any better than Intel's 5% lead when it comes down to numbers

I'm going to call bs on this I'll take a 5% incremental change at a reasonable price over 5% incremental change it a premium price due to one side dominating for years on end.

MrgenieIf you wait for later this year wait for the i7-9700k which will be in the same price range, 8 cores and a 25% higher single threading performance.

Link?

MrgenieUp to 6 cores, 99% of the software doesn‘t use more

99% of software doesn't need fast CPUs at all.
But among software pieces that do need serious CPU muscle, 99% can can utilize all cores.

medi0199% of software doesn't need fast CPUs at all.
But among software pieces that do need serious CPU muscle, 99% can can utilize all cores.

Wrong. Sure your base OS could benefit greatly from a lot of cores so that the system can concentrate more on running what you really want to run but other than that, no. Most software, even games, don't take advantage of a lot of threads. Only recently do games take advantage of more than 4 threads, most only two or three. This is where single-threaded performance is key because there's lot of software still around that does this in one or two threads. Intel has been king of that for a long time whereas AMD has been saying "more cores" because that's all they could say until Zen came along.

Unfortunately Zen is an architecture that loves high clock speeds but the current process node that it's currently built on is what is holding this great architecture back. AMD desperately needs 5 GHz, it will be what really makes Zen shine.

Sounds like the same AMD PR crap from last year!

AMD PR blasting about 1800X was so fast in every way with all kinds of classic AMD benchmarks and charts.

After 1800X came out we all found its horrible for gaming and barely kept up with 7700K with anything. 7700K out the box also o/c to 5.2GHz!

Then Intel brings out 8700K a 6 months later and completely destroyed the 1800X with 2 cores less.

Thus is why I bought the 8700K and o/c with EK and got amazing (((5.2GHz!)))

2700X is over 100 Watts of power on new 12nm? Shouldn't power drop with nm?... Does with Intel!

Sales are Intel 4 to 1 AMD for 2017.... Sales are still the same for Q2 2018.

AMD 12nm going to have to deal with Intel 10nm+ in August. Good luck round 2 AMD.

ToxicTaZSounds like the same AMD PR crap from last year!

AMD PR blasting about 1800X was so fast in every way with all kinds of classic AMD benchmarks and charts.

After 1800X came out we all found its horrible for gaming and barely kept up with 7700K with anything. 7700K out the box also o/c to 5.2GHz!

Then Intel brings out 8700K a 6 months later and completely destroyed the 1800X with 2 cores less.

Thus is why I bought the 8700K and o/c with EK and got amazing (((5.2GHz!)))

2700X is over 100 Watts of power on new 12nm? Shouldn't power drop with nm?... Does with Intel!

Sales are Intel 4 to 1 AMD for 2017.... Sales are still the same for Q2 2018.

AMD 12nm going to have to deal with Intel 10nm+ in August. Good luck round 2 AMD.

That's an outright lie, perhaps in your fantasy world the 7700k works out to 5.2GHz out of the box, in reality it's closer to 5GHz fully loaded also depending on silicon lottery & cooling.
Besides the 1800x not keeping up with 7700k ~ maybe you need to exit wonderland :rolleyes:

So 2700x with a higher base & boost clocks has a TDP (allegedly) over 100W, remind us what's the TDP of 8700k at 5.2GHz :confused:
Yeah it's a good thing GPZ didn't disclose spectre & meltdown last year otherwise it'd be closer to 2:1 & that's with AMD missing half their lineup i.e. APUs.

anybody else neglect to notice that the 2700x only manages a `win` in one specific test
and loses everywhere else
just like every other amd chip
it gets creamed in every single threaded test except dhrystone also it s multithread cb, score is completely nonsensical and needs to be run again

dhrystone is extremely old and heavily favors using certain instruction sets,compiler optimisations and cache speed

remember the intel chips are running 400 or 500 mhz slower and still beating it

when all is said and done IPC is still king

OneMoaranybody else neglect to notice that the 2700x only manages a `win` in one specific test
and loses everywhere else
just like every other amd chip

Erm what? you need glasses, in the results that have been shown here it shows the "future Processor" Winning 4 out of the 6 benchmarks and the 8700K winning the other 2 which this "future Processor" is aimed at.

Besides we arnt even 100% if this "future processor" is even what they say it is.

trparkyOnly recently do games take advantage of more than 4 threads, most only two or three.

Games in reviews are intentionally played using overpowered graphic card, to somehow make it CPU limited.
Still, when playing on GTX 1080 at laughable 1080p resolution, it's about 7% of difference across games, with biggest spikes being in 250+ FPS area (very practical, rofl)

More leaks:

Somebody in Italy got their sample yesterday,
Before it is taken down, I took a snapshot.
Quick Summary
Ryzen 2700X stock, DDR4 3200 CL14, Gigabyte AX370 Gaming 5, GTX 1080Ti
CB MT 1780/ST 174
Memory Latency 66.4 ns
Max Clock 4.32 GHz

He did not perform OC, Now if those 5-8 % gains of 2700X over stock are real as said by CPC, this chip is a good improvement over Ryzen Gen 1.
There is a YouTube video one and half hour long of the test.

Looks like a repeat of RR release, some guy nicely stream the unbox and test of RR for 8 hours , couple of days before NDA when he delivered a chip by Amazon.

Sandra Link - ranker.sisoftware.net/show_run.php?q=c2ffcfe988e9d4ecdee9ddebdef88ab787a1c4a19cac8af9c4fc&l=en

Source