Oh yeah typo, my bad. But :

CPU NB has a notable impact on overall system performance.

trparkyI've been researching the hell out of this subject and everything I've read has said that it's so stinkin' easy to overclock an 8700K that a novice could do it. Hell, some of the enthusiast motherboards come with overclocking profiles to do it for you with nothing more than a click of a mouse button in UEFI. Meanwhile I read about Ryzen chips barely breaking 3.8 GHz and those that have are extremely lucky to do so because they won the so-called "silicon lottery".

^ Correct; coming from a 8700k user. No delid, air cooled, 4.8 Ghz is easily possible on every Z board on virtually every 8700k even if you lose the lottery. 4.7 all core is usually possible with a minimal voltage bump. 4.9 - 5.0 requires more attention to detail but is also possible without a delid and decent cooling. Going higher is lottery territory entirely - but we are talking about 6c12t here, that's 50% more cores than we'd find a gen ago on the 7700k. Those additional cores are essentially free in comparison if you compare the two in terms of temps/OC capability; that's quite a generational bump regardless of what people shout about CFL.


However, seeing the new Zen leaks and clocks it is clear as day that AMD is making bigger steps at this time. Much needed steps, but the raw % performance increase per release/gen is significant. Still, I would have jumped on Ryzen if it went to 4.5 Ghz and this still seems out of reach, if only by a little, and the OC capabilities are simply not there, let's be honest. 4 Ghz median clock between all parts really is low, and the new releases aren't really changing that all too much, 4.1 ~ 4.2 Ghz seems the new norm for the next round, with 4.35 best-case.

trparky4 GHz which is really hurting them when compared to that of the Intel Core i7-8700K chip which can overclock to 4.8 GHz and even as high as 5 GHz without even breaking a sweat.

Why would AMD need to match clock speed of an 6 core CPU with its 16 core CPU?

medi01Why would AMD need to match clock speed of an 6 core CPU with its 16 core CPU?

Nobody expects that, but people do expect/prefer a 6 core CPU to match that of a competitor's 6 core. And thát is where Ryzen falls short, even with the specs coming out now.

Ironically TR is capable of holding the higher clocks with many core configurations better than Intel's line up, but Intel can still peak higher. Zen is more/too 'rigid' while Intel's core is extremely versatile.

Vayra86but people do expect/prefer a 6 core CPU

"Stop speaking for us all" say the people.

Vayra86And thát is where Ryzen falls

This talk reminds me silly Prescott times, with magical benefits of "highere clocks" that should be out there somewhere.

medi01"Stop speaking for us all" say the people.


This talk reminds me silly Prescott times, with magical benefits of "highere clocks" that should be out there somewhere.

Honestly there is no need to refute the logic here... 3DMark Physics is well known as a bench that eats threads like a good lunch, but reality is that many applications are not threaded as such. This is as old as the first dual core and you're trying to defy that with the wrong bench...

'The people'... how much history lesson do you need? AMD went through half a decade of bad CPU sales because of 'the people' who bought Intel due to precisely its more versatile nature, higher single threaded performance and wide range of configurations to suit every form factor and market segment.

Ironically even the completely unrelated bench results you linked show how 'rigid' Ryzen CPUs are in terms of performance: the low variation in clockspeeds shows a very small performance min/max between Ryzen 5 and 7. Only 3.2K points gained for 2c/4t extra, because they clock low, again underlining how much more versatile Intel's lineup is, taking both the bottom and top ends of that chart.

You know what they say... love makes blind. This is not a stab at AMD, it is positive to see the strides they're making but let's just keep it real.

AMD does not have the R&D intel can slam onto designing CPU's. So you always have something that goes in favor of 'performance'. They did a hell of a good job with Ryzen in the first place, being able to compete from low to ultra high-end with threadripper. The goal is archieved and by the looks of it the refresh is bringing 10% more IPC to the table.

Vayra86AMD went through half a decade of bad CPU sales because of 'the people' who bought Intel due to precisely its more versatile nature, higher single threaded performance and wide range of configurations to suit every form factor and market segment.

That was because of the Nehalem architecture which was first released back in 2008. It was a direct response to AMD's Athlon that had been kicking Intel's ass for years. When the Nehalem architecture was released it was when Intel came back and AMD slipped badly and it seemed to never be able to get their footing again until now with the Zen architecture.

The Zen architecture is a great architecture on paper, it really shows that it has the room to scale higher whereas Intel's Nehalem architecture from which all current generation processors can trace back their lineage is starting to show its age. We can see that in how lately Intel has only been feeding us 10% improvements (or even less) from generation to generation; the architecture is at the end of its life. If Intel has any hopes of doing any better than single-digit performance increases they'll have to go back to the drawing board and design an entirely new architecture from scratch but without any competition from the likes of AMD (up until now) there's been no reason to do so because they've enjoyed a virtual monopoly on processor performance.

Like I said before, the Zen architecture is a great architecture on paper; you can see that in what it's been able to do so far. Unfortunately it's a very young architecture being held back by current lithography processes. You can clearly see that the Zen architecture was made for high clocks from the very beginning, its performance increases quite well as you increase the clock speed. Unfortunately the current lithography process is what holds this architecture back, it can't clock high enough to really show what Zen can do. Hopefully with Zen 2 we'll finally see what the Zen architecture can really do since there's already data to show that GloFlo's 7nm process (along with help from IBM) results in much higher speeds; closer to 5 GHz which is what the Zen architecture so desperately needs. Once the Zen architecture hits 5 GHz is when we'll finally see what Zen can really do and I have a good feeling that that's when Zen will take off like a rocket leaving Intel in the dust.

JismAMD does not have the R&D intel can slam onto designing CPU's.

Yes, and it's a wonder what AMD has been able to do with the Zen architecture. It's a great architecture on paper with more than enough room to scale, I said this above but as I also said above that current process nodes holds this architecture back big time. This architecture loves high clocks!

Actually, that 10% performance improvement over the years is like 5% now since the Spectre & Meltdown patches taken into place. Alot of high compute area's take hard blows due to the performance impact, which sets Intel a little more back compared to release date of CPU's.

JismActually, that 10% performance improvement over the years is like 5% now since the Spectre & Meltdown patches taken into place. Alot of high compute area's take hard blows due to the performance impact, which sets Intel a little more back compared to release date of CPU's.

That may be so but has there been signs of these patches impacting high performance gaming? If so, by how much?

I think the answer to that is really neglectable.

trparkyThat was because of the Nehalem architecture which was first released back in 2008. It was a direct response to AMD's Athlon that had been kicking Intel's ass for years. When the Nehalem architecture was released it was when Intel came back and AMD slipped badly and it seemed to never be able to get their footing again until now with the Zen architecture

Actually Intels "Core" (c2d/c2q) series took the crown back from AMD Athlon as previous to that netburst (pentium 4) was getting beaten left right and centre by much lower clocked Athlons. When Intel released Core, AMD came out with Phenom and PII subsequently which were an improvement but still not enough to overtake Intel in the perormance stakes, and then followed Nehalem and i5/7 8** series and since then Intel has never looked back.

JismI think the answer to that is really neglectable.

Surely you mean negligible? :D

Dam i read Dali and automatically thought Speakers. Anyways 2019 might be time for a upgrade, need to wait to see if they get all the security shit fixed or not by then same goes with Intel as well..

AsRockDam i read Dali and automatically thought Speakers.

Me too, lol, i actually own 5 of them.

On topic: With 7nm Ryzen, i am going back to camp AMD afer a long long time.

evernessinceYeah and there are profiles for 4.1 and 4.2GHz on my Ryzen motherboard, sure as hell doesn't mean it's going to work nor do I want my voltage set to 1.45v. Enthusiast motherboards come with those profiles but they expect you know the danger of high voltage.

The 8700K requires an aftermarket cooler. Not exactly something I'd expect a novice to know which one to buy.

Getting 5GHz on an 8700K is possible if you win the silicon lottery and you have a good cooler and even then you might have to delid.

Ryzen+ is coming out soon anyways with the 2700X releasing with a stock clock of 4.35GHz and the 2800X will be even higher. That with the cache and memory improvements mean the 8700K will have squat in the way of an IPC and clock speed advantage. The only thing it will have is hotter temps, higher power consumption, and lower multi-core performance.

This is a whole lot of spin, what appears to be blatant fan-ism and straw grasping. Some 85%+ of 8700K's hit 5ghz+. Any overclocking in general greatly benefits from the use of a good aftermarket cooling solution be it air, aio or water. I think you were trying to allude to the Wraith vs Intel's stock cooler.

Ryzen 1/2K are both great chips and Zen+ has been an excellent refresh. The 8700K still has both IPC and clock advantages, there's no other way of skinning that cat. AMD is getting dangerously close and I think they're gonna leap-frog Intel with Zen2 on 7nm but reality is reality.

You're just shitting on Intel and propping up AMD just to do so because you seem to be a huge AMD fan. That's not cool. This is coming from someone who happens to be wearing an AMD t-shirt, has built multiple Ryzen and EPYC rigs but still keeps an 8700K in my main gaming PC.

Thought processes / trains of thought like yours offering nothing of value / don't help our community /cause. Especially the AMD sub-comm, we get a bad rap because of shit like this. Try and take a step back and look at how you approached this and you're thought process(es) here.

Cheers man!

ZipFreedSome 85%+ of 8700K's hit 5ghz+.

And you base that statistic on exactly what?

Vya DomusAnd you base that statistic on exactly what?

According to Silicon Lottery, 88% of all delidded 8700Ks reach 5 GHz @ the specified settings and conditions in their page.