8th Gen Core "Cannon Lake" Over 15% Faster Than Kaby Lake: Intel

[Aquinus]

If you think AMD's Ryzen will be faster than your (my also) 3770K CPU, you are a very optimistic person.

For how well my 3820 does, you wouldn't think it was 5 years old but, I think I'm about due for an upgrade as well.

 

[Nosada]

Of course it wouldn't make sense to you, you've been a hw enthusiast for thiiiiis long. Ever wondered why others moved on?

Some red pills are really hard to swallow, mainly if they are about things you really like.

Oh this I GOTTA hear!

*eats popcorn*

 

[Aquinus]

Oh this I GOTTA hear!

*eats popcorn*

He says that like people here don't live lives outside of being hardware enthusiasts.

 

[JunkBear]

So NOW their can pull more than 1-4% performance leap!? I am a long time intel owner but: "Intel; milking the customer since ; forever...."

Like Apple Do.

 

[ratirt]

If you think AMD's Ryzen will be faster than your (my also) 3770K CPU, you are a very optimistic person.

Optimistic? I think that's already a fact Ryzen's IPC is way better than my I7 3770K's. Since Ryzen matches 6900 and that one is way faster than my 3770k. No doubt about that.

Maybe take a look here.
http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-1700x-389-8-core-cpu-benchmarks-leaked/

That's what you can get for 400$

 

[efikkan]

Optimistic? I think that's already a fact Ryzen's IPC is way better than my I7 3770K's. Since Ryzen matches 6900 and that one is way faster than my 3770k. No doubt about that.

Maybe take a look here.
http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-1700x-389-8-core-cpu-benchmarks-leaked/

That's what you can get for 400$

We don't know yet if Ryzen matches i7-6900K overall, time will tell.
But how are you able to determine Ryzen's IPC when we don't even know the clock? These models will feature "XFR" which is an extra boost feature.

 

[ratirt]

We don't know yet if Ryzen matches i7-6900K overall, time will tell.
But how are you able to determine Ryzen's IPC when we don't even know the clock? These models will feature "XFR" which is an extra boost feature.

I'm guessing you didn't read the article. There is confirmation about the frequencies and turbo boost of each model. The benchmark performed for the 1700X was without turbo boost and the frequency was set to 3.4Ghz. Knowing that the performance for this particular CPU will be greater when official release takes place since 1700X will be clocked at 3.4 and boost to 3.8 with XFR it will go 3.8Ghz++. Of course time will tell but you have some information presented here and so far they are very promising especially when 1700X surpasses top Intel products in 5 of 8 benchmarks which gives a relative performance capability. I'm looking forward for the new processors of AMD's.

 

[deu]

Like Apple Do.

Apple is WAAY worse! But the difference is that they are selling a bundle of components with their own stuff to hide away their margin to the users! Last time i heard it was about 100-150"% on iphones and about 60%+ on the computer part.

You cant blame Intel for doing it; with NO compatition for years the people setting the price is them so they only have to steir free of monopoly charges When it comes to apple people HAVE a choice; its just that alot of people are easily tricked

 

[efikkan]

I'm guessing you didn't read the article. There is confirmation about the frequencies and turbo boost of each model. The benchmark performed for the 1700X was without turbo boost and the frequency was set to 3.4Ghz. Knowing that the performance for this particular CPU will be greater when official release takes place since 1700X will be clocked at 3.4 and boost to 3.8 with XFR it will go 3.8Ghz++. Of course time will tell but you have some information presented here and so far they are very promising especially when 1700X surpasses top Intel products in 5 of 8 benchmarks which gives a relative performance capability. I'm looking forward for the new processors of AMD's.

I'm guessing you didn't either:
"It’s not clear whether the engineering sample was running at 3.4GHz without any turbo functionality during testing or if the application simply failed to read the turbo clock."
BTW, the OS needs new drivers to read turbo frequencies correctly.

We'll need a wide range of benchmarks to determine the IPC, and of course a locked clock frequency. (not that I'm saying anyone should use it that way)

 

[ratirt]

Well maybe but it's not running 2.0Ghz that's for sure. Besides it was stated in the article that the sample was running 3.4 which was specified on the sample itself. If the turbo wasn't that's ok. It means that it was running stable 3.4 without changes. That is still a great way to determine at least at the beginning the IPC power especially when this CPU holds its own.
We'll need wide range but this is still a benchmark. Whoever will procure benchmarks I'm sure that person will use same suit for benchmarking.

 

[efikkan]

Well maybe but it's not running 2.0Ghz that's for sure. Besides it was stated in the article that the sample was running 3.4 which was specified on the sample itself. If the turbo wasn't that's ok. It means that it was running stable 3.4 without changes. That is still a great way to determine at least at the beginning the IPC power especially when this CPU holds its own.
We'll need wide range but this is still a benchmark. Whoever will procure benchmarks I'm sure that person will use same suit for benchmarking.

The CPUs were specified with turbo frequencies, and you can be pretty sure that turbo is working this close to the release date, especially since AMD wants it to look good.

 

[ratirt]

The CPUs were specified with turbo frequencies, and you can be pretty sure that turbo is working this close to the release date, especially since AMD wants it to look good.

You are missing the point here. What i'm saying and what you have pointed out that the turbo isn't working for AMD but CPU still holds it's own. With the turbo it would be rocking even higher on the charts. That's my point. From what I seen so far with AMD CPU's lineup and performance I'm really amazed by it. Putting to consideration that this is only engineering sample I wouldn't be surprised if the end product be better than the sample one. there's still time for improvement and fixes.

 

[efikkan]

You are missing the point here. What i'm saying and what you have pointed out that the turbo isn't working for AMD but CPU still holds it's own. With the turbo it would be rocking even higher on the charts. That's my point. From what I seen so far with AMD CPU's lineup and performance I'm really amazed by it. Putting to consideration that this is only engineering sample I wouldn't be surprised if the end product be better than the sample one. there's still time for improvement and fixes.

You seriously need to read the previous post again. There is no evidence that turbo is not working, and of course it would be working if the chips are to be released in a couple of weeks.
No, there is not time for improvement and fixes. It takes 4-6 months to incorporate any change in silicon. The only parameters they have the ability to tweak at this point are the binning and the clock speeds/voltage.

 

[ratirt]

You seriously need to read the previous post again. There is no evidence that turbo is not working, and of course it would be working if the chips are to be released in a couple of weeks.
No, there is not time for improvement and fixes. It takes 4-6 months to incorporate any change in silicon. The only parameters they have the ability to tweak at this point are the binning and the clock speeds/voltage.

well it's not like they started fixing it just now since it's been a while from AMD's ZEN announcement. The fixes simply continue and those benchmark leaks are only confirming that AMD's testing the CPU's which may be already tweaked or it is still going on before final release.
There is no confirmation that the turbo boost is working during the benchmark either and in the article author is assuming only that it doesn't. So it depends. What i'm saying is regardless if the turbo is working or not the performance is great and if it really isn't working during the benchmark that would only mean the CPU will performs even better with the boost.

 

[TheGuruStud]

Intel should be forced to publicly admit they lied, AGAIN. Oh, boy, another 100 mhz bump is 15%? Or they tweaked the iGPU to deliver 15% more perf in one instance? Or they improved decoding 15%?

I mean, they might as well say, "We know you're dumb, so believe it and buy some LOLtel chips."

 

[ratirt]

Loltel man that's a good one I've put so much faith in AMD's chips hope they don't disappoint me though it would be hard since i've seen what they can do
My pick is 1700x or pro though i'm not sure what pro gives either way i'm buying AMD. even if it aint superior to intel it's worth buying just for the sake of it

 

[Melvis]

I fell asleep reading this thread....

 

[redeye]

Intel can still get away with saying 10-15% gains, by using the ultralow power cpu's and increasing those cpu's clock speed 10-15%.
A 1Ghz base to 1.15Ghz is still 15% increase...
IMO that is a "cheat" but it is truly a 15% increase on one Cpu, not all...

 

[ratirt]

Intel can still get away with saying 10-15% gains, by using the ultralow power cpu's and increasing those cpu's clock speed 10-15%.
A 1Ghz base to 1.15Ghz is still 15% increase...
IMO that is a "cheat" but it is truly a 15% increase on one Cpu, not all...

Disagree with that logic. It is a 15% increase in clock speed not overall IPC. 15% in clock speed is like nothing compare to relative performance. Although it also depends of the CPU and it's capabilities but anyway with CPU's we know it's like nothing.

 

[ratirt]

I fell asleep reading this thread....

Then stop spending a lot of time in front of computer and go to bed and for the record please stay on topic next time. If you wanna share your mood status or discuss sleeping problems create your own thread. I'm sure TPU has a place for that

 

[Melvis]

Then stop spending a lot of time in front of computer and go to bed and for the record please stay on topic next time. If you wanna share your mood status or discuss sleeping problems create your own thread. I'm sure TPU has a place for that

I dont think you get it, read everyone elses replies and you might understand why I said what I said

 

[ratirt]

I dont think you get it, read everyone elses replies and you might understand why I said what I said

Well reading all of it requires time (or is boring for you hard to tell) so if you think that I didn't get it is understandable although wrong and you didn't get even my 1 reply which is frustrating. Stay on topic and share stuff of the subject for that particular topic. Melvis, sir.
Hint: I don't care about your sleeping problems ( don't wanna say "we" since others might but that can be discussed in other thread since this one is reserved) You could have given at least a comment for what was written above since you had to go through all the replies

 

[Melvis]

Well reading all of it requires time (or is boring for you hard to tell) so if you think that I didn't get it is understandable although wrong and you didn't get even my 1 reply which is frustrating. Stay on topic and share stuff of the subject for that particular topic. Melvis, sir.
Hint: I don't care about your sleeping problems ( don't wanna say "we" since others might but that can be discussed in other thread since this one is reserved) You could have given at least a comment for what was written above since you had to go through all the replies

*Facepalm* Do I have to add in everytime the word Sarcasm?