"Doing some fast and hard maths, this would mean that if the R7 1700X was to be clocked at the same speed as the 6900K, it would still be faster, clock for clock (though not by much, admittedly)."
What kind of math exactly?
1700X @ 3.2GHz = 17878 / 3.4 * 3.2 = 16826 (How is this faster than 6900K at 17100?)
6900K @ 3.4GHz = 17100 / 3.2 * 3.4 = 18168
Must be Friday math.
The math isn't exactly accurate. If you look at the first picture, there's some diminishing returns. Another way to look at this, it doesn't scale 1 to 1 as the frequency goes up.
From the first picture:
1700X @ 3.4ghz = 17,878 pts.
1700X @ 4.0ghz = 20,249 pts.
If we do your math (proportions), then the following is true:
17,878 pts (3.4 ghz)^-1 = n (4.0 ghz)^-1; n = a number with a unit in points for a score.
17,878 pts (3.4 ghz)^-1 (4.0 ghz) = 21,032.9 pts.
A difference in the score is 783.9 pts for 0.6 ghz gains.
There are a few points I would like to add.
1. From the first image, i7 6950x Broadwell-E seems to have a higher physic score, at stock, because it has more cores (10 cores, 20 threads). 1700X has 8 cores and 16 threads, and so it could be concluded that more cores improves this score. In addition, 1700X can exceed the score of the Broadwell-E if it is overclocked to 4.0 ghz, but if Broadwell-E was cranked up to 4.0ghz, its score would exceed by a large margin.
2. I don't understand the AMD-romance members are having about some Physics Scores related to Ryzen. I think it is meat for the masses and fanboys. Honestly, it doesn't tell the masses much, and Physic isn't necessarily needed for all PC games. The measurements only become relevant when members play PC games like Battlefield, The Old Republic, Call of Duty, Elder Scrolls Online, .... Basically the performance has meaning when physic calculations are being executed behind the rendering scenes of a FPS or game using it.
@mouacyk, I'm not arguing a point with you. Basically I am stating my point, but I am using your thread as start off point. So I hope you didn't take any offense of this.
should i be worry that my 6950X clock onlu 4,3 and my 5960X clocks only 4,7?
thats alot of money wasted
Broadwell-E doesn't OC that high in my opinion. I have my 6950x at 4.0 ghz. When rendering with VRay, it jumps into the low 70 deg C temperatures. If you compare it to Ivy Bridge-E 4960x, I had that processor up to 4.7, 4.8 ghz. It ran into the 90 deg C range when I use to render, and that setup was with a watercooling setup. Generally speaking, 4960x and 5960x will run faster than 6950x because of the difference in cores. The allure of Broadwell-E is you have a processor with 10 Cores. 10 Cores is ideal for a cheaper Xeon rig with no ECC memory, and you can render without spending $5,000 minimum on hardware alone. This is not including the cost for CGI software and 3rd party render nodes that are roughly $1,000 a license.
To answer your question, it will depend on the situation. If AMD came out with a 1900X with 10 cores, 20 threads at a higher clock speed, the answer would be yes and no. Yes because if you really care about performance, a theoretical 1900X could possibly beat a Broadwell-E. This thought is considering the scenario that Ryzen will live up to the hype. No you shouldn't worry because AMD doesn't always live up to the expectations, and AMD has a bad habit of setting the bar high for itself. It needs to set the bar high to compete with Intel, but AMD has a bad habit of falling a little short.
. Cheers AMD 
