• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

8700K vs 2700X on with 2080Ti [computerbase]

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Abwx

Diamond Member
Apr 2, 2011
9,145
936
126
According to AMD the combined IPC loss due to SEV and SEM is load dependant and anywhere between 2.5 and 4.5%, not counting that RAM latency has to be increased internaly by an extra cycle or two due to data encryption.

That s an area where an improvement in IPC would be doubled by the improvement in latency and should have a bigger footprints in games than in usual apps..
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,565
1,047
126
While consuming up to 37% more watts. Simple brute force performance.
A 2700x @ identical clock speeds would probably consume similar wattage. There's a definite point with CPUs and clock speeds where power consumption spikes faster than corresponding performance increases or linear measurement.

Example :

FX 8370 4.0/4.3 = 125W
FX 9590 4.7/5.0 = 220W (official number, in reviews used much more!)

I saw similar wild jumps in getting 3Ghz Opterons a decade ago, C2Qs past 3.2ish, etc. You reach a point where every 100Mhz demands way more power.

I think Intel is definitely pushing the reasonable limits of 14nm.
 

Abwx

Diamond Member
Apr 2, 2011
9,145
936
126
Example :

FX 8370 4.0/4.3 = 125W
FX 9590 4.7/5.0 = 220W (official number, in reviews used much more!)

.
A good exemple, yes, but of urban legend.

The 8370 is at 125W only with Prime 95, with Cinebench it s around 100W...

Same goes for the 9590, it is close to 200W only in Prime 95, with Cinebench it s around 165W, dunno from where you pulled your "in reviews used much more", but certainly not from actual reviews..

https://www.computerbase.de/2013-07/amd-fx-9590-prozessor-test/7/#abschnitt_leistungsaufnahme

The delta in Prime 95 amount to 180W at the CPU level , not even 200W...
 
  • Like
Reactions: JPB

krumme

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2009
5,906
1,527
136
You can guarantee that they'll have targeted reducing latency as a priority, so gaming will undoubtedly improve. The question is how much of that IPC improvement is from improved latencies, since Zen+ gained more in gaming performance than the improvement in latency.
I tilt this way too. I dont think amd have ressources for a major zen core update already. I don't expect some wider core and wider fpu and major beef up of resources all over. I think that's zen3 stuff. What I expect is a smallish and very lean and efficient 7nm zen tuned all over, build on analysis of the zen tape out results but with a new memory subsystem. To build on the core strenght of Zen where its allready strong and remove the weaknesses using 7nm as a spearhead. They need to carve out a major niche/part of the server market where they undeniable is the most strong processor.
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,565
1,047
126
A good exemple, yes, but of urban legend.

The 8370 is at 125W only with Prime 95, with Cinebench it s around 100W...

Same goes for the 9590, it is close to 200W only in Prime 95, with Cinebench it s around 165W, dunno from where you pulled your "in reviews used much more", but certainly not from actual reviews..

https://www.computerbase.de/2013-07/amd-fx-9590-prozessor-test/7/#abschnitt_leistungsaufnahme

The delta in Prime 95 amount to 180W at the CPU level , not even 200W...
I should have clarified about the clock speed aspect. Overclocking FX and even Sandy/Ivy you get to an eventual scenario where you run into monstrous power consumption with not a corresponding increase in performance.

Anandtech showed in an identical system, the 9590 using 113W more than an 8150 w/o overclocking. I ran into air cooling limits with my 8320 @ 4.4, but it was pretty good there.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/8316/amds-5-ghz-turbo-cpu-in-retail-the-fx9590-and-asrock-990fx-extreme9-review/5

And the gap here is kind of mind boggling

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/62166-amd-fx-9590-review-piledriver-5ghz-17.html

Jay saw more than 100W added on an 8350 when overclocked


Skip to ~13M here for 8350@4.7 figures.


Unfortunately, the review I was looking for on 9xxx eludes me, I'll try to find it.

The bottom line is that I believe Intel is running into limits of their core architecture and 14nm, where the competition with the excellent Ryzen series has them pushing models that are beginning to see diminished returns at every level, performance, value, and power.

However, given Ryzen overclocking so far with 1xxx/2xxx Zen/Zen+, I think it's possible that we may see similar challenges there. The big advantage AMD has here is that a new TSMC process may alleviate that successfully.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY