- Jun 1, 2016
- 3,753
- 911
- 106
Saw this posted on a german forum. Not sure if real.... but it looks very interesting.
https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/compute/1279306
https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/compute/1279306
Hackintosh?
Assuming it is the case - it's a gigantic win for AMD.It would make sense for Apple to use the 1700 in an iMac
It would make sense for Apple to use the 1700 in an iMac, considering it performs about equally to the 8700k/7800X but uses half the power.
Check THG power measurements.
In games?but delivers more performance in line with the power usage.
In games?
It's ~1700 perf at 1.5-2 times the power in anything multithreaded.And in other things too.
Hyperscale is even bigger on stability and yet they are adopting EPYC.Apple is big on stability
Opterons want to talk to you.which has not historically been a strength of AMD.
It's ~1700 perf at 1.5-2 times the power in anything multithreaded.
Opterons want to talk to you.
Stop defending silly Intel firestarters in all-in-one systems.
Are you telling me to spoonfeed you? 10/10.the claim is just unsupported by any data I have seen
Zen is very very good unless you're pushing higher clocks while bumping into the voltage wall (and you're not going to do that in aio system).Zen would seemingly make a very good ~45w TDP chip too, so they're bound to be evaluating it.
Are you telling me to spoonfeed you? 10/10.
Ryzen is very good, but i cannot find anything to substantiate the claim that it performs the same as the 8700k at half the power. Not even close. Maybe there is some niche scenario where that is accurate, but overall the 8700k uses more power, but delivers more performance in line with the power usage.
What about the i7 8700? It is 6c/12t and 65w TDP. I don't even know when the "K" version is being talked about for Apple.Apple does not overclock its intel SKUs and it prefers to keep low TDPs (lower than 8700k or 7800X). If they want to increase core counts while keeping a ~65watt TDP... there is simply no consumer option for intel.
What about the i7 8700? It is 6c/12t and 65w TDP. I don't even know when the "K" version is being talked about for Apple.
Apple has historically used "K" sku so it actually makes perfect sense to talk about them. See current lineup:
https://www.apple.com/imac/specs/
They also used the 4770k and the 4970K and the 6700K previously.
Apple does not overclock its intel SKUs and it prefers to keep low TDPs (lower than 8700k or 7800X). If they want to increase core counts while keeping a ~65watt TDP... there is simply no consumer option for intel. They would have to buy very expensive Xeon skus.
Nobody is arguing that the 1700 is faster than 8700k/7800x... simply that it offers similar MT performance at much lower power. Nobody is also arguing that this benchmark is proof that Apple is switching to intel. Merely it is evidence that Apple is evaluating R7 and may be switching iMac to Ryzen 7 from Skylake.
Doth protest too much.
It's ~1700 perf at 1.5-2 times the power in anything multithreaded.
Totally Untrue:
Blender:
8700K Stock: Performance: 23.7 minutes. Power 96 Watts
1700 OC: Performance: 27.6 minutes. Power 131 Watts
8700K is faster while using significantly LESS power.
https://www.gamersnexus.net/images/media/2017/CPUs/8700k/8700k-legacy-blender-2.78a-monkey.png
https://www.gamersnexus.net/images/media/2017/CPUs/8700k/8700k-power-draw-blender.png