Veradun
Senior member
- Jul 29, 2016
- 564
- 780
- 136
Look at reviews of the 6900K online, the memory configuration is irrelevant in Cinebench
That's a stupid argument. Nobody running those Intel CPUs is going to run them in dual-channel. We want apples to apples real usage not apples to apples "technically correct" usages.What are you saying ? It's called apple to apple , Not apple to Orange.
Well alright. Looking to see real benchmarks.Look at reviews of the 6900K online, the memory configuration is irrelevant in Cinebench
The memory controller is part of the microarchitecture hence part of what will contribute to IPC, no?For IPC comparisons you actually would want to show dual channel performance.. apples to apples.
so yeah there we have it. Broadwell level.Well 6900K @ 3.7Ghz scores 153pts, you do the math at what clock it ran in order to score 162.
Anyone else still on Sandy Bridge that is thinking of upgrading to a Ryzen 1800X or 1700X? Mine is at 4.5Ghz and I haven't seen great reasons to upgrade before Ryzen. 4 more cores, upgrade from 1600mhz DDR3 to whatever DDR4. Also more bandwidth via PCI 3.0 16x for my 980 Ti SLI setup.
Just concerned that with my Sandy Bridge @ 4.5ghz, Ryzen @ 4.0ghz is still slower per core. Use is primarily gaming, so work per core is probably more important than the total number of cores.
maybe Zen+ will be quad channel?
True. But if Zen+ continues to further improve the IPC, then am onboard as well.If it's AM4 still, which is what they've been saying, probably not.
The space required for quad channel is not worth it in this market segment. Server chipsets for workstations will likely be where you find quads as they expand their product line.
http://images.anandtech.com/galleries/5485/AMD Ryzen Tech Day - Lisa Su Keynote-32.jpg
I found important Note :
Power efficiency of consumer client desktop 8-core processors based on cinebench R15 nT score divided by wall power watts during testing.
Measured system wall power : 115w (1700) vs 142w(6900k)
Intel 6900K ==> 1473/142 = 10.37
AMD Ryzen 1700 == >1410/115 = 12.26
AMD Ryzen 1700 offers 18.22% more performance per watt
So I think Ryzen 1800x consumes more than 6900K ? or close ?
The management is completely different today. Lisa Su seems extremely competitive compared to past CEOs. They will chase Intel for many years.Well it only took 10 years for amd to become competitive, it won't be long and Intel will crush ryzen like a coke can.
Interesting find. According to that, Ryzen 1700 TDP = 65W but power draw from the wall, measured by AMD, = 115 W. And yes the 1800X will certainly be drawing more power if it's turboing to 4.0 instead of 3.7. We know that TDP != power draw but i commented earlier on why AMD is releasing their SKUs with 95W and 140W heatsinks and this makes more sense now.
I have seen opinions earlier that 1800X = 95W because that's AMD's TDP rating and sounded too good to be true; might be that it is too good to be true.
The memory controller is part of the microarchitecture hence part of what will contribute to IPC, no?
Also unlocked, no XFR = no auto boosting beyond listed turbo. Probably lower binned.
But who knows, you might get lucky and OC as much as an 1700X or 1800X. It's not impossible, though unlikely if they are binning heavily.
We won't know for sure until we see some reviews with OC results.
Interesting find. According to that, Ryzen 1700 TDP = 65W but power draw from the wall, measured by AMD, = 115 W. And yes the 1800X will certainly be drawing more power if it's turboing to 4.0 instead of 3.7. We know that TDP != power draw but i commented earlier on why AMD is releasing their SKUs with 95W and 140W heatsinks and this makes more sense now.
I have seen opinions earlier that 1800X = 95W because that's AMD's TDP rating and sounded too good to be true; might be that it is too good to be true.
Define "gimped" - in most cases you see no increase by going quad-channel. Single channel would have been "gimped".Disappointing to see they gimped the Intel systems by only going dual-channel.
Interesting find. According to that, Ryzen 1700 TDP = 65W but power draw from the wall, measured by AMD, = 115 W. And yes the 1800X will certainly be drawing more power if it's turboing to 4.0 instead of 3.7. We know that TDP != power draw but i commented earlier on why AMD is releasing their SKUs with 95W and 140W heatsinks and this makes more sense now.
I have seen opinions earlier that 1800X = 95W because that's AMD's TDP rating and sounded too good to be true; might be that it is too good to be true.
so yeah there we have it. Broadwell level.
ladies and gentlemen, AMD goes 52% and reaches broadwell. Who would of thought that in spring last year when we started discussing zen?
well the idle power consumption was 40W.
So assuming that the other components during the test consumed as much as the cpu in idle mode, you would have 114-40W = 74W delta on the power cable.. PSU efficiency of 90% would give close to 67W.
So close enough i guess.
Well it only took 10 years for amd to become competitive, it won't be long and Intel will crush ryzen like a coke can.