- Aug 11, 2008
And the 8400 and 8700 are 65 watt cpus, what is your point? You conveniently state some arbitrary, undocumented power usage for ryzen while failing to prove the intel chips use significantly more. And what do Epic and ultrabook cps (which we only have AMD's results) have to do with this discussion?The increase is the mixture of clock speeds, core count, and power usage. The 1700 is an 8 core CPU at 3.3GHz that only uses 60w. Yes Ryzen sacrifices some IPC (though who is to say that they did that to get power usage down) and max clocks (this contributes to the power usage though).
You only need to look at the numbers for Raven ridge to see the efficiency. A 4 core CPU with a large IGP running at Ultrabook/Tablet power usage. Or a 32 core running mid 2GHz CPU on Epyc.
The 8400 us barely clocked over the 1600/1800, both of which have more cache. The 1600 has SMT on for its cores. The 1700 has 2 more cores and SMT. Even the 8700 only looks as good as it does against the 1600/1600x/1700 if maintains it's turbo long term on all boards. Even then a 1600x is pretty close at nearly $100 less.
So there is efficiency there to be had. I think the major point is that Intel offers Halo chips in the -k chips that bring their CPU's well out of the range of any competitors offerings. To do that and honestly all of Skylake and Kabylake (and by definition Coffee Lake) has been taking the ultra conservative broadwell efficiency and tweaking it for outright clock speeds. This allows for really high turbos and really well clocked Halo's. But it wouldn't take a lot to tweaking it back to being more efficient. I think it's why Intel seems even more driven to segment their offering in terms of platforms. They can start being a little more mobile focused on some variations and more performance driven with others while not changing up too much.
As for 8700 and 8400 maintaining turbo, I have no proof they can maintain all core turbo in non-gaming loads, just as you have no proof that they cannot. 8700 has an all core turbo of over 4ghz though, so I seriously doubt it wont maintain a far higher clockspeed than the 1700, which you somehow seem to assume will, conversely, be assured of maintaining its turbo speeds. The 1700 is a terrible value as a gaming cpu. Low clockspeed, and lots of cores which are not fully utilized in most games, especially older ones such as the op says he will be playing. 1600/1600x will offer similar or better performance at a cheaper price, while either Coffee Lake cpu, IMO, will be a better choice than either of them for gaming.
Perhaps the OP should look at anand's own Coffee Lake tests. The i5 8400 beats Ryzen in 4 out of 5 games, and is far from being a power hog. In fact it uses less power than any of the Ryzen cpus tested. All in all a far different picture than you, and a lot of others, are trying to portray in these forums.