The Ryzen vs Coffee Lake choice.

[epsilon84]

Keep in mind that they are using 980Ti SLI to achieve those results with 4000mhz memory. There was practically no scaling when using a single 980Ti. I agree 3200Mhz CL14 is a nice spot to be in for gaming.

True, but is a 980 Ti in SLI any faster than a single 1080 Ti?

Future single GPUs will match and surpass 980 Ti SLI levels, of course games will be more demanding too.

Guess the faster your GPU is, the more RAM speed matters, which makes sense.

 

[Eric1987]

No, IPC is instructions per clock and won't vary with clockspeed, you are probably thinking of something better referred to as throughput.

I know what IPC means I was referring to the overall picture. Ryzen at 5GHz would be the performance people need/want.

 

[crashtech]

I know what IPC means I was referring to the overall picture. Ryzen at 5GHz would be the performance people need/want.

Okay, but realize that on a tech forum, we all will get called out for improper use of terms. No offense.

 

[CHADBOGA]

I know what IPC means I was referring to the overall picture. Ryzen at 5GHz would be the performance people need/want.

I assumed you meant single threaded performance, which is a combination of IPC and clockspeed.

 

[Chaotic42]

I'd go with Coffee Lake, but I think either would be a good choice. I have an overclocking curse, so that doesn't come into play for me.

 

[Topweasel]

I think with Ryzen 2000 series we could see clocks speeds around 4.5-4.6 Ghz as the 12LP process has transistor level enhancements to improve performance and AMD could further optimize the physical design to hit higher frequencies. AMD could also tweak fabric speeds to improve memory latency and improve gaming perf which is their biggest weakness against CFL. But I agree that Intel's ST and gaming perf lead might reduce but they will still be ahead. I think the 2019 contest could end up very close as AMD Zen 2 is the first big microarchitectural improvement from Zen and AMD will have significant room for IPC improvements given that Zen is a brand new core and there is bound to be lessons learnt and weaknesses identified in the current Zen core. Zen 2 will most likely be fabbed at GF 7LP which is a high performance node designed for AMD and IBM. GF 7LP is very close to Intel 10nm in transistor density and should allow very high frequency CPU design given that the process is designed for 5 Ghz operation. AMD will have its best opportunity with Zen 2 on GF 7LP in 2 decades to compete against Intel.

They aren't going to tweak IF speeds at all. It runs as fast as memory speed on spec for several reasons including it's use as a module interconnect on Video cards. Zen+ will be with few tweaks to clear up errata and maybe a few things that might impact clockspeed (like the bug in the first Phenom), a straight move to a new process. It will clock for clock perform exactly like Zen.

 

[Zucker2k]

Pretty sure we'd get the IPC from the clock speed.

Taboo.

 

[Headfoot]

Has anyone seen a good 8400 vs 1600 OC review? In the real world this is a big choice, if I got nearly all the performance of the high end chip from the 1600 which I can still OC, I would definitely buy that for lower cost builds. At that price point you can OC on Ryzen and can't on 8400 which has to be noted. At the 8700k range, no question 8700k OC is better than the OC high end Ryzen chips.

All I can find is this but I prefer article format to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGC1dgxrLKM.

Extremely close in that review. I'd really like to see how the two fare with the fastest RAM each platform can handle OC v OC considering how much RAM started mattering again beginning with Skylake

 

[Lodix]

If you intend to keep your new CPU for as long as 10 years I think the wisest decion would be to get an 8 core processor. Be it the brand you want. Maybe it is woth it to wait for early 2018 for the 8 core version of CoffeeLake and Zen on 12nm ( which I think will get some minor IPC gains from some tweaking, apart from the higher frequency ).

 

[PeterScott]

If you intend to keep your new CPU for as long as 10 years I think the wisest decion would be to get an 8 core processor. Be it the brand you want. Maybe it is woth it to wait for early 2018 for the 8 core version of CoffeeLake and Zen on 12nm ( which I think will get some minor IPC gains from some tweaking, apart from the higher frequency ).

Unknown waits for unknown quantities are not for me.

 

[Campy]

True, but is a 980 Ti in SLI any faster than a single 1080 Ti?

Future single GPUs will match and surpass 980 Ti SLI levels, of course games will be more demanding too.

Guess the faster your GPU is, the more RAM speed matters, which makes sense.

I haven't checked but I assume 980ti sli is comparable to the 1080ti, but it's worth keeping in mind that you need a lot of GPU power to take proper advantage of ram this fast, which was the point I was trying to make. Not many people have a 1080ti and many of those who do also want to play at 4k, where the ram shouldn't make a difference because the gpu is the limiting factor. Super-fast ram is probably the last thing most gamers need to think about, but for people who want to game at 1080p and 1440p with high refresh rate, whilst not caring about highest graphics settings, fast ram should be a great addition. If I had the money for it i would love to have a 8700k@5ghz, 1080ti, and some 4000mhz memory to go with my 240hz monitor, that way I could play more games with very high fps, not just CS:GO.

 

[moonbogg]

I haven't checked but I assume 980ti sli is comparable to the 1080ti, but it's worth keeping in mind that you need a lot of GPU power to take proper advantage of ram this fast, which was the point I was trying to make. Not many people have a 1080ti and many of those who do also want to play at 4k, where the ram shouldn't make a difference because the gpu is the limiting factor. Super-fast ram is probably the last thing most gamers need to think about, but for people who want to game at 1080p and 1440p with high refresh rate, whilst not caring about highest graphics settings, fast ram should be a great addition. If I had the money for it i would love to have a 8700k@5ghz, 1080ti, and some 4000mhz memory to go with my 240hz monitor, that way I could play more games with very high fps, not just CS:GO.

There's always a huge bottleneck that sticks out like a sore thumb at the very high end it seems. 3440x1440 is limited at 100hz, so faster CPU doesn't help. Soon there will be 3440x1440@200hz. That will be awesome and make a great match with the 8700K to take advantage of the CPU's power, but what GPU you got planned for 3440x1440@200hz?!?! I don't care if you use two GPU's either, most games don't use two GPU's. So you see, the best option is to buy nothing and play checkers instead.

 

[OTG]

Unknown waits for unknown quantities are not for me.

Like the 8700k?

 

[PeterScott]

Like the 8700k?

It's here, they have been bench-marked and they are in some customer hands. There is nothing unknown about the performance.

As with any product launch of a highly sought after product, there will be supply shortages on launch.

If you really want one, order and wait. Certainly beats the suggestion of waiting for an 8 core version of CL, that we don't even know if it will ever exist.

 

[DaveSimmons]

I know what IPC means I was referring to the overall picture. Ryzen at 5GHz would be the performance people need/want.

Discussions go more smoothly if people don't make up their own definitions for technical terms like IPC

For my PC that's only used for gaming it's going to be Coffee Lake 8700 non-K. 4.6 GHz with better IPC than Ryzen at that speed, 65 watt TDP at normal loads. Cool, quiet, and fast enough for my needs.

 

[Eric1987]

Discussions go more smoothly if people don't make up their own definitions for technical terms like IPC

For my PC that's only used for gaming it's going to be Coffee Lake 8700 non-K. 4.6 GHz with better IPC than Ryzen at that speed, 65 watt TDP at normal loads. Cool, quiet, and fast enough for my needs.

I didn't make it up. IPC is a combination of more than 1 factor. Increasing clock speeds is increasing IPC as a whole.

 

[DaveSimmons]

I didn't make it up. IPC is a combination of more than 1 factor. Increasing clock speeds is increasing IPC as a whole.

Instructions Per (clock) Cycle (IPC) do not increase or decrease as speed changes. It is a ratio like 1.24 that stays the same. It is a multiplier applied to the clock speed.

IPC is the work done per clock tick. Speed is how many ticks happen per second. Performance = IPC * speed.

You seem to be confusing IPC with single-thread performance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instructions_per_cycle

 

[DooKey]

Like the 8700k?

Not sure if serious....

 

[Eric1987]

Instructions Per (clock) Cycle (IPC) do not increase or decrease as speed changes. It is a ratio like 1.24 that stays the same. It is a multiplier applied to the clock speed.

IPC is the work done per clock tick. Speed is how many ticks happen per second. Performance = IPC * speed.

You seem to be confusing IPC with single-thread performance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instructions_per_cycle

So you're telling me people would be saying IPC is too low if ryzen could get to 6ghz? Didn't think so.

 

[DooKey]

CFL and it's not even close if you are a gamer.

 

[DooKey]

So you're telling me people would be saying IPC is too low if ryzen could get to 6ghz? Didn't think so.

SMH

 

[Eric1987]

CFL and it's not even close if you are a gamer.

So what does that say about me? I do nothing BUT 4k gaming and its suited my needs very nicely. No complaint about the CPU at all.

 

[TahoeDust]

So you're telling me people would be saying IPC is too low if ryzen could get to 6ghz? Didn't think so.

IPC has NOTHING to do with frequency.

High IPC and low frequency can be equal to a processor with low IPC and high frequency.

 

[Eric1987]

IPC has NOTHING to do with frequency.

High IPC and low frequency can be equal to a processor with low IPC and high frequency.

You didn't answer my question. Verbage may be wrong but I am still right in the end.

IPC and Clockspeed are strongly related within a given architecture.

IPC is instructions per clock. So they are related by definition.

IPC reliant programs will benefit from higher clock speed and higher clockspeed (under certain parameters) result in higher instruction count. Not higher IPC, just higher instructions executed over a period of time (usually measured in one second). Remember the clockspeed is meassured in Hertz, KiloHertz, Megahertz, Gigahertz. All those units imply the use of "A second" as period of time measurement.

 

[DaveSimmons]

You didn't answer my question. Verbage may be wrong but I am still right in the end.

IPC and Clockspeed are strongly related within a given architecture.

IPC is instructions per clock. So they are related by definition.

IPC reliant programs will benefit from higher clock speed and higher clockspeed (under certain parameters) result in higher instruction count. Not higher IPC, just higher instructions executed over a period of time (usually measured in one second). Remember the clockspeed is meassured in Hertz, KiloHertz, Megahertz, Gigahertz. All those units imply the use of "A second" as period of time measurement.

As I said earlier, making up your own definitions for terms does not aid the discussion.

IPC is (average) instructions per clock cycle, period. It is per tick, unrelated to how fast those ticks happen.

Performance is roughly IPC * clock speed.

So yes, a 100 GHz Ryzen with low IPC of 5.0 would beat a 10 GHz Coffee Lake with IPC of 10.0. 500 beats 100.

If running at the same 10 GHz clock speed, the CFL would be twice as fast using these imaginary numbers. 100 beats 50.