• 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."

The Ryzen vs Coffee Lake choice.

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Which CPU would you choose for your next Build?

  • Ryzen

    Votes: 54 41.2%
  • Coffee Lake

    Votes: 62 47.3%
  • Something Else

    Votes: 15 11.5%

  • Total voters
    131
  • Poll closed .

Eric1987

Senior member
Mar 22, 2012
748
22
76
Just tells me you are a "it's good enough" buyer.
So you're telling me if I switched out right now to a 5.5GHz 8700k I'd get more FPS? No? I am a buyer who buys based on my needs. So you're telling me you're one of those buyers who says "I WANT THE FASTEST NO MATTER WHAT!" even though it means nothing in the long run? Now if you said a 1080ti over a 1080 I'd agree.
 

Topweasel

Diamond Member
Oct 19, 2000
5,398
1,595
136
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.
If it was IPS (instructions per seconds). But it is instructions per clock. The clock isnt a measurement of time (even though a desk clock does). The definition of clock is a clock cycle. Which is a Hertz. 1 Hertz is a clock cycle per second. A gigahertz is 1 billion clock cycles per second.

So IPC per clock is per Hertz. Just because you are doing 4 billion Hertz doesn't change the fact it can only do so much work per Hertz.
 

Eric1987

Senior member
Mar 22, 2012
748
22
76
If it was IPS (instructions per seconds). But it is instructions per clock. The clock isnt a measurement of time (even though a desk clock does). The definition of clock is a clock cycle. Which is a Hertz. 1 Hertz is a clock cycle per second. A gigahertz is 1 billion clock cycles per second.

So IPC per clock is per Hertz. Just because you are doing 4 billion Hertz doesn't change the fact it can only do so much work per Hertz.
You didn't read my replies at all. Whats the point of replying to me?
 

Topweasel

Diamond Member
Oct 19, 2000
5,398
1,595
136
You didn't read my replies at all. Whats the point of replying to me?
Because I read a pretty bad interpretation of the idea of IPC.

Edit: I caught up and you never corrected it. So hopefully it will add some clarification in your debate about performance.
 

Eric1987

Senior member
Mar 22, 2012
748
22
76
Because I read a pretty bad interpretation of the idea of IPC.
No you didn't.. I was unaware I had to be so damn specific or people were gonna break down my post like an eminem song.

https://imgur.com/a/3Cdjz#qrvnKy1

Can anyone explain that? How is ryzen beating intel at the same clocks and same core count? So literally all Intel is winning at in normal situations is clock speed. Unless there is something I don't know?
 

Topweasel

Diamond Member
Oct 19, 2000
5,398
1,595
136
No you didn't.. I was unaware I had to be so damn specific or people were gonna break down my post like an eminem song.

https://imgur.com/a/3Cdjz#qrvnKy1

Can anyone explain that? How is ryzen beating intel at the same clocks and same core count? So literally all Intel is winning at in normal situations is clock speed. Unless there is something I don't know?
Now you are debating a different topic. It wins those because those tasks utilize more cores. But that doesn't mean anything in the debate of IPC (well when referring to ST IPC).

The major point since Ryzen came out has always been higher core counts for future MT tasks and future increase in thread usage in applications in games. Vs What does best in a majority of apps and games now. This is where Ryzen loses out in IPC and clockspeed.

As a whole if the task utilizes all resources a 8c Ryzen wins out against a 4c i7. Though that doesn't help it out against CFL that closes that gap by quite a bit.
 

Eric1987

Senior member
Mar 22, 2012
748
22
76
Now you are debating a different topic. It wins those because those tasks utilize more cores. But that doesn't mean anything in the debate of IPC (well when referring to ST IPC).

The major point since Ryzen came out has always been higher core counts for future MT tasks and future increase in thread usage in applications in games. Vs What does best in a majority of apps and games now. This is where Ryzen loses out in IPC and clockspeed.

As a whole if the task utilizes all resources a 8c Ryzen wins out against a 4c i7. Though that doesn't help it out against CFL that closes that gap by quite a bit.
Uh that picture shows the same exact clocks and core count/threads. So what do you mean exactly?
 

Justinbaileyman

Golden Member
Aug 17, 2013
1,905
227
106
Had a faulty Ryzen 1800x build so went for Coffee Lake, but if I had it to do over again I would just have purchased a new Ryzen system for a second go around since the Coffee Lake CPU's are next to impossible to get a hold of.
So I voted AMD Ryzen..
 

DooKey

Golden Member
Nov 9, 2005
1,673
315
126
Had a faulty Ryzen 1800x build so went for Coffee Lake, but if I had it to do over again I would just have purchased a new Ryzen system for a second go around since the Coffee Lake CPU's are next to impossible to get a hold of.
So I voted AMD Ryzen..
Don't give up. The CFL is going to be a superior gaming solution when you get it. Look at my rigs....I know.
 

DooKey

Golden Member
Nov 9, 2005
1,673
315
126
Not true. Unless for some reason you run a none GPU bottlenecked setup.
I beg to differ. My Ryzen rig can't drive some games at 144Hz like my Skylake -X rig can do. I used the Titan X in both rigs with the same LCD at max settings. The Skylake-X was superior.
 

Eric1987

Senior member
Mar 22, 2012
748
22
76
I beg to differ. My Ryzen rig can't drive some games at 144Hz like my Skylake -X rig can do. I used the Titan X in both rigs with the same LCD at max settings. The Skylake-X was superior.
What about my 4k 60hz setup? Oh wait. See. You can't say that because different scenarios give different results. I've never said and won't be saying for a very long time "Oh redacted i'm not getting 60 fps its because my CPU is too slow! Time to upgrade".





No profanity allowed in the tech forums.


esquared
Anandetch Forum Director
 
Last edited by a moderator:

ozzy702

Golden Member
Nov 1, 2011
1,135
519
136
What about my 4k 60hz setup? Oh wait. See. You can't say that because different scenarios give different results. I've never said and won't be saying for a very long time "Oh shit I'm not getting 60 fps its because my CPU is too slow! Time to upgrade".
After moving to a 144hz monitor I can't go backwards to 60hz regardless of resolution, thus a CPU that can keep up with my 1080ti now and it's replacement next year is absolutely necessary. CFL stomps current Ryzen and Skylake-X offerings for high fps gaming and the delta will grow next year when high end Volta is released. Right now the 1080ti holds CFL back in a number of titles, the 2080ti will set it free just in time for solid 4k 144hz monitors in 2018 to come to market.
 

DaveSimmons

Elite Member
Aug 12, 2001
40,730
670
126
No you didn't.. I was unaware I had to be so damn specific or people were gonna break down my post like an eminem song.

https://imgur.com/a/3Cdjz#qrvnKy1

Can anyone explain that? How is ryzen beating intel at the same clocks and same core count? So literally all Intel is winning at in normal situations is clock speed. Unless there is something I don't know?
IPC is a specific term: (average) Instructions Per (clock) Cycle. It doesn't mean "best at everything", it just means that in one clock tick CPU design A can do more or less work than CPU design B using a single core.

Also, those charts are "simulated," which is another word for "not real."
 
  • Like
Reactions: thxdd

thxdd

Member
Sep 24, 2005
84
21
81
What about my 4k 60hz setup? Oh wait. See. You can't say that because different scenarios give different results. I've never said and won't be saying for a very long time "Oh shit I'm not getting 60 fps its because my CPU is too slow! Time to upgrade".
I don't think anyone is disputing what your personal preferences are.
 

Eric1987

Senior member
Mar 22, 2012
748
22
76
After moving to a 144hz monitor I can't go backwards to 60hz regardless of resolution, thus a CPU that can keep up with my 1080ti now and it's replacement next year is absolutely necessary. CFL stomps current Ryzen and Skylake-X offerings for high fps gaming and the delta will grow next year when high end Volta is released. Right now the 1080ti holds CFL back in a number of titles, the 2080ti will set it free just in time for solid 4k 144hz monitors in 2018 to come to market.
See I don't care about high fps gaming I care about high quality gaming. I would rather spend the other 60+ FPS in making the game look better. If I played an FPS seriously then I might consider above 60 fps a priority.
 

epsilon84

Golden Member
Aug 29, 2010
1,016
743
136
See I don't care about high fps gaming I care about high quality gaming. I would rather spend the other 60+ FPS in making the game look better. If I played an FPS seriously then I might consider above 60 fps a priority.
Then do whatever makes you happy. Its your money and you don't need to justify to us which CPU works best for your needs. CPU performance matters little at 4K gaming, and will remain so until the next generation of GPUs, or even the ones after. As it stands, the only GPU that can remotely run games at 4K at 60fps consistently is a 1080 Ti and even then, 99% of games will be completely GPU bottlenecked so it doesn't matter if you run Ryzen, CFL or heck, even a Pentium G4560.

I mostly play FPS and I think consistently being above 60fps helps with aiming. Not saying I can't game at below 60fps, heck I'm running a 2500K so i'm getting 40fps mins in some games like BF1 (soon to be upgraded to 2600K which should help with most modern games) but given the choice? I'd definitely prefer to be above 60fps at all times if possible.

I know this is slightly OT but one of the reasons I think 4K gaming is 'overrated' is that often you have to lower graphical settings to make the game playable anyway. So you end up with a game with average visuals but extremely fine pixel density.
 
Last edited:

epsilon84

Golden Member
Aug 29, 2010
1,016
743
136
No you didn't.. I was unaware I had to be so damn specific or people were gonna break down my post like an eminem song.

https://imgur.com/a/3Cdjz#qrvnKy1

Can anyone explain that? How is ryzen beating intel at the same clocks and same core count? So literally all Intel is winning at in normal situations is clock speed. Unless there is something I don't know?
Because those numbers are fake. Not even close to reality. They couldn't have picked a worse game to show Ryzen 'beating' Intel... Far Cry Primal? Seriously? Quite frankly if those numbers were reversed it would be a whole lot more believable. Ryzen beating a 7700K at Far Cry Primal is as laughable as claiming a 7700K beats Ryzen in Cinebench.

This is one of those 'fantasy' vs 'reality' moments:
 
  • Like
Reactions: ozzy702

WildW

Senior member
Oct 3, 2008
986
19
81
evilpicard.com
I would still go Intel at this point. I'm still not convinced that Ryzen would be any faster than my 2500K @ 4.6GHz in single thread terms...perhaps up at 4GHz it would be, but I've read things like "Ryzen IPC is about equal to Haswell, in gaming more like Sandy/Ivy". If I wanted my current level of performance with more cores I could just drop in a 2600K or something. Maybe I will.

I play a few things that really want that single thread performance - Dolphin emulator, Minecraft with too many mods, both of those use basically 2 cores and would be much happier with ~5GHz Intel cores. I'm actually considering doing 8350K for now and going to more cores later.
 

epsilon84

Golden Member
Aug 29, 2010
1,016
743
136
I would still go Intel at this point. I'm still not convinced that Ryzen would be any faster than my 2500K @ 4.6GHz in single thread terms...perhaps up at 4GHz it would be, but I've read things like "Ryzen IPC is about equal to Haswell, in gaming more like Sandy/Ivy". If I wanted my current level of performance with more cores I could just drop in a 2600K or something. Maybe I will.

I play a few things that really want that single thread performance - Dolphin emulator, Minecraft with too many mods, both of those use basically 2 cores and would be much happier with ~5GHz Intel cores. I'm actually considering doing 8350K for now and going to more cores later.
That's what I'm doing to tide me over, the net cost of the upgrade (assuming you sell your 2500K) is probably around $30 or so. My 2500K @ 4.5GHz has served me well over the years but the latest AAA titles seem to run a lot better on a 2600K from what I've seen. Overclocked to 4.5GHz+ there isn't much difference (in ST/gaming scenarios) between a Sandy Bridge i7 and Ryzen.

The 8350K is a good option if you want pure ST performance, CFL IPC is about 20% higher than Sandy Bridge, add an extra 400 - 500MHz over your 2500K O/C and you'll see at least a 30% increase in ST performance.
 

ZGR

Golden Member
Oct 26, 2012
1,867
286
126
I wish I could choose option 4: Both! Whatever price is best for the consumer. Both platforms are fantastic.
 

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
18,165
7,069
136
I didn't make it up. IPC is a combination of more than 1 factor. Increasing clock speeds is increasing IPC as a whole.
So can we not make this thread about bogus definitions of IPC? Thanks!

Back to the topic.

I do not think anyone today should get Ryzen unless they have a specific upgrade path in mind or unless they are sure that some Coffeelake product doesn't do it better for a particular application or set of applications. There are some areas where a 4 GHz R7 is still better than a 5 GHz 8700k. If you want to run Cinebench all day long, have at it!

The problem with taking Coffeelake too seriously is that, right now, availability is all off. Some estimate that the choice CPUs like the 8700k will not be broadly available until December! I seriously hope for the sake of Blue team buyers that the chips will show up before then.

If I had to wait until late Nov/Dec to get an 8700k, I might wait until Feb 2018 to see what Pinnacle Ridge brings to the table. But today, the 8700k is probably the best bet, and yes the 1-2 months do make a difference. But in either case, I do not think I would invest in setting up a whole new Ryzen system in Oct 2017 what with Pinnacle Ridge being just down the corner. I would spend the next few months hunting for deals on the fastest RAM kit I could get.

I'm not trying to say there's anything wrong with Ryzen, but it has had its time in the sun as being the most compelling and interesting CPU on the desktop scene. Skylake-X didn't really change that, but Coffeelake does. Or at least it would, if you can buy one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Topweasel

ASK THE COMMUNITY