He_162

Like I said, the ones I linked were = to the i7-5820k, can be gotten for cheap, and perform just as well, and in some cases better in games, and other tasks.

Xeon's are not bad for gaming, it just depends on what you are comparing it to.

 
 
Ryzen performs the exact same in most games as intel. (That have optimized even slightly to account for Ryzen, and are already multi-threaded.)
Like Ryzen, most Xeon's can be used for gaming and get the same or better scores than your 5820k (Haswell or newer, and 6 or more cores, up to around 8 usually.)
 

The Intel Core i7 9700k will be a 10nm Ice Lake architecture processor featuring 8 cores / 16 threads releasing around September.
 
Catch is: only works on yet to be released z390 chipset.

If you're looking at CPUID HWMonitor's Package Temperature, you're completely fine in the 60s. That's where my 1600 overclocked to 3.8 sits at full load. I generally recommend not exceeding 80c while overclocking, but you're perfectly fine.

I can give you my i5-4590, and AMD Ryzen 5 1600 processors single core cinebench scores at 3.7ghz

(This is to show you that Haswell and Ryzen are clock for clock equals)

Let me know if you need this, I'll be back with the scores if you do need them, I just don't want to set up my i5 system right now.

They don't want you buying intel, they want you to get the "better deal" with the Ryzen 5 1600, or 1700.

I'd ignore them and go for the i7-8700k if I had the cash, if not, I'd go with AMD's platform, because they are offering compatibility with 7nm processors, and that's something intel can't boast.

So if you go with AMD, spend the extra cash on a good motherboard, and ram kit, rather than a better processor, just get the R5 1600, or R5 1400 if need be, and then upgrade later.

But back to what I was saying earlier, Coffee Lake is slightly ahead of Kaby Lake, which is way ahead of Haswell, and Ryzen is about equal to Haswell.
(i7-4790k @4.2ghz = R5 1500x @4ghz) <- Any worse performance seen in games is made up for by it's gains in productivity vs haswell, and ram speeds help bring that performance back up.)

They don't want you buying intel, they want you to get the "better deal" with the Ryzen 5 1600, or 1700.

I'd ignore them and go for the i7-8700k if I had the cash, if not, I'd go with AMD's platform, because they are offering compatibility with 7nm processors, and that's something intel can't boast.

So if you go with AMD, spend the extra cash on a good motherboard, and ram kit, rather than a better processor, just get the R5 1600, or R5 1400 if need be, and then upgrade later.

But back to what I was saying earlier, Coffee Lake is slightly ahead of Kaby Lake, which is way ahead of Haswell, and Ryzen is about equal to Haswell.
(i7-4790k @4.2ghz = R5 1500x @4ghz) <- Any worse performance seen in games is made up for by it's gains in productivity vs haswell, and ram speeds help bring that performance back up.)

I'm looking for the following information:
-Which Z370 board offers the best VRM that you guys know of so far? (I know this won't matter because they are all really good)
-What ram speeds should I look for in with this processor, or does it matter much with intel vs AMD? (I have a Ryzen 5 1600 with DDR4-2666mhz ram)
-Does the i7-8700k need to be overclocked to beat the i7-7700k in games? (both at stock)
(I will be overclocking it with my Kraken x62 water cooler as the main source of cooling)

-Does anyone know if it needs to be delidded yet, or does it run cool enough as is? (Going for 5.1ghz)

I'm planning on keeping with both intel and AMD in the upcoming years, Zen 2, or Ryzen refresh should be interesting, and intel's icelake looks like a good contender for them as well.

They trademarked "Kyzen" So I assume that's what they will use.

You didn't link the Intel slide. I've seen the slide you are referring to, and NOWHERE on that slide do they mention the % improvements being IPC related. You also go on to mention "3600 dual rank" support, which is asinine as Kaby already supports that. Skylake did too. I ran 3600 C14 on my dual rank kit for months on end. You have ZERO evidence supporting that claim, and provided zero evidence in your posts. When confronted, you simply told people it was easy to find on the internet. 
 
You kept this up as well, instead of actually admitting you were wrong. It is people with that mentality, that I make an example of. Is it harassment? That would be up to a mod to decide, as I am not going out of my way to follow you around or attack your other posts. From where I sit, I am only making a point that you are making up claims, and not backing them up, whilst refusing to admit to doing so.
 
You need not include "unapologetic", as I've already stated I am not sorry, nor do I have a reason to be. 

Coffee Lake offers almost a 20% increase in IPC over Haswell, and 5ghz on a 6 core, with DDR4-3600 in dual ranks.
Developers have been doing that, you're using older software.

Reasons to get coffee lake:
-Play any game without a CPU bottleneck
-DDR4
-Brand new
-PCIE lanes
-Not bottlenecking future GPU's
-Good luck playing Arma 3, or any similar game on haswell.
-Cut video rendering and developer tasks time in almost half.

I could go on but I think that's more than enough for a 400$ upgrade. (500$ for a decent ram kit and cooler) with the best i7.

I have an unreasonable passion against Gigabyte products, I'd go with MSI.

I have yet to have a non-buggy Gigabyte bios, and a few boards fail to reset the bios using any of the buttons (even if it says it did, and you hit save, etc).

I have had that issue for several chipsets as well.

I am currently running my chip at 1.425v and 3.8ghz, it is stable, and the board gets 53C after a 24 hour load test, so I think it's plenty for what I am doing, but the lack of some BIOS functions, like changing base clock is annoying with the B350 boards, but at least the BIOS works, I haven't had any kind of issue whatsoever with this board, which surprised me.

At the moment I'm testing stuff at 1.45v, 3.8ghz, 5 minute test.
I won't be able to do a 24 hour test again for a while, keep in mind I have the aesthetic heatsink on as well, so I'll remove that for the testing, since it only traps heat.

I have no clue what they are talking about, they seem to think MSI has bad VRM's, which baffles me, because mine is doing just fine, I even had a R7 1700 running 3.7ghz at 1.35v on it, and it wasn't getting higher than 40 - 50C after extended testing.

If gigabyte has a better VRM, it won't make a difference in overall performance whatsoever.

Keep in mind the VRM is different on every board type, so the the gaming k5 may be different than the k7, and the b350m mortar from the gaming pro carbon, etc.

Oh man, that stings.  That's one of the best mid tier vrms available, tell them I'm sorry for theit loss in the silicon lottery. 

I think the mid tier just reuses the low end VRM's because like on the Mortar, and Tomahawk, they are good enough for the average person, whereas the high end boards are essentially just something people get for the IO, or overclocking.

Keep in mind they have a "Zen+, Zen 2, Zen 3" layout to go through with still.
 
That means Zen+ might simply be Ryzen with higher clock speeds.

If you are using the stock paste, and your ambient room temperature is 69 - 70 degrees Fahrenheit, then no. It should max at 65 - 66C with the Wraith Spire cooler, however, if your room is hot and you are seeing 75C, not much can be helped, at stock settings it's safe up to around 83C (based on when electro-migration happens) I'm not going to go in-depth with it here, but basically the heat can stretch the silicon in the CPU and damage the CPU DIE (the cores) by creating pockets that expand in the silicon due to the heat over time.

That happens on the stock settings at around 83C on full load (At 1.4v+ it can happen after extended use at 65C, and at 1.5v it can happen as low as 57 - 60C, although 1.5v has the potential to damage your CPU DIE outright, let alone on load, or at high temps.)

So generally you want your CPU below 60C, and below 1.3625v or so, it boosts higher than that for short periods of time to allow one core to boost higher than the rest, and that's fine, but running it like that 24/7 across all cores under load is dangerous, and will lessen the life of your processor.

If you want it to last a while, leave it at stock and run it as intended, the more expensive processors aren't just expensive to soak in money, they are hand picked from the bunch and tested, and very few meet the standards for running at those speeds at such low voltages, all Ryzen 7 1800x chips won the silicon lottery, and were lucky to do so, and since they don't have a humongous stock of silicon lottery winning chips, they sell them at a higher price to prevent from selling out of those chips all the time.

That being said, you seem to have a decent chip, but it's still lessening the life, or outright threatening it's lifespan if you run it at anything higher than stock, to keep it cooler, do the following:

Reapply a better thermal paste to the CPU.
Keep room temperature at or below 26C (for best performance keep it around 21C (69F)
Turn off "AMD Cool N' Quiet"
Set a custom fan curve to go to 100% fan usage at 63C, and 90% at 60C, etc, steep curve, but don't go below 60% fan usage at 40C, etc. Find a setup that works for you.
 
I know this is a lot of information, but it's a good read, and it will help you greatly, don't skip anything.

I ran CPUID Hwmonitor in the background, and I also have CAM software open for my Cooler's lighting which shows me my peak, and average temperatures, of which the averages were around 57C in Battlefield 1, and 62C in GTA 5.

I already own a good air cooler in hopes of getting the best OC I can get. I'd LOVE 4GHz

Any overclock that exceeds the stock voltages will decrease lifespan, but even at 1.4 volts, you should have to upgrade it before it dies on you, so I believe you'll be okay with it at that speed.

I run my processor at 1.425v, 3.8ghz, I did not get a very good chip, but my AIO Kraken x62 cooler keeps it below 63C under full load, so I haven't run into any issues, and probably won't.

If you put both CPU's at the same clock speed and measure single core performance, you're getting the IPC. That's benchmarks.

Now if you take the overall score and divide it by the cores, you can get a similar metric for IPC, although not as accurate.
i9-7900x = 2167 in cinebench. / 10 = 216.7 (@3.3ghz)
TR1920x= 2431 in cinebench. / 12 = 202.6 (@3.5ghz)
 
Threadripper was clocked slightly higher across all cores, but it seems like it's within 11% of X299 / Skylake-X's IPC if it's anything close to accurate.

And you're literally telling people not to compare products when one is clearly better price to performance, and you can figure out things like relative IPC, overall IPC, and how well it does in the cherry picked benchmarks, which is silly, conversations should be had period, and it's not something we should just "stop and accept whatever the reviewers say".

I was told Ryzen sucks at gaming until I bought it, and found out not only was it smoother, but no one mentioned the fact that it doesn't matter what the max framerate is if you don't have a GTX 1080 Ti, or 240hz monitor.

Sounds like the liquid cooler's pump is dead, or it is not installed properly onto the CPU.

Until 2020 AMD will keep releasing new processors based on the AM4 socket, for Zen 2, and Zen 3 CPU's will be backwards compatible with it.

By whatever comes out after Zen 3, they want to make things forward compatible to it, kind of like AM4+.

That being said, Zen will last just as long as Haswell, and Zen 2 will last as long as Skylake, simply based on what the performance is, or has to be.

Yes, the next two generations of AMD CPU's and APU's will run on AM4.

They will have at least a 15% IPC gain on each other, and this is how I speculate they will do this:
Zen 1: Ryzen launch, we understand what these chips are capable of.
Zen 2: A refresh of Ryzen that can clock higher (5ghz?) and has slightly higher IPC, but still 14nm based.
Zen 3: A 7nm version of Ryzen, using the best of Zen 1 and Zen 2 core design to achieve a favorable performance and efficiency gain.

That is all speculation, but we do know that Zen 3 will have 7nm transistors, and Zen 2 will come out in 2018, Zen 3 in late 2019, or 2020.
 
At the rate of improvement of AMD's chips, and the efficiency of the 7nm transistors they plan to use, they will be able to make faster chips than intel when Zen 3 launches, unless intel can increase their IPC by more than just 15% (actual IPC improvement, not higher clocks, or more cores.)

AMD's multi-threading is also better than intels, so if they can match intel in clock speeds, and IPC, they will pull ahead with the fastest chips on the market, since their version of hyperthreading scales better than current gen intel.