i73930k to Ryzen 5 1600?

[JoostinOnline]

@DamonMBK Sorry your thread got hijacked by a troll.  I promise it's not normally like this here.

[Dabombinable]

1 hour ago, He_162 said:

I'm no longer going to reply via this thread, lets move it to private chat if you want to start some other argument irrelevant to the thread @Dabombinable

@He_162
You were trying to say that Ryzen having a smaller node (14nm instead of 32nm) made its IPC better than that of Sandybridge....which isn't true at all.

[Dabombinable]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
^What people resort to when doubling down on misinformation goes wrong for them.

[He_162]

4 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

@He_162
You were trying to say that Ryzen having a smaller node (14nm instead of 32nm) made its IPC better than that of Sandybridge....which isn't true at all.

Clock for clock Ryzen is faster, therefore it has better IPC. Now you're trolling. Goodbye.

[Dabombinable]

1 hour ago, He_162 said:

Clock for clock Ryzen is faster, therefore it has better IPC. Now you're trolling. Goodbye.

You were saying that Ryzen has higher IPC due to the smaller manufacturing node.....which again isn't true. The increased IPC comes from the architecture not being shit and actually competitive. As I said at best an R5 1600 is a side grade (and an outright downgrade in a couple of areas), so its not worth buying if you already have an i7 3930K. And are you admitting that you were trolling? Because from that last sentence...its as if your passing the baton as it were to me.

[He_162]

2 hours ago, Dabombinable said:

You were saying that Ryzen has higher IPC due to the smaller manufacturing node.....which again isn't true. The increased IPC comes from the architecture not being shit and actually competitive. As I said at best an R5 1600 is a side grade (and an outright downgrade in a couple of areas), so its not worth buying if you already have an i7 3930K. And are you admitting that you were trolling? Because from that last sentence...its as if your passing the baton as it were to me.

When you go from say 22nm to 14nm node, you improve efficiency, those transistors can now be more dense.

 

Ryzen has a higher IPC. You can clock the 3930k at 4ghz and see that for yourself, but since it can overclock and use a HIGHER TDP to achieve the same results we see the downside of having a larger manufacturing node.

 

I was not incorrect, and it is a upgrade in many ways, in others it's a sidegrade, and in few it's a downgrade, but it's still newer tech, has more support for newer technology, and has a future proofing that the 3930k doesn't, provided you want new features in 2019 and 2020 when you do upgrade, it will be cheaper.

[PCGuy_5960]

10 hours ago, He_162 said:

I understand these things, but the i7-6800k is a smaller node, and has more life in it, I wasn't trying to say that it's better overclocked, but it did seem that way.

You're funny! IPC and node don't make a product more "futureproof", the 5820K has the as much life as the 6800K if not more (because it performs better)

10 hours ago, He_162 said:

I compared stock speeds on cinebench, and 7zip, you can tell Ryzen has higher IPC, and it is indeed an upgrade, but it's not much of one, and he won't notice in his performance, to him it would be a sidegrade at best, I understand this, but I still think he should consider it, or the i7-7920x.

LOL, you are comparing MULTICORE benchmarks, if you want an IPC comparison, compare the 2 CPUs with single core benchmarks with both CPUs at the same frequency. It's common knowledge that Ryzen's SMT is more efficient than Hyperthreading, so the results you got showed the improved SMT that Ryzen has, not IPC.

SIngle core benchmarks show that Ryzen has the same +/-2% (depending on the application) IPC as Haswell

10 hours ago, He_162 said:

Keep tootin your horn, It's a non issue that Ryzen is better, more versatile, and has better IPC than an old 22nm node, it's common sense actually.

Actually IPC is the same... Only SMT is better but clocks are SHIT

10 hours ago, He_162 said:

The arguments you made were kind of weak for the 5820k, I know it's better, I just wanted to argue because you can't get it through your head that there is an improvement going from the 3930k to the R5 1600, even if it's small, and only in certain areas.

Of course there are improvements, but would you notice those improvements, NOPE

10 hours ago, He_162 said:

Just stop acting like it's a given that intel is better than AMD and accept the competition

Actually Haswell and newer CPUs are better than their AMD equivalents, but they cost a lot more.

9 hours ago, He_162 said:

The 5820k is faster than the 6800k because of how high it can clock, but clock for clock it's slower.

Who cares? IPC is similar but the 5820K can clock way higher.....

[He_162]

2 hours ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

You're funny! IPC and node don't make a product more "futureproof", the 5820K has the as much life as the 6800K if not more (because it performs better)

LOL, you are comparing MULTICORE benchmarks, if you want an IPC comparison, compare the 2 CPUs with single core benchmarks with both CPUs at the same frequency. It's common knowledge that Ryzen's SMT is more efficient than Hyperthreading, so the results you got showed the improved SMT that Ryzen has, not IPC.

SIngle core benchmarks show that Ryzen has the same +/-2% (depending on the application) IPC as Haswell

Actually IPC is the same... Only SMT is better but clocks are SHIT

Of course there are improvements, but would you notice those improvements, NOPE

Actually Haswell and newer CPUs are better than their AMD equivalents, but they cost a lot more.

Who cares? IPC is similar but the 5820K can clock way higher.....

Future proof was a reference to how Zen 2 and Zen 3 will use the Am4 platform, but go ahead and ignore that to make me look bad.

 

Single core scores are still higher on Ryzen when compared to Intel, unless you are using something after Broadwell.

 

It has the same IPC as Broadwell, not haswell.

 

IPC is better, the 5820k can match Ryzen at 4ghz when it's at or around 4.6 - 4.7, and then hardly beat it if you can get a Ryzen chip to 4.1ghz, which is as hard as getting a 5820k to 4.9 unless you're lucky.

 

Either way you look at it, and like I said to others here thus far, it's a sidegrade in some applications, an upgrade in others, and a downgrade in few (AVX) So if you really are looking into an upgrade and don't want to spend too much money, a 300$ move to a Ryzen 5 1600 isn't too hard of a choice to make, and it secures a upgrade path in the future, even if it's AMD, and to something we don't know will perform any better in the future.

 

If you were actually serious about upgrading, you'd want to look at getting an 8 core, not a 6 core.

[PCGuy_5960]

27 minutes ago, He_162 said:

It has the same IPC as Broadwell, not haswell.

Nope, same as Haswell (5% slower than Broadwell, so same as Haswell/slightly lower)

27 minutes ago, He_162 said:

IPC is better, the 5820k can match Ryzen at 4ghz when it's at or around 4.6 - 4.7, and then hardly beat it if you can get a Ryzen chip to 4.1ghz, which is as hard as getting a 5820k to 4.9 unless you're lucky.

ROFL, so off the mark it's funny! A 4.6GHz 5820K walks all over any Ryzen CPU at 4.1GHz (in single core tasks):

(The 1800X boosts to 4.1GHz in single core tasks)

• 4.3GHz 5960X (Same IPC as 5820K) -> 173
• 4.7GHz 4790K (same IPC as 5820K) -> 192
• 4.1GHz Ryzen 1800X -> 161

Seriously, where do you even get this bullshit?

27 minutes ago, He_162 said:

Future proof was a reference to how Zen 2 and Zen 3 will use the Am4 platform, but go ahead and ignore that to make me look bad.

No, you were talking about the 6800K and I am not so sure that Zen2 and Zen3 will be X99 compatible....

Single core scores are still higher on Ryzen when compared to Intel, unless you are using something after Broadwell.

Nope, see the graph I posted above, even Ivy Bridge is able to match Ryzen's single core performance

EDIT: Please stop spreading this misinformation, it's not helping anyone

[TacoSenpai]

In all seriousness coming from i7 3930K I would just go get a R7 1700 it'll be more bang for your buck and is only 50 dollars more than the 1600X (comes with a wraith cooler as well just like the AMD 6 core variants).   Another consideration is building a 5820K system.  I sold my 5820K cpu for around 312 (USD including shipping) on ebay a few months ago. 

[PCGuy_5960]

51 minutes ago, He_162 said:

Either way you look at it, and like I said to others here thus far, it's a sidegrade in some applications, an upgrade in others, and a downgrade in few (AVX) So if you really are looking into an upgrade and don't want to spend too much money, a 300$ move to a Ryzen 5 1600 isn't too hard of a choice to make, and it secures a upgrade path in the future, even if it's AMD, and to something we don't know will perform any better in the future.

Let me show you what you said:

On 6/11/2017 at 0:39 AM, He_162 said:

Whatcha smokin? My R5 1600 outperforms the crap out of that old sandy bridge 6 core.

And then you changed it because everyone jumped on you because you were talking horse shit

51 minutes ago, He_162 said:

If you were actually serious about upgrading, you'd want to look at getting an 8 core, not a 6 core.

I agree, but you're the one claiming that a 1600 is an upgrade from the 5820K. And you said that you "upgraded" to a 1600 from a 5820K (While in reality you downgraded)

[Morgan MLGman]

I think this thread got a bit confusing to some people, let's just state some facts and go home:

- Yes, the R5 1600 is an upgrade from the 3930K not because of raw performance which is only a bit better, but because you upgrade the platform from a very old one so you get features etc. AM4 will also be compatible with next Zen versions and APUs so it's a thing to consider.

- Yes, Zen has better IPC than Sandy Bridge and is probably between Haswell and Broadwell in that regard (Judging by how much lower the 1800X was clocked when beating 5960X's Cinebench record which was around 950MHz difference. AMDs SMT implementation is better than HyperThreading, but it's not THAT much better.)

- You can argue that it's not a sufficient upgrade, then the logical thing would be to suggest an R7 1700, which is the most sensible thing imo. It's a better upgrade than a 5820K/6800K due to Intel Tax™ because you get two additional cores with similar IPC at the same price, the motherboards are newer, cheaper and you get a pretty decent stock cooler (compared to no stock cooler at all with X99 chips).

- Going X99 seems fairly pointless too, it's basically an end-of-life product to Intel and it still costs a lot (compared to the fact that you get very similar performance for the price of an i5 with an R5-1600 while getting a newer platform that will get new CPUs for it released, they also won't cost almost 2K USD for the top-end one)

 

TL;DR @DamonMBK:

"Upgrading" to X99 is pointless, you have a 6-core Sandy Bridge-E CPU that overclocks fairly well, best-case scenario you get an 5820K that can overclock similarly and you'll get 5% performance while paying more than you should. If you switched to an R5 1600, that makes more sense because performance-wise, you'll still be where you've been but you've got tons of new features on the platform compared to your current one, a good upgrade path (cheap 8-cores, Zen 2) and you won't have to sell your liver for that one as the setup would cost similarly to a 7600/7600K one. If you're looking for better performance than what you have now, get either one of the R7-lineup CPUs (a cheaper route) or wait for Threadripper and X299 to hit the shelves later this year. It's not like you need a CPU upgrade right away as the 3930K still has some life in it

[PCGuy_5960]

1 minute ago, Morgan MLGman said:

you'll get 5% performance

You will get a 15-20% performance boost, but it's not worth paying so much more for it...

[Morgan MLGman]

1 minute ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

You will get a 15-20% performance boost, but it's not worth paying so much more for it...

That was an estimation, but a wrong one I agree, I thought his CPU was @4,65GHz for some reason which I just checked to be wrong

3930K @4,4GHz should perform similarly to a 5820K @3,7-3,8GHz so assuming an average OC of 5820Ks to be around 4,5GHz, I'd expect around 10% performance uplift in singlethreaded tasks and about 15% in multithreaded ones.

[PCGuy_5960]

Just now, Morgan MLGman said:

That was an estimation, but a wrong one I agree, I thought his CPU was @4,65GHz for some reason which I just checked to be wrong

3930K @4,4GHz should perform similarly to a 5820K @3,7-3,8GHz so assuming an average OC of 5820Ks to be around 4,5GHz, I'd expect around 10% performance uplift in singlethreaded tasks and about 15% in multithreaded ones.

Yep, spot on 

[Morgan MLGman]

25 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

Yep, spot on 

With what's going on in the CPU market right now, it became more like "what's worth buying" instead of "what's the best"...

 

For instance, 5820K is a great CPU, and as you already know, I've got one at home and it treats me great when I throw 2 hours of video editing on it (@4,5GHz), it's definitely faster than my i7-6700K @4,7GHz in tasks like that, those two additional cores matter. But is it worth buying now? Not really, unless used and at a very good price, same goes for X99 motherboards for it... And the 6800K makes even less sense because it overclocks worse despite marginally higher IPC and costs even more just because it's newer.

 

It's just that even if everybody agreed that an R5 1600 is let's say, 10% slower than both 5820K & 6800K, it's still a better buy because you get motherboards for a lot less money with the latest features, a good upgrade path for the future, a stock cooler which reduces overall platform cost and the fact that the CPU itself is a lot cheaper. Oh, and you also get warranty on everything, unlike with a used X99 system, not to mention a lot lower power consumption... Of course both platforms have pros and cons, but that's not the main point

[PCGuy_5960]

1 minute ago, Morgan MLGman said:

Oh, and you also get warranty on everything, unlike with a used X99 system, not to mention a lot lower power consumption...

Remember though, the lower power consumption is mostly a result of gimped AVX.... (AVX increases power consumption voltages and heat) So if you are working with H.265 or with programs that use AVX, the 5820K will be able to outpace even the 1700 

[Morgan MLGman]

Just now, PCGuy_5960 said:

Remember though, the lower power consumption is mostly a result of gimped AVX.... (AVX increases power consumption voltages and heat)

I wouldn't say it's mostly a result of that as not every workload uses AVX, right?

The SenseMI feature is probably the main curlprit of Ryzen's low power consumption as the 1800X draws less power than an i7-7700K in gaming, but when the workload requires all 16 threads to be at 100% it draws more due to having double the physical cores.

15 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

if you are working with H.265 or with programs that use AVX, the 5820K will be able to outpace even the 1700 

Yeah, those are architectural differences between Intel and AMD, they trade blows depending on a task as one is better in one kind of tasks and the other is better in another kind of tasks... If you need specific workloads to be fast for your specific usage of the PC, then you need to check that before making a purchase, just as you said, if someone used software heavily leveraging AVX then Ryzen might not be such a good buy

[PCGuy_5960]

1 minute ago, Morgan MLGman said:

I wouldn't say it's mostly a result of that as not every workload uses AVX, right?

I think it affects power consumption in general, but it affects power consumption the most when using AVX

[i_build_nanosuits]

1 hour ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

You will get a 15-20% performance boost, but it's not worth paying so much more for it...

 

1 hour ago, Morgan MLGman said:

That was an estimation, but a wrong one I agree, I thought his CPU was @4,65GHz for some reason which I just checked to be wrong

3930K @4,4GHz should perform similarly to a 5820K @3,7-3,8GHz so assuming an average OC of 5820Ks to be around 4,5GHz, I'd expect around 10% performance uplift in singlethreaded tasks and about 15% in multithreaded ones.

+1% according to 10 575 people who took the test

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-3930K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-5-1600/1487vs3919

[PCGuy_5960]

Just now, i_build_nanosuits said:

+1% according to 10 575 people who took the test

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-3930K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-5-1600/1487vs3919

Talking about the 5820K

[i_build_nanosuits]

Just now, PCGuy_5960 said:

Talking about the 5820K

5820K is 10% faster than 3930K

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-5820K-vs-Intel-Core-i7-3930K/2579vs1487

[PCGuy_5960]

Just now, i_build_nanosuits said:

5820K is 10% faster than 3930K

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-5820K-vs-Intel-Core-i7-3930K/2579vs1487

Yeah and when it is at 4.5+GHz it's 15-20% better (Using Cinebench)

[i_build_nanosuits]

Just now, PCGuy_5960 said:

Yeah and when it is at 4.5+GHz it's 15-20% better (Using Cinebench)

no, because the results i posted also includes overclocked results...you can clock 3930K to 4.5ghz+ easily but 95% of the 5820K can't do more than 4.3ghz

those CPU's are 10% appart no matter how you look at it...overclocked.

[PCGuy_5960]

Just now, i_build_nanosuits said:

no, because the results i posted also includes overclocked results...you can clock 3930K to 4.5ghz+ easily but 95% of the 5820K can't do more than 4.3ghz

Nope, the average overclock for a 5820K on water is 4.52GHz and 4.3GHz on air. Newer 5820Ks can easily get higher than 4.6GHz

1 minute ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

those CPU's are 10% appart no matter how you look at it...overclocked.

Using the OP's Cinebench result (1100 points) we can calculate that a 4.6GHz 5820K (1300 points) is 18% faster....