Highest ipc processor?

[MrJarhead]

15 minutes ago, dfg666 said:

lol why are people even trying to stick ryzen in here? we all know ryzen has garbage ipc compared to kaby lake. 7700K at 4.8-5GHz completely annihilates the entire Ryzen 7 at 3.9-4.1GHz lineup at 144hz gaming. 

amen.

[JoostinOnline]

8 hours ago, dfg666 said:

lol why are people even trying to stick ryzen in here? we all know ryzen has garbage ipc compared to kaby lake. 7700K at 4.8-5GHz completely annihilates the entire Ryzen 7 at 3.9-4.1GHz lineup at 144hz gaming. 

It depends entirely on the game, and how fast the RAM is.  Developers have rolled out Ryzen patches that significantly improve performance.  And he doesn't need higher IPC, he needs more threads.

[Dr. KEK]

where's that MOER COARS meme again?

[ravenshrike]

11 hours ago, dfg666 said:

lol why are people even trying to stick ryzen in here? we all know ryzen has garbage ipc compared to kaby lake. 7700K at 4.8-5GHz completely annihilates the entire Ryzen 7 at 3.9-4.1GHz lineup at 144hz gaming. 

Except for the fact that when it stutters due to poorly coded engines(GTA5, Fallout4) it does so for 3-5 times as long and that unless you're playing twitch FPS's competitively the difference is largely irrelevant.

 

Addendum - Especially as the OP has a 1070.

[Bluehydra]

7700k probably

[JoostinOnline]

5 hours ago, Dr. KEK said:

where's that MOER COARS meme again?

Yay, we've got a newbie who uses the "funny" response on anything he doesn't understand. 

 

This isn't 2012. Multi-threading is standard. Games don't usually utilize more than 4 unless they're AAA ones, but dual thread CPU's really struggle to run anything, and for higher end games, quad core ones without 8 threads (an i5) get burdened. 

 

Right now Ryzen 7 isn't doing great because everything has (rightly) been optimized for Intel, and they never use more than 8 threads. 

[ImNotThere]

On 7/23/2017 at 10:04 AM, SoloRaptonic said:

The whole reason I'm not doing that is because I will need a new board and a new chip. If coffee lake turns out to be a good alternative then I can just drop it in and be good to go

theres rumours that coffee lake will use a new socket so youll need a new motherboard eitherway

[dfg666]

On 7/24/2017 at 1:54 PM, ravenshrike said:

Except for the fact that when it stutters due to poorly coded engines(GTA5, Fallout4) it does so for 3-5 times as long and that unless you're playing twitch FPS's competitively the difference is largely irrelevant.

 

Addendum - Especially as the OP has a 1070.

Pretty sure if the 7700K did choke on those titles the average FPS would've taken a significant hit...

 

GTX 1080

 

GTX TITAN X (Maxwell)

[ravenshrike]

6 minutes ago, dfg666 said:

Pretty sure if the 7700K did choke on those titles the average FPS would've taken a significant hit...

And I'm pretty damn sure that if I meant choke and not stutter I would have used that word. A single frame taking 100-150+ms(For the 7700k) to render every 5-10 minutes while quite noticeable on the user's end would not have an appreciable effect on the average or even minimum FPS.

[dfg666]

6 minutes ago, ravenshrike said:

And I'm pretty damn sure that if I meant choke and not stutter I would have used that word. A single frame taking 100-150+ms(For the 7700k) to render every 5-10 minutes while quite noticeable on the user's end would not have an appreciable effect on the average or even minimum FPS.

I don't think you know how minimum FPS works. You do realize if a CPU is struggling to process information to send to the GPU the minimum FPS would be impacted? Unless you can provide some form of proof that the 7700K "stutters due to poorly coded engines(GTA5, Fallout4)" you're currently lying and providing false information not only to OP but also to the community.

[ybriK]

On 24/07/2017 at 1:54 PM, ravenshrike said:

poorly coded engines(GTA5,

I disagree. It's a multi-thread aware title. This is at 5GHz with a 980 Ti, 1080p monitor, v-sync off and very high settings. Very smooth experience for me no stuttering or sudden hitches.

 

[ravenshrike]

2 minutes ago, dfg666 said:

I don't think you know how minimum FPS works. You do realize if a CPU is struggling to process information to send to the GPU the minimum FPS would be impacted? Unless you can provide some form of proof that the 7700K "stutters due to poorly coded engines(GTA5, Fallout4)" you're currently lying and providing false information not only to OP but also to the community.

 

2 minutes ago, ybriK said:

I disagree. It's a multi-thread aware title. This is at 5GHz with a 980 Ti, 1080p monitor, v-sync off and very high settings. Very smooth experience for me no stuttering or sudden hitches.

 

 

*sigh*

 

 

[ybriK]

1 minute ago, ravenshrike said:

 

 

*sigh*

 

 

7:01 "definitely human noticeable"

 

Not for my system. I don't notice those hitches and stutters that they displayed. Perhaps if I used a 1080 Ti then I'd notice those hitches and stutters as a CPU bottleneck would most likely occur with my 5GHz 2700K at 1080p.

[ravenshrike]

1 minute ago, ybriK said:

7:01 "definitely human noticeable"

 

Not for my system. I don't notice those hitches and stutters that they displayed. Perhaps if I used a 1080 Ti then I'd notice those hitches and stutters as a CPU bottleneck would most likely occur with my 5GHz 2700K at 1080p.

Which is fine, but if you're not CPU bound in the first place then the discussion of *highest IPC* with regards to gaming becomes entirely academic.

[dfg666]

1 hour ago, ravenshrike said:

 

 

*sigh*

 

 

Still doesn't change the fact that the 7700K is always recommended for high refresh rate gamers in general. Heck even fanboys at /r/amd praise the 7700K for being able to achieve and stay consistent for high refresh rate monitors (144Hz-165Hz+). Just check out any tech review site - 7700K for high refresh rate gaming. Also that video test is flawed. The 7700K can easily overclock to 5.0GHz, provided you have adequate cooling or delidded. Why would they clock it to a measly 4.5GHz? A +500MHz bump would've easily removed those "stutters". And significantly lowered frametimes as what that video shows.

[Drak3]

Highest IPC goes to Broadwell, Skylake, Kaby lake, Skylake X, and Kaby Lake X. Depending on which instruction sets you're talking about and if/how you're leveraging the iGPU and its resources.

 

But for performance, IPC is half the battle. You also need clockspeed, and you need to know how many cores you benefit from (gaming benefits from 4 cores and 8 threads to 6 cores and 12 threads, with the latter being uncommon but becoming more common).

 

That said, Broadwell clocks like shit (it can hang out with somewhat higher clocked Skylake/Kaby Lake and their X variants), and it's EXTREMELY hard to find an i7-5775C, especially for a decent price.

So I point to the 6700K, 7700K, and the 7800X as good Intel gaming chips.

 

On 7/23/2017 at 10:42 AM, dfg666 said:

we all know ryzen has garbage ipc compared to kaby lake.

5% under. Which is the same as Haswell and Haswell is still more than enough IPC wise (the quadcores are only held back by DDR3). Clockspeed is the only issue, and even then, most people won't notice or care about the difference between Ryzen 6C/12T at 3.8GHz and the 7700K at 5.3GHz, as far as gaming is concerned.

[TahoeDust]

What is the best way to fairly test/display IPC?  Single core Cinebench score?

[Drak3]

2 hours ago, dfg666 said:

I don't think you know how minimum FPS works. You do realize if a CPU is struggling to process information to send to the GPU the minimum FPS would be impacted? Unless you can provide some form of proof that the 7700K "stutters due to poorly coded engines(GTA5, Fallout4)" you're currently lying and providing false information not only to OP but also to the community.

You realize that for the .1% and 1% lows, there are .1 and 1% highs as well? And many components do hit lows of 20FPS whilst managing averages of 150+, when game/bench settings are set specifically for that average frame rate.

 

Just now, TahoeDust said:

What is the best way to fairly test/display IPC?  Single core Cinebench score?

multiple benchmarks for each instruction set. Configure in BIOS single core, no hyperthreading. Clean install of an operating system that doesn't fluctuate background processes enough to have a huge impact.

[TahoeDust]

7 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

multiple benchmarks for each instruction set. Configure in BIOS single core, no hyperthreading. Clean install of an operating system that doesn't fluctuate background processes enough to have a huge impact.

That sounds like a lot of work.  My 7820x score 215cb single core @ 4.8GHz.  Pretty sure Skylake X beats everything else clock for clock...

 

[ravenshrike]

39 minutes ago, dfg666 said:

Still doesn't change the fact that the 7700K is always recommended for high refresh rate gamers in general. Heck even fanboys at /r/amd praise the 7700K for being able to achieve and stay consistent for high refresh rate monitors (144Hz-165Hz+). Just check out any tech review site - 7700K for high refresh rate gaming. Also that video test is flawed. The 7700K can easily overclock to 5.0GHz, provided you have adequate cooling or delidded. Why would they clock it to a measly 4.5GHz? A +500MHz bump would've easily removed those "stutters". And significantly lowered frametimes as what that video shows.

The stutters are an engine artifact, not part of the game's normal graphical operation. Dumping more horsepower on the engine doesn't help things and may in fact hurt. Also note that at no point did I say that the 7700k was bad for high refresh rate gaming. However, the only games where high refresh rate actually matters past 75fps or so are twitch FPS's, and even then unless you're running max settings, which serious gamers don't do, or are a pro level competitor the differences between the 7700k and 6 core+ Ryzen are largely irrelevant.

[Drak3]

4 minutes ago, TahoeDust said:

That sounds like a lot of work.

Ah, but it gives us well rounded results.

 

4 minutes ago, TahoeDust said:

My 7820x score 215cb single core @ 4.8GHz.  Pretty sure Skylake X beats everything else clock for clock...

Isn't that what Skylake and Kaby Lake single core supposed to be, at that clock speed?

[Phate.exe]

On 7/23/2017 at 0:42 PM, dfg666 said:

lol why are people even trying to stick ryzen in here? we all know ryzen has garbage ipc compared to kaby lake. 7700K at 4.8-5GHz completely annihilates the entire Ryzen 7 at 3.9-4.1GHz lineup at 144hz gaming. 

 

It's roughly equal to Haswell IPC.  Literally nobody is going to say that a 4770K has garbage IPC, since skylake and kabylake are only 5-ish% better in that regard.  Intel hasn't bothered to hugely improve IPC for a while now because they stopped trying in the absence of competition.

 

IPC = Instructions Per Clock.  IPC is a measure of how much work a CPU can get done at a given clockspeed.  Because Ryzen sits right around Haswell in that regard, you'll get about the same single-core performance out of both at the same clockspeed.

 

If two chips have roughly equivalent IPC, and one clocks higher, the one with higher clocks will give better single threaded performance.  If one chip has 10% worse IPC, but clocks higher, it will perform better.

 

Morons are using the term interchangeably with "single thread performance", when they actually mean VERY DIFFERENT THINGS.

 

And if you're pegging a quadcore at 100%, chances are you're probably not "only using one or two threads".

 

OP has an i5-6500.  It has a base clock of 3.2GHz, and a turbo of 3.6.  My R5 1600X runs at 3.7 base and will turbo 2 threads over 4GHz.  My 1600X slaps the shit out of OP's i5, AND has 8 more threads available so it doesn't care what I have going on in the background.  Even with 5% weaker IPC, because it's clocked a lot more than 5% higher.

[PierreJG1982]

On 7/26/2017 at 5:05 PM, dfg666 said:

Pretty sure if the 7700K did choke on those titles the average FPS would've taken a significant hit...

 

GTX 1080

 

GTX TITAN X (Maxwell)

I know this is kinda old.But you are comparing a 7k cpu to a 12k+ cpu?in my currency.Show me the Justice in that.Even if intels faster its not worth 5k+ more.Price to performance > amd.Its commen sense.I can build a full 1800x am4 for around 10-12k(ex gpu)Same intel will cost me around 16k+.Just doesnt make sense lol.Your argument are irrelevant....I really couldnt care who's a fan or w/e of what cpu.Facts are facts...You going out of your way to bad mouth amd makes you look dumb(no offense).

 

PS:The day they dev games to use more than 4 cores are the day we see amd really shine

[epsilon84]

Wow, talk about a thread necro.

 

Just a FYI, if we are gonna talk value, for 144Hz gaming a 8600K (or 7700K for that matter) @ 5GHz is gonna crush a 1800X, at a lower price point. You wanted to talk facts, let's talk facts.

 

Actually, a 1800X is a very poor value if you just want to game. You'll get practically the same gaming performance from a Ryzen 5 1600 for around half the price. Or better performance from an i5 8400 for $150 less. 

 

[dfg666]

On 12/27/2017 at 3:44 AM, PierreJG1982 said:

I know this is kinda old.But you are comparing a 7k cpu to a 12k+ cpu?in my currency.Show me the Justice in that.Even if intels faster its not worth 5k+ more.Price to performance > amd.Its commen sense.I can build a full 1800x am4 for around 10-12k(ex gpu)Same intel will cost me around 16k+.Just doesnt make sense lol.Your argument are irrelevant....I really couldnt care who's a fan or w/e of what cpu.Facts are facts...You going out of your way to bad mouth amd makes you look dumb(no offense).

 

PS:The day they dev games to use more than 4 cores are the day we see amd really shine

>Show me the Justice in that

 

We're not talking about prices here. We're talking about raw performance. If you want to talk about prices go stick with a used AMD FX or something.