Intel cannonlake and icelake

[Morgan MLGman]

Just now, MyName13 said:

Yeah, cinebench really shows really world performance.Compare them in gaming for example, i3 actually beats r3 and r5s sometimes barely match i5.They are better in some other things like encoding, rendering and compression, according to cinebench ryzen is on par with Kaby lake which is far from the truth (it's the cinebench that made people believe zen's IPC matches haswell, it doesn't, at least not in all workloads).

I don't think you understand what I meant:

21 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

Well, AMD is winning in terms of raw horsepower on the mainstream platform though.

How does gaming performance that you mentioned relate to raw horsepower? That's what I was responding to @Lays about.

So my i7-6700K has more raw horsepower than an i7-5960X because it's better in gaming?

Cinebench scores indicate raw horsepower well because they utilize all of the threads of the CPU and give a good rough estimation of how those CPUs perform where all threads are under 100% load. This is total CPU horsepower :3

[Tam3n]

To which Lake should I jump from my Sandy Bridge?!

[MyName13]

5 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

I don't think you understand what I meant:

How does gaming performance that you mentioned relate to raw horsepower? That's what I was responding to @Lays about.

So my i7-6700K has more raw horsepower than an i7-5960X because it's better in gaming?

Cinebench scores indicate raw horsepower well because they utilize all of the threads of the CPU and give a good rough estimation of how those CPUs perform where all threads are under 100% load. This is total CPU horsepower :3

How does higher raw horsepower mean anything if it performs worse than Intel's CPUs in certain workloads?I really don't understand PC community's obsession with synthetic benchmarks.

[Morgan MLGman]

2 minutes ago, MyName13 said:

How does higher raw horsepower mean anything if it performs worse than Intel's CPUs in certain workloads?I really don't understand PC community's obsession with synthetic benchmarks.

I never said that it means anything, I said that it wins in raw horsepower because it does, lol and that's what we were talking about. I'm not entirely sure what's your point...

What's funny, you said (and I'm referring to the bolded part here) something that is pretty obvious and kind of a double-edged sword, I can freely say that Ryzen performs much better than Intel CPUs in certain workloads and you can't deny that I'm correct here

 

It's not CPUs fault that software doesn't utilize it fully, it's the developers fault that they can't create a well-optimized piece of software.

This will luckily start changing faster after Coffee Lake releases (due to the mainstream 6-cores), sadly Intel intentionally held back progress in the CPU market, we'd already have many more games optimized for 8 threads and above if they didn't like the $$$ so much.  

[Taf the Ghost]

36 minutes ago, TheCherryKing said:

What ever happened to Cascade Lake?

It's the server Platform in 2018. It's the update to Skylake-SP.  It's still coming.

 

And, yes, Intel's naming is getting nuts.

[Taf the Ghost]

14 minutes ago, Tam3n said:

To which Lake should I jump from my Sandy Bridge?!

Coffee Lake 8700k is going to be a really good Mainstream CPU to hold for a long while.

14 minutes ago, MyName13 said:

How does higher raw horsepower mean anything if it performs worse than Intel's CPUs in certain workloads?I really don't understand PC community's obsession with synthetic benchmarks.

What workload is the Ryzen 3/5 worse than Intels i3/i5 line?

 

If you're arguing "Gaming", what you mean is "With at least a 1080", which is a really weird combo.

[MyName13]

Just now, Morgan MLGman said:

I said that it wins in raw horsepower because it does

 

I'm not entirely sure what's your point...

 

I can freely say that Ryzen performs much better than Intel CPUs in certain workloads and you can't deny that I'm correct here

 

It's not CPUs fault that software doesn't utilize it fully, it's the developers fault that they can't create a well-optimized piece of software.

 

This will luckily start changing faster after Coffee Lake releases (due to the mainstream 6-cores)

And what's the point if it performs the same or worse than Intel's counterparts?

 

My point is that raw horsepower doesn't mean anything in synthetic benchmarks.

 

It does perform better in certain workloads, but gamers don't have any use of higher performance in encoding, rendering and compression if it performs worse in gaming.

 

Wait what?How is ryzen not fully utilized?A 4c4t ryzen 3 is the same as intel's i5 to developers, why it performs like an i3 is AMD's architectural inferiority, not developers fault, the same is true for 4c8t r5 CPUs, even though they have smt they still perform like i5s even in games that use 8 threads (question: why does r3 perform like a pentium even in watch dogs 2 and the witcher 3 which really take all the cores and threads they can?).

 

Coffee lake will make ryzen look even worse than now (i3 > r3, hexa i5 > quad and probably hexa r5, even i7 might outperform r7 in certain workloads)

 

[MyName13]

2 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

 

What workload is the Ryzen 3/5 worse than Intels i3/i5 line?

 

If you're arguing "Gaming", what you mean is "With at least a 1080", which is a really weird combo.

Gaming for example

 

http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/3002-amd-r3-1200-review-line-between-fine-and-exciting/page-4

 

A 4c4t cpu should never perform like a 2c4t CPU, it shouldn't even be close to it.All ryzen's are benchmarked with 3200 mhz ram, i5 7500 for example most likely isnt and even then r5 1400/1500x are behind the i5.

[Taf the Ghost]

1 minute ago, MyName13 said:

Gaming for example

 

http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/3002-amd-r3-1200-review-line-between-fine-and-exciting/page-4

 

A 4c4t cpu should never perform like a 2c4t CPU, it shouldn't even be close to it.All ryzen's are benchmarked with 3200 mhz ram, i5 7500 for example most likely isnt and even then r5 1400/1500x are behind the i5.

"EVGA GTX 1080 FTW1"

 

It requires a ~600 USD GPU to be fast enough to not be GPU bound.

 

https://www.techspot.com/review/1463-ryzen-3-gaming/

 

It's not hard to explain the problem. When you're put ~200 USD worth of CPU + Mobo with a ~600 USD GPU, you enter the realm of "you're not doing this right'. 

 

[MyName13]

8 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

"EVGA GTX 1080 FTW1"

 

It requires a ~600 USD GPU to be fast enough to not be GPU bound.

 

https://www.techspot.com/review/1463-ryzen-3-gaming/

 

It's not hard to explain the problem. When you're put ~200 USD worth of CPU + Mobo with a ~600 USD GPU, you enter the realm of "you're not doing this right'. 

 

Dude...You do realise that r3 performs just like the pentium, right?It doesn't matter which GPU you use, it still doesn't even come close to intel's 4c4t cpu, even r5 1500x is not that close to i5, even when overclocked r3 is sometimes behind the i3.When games become more CPU demanding it will really matter which CPU, and not GPU, you have, the fact is r3 performs just like i3, sometimes even worse, in gaming, the same is true for 1400 and 1500x when compared to i5.

[Mihle]

35 minutes ago, MyName13 said:

Dude...You do realise that r3 performs just like the pentium, right?It doesn't matter which GPU you use, it still doesn't even come close to intel's 4c4t cpu, even r5 1500x is not that close to i5, even when overclocked r3 is sometimes behind the i3.When games become more CPU demanding it will really matter which CPU, and not GPU, you have, the fact is r3 performs just like i3, sometimes even worse, in gaming, the same is true for 1400 and 1500x when compared to i5.

Not everyone only does gaming.

And have you even checked Ryzen Prices? R3 doesnt compete against I5s, it competes agianst I3s. Its R5s that compete agaisnt I5s.
So Intel i5 4c/4t doesnt compete against Ryzen 4c/4t, it competes agaisnt Ryzen 4c/8t and 6c/12t.

[MyName13]

3 minutes ago, Mihle said:

Not everyone only does gaming.

And have you even checked Ryzen Prices? R3 doesnt compete against I5s, it competes agianst I3s. Its R5s that compete agaisnt I5s.
So Intel i5 4c/4t doesnt compete against Ryzen 4c/4t, it competes agaisnt Ryzen 4c/8t and 6c/12t.

Not everyone does only rendering and compression  

 

My point is that ryzen doesn't demolish Intel in "raw horsepower" as some say, r3 performs pretty much like i3, quad r5s perform like i5s, so whats the point of these CPUs if they perform like Intel's counterparts?Why do they even exist?The only CPUs that bring something new are 1600 and 1700, if a 4c4t r3 can't even compete with intel's i5 2500k then there is something really wrong with their architecture.

[Morgan MLGman]

You're wrong in a few things here mate, let me explain:

1.

57 minutes ago, MyName13 said:

It does perform better in certain workloads, but gamers don't have any use of higher performance in encoding, rendering and compression if it performs worse in gaming.

Why are you assuming that all people buying CPUs are gamers and only gamers? Those are the tasks that many people do and care about, buying into a EOL platform like Z270 at the moment is a ridiculously stupid idea.

2.

57 minutes ago, MyName13 said:

Wait what?How is ryzen not fully utilized?A 4c4t ryzen 3 is the same as intel's i5 to developers, why it performs like an i3 is AMD's architectural inferiority, not developers fault, the same is true for 4c8t r5 CPUs, even though they have smt they still perform like i5s even in games that use 8 threads (question: why does r3 perform like a pentium even in watch dogs 2 and the witcher 3 which really take all the cores and threads they can?)

That's the problem, you think that Ryzen only has more cores and that's all to it? Ryzen has a new Cache structure as well, just like Skylake-X CPUs.

It is shown that it lowers performance in gaming:

An i7-7800X despite having 6-cores as well, performs worse than an i7-6800K and the same as Ryzen 5 1600X in gaming despite costing 200$ more. That's due to Intel's new mesh architecture which doesn't perform well in gaming. So Skylake-X is worse than Broadwell-E because it performs worse in games?

It should be faster since its clock speeds and IPC are higher, right?:

3. AMDs architecture isn't inferior, it's a completely different approach. Intel went for the monolithic die design to squeeze as many cores as possible onto a single, tiny die. This is a good approach, but it has its limits as there will be a point when we reach sillicon's physical capabilities and they will have a hard time improving generation per generation.

 

AMD chose to go for scalability and multi-die design which is more flexible but it will take a bit more time before devs properly utilize its potential. If the developers aren't at fault here then why did patches for ROTTR and Ashes of the Singularity show such improvements in Ryzen's performance?

 

 

You need to research more about those CPUs and architectures before throwing such claims.

[MyName13]

19 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

You're wrong in a few things here mate, let me explain:

1.

Why are you assuming that all people buying CPUs are gamers and only gamers? Those are the tasks that many people do and care about, buying into a EOL platform like Z270 at the moment is a ridiculously stupid idea.

2.

That's the problem, you think that Ryzen only has more cores and that's all to it? Ryzen has a new Cache structure as well, just like Skylake-X CPUs.

It is shown that it lowers performance in gaming:

An i7-7800X despite having 6-cores as well, performs worse than an i7-6800K and the same as Ryzen 5 1600X in gaming despite costing 200$ more. That's due to Intel's new mesh architecture which doesn't perform well in gaming. So Skylake-X is worse than Broadwell-E because it performs worse in games?

It should be faster since its clock speeds and IPC are higher, right?:

3. AMDs architecture isn't inferior, it's a completely different approach. Intel went for the monolithic die design to squeeze as many cores as possible onto a single, tiny die. This is a good approach, but it has its limits as there will be a point when we reach sillicon's physical capabilities and they will have a hard time improving generation per generation.

 

AMD chose to go for scalability and multi-die design which is more flexible but it will take a bit more time before devs properly utilize its potential. If the developers aren't at fault here then why did patches for ROTTR and Ashes of the Singularity show such improvements in Ryzen's performance?

 

 

You need to research more about those CPUs and architectures before throwing such claims.

1)I said that ryzen doesn't perform better even though it has more "raw horsepower", gaming is a workload that shows this (by the way not everyone buys Z motherboards)

 

2) Can software even be optimised for this new cache structure so that it performs significantly better (not just few percent)?Even if it does get optimised it will most likely be only for CPUs with 16 MB of cache, what about those with just 8 MB?

 

3)Zen is inferior in performance when compared to monolithic architectures, you can't deny that.If it isn't then explain why a 4c4t CPU performs like a dual core?Scalability means nothing when you need speed, this is ok for hexa cores but what about ryzen quad cores?Quad cores are already maxed out in gaming and this mcm architecture only makes it worse, RoTR's performance improved even on Intel's CPUs as far as I remember.

[Morgan MLGman]

46 minutes ago, MyName13 said:

1)I said that ryzen doesn't perform better even though it has more "raw horsepower", gaming is a workload that shows this (by the way not everyone buys Z motherboards)

 

2) Can software even be optimised for this new cache structure so that it performs significantly better (not just few percent)?

 

3)Zen is inferior in performance when compared to monolithic architectures, you can't deny that.If it isn't then explain why a 4c4t CPU performs like a dual core?Scalability means nothing when you need speed, this is ok for hexa cores but what about ryzen quad cores?Quad cores are already maxed out in gaming and this mcm architecture only makes it worse, RoTR's performance improved even on Intel's CPUs as far as I remember.

1) Games are a bad workload to showcase CPU's overall performance as they perform only as well as devs took the means to optimize them. Let's say that a game utilizes four threads only, how is Ryzen R5 1600 going to be any different in games from an R7 1700 if both use only four threads in that theoretical game? It will probably be identical despite one CPU being more powerful.

 

Also, regarding gaming benchmarks and lower-end CPUs, you're forgetting one thing: Benchmarking like that is done in a clean environment, without any unnecessary processes working in the background taking free CPU power. This isn't how it works in the real-world, people have a lot unnecessary crap running in the background eating up CPU power (browsers,steam,skype,antivirus and much much more) and the performance will definitely look different on CPUs as weak as dual cores etc. Ryzen CPUs usually have much more spare power as they're more powerful with all cores used so they're not as impacted as Intel's counterparts. This issue includes Pentiums and below, i3s and i5s as those are relatively weak CPUs.

 

2) I suppose so, now that Intel is introducing its own mesh architecture (which is similar to what is in Ryzen).

Here's another example of what I said:

7280X is not only basically equal to an R7 1700 in gaming despite being twice as expensive, it's also slower in every game than the older 6900K with the same core count.

BUT, there's a good thing to it though: If game devs start optimizing for Intel's new mesh architecture, they will inevitably do that for Ryzen too as they're similar.

 

3) The main point of Ryzen 5 and Ryzen 3 is more cores for less. They're offering 4 physical cores where Intel offers 2, they're offering 8/12 threads where Intel offers 4. Imagine someone that can only afford an i3 and needs to edit videos as well besides gaming. Wouldn't an OC'd R3 1200 be the perfect choice? Now imagine a budget gamer who also wants to stream etc. and can either get an Intel i5-7400 with its low clocks, not overclockable RAM etc or a Ryzen 1500X on a cheap B350 board, OC it and have a much better multithreaded potential. There's much more to it than simply "CPU 'X' gets more FPS in game 'Y' than the CPU 'Z' therefore CPU 'X' is better". It's often better to buy Ryzen because it offers incredible value, delivering nearly the same performance for MUCH, MUCH less money, sometimes even twice as much.

[MyName13]

23 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

1) Games are a bad workload to showcase CPUs overall performance as they perform only as well as devs took the means to optimize them. Let's say that a game utilizes four threads only, how is Ryzen R5 1600 going to be any different in games from an R7 1700 if both use only four threads in that theoretical game? It will probably be identical despite one CPU being more powerful.

 

Also, regarding gaming benchmarks and lower-end CPUs, you're forgetting one thing: Benchmarking like that is done in a clean environment, without any unnecessarly processes working in the background taking free CPU power. This isn't how it works in the real-world, people have a lot unnecessary crap running in the background eating up CPU power (browsers,steam,skype,antivirus and much much more) and the performance will definitely look different on CPUs as weak as dual cores etc. Ryzen CPUs usually have much more spare power as they're more powerful with all cores used so they're not as impacted as Intel's counterparts. This issue includes Pentiums and below, i3s and i5s as those are relatively weak CPUs.

 

2) I suppose so, now that Intel is introducing its own mesh architecture (which is similar to what is in Ryzen).

Here's another example of what I said:

7280X is not only basically equal to an R7 1700 in gaming despite being twice as expensive, it's also slower in every game than the older 6900K with the same core count.

BUT, there's a good thing to it though: If game devs start optimizing for Intel's new mesh architecture, they will inevitably do that for Ryzen too as they're similar.

 

3) The main point of Ryzen 5 and Ryzen 3 is more cores for less. They're offering 4 physical cores where Intel offers 2, they're offering 8/12 threads where Intel offers 4. Imagine someone that can only afford an i3 and needs to edit videos as well besides gaming. Wouldn't an OC'd R3 1200 be the perfect choice? Now imagine a budget gamer who also wants to stream etc. and can either get an Intel i5-7400 with its low clocks, not overclockable RAM etc or a Ryzen 1500X on a cheap B350 board, OC it and have a much better multithreaded potential. There's much more to it than simply "CPU 'X' gets more FPS in the game 'Y' than the CPU 'Z' therefore CPU 'X' is better". It's often better to buy Ryzen because it offers incredible value, delivering nearly the same performance for MUCH, MUCH less money, sometimes even twice as much.

Dont include 1600 and 1700, those are irrelevant, I'm taking about quad cores which aren't that competitive.About background tasks, if there were any cycles left then shouldn't ryzen still perform better?R3 is a quad core, but it still performs like a dual core in certain workloads (like gaming), if r3 can handle background tasks then it should perform better than a dual core not the same (or worse), same is true for quad r5s.By the way r5 1500x is priced like i5 7500 not 7400 (at least in my country, 1500x has 190$ MSRP while i5 7400 is 180$).The problem with ryzens is that they need faster ram than i5 to perform the same (or at least be close to them), this is a problem when you can't get fast ram which isn't a problem for intel CPUs as they don't get affected by slow ram.The same thing was repeated when bulldozer was released, MOAR CORES!You can't compare cores and threads with different architectures.

[Morgan MLGman]

14 minutes ago, MyName13 said:

About background tasks, if there were any cycles left then shouldn't ryzen still perform better?R3 is a quad core, but it still performs like a dual core in certain workloads (like gaming), if r3 can handle background tasks then it should perform better than a dual core not the same (or worse), same is true for quad r5s.By the way r5 1500x is priced like i5 7500 not 7400 (at least in my country, 1500x has 190$ MSRP while i5 7400 is 180$).The problem with ryzens is that they need faster ram than i5 to perform the same (or at least be close to them), this is a problem when you can't get fast ram which isn't a problem for intel CPUs as they don't get affected by slow ram.The same thing was repeated when bulldozer was released, MOAR CORES!You can't compare cores and threads with different architectures.

Ryzen would perform better if the i3 was pinned at 100% usage on all four threads, if you add other tasks in the background (not present in benchmarking suites) then the real-world i3 results will be inevitably lower. You also can't say that i3s are strictly better in gaming, it depends on the game and judging by the review from tomshardware, they're actually worse:

Quote

At stock settings, Ryzen 3 1300X only lags the more expensive Core i3-7300 by an average of 2.2 FPS across our suite. That shrinks to a negligible 1.75 FPS when we focus on newer games. You probably won't be using a GTX 1080 with Ryzen 3 either, so graphics bottlenecks will pop up more readily than what we saw. The story changes when we apply an overclock. Suddenly, Ryzen 3 1300X takes the lead any way you dice up the results.

source: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-3-1300x-cpu,5149-10.html

 

As for the bolded part: Isn't that the problem with Intel? That you need the Z chipset to overclock the RAM and the CPU? What's more, you need to pay a special premium price to get a CPU that is even unlocked? And you're not even getting the stock cooler in the package if you do.

With a cheap B350 board and a very good stock cooler, you can OC the R3/R5 to the max (around 4GHz) without it sounding like a jet engine and enjoy free performance which makes it easily outperform Intel's counterparts.

[MyName13]

12 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

Ryzen would perform better if the i3 was pinned at 100% usage on all four threads, if you add other tasks in the background (not present in benchmarking suites) then the real-world i3 results will be inevitably lower. You also can't say that i3s are strictly better in gaming, it depends on the game and judging by the review from tomshardware, they're actually worse:

source: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-3-1300x-cpu,5149-10.html

 

As for the bolded part: Isn't that the problem with Intel? That you need the Z chipset to overclock the RAM and the CPU? What's more, you need to pay a special premium price to get a CPU that is even unlocked? And you're not even getting the stock cooler in the package if you do.

With a cheap B350 board and a very good stock cooler, you can OC the R3/R5 to the max (around 4GHz) without it sounding like a jet engine and enjoy free performance which makes it easily outperform Intel's counterparts.

I3 is always pinned at 100% usage, r3 is pinned at 90-100% too.r3 doesn't perform better according to gamers nexus (r3 basically performs like a pentium even when overclocked), even if it does its few percent better

http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/3002-amd-r3-1200-review-line-between-fine-and-exciting/page-4

 

Using faster ram is unnecessary on intel's cpus because their architecture doesn't depend that much on ram, what's the point of overclocking if intel's cpus at stock perform better than AMD's?Why should I pay more for AMD's CPUs?Then you tell me to grab a cheap b350 motherboard and most people mention upgrade path, b350 is at least 30$ more expensive than h110 motherboards, would you really put a hexa or octa core on a cheap overclocking motherboard (then add the additional price of faster ram...)?Btw 4 GHz overclock is a lottery, nobody guarantees it.Quad core ryzens simply aren't anything new, they might have more threads or cores but that's it, the performance is still the same when compared to intel's cpus with less threads and cores.

 

[Morgan MLGman]

44 minutes ago, MyName13 said:

I3 is always pinned at 100% usage, r3 is pinned at 90-100% too.r3 doesn't perform better according to gamers nexus (r3 basically performs like a pentium even when overclocked), even if it does its few percent better

http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/3002-amd-r3-1200-review-line-between-fine-and-exciting/page-4

GN's review has weirdly low scores, but that's to be expected given a more complicated platform setup. Anandtech and tomshardware reviews paint a completely different picture.

44 minutes ago, MyName13 said:

Using faster ram is unnecessary on intel's cpus because their architecture doesn't depend that much on ram, what's the point of overclocking if intel's cpus at stock perform better than AMD's?

Ummm, free performance is the point of overclocking... The fact that Intel intentionally locks it in an artificial segmentation of their lineup means something, and it's not good for us, customers.

44 minutes ago, MyName13 said:

Why should I pay more for AMD's CPUs?Then you tell me to grab a cheap b350 motherboard and most people mention upgrade path, b350 is at least 30$ more expensive than h110 motherboards, would you really put a hexa or octa core on a cheap overclocking motherboard (then add the additional price of faster ram...)?

You're not paying more.

Quote

Right out of the gate, Ryzen 3 should sell for $130, going up against Intel's almost-$150 Core i3-7300, while the $110 Ryzen 3 1200 undercuts the Core i3-7100 at just under $120.

Both R3 parts are cheaper than their i3 equivalents by around 10$ and come with a much better stock cooler allowing to overclock right out of the box.

Of course H110 is cheaper, but H110 has no features, is outdated and noone really recommends it. B250 is what people on a budget use and what people buy.

There's more to a purchase to consider, you also need to consider an upgrade path which is pretty bad with the H110/B250/H270 boards as your top CPU would be i7-7700 (or the 7700K if you want to waste even more money), while AM4 will last to at least 2020 and have 2 next iterations of Ryzen on it free for you to upgrade to.

[NumLock21]

5 hours ago, TheCherryKing said:

What ever happened to Cascade Lake?

It collapsed.

[Mr.Meerkat]

22 hours ago, Princess Cadence said:

Why does Intel likes lakes so much? Every thing is a lake nowadays.

Or bridges or wells  

 

And on the AMD side, islands such as Fiji or Hawaii or Tonga or Turks or Caicos... 

[Taf the Ghost]

1 minute ago, Mr.Meerkat said:

Or bridges or wells  

 

And on the AMD side, islands such as Fiji or Hawaii or Tonga or Turks or Caicos... 

The RTG execs clearly liked to vacation in the tropics in years past. Apparently, now they want to travel space.

 

Thankfully, the CPU side of things likes fine Italian cooking.

[Mr.Meerkat]

2 hours ago, MyName13 said:

would you really put a hexa or octa core on a cheap overclocking motherboard

I'd like to say this, what makes you think a B350 motherboard can't handle a 8 core ryzen chip? 

My B350 motherboard is perfectly capable in handling my OCed 1700@3.9GHz, 1.366-1.37V without any issues, no V droops, no throttling, nothing. 

 

Here's a fun fact, did you know that a 1700 consumes less power than an underclocked 7700K@3.8GHz and both the 1700X and 1800X consumes less power than a 7700K at stock (and well 6-core Ryzen chips consumes even less) so you see, B350 motherboards are perfectly capable in handling the hexa and octa ryzens even with modest overclocks. 

Source: http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/amd-ryzen-7-1700-cpu-review,review-33854-8.html

 

2 hours ago, MyName13 said:

then add the additional price of faster ram

1. Nobody said that you had to get RAM faster than 2400MHz

2. The price difference between 2400MHz and 2800MHz RAM is typically less than $10 so really, for the price of fast food meal, its really a non-brainer, even for Intel CPUs.

 

2 hours ago, MyName13 said:

Using faster ram is unnecessary on intel's cpus because their architecture doesn't depend that much on ram

Well this thread says otherwise...

https://www.ocaholic.ch/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=4003&page=11

(ignoring the main point of that thread) The 6600K's performance increased by 4% going from 2133/2400MHz to 3000MHz RAM. 

 

Also, Linus's video says otherwise  

 

[MyName13]

1 minute ago, Mr.Meerkat said:

I'd like to say this, what makes you think a B350 motherboard can't handle a 8 core ryzen chip? 

My B350 motherboard is perfectly capable in handling my OCed 1700@3.9GHz, 1.366-1.37V without any issues, no V droops, no throttling, nothing. 

 

Here's a fun fact, did you know that a 1700 consumes less power than an underclocked 7700K@3.8GHz and both the 1700X and 1800X consumes less power than a 7700K at stock (and well 6-core Ryzen chips consumes even less) so you see, B350 motherboards are perfectly capable in handling the hexa and octa ryzens even with modest overclocks. 

Source: http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/amd-ryzen-7-1700-cpu-review,review-33854-8.html

 

1. Nobody said that you had to get RAM faster than 2400MHz

2. The price difference between 2400MHz and 2800MHz RAM is typically less than $10 so really, for the price of fast food meal, its really a non-brainer, even for Intel CPUs.

 

Well this thread says otherwise...

https://www.ocaholic.ch/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=4003&page=11

(ignoring the main point of that thread) The 6600K's performance increased by 4% going from 2133/2400MHz to 3000MHz RAM. 

 

Also, Linus's video says otherwise  

 

I highly doubt your MB is cheap, we are comparing 45-50$ h110 with 80-95$ b350, i was taking about cheaper motherboard like asrock ab350m and Msi gaming pro, maybe the can handle hexa cores now, but what about future ryzen CPUs?I wouldn't overclock more than 4 cores on cheap overclocking motherboards.

Everyone says that everything below 3ghz for ram is too slow for ryzen, not every country has the same availability as yours, I can find only 16 gb 3200 mhz kits , 8 gb sticks are unavailable or too expensive.4% increase in performance is nothing, it's not worth even for a 10$ price increase.Ryzen benefits more than that.

[Guest]

It seems like the 15-30% performance increase on coffee lake is a common feature that intel has promised with each cpu that they have released. If the dyes are shrinking, wouldn't this limit overclocking capabilities by using the 10nm process in terms of cooling the cpu since the dye is so small?