Ryzen vs. Coffee Lake Shootout Poll

[minervx]

considering price to performance, software/hardware support and overall computing capabilities for performance needs.

[rip]

this is meaningless. 

what if someone came across this post and decides to buy it because a random poll from random users voted for it?

how credible is this poll even? you just vote here without any explanation and that is just BS

[,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,]

if only ryzen had better ipc intel would still have a competitor

[iRileyx]

6 minutes ago, rip said:

this is meaningless. 

what if someone came across this post and decides to buy it because a random poll from random users voted for it?

how credible is this poll even? you just vote here without any explanation and that is just BS

I assume he's just gathering data, in which case you dont need to explain your options. how is it BS?

It's quite a simple poll and you make it sound like its going to have detrimental effects lol.

[PC owner with questions]

5 minutes ago, rip said:

this is meaningless. 

what if someone came across this post and decides to buy it because a random poll from random users voted for it?

how credible is this poll even? you just vote here without any explanation and that is just BS

well I voted for a processor looking at raw performance numbers so there's that

[SansVarnic]

Interesting results so far.

[iRileyx]

10 minutes ago, Reece Leu said:

if only ryzen had better ipc intel would still have a competitor

IPC wise it doesn't lag that far behind(when at equal speeds) it's just the clock speeds that let Ryzen down imo.

[WMGroomAK]

One thing that I would note is that I would probably never consider the 1800X since the 1700 can get fairly close to the same performance with an easy OC...  So I would actually have a harder decision between a 1700 and 8700k, but would probably go with the 1700 myself...

[iRileyx]

1 minute ago, WMGroomAK said:

One thing that I would note is that I would probably never consider the 1800X since the 1700 can get fairly close to the same performance with an easy OC...  So I would actually have a harder decision between a 1700 and 8700k, but would probably go with the 1700 myself...

That's what i was thinking, when its 1800x i'd go for the 8700k, but if it was 1700 vs 8700k, i'd also go 1700.

[Dash Lambda]

3 hours ago, Reece Leu said:

If only Ryzen had better IPC, Intel would still have a competitor.

Oh, don't be so dramatic. The strengths and weaknesses are exactly what they were. Intel offers better single-core performance and less value, Ryzen offers (within price brackets) better multi-core and better value. All Intel did is get close enough that the decision between them is a matter of preference.

[,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,]

Just now, Dash Lambda said:

Oh, don't be so dramatic. The strengths and weaknesses are exactly what they were. Intel offers better single-core performance and less value, Ryzen offers (within price brackets) better multi-core and better value. All Intel did is get close enough that the decision between them is a matter of preference.

 

i disagree. the gap is closed at least with the 8700k. the rest intel is still much better at gaming, and ryzen still great for workloads but it is so small.

[TahoeDust]

You're missing the real jewel of them all.  The 8600k.  There are already people out there running 5.4GHz un 1.4v on them.

 

Chrisch at Anandtech...

 

 

[TahoeDust]

3 minutes ago, TahoeDust said:

You're missing the real jewel of them all.  The 8600k.  There are already people out there running 5.4GHz under 1.4v on them.

 

Chrisch at Anandtech...

 

 

 

[Dash Lambda]

32 minutes ago, Reece Leu said:

I disagree. The gap is closed at least with the 8700K. The rest Intel is still much better at gaming, and Ryzen still great for workloads but it is so small.

How much better they are in gaming really does depend on a number of factors, but in terms of raw performance Intel still has the exact same per-core and Ryzen is still Ryzen.

I do think that Intel wins in more brackets and uses though, it'd be boring if it wasn't a back-and-forth. It's just... Don't you think it's a bit overzealous to say the competition is gone every time one company one-ups the other?

 

As for the 8700K closing the gap entirely, I'll consider that when I see one beat my chip in Cinebench.

[TahoeDust]

10 minutes ago, Dash Lambda said:

As for the 8700K closing the gap entirely, I'll consider that when I see one beat my chip in Cinebench.

What is your cinebench score?

[Phate.exe]

4 hours ago, Reece Leu said:

if only ryzen had better ipc intel would still have a competitor

The IPC is just fine.

 

Ryzen hits a wall at 4GHz, that's where it loses against intel.

[Dash Lambda]

29 minutes ago, TahoeDust said:

What is your Cinebench score?

1750-1760

[TahoeDust]

1 minute ago, Dash Lambda said:

1750-1760

Nice score.  That'll take a 8700k 5.2GHz-5.3GHz.  It will probably happen.  One reviewer already ran it at 5.1GHz and scored 1684.  It'll be close.

[Dash Lambda]

Just now, TahoeDust said:

Nice score. That'll take a 8700k 5.2GHz-5.3GHz. It will probably happen. One reviewer already ran it at 5.1GHz and scored 1684.  It'll be close.

Didn't Jay say he got his to 5.4 or something and decided to dial it down because he didn't want to unfairly represent his comparisons?

[TahoeDust]

2 minutes ago, Dash Lambda said:

Didn't Jay say he got his to 5.4 or something and decided to dial it down because he didn't want to unfairly represent his comparisons?

Yeah...I think he said 5.4GHz.  There are going to be some fast chips out there.  Der8auer is selling binned 5.2GHz chips.  Someone really pushing a good delidded chip should be 5.3GHz+.

 

Cenibench isn't everything though.  My chips scores ~2250cb, but a 5.3GHz 8600k would probably feel faster for most tasks.

[minervx]

40 minutes ago, Phate.exe said:

Ryzen hits a wall at 4GHz, that's where it loses against intel.

Which would make Intel a better choice for high-end 144+ fps gaming, which is a niche for sure.

[TahoeDust]

12 minutes ago, minervx said:

Which would make Intel a better choice for high-end 144+ fps gaming, which is a niche for sure.

When both max overclocked, intel should be faster in everything that uses less than 8 cores...and in those cases it could be about 5% slower.

[minervx]

Attaining 5 GHz is far less energy efficient than just having 4.0 GHz with two extra cores, correct me if I'm wrong.

[Simon771]

i5 8600k for mmorpg games, so workload will be put on 6 strong cores and not on weak hypethreading cores

[TahoeDust]

3 minutes ago, minervx said:

Attaining 5 GHz is far less energy efficient than just having 4.0 GHz with two extra cores, correct me if I'm wrong.

It is close.  I have seen some tests showing both ahead at different times.  When AVX is triggered CL power consumption shoots up faster than Ryzen because it goes full 256 bit while Ryzen halves it.  So power consumptions jumps but so does performance per watt.  Remember Ryzen is taking the same amout of voltage, if not more, to go 4Ghz as CL is taking to go 5GHz.

 

Honestly they are both very Power efficient...to close for either side to brag about.