Question about Ryzen and Coffeelake IPC

[geg43]

jdwii is the best. He explained everything I wanted to know. Too bad the rest of you are so abrasive .It's like you're hiding something.

[He_162]

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.

[He_162]

17 minutes ago, geg43 said:

jdwii is the best. He explained everything I wanted to know. Too bad the rest of you are so abrasive .It's like you're hiding something.

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.)

[James09]

On 10/12/2017 at 11:42 AM, faziten said:

Let's break this down:

 

1) CPU instructions are different in AMD and INTEL even those with identical names (AVX, AES, etc). They are different implementations of the same concept, not directly comparable, just like the "thrust" in electric and fuel engine cars.

2) How can you compare IPC between different CPU's with different instruction-set implementations?. Let's say AMD Ryzen has 10 AVX per cycle (no it does not, it's a simple way to put this). While Intel Covfefe lake has 11AVX instructions per cicle, does it mean intel is better? No. Different instructions set. There is no guide line to determine what should an AVX instruction do, nor how long should it take. Plus the impact in every architecture is way different (different amounts of cache, different cache speeds). So IPC is not a way to compare CPUs. it's obscure and most data is lost to overgeneralizing situations that are unknown to us (implementation secrets) and inherent complexity of the matter. 

Any real world application has mixed instruction sets involved, every instruction needs different "sizes" in the execute module. So you end up with a bunch of statistical data, that compares things that are not comparable in the first place. Worthless data.

3) Ryzen has architectural flaws. They are evident when you go up to threadripper (latency between distant cores in packs communicating through infinity fabric). 

Intel has them too, Haswel had an AVX bug that made it eat up much more current than it should. Plus it had TSX instruction set disabled due to random bugs. Skylake and Kaby lake have an Hyperthreading bug that is evident under certain loads and particularly problematic for servers... etc. There is no bug free hardware nor software.

Ryzen is stronger than intel in terms of scalability. Its a super scalar architecture similar to what NVidia did with Pascal. It lets them add more cores without making a lot of changes. Of course it has it's own limits, tightly linked to "Infinity fabric way of things". Intel has a simpler core design that allows them to archive faster clocks. All in all, the end user prefers faster clockspeed whenever possible, due to lack of software support for multicore monsters. Some games are made to run in 32 core monsters, but the vast majority is made for a few cores. (It makes programming even more difficult when you try to go past a handful of threads). So "weak" and "strong" are absurdly dumbed down terms to speak of architectural perks and flaws. 

4) Scores. Use them as guidelines not as the absolute truth. Today for pure gaming, having an intel quad-core or Hexa-core overclocked up to 5.0Ghz is the indisputable best way to go. It has nothing to do with hardware. It's pure software guilt here. Most games have design patters that link heavily some game related features (shadows, physics, input, etc) to one thread. Even if the O.S tries to spread the load, it simply can't. Why is it better you may ask?. Well, games need at least 2 years to be developed. Ryzen came out this year, so there is no game today that was built with ryzen in mind. Plus Zen hits a huge brickwall after 4.0Ghz due to core stability, Intel hits the same brickwall after 5.0Ghz due to heat. 

 

The key element to understand this Versus is understanding workload. If you deal with games, the "no compromises" CPU is intel. If you deal with budget, your best bet is Zen. You won't be winning any high score contest though. But this is a constant since the beginning. 

 

Props for explaining it so well without being rude or condescending! Big Thumbs Up!

[James09]

6 hours ago, geg43 said:

jdwii is the best. He explained everything I wanted to know. Too bad the rest of you are so abrasive .It's like you're hiding something.

You should look at how @faziten explained it. While jdwii explained it quite well, it wasn't as extensive as faziten.

 

I think at the end of the day, as Faziten put it, it really depends on your workloads. Right now, Intel commands a lead in overall clockspeed and thus Single core power over Ryzen but Ryzen looks to be more scalable and they said they will support the AM4 socket for another good couple of years. I think it will turn out to be quite similar to how they released their previous AM3 generation of CPU's. Small improvements over a variety of areas while still using the same socket.

 

Intel on the other hand, already has leaks stating that they have another planned socket (Z390) that will take over from Z370 as their top end motherboard chipset. Whether or not that's true and how long this "new" 1151+" or whatever socket will last is anyone's guess. But looking at their past history, they generally introduce their chipsets a lot faster than AMD, prompting a new motherboard almost everytime you want to upgrade to their latest CPU.

 

For more in-depth videos, I recommend you check out Gamers' Nexus videos on the latest Coffee Lake CPU's as they generally dive deeper than other tech channels. 

[Guest]

6 hours ago, He_162 said:

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.)

If you read what i said i in know way recommend the 1700 over a 8700K in fact i have been all over overclock.net and tomshardware telling users to get a 8700K over a 1700. IPC is important i will argue that to the end of the day i want to see how both architectures compare i'm a nerd-geek CPU guy. 

 

I only bought Ryzen 1700 to even compare IPC since other places refuse to do it 

 

Edit 

 

Coffee-lake is slightly above kaby-lake oh boy how IPC wise with both using the same ram speeds and frequency i highly doubt that they are the same coffee-lake just has a beast turbo

[xsimplyjosh]

If you tend to play 4k at a modest 60fps max then either system will work well since its gpu bound at that region gaming wise

 

the only time i think coffee lake > ryzen is for games where high fps matter imo thats just how i see it. Where ryzen would cap around 100hz due to clock limitations due to the architecture the coffee lake at say 5ghz is capable of exploting the say extra 40-60fps that ryzen isnt able to manhandle as how i see it is going

 

productivity wise i really cant speak much since i spend majority of time gaming over actual work ina 3:1 ratio. So i only spoke on a “gaming perspective”

[Guest]

IPC again is between ivy-haswell in latency based operations such as games and emulation i can explain with further detail to what that means if needed. 

IPC is between haswell and broadwell if anything its slightly lower then what Amd claims for applications that care more about throughput such as encoding and rendering. 

 

Latency when a thread needs to communicate with another thread will suffer on Ryzen even Ryzen III will have this issue if they keep the same design of 4+4 cores and disable cores for each core complex for lower-end models.

 

I came and heard outrageous statements such as IPC comparisons are irreverent which is 100% false! It's embarrassing to even have to read such things. 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, xsimplyjosh said:

If you tend to play 4k at a modest 60fps max then either system will work well since its gpu bound at that region gaming wise

 

the only time i think coffee lake > ryzen is for games where high fps matter imo thats just how i see it. Where ryzen would cap around 100hz due to clock limitations due to the architecture the coffee lake at say 5ghz is capable of exploting the say extra 40-60fps that ryzen isnt able to manhandle as how i see it is going

 

productivity wise i really cant speak much since i spend majority of time gaming over actual work ina 3:1 ratio. So i only spoke on a “gaming perspective”

Ryzen will lose to a I5 coffee lake CPU at 5ghz every single time of the day as games do not scale well past 6 cores and IPC of the past 3 generations of intel CPU's have been 10-15% above ryzen and they OC a good 20% higher and then if you take 8/6 you get 33.333% meaning the extra IPC+OC potential of coffee-lake makes a 8700K OC basically even with a Ryzen 7 OC at 4.1ghz in tasks that can use all the cores and threads.

 

[Jon Jon]

4 hours ago, jdwii said:

Ryzen will lose to a I5 coffee lake CPU at 5ghz every single time of the day as games do not scale well past 6 cores and IPC of the past 3 generations of intel CPU's have been 10-15% above ryzen and they OC a good 20% higher and then if you take 8/6 you get 33.333% meaning the extra IPC+OC potential of coffee-lake makes a 8700K OC basically even with a Ryzen 7 OC at 4.1ghz in tasks that can use all the cores and threads.

 

I am still in the camp of recommended R7 for overall heavily multhreaded workloads.

 

Benchmarks are not reality, and there are instances where separation of additional cores and threads will keep you from having performance dips.

 

Pairing that with 24 PCI-E lanes straight from the CPU, and then you have guys like me who want 4 lanes dedicated to an NVME M.2 with room to spare for other cards AND a full 16 lines for the GPU.

 

However, as many reviewers have clearly shown, if you are a content creator who mains the Adobe Suite, you should be getting an 8700K, though I would argue if you are a content creation professional, you are going HEDT since time is money.

 

With that said, Coffee Lake is the best for gaming, period. I don't understand how anyone is arguing this point, lol.

 

Especially if you are going for 144hz+ gaming, i wouldn't settle for anything that isn't a 5ghz i5 8600K or 8700K.

[geg43]

19 hours ago, He_162 said:

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.

Thanks man but I believe you.

 

I've decided to go with coffee lake when it's back in stock(my local store sold out of every last chip). I upgrade once every 5 years or so. My previous system was AM3 and I saw no need to upgrade to Bulldozer or Piledriver. When my phenom x6 was still doing just fine

[He_162]

14 hours ago, jdwii said:

If you read what i said i in know way recommend the 1700 over a 8700K in fact i have been all over overclock.net and tomshardware telling users to get a 8700K over a 1700. IPC is important i will argue that to the end of the day i want to see how both architectures compare i'm a nerd-geek CPU guy. 

 

I only bought Ryzen 1700 to even compare IPC since other places refuse to do it 

 

Edit 

 

Coffee-lake is slightly above kaby-lake oh boy how IPC wise with both using the same ram speeds and frequency i highly doubt that they are the same coffee-lake just has a beast turbo

Coffee Lakes transistors had an increase in gate pitch to allow for higher core temps, and less voltage leak. This has spread the transistors out, but to account for this, they modified the core, and GPU structure to fit in the DIE with only around a 25% increase in size.

It is not noticeably higher, but at the same clock speeds it scores higher in single core benchmarks.

 

[TahoeDust]

The fact that some people try to talk other people they do not know into an inferior product out of some kind of misplaced brand loyalty blows my mind.

[Phate.exe]

1 hour ago, geg43 said:

I've decided to go with coffee lake when it's back in stock(my local store sold out of every last chip). I upgrade once every 5 years or so. My previous system was AM3 and I saw no need to upgrade to Bulldozer or Piledriver. When my phenom x6 was still doing just fine

I was in a similar situation holding out with my Phenom X6.  The jump to FX wasn't especially significant, and it did decently enough at 1080p60 gaming when paired with an RX 470 that it was hard to justify building a whole new system.  Wasn't gonna throw much more GPU than the 470 at it, but it was still getting by just fine.

 

I built a new machine earlier this year (bought parts over a couple months), and went with a Ryzen 5 1600X/B350 build.  I knew that an i5 was not going to cut it, I wanted to get into an up to date platform, and I really wasn't excited about the idea of paying $300+ for 8 processing threads along with a Z-series motherboard.  To compare my current system to my old one, I can pretty much do the same things at 4K that my old machine was able to do at 1080p.  Between the R9 Fury and the 60hz 4K monitor, the CPU really isn't holding me back at all.

 

Disclaimer:  I'm about as much of an AMD fanboy as you'll ever find.  Now that coffeelake is a thing that actually exists, and there's more than one way to get more than 4 core/8 threads on a consumer platform, I'd have absolutely considered it for a build.  I'd even say that i5's are useful again.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, TahoeDust said:

The fact that some people try to talk other people they do not know into an inferior product out of some kind of misplaced brand loyalty blows my mind.

I have to agree i mean even a 1600x at 4.1ghz will lose to a 5ghz 8600K now Intel just needs to get the parts out. Part of me wants to sell my new setup and switch but i don't think i can justify it but i would for sure pick it over the 1700 if i could start over again. 

[Phate.exe]

1 hour ago, jdwii said:

I have to agree i mean even a 1600x at 4.1ghz will lose to a 5ghz 8600K now Intel just needs to get the parts out. Part of me wants to sell my new setup and switch but i don't think i can justify it but i would for sure pick it over the 1700 if i could start over again. 

Eh, the existence of the 8600K doesn't make your current hardware any worse.

 

If 6 core i5's and i7's didn't exist, would you still want to replace it?  You built it within the options that were available.  When I built my machine, my requirement of more than 4 threads meant either spending $300+ for an i7, buying a 6 core Ryzen CPU, or continuing to use the six core Phenom machine that I gimped the hell out of when I sold my RX470.

 

There's always gonna be newer faster stuff coming out.

[geg43]

I'm thankful to amd for pushing the envelope and giving us mainstream hexacore chips(something which we should've had atleast 2-3 years ago). But I want something with more oomph to last me for a while. Who knows when(or if) a worthy successor to windows 7 will come out?