Why ryzen single core score is low?

[rukspuks]

Both use 14nm semiconductors why then ryzen per core wise slower than Intel?

[LienusLateTips]

Because different architecture = different IPC = different core speed

[KarathKasun]

Ryzen has lower clocks.  With I3/5/7 AND r3/5/7 at the same speed they score very similarly.

[Jurrunio]

That's like asking why I run so much slower than Bolt even though I'm just as tall, also from Earth and weighed the same. They are just too different to be compared.

1 minute ago, KarathKasun said:

With I3/5/7 AND r3/5/7 at the same speed they score very similarly.

4th gen i3 i5 i7 that is. It's worse than later CPU generations

[LienusLateTips]

3 minutes ago, KarathKasun said:

Ryzen has lower clocks.  With I3/5/7 AND r3/5/7 at the same speed they score very similarly.

Depends on IPC. With i7 8700K and R5 1600X at same speed, R5 1600X would still be quite a bit slower, due to IPC.

[Ordinarily_Greater]

12 minutes ago, rukspuks said:

Both use 14nm semiconductors why then ryzen per core wise slower than Intel?

different architecture from different brands

[KarathKasun]

13 minutes ago, Jurrunio said:

That's like asking why I run so much slower than Bolt even though I'm just as tall, also from Earth and weighed the same. They are just too different to be compared.

4th gen i3 i5 i7 that is. It's worse than later CPU generations

its not off by far in many applications.  The difference is 10%-25%.  Cinebench being 10% and LAME being 25%.

Games tend to be a much smaller gap, something like 5%-15%.

https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Processors/AMD-Ryzen-7-1800X-Review-Now-and-Zen/Clock-Clock-Ryzen-Broadwell-E-Kaby-Lake

 

The stack for overall performance goes something like...

i7>R7>i5=R5>R3>i3

Some workloads can change the order of this stack, but I feel that its a pretty good general representation.

 

Anyway, per core difference is due to the architecture design and not transistor size.  AFAIK, Ryzen cores have fewer transistors than Core series cores, a design decision made to facilitate fitting more cores into less space with lower power consumption.

[Damascus]

14 minutes ago, Jurrunio said:

4th gen i3 i5 i7 that is. It's worse than later CPU generations

Actually, can confirm in my old testing.  Intel has done very little with IPC over the last 6 generations and ryzen will perform about 6% slower than Intel clock for clock

[Damascus]

11 minutes ago, KarathKasun said:

i9>i7>R7>i5=R5>R3>i3>kabylake x

Ahem

 

/s

[KarathKasun]

1 minute ago, Damascus said:

Ahem

Well, talking about mainstream chips.

 

KL-X is total trash though, you hit that nail on the head.  It could have been done on a mainstream desktop socket.

[LienusLateTips]

1 minute ago, Damascus said:

Ahem

Ahem

12 minutes ago, KarathKasun said:

Eypc>Xeon>Threadripper=i9>i7>R7>i5=R5>R3>i3>Kaby Lake-X>Pentium D> Pentium Extreme Edition

 

[KarathKasun]

i9 is superior, but WAY TOO EXPENSIVE.  Especially considering a ~$1000 CPU is so close to it.

 

A 32/64 Threadripper would tear it apart in workstation workloads, cant wait for those to materialize.

[EunSoo]

5 minutes ago, KarathKasun said:

Well, talking about mainstream chips.

 

KL-X is total trash though, you hit that nail on the head.  It could have been done on a mainstream desktop socket.

I haven't stayed in the loop with CPUs since Skylake. What's wrong with Kaby Lake X?

[KarathKasun]

1 minute ago, SCGazelle said:

I haven't stayed in the loop with CPUs since Skylake. What's wrong with Kaby Lake X?

Requires you to buy a very high end MB and then KL-X disables 50% of the board or more.

[Brooksie359]

9 minutes ago, KarathKasun said:

i9 is superior, but WAY TOO EXPENSIVE.  Especially considering a ~$1000 CPU is so close to it.

 

A 32/64 Threadripper would tear it apart in workstation workloads, cant wait for those to materialize.

I9 is superior in performance but again not by much and the price is super high. I would say threadripper is about on par with i9 seeing as they do compete with many of the i9s for much lower cost.

[Damascus]

30 minutes ago, JDE said:

Ahem

 

AHEM

 

30 minutes ago, JDE said:

FX>Eypc>Xeon>Threadripper=i9>i7>R7>i5=R5>R3>i3>Kaby Lake-X>Pentium D> Pentium Extreme Edition

 

[Damascus]

27 minutes ago, SCGazelle said:

I haven't stayed in the loop with CPUs since Skylake. What's wrong with Kaby Lake X?

Take a 7700k or 7600k (I3 7340x was planned as well!) pair it with a $250-700 motherboard and add "40" to the nomenclature.  Performs worse than a mainstream kaby chip as well

[Ordinarily_Greater]

5 minutes ago, Damascus said:

Take a 7700k or 7600k (I3 7340x was planned as well!) pair it with a $250-700 motherboard and add "40" to the nomenclature.

don't forget to put the "X" after the "40"

[LienusLateTips]

42 minutes ago, SCGazelle said:

I haven't stayed in the loop with CPUs since Skylake. What's wrong with Kaby Lake X?

Rebranded i5 7600K/7700K with 200mhZ factory overclock, $100 higher price and on X299.

[EunSoo]

44 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

I9 is superior in performance but again not by much and the price is super high. I would say threadripper is about on par with i9 seeing as they do compete with many of the i9s for much lower cost.

22 minutes ago, Damascus said:

Take a 7700k or 7600k (I3 7340x was planned as well!) pair it with a $250-700 motherboard and add "40" to the nomenclature.  Performs worse than a mainstream kaby chip as well

8 minutes ago, JDE said:

Rebranded i5 7600K/7700K with 200mhZ factory overclock, $100 higher price and on X299.

that makes sense, thanks

[Ebony Falcon]

Ryzen ipc is pretty damn close to skylake and slightly better than broadwell 

 

4770k at 4.4ghz scores 165 on cinebench and ryzen scores 165 at 4ghz so it is actually ahead in term of ipc over haswell and broadwell but where it lacks is clock speed 

 

couple in the fact that smt is better than hyper threading aswell really pulls it a lot closer in gaming 

 

I game at 1440p with a 1080ti and it's always pegged at 100 percent usage 

 

reasons for Intel are ancient mmos and gaming at 1080p with a 1080ti on a 200hz monitor

 

ryzen kills it everywhere else, especially when price come into it, cheeper boards, soldered ihs ect 

 

Intel is tough to recommend right now 

 

I moved from a 4770k at 4.6 to ryzen and It's been a lot better for what I do and there was no loss in gaming performance and in quiet a few games improvements 

The graph is for the cb scores I don't no what the idiot did from gaming but it's clearly wrong