Do you think Zen+/Zen2 will be able to compete with 8700K single-thread performance?

[Mortis Angelus]

I just wonder if I should jump on the 8700K bandwagon for gaming, or if I should wait for Zen2. While 1600X (and better) clocked at 4.0 ghz are amazing multi-task CPUs, they still can't keep up with the 8700K (even at stock speeds) when it comes to games and the likes of premiere pro and after effects as those applications favor high-speed single cores, instead of multiple cores.

 

I have been looking at 8700K + Maximus X Hero, but I wonder if I still should go the AMD-route. I like the connectivity options on the Crosshair VI Hero more (so many USB-ports!!), that I still wonder if it would be worth the wait for Zen2?

[Tauwer]

https://tweakers.net/nieuws/136043/presentatie-van-amd-ryzen-2000-processors-op-12nm-verschijnt-online.html

 

this is what i found not sure if its real but most likely,its a dutch site but if you scroll down you can see the 10 slides.

it wil for sure get close but the 2600 isnt meant to compete with the 8700k it's meant to compete with the 2800x

[joshuawi99]

4 minutes ago, Mortis Angelus said:

I just wonder if I should jump on the 8700K bandwagon for gaming, or if I should wait for Zen2. While 1600X (and better) clocked at 4.0 ghz are amazing multi-task CPUs, they still can't keep up with the 8700K (even at stock speeds) when it comes to games and the likes of premiere pro and after effects as those applications favor high-speed single cores, instead of multiple cores.

 

I have been looking at 8700K + Maximus X Hero, but I wonder I like the connectivity options on the Crosshair VI Hero more (so many USB-ports!!), that I still wonder if it would be worth the wait for Zen2?

In single thread performance they will still be behind like 10% but Multicore will be a different story. If the highest model can achieve 4,5 Ghz all core that would be sick. I mean like 2000 Cinebench Scores +. Also gaming performance would be very competing. I would wait for zen+ actually

[whoisit1118]

Zen 2, maybe, but Zen+, no way.

[genexis_x]

With higher clocks, yes, but still cannot match due to slightly lower IPC, definitely can get close.

[thisforumsucksassdeletemya]

52 minutes ago, joshuawi99 said:

In single thread performance they will still be behind like 10% but Multicore will be a different story. If the highest model can achieve 4,5 Ghz all core that would be sick. I mean like 2000 Cinebench Scores +. Also gaming performance would be very competing. I would wait for zen+ actually

I get 2200 on my 1600 on Cinebench... you ok in there?

[Droidbot]

11 minutes ago, violentnumeric said:

I get 2200 on my 1600 on Cinebench... you ok in there?

From memory the 1600 hits 1200-1300, not 2200..

[Helly]

the real question is, are you ever going to notice the difference and is it worth the price difference to you? if its 10% slower, its only a few frames max (54 vs 60). If it's stable you will never notice it. So its not the question you should ask. Ask if it will be worth the price difference...

[Ordinarily_Greater]

if it is Zen+ i wouldn't say it will beat that i7-8700K in single threaded performance, but i am sure it is gonna catch that intel chip as single threaded.

And Zen2 will barely beat i7-8700K with it's eyes closed... Well mostly being optimization for AMD

[EOZ]

No Ryzen 2 definatley will be slower than i7-8700k in single core performance. Ryzen has some bottleneck problems in this dual chip arhitecture and IPC/Clocks are lower than intel Coffee Lake.

 

[Jurrunio]

21 minutes ago, violentnumeric said:

I get 2200 on my 1600 on Cinebench... you ok in there?

Cinebench R15 is what @Droidbotis talking about. My system only gets 850 sth, which means your 2200 is way too high.

[Mortis Angelus]

11 minutes ago, Helly said:

the real question is, are you ever going to notice the difference and is it worth the price difference to you? if its 10% slower, its only a few frames max (54 vs 60). If it's stable you will never notice it. So its not the question you should ask. Ask if it will be worth the price difference...

A 1800x and 8700K is priced the same (if the talk top of the line for both systems). And when we talk these price ranges, I certainly want to get the most for my buck. And the question about "will you notice a difference" is futile as long as you don't have both systems side by side. My current 8320 at 4 ghz feels quick now (which I know it ain't), because I have not experienced an 8700K at 5 ghz yet. Hopefully I get my 1500X-powered HTPC running shortly....

[Droidbot]

12 minutes ago, EOZ said:

No Ryzen 2 definatley will be slower than i7-8700k in single core performance. Ryzen has some bottlenecks problems in this dual chip arhitecture and IPC/Clocks are lower than intel Coffee Lake.

 

wow, a game that's

a) intel biased
b) based on single core performance ONLY
c) literally fucking RNG when it comes to framerates on certain system configurations because bohemia is quality™

doing bad on AMD? what a fucking S U R P R I S E

 

seems that the test is also with different settings for each CPU, as the Ryzen seems to have the most VRAM usage and most core0 stress.

CCX is not the bottleneck. In cache heavy situations maybe, but it is not a huge delay compared to dual-CPU setups of olde.

 

edit: not to mention this is an OLD VERSION of the game client without the Ryzen optimizations included in 1.68.........

edit ii: it's stuttering on the 3570k too! look at those fucking frametimes

[asus killer]

i guess the consensus is until AMD changes Ryzen in a meaningful way they will never catch up to Intel's single clock speeds. What will come out now is Zen+ not Zen2. It's a refresh i guess nothing more.

[done12many2]

58 minutes ago, violentnumeric said:

I get 2200 on my 1600 on Cinebench... you ok in there?

 

Zero chance this is true.

[Mortis Angelus]

44 minutes ago, Droidbot said:

wow, a game that's

a) intel biased
b) based on single core performance ONLY
c) literally fucking RNG when it comes to framerates on certain system configurations because bohemia is quality™

doing bad on AMD? what a fucking S U R P R I S E

 

seems that the test is also with different settings for each CPU, as the Ryzen seems to have the most VRAM usage and most core0 stress.

CCX is not the bottleneck. In cache heavy situations maybe, but it is not a huge delay compared to dual-CPU setups of olde.

 

edit: not to mention this is an OLD VERSION of the game client without the Ryzen optimizations included in 1.68.........

edit ii: it's stuttering on the 3570k too! look at those fucking frametimes

I guess this also a reason to go with Intel; far more optimized games for Intel... So even if the CPUs theoretically performed the same, there is a higher chance of finding an Intel-optimized game. Dont you think?

 

31 minutes ago, asus killer said:

i guess the consensus is until AMD changes Ryzen in a meaningful way they will never catch up to Intel's single clock speeds. What will come out now is Zen+ not Zen2. It's a refresh i guess nothing more.

Well since I dont own a 1st gen Zen processor yet, it wouldnt matter for me if I went straight for the Zen+.

 

 

[Armakar]

Not a chance. Ryzen's IPC isn't even Skylake level.

[Ebony Falcon]

1 hour ago, violentnumeric said:

I get 2200 on my 1600 on Cinebench... you ok in there?

Not on normal cooling u don't lol

[Ordinarily_Greater]

1 hour ago, EOZ said:

No Ryzen 2 definatley will be slower than i7-8700k in single core performance. Ryzen has some bottleneck problems in this dual chip arhitecture and IPC/Clocks are lower than intel Coffee Lake.

 

and optimization will likely impact the performance of Ryzen 2nd gen

just something to keep in mind

[thisforumsucksassdeletemya]

2 hours ago, Droidbot said:

From memory the 1600 hits 1200-1300, not 2200..

I was pretty fucking high when I said that and now that I think about it that was probably my Heaven score on my massively overclocked R9 fury lel