Ryzen 2700X OCed to 4.3Ghz (1.4v) across all cores, performance numbers included.

[Razor01]

7 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

At stock or at high OCs? With similar power limits? We can pretty easily predict what the Cinebench R15 scores will show up at (right around 130% of the 8700k's stock score), which should still put it behind the 2700X at stock.

 

Further, +33% more Skylake cores means about that much power draw & heat, since it'll be on the same process as Coffee Lake. Are we increasing the stock TDP or is it going to be strangled with lower clock speeds? Is it going to actually be better than a 8700k?

 

 

10nm process should quell the power draw

 

And at stock and similar power limits.

 

The 8700k outside of that benchmark, does much better at rendering than a stock 1700x.  In numerous applications.

 

 

Its going to be damn close enough on that test.

[leadeater]

9 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

8700k is very price competitive in pretty much everything, multithreaded applications vs the 1700x and much more performant in games.  It even beats a 1800x in most cases

 

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-coffee-lake-i7-8700k-cpu,5252-9.html

 

And now Zen prices are priced well, they aren't cheap to make, AMD's margins went up a little bit, agree that there is more to company margins than one product margin but we are looking at 50% of their entire line up changed, and their gross margins only went up in the single digits.

I wouldn't look at any reviews that doesn't have a 1700 or 1700X in it. If you must the 1800X is only very slightly faster. Intel's value gem is actually the 8700.

 

I wouldn't call $60-75 more price competitive for not much gain outside of gaming, in gaming it's a price premium for extra performance (not saying not worth paying for it).

[Taf the Ghost]

4 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

 

 

10nm process should quell the power draw

 

And at stock and similar power limits.

 

The 8700k outside of that benchmark, does much better at rendering than a stock 1700x.  In numerous applications.

Depends if you're talking x264, x265, PovRay, Blender or whatever oddity. (Apparently in a few Music programs, AMD is king.) And the 7700k is still the king of Adobe for whatever reason. (Probably due to the higher clocks at 4c boost under load.)

[Razor01]

6 minutes ago, leadeater said:

I wouldn't look at any reviews that doesn't have a 1700 or 1700X in it. If you must the 1800X is only very slightly faster. Intel's value gem is actually the 8700.

 

I wouldn't call $60-75 more price competitive for not much gain outside of gaming, in gaming it's a price premium for extra performance (not saying not worth paying for it).

 

Intel might increase the price more, I agree, but that's arbitrary, if they feel AMD is too close they will keep their current pricing structure.  I feel they feel the heat from AMD.  That is why we see them changing their tactics.  They pretty much know they can't give AMD much ground here.  They can't use the tactics they used with Athlon 64, they must use legal market pressures to keep AMD at bay.

 

Well just for argument sake, lets replace that 1800x with a 1700x , we can pull other reviews out with the 1700x and 1700 but its not like they are going to do better than a 1800x.

[Taf the Ghost]

@Razor01

 

8c part won't be Icelake or 10nm. That's not until 2019.

[Razor01]

5 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

Depends if you're talking x264, x265, PovRay, Blender or whatever oddity. (Apparently in a few Music programs, AMD is king.) And the 7700k is still the king of Adobe for whatever reason. (Probably due to the higher clocks at 4c boost under load.)

 

 

Very few applications does AMD really have much of lead when we are looking at same core and thread counts.

[leadeater]

4 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

Well just for argument sake, lets replace that 1800x with a 1700x , we can pull other reviews out with the 1700x and 1700 but its not like they are going to do better than a 1800x.

And the1800X is $320 so in the case where we were talking about value the 1700 at $275 for nearly the same performance is a bit of an obvious choice, or the 1700X for $290. Why pay a minimum of $130 more for nothing?

[Razor01]

5 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

@Razor01

 

8c part won't be Icelake or 10nm. That's not until 2019.

  Icelake 10nm design was taped out mid last year so unless something  has changed it should be out sometime this year.

[Taf the Ghost]

9 minutes ago, leadeater said:

I wouldn't look at any reviews that doesn't have a 1700 or 1700X in it. If you must the 1800X is only very slightly faster. Intel's value gem is actually the 8700.

 

I wouldn't call $60-75 more price competitive for not much gain outside of gaming, in gaming it's a price premium for extra performance (not saying not worth paying for it).

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?item=N82E16819117885

 

With the just released SKUs, I'm in the camp that it's really i5-8600 that is the true value gem in the Coffee Lake lineup. If you're not doing heavy encoding tasks, I believe the $100 USD saved is better than 6 threads and a little max clocks. At least for getting the best out of a Skylake-core based product.

[Razor01]

Just now, leadeater said:

And the1800X is $320 so in the case where we were talking about value the 1700 at $275 for nearly the same performance is a bit of an obvious choice, or the 1700X for $290. Why pay a minimum of $130 more for nothing?

I agree but we are talking about MSRP vs retail prices, AMD changed its prices probably due to Coffee Lake.  Price war right?

[leadeater]

5 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

Very few applications does AMD really have much of lead when we are looking at same core and thread counts.

Which doesn't mean much to a buyer, price does matter. All musings end once you need to actually buy one of these so equal core vs core ends with it and it goes right back to pricing.

[leadeater]

3 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

I agree but we are talking about MSRP vs retail prices, AMD changed its prices probably due to Coffee Lake.  Price war right?

No I'm using amazon pricing.

[ravenshrike]

29 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

 

If the motherboards are being made now, which they are, that means in 6 months time, its all validation of the motherboards that is what Intel is waiting for.  And this fits in with the typical Intel launch cycle.

You miss my point entirely. If the 8 core part ends up being released closer to the launch of Zen 2, then that is what everyone will be wanting to compare it to, not the 2700X.

[Razor01]

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Which doesn't mean much to a buyer, price does matter. All musings end once you need to actually buy one of these so equal core vs core ends with it and it goes right back to pricing.

I'm not saying what is a better buy.  If that was the case I would say most people shouldn't even upgrade at all if they have a quad core system or get cheapo 4 core systems because that is all they need.  Even for gaming.

 

Its like saying whats a better buy getting a Lada or a Ferrari.  Both do the job of getting you from point A to B, and with speed restrictions on roads a Lada will do just fine.  Bringging in a subject thing as cost into a tech discussion doesn't really have space.

[Taf the Ghost]

Just now, Razor01 said:

  Icelake 10nm design was tapped out mid last year so unless something  has changed it should be out sometime this year.

Have you missed the disaster area that is the Intel 10nm process? Everything still points to H1 2019, though they might be able to squeeze another paper launch out for October.

[Razor01]

1 minute ago, Taf the Ghost said:

Have you missed the disaster area that is the Intel 10nm process? Everything still points to H1 2019, though they might be able to squeeze another paper launch out for October.

 

10nm cannon lake parts already shipping, I don't see it taking a full year for larger chips on this node. 

[leadeater]

7 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

I'm not saying what is a better buy.  If that was the case I would most people shouldn't even upgrade at all if they have a quad core system.

 

Its like saying whats a better buy getting a Lada or a Ferrari.  Both do the job of getting you from point A to B, and with speed restrictions on roads a Lada will do just fine.

Yes but this is a discussion about CPUs that get used in computers that at some point someone is going to actually buy. So price will always matter.

 

There is only so much theorizing before it ends and a decision must be made, what do I buy or what do I recommend to someone.

 

It doesn't matter what Intel can do with 4 or 6 or 8, it matters what that costs. It's never not going to be a factor.

 

CPUs are not concept cars.

[Dylanc1500]

14 minutes ago, leadeater said:

That wasn't really the problem though. An architecture designed around using more cores is what it is. That in itself is interesting and is fine to compare against. My objection is declaring it a worse architecture because of this fact when it was a design goal, more for cheaper.

 

Intel's 6 can match AMD's 8, Intel's cores are stronger. I don't see the need to then take that further and say it's a better architecture because of that as it leaves out so many other factors it doesn't hold much relevance.

Well honestly, depending on what you are basing your deduction of inferiority on, it could be. However in some instances it is superior. As you have said yourself, they designed them with different goals in mind and with that comes different products that perform differently with different costs. This is why we preach in the tech community to buy what you need that falls within your budget. Either way though, it depends on what your limiting variables are determined which is going to be a better option.

 

man you guys are fast little stinkers. I can't respond before it pops up saying "hey slow poke they already posted 9 times!!"

[Razor01]

Just now, leadeater said:

Yes but this is a discussion about CPUs that get used in computers that at some point someone is going to actually buy. So price will always matter.

 

There is only so much theorizing before it ends and it a decision must be made, what do I buy or what do I recommend to someone.

 

It doesn't matter what Intel can do with 4 or 6 or 8, it matters what that costs. It's never not going to be a factor.

 

CPUs are not concept cars.

Lada is not a concept car, its a really bad Russian made car with a top speed of 70 miles an hour, Ferrari pick any one that is on the road right now

[leadeater]

2 minutes ago, Dylanc1500 said:

man you guys are fast little stinkers. I can't respond before it pops up saying "hey slow poke they already posted 9 times!!"

Simple, keyboard mash!!! and fix later lol. Thank god the forum doesn't have auto correct lol.

[leadeater]

3 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

Lada is not a concept car, its a really bad Russian made car with a top speed of 70 miles an hour, Ferrari pick any one that is on the road right now

Think you missed the point, we don't look at CPUs we use them. Ohh shiny 8 cores, ok but.... you know this will actually get used right so how much?

[Taf the Ghost]

3 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

 

10nm cannon lake parts already shipping, I don't see it taking a full year for larger chips on this node. 

The 2+2 Cannonlake part has vanished, leaving on the 2+0 U part that it appears only Intel itself will use in extremely small numbers.

 

So, yes, they've announced they're going to ship something from the baseline 10nm node, even if it probably doesn't ever really make it to market, existing as something of a novelty.

 

Icelake will be on 10nm+ process node, and full scale production isn't until July, I believe, which points towards a Q2 2019 release, though, as I said, they could paper launch some SKUs in late 2018.

[Dylanc1500]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

Simple, keyboard mash!!! and fix later lol. Thank god the forum doesn't have auto correct lol.

Well I'd do that but I'm currently on a plane using my phone (oh no!!!) so I'm a bit behind in speed lol. If the forum had autocorrect your guys' jobs as moderators would be increased ten-fold with the things that would be "corrected" to.

[hobobobo]

8 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

Lada is not a concept car, its a really bad Russian made car with a top speed of 70 miles an hour, Ferrari pick any one that is on the road right now

Dont have much love for Lada, but their new tincans for the past 3-4 years are not actually bad even with the disgust lada badge invokes) You are thinking of 2109 while they make xray, vesta and shit

 

Come out of 1980s, gramps

[Drak3]

14 minutes ago, leadeater said:

we don't look at CPUs we use them

You don't know that.

 

 

 

*Stares at wall of delidded 7980XEs*