AMD reports Threadripper 2990 is upto 50% faster than the Intel 7980

[pas008]

5 hours ago, cj09beira said:

the gas chamber moves too much in one direction for it to have good emissions, and i don't see many ways around it, one would be faster burning fuel, the other might be try to have another spark plug further down, reusing exhaust gases, hopefully we will see it again on the streets before gas powered cars are gone for good, i love the sound of those engines

2 in 2 out for spark plugs

 

Love the Sound too

Older ones used carb very easy to work on

You could change oil its filter plugs wires cap air filter in almost half hour

Which i loved even though i don't do that shit myself anymore

22 minutes ago, MMKing said:

''In our case we got all cores running at 5200 MHz, however this results in extra power consumption and heat levels. Our Corsair LCS cooler was barely capable of cooling the proc enough as shown below, roughly 1.385~1.400 Volts is needed and obviously we enabled the XMP profile on the memory for dual-channel 3200 MHz. ''

 

''We hit 88~90 Degrees C on the package sensor. However to be fair, we have been able to sustain a stable 5.2 GHz on all cores. Memory wise we have 3200 MHz stable (dual channel).''

 

If Intel wants +20% performance, they can clock the CPUs at the factory to these speeds and guarantee them out of the box. The 8086k is clocked at 4GHZ all core, +300mhz over 8700k and it turbos on a single core to 5GHZ. The price of the i7-8086k is about 75USD over the 8700k.

 

I have to ask, who is this person that buys a 350-375USD CPU, a performance motherboard at 150-250USD, 8-16GB DDR4 ram at 75-200USD and a cooling solution at around a 100USD. Then buys a 570, 580 or a 1060 for 1080p gaming? When you could have bought an R5 or an i5 at half the price, a cheaper motherboard and a cheaper cooler and gotten a 1080 for 1440p gaming instead?

 

The point i'm trying to gather from the 1440p benchmarks is the fact that there is no measurable difference between a 1000USD CPU and a 150USD CPU. Due to the reason quoted, they are GPU bound. The weaker component limits the more powerful component, and single core performance is not about to overtake the performance of dedicated graphics cards. What we need is more cores and software to take advantage of them. My point remains. Boosting single core performance is a myth, it's just not happening at any speed even remotely reasonable. 3% IPC gains, 5% single core performance each year 2600k -> 8700k.

I think we need both

Single core performance and more cores

[Brooksie359]

3 hours ago, leadeater said:

If you had waited a bit longer and not gotten the 1700 would you have gotten the 8700k instead of a Ryzen CPU?

 

Also most of the improvements you've noticed in Ryzen 2 for gaming been better 1% and 0.1% lows and general frame latency consistency? I would think there is some decent improvements there based on the arch improvements but I don't actually have any Ryzen CPUs at all so no first had experience.

I probably still would have gotten the 1700. But the choice would have been harder. I went from 2666 with poor timings to 3000 with good timings as well as a good bump in frequency especially on a single core being able to hit 3.4 at stock. Those two put together made most of my games that had fps dip issues go away. The only game that I still have fps issues in is fallout 4 in the city area. Apparently this is a common issue though and not exclusive to AMD. I am extremely happy with the 2700x as it gives me quite good fps in all the games I play and I kinda doubt I would tell the difference between it and the 8700k. 

[Brooksie359]

3 hours ago, Jito463 said:

Only because of the clock speed disadvantage it had, due to the GloFo process, but even then the difference isn't that massive.  I'm not even going to bother upgrading my 1800x until the 3rd gen Ryzens (Zen2 cores) comes out, as it plays everything I need it to.

If you already were able to hit 4.0 plus and had good memory speed and timings then the difference is small but if you weren't then it's a pretty big difference at least it was for me. Got rid of all the fps dip I would get in games. I mean it's not like I got a ton of fps dips but it did happen from time to time. 

[Brooksie359]

2 hours ago, MMKing said:

''In our case we got all cores running at 5200 MHz, however this results in extra power consumption and heat levels. Our Corsair LCS cooler was barely capable of cooling the proc enough as shown below, roughly 1.385~1.400 Volts is needed and obviously we enabled the XMP profile on the memory for dual-channel 3200 MHz. ''

 

''We hit 88~90 Degrees C on the package sensor. However to be fair, we have been able to sustain a stable 5.2 GHz on all cores. Memory wise we have 3200 MHz stable (dual channel).''

 

If Intel wants +20% performance, they can clock the CPUs at the factory to these speeds and guarantee them out of the box. The 8086k is clocked at 4GHZ all core, +300mhz over 8700k and it turbos on a single core to 5GHZ. The price of the i7-8086k is about 75USD over the 8700k.

 

I have to ask, who is this person that buys a 350-375USD CPU, a performance motherboard at 150-250USD, 8-16GB DDR4 ram at 75-200USD and a cooling solution at around a 100USD. Then buys a 570, 580 or a 1060 for 1080p gaming? When you could have bought an R5 or an i5 at half the price, a cheaper motherboard and a cheaper cooler and gotten a 1080 for 1440p gaming instead?

 

The point i'm trying to gather from the 1440p benchmarks is the fact that there is no measurable difference between a 1000USD CPU and a 150USD CPU. Due to the reason quoted, they are GPU bound. The weaker component limits the more powerful component, and single core performance is not about to overtake the performance of dedicated graphics cards. What we need is more cores and software to take advantage of them. My point remains. Boosting single core performance is a myth, it's just not happening at any speed even remotely reasonable. 3% IPC gains, 5% single core performance each year 2600k -> 8700k.

Well like I said I have a 1080ti and a 240hz so I guess me? I had software that needed the multicore performance and it was the best deal at the time and also had quite good gaming performance. It is also important to note that as gpus get more powerful the gpu bound scenario at 1440p kinda goes away. Like I said the 2700x is a fantastic cpu but the 8700k dies beat it in gaming. Obviously of you gpu bottleneck then it doesn't matter but that is kinda a given. I mean by that basis you could us an super cheap cpu paired with a super expensive gpu and play at 4k and it wouldn't matter much. Also my 1700 was 300 my mobo was 90 my cooling solution was an evo 212 I already had my ram was 160. Then I simply bought the 2700x for 300 and stuck it in my mobo. The I didn't really get the 2700x because I thought the performance difference would be huge I just like hardware and simply wanted it. Also my bother had my old 1070 and an fx 8320 and it was painful to watch. I told him to upgrade his cpu to actually take advantage of the dang thing but he was reluctant to spend that much money so I just gave him my 1700 and he ended up upgrading. He seems to be very happy with his setup now. 

[79wjd]

2 hours ago, MMKing said:

''In our case we got all cores running at 5200 MHz, however this results in extra power consumption and heat levels. Our Corsair LCS cooler was barely capable of cooling the proc enough as shown below, roughly 1.385~1.400 Volts is needed and obviously we enabled the XMP profile on the memory for dual-channel 3200 MHz. ''

 

''We hit 88~90 Degrees C on the package sensor. However to be fair, we have been able to sustain a stable 5.2 GHz on all cores. Memory wise we have 3200 MHz stable (dual channel).''

 

If Intel wants +20% performance, they can clock the CPUs at the factory to these speeds and guarantee them out of the box. The 8086k is clocked at 4GHZ all core, +300mhz over 8700k and it turbos on a single core to 5GHZ. The price of the i7-8086k is about 75USD over the 8700k.

They could have clocked it higher, but you'll hit 5ghz~ unless you're the unluckiest person in the world. And the purpose of the K SKU is to overclock it. If you're not, then that's your own fault for buying it. Point still is that an 8700k can keep up with an 1800x in multithreaded workloads.

 

[MMKing]

5 hours ago, 79wjd said:

They could have clocked it higher, but you'll hit 5ghz~ unless you're the unluckiest person in the world. And the purpose of the K SKU is to overclock it. If you're not, then that's your own fault for buying it. Point still is that an 8700k can keep up with an 1800x in multithreaded workloads.

 

Citation demanded

 

Silicon lottery sells the i7-8700K at 5GHZ for 429USD, and with that guarantee comes with some information as well as some demands from the consumer.

https://siliconlottery.com/collections/all/products/8700k50g?variant=224965885964

 

''This CPU includes our delidding service! Factory thermal paste underneath the IHS is replaced with Thermal Grizzly Conductonaut. Depending on the workload, this typically lowers peak core temperatures anywhere from 15°C to 25°C.''

 

''As of 6/08/18, the top 86% of tested 8700Ks were able to hit 5.0GHz or greater.''

 

The CPU is guaranteed to hit 5GHZ at the following settings:

CPU Multiplier: 50

BCLK: 100.0

CPU Vcore: 1.400V 

AVX Offset: 2

 

The guarantee only holds true for the hardware linked to on the store page

https://siliconlottery.com/pages/intel-coffee-lake

 

''CPU Cooler (Fans controlled by motherboard, ambient temperature 10-25°C)''

 

Notice that all the coolers listed are closed loop water coolers, and that all of them at least use a 240mm radiator. The Intel stock thermal compound is NOT listed as a verified thermal compound if you want the 5GHZ guarantee. Lastly, the cheapest motherboard on the list retails for about 230USD on Newegg.

 

Are you really the unluckiest person in the world if your 8700K is not able to hit 5GHZ? Even after delidding the CPU and replacing the factory thermal compound with an aftermarket performance one, and demanding that the consumer use hardware that exceeds the cost of a stock 8700K. The cited % 8700K that can reach 5GHZ is only 86%. What if those instructions were written on the packaging when you purchased your CPU?

 

 

Lastly, can the 8700K keep up with the 1800x? Guru3d got their to 5.2GHZ at 1.4V using a closed loop water cooler hitting 88-90c. Which did in fact beat the 1800x in cinebench 15 multi-thread benchmark. Sadly, Guru3d did not test the 1800x overclocked in the same benchmark, so we can't use the same source for 1800x data. For the record, Guru3d scored 1677 points at 5.2GHZ. I hope at least everyone can agree that hitting 5.2GHZ is at least expensive, if not statistically unlikely.

 

Tom's hardware review and overclock page of the 1800x, testing it in cinebench 15 multi-thread performance at multiple voltages and frequencies.

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/overclocking-amd-ryzen,5011-6.html

 

Hardware used in testing

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/overclocking-amd-ryzen,5011.html

 

Note that the 1.0 Voltage at 3450MHZ frequency is Tom's hardware intentionally under clocking the CPU for testing purposes. The true base frequency is 3.6GHZ on all cores. As you can clearly see on the image bellow. The 1800x has no problems clocking past the 8700K score.

 

Spoiler

 

[Stefan Payne]

On 10.8.2018 at 3:04 PM, Jito463 said:

Only because of the clock speed disadvantage it had, due to the GloFo process, but even then the difference isn't that massive.  

Yeah, right now we are talking about 10-15% Clockspeed disadvantage.

 

But on the other hand we have also worse Power Consumption on Intel as well. 

 

PS: If you have time, look up the NH-L9i

And compare it with the NH-L9a