Why doesn't Ryzen have fast single core?

[mattdmg]

I have been keeping my eye out for a new gaming processor for the last year or so but nothing has really caught my eye and I currently have an i7 4790k at stock. I have been happy to see Ryzen doing well targeting a productivity/budget market and creating competition for Intel. But I don't know much about processors and their architecture so I was hoping I could get some stuff cleared up for me.

 

How doesn't AMD come close (from what I've seen) to Intel's single core performance? I am mostly talking about the 2700x and 8700k.

Is it just because they aren't REALLY marketed for that specific purpose? Or do they not know how? 

 

I realize a lot of people have been saying that they will be better for gaming and are more "futureproofed" but I really haven't seen it yet (people were probably saying this 5 years ago too when the FX line was out). I play a lot of ARMA 3 and that game really loves a fast single core processor so Ryzen just isn't for me yet. I also know that the 2700x isn't a bad gaming processor but it's just a lot better at productivity things. I've considered getting the 8700k but it just isn't enough of a jump for me yet. 

 

Overall I am mainly wondering why they don't have a specific processor that tries to compete in the gaming side of things with quick single core performance. Sorry if this post is ignorant, I am happy to be informed. 

 

[79wjd]

Well, for starters, Coffee Lake's IPC is a bit ahead of Ryzen -- meaning that at the same clock speeds, Intel will have the advantage. That's just a side effect of the architectural design. 

 

The second, and more important factor, is that Coffee Lake happens to clock much higher than Ryzen -- 20% higher. So since Coffee Lake has slightly better single core performance at the same clock speeds, things only get better when there is a 20% clock speed delta. Coffee Lakes ability to clock higher is largely dependent on the manufacturing node used -- AMD is using LPP+, which is designed to be low power node while Intel is using a manufacturing node that prioritizes clockspeed and performance at the expense of efficiency.

 

So, short of AMD further refining the Zen architecture and/or switching to a high power node, they won't be able to get the single core advantage (when comparing unlocked CPUs).

[geo3]

6 minutes ago, mattdmg said:

I currently have an i7 4790k at stock

Overclock that thing before thinking about getting something new.

[Cyanara]

Intel are about to release their 9th generation of the current Core architecture. That's allowed for a lot of opportunities to refine the design, boosting IPC and removing barriers to high clock speeds.

 

While AMD do have the benefit of hindsight, they are still very much playing catch up. CPUs are crazy complicated things, so there's always going to be limitations to the designs and manufacturing processes in early generations. Intel's delays with 10nm might close that gap a bit though.

 

AMDs main current claim to fame with the Zen architecture is that they came up with a much more flexible and cost-effective way to increase core counts (Infinity Fabric) than Intel, even if Intel's is technically superior. Price matters.

[Mooshi]

After you get to a certain resolution, Intel vs AMD is irrelevant. 

[DrMacintosh]

9 minutes ago, Cyanara said:

While AMD do have the benefit of hindsight, they are still very much playing catchup. 

Yeah no....

AMD is the market leader now. 

[geo3]

3 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

AMD is the market leader now. 

It's clear he meant in terms of performance. 

[Cyanara]

1 minute ago, DrMacintosh said:

Yeah no....

AMD is the market leader now. 

I was entirely referring to the context of the thread (single thread performance). Intel have superior IPC and clock speeds, and that's without forking out for high-end RAM.

[WereCat]

16 minutes ago, mattdmg said:

 

How doesn't AMD come close (from what I've seen) to Intel's single core performance? I am mostly talking about the 2700x and 8700k.

Is it just because they aren't REALLY marketed for that specific purpose?

 

They are close enough. 

Clock for clock, there is barely any difference. The reason that Intel is ahead is the faster clock speed which Intel CPUs can achieve. 

 

Anyway, Ryzen 2000 series is clock for clock faster than yours or mine Haswell CPU. 

 

At 4.1GHz Ryzen2000 is comparable to Haswell at around 4.5GHz to 4.6GHz.

[Phentos]

Intel CPUs have faster single threaded performance primarily because of their ring bus topology and higher clock speeds. Higher IPC is a factor determined by the aforementioned ring bus along with far superior memory controllers and lower cache latency. 

 

Once AMD transitions to a proper high power node, these advantages Intel enjoys should be much less significant.

[DrMacintosh]

40 minutes ago, geo3 said:

It's clear he meant in terms of performance. 

AMD also holds that title. Intel only wins in one work load, gaming. Everything else, Ryzen/TR/EPIC all outclass Intel chips. 

[pas008]

13 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

AMD also holds that title. Intel only wins in one work load, gaming. Everything else, Ryzen/TR/EPIC all outclass Intel chips. 

Oh guess 90% of software isn't in favor of Intel because of single core use

 

Guess i shouldn't name many areas of cad solidworks photoshop etc

 

[Phentos]

11 minutes ago, pas008 said:

Oh guess 90% of software isn't in favor of Intel because of single core use

 

Guess i shouldn't name many areas of cad solidworks photoshop etc

 

Most of these programs being written on an Intel-based compiler helps to facilitate that 

[pas008]

13 minutes ago, Phentos said:

Most of these programs being written on an Intel-based compiler helps to facilitate that 

named only one work load

Which doesn't matter what isa/compiler/etc is used

So its a false statement

 

Users can have their preference but stating shit as fact only hurts the community when its not the complete truth

[Phentos]

4 minutes ago, pas008 said:

named only one work load

Which doesn't matter what isa/compiler/etc is used

So its a false statement

 

Users can have their preference but stating shit as fact only hurts the community when its not the complete truth

So you say...

[mattdmg]

1 hour ago, geo3 said:

Overclock that thing before thinking about getting something new.

I don't have the right chipset for overclocking otherwise I would have a while ago. I had a i5 4440 a while ago and just bought one and swapped it out as an upgrade so I didn't have to buy a new mobo+ram

[DrMacintosh]

30 minutes ago, pas008 said:

Users can have their preference but stating shit as fact only hurts the community when its not the complete truth

I’m sorry you can’t accept the reality of AMDs dominance in the market now. 

[42kq]

I kind of regret buying my brand new ryzen system. I barely game anymore and my i5-2400 is just fine for everyday use. I thought about converting my ryzen system into a mining rig but the hashrate is too low.

 

Edit: Dont get me wrong ryzen is a great chip but honestly there are no good games out that require such a high core count chip. The newest games dont entertain me and all I play now is cs:go and that runs fine on a toaster. I haven't found one app that needs that many cores. Not even windows 7 maxes more than 4 cores/8 threads at a time. But I do find ryzen is still sluggish in windows desktop usage. For some reason my old i5 is way snappier in both win 7 and 10. I even disabled turbo and locked the speed to 3.1ghz and the i5 is still better. 

[pas008]

18 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

I’m sorry you can’t accept the reality of AMDs dominance in the market now. 

 

Where are you getting this info too?

Source?

I'm not knocking amd but there are many benches of them trading blows its all about what the user needs

3xxx series might get me back to amd

I buy best product for my uses 

[DrMacintosh]

16 minutes ago, 42kq said:

I kind of regret buying my brand new ryzen system. I barely game anymore and my i5-2400 is just fine for everyday use. I thought about converting my ryzen system into a mining rig but the hashrate is too low.

 

Edit: Dont get me wrong ryzen is a great chip but honestly there are no good games out that require such a high core count chip. The newest games dont entertain me and all I play now is cs:go and that runs fine on a toaster. I haven't found one app that needs that many cores. Not even windows 7 maxes more than 4 cores/8 threads at a time. But I do find ryzen is still sluggish in windows desktop usage. For some reason my old i5 is way snappier in both win 7 and 10. I even disabled turbo and locked the speed to 3.1ghz and the i5 is still better. 

Sounds like you aren’t/weren’t using either system for it’s full potential. 

 

Also sounds like your new system is running off a HDD. 

[DrMacintosh]

3 minutes ago, pas008 said:

 

Where are you getting this info too?

Source?

I'm not knocking amd but there are many benches of them trading blows its all about what the user needs

3xxx series might get me back to amd

I buy best product for my uses 

Already posted the video. 

 

Intel is essentially only competitive if you only focus on single core performance rather than literally every other metric. 

[PlayStation 2]

AMD focused more on respectable single-core performance but combining that with numerous cores for cheap with the Zen platform.

Intel, when they built what would become Sandy Bridge and the following lineups, focused on strong single-core performance with respectable multi-core performance.

[42kq]

5 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

Sounds like you aren’t/weren’t using either system for it’s full potential. 

 

Also sounds like your new system is running off a HDD. 

Define full potential? Mining? Too slow. Productivity/Creative work? I dont do that at all. Both systems are running off of identical intel 320 ssds.  I kind of have buyer's remorse, I wanted the newest, shiniest thing and I have no need for it. Cant return it or sell it either.

[Phentos]

27 minutes ago, 42kq said:

ryzen is still sluggish in windows desktop usage.

Interestingly my old Ryzen system was probably the smoothest and most responsive system I've ever had. It's also a lot less sluggish than many of my friends' PCs, most of which are Intel-based.

 

Ah the joys of having good Samsung SSDs.

 

Optimizing your OS and having a good SSD matters far more than whether you have an Intel or AMD Ryzen system in terms of day to day performance in Windows.

[DrMacintosh]

3 minutes ago, 42kq said:

Both systems are running off of identical intel 320 ssds

Then the only thing that could be causing any perceptible slow downs are either you deciding subconsciously that the Ryzen system is slower, or you have a software conflict somewhere. 

 

Ryzen has better IPC than 2nd gen Intel chips, that's just a fact.