+13% IPC - Huge or Small impact?

[Hi P]

(This is regarding the Zen 2)

 

After a brief google search and a couple videos I understand the term,  but not how much of an impact +13% IPC is.

 

Could someone please explain it to me?

 

Is 13% huge?

 

Thank you

[TahoeDust]

I'd guess it will be about a 13% impact.  I don't really know how else to answer.

 

[Jurrunio]

not much impact actually (assuming frequency stays the same), but good for a free performance uplift (since AMD doesnt raise MSRP on newer stuff compared to the CPU they replace).

[Hi P]

3 minutes ago, Jurrunio said:

not much impact actually (assuming frequency stays the same)

Would you say the perfomance leap between Zen+ and Zen 2 could be similar to Zen and Zen+ leap?

 

or noticeably bigger?

[Jurrunio]

Just now, Hi P said:

Would you say the perfomance leap between Zen+ and Zen 2 could be similar to Zen and Zen+ leap?

 

or noticeably bigger?

it will be noticeably higher, unless TSMC completely screwed up. I remember Zen+ only having 5% IPC gain and 5% frequency gain on top of Zen, along with 25% more power draw in peak overclock state.

[Lord Letto]

I would assume up to 13% more FPS in gaming depending on how optimized the game is, for example, if your getting 100FPS in a game where your CPU bound & upgrade to something with 13% more IPC with the same clock speeds then you would get up to 113 FPS instead of 100, if your only getting 50 FPS then you would get about 56.5 FPS after the upgrade and so on.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

20 minutes ago, Hi P said:

After a brief google search and a couple videos I understand the term,  but not how much of an impact +13% IPC is.

 

Could someone please explain it to me?

 

Is 13% huge?

 

It's as big as 13%.

[vanished]

That means it's 13% better.  All else equal, you'll see that translate into performance directly.  If something else like clock speed counters or compensates for it, then you have to consider both factors.

[Mira Yurizaki]

The metric itself I find can be ambiguous. Is it x86 instructions? Micro-Op instructions? Front-end performance? Back-end performance?

 

But yeah, at best you can only assume is up to 13% better performance when comparing the last generation with both processors running at the same clock speed.

[Sauron]

Consider this - the 9900k is about 13% faster than a 2700x and costs 200$+ more. If AMD drops their next 8 core at the same price as the 2700x, we'll probably have a cpu that is just as fast as the 9900k for 60% of the price. Add the chance of getting a 12 core AM4 chip and it's not looking too great for Intel.

[Princess Luna]

1 minute ago, Sauron said:

.

10nm... I want to believe~

[xg32]

5 hours ago, Hi P said:

.

it depends on who you ask, for overclockers, it's huge, for value hunters, it's probably the price drop of the older gen that's more exciting. zen+ is  good, even if zen 2 comes out but i cringe at the thought of using zen 1 after zen+ came out.

[Hi P]

1 hour ago, xg32 said:

I cringe at the thought of using zen 1 after zen+ came out.

What's wrong with Zen 1 tho?

[xg32]

42 minutes ago, Hi P said:

What's wrong with Zen 1 tho?

mem controller issues, just 6-8% slower in general for max oc, both of those combined means a pretty slow cpu, and with the 2600 at 150usd...i just don't see the point. the difference between 3.9 ddr3200 vs 4.2  ddr3600 is quite huge, all with similar power consumption and price

[Stefan Payne]

5 hours ago, Hi P said:

After a brief google search and a couple videos I understand the term,  but not how much of an impact +13% IPC is.

 

Is 13% huge?

Yes, it is pretty huge by todays standards.

 

In the past +13% more performance at the same clockrates was abysmal. see AMD Athlon -> Athlon XP -> Athlon 64.

[Stefan Payne]

1 hour ago, Hi P said:

What's wrong with Zen 1 tho?

High Memory Latency...

46 minutes ago, xg32 said:

mem controller issues,

Was also something on X99, but people seem to have forgotten that trainwreck.

According to someone building PCs, the Issues X99 had was far larger than AMD's AM4. But for whatever reason, people seem to play up the issues with AMD and play down the Issues with Intel...

 

Especially when you have to insert the RAM into specific slots - if you don't, screen stays dark, no post. For Bank 2 on a Channel instead of bank 1. Yeah, that was common back in the day, that you had to insert 2 or 4 RAM Modules (SIMMs at the time)...

 

46 minutes ago, xg32 said:

just 6-8% slower in general for max oc, both of those combined means a pretty slow cpu,

A pretty slow CPU?! What the hell are you talking about?!
For something that came out of nothing, it was pretty good.

Especially when you compare it to something that has been around for 10 years and optimized/build upon ever since....

And they were already competitive and brought 8 Cores to the Enduser. After almost 10 years 4 Cores with SMT on the Desktop...

Without SMT, the first Dual Dual Cores, that had 4 Cores on one Package, arrived back in 2006...

 

 

Yes, the AMD are reacting pretty highly to increase in memory bandwith, probably because the inter CCX might limit the performance a bit...

[xg32]

10 hours ago, Stefan Payne said:

.

If you look at my original message i was saying that zen+ is a better buy than zen 1 at current prices, stop trying to extrapolate everything into intel vs amd, and yes zen 1 is slow comparatively to zen+, especially with the 2600 at 150usd., and we don't need comparisons back to 2006.

[Hi P]

8 hours ago, xg32 said:

 zen 1 is slow comparatively to zen+

Thanks for the input

 

Though I don't see much difference between those two in benchmarks, plus in other countries the gap in price could be higher

 

I'm going with a 1600