undefined | Better HN

0 pointssnuxoll7y ago0 comments

Zen does a decent job in clock-for-clock performance, huge killer on the desktop is raw clock speed. When you pit a Ryzen chip maxing out around 3.8-4.2GHz (depending on generation and silicon lottery) to an i7-8700K that has a base frequency of 4.7GHz it's pretty obvious which is going to come out on top.

Most of that clock hit comes from the 12nm LPP process that AMD is currently using too from what I can tell, low-power process typically equates to lower clocks (see mobile chips) so it's not surprising - and why Zen 2 being based on GloFo's 7nm process will hopefully close that gap.

0 comments

nottorp7y ago

Is it such a huge killer outside gaming benchmarks? And even then, the extra power is useful only if you jumped on the 4K bandwagon.

Personally, consider the amount of random crap that i run, I'd rather have more cores. And more importantly, 80% of the performance for 50% of the price is just fine(tm).

zaarn7y ago

The gaming benchmarks are a bit meh since in most realistic builds the GPU will be the bottleneck, not the CPU (unless you buy a 1080Ti with a Ryzen 3 or i3, though in that case all help is lost).

More cores do benefit if you run stuff besides the game, which most people do.

nottorp7y ago

I'm into VM abuse, so for me more cores would be a no brainer...

Sadly for AMD that would be IF i needed a new machine. My 2012 Core i7 still seems to be enough for my needs. (Except the GPU, that I changed recently.)

1 more reply

xxs7y ago

>i7-8700K that has a base frequency of 4.7GH.

That's not base at any rate, you can't get all cores at 4.7Ghz stock, 4.7 is a turbo-boost single core. No way you get that w/o a pretty decent cooler on a non-delidded CPU unless happen to have a chip that requires no extra voltage at all.

It's true that many games are predominantly single core, though but it's likely to get a single core 4.5Ryzen as well.

bufferoverflow7y ago

i7-8700K base frequency is 3.7 GHz, not 4.7

https://ark.intel.com/products/126684/Intel-Core-i7-8700K-Pr...

snuxollOP7y ago

Oops, fat fingered that one.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointssnuxoll7y ago0 comments

0 comments

nottorp7y ago

Is it such a huge killer outside gaming benchmarks? And even then, the extra power is useful only if you jumped on the 4K bandwagon.

Personally, consider the amount of random crap that i run, I'd rather have more cores. And more importantly, 80% of the performance for 50% of the price is just fine(tm).

zaarn7y ago

The gaming benchmarks are a bit meh since in most realistic builds the GPU will be the bottleneck, not the CPU (unless you buy a 1080Ti with a Ryzen 3 or i3, though in that case all help is lost).

More cores do benefit if you run stuff besides the game, which most people do.

nottorp7y ago

I'm into VM abuse, so for me more cores would be a no brainer...

Sadly for AMD that would be IF i needed a new machine. My 2012 Core i7 still seems to be enough for my needs. (Except the GPU, that I changed recently.)

1 more reply

xxs7y ago

>i7-8700K that has a base frequency of 4.7GH.

It's true that many games are predominantly single core, though but it's likely to get a single core 4.5Ryzen as well.

bufferoverflow7y ago

i7-8700K base frequency is 3.7 GHz, not 4.7

https://ark.intel.com/products/126684/Intel-Core-i7-8700K-Pr...

snuxollOP7y ago

Oops, fat fingered that one.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse