My R5 1600 8c16t Cinebench R15 benchmark

So hey, its a don't stress situation then isn't it? And clearly prices are coming down for good chips. You're stressing in an AMD thread and spruiking 5.5ghz, which you will need some good cooling to do (and its just a rumor right now, either way still an unreleased chip while we essentially know Ryzens' next 5 years plus the fact IPC for intel has not shifted in almost 10 years, and the new chip only brings an extra 2 cores on the same arch/power/efficiency-watt, etc)..

Intel has become second tier. But AMD is closer than ever. Both will do gaming for average users like yourself/most people for years, so don't fret.

The best chips go to servers, and AMD looks to be smashing them there. These chips filter down to desktop/gaming.

  • First, you will be paying 450+ american (and then anything a trump tarriff thing does to it) for the 9700. The AMD is 100 or so less. Hmm. I go on to explain this, and how you may expect Ryzen 7nm to best this whole scenario again.

  • ^ Don't forget the Ryzen is a 360 degree solution, its made for servers and scales right down to the desktop and even lower. They could release a straight up 8 core I suppose just for gaming, or some such. But I don't think they will need to.

  • second, the 9900 is the last hurah for intel at this point in time in terms of the CPU. The ryzen IPC when fast RAM is used and hyper threading is up to 15% better off than Intel; otherwise the gap is so close between the 2 it does not matter for the end-user. The 7nm will have higher clocks and more arch refinement. So Ryzen has more muscle than you are giving it credit for.

  • But my take is that with an extra 2 cores they may get to 5ghz, I mean they have to power 2 extra cores (and their ring bus is better for games atm but with 2 extra cores, I don't think they will be taking IPC to new heights/AMD closed that gap already+pushing further), though the best ones to my thinking could go above 5 for single/double core of course, but 5.5 on all-cores, no way, high 4's maybe less....

    Given their arch I don't think its going to further the power of all 8 cores that much at high clocks. Guys like you probably are more in tune with games - because if you were not you would already be talking up Ryzen; even if you fail to understand Ryzen does games exactly as good ultimately as the intel. No problem. I bet you have not used both side by side. There may be one or two older games which you could say "ok, its civ 6 is all you play so buy an Intel", but as we see its rare.

  • 9700 is probably more in line with people like yourself. That will contest things alonside Ryzen better and more in the price range. But even this won't last as such when Ryzen 7nm comes out. At this point, I think you will find my argument of "both sides are good" but Ryzen is better overall (don't fret), is the correct objective assumption.

  • ^ In which case you're just standing beside me and other people and pulling out your measuring stick and abrasively mentioning it to us all. No one cares. Because my argument stands - why are you even talking about these chips like that when it doesn't matter- existing chips will do everything they need to do, 8700k, ryzen 2, etc in a couple more years while 9900/9700 are still relevant. Its just that Ryzen 7nm generation will be too good when it comes out or by its end, possibly even to consider those others at all/ever.

  • ^ is that why you're worried? That window of time? Don't be. You'll still have decent intel chips and decent amd chips for any purpose you could want. But there will probably be a time, not too long, maybe, I don't know, but a time where (especially if its not now for you) where you simply could not justify an intel at all; not justify it, no, but of course you could and would still buy it - I mean all the cpu's are good for todays apps, its more the GPU's where the variance comes in. But I am simply going to go with the more future architecture and core count/scalability of Ryzen, irrespective because I understand its legitimately better/ for same end-experience.

  • Have to appreciate though, its an 8700k with 2 extra cores - its not a 'wow' chip, its just 'meh'. But it will be good for using. If you have an 8700k you probably would not want to upgrade. As I go on to say, its end of the line for the core series. Ryzen 7nm will be like a 9700 but with a more future arch and more cores again.

So you may not even see the benefits where it counts. I'm not putting down the intel as its going to be a good chip. Ryzen is not a plastic toy though - its been showing Intel up for several years now. 5.5 is all well and good, but I guess numbers over same-experience must make you feel better about the product.

You ought to relax with your ryzen-hate there, you don't need to put it down over your attachment to Intel or hustle your [flawed] arguments around, just be realistic about it. lul? Nice try? Oh dear. Here we go. Hey mate. I suppose you are young. I'm a bit older. I can see you're an ok guy but there's more to the story. I have both Intel and AMD, I am not a hardliner.

Actual bottom line before I give the long and short of it - 5.5 v Ryzen 7nm, I'm still going with Ryzen high 4's during 7nm to start (supposing its not more), and probably 5 before long.... such a chip will be flat out better when all is said and done. It doesn't make the Intel a bad chip though as of course the 5.5 will last for years and years. I'm just being realistic as a non-attached new purchaser would be not considering brand - the Ryzen is just better. Its beyond clear, because the critical things people do - high thread count apps and low(er) thread, high-clock games (though this is only changing the further into the future we go) will still be overall better, and all the other benefits. This does not mean Intel is naff, but they are up against it - even with 5.5Ghz's. No one knew Ryzen would do so well.

  • Or that they could drop the hammer at any time on Intel like I will now explain.

  • Here's the long and short of it, following >>>

Intel is at the end of the line with the 9900, the core series and all the rest.... its big, its old, its expensive to make. I have both intel and amd btw and both are currently very good. But the AMD is way more scalable. At any point in the next couple of years, even as single thread becomes less and less important, AMD - who's IPC are none the worse, and who's clocks/IPC are only going up, can simply wack down 16 cores into the mainstream. Let alone their 32 core threadripper. The mainstream chips though will probably initially come with 12 cores as standard - but make no mistake, they can drop that 16 core hammer any time they like and get away with it for cheaper, because of scalability, and because the 12 core will probably be 4x4 but with 1 core just defective and turned off, depending on how they work it for their efficiency's

Intel.... hmmm.... lol sorry - don't write lul when I just laugh right back! :) Its all good; things are rapidly changing. Even with 10nm intel won't/cant just now, even in late 2019 have their arch firing, because they are yet to make/complete/finalize it, and they can't do scaling like AMD can do - and Intel actually have a 'glue' type thing such as infinity fabric but its nothing like the AMD one. They've got to develop all that kind of thing.

Onto IPC and all that: the current IPC/clock thing is neither here nor there - even at base everything the AMD is only a couple of % behind in single, the next 7nm will clock higher, and the next ryzen will have more IPC anyway. Its said atm 15% and 20% more clocks, or some such.

News flash! Thats better than the current 8700k or near enough to it. At the moment you cannot tell the difference, even in games - no difference (forget your FPS monitor, there's no difference, those are just numbers, and you should sensibly cap the frames anyway with MSI afterburner/riva tuner or similar app)...

Then the latency will be lower, then the RAM support even better than now - and its not even bad right now.

I say again - Intel is at the end of the road atm, not just for 2019 but probably the next few years. The 5+ GHZ will be good and that 9900 won't be a bad chip, get it maybe - because it should last a few years and still be good. It probably won't do 5.5GHz thats a bit unrealistic, and the cooling will need to be good, whereas Ryzen does things without that level of cooling, but note that it takes a massive overclock to make the Intel chip that bit better for games/apps - whereas if you were doing high core-count app work you would go ryzen, because it does not play games worse.

But you can't just come out and say "troll!" and expect it to stick. Ryzen/AMD is in a very good spot atm, the entire market is saying buy, the stock people are saying buy, and the engeneers have a road map planned, its into servers, and all the rest.

/r/Amd Thread Parent Link -