[SOLVED] AMD six core CPU feels slower than Intel i7 4 core when I limit power, is this normal

[danny009]

I own an AMD Ryzen 5 2600 six core processor and a old Intel 4770K 4 core CPU, when I reduce CPU power from control panel (to reduce heat in summer seasons, both have stock fans) I reduce like minimum %45 max %55 for both computers, have similiar specs, 16GB RAM and a 4GB GPU, both systems installed on SSDs SATA 3. My problem is: AMD cpu feels slower in basic tasks, like when opening Windows Explorer, creating paint images and launching firefox browser with these reduction applied but it is applied to both computers. However AMD feels fantastic in video editing, is this what they keep talking about? "single core performance" thing? Because Intel 4770k have only 4 cores even with HT disabled and it runs much smoother for almost every task.

Is this normal? cores don't matter anymore?

 

[Third-Eye]

I own an AMD Ryzen 5 2600 six core processor and a old Intel 4770K 4 core CPU, when I reduce CPU power from control panel (to reduce heat in summer seasons, both have stock fans) I reduce like minimum %45 max %55 for both computers, have similiar specs, 16GB RAM and a 4GB GPU, both systems installed on SSDs SATA 3. My problem is: AMD cpu feels slower in basic tasks, like when opening Windows Explorer, creating paint images and launching firefox browser with these reduction applied but it is applied to both computers. However AMD feels fantastic in video editing, is this what they keep talking about? "single core performance" thing? Because Intel 4770k have only 4 cores even with HT disabled and it runs much smoother for almost every task.

Is this normal? cores don't matter anymore?

Depending on the workload, the per core/thread performance of both CPUs is within 1-3% without overclocking. Reducing power on the R5 2600 makes zero sense when you could spend $25-40 for a decent 120mm tower cooler and keep temps at 65-75c (depending on room temp) with 90-100% CPU usage. The CPU will work without throttling up to around 83-85c, which is 10c under the 95c thermal throttle limit.

 

[MandelaEffect2000]

It must have to do with limiting the CPU power, not actual performance. This Ryzen should outperform the Intel counterpart.

Just one thing I'd like to share though is between IPC Vs. core count, I'd much rather stay with the latter. Of course for most benchmarks and gaming etc, single-threaded performance is key and also very important, but I personally prefer having CPU headroom.

If you go and buy any new dual-core based system today, it's safe to say it won't last more than two years before you have to upgrade your processor again due to performance issues.

 

[punkncat]

In my own experience with 'zen...

I found the 1st and 2nd gen Ryzen to be very close to 4th gen Intel in a "seat of the pants" style test. I probably could (have) switched my 1200 and 4690 systems and not known a difference. I know that benchmarks quickly show the massive differences, and particularly as you go up the line.

As to your heat issue. I can understand that a great deal. My office/game room gets VERY hot in the summer.
I have to set the area up with a fan that blows the hot air out the door (pretty much directly on the thermostat) while working or gaming. The rest of the house turns to a meat locker, but...
Additionally I have to consider TDP, cooling, etc.
The difference I experience is along the line of ability to OC like crazy, great performance right into spring and then one day heat related blue screens and such. I just keep all my machines on stock clocks (now) and allow the as designed on board power management do it's thing.

 

[MandelaEffect2000]

In my own experience with 'zen...

I found the 1st and 2nd gen Ryzen to be very close to 4th gen Intel in a "seat of the pants" style test.

You mean Zen and Zen+?

 

[punkncat]

You mean Zen and Zen+?

Yes, that 1000 to 3000 step for "generation" throws me if I don't think about it.

 

[MandelaEffect2000]

Yes, that 1000 to 3000 step for "generation" throws me if I don't think about it.

Zen+ is pretty decent in terms of IPC, I think.

I currently have the Ryzen 3400GE which is a 35w TDP chip based on the Zen+ architecture, and it's pretty responsive compared to Intel offerings at that same power envelope. Of course it's still only 12nm compared to newer 7nm in the 4000 series, but the real IPC gains comes for the Ryzen 5000 series with much larger on-die cache.

 

[DSzymborski]

Yes, that 1000 to 3000 step for "generation" throws me if I don't think about it.

And it certainly doesn't help that they've been numbering the APUs with the generation after the APU.

CPU/GPU numbering schemes tend to drive me mad.

 

[drea.drechsler]

You mean Zen and Zen+?

Yes, that 1000 to 3000 step for "generation" throws me if I don't think about it.

It sounds like it's still throwing you: 3000 series are Zen 2, not Zen+.

Zen1 (or just Zen) = Gen 1 = 1000 series CPU's
Zen1+ (or Zen+ or Zen1.5) = Gen 2 = 2000 series CPU's
Zen2 = Gen 3 = 3000 series CPU's
Zen3= Gen 4 = 5000 series CPU's

Zen3's might be the most illogical of all for CPU's but the APU's...especially mobile APU's...seem to be all over the place.

 

[MandelaEffect2000]

It sounds like it's still throwing you: 3000 series are Zen 2, not Zen+.

Zen1 (or just Zen) = Gen 1 = 1000 series CPU's
Zen1+ (or Zen+ or Zen1.5) = Gen 2 = 2000 series CPU's
Zen2 = Gen 3 = 3000 series CPU's
Zen3= Gen 4 = 5000 series CPU's

Zen3's might be the most illogical of all for CPU's but the APU's...especially mobile APU's...seem to be all over the place.

Don't think so. You forgot to mention AMD APUs.

The AMD Ryzen 5 3400GE APU is based on the Zen+ architecture.

"Zen 1 and Zen+ (Ryzen 1xxx, 2xxx, 3xxx APUs) have a 64KB L1 instruction cache that’s 4-way set associative and a 2,048 µOP L0 cache. Zen 2 (Ryzen 3xxx desktop CPUs, Ryzen Mobile 4xxx) has a 32KB L1 instruction cache that’s 8-way set associative and a 4,096 µOP cache. Doubling the set associativity and the size of the µOP cache allowed AMD to cut the size of the L1 cache in half. These kinds of trade-offs are common in CPU designs."

https://www.extremetech.com/extreme...-why-theyre-an-essential-part-of-modern-chips

 

[drea.drechsler]

Don't think so. You forgot to mention AMD APUs.
....

Did you read the last line in my post?

I didn't forget...I didn't want to get into it because there are so many deviations, and growing (noting the 5750g out now), especially when your throw in iGPU architecture; I simply don't know enough of them. In fact, it probably defies categorization...except possibly to someone with a complete AMD product catalogue with full technical spec's. If I had to guess it's intended purely to rank the products by performance levels with no regard to architecture or process node. Maybe that's being too kind though.

 

[MandelaEffect2000]

Did you read the last line in my post?

I didn't forget...I didn't want to get into it because there are so many deviations, and growing (noting the 5750g out now), especially when your throw in iGPU architecture; I simply don't know enough of them. In fact, it probably defies categorization...except possibly to someone with a complete AMD product catalogue with full technical spec's. If I had to guess it's intended purely to rank the products by performance levels with no regard to architecture or process node. Maybe that's being too kind though.

Sorry. Just wanted to emphasize and add that Zen+ covers a wide range of Ryzen APUs as well, going from the Ryzen 1000 series, 2000 series to the 3000 series APU's.