Intel Coffee Lake Vs. Ryzen: A Side-By-Side Comparison

[none12345]

You left out the best value ryzen chip the 1600. You point out in the i5 vs ryzen comparison that neither chip comes with a cooler....thats because you glossed over the one that does, which is the best value.

Why did you use the 1600x and 1500x over the 1600 in the 2nd spreadsheet chart?

-----------

You have a $467 price for a 1700x, a 1700x on release day had a msrp of 399. No mainstream site ever sold a 1700x for that high of a price. Since release the msrp was lowered to 349. If you click the link it links to a $348 price, so where did the 467 come from? This has happened over and over and over in tomshardware reviews. Ive seen at least half a dozen ryzen articles that have wrong inflated prices for ryzen, and if you extend to other products, ive seen it happen dozens of times. Its not a ryzen only price problem, its whatever system you are using to link to pricing. But every ryzen article has had wrong prices, which makes it reek of bias, even if i give the benefit of the doubt of being not intentional.

--------------

Correction to your memory speeds. There is no 2677 for ryzen, shoulda used 2666(or 2667, but 2666 is better to be consistent with intel). Also, for ryzen you quote a range of memory speeds, for intel you dont. Should either quote the top speed for both, or quote the range of speeds for both, be consistent.

 

[mnemonija]

There is a first review on youtube. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UfNMn7RWgLw
It looks like 8700k performs about the same as 1600. 7700k beats it for gaming.

 

[Dante F B Colo]

ryzen pinnacle ridge will drink all this coffee

 

[acosta.87]

Huh...I don't see an IPC chart, I see an FPS chart. I suppose we can make some inferences about how cores/threads affect the performance in a single game (i.e. 2C/4T CPUs lag behind 4C/4T CPUs, & 4C/4T CPUs lag behind 4C/8T CPUs)...but it also shows some strange results here:

• 
  ■ i7-7740X is a 4C/8T CPU just like the i7-7700K, & even has the same base/Turbo speeds. But despite supporting faster DDR4 speeds & being a newer chip (7700K released in January, 7740X released in June), it somehow was slower than the 7700K?
  ■ For the Intel CPUs, apparently once you get past 4C/8T, the performance gains start really dropping off. The i3-7350K & i7-7700K have the same per-core speed, but the i7-7700K has twice the cores/threads & gets about twice the FPS. But while the i7-7820X is maybe only 5% slower per core than the 7700K (pretty close to the margin between the i5-7600K & the i7-7700K), the 7820X barely managed to get a 2% increase despite having twice the cores/threads of the 7700K. I honestly don't think Coffee Lake is going to see that much of an improvement, when its clock speeds are barely faster than the 7700K & only adds 50% more cores.

Skylake X HEDT segment uses the new mesh architecture and has latency issues ala Ryzen with it's infinity fabric so it's a rather poor point of comparison towards coffee lake potential performance. Coffee Lake still uses ring bus architecture just like Kaby Lake. You're saying higher core counts doesn't make a difference yet Ryzen has showed decent gains in performance from games optimized for higher core counts which has helped them remain competitive with Intel despite their lower IPC which has been proved in every single benchmark much to the dismay of AMD fans. Contrary to what you claim there's no actual indicator of an IPC decrease. To put it simply: games optimized for higher core counts will definitely benefit from Intel's higher core count, higher frequency and higher IPC and that's just a fact, it doesn't take rocket science to figure it out based on current evidence.

 

[agello24]

intel is about to take a huge loss on the coffee lake.

 

[Kaz_2_]

Coffeelake fake 10nm

 

[Kaz_2_]

Bias article. Expect hugh delay for intel coffeelake. Selling at a loss

 

[shrapnel_indie]

Well for Gamers intel's higher performance(do to better IPC), now with affordable 6 cores, and a much higher single core speed (almost 1GHz) is a no brainer. Prices are pretty close. Looks like the core i7 8700K follows his predecessor (i7 7700K) and keeps the crown as the best gaming CPU, ( At the end) We all benefit for these low prices.

We have yet to see if that IPC difference is significant enough to even be noticeable and/or really worth it. The given 25% improvement given for Coffee Lake is in ONE game, and isn't enough to call a clear winner, especially since the gain is compared to one of its own with less cores/threads. It is no different than AMD cherry-picking what games and apps it uses to make its improvement gains, which is something Intel fans call AMD out for every time. (In this case it's Intel making the claims and cherry-picked one game.)

We don't cherry-pick games to proof that Intel's IPC still ahead of AMD, .. Its a fact that Intel's higher single core speed and IPC beats AMD in single core Workloads including most games. I like all technology in general, I don't pick any sides but I do recognize witch tech is better and for what purpose.

Spoiler

My point on Cherry Picking is Coffee lake vs Kaby Lake to make the 25% difference, NOT against AMD. Please don't put words in my mouth. I said that AMD did that with Ryzen to get the very best results they could.

When exactly, and how did PCGamer compile their list? Did they do it in a "shootout" with all of them tested at the same time and ensuring everything had the latest drivers and patches, or did they compile results from release testing into a single chart? Please don't give me some chart without reference to the details. Give me the link to the article the chart came with.

Performance isn't so far behind, with AMD, that they purely suck, It isn't bulldozer all over again. It's competitive enough that Ryzen and Threadripper have Intel rushing their latest CPUs out the door months early.

... but you seem to insist on ignoring all that and cry out that Intel isn't cherry picking against AMD, which isn't what I said.

As to your claims of "We don't cherry-pick games ...," does this "we" refer to you representing Intel, some publisher? In the name of full-disclosure, what relationship do you have to use "we?" Against AMD, it still isn't necessary... but against themselves, to make Coffee Lake sound even further out in front, they have only stated a single game was 25% faster than Kaby.... only one game, which can suggest that the gains for everything else in comparison to Kaby-Lake might not be so cherry. And... as I said, we won't really know until after Coffee-Lake is released and tests released.

[edit]

My Reference point:

However, Intel is promising gamers an approximately 25% improvement in performance over Kaby Lake--this is using a direct comparison of the Core i7-8700K versus i7-7700K in Gears of War.

- Intel Coffee Lake Coming October 5, Here Are The Details - by Fritz Nelson September 24, 2017 at 9:05 PM - http://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-coffee-lake-release-date-pricing,35531.html

 

[pyrogroundhog]

So the $399 everyday and common $349 discounted price on 1800X at Micro Center and Fry's is of no concern?

 

[tsnor]

The real drive behind the move is to bring 6 core to mainstream users. We expected that the motherboards had to change, they cant made them compatible with the Z170 and Z270 because the older chipset on the previous Mobos are designed for up to four cores and 2400 MHz, and new mobos are designed for up to 6 cores and 2666MHz.

Intel isn't some benevolent savior of HEDT computing. They are a business. Don't mistake my intent behind what I say, I only buy Intel right now for gaming and own a 7700k myself. Any business with shareholders to report to though has to maintain a certain amount of growth for fear of losing investor interest.

This move to 6 core CPU's in the sub $400 range isn't something Intel couldn't have done a few years ago. They just had no reason to. Beside the fact that developers don't often optimize for multi-core work loads (outside media and professional work applications), they had not real competition for the last 10 years. This lack of competition caused Intel to fall into a pattern of non-innovation and only pushing the clockspeed up in their CPUs bit by bit while staying in roughly the same thermal envelope.

If you need more proof that Intel isn't out to bring high performance computing to the common man just take a look at their track record since the debut of the Sandy Bridge line:

-Intel has stopped soldering the IHS to the CPU die. Micro fractures and too small of a package are not relevant excuses with the type of thermal cycles that CPUs go through and the fact that AMD did it on the 14nm scale profitably.
-The Skylake X line introduced the dongle that you have to purchase to RAID M.2 drives if they aren't sold my intel.
-And now a new launch 9 months after the last and they claim a new chipset is required.

I don't work for Intel so maybe I'm wrong and they couldn't have done what they have done any differently. However, their bottom line is money, just like every other computing business. with the process of R&D you can't possibly still say that this release of Hexa-core processors isn't completely reactionary and the fact that it only took them 9 months isn't because they had the ability to do it at this price point all along.

Making chips smaller is a really difficult process, we have been talking about this in our "intel's future chips and news" thread and like Juanrga and plenty of us have noted before. Back in 2014--2015 Intel planed a 10nm Cannonlake with 4/6/8 cores for mainstream. Then found big difficulties with the 14nm node, which delayed the development of the 10nm node, forced a change on the roadmaps and introduced the new refresh cycles, with 4-core Kabylake and 6-core CoffeLake.

Scaling down to the smallest nodes is getting more and more difficult. Glofo canceled its 14nm node. TSMC and Samsung avoided the problems of dealing with a 14nm node by introducing hybrid '14nm' and '16nm' nodes based in a real 20nm substratum. Glofo canceled also the 10nm node, whereas Samsung and TSMC newest '10nm' are closer to Intel 14nm than to Intel 10nm.

"...Glofo canceled its 14nm node.." Maybe I misunderstand you. GloFO started 14nm low-power early (14LPE) in 2015 and the new mainframe z14 just shipped (Sept 2017) using GLOFO 14nm with FinFETs and SOI.

:..Glofo canceled also the 10nm node.." Yes they go production with 7nm next year. https://www.anandtech.com/show/11558/globalfoundries-details-7-nm-plans-three-generations-700-mm-hvm-in-2018

 

[IInuyasha74]

I know a lot of people don't care about it, but if I were about to buy a new PC I'd be a bit more pulled towards Intel because of the iGPU. It isn't an ideal solution for gaming, but I have had to use the iGPU in my i7-3770K. Sometimes I used it for a second display, once I had a GPU die and switched to the iGPU. A few times I was shopping for a new GPU and sold my old one before the new one came in.

Long story short, I prefer to have the iGPU for emergencies. That isn't something AMD gives me. I hope they will address that in their next gen. of CPUs.

 

[samer.forums]

You missed the ECC yes/no in the table. which is important. because intel no longer offers ECC on their i3

 

[jeffreydanielbyers]

The ARTICLE says that the R5-1500X has a "700MHz base clock advantage" over the i5-8400 but that's a truly SILLY thing to say... the i5-8400 will still throttle up as needed, so if anything throttling even LOWER when NOT needed is an advantage in power savings.

 

[jeffreydanielbyers]

IINUYASHA74,
AMD will have APU's coming out. Those will be Ryzen + Vega. APU's have graphics added, but CPU's do not.

 

[Rob1C]

Intel sells horse * à la carte (price decided by multiplication).

AMD sells horse + cart (price decided by addition).

ARM sells cart - horse (horsepower subtracted).

IBM (POWER9) sells horses and carts (SMT4 or SMT8 with Scale Out or Scale Up), not for the lowest price but the most bang for the buck.

 

[IInuyasha74]

The ARTICLE says that the R5-1500X has a "700MHz base clock advantage" over the i5-8400 but that's a truly SILLY thing to say... the i5-8400 will still throttle up as needed, so if anything throttling even LOWER when NOT needed is an advantage in power savings.

You appear to be under the assumption that the entire CPU operates at its boost frequency. This is inaccurate. The i5-8400 may operate at up to 4GHz, but likely only one or two cores will operate at this frequency simultaneously. The boost frequency is staggered, so that the CPU operates at lower frequencies as more cores are active. For example, it might flow as follows:

Active Cores:
1 = 4GHz
2 = 4GHz
3 = 3.9GHz
4 = 3.8GHz
5 = 3.7GHz
6 = 3.6GHz

This is often how AMD and Intel work their turbo boost technologies. It should also be noted that in some scenarios, the CPU may operate at its base frequency and not use its turbo frequency. For example, if the core is getting exceedingly warm, or if the iGPU is in heavy use. The boost clock does help to negate the low base clock set in the i5-8400, but it does not completely overcome the issue.

As for AMD's APUs, those are nice for people that want to run without a graphics card. But to date, all of AMD's APUs have lacked L3 cache, which negatively impacts CPU performance. They do that to reduce costs, because the iGPU and the L3 cache are both rather large, and it would be expensive to implement both on an APU. That is because the APU has a relatively large and powerful iGPU. The APUs have a niche in the market, but AMD should also try to learn from Intel's example. Intel's iGPUs aren't all that powerful. They run games a few years old alright, and they give you all the basics for watching videos and web browsing. If AMD just put a smaller iGPU, perhaps between 64 and 256 EUs (half the size in Kaveri's largest configuration), inside of its high-performance Ryzen CPUs, it would be performance competitive with Intel and it could be done relatively inexpensively.

 

[samer.forums]

The ARTICLE says that the R5-1500X has a "700MHz base clock advantage" over the i5-8400 but that's a truly SILLY thing to say... the i5-8400 will still throttle up as needed, so if anything throttling even LOWER when NOT needed is an advantage in power savings.

You appear to be under the assumption that the entire CPU operates at its boost frequency. This is inaccurate. The i5-8400 may operate at up to 4GHz, but likely only one or two cores will operate at this frequency simultaneously. The boost frequency is staggered, so that the CPU operates at lower frequencies as more cores are active. For example, it might flow as follows:

Active Cores:
1 = 4GHz
2 = 4GHz
3 = 3.9GHz
4 = 3.8GHz
5 = 3.7GHz
6 = 3.6GHz

This is often how AMD and Intel work their turbo boost technologies. It should also be noted that in some scenarios, the CPU may operate at its base frequency and not use its turbo frequency. For example, if the core is getting exceedingly warm, or if the iGPU is in heavy use. The boost clock does help to negate the low base clock set in the i5-8400, but it does not completely overcome the issue.

As for AMD's APUs, those are nice for people that want to run without a graphics card. But to date, all of AMD's APUs have lacked L3 cache, which negatively impacts CPU performance. They do that to reduce costs, because the iGPU and the L3 cache are both rather large, and it would be expensive to implement both on an APU. That is because the APU has a relatively large and powerful iGPU. The APUs have a niche in the market, but AMD should also try to learn from Intel's example. Intel's iGPUs aren't all that powerful. They run games a few years old alright, and they give you all the basics for watching videos and web browsing. If AMD just put a smaller iGPU, perhaps between 64 and 256 EUs (half the size in Kaveri's largest configuration), inside of its high-performance Ryzen CPUs, it would be performance competitive with Intel and it could be done relatively inexpensively.

do you agree that APU are stupid unless they offer really good performance like the coming Xbox Scorpio ?

What is stopping AMD from releasing a similar APU ? do you think they have an agreement with Microsoft not to release them ? because people will never buy an XBOX if they can make a gaming PC the same price ?

 

[IInuyasha74]

@samer.forums : No I do not agree. APUs fill a key role in the market that allows gamers on a tight budget build a PC capable of gaming with decent settings. There is a lot more that makes the Xbox and PlayStation APUs succeed where other APUs fail. Those APUs have more powerful GPUs, but far weaker CPUs. Xbox One X and the PS4 also use GDDR5 to boost gaming performance, whereas the PC APUs are limited to DDR3 or DDR4. Games are also optimized to run as good as possible on the game consoles, where as the PC variants of the games have several settings that need adjusted and typically assume that you have more powerful hardware.

AMD could create an APU with Ryzen cores and a GPU similar to that found inside of the Xbox One X, but the size of the core might make it too expensive to be practical.

 

[YoAndy]

The ARTICLE says that the R5-1500X has a "700MHz base clock advantage" over the i5-8400 but that's a truly SILLY thing to say... the i5-8400 will still throttle up as needed, so if anything throttling even LOWER when NOT needed is an advantage in power savings.

You appear to be under the assumption that the entire CPU operates at its boost frequency. This is inaccurate. The i5-8400 may operate at up to 4GHz, but likely only one or two cores will operate at this frequency simultaneously. The boost frequency is staggered, so that the CPU operates at lower frequencies as more cores are active. For example, it might flow as follows:

Active Cores:
1 = 4GHz
2 = 4GHz
3 = 3.9GHz
4 = 3.8GHz
5 = 3.7GHz
6 = 3.6GHz

This is often how AMD and Intel work their turbo boost technologies. It should also be noted that in some scenarios, the CPU may operate at its base frequency and not use its turbo frequency. For example, if the core is getting exceedingly warm, or if the iGPU is in heavy use. The boost clock does help to negate the low base clock set in the i5-8400, but it does not completely overcome the issue.

As for AMD's APUs, those are nice for people that want to run without a graphics card. But to date, all of AMD's APUs have lacked L3 cache, which negatively impacts CPU performance. They do that to reduce costs, because the iGPU and the L3 cache are both rather large, and it would be expensive to implement both on an APU. That is because the APU has a relatively large and powerful iGPU. The APUs have a niche in the market, but AMD should also try to learn from Intel's example. Intel's iGPUs aren't all that powerful. They run games a few years old alright, and they give you all the basics for watching videos and web browsing. If AMD just put a smaller iGPU, perhaps between 64 and 256 EUs (half the size in Kaveri's largest configuration), inside of its high-performance Ryzen CPUs, it would be performance competitive with Intel and it could be done relatively inexpensively.

do you agree that APU are stupid unless they offer really good performance like the coming Xbox Scorpio ?

What is stopping AMD from releasing a similar APU ? do you think they have an agreement with Microsoft not to release them ? because people will never buy an XBOX if they can make a gaming PC the same price ?

That's quite complicated and not true, for example The Xbox One X is technologically tough to beat for $499(will be less after initial lunch date) you have a console able to play games in 4k,, On a PC you will spend a lot more if you want to be able to play at 4k resolutions. I game on My PC, but I also own multiple consoles including the Xbox One S and unlike your computer, After getting home from work I can actually comfortably lay on the couch or perhaps in bed while playing my favorite game on a 65'' inch 4K TV, I can't do that with my PC. They are both different machines for example Consoles have their share of exclusive games that'll never make their way to PC same way that PC is also where you'll first find certain games before they make their way to consoles. Consoles are made for families, they are easy to understand and need no complicated software or hardware updates or knowledge. On the other Hand my PC is way more powerful and Highly customisable at a higher price of course.

 

[spdragoo]

Huh...I don't see an IPC chart, I see an FPS chart. I suppose we can make some inferences about how cores/threads affect the performance in a single game (i.e. 2C/4T CPUs lag behind 4C/4T CPUs, & 4C/4T CPUs lag behind 4C/8T CPUs)...but it also shows some strange results here:

• 
  ■ i7-7740X is a 4C/8T CPU just like the i7-7700K, & even has the same base/Turbo speeds. But despite supporting faster DDR4 speeds & being a newer chip (7700K released in January, 7740X released in June), it somehow was slower than the 7700K?
  ■ For the Intel CPUs, apparently once you get past 4C/8T, the performance gains start really dropping off. The i3-7350K & i7-7700K have the same per-core speed, but the i7-7700K has twice the cores/threads & gets about twice the FPS. But while the i7-7820X is maybe only 5% slower per core than the 7700K (pretty close to the margin between the i5-7600K & the i7-7700K), the 7820X barely managed to get a 2% increase despite having twice the cores/threads of the 7700K. I honestly don't think Coffee Lake is going to see that much of an improvement, when its clock speeds are barely faster than the 7700K & only adds 50% more cores.

Skylake X HEDT segment uses the new mesh architecture and has latency issues ala Ryzen with it's infinity fabric so it's a rather poor point of comparison towards coffee lake potential performance. Coffee Lake still uses ring bus architecture just like Kaby Lake. You're saying higher core counts doesn't make a difference yet Ryzen has showed decent gains in performance from games optimized for higher core counts which has helped them remain competitive with Intel despite their lower IPC which has been proved in every single benchmark much to the dismay of AMD fans. Contrary to what you claim there's no actual indicator of an IPC decrease. To put it simply: games optimized for higher core counts will definitely benefit from Intel's higher core count, higher frequency and higher IPC and that's just a fact, it doesn't take rocket science to figure it out based on current evidence.

Well, I wasn't saying it, the real-life benchmarks were saying it.

But I still haven't seen any link that says, "This is the IPC that each chip is capable of". I see a "formula" that looks like it could potentially calculate IPC...but the number provided has no units listed, no source for the number, no explanation for what it represents, etc.

But I can do the same thing, except I'd actually provide a source for my numbers:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-threadripper-1950x-cpu,5167-4.html (TR 1950X test, Ashes of the Singularity)

• 
  ■ FPS = # of cores X frequency per core (in GHz) x IPC
  ■ Since IPC is unknown, it gets rewritten as IPC = FPS / (# of cores X frequency per core)
  ■ Core i7-7700K: IPC = 45.3 / (4 x 4.9) = 45.3 / 19.6 = 2.311 FPS/core-GHz
  ■ Core i9-7900X: IPC = 48.3 / (10 x 4.5) = 48.3 / 45.0 = 1.073 FPS/core-GHz
  ■ Ryzen 7 1800X: IPC = 45.3 / (8 x 4.0) = 45.3 / 32.0 = 1.416 FPS/core-GHz
  ■ TR 1950X: IPC = 48.7 / (16 x 3.9) = 48.7 / 6.4 = 0.780 FPS/core-GHz

At first glance, it sure looks like the i7-7700K not only has a whole lot more IPC than the other CPUs, & that somehow Threadripper provides even worse performance than Ryzen. The only problem is, we don't actually know how many cores are used on each CPU. If AotS only uses 8 cores/threads maximum, then we've miscalculated the actual IPC for both Threadripper & the Core i9. If AoTS only fully uses 4 cores, then we've also managed to miscalculate Ryzen's IPC. And if AotS actually utilizes more cores/threads, but doesn't utilize 100% of those cores/threads' resources, and we don't know the actual utilization, then all of the calculations become useless.

Now, if someone were to provide an actual, identified, single-threaded benchmark -- or a multithreaded benchmark that is guaranteed to use 100% of the cores/threads when testing and use those cores/threads at 100% (or as close as possible) -- then we could use that formula to calculate a number...of course, it still won't actually show IPC. IPC = Instructions Per Clock, not Benchmark results Per Clock. Especially since that number is going to change from benchmark to benchmark.

 

[samer.forums]

The ARTICLE says that the R5-1500X has a "700MHz base clock advantage" over the i5-8400 but that's a truly SILLY thing to say... the i5-8400 will still throttle up as needed, so if anything throttling even LOWER when NOT needed is an advantage in power savings.

You appear to be under the assumption that the entire CPU operates at its boost frequency. This is inaccurate. The i5-8400 may operate at up to 4GHz, but likely only one or two cores will operate at this frequency simultaneously. The boost frequency is staggered, so that the CPU operates at lower frequencies as more cores are active. For example, it might flow as follows:

Active Cores:
1 = 4GHz
2 = 4GHz
3 = 3.9GHz
4 = 3.8GHz
5 = 3.7GHz
6 = 3.6GHz

This is often how AMD and Intel work their turbo boost technologies. It should also be noted that in some scenarios, the CPU may operate at its base frequency and not use its turbo frequency. For example, if the core is getting exceedingly warm, or if the iGPU is in heavy use. The boost clock does help to negate the low base clock set in the i5-8400, but it does not completely overcome the issue.

As for AMD's APUs, those are nice for people that want to run without a graphics card. But to date, all of AMD's APUs have lacked L3 cache, which negatively impacts CPU performance. They do that to reduce costs, because the iGPU and the L3 cache are both rather large, and it would be expensive to implement both on an APU. That is because the APU has a relatively large and powerful iGPU. The APUs have a niche in the market, but AMD should also try to learn from Intel's example. Intel's iGPUs aren't all that powerful. They run games a few years old alright, and they give you all the basics for watching videos and web browsing. If AMD just put a smaller iGPU, perhaps between 64 and 256 EUs (half the size in Kaveri's largest configuration), inside of its high-performance Ryzen CPUs, it would be performance competitive with Intel and it could be done relatively inexpensively.

do you agree that APU are stupid unless they offer really good performance like the coming Xbox Scorpio ?

What is stopping AMD from releasing a similar APU ? do you think they have an agreement with Microsoft not to release them ? because people will never buy an XBOX if they can make a gaming PC the same price ?

That's quite complicated and not true, for example The Xbox One X is technologically tough to beat for $499(will be less after initial lunch date) you have a console able to play games in 4k,, On a PC you will spend a lot more if you want to be able to play at 4k resolutions. I game on My PC, but I also own multiple consoles including the Xbox One S and unlike your computer, After getting home from work I can actually comfortably lay on the couch or perhaps in bed while playing my favorite game on a 65'' inch 4K TV, I can't do that with my PC. They are both different machines for example Consoles have their share of exclusive games that'll never make their way to PC same way that PC is also where you'll first find certain games before they make their way to consoles. Consoles are made for families, they are easy to understand and need no complicated software or hardware updates or knowledge. On the other Hand my PC is way more powerful and Highly customisable at a higher price of course.

I dont think that the Scorpio is a real 4K gaming machine ... most of the 4K games will be scaled up , not real 4K gaming.

They claim 6 Tera Flpos , this is not enough for smooth 4K gaming ,you will need at least GTX 1080 ti for this and it is rated at 11 Tflops , thats almost Double the Xbox Scorpio.

 

[IInuyasha74]

It will probably render games in 4K, but just lower settings. The GPU reviews you usually see run games at 4K with max settings. That's why the 1080 Ti is the only one that really passes the mark. You can do 4K with high settings on fairly recent games (2014-2016) with high settings and AA off with a GTX 970 or GTX 1060 or better. People often forget that running AA is essentially rendering an image multiple times to create a more rounded image. AA X8 is like rendering a scene eight times. At 1080p, that's rendering roughly the same amount of pixels as rendering at 4K with AA off. It is all about quality control. Set games to medium or lower settings, and then factor in at least 30FPS (which consoles usually target instead of 60FPS), and running at 4K starts to look fairly easy.

 

[tsnor]

The ARTICLE says that the R5-1500X has a "700MHz base clock advantage" over the i5-8400 but that's a truly SILLY thing to say... the i5-8400 will still throttle up as needed, so if anything throttling even LOWER when NOT needed is an advantage in power savings.

You appear to be under the assumption that the entire CPU operates at its boost frequency. This is inaccurate. The i5-8400 may operate at up to 4GHz, but likely only one or two cores will operate at this frequency simultaneously. The boost frequency is staggered, so that the CPU operates at lower frequencies as more cores are active. For example, it might flow as follows:

Active Cores:
1 = 4GHz
2 = 4GHz
3 = 3.9GHz
4 = 3.8GHz
5 = 3.7GHz
6 = 3.6GHz

This is often how AMD and Intel work their turbo boost technologies. It should also be noted that in some scenarios, the CPU may operate at its base frequency and not use its turbo frequency. For example, if the core is getting exceedingly warm, or if the iGPU is in heavy use. The boost clock does help to negate the low base clock set in the i5-8400, but it does not completely overcome the issue.

As for AMD's APUs, those are nice for people that want to run without a graphics card. But to date, all of AMD's APUs have lacked L3 cache, which negatively impacts CPU performance. They do that to reduce costs, because the iGPU and the L3 cache are both rather large, and it would be expensive to implement both on an APU. That is because the APU has a relatively large and powerful iGPU. The APUs have a niche in the market, but AMD should also try to learn from Intel's example. Intel's iGPUs aren't all that powerful. They run games a few years old alright, and they give you all the basics for watching videos and web browsing. If AMD just put a smaller iGPU, perhaps between 64 and 256 EUs (half the size in Kaveri's largest configuration), inside of its high-performance Ryzen CPUs, it would be performance competitive with Intel and it could be done relatively inexpensively.

FWIW: Many MBs will allow a user to force all cores to boost max setting, even on locked multiplier chips. So there is advantage in a high boost clock, and not a hard limit on how many cores can reach it. That said, your points on not all cores running at boost clock freq are correct and certainly apply. All other things equal, a higher base clock is preferred.

 

[YoAndy]

The ARTICLE says that the R5-1500X has a "700MHz base clock advantage" over the i5-8400 but that's a truly SILLY thing to say... the i5-8400 will still throttle up as needed, so if anything throttling even LOWER when NOT needed is an advantage in power savings.

You appear to be under the assumption that the entire CPU operates at its boost frequency. This is inaccurate. The i5-8400 may operate at up to 4GHz, but likely only one or two cores will operate at this frequency simultaneously. The boost frequency is staggered, so that the CPU operates at lower frequencies as more cores are active. For example, it might flow as follows:

Active Cores:
1 = 4GHz
2 = 4GHz
3 = 3.9GHz
4 = 3.8GHz
5 = 3.7GHz
6 = 3.6GHz

This is often how AMD and Intel work their turbo boost technologies. It should also be noted that in some scenarios, the CPU may operate at its base frequency and not use its turbo frequency. For example, if the core is getting exceedingly warm, or if the iGPU is in heavy use. The boost clock does help to negate the low base clock set in the i5-8400, but it does not completely overcome the issue.

As for AMD's APUs, those are nice for people that want to run without a graphics card. But to date, all of AMD's APUs have lacked L3 cache, which negatively impacts CPU performance. They do that to reduce costs, because the iGPU and the L3 cache are both rather large, and it would be expensive to implement both on an APU. That is because the APU has a relatively large and powerful iGPU. The APUs have a niche in the market, but AMD should also try to learn from Intel's example. Intel's iGPUs aren't all that powerful. They run games a few years old alright, and they give you all the basics for watching videos and web browsing. If AMD just put a smaller iGPU, perhaps between 64 and 256 EUs (half the size in Kaveri's largest configuration), inside of its high-performance Ryzen CPUs, it would be performance competitive with Intel and it could be done relatively inexpensively.

do you agree that APU are stupid unless they offer really good performance like the coming Xbox Scorpio ?

What is stopping AMD from releasing a similar APU ? do you think they have an agreement with Microsoft not to release them ? because people will never buy an XBOX if they can make a gaming PC the same price ?

That's quite complicated and not true, for example The Xbox One X is technologically tough to beat for $499(will be less after initial lunch date) you have a console able to play games in 4k,, On a PC you will spend a lot more if you want to be able to play at 4k resolutions. I game on My PC, but I also own multiple consoles including the Xbox One S and unlike your computer, After getting home from work I can actually comfortably lay on the couch or perhaps in bed while playing my favorite game on a 65'' inch 4K TV, I can't do that with my PC. They are both different machines for example Consoles have their share of exclusive games that'll never make their way to PC same way that PC is also where you'll first find certain games before they make their way to consoles. Consoles are made for families, they are easy to understand and need no complicated software or hardware updates or knowledge. On the other Hand my PC is way more powerful and Highly customisable at a higher price of course.

I dont think that the Scorpio is a real 4K gaming machine ... most of the 4K games will be scaled up , not real 4K gaming.

They claim 6 Tera Flpos , this is not enough for smooth 4K gaming ,you will need at least GTX 1080 ti for this and it is rated at 11 Tflops , thats almost Double the Xbox Scorpio.

You can't compare Consoles with PC's, their software and hardware are way better optimized for just pure Gaming, For demonstration purposes, Digital Foundry had Microsoft show off a demonstration of the Forza engine running a challenging scenario and found that the Scorpio was more than up to the task of delivering at 4K and 60 frames per second. The team used the original Xbox One as a benchmark of sorts: the Scorpio was able to do at 4K what the Xbox One could do at 1080p.

 

[YoAndy]

It will probably render games in 4K, but just lower settings. The GPU reviews you usually see run games at 4K with max settings. That's why the 1080 Ti is the only one that really passes the mark. You can do 4K with high settings on fairly recent games (2014-2016) with high settings and AA off with a GTX 970 or GTX 1060 or better. People often forget that running AA is essentially rendering an image multiple times to create a more rounded image. AA X8 is like rendering a scene eight times. At 1080p, that's rendering roughly the same amount of pixels as rendering at 4K with AA off. It is all about quality control. Set games to medium or lower settings, and then factor in at least 30FPS (which consoles usually target instead of 60FPS), and running at 4K starts to look fairly easy.

I watched microsoft live showing the XBOX One X playing Forza at true 4k resolutions.
Eurogamer showed that the Xbox One X is insanely powerful, the most powerful console ever, in fact, and capable of running Forza at 60fps in 4K native resolution. The detail and graphical effects are just madness for a console, but it also runs smoothly and cleanly. Essentially, this is indeed a custom, top-of-the-line gaming PC crammed into a console shell. To get equivalent performance on Forza, Microsoft showcased the same graphical setup on a PC with a $500 GTX 1080 GPU; that's just the GPU price, which is the same as the entire console!
The rumoured spec line-up has proven accurate, but there are a few additional features which were unexpected. Most notably, a liquid cooling system of the kind you typically see on big-money, high-performance gaming PCs. This is the first time such a system has been implemented in a mass-market console.