Intel vs Ryzen Single Core Performance

[ethanmarti1598]

This is a question that has been going around in my head for a while, and I haven't been able to find a satisfactory answer yet. Here's to hoping folks at Tom's can finally answer this for me .

So I'm always hearing people saying Intel is better than Ryzen for gaming because of higher IPC and single thread performance. Conversely, Ryzen is better for multithreaded tasks like rendering because of more cores and/or threads at a given price point. However, all benchmarks I've found online seem to show that single core performance for Ryzen 2nd gen and Coffee Lake are very similar, with Coffee Lake only having a slight advantage.

If this is so, what exactly makes Intel better for gaming than Ryzen? The increase in single core performance seems too small to make a difference.

 

[SgtScream]

It's not only about single/multi threaded performance. You have to factor in what you want to use your computer for. For example PUBG and all other games have their respective game engines. Most game engines are optimized for Intel based processors. I'd like to think that because Ryzen is 2 years old that games will have optimization for their game engines, to level the playing field for Ryzen, but you never know.

 

[jeremyj_83]

The biggest advantage Intel has, especially for their K processors, is a very high turbo frequency. The 2-7% IPC advantage comes more into play when it has a 500MHz higher boost rate for single threaded processes.

 

[coozie7]

Yes, Intel has a IPC advantage, and a lot ( most ) software is optimised for their designs, which is an obvious help, but Ryzen also has a memory latency and communication disadvantage, while Intel cores are on a single, massive die, most Ryzen parts need to communicate over a ' much ' longer path across the small PCB that holds and connects the CCX dies.
And yes, Intel parts often have a clockspeed advantage in lightly threaded applications where they can boost one or two cores well beyond the frequencies available to even the fastest Ryzen part, an advantage that is further increased when the CPU is overclocked, something Ryzen doesn't do well-if at all.

 

[dontlistentome]

I find that 'better' or 'faster' is a matter of perspective. Example:

CPU A gets 95fps average in a game. CPU B gets 90fps average in a game.

If you stick to technicalities, CPU A is faster, no question about it. If you care about the real world, then both CPUs are the same. You put the average person in front of two computers running that game and they will see no difference between 90fps and 95fps.

So I think most people are trying to be correct technically when they say Intel is faster. Most times I try to remind people, especially if they are on a budget, that the most important thing to get when you choose your component is a component that does what you need. If you need 60fps, then the difference between 90fps and 95fps is irrelevant to you.

Some people want the fastest, those are the people who care about the technical differences in speed.

 

[ethanmarti1598]

Yes, Intel has a IPC advantage, and a lot ( most ) software is optimised for their designs, which is an obvious help, but Ryzen also has a memory latency and communication disadvantage, while Intel cores are on a single, massive die, most Ryzen parts need to communicate over a ' much ' longer path across the small PCB that holds and connects the CCX dies.
And yes, Intel parts often have a clockspeed advantage in lightly threaded applications where they can boost one or two cores well beyond the frequencies available to even the fastest Ryzen part, an advantage that is further increased when the CPU is overclocked, something Ryzen doesn't do well-if at all.

I've heard that with higher RAM speed, Ryzen's Infinity Fabric yields very good latency results, comparable to Intel CPUs. Do you know anything about this?

Ryzen overclocks is something I haven't heard much about, so I'll take your word for it. It's always hard to generalize overclocking potential anyway, what with the silicon lottery and such.

Thanks for the reply, this explains it fairly well. Hopefully DX12 will change this a bit.

 

[ethanmarti1598]

I find that 'better' or 'faster' is a matter of perspective. Example:

CPU A gets 95fps average in a game. CPU B gets 90fps average in a game.

If you stick to technicalities, CPU A is faster, no question about it. If you care about the real world, then both CPUs are the same. You put the average person in front of two computers running that game and they will see no difference between 90fps and 95fps.

So I think most people are trying to be correct technically when they say Intel is faster. Most times I try to remind people, especially if they are on a budget, that the most important thing to get when you choose your component is a component that does what you need. If you need 60fps, then the difference between 90fps and 95fps is irrelevant to you.

Some people want the fastest, those are the people who care about the technical differences in speed.

You speak undeniable truth, sir . I did want a technical explanation though, I probably won't upgrade my rig in a while anyway. Thanks for the tip though, I'll probably stick to 1080p@60fps even if I do upgrade. A poor man's rig XD

 

[kerberos_20]

not sure how intel fares, but here is mine ryzen 1 which has higher latencies than ryzen 2

 

[kerberos_20]

and with 3400mhz with somewhat loose timings i do get more fps in games