Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by bit-tech, 3 May 2018.
So for productivity it's faster than the 8700k, but needs almost no power and (presumably) runs cool too?
Sounds like a contender for a very quiet photo editing and painting PC.
Definitely. It's one reason I'd maybe like to see IGPs in CPUs like this. For a mini-ITX, discrete GPU-less content editing rig it would be perfect.
So basically you want to see a 2700G
Could be fun! I did ask Jim Anderson nicely, but he said no Admittedly pretty niche, but I bet Intel's rumoured 8-core mainstream CPU will have IGP.
Damn... you’re so right in the sense that it would make for one awesome editing station.
I think an Intel 6/8C with that Vega-but-not-quite IGP bolted to it is more likely... and even then we'll probably only see that in NUC/laptop flavours... The 5675C/5775C broadwell/iris pro combo was the last time the blue corner tried anything like that on the 'regular' desktop.
When AMD announced Epyc they said next gen Epyc will be a drop in replacement with up to 64 cores.
Now of course this technically doesn't mean anything regarding Ryzen, but...
If they also double the number of cores in the modules used for Ryzen (and in turn drop the number of modules used in half) they will have enough space to fit an igpu in 8 core Ryzen.
Why doesn't this review state the clock speeds of the CPUs you are comparing it to within the results tables? It seems to just state "overclocked" rather than at what speed said CPU was overclocked to. It isn't mentioned within the test setup page either. I have the same issue with the 2700X and 2600X review: https://bit-tech.net/reviews/amd-2nd-gen-ryzen-7-2700x-and-ryzen-5-2600x-review
If you are going to compare it to other processors at least be upfront and clear with at what speeds those processors are overclocked to.
Separate names with a comma.