Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by bit-tech, 1 May 2019.
Ryzen 2600 at £132 makes anything Intel is selling look completely irrelevant, frankly.
If the rumours of a 15% IPC uptick for the 3-series chips is true, Intel are in for some hurt.
Don't forget the i3-8350K for around £125, while trash at stock when OC'd it does come into its own compared to locked down Intels and lower end Ryzen.
BT: your initial image of CPUz shows an AMD Ryzen chip read out, not the i5-9400. Also, you're missing the Threadripper cpus under load for the last Power Consumption image.
My Ryzen 5 1600x, which can be had for around £113, outdoes the £20 more expensive Ryzen 5 2600 in pretty much all of these game tests as well as keeping up and in some cases, beating the 2600X.
It's the bargain of the century.
Intel---irrelevant like back in the days of the cheap Athlons.
Doubt it's beating the 2600x as that thing is overall higher boost clock over the 1600x witch drops off a cliff like my 1800x does when it's not locked to a higher speed all cores (I locked my to 3.92ghz as any higher I have to pump far more voltage then I want to just to get a extra 80mhz)
The video seems about the same overall (slightly higher by maybe 0-10fps 2600x) also the low 1% avg and low avg 0.1% avgs are missing on that video witch is more important then concurrent fps (as on Intel they are generally higher lows due to faster single threaded performance, same on ryzen the lows on the 2000 is norm Higher then the 1000 cpus)
As my CPU is clock very close to 2700x it would not benefit me getting it over my 1800 x unless I simply don't want to overclock(and wanted 5% more performance) but the 2700x is already clocked at the maximum it can do you generally get worse overclocked result than you do when it's running stock automatic clock speeds (as it can boost better then overclocking) 3700x is going to be interesting
Did you watch the whole video? It beats it, consistently and that is stock.
Mine is sat at 4GHZ on all cores with no trouble.
And that test system is practically identical to mine.
If the 1600 or 1600x is at 4ghz then it will more or less match the 2600x (as to why I not got the 2700x I would only be gaining 5-10% upgrading just not worth it)
It be so interesting when the 3700x comes out as I decide then if I am going to go for the 9900k or 3700x towards end half of this year and see if amd has corrected the cpu cache latencies in the cpu and ram controller latencies (I play ksp and factorio and they operate about 30-40% faster on Intel side, 5ghz and 3600 14cl ram)
The video looks like the 1600x is faster but the test times are not the same between them (sometimes the 1600x and 1600 is ahead of the 2600x timestamp wise so is at times reporting higher fps then the 2600x ) with out total avg max fps, avg total 1% low and avg total 0.1% this youtube video is meaningless, your just thinking the 1600x is faster then but the 2600x when it's clocked 300mhz higher and AMD tweaked cached latencies on the cpu are about 15% better as well
If your 1600 is overclocked and locked at 4ghz you should get about same results as the 2600x
I found this youtube reviewer to be the best as he shows max avg and lows 0.1% and 1%
Other youtubers who show avg Results in as well (just not low 1% and 0.1% in detail)
Separate names with a comma.