15% ipc improvement is something AMD has sorely needed for awhile. How close does this get them to Intels' IPC (fully side-channel mitigated Intel)? Once these come out, can't wait to see some comparisons.
If the IPC becomes closer to Intel, and they are hitting >4.5Ghz boost, at those core counts and prices, it is really amazing! And it is good for all of us, whether you buy Intel or AMD. If you buy AMD, here is a worthy upgrade, if you buy Intel, chances are your pricing just dropped a few hundred $$..
You guys arguing that IPC isn't important are mistaken. AMD has been behind Intel in this area for years... if they catch up, it means real competition.
The IPC is also more important than ever, as the shrinking transistors manufactured with silicon have hit the speed barrier already. So overall performance improvements can only come from more cores and better IPC (which is a single core performance metric based on a single clock cycle). And we all know that many games do not benefit all that much from large core counts, so the single core performance (IPC x Ghz) matters most.
So, question for those of you already running these newer AMD cpu's and the Boost speed. The 3900x is reported to have a 3.8Ghz base with a 4.6Ghz boost speed. How does that work in real world experience? I mean is it only a few cores that get boosted to that speed, or could all of the cores boost to 4.6Ghz simultaneously? Like if you were running something on all cores?
Excited for some reviews once these come out. Hopefully we can get some comparisons to intel for a variety of workloads from somewhere. The raw benchmarks aren't bad but do not translate into gaming performance directly.
IPC was already about the same with Ryzen 2000 series when they are both clocked at 4GHz.
It was really only gaming that Intel still had an advantage when equally clocked. That might be more to do with some oddity of cache layout/interaction.