AMD vs Intel what metric should be used?

How should Ryzen be compared to Skylake/Kabylake?

  • # Physical Cores

    Votes: 3 4.8%

  • # Total Cores

    Votes: 1 1.6%

  • IPC

    Votes: 31 50.0%

  • Clockspeed

    Votes: 1 1.6%

  • Price

    Votes: 26 41.9%
  • Total voters
    62
S

Stoly

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
6,713
Now that Ryzen is looming on the horizon, cpu comparisons are closer then ever. But how should Ryzen be compared vs Skylake/Kabylake to ensure its fair?
 
Umm, all of those?
You could have a CPU with amazing IPC, shitty clockspeed, amazing price, great number of cores, and it will still be shit for a lot of people. There will be tradeoffs and those tradeoffs will impact different workloads differently.

For enthusiast gamers, high frequency and high IPC really matters (144Hz).
For mid-level gamers, those matter less (60Hz).
For heavy multitasking/encoding/etc you can sacrifice significant frequency and still be a great value because of cores and price.
 
How it performs in common applications/games, overclock and power consumption. Then you got all the metrics you need for anything else.
 
Last edited:
None of the above. Personal preference goes a long way in determining your own decision. Also, what you are using the computer for and how long you plan on keeping it without upgrades is important as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: noko
like this
Shintai said:
How it performs in common applications/games, overclock and power consumption. Then you got all the metrics you need for anything else.
Click to expand...
Yea synthetics don't mean much outside of marketing and engineers smack talking if the end product doesn't throw down good real life performance
 
I voted price. I'm really looking forward to Ryzen but all it needs to do for me is be close to the 6700/7700k. I think intel really needs some price competition otherwise we will keep get this trickling bunch of nothing really noteworthy and a GPU that probably none of us gamers actually use.
 
How well AMD will implement instruction sets. I do a lot of BOINC data processing and AMD's AVX missed the boat for what ever reason.
Their AVX performs poorly where as Intel works so much faster. If they get AVX, AVX2 and other instructions to work as well as Intels, I will come back to AMD
Either way I hope the AMD CPU does well for the sake of competition.
 
Its all up to use case.

I run just fine with a 14 core CPU with a low clockspeed, for 3D rendering and productivity. For games its not the best, but thats the tradeoff of price.

For the average person, haswell-level IPC will have no discernable difference in performance from skylake IPC. The added cores will help in general computing, but only so much as the user pushes. For games, the added cores wont add much, but the skylake IPC wont add much either.

Skylake 4/4 versus Ryzen 6/12 will be a similar comparison to Skylake 4/4 versus Haswell 6/12. A BIG jump in a lot of games favouring the Haswell, by a noticeable margin.

Whereas Skylake 4/8 versus Ryzen 8/16 will be a simillar comparison to Skylake 4/8 versus Haswell 8/16: which in most games favours the Skylake 4/8, if only slightly due to the games reaching thread saturation.
 
For this launch, I really think that the synthetic benchmarks will be important for the low tech consumers.
Getting AMD into the general conversation outside of these forums has to be the major goal of this launch and good scores on synthetics goes a long way towards getting that done. IMO.
 
Range is way too narrow to select one or the other whatever. How do you compare two Intel CPU's to each other? Do it the same way.
 
For me it will be FPS. If it is within 10-15% in most games of a 7700k I will buy it, I'm willing to sacrifice a little bit of FPS to support a brand that I like but I'm not willing to give up 50% which is the case right now in some of the games that I play.
 
Soulcatcher668 said:
For this launch, I really think that the synthetic benchmarks will be important for the low tech consumers.
Getting AMD into the general conversation outside of these forums has to be the major goal of this launch and good scores on synthetics goes a long way towards getting that done. IMO.
Click to expand...


Sandra is an excellent synthetic benchmark Futuremark Firestrike is another good one.
 
os2wiz said:
Performance per watt makes AMD Ryzen the hands down winner. 95 watts vs 145 watts is a big winner for 1800X vs I7 6900k. Same is true for 6 and 4 core Ryzens.
Click to expand...

You think Ryzen is as fast in 256bit AVX2/FMA loads that is the only thing that can push it near 140W? Without AVX2/FMA with 256bit cache my 6700K is 65W or less. In CB15 for example its 58W.
 
Probably 6 months ago I picked up an E5-2690. Great CPU for virtualization but holy power consumption....
I'm looking at the 65-watt 8 cores of course. Hoping they are significantly faster than my E5-2690 and should cost only a little bit more. Really need official ECC support if this is going to be a replacement.
 
os2wiz said:
Performance per watt makes AMD Ryzen the hands down winner. 95 watts vs 145 watts is a big winner for 1800X vs I7 6900k. Same is true for 6 and 4 core Ryzens.
Click to expand...


can't look at it that way, Intel and AMD don't calculate their TDP the same way...... Ya need to look at individual applications and go from there.
 
Weird poll but if I have to pick one I'm going with IPC. Overclocking is another one.
It's all going to come down to how much single-threaded performance we have to sacrifice (vs Intel) and how much they cost.

Multi-core scaling is pretty obvious at this point so I don't even care if it gets tested.
 
It's too bad there isn't an easy thermal comparison, like performance per gram calorie or something like that.
razor1 said:
can't look at it that way, Intel and AMD don't calculate their TDP the same way...... Ya need to look at individual applications and go from there.
Click to expand...
 
Price/performance...it's really all that matters in a desktop application.
 
kirbyrj said:
Price/performance...it's really all that matters in a desktop application.
Click to expand...
That's probably true unless you care about passive cooling. I think there is a reason why fanless enthusiasts choose Intel. Like others, I want to AMD to up their game in PPGC (performance per gram calorie).
 
Last edited:
the_servicer said:
That's probably true unless you care about passive cooling. I think there is a reason why fanless enthusiasts choose Intel. Like others, I want to AMD to up their game in PPGC (performance per gram calorie).
Click to expand...

Relatively few care about passive cooling compared to an absolute price/performance metric, but passive cooling is a factor for some.
 
This metric:

rd570i21bihy.png
 
/dev/null said:
????
Click to expand...

Icare about these metrics: Footnotes to Lisa Su's Launch of Ryzen 2 days ago in San Francisco indicate Ryzen beat Piledriver IPC by 53% and Excavator IPC by 64% that places Ryzen at above Haswell levels of IPC, between Haswell and Broadwell. Where is Juanrga now?????
 
If we use the GPU logic, we should only measure it by if it's a "full/fat" design or by the size of the die. Or maybe based solely on if it uses HBM or some other memory type. Actually performance, power, and cost are irrelevant.

In reality, it's going to be price in various ranges. Best CPU under $200. Best CPU for the $300-400 range. Best desktop CPU at any price. Kinda like GPUs are really ranked.
 
performance/price i can do division myself. Not to say that prices differ from region to region.
 
On a thermal basis, how does Ryzen actually perform? In order to match Intel's performance, does Ryzen generate more heat or less heat?
 
the_servicer said:
On a thermal basis, how does Ryzen actually perform? In order to match Intel's performance, does Ryzen generate more heat or less heat?
Click to expand...

All the reviews seem to show it's about the same. Ryzen is a bit better at idle, but under load they're both spitting out the same amount of heat. So either AMD's TDP numbers are too low or Intel's are too high.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top