Ivy Bridge vs Ryzen IPC?

dholcombe

n00b
Joined
Mar 24, 2017
Messages
40
Are there any direct comparisons of Ivy Bridge vs Ryzen? I have a 3570k and am considering moving to an R5 1600x. Based on looking at various articles and Kaby Lake vs Ryzen I can make some pretty good estimates of IPC differences, but I was wondering if there have been any direct comparisons. Long winded explanation follows:

A new build is primarily motivated by the need to build something for my MAME cabinet. My MAME cabinet computer (an old Athlon X2 4800+) died...maybe the motherboard...who knows. I thought it was the PSU at first as power was flickering on/off pre-POST and when I opened the PSU there was at least one swollen cap. So without further diagnosis I ordered an SFX Silverstone ST45SF-G to replace the ATX PSU in my main computer as I'd been wanting to get a smaller PSU in my Coolermaster elite 120 anyways. Replaced the power supply in my main computer and moved the old one to the MAME cabinet PC...same behavior so it wasn't the power supply.

I plan to move the 3570k to the MAME cabinet and build a new ITX system. I will probably get either an Intel i7 7700k OR a Ryzen R5 1600x. The 7700k is clearly a better performer in current games, but I'd like to better understand how the R5 1600x compares on an IPC basis to the 3570k it would be replacing as I haven't been unhappy with the 3570k performance yet and I'd be gaining +2 cores/+8 threads vs the 3570k.

New account, but I've been around the forums infrequently for ~15 years, but have forgotten the password as I haven't posted in around a year and the email my account was attached to has ceased to exist as well.
 
of the reviews i've read guru3d's is the one i know that at least had an ivy bridge cpu in this charts, not sure if any others did. but with the recent bios updates you might see some new reviews popping up to compare current to launch performance.

http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/amd-ryzen-7-1700x-review,1.html
Thanks for the info. I will be keeping an eye on things over the next month or so as the Ryzen eco-system isn't developed to the point I'd like it to be yet. I'm waiting on more ITX boards and the R5 before making any decisions. The R7 1800x @$500 is more than I want to spend and the other processors in the R7 series have lower single core frequencies that I'd like. Whatever CPU I end up with I'm likely to be GPU bound gaming @2560x1440 in any case so I'm currently leaning towards the R5 over the 7700k due to a gut feeling the 2 extra cores adding a bit more future proofing as compared to the extra frequency/single thread IPC of the 7700k.
 
yeah it really depends on what you're using the processor for and whether or not the extra cores will impact you. i'm kinda surprised we haven't seen the X300 chipset released yet, guessing they're waiting til the R5 is released. but that chipset does sound interesting for ITX platforms.
 
The [H] review has Sandy Bridge at 4.5ghz. IIRC Ivy is about the same as Sandy.
 
yeah it really depends on what you're using the processor for and whether or not the extra cores will impact you. i'm kinda surprised we haven't seen the X300 chipset released yet, guessing they're waiting til the R5 is released. but that chipset does sound interesting for ITX platforms.
Everything other than video encoding pretty much... Games, development, Adobe Lightroom, audio encoding, more development, sitting in the chair staring at the screen while the CPU does nothing (is this overkill for that? maybe I should get a z80)
 
Can't say much on the 6-core Ryzen, but I went from a 2600k (Sandy Bridge) to a Ryzen 1700X, and even in single-threaded uses, this CPU is noticeably quicker than the 2600k. In multi-threaded uses, it dominates the 2600k. I render out of After Effects (same video) in less than 1/3 the time. You may actually see similar results, since you're going from a 4c/4t CPU to a proposed 6c/12t CPU. I went from 4c/8t to 8c/16t.

On IPC, Ryzen is quicker than Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge even in gaming, where Ryzen is at its weakest. Overall, Userbenchmark has the IPC of Ryzen to between 9% slower than Kaby Lake to about dead-even with Kaby Lake, depending on a number of factors. Of course... Kaby Lake clocks much higher, both stock and OC, so it still wins handily in single-threaded and lightly-threaded tasks.

The 1600X is more of a competitor with the 7600k, where the difference is likely to be more extreme. I expect the 1600X will absolutely dominate the 7600k in multithreaded tasks. Lightly-threaded tasks, the 1600X will be little different than the 1800X. But 7600k still the better gaming-only processor.

Buy accordingly. Mixed-use with multi-threaded tasks and gaming... go Ryzen flavor of choice (depending on budget), unless you have wads of cash. Mostly gaming... go 7600k or 7700k, as budget allows.
 
Are there any direct comparisons of Ivy Bridge vs Ryzen? I have a 3570k and am considering moving to an R5 1600x. Based on looking at various articles and Kaby Lake vs Ryzen I can make some pretty good estimates of IPC differences, but I was wondering if there have been any direct comparisons. Long winded explanation follows:

A new build is primarily motivated by the need to build something for my MAME cabinet. My MAME cabinet computer (an old Athlon X2 4800+) died...maybe the motherboard...who knows. I thought it was the PSU at first as power was flickering on/off pre-POST and when I opened the PSU there was at least one swollen cap. So without further diagnosis I ordered an SFX Silverstone ST45SF-G to replace the ATX PSU in my main computer as I'd been wanting to get a smaller PSU in my Coolermaster elite 120 anyways. Replaced the power supply in my main computer and moved the old one to the MAME cabinet PC...same behavior so it wasn't the power supply.

I plan to move the 3570k to the MAME cabinet and build a new ITX system. I will probably get either an Intel i7 7700k OR a Ryzen R5 1600x. The 7700k is clearly a better performer in current games, but I'd like to better understand how the R5 1600x compares on an IPC basis to the 3570k it would be replacing as I haven't been unhappy with the 3570k performance yet and I'd be gaining +2 cores/+8 threads vs the 3570k.

New account, but I've been around the forums infrequently for ~15 years, but have forgotten the password as I haven't posted in around a year and the email my account was attached to has ceased to exist as well.

R7 1700 vs i5 3570k but only gaming:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/3176...ming-pc-or-why-you-should-never-preorder.html
 



Some people need to seriously read the damn article. The 1700 has a 3.0ghz base clock with single thread boost to 3.7ghz. And this very interesting quote in the article by Brad the editor -
The Core i5-3570K was long ago overclocked from its stock 3.5GHz to 4.2GHz to put more pep in its step.


Technically it had a 1.2ghz advantage on 3 cores and a 500mhz advantage on a single thread. (Which Ryzen has to play well within the 65w power envelope.)

If you think this is fair then this is an absolute JOKE.
 
Last edited:
Some people need to seriously read the damn article. The 1700 has a 3.0ghz base clock with single thread boost to 3.7ghz. And this very interesting quote in the article by Brad the editor -


Technically it had a 1.2ghz advantage on 3 cores and a 500mhz advantage on a single thread. (Which Ryzen has to play well within the 65w power envelope.

If you think this is fair then this is an absolute JOKE.


Indeed. The games where Ryzen performs worst (at the time - Ashes no longer performs badly on Ryzen) were selected and benchmarked. A stock CPU was then compared to an OC'd CPU. Then, on top of that, the author calls it a "3.7GHz" Ryzen, when in fact, it was a 3.0 GHz Ryzen with a 3.7GHz single core boost. Given that the OP's question was about overall IPC, the article is absolutely useless for this. The article might as well be titled "what happens when I give one CPU every single advantage I can, and benchmark it against a stock CPU in its absolute worst light."
 
That article doesn't prove anything IPC wise.

If the author had overclocked the Ryzen, too, and had a more comprehensive suite of test games and benchmarks, it might have been useful. Kyle tested against an OC'd 2600k with an OC'd Ryzen, and that was interesting!
 
Those aren't really a good example for the OP. The Far Cry games are, aside from Rise of the Tomb Raider, the *worst* for Ryzen. Ashes of the Singularity was also one of the worst... but isn't anymore since the patch was released.

Of course, this does beg the question. Does someone with a 3570k even need to upgrade?

For gaming usage... I would say for the most part no. Same with a 2500k. People upgrading to Ryzen purely for gaming and basic usage should be on CPUs lower than a 2500k.
 
Some people need to seriously read the damn article. The 1700 has a 3.0ghz base clock with single thread boost to 3.7ghz. And this very interesting quote in the article by Brad the editor -


Technically it had a 1.2ghz advantage on 3 cores and a 500mhz advantage on a single thread. (Which Ryzen has to play well within the 65w power envelope.)

If you think this is fair then this is an absolute JOKE.

This isn't an AMD vs Intel thing... that article is appalling on so many levels and an insult to science. That author should have his journalism license revoked.. (if only that was really a thing)
The author claims he leaves it overclocked because (Remember: Real-world comparison between two systems! Should I upgrade?)
Well.. I'd like to know in what real-world exists a gamer who would overclock their 3570K but would not also overclock the 1700 to ~4.0ghz ?
 
For gaming usage... I would say for the most part no. Same with a 2500k. People upgrading to Ryzen purely for gaming and basic usage should be on CPUs lower than a 2500k.

And to be fair, for purely gaming and basic usage, they should buy an Intel quad, not Ryzen. Ryzen is for mixed-use prosumer (who may still game sometimes), streamers/heavy multitaskers, and budget workstations. Intel quads for gaming, and Intel 8+ core chips for studio workstations where money is no object. That's the buying matrix, IMHO.
 
I've seen the PC world article and I guess I'd forgotten about it. I didn't put a lot of stock in it as the article had a clear bias towards wanting to portray things in a bad light given the title. Anything good was largely swept under the rug and the guy kept his 3570k clocked at 4.2 ghz.and did not overclock the Ryzen. Hardly a fair comparison. Sure, hardware doesn't advance as fast as it once did and you aren't going to double performance on the cheap every year or two, but...come on.
 
Side note: I kicked the immediate need for an upgrade a bit further down the road. Ordered a Haswell i3 4360, ITX mobo, 4 GB single SODIMM for $138 shipped to put in the MAME cabinet. Should be arriving this week. The Haswell mobo is a pretty good one to be on long term for the MAME cabinet as takes the last Intel chips with native VGA out. It feels a little bit weird having a newer gen chip going into the MAME cabinet than is on my destop even if it is an i3.

Still interested in seeing how the Ivy Bridge vs Ryzen IPC turns out as I have some ideas for what to do with a 3rd PC.
 
I have a i7 3770k ocd to 4.5. Was using it for gaming only buy now I'm starting to make some video content... I'm thinking about some Ryzen love...
 
Everyone should look at this:
https://www.hardocp.com/article/2017/05/26/definitive_amd_ryzen_7_realworld_gaming_guide/13

And from conclusion it was written:
"Overall, the Intel Kaby Lake 7700K CPU at 5GHz Z270 system provided the highest performance while gaming. Didn’t matter if it was single-GPU, multi-GPU, 1080p, or 1440p, or 4K, the most wins (at least in terms of raw data) are with the 7700K at an overclocked 5GHz.

Overall, the AMD Ryzen 7 1700X at an overclocked 4GHz provided the same performance and gameplay experience as the Intel 2600K on Z68 at 4.5GHz. It was most competitive with the 2600K CPU with both overclocked to the highest levels.

In terms of gameplay experience we felt the 2600K and Ryzen CPUs "felt" the same while gaming in single-GPU at any resolution."

The fact remain, after all these years, Ryzen is barely on par with Sandybridge, and it is already bottlenecking the GTX1080ti. This is very bad news for newer faster video cards. If you want to replace your CPU in two years, then you can go with Ryzen but not at the ridiculous prices they are charging. The top level ryzen needs to be no more than $250 to mitigate this risk. Otherwise you are better off with a 7700k at $280 than a 1700x at $320.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wow with that name and that post wow. Yeah it does not bottleneck a 1080ti heck at 4k I have seen Ryzen beat a 7700k with a 1080ti, it really depends on the game engine a 7700k is a waste of cash unless all you do is game. The only thing [H] article shows you is the video card is more important then the processor and on older games IPC is more important then cores.
 
Everyone should look at this:
https://www.hardocp.com/article/2017/05/26/definitive_amd_ryzen_7_realworld_gaming_guide/13

And from conclusion it was written:
"Overall, the Intel Kaby Lake 7700K CPU at 5GHz Z270 system provided the highest performance while gaming. Didn’t matter if it was single-GPU, multi-GPU, 1080p, or 1440p, or 4K, the most wins (at least in terms of raw data) are with the 7700K at an overclocked 5GHz.

Overall, the AMD Ryzen 7 1700X at an overclocked 4GHz provided the same performance and gameplay experience as the Intel 2600K on Z68 at 4.5GHz. It was most competitive with the 2600K CPU with both overclocked to the highest levels.

In terms of gameplay experience we felt the 2600K and Ryzen CPUs "felt" the same while gaming in single-GPU at any resolution."

The fact remain, after all these years, Ryzen is barely on par with Sandybridge, and it is already bottlenecking the GTX1080ti. This is very bad news for newer faster video cards. If you want to replace your CPU in two years, then you can go with Ryzen but not at the ridiculous prices they are charging. The top level ryzen needs to be no more than $250 to mitigate this risk. Otherwise you are better off with a 7700k at $280 than a 1700x at $320.
I agree with you, but only if you are coming from the perspective of a person who ONLY relies on the performance of his computer for playing games.

Throw other types of workloads, especially parallel ones like video encoding, data processing, or even spreadsheet manipulation, and ryzen looks like the clear choice. Even more so once you look at the power consumption figures.
 
Can't say much on the 6-core Ryzen, but I went from a 2600k (Sandy Bridge) to a Ryzen 1700X, and even in single-threaded uses, this CPU is noticeably quicker than the 2600k. In multi-threaded uses, it dominates the 2600k. I render out of After Effects (same video) in less than 1/3 the time. You may actually see similar results, since you're going from a 4c/4t CPU to a proposed 6c/12t CPU. I went from 4c/8t to 8c/16t.

On IPC, Ryzen is quicker than Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge even in gaming, where Ryzen is at its weakest. Overall, Userbenchmark has the IPC of Ryzen to between 9% slower than Kaby Lake to about dead-even with Kaby Lake, depending on a number of factors. Of course... Kaby Lake clocks much higher, both stock and OC, so it still wins handily in single-threaded and lightly-threaded tasks.

The 1600X is more of a competitor with the 7600k, where the difference is likely to be more extreme. I expect the 1600X will absolutely dominate the 7600k in multithreaded tasks. Lightly-threaded tasks, the 1600X will be little different than the 1800X. But 7600k still the better gaming-only processor.

Buy accordingly. Mixed-use with multi-threaded tasks and gaming... go Ryzen flavor of choice (depending on budget), unless you have wads of cash. Mostly gaming... go 7600k or 7700k, as budget allows.
What was the OC on the 2600k?
 
What was the OC on the 2600k?

4.2GHz, for a time. Eventually, after a shitload of mining, I backed down to 4GHz. Toward the end of its life, I stopped OCing it altogether. It operated under heavy rendering load and such. Higher overclocks became problematic when needing hours+ of rendering stability.
 
4.2GHz, for a time. Eventually, after a shitload of mining, I backed down to 4GHz. Toward the end of its life, I stopped OCing it altogether. It operated under heavy rendering load and such. Higher overclocks became problematic when needing hours+ of rendering stability.
Thanks. I have two i5-2500K in my house one clocked at 5GHz, the other at 4.7 both on air. I am looking to upgrade to 6+ cores but not liking the price/performance of Intel's offerings. Have been watching how Ryzen is doing but can't stand how little it overclocks.
 
Thanks. I have two i5-2500K in my house one clocked at 5GHz, the other at 4.7 both on air. I am looking to upgrade to 6+ cores but not liking the price/performance of Intel's offerings. Have been watching how Ryzen is doing but can't stand how little it overclocks.

You may want to hold off until Zen+ comes out as that should improve the overclocking on the chip. Also if Ryzen and Epyc do well Intel will likely finally respond by lowering prices so even if you go with a Intel when Zen+ comes out you likely will pay less.
 
You may want to hold off until Zen+ comes out as that should improve the overclocking on the chip. Also if Ryzen and Epyc do well Intel will likely finally respond by lowering prices so even if you go with a Intel when Zen+ comes out you likely will pay less.

It you have the patience, this is really good advice. It is really disappointing the Ryzen's prices are so high and its relative performance to intel so underwhelming that Intel is getting away with murder so to speak.
 
Everyone should look at this:
https://www.hardocp.com/article/2017/05/26/definitive_amd_ryzen_7_realworld_gaming_guide/13

And from conclusion it was written:
"Overall, the Intel Kaby Lake 7700K CPU at 5GHz Z270 system provided the highest performance while gaming. Didn’t matter if it was single-GPU, multi-GPU, 1080p, or 1440p, or 4K, the most wins (at least in terms of raw data) are with the 7700K at an overclocked 5GHz.

Overall, the AMD Ryzen 7 1700X at an overclocked 4GHz provided the same performance and gameplay experience as the Intel 2600K on Z68 at 4.5GHz. It was most competitive with the 2600K CPU with both overclocked to the highest levels.

In terms of gameplay experience we felt the 2600K and Ryzen CPUs "felt" the same while gaming in single-GPU at any resolution."

The fact remain, after all these years, Ryzen is barely on par with Sandybridge, and it is already bottlenecking the GTX1080ti. This is very bad news for newer faster video cards. If you want to replace your CPU in two years, then you can go with Ryzen but not at the ridiculous prices they are charging. The top level ryzen needs to be no more than $250 to mitigate this risk. Otherwise you are better off with a 7700k at $280 than a 1700x at $320.

Not really dude, now this is just becoming annoying. Although, thanks for the thread resurrection, it is nice to see some regulars give good advice. :)
 
It you have the patience, this is really good advice. It is really disappointing the Ryzen's prices are so high and its relative performance to intel so underwhelming that Intel is getting away with murder so to speak.

Not really dude, Ryzen's prices are fantastic, it is not AMD's fault that Intel just cannot get their pricing right. Personally, I think now is the time to upgrade, especially if you are coming from a 2500K or 3570K, especially with all the new features included in the new chipset and mainboards. :) Now, that said, if someone does not want to spend the money at this time, that is fine and I do not think their wallet will complain. That said, if someone where to upgrade, they would definitely benefit for years to come. (Not AMD's fault that Nvidia was purposely causing their hardware to have issues on AMD's platform, at least initially.)
 
Sales and price reductions say otherwise...

Not really dude, sales and price reductions are part of life. :) Not everyone charges $1700 for a 10 core processor just because. :D Cool thing is, it is 2017 and these processors are being optimized for and Intel is unable to stop it. :)
 
The low sales and the price reduction on RyZen chips mean they were overpriced, and overpriced is the contrary of "fantastic" for consumers. Remember not all 10-core chips are the same: There are 10-core processors and 10-core processors. AMD cannot charge $1700 for a hypothetical 10-core TR, because the performance is not here.
 
The low sales and the price reduction on RyZen chips mean they were overpriced, and overpriced is the contrary of "fantastic" for consumers. Remember not all 10-core chips are the same: There are 10-core processors and 10-core processors. AMD cannot charge $1700 for a hypothetical 10-core TR, because the performance is not here.
PROOF? Based on Amazon rankings the Ryzens occupy the top spot in the UK and 3 within the top 10 in both the UK and US. AMD over the past 3 or so years has traditionally released at one price then reduced said price shortly there after, not huge decreases as some of you like to infer with the intent in causing some consumer panic. Look at any site or walk into any tech store and you will see Ryzen front and center, not what you do with slow selling products, but it is what you do with hot items.
 
It you have the patience, this is really good advice. It is really disappointing the Ryzen's prices are so high and its relative performance to intel so underwhelming that Intel is getting away with murder so to speak.
It is absolutely true. I was reading Intel's 10k filing last night. It is amazing how much stuff you can learn from it. They basically have been selling less cpus every year while raising prices. Say revenues are up 10%, but unit shipments are down 8% and prices are up 12% kind of thing. "How to shrink your market and kill it" , by Intel.
 
Not really dude, Ryzen's prices are fantastic, it is not AMD's fault that Intel just cannot get their pricing right. Personally, I think now is the time to upgrade, especially if you are coming from a 2500K or 3570K, especially with all the new features included in the new chipset and mainboards. :) Now, that said, if someone does not want to spend the money at this time, that is fine and I do not think their wallet will complain. That said, if someone where to upgrade, they would definitely benefit for years to come. (Not AMD's fault that Nvidia was purposely causing their hardware to have issues on AMD's platform, at least initially.)
I think he was addressing my post in which I stated that I want high overclock. I am at 5GHz.
 
It is absolutely true. I was reading Intel's 10k filing last night. It is amazing how much stuff you can learn from it. They basically have been selling less cpus every year while raising prices. Say revenues are up 10%, but unit shipments are down 8% and prices are up 12% kind of thing. "How to shrink your market and kill it" , by Intel.

That's because people move up in SKUs. You are not going to see more sales due to cheaper prices. Look at GPUs as well, anything under 200-250$ pretty much doesn't sell. AMD isn't selling more CPUs either. They are also in a constant case of the newer model sells less than the old.

You are not getting those back to PC that just need to check email and browse a few pages. Their smartphone is plenty for that.
 
That's because people move up in SKUs. You are not going to see more sales due to cheaper prices. Look at GPUs as well, anything under 200-250$ pretty much doesn't sell. AMD isn't selling more CPUs either. They are also in a constant case of the newer model sells less than the old.

You are not getting those back to PC that just need to check email and browse a few pages. Their smartphone is plenty for that.
look back at the 960 which according to your beloved steam survey was the best, and likely the 1060/1050 will do the same. Most people buy the best their money can get them as in they have $300 every upgrade and nothing more. The majority isn't buying a 970 then a 1080, it is a 970 then a 1070 or 960/1060. Even with AMD albeit a bit different as AMD does reduce prices far earlier, it stays the same within cost.
 
look back at the 960 which according to your beloved steam survey was the best, and likely the 1060/1050 will do the same. Most people buy the best their money can get them as in they have $300 every upgrade and nothing more. The majority isn't buying a 970 then a 1080, it is a 970 then a 1070 or 960/1060. Even with AMD albeit a bit different as AMD does reduce prices far earlier, it stays the same within cost.

The 970 became the most sold card of the 900 series going above any expectation before replacement began. And you can see higher cards today is massively popular. If you separate 1060 sales into 3 and 6GB, you may end up with the 1070 as best selling.

Even the RX480 for example have sold more than RX470 and RX460 combined on steam.

Intel also report record K sales quarter after quarter.

And dont let me get started on laptops that takes up a ever higher share. Specially revenue wise.

People want higher SKUs and they got the money to pay for it. Specially after they have gotten used to expensive electronics after the smartphone and TV wave.
 
Last edited:
The 970 became the most sold card of the 900 series going above any expectation before replacement began. And you can see higher cards today is massively popular. If you separate 1060 sales into 3 and 6GB, you may end up with the 1070 as best selling.

Even the RX480 for example have sold more than RX470 and RX460 combined on steam.

Intel also report record K sales quarter after quarter.

And dont let me get started on laptops that takes up a ever higher share. Specially revenue wise.

People want higher SKUs and they got the money to pay for it. Specially after they have gotten used to expensive electronics after the smartphone and TV wave.

Yeah, yeah, we know, AMD stinks and can do no good or right, LOL! :D I have to admit that I do get a good amount of entertainment out of what you say and I do not bother ignoring you. Good thing for all of us consumers is that you are wrong.
 
Before the mining craze the RX 480 was $200 MSRP. They didn't compete with the 1070 or 1080. Everyone wants the most for their money, most people aren't going to buy $400 and above GPU. The 970 sold lots for its performance and price level $299 MSRP even with the gimped RAM.
 
Back
Top