New Ryzen 2 (Pinnacle Ridge) gets only 200 MHz boost according to a leak

I've like what I've posted before Ryzen doesn't farewell good with current MMO's like Blade and Soul and GW2. I'm following this thread cause I prefer Ryzen it runs generally cooler and suits perfect for my DAN A4 mitx case but I might go with Intel if Zen+ wouldn't provide any improvements. Open world and 12+ man raids/dungeons give less than 40 fps and sometimes even drop to 20-30's.

by their nature independent studios have adoption issues with hardware, even PUBG despite being a 2017 cult phenomenon is broken and as they add content more breaks are driving players off now. Its an optimization issue, they are not DICE interactive that dedicate millions to ensuring all system users get the best experience possible. You are going to have to accept that smaller developers will not have the same resources and so you may have broken games.
 
I've like what I've posted before Ryzen doesn't farewell good with current MMO's like Blade and Soul and GW2. I'm following this thread cause I prefer Ryzen it runs generally cooler and suits perfect for my DAN A4 mitx case but I might go with Intel if Zen+ wouldn't provide any improvements. Open world and 12+ man raids/dungeons give less than 40 fps and sometimes even drop to 20-30's.

Be careful here: 'cooler' is meaningless unless comparing the exact same product or using an external temperature sensor in the exact same setup, and measuring from the wall is a far better way to understand how much heat is actually being generated by tracking input energy.


[that's not to say that Ryzen is or isn't cooler per your implied perspective]
 
720P is about as realistic as 4K, the only difference is that 4K is closer to standard than 720P is. I am happy with 1080P benches, it cuts the middles ground where IMC, draw calls, and GPU render stacks and bandwidth are at there peak, 720P is like a drag race, limited IMC overhead, clockspeed and wider pipelines tend to affect that, but the worst effect on 720P is unplayable for modern shooters in particular, render time is like 4x slower than a GPU, by the time it draws a player you are already dead.

For most, 720p and 4k are academic, you're right- I'm not contesting that!- and 1080p and 1440p are good indicators of what performance is achievable- and they both show what happens when you adjust the CPU/GPU balance today.

Which is also a decent forecast of what might happen in the future.
 
For most, 720p and 4k are academic, you're right- I'm not contesting that!- and 1080p and 1440p are good indicators of what performance is achievable- and they both show what happens when you adjust the CPU/GPU balance today.

Which is also a decent forecast of what might happen in the future.

2k still a good sweet spot. there's still stuff in 1080p that is hard to run super sampled even...
idk you think ryzen 2 is gonna be a breakthrough lol
 
Last edited:
2k still a good sweet spot. there's still stuff in 1080p that is hard to run super sampled even...
idk you think ryzen 2 is gonna be a breakthrough lol

I'd love for Ryzen 2 to be a breakthrough!

If Ryzen had been a breakthrough, I'd be running one now- give me more cores without losing single-thread performance, and I'm in.
 
So the graphs that OrangeKrush posted showing Intel falling behind AMD chips at higher resolutions but ahead of AMD at lower resolutions in Civ 6 shows us what? That Intel works better at lower resolutions in that game but falls short when the rendering becomes more complex.

It is exactly the contrary. E.g. the i7-7700k and the i7-8700k are behind the R5 2400G @720p but are ahead the 4GHz R5 2400G @4K in that review.

civ6_1280_720.png


civ6_3840_2160.png


But thanks for trying.
 
Different resolutions stress different things. Low resolutions (or what you call cpu test) basically just test geometry setup, which Intel is usually faster at. At higher resolutions, geometry is no longer the limiting factor from the cpu side and shifts to other aspects, which amd is sometimes faster at, which is why amd sometimes pulls ahead at higher resolutions. Geometry setup is usually not a limiting factor in any gaming engine so lowering resolution until that becomes a limiting factor tells us very little about whether that particular cpu is good or not, particularly when frame rates are in the 150-200fps region.

That said, there are some games that are geometry limited, especially if they're not heavily multithreaded, and Intel is the better processor in this engines. But lowering the resolution to where that becomes an artificial bottleneck isn't really a cpu test, it's a geometry test and has little meaning unless you are actuality striving for 200fps.

I'd much rather see which cpu can provide the video card what it needs at realistic settings as opposed to artificially lowering them and running into a limiting that will rarely, if ever, be encountered in an actual gaming scenario.

A CPU does much more than what you pretend. The goal of low resolution testing has been explained a hundred of times. I see no reason to explain the same once again. The idea that Intel is faster at low resolutions and then worse at higher is wrong. I demonstrated it above using exactly the game you are using as example: Civ 6. Now let us check averages over all the games tests

720p

i5-7400 3GHz is >1% faster than R5 2400G @4GHz
i7-8700k is 23% faster than R7 1800X

perfrel_1280_720.png


4K

i5-7400 3GHz is <1% faster than R5 2400G @4GHz
i7-8700k is <1% faster than R7 1800X

perfrel_3840_2160.png


This is just as expected. At 4K the GPU is a bottleneck and the deficiencies of the worse CPUs are hidden. The faster CPUs are idle, awaiting the GPU to do its work, and the slower CPUs can catch up.

At 720p the CPUs start showing their real performance when aren't bottlenecked by the GPU.
 
Last edited:
A higher clocked 4c/8t part beats a 2400g, and a 6c/12t part also does?

That's just astounding. Groundbreaking
 
IdiotInCharge
Well from the Dan case users their 8700/8700k does really get hot compared to 1700/1700x. Well maybe the lower clockspeeds of zen does keep its temp lower?

Anway this is abit offtopic now sorry. I wish there would be more leaks soon ugh I've been waiting to build since last year (pc case took 10-11 months before arriving.)
 
A higher clocked 4c/8t part beats a 2400g, and a 6c/12t part also does?

That's just astounding. Groundbreaking

i5-7400 is 4C/4T and it is clocked lower than the 2400G overlocked @4GHz. And the 6C/12T was compared to the 8C/16T 1800X not to the 2400G.

Also you seem to be ignoring the reason for the comparison. The comparison was made to show that the claim made by some people that that "Intel is better at low resolutions" and "AMD is better at high resolutions" is pure fantasy.
 
Last edited:
IdiotInCharge
Well from the Dan case users their 8700/8700k does really get hot compared to 1700/1700x. Well maybe the lower clockspeeds of zen does keep its temp lower?

Again, 'hot' is meaningless unless the CPU itself is throttling or crashing due to it overheating. What matters is which CPU provides the best performance (and possibly performance/price) for the intended use case(s), and how much noise and heat is being produced, if the user cares.
 
I know, but that's as bad as juanrga saying that Intel is 1000% better than AMD because of his made up numbers :p. It is dependent on the game, sure.

Wasn't it only 999% better? :p Also I am giving gaming averages, just to avoid dependences on specific games and outliers. I am not the one mentioning Civ 6 and ignoring any other game.

Heck Civilization 6 shows quite a bit better on Ryzen despite all that clock speed on Intel.

91810.png
91812.png


Hmm how odd that the 8700k loses at fps on 1080p, seems like my experience would be much better on a AMD system. I dont think the 8700k is going to get better with time on this game...

Civilizations is clearly a marker that uses Ryzen efficiently, if you look at Frame time variances it is silky smooth, clearly a massive victory there for AMD and in a very popular game.

So, not only now you cherry pick one game and ignore the rest of games, but you also cherry pick the review!!!

Here a collection of reviews that show a different picture for Civ 6, with Intel ahead of AMD

aHR0cDovL21lZGlhLmJlc3RvZm1pY3JvLmNvbS84LzMvNzE1NjgzL29yaWdpbmFsL2ltYWdlMDAyLnBuZw==


ASthZfzg7j6ax8uEXA4EZJ-650-80.png


xke6XLjhVQTFj6de5eHT6F-650-80.png


Also https://www.pcgamesn.com/intel-core-i7-8700k-review-benchmarks

Other reviews don't check FPS, but check the AI. Those are trustedreviews, gamernexus,... and also show Intel ahead of AMD

8700k-civ-vi-turn-time.png


I will stop here.
 
Last edited:
Why are we even using a garbage turn based strategy game anyway? (I own civ 5 and 6) This is a game where performance does not matter at all for cpu or graphics. Real time games on the other hand, performance directly impacts your ability to be competitive or otherwise enjoy it.
 
Not every review site is going to agree and it matters not and the chart I chose was stock speeds not overclocked. Also they did something wrong on the civ AI test cause my Ryzen benchmarks at 16 seconds. Also I used a frame time chart which is more useful then showing how fast it can render a menu and I can tell you civ 6 runs smooth without hitching or stutter that my FX chip didnt do. The reality is if I put a Ryzen system next to that 8700k you would not be able to tell the difference between them. You and IdiotinCharge just love to shout how great the 8700k is but in reality it hardly makes a difference and were at the worse resolution for Ryzen at 1080p and were within the margin of error on PC gamer review. Simple fact is gaming is about the same no matter which manufacture cpu you go with.


Wasn't it only 999% better? :p Also I am giving gaming averages, just to avoid dependences on specific games. I am not the only mentioning Civ 6 and ignoring any other game.







So, not only now you cherry pick the game and ignore the rest of games, but you also cherry pick the review!!!

Here a collection of reviews that show a different picture for Civ 6, with Intel ahead of AMD

aHR0cDovL21lZGlhLmJlc3RvZm1pY3JvLmNvbS84LzMvNzE1NjgzL29yaWdpbmFsL2ltYWdlMDAyLnBuZw==


ASthZfzg7j6ax8uEXA4EZJ-650-80.png


xke6XLjhVQTFj6de5eHT6F-650-80.png


Also https://www.pcgamesn.com/intel-core-i7-8700k-review-benchmarks

Other reviews don't check FPS, but check the AI. Those are trustedreviews, gamernexus,... and also show Intel ahead of AMD

8700k-civ-vi-turn-time.png


I will stop here.
 
Why are we even using a garbage turn based strategy game anyway? (I own civ 5 and 6) This is a game where performance does not matter at all for cpu or graphics. Real time games on the other hand, performance directly impacts your ability to be competitive or otherwise enjoy it.

I was thinking the same thing. The AI measurement seems more important for that type of game (academically), and the turn time probably the most important thing supposing that framerates and frametimes are otherwise good.
 
I was thinking the same thing. The AI measurement seems more important for that type of game (academically), and the turn time probably the most important thing supposing that framerates and frametimes are otherwise good.

Scroll the map and have it stutter and miss seeing some troops or a important item is annoying. Silky smooth scrolling in that game is important thus why frame times are important. Turn times are far more random and late game no matter what your running it takes a bit for a turn to process, more a matter of how many battles are fought. But I like strategy games over mindless shooters.
 
Scroll the map and have it stutter and miss seeing some troops or a important item is annoying. Silky smooth scrolling in that game is important thus why frame times are important. Turn times are far more random and late game no matter what your running it takes a bit for a turn to process, more a matter of how many battles are fought. But I like strategy games over mindless shooters.

Civ V is one of those games where my mother-in-law's Celeron with IGP plays the game sufficiently well. I have never missed a troop or resource due to 'stuttering' which would be a polite thing to call what the Celeron does. If you were doing timed turns, I could see where graphical performance would matter a little bit but if you're not graphics performance means diddly squat.
 
Civ V is one of those games where my mother-in-law's Celeron with IGP plays the game sufficiently well. I have never missed a troop or resource due to 'stuttering' which would be a polite thing to call what the Celeron does. If you were doing timed turns, I could see where graphical performance would matter a little bit but if you're not graphics performance means diddly squat.

CIV V and CIV VI are two different engines. I dont see it playing very well at all with a IGP and turn times would be epic long on that processor and Civ V was famous for long turns. So no your mother in laws pc is not playing it sufficiently where someone is going to enjoy it. Maybe for you it doesn't bother you but for me I like it smooth. Point remains the same Intel or Ryzen chip your not going to notice a difference in how it plays.
 
Yes, I tried Civ VI; thank you, I'll try it again once they finish it. (That they didn't even have multi-player enabled at launch and is the primary way I play Civ was a huge negative in my book.)

As far as Civ V is concerned, thanks to being available on Steam I've been able to play it on a variety of hardware:

MacBook Pro 2013
MSI i7 laptop with 959 in it before it literally smoked
Rig in sig both before and after it had the 1070 put in (IGP before that)
Celeron 20th Anniversary edition using IGP
ASUS i7 laptop with 1070 in it

With almost 1000 hours put into the game and quite a few games going to 500 turns and beyond, I can say that other than smoothness of graphics it plays about the same from turn to turn (Celeron took a tad bit longer in late game).

I will concede your point that a Ryzen would play it sufficiently well but honestly I don't know any processor that was made within the last half decade that wouldn't.
 
Yes, yes, Juanrga... we know (or at least I do) that the 8700k is a dominating gaming CPU, much like its 7700k predecessor was. If I were building a rig for pure gaming, it's 8700k or go home. That being said, there are a few points that are working in AMD's favor:

1. The APUs are very good for what they are. Given ridiculous GPU prices right now, if I were building an ultra-budget box, the Ryzen APUs are where it's at. Good price. Competitive CPU performance (not the best, but very, very close) and excellent integrated GPU performance far ahead of anything else at the moment. Vega was an uninspiring stand-alone GPU, but it's solid in these APUs.

2. Ryzen 5s and 7s still occupy a nice niche: mixed-use computing. The 8700k is a beast, and is a better mixed-use CPU than the Ryzen 7s... but you can get a Ryzen 1700 for much cheaper and OC the crap out of it. For bargain mixed-use computing, the Ryzen lineup continues to be strong. Hopefully the Ryzen 2xxx CPUs get enough of a boost to put Ryzen back into a position of relative equity with the 8700k in a mixed-use scenario. It won't be faster for gaming - but if it's enough faster in many multi-core scenarios, it doesn't have to be. We'll see where the Ryzen 2xxx CPUs top off in terms of clockspeed increases and overclockability. 200MHz isn't enough - I'd figure we need 400 or even 500 MHz on the top end to reach parity again.

3. Threadripper continues to be a ridiculous value for sheer cores/threads. If I were building today... it'd either be 8700k, or a Threadripper, depending on if I wanted to lean more gaming or lean more toward work. Good stuff!
 
Meh, too many benchmarks that get paraded about are little more than indirect clock speed measurements. I think its far more common to be GPU bound in the real world
 
91810.png
91812.png


Hmm how odd that the 8700k loses at fps on 1080p, seems like my experience would be much better on a AMD system. I dont think the 8700k is going to get better with time on this game...
it is kind of unfair to test vs a cpu with 2 more logical cores and 4 threads tho isnt it? :p

here the old 6900k beat out the amd cpu's.. even the threadripper ones, because it seem to flop out past 8 cores a bit.
89812.png

and without a doubt there is a trend with cpu that score more on low res to also perform better at higher resolutions also. because this 6900k beat out amd, all of their cpu at any res past 1080p upward to 16k..
 
it is kind of unfair to test vs a cpu with 2 more logical cores and 4 threads tho isnt it? :p

here the old 6900k beat out the amd cpu's.. even the threadripper ones, because it seem to flop out past 8 cores a bit.
89812.png

and without a doubt there is a trend with cpu that score more on low res to also perform better at higher resolutions also. because this 6900k beat out amd, all of their cpu at any res past 1080p upward to 16k..

One would hope a 1,000+ dollar cpu would beat out a sub 500 dollar one.
 
One would hope a 1,000+ dollar cpu would beat out a sub 500 dollar one.
yes, but now this is a bit older cpu when intel still have monopoly on cores ++ i guess the 7820x is better and more sanely priced, but still costly and on expensive platform nearly double price compare to z370 MB in norway. im guessing that it will get cheaper when icelake is here. im no way justify intel pricing tho, they are savage no doubt and they are not shy to take advantage over situation. obv. it's good with competative AMD. it's not like it is highly unlikely i will take amd again, for most of my gamer life i used amd cpu's and ati/amd graphics card, just not so much recently. id love to put some amd cpu in my computer, but i do think when icelake is here it will get very nasty for amd as they no longer have core advantage on mainstream platform and likely intel will have very much performance.
 
Wasn't it only 999% better? :p Also I am giving gaming averages, just to avoid dependences on specific games and outliers. I am not the one mentioning Civ 6 and ignoring any other game.







So, not only now you cherry pick one game and ignore the rest of games, but you also cherry pick the review!!!

Here a collection of reviews that show a different picture for Civ 6, with Intel ahead of AMD

aHR0cDovL21lZGlhLmJlc3RvZm1pY3JvLmNvbS84LzMvNzE1NjgzL29yaWdpbmFsL2ltYWdlMDAyLnBuZw==


ASthZfzg7j6ax8uEXA4EZJ-650-80.png


xke6XLjhVQTFj6de5eHT6F-650-80.png


Also https://www.pcgamesn.com/intel-core-i7-8700k-review-benchmarks

Other reviews don't check FPS, but check the AI. Those are trustedreviews, gamernexus,... and also show Intel ahead of AMD

8700k-civ-vi-turn-time.png


I will stop here.

Toms dropped the settings to high, reducing stress on the CPU, the general theme on ultra is the same. PCGamer don't self bench, they are WCCFTech with a new flavour there stock 8700K on ultra can outscore toms on lower settings just to question on methodology of testing. AI turn cycles there is no rendering it is simple compute where clock speed helps, turn cycles are often skipped to save time, much like total war and war hammer.

Since i was responding to the anandtech post that was posted It isn't cherry picking, it is replying to topic
 
yes, but now this is a bit older cpu when intel still have monopoly on cores ++ i guess the 7820x is better and more sanely priced, but still costly and on expensive platform nearly double price compare to z370 MB in norway. im guessing that it will get cheaper when icelake is here. im no way justify intel pricing tho, they are savage no doubt and they are not shy to take advantage over situation. obv. it's good with competative AMD. it's not like it is highly unlikely i will take amd again, for most of my gamer life i used amd cpu's and ati/amd graphics card, just not so much recently. id love to put some amd cpu in my computer, but i do think when icelake is here it will get very nasty for amd as they no longer have core advantage on mainstream platform and likely intel will have very much performance.

the numbers changed in reviews meaning you posted an older bench likely changed the system performance. The 6900K is not a fair comparison to the 1800X either given that quad channel opens up extra bandwidth which strategy and MMO's utilise more of. The core scaling seems to end at 4 cores making more cores redundant in that particular game it becomes a clockspeed showdown after that and Intel has that advantage.
 
Funny comment, when the $999 Threadripper is slower than the $499 1800X in the graph he gave.

Not really if you actually think about it, the 8 core 1800x has a higher clock speed then the 16 core 1950x, who would have guessed... Oh right all the people that used their head and thought about it. 8 core vs 8 core I would expect the higher priced one to win...
 
Again, 'hot' is meaningless unless the CPU itself is throttling or crashing due to it overheating. What matters is which CPU provides the best performance (and possibly performance/price) for the intended use case(s), and how much noise and heat is being produced, if the user cares.

Sadly it does throttle. There is very minimal airflow within the case and I need to go AIO and buy the cooler overseas if I want those i7's. Well if the zen+ still doesn't provide much improvements for MMO games I'll prolly go with an I5 8500 as it probably the best Intel cpu for the case.
 
the numbers changed in reviews meaning you posted an older bench likely changed the system performance. The 6900K is not a fair comparison to the 1800X either given that quad channel opens up extra bandwidth which strategy and MMO's utilise more of. The core scaling seems to end at 4 cores making more cores redundant in that particular game it becomes a clockspeed showdown after that and Intel has that advantage.
that im not sure of as most benchmarks i did look at before showed nothing significant gains in performance for gaming with quad channel.but then again i could probs run my ram at stock dual channel without significant loss in performance where amd would require what 3000 mhz with ok timings to work properly?
 
Sadly it does throttle. There is very minimal airflow within the case and I need to go AIO and buy the cooler overseas if I want those i7's. Well if the zen+ still doesn't provide much improvements for MMO games I'll prolly go with an I5 8500 as it probably the best Intel cpu for the case.

Yup, at that point you're really looking at realized, under-load power draw and comparing that to cooling system efficiency. A lot of people have skipped the 'K' CPUs and just gone with i7 8700's for example in some of the smaller cases, and the smaller you go, the worse it gets (for both Intel and AMD).

I wish you good luck finding an optimum balance for your system!
 
Not really if you actually think about it, the 8 core 1800x has a higher clock speed then the 16 core 1950x, who would have guessed... Oh right all the people that used their head and thought about it. 8 core vs 8 core I would expect the higher priced one to win...

It would be identical or better than the 1800X in game mode

game_mode_amd.png


because half the cores are disabled, the TR chips use top binning dies, and there are larger heat-spreader. However that $999 chip run slower even when half of the cores are disabled. :pompous:
 
Last edited:
It would be identical or better than the 1800X in game mode

game_mode_amd.png


because half the cores are disabled, the TR chips use top binning dies, and there are larger heat-spreader. However that $999 chip run slower even when half of the cores are disabled. :pompous:

Hey cool you looked up some info and still dont get it, the 1800x is still running at a higher clock speed. It's still running 200MHz slower then the 1800x thus the difference, 3.4GHz on the 1950x to 3.6GHz on the 1800x. Also since you like got this from Anandtech but fail to credit them here is the beginning of benchmarks for others to look through https://www.anandtech.com/show/1172...ame-mode-halving-cores-for-more-performance/4 . Maybe you should read the whole article next time so you understand it.
 
Hey cool you looked up some info and still dont get it, the 1800x is still running at a higher clock speed. It's still running 200MHz slower then the 1800x thus the difference, 3.4GHz on the 1950x to 3.6GHz on the 1800x.

And you ignored my point about why the 1950X would have the same or higher clocks in game mode... if the mode was correctly implemented in current models.
 
And you ignored my point about why the 1950X would have the same or higher clocks in game mode... if the mode was correctly implemented in current models.

You and a couple of others never have a point other then to say nope Intel is better. The mode operates like AMD intended it to, until you get that engineering degree your out of luck on telling them how it should work. Plus it's not freaking hard to manually set a frequency if someone wanted to, review sites reviewed it in stock form.
 
You and a couple of others never have a point other then to say nope Intel is better.

This assumption is one of the reasons that you resort to personal attacks instead of trying to work toward consensus.

It seems you take rational perspectives quite personal when you don't find them favorable.

You're not alone here, of course- but it's not constructive. Find the data, prove your point, leave the personal attacks, veiled or generalized or otherwise out of it.
 
This assumption is one of the reasons that you resort to personal attacks instead of trying to work toward consensus.

It seems you take rational perspectives quite personal when you don't find them favorable.

You're not alone here, of course- but it's not constructive. Find the data, prove your point, leave the personal attacks, veiled or generalized or otherwise out of it.

And you seem to butt in when no one is talking to you, explain what you added to this conversation about how Ryzen performs? It's very simple Juanrga is wrong and he keeps trying to shift the goal posts, same stuff different day. Dont quote me unless it's on topic and relevant to the conversation, just whining about how I respond I could care less about. Last I checked there is ignore button if you cant handle my responses.
 
And you seem to butt in when no one is talking to you, explain what you added to this conversation about how Ryzen performs? It's very simple Juanrga is wrong and he keeps trying to shift the goal posts, same stuff different day. Dont quote me unless it's on topic and relevant to the conversation, just whining about how I respond I could care less about. Last I checked there is ignore button if you cant handle my responses.

You can hit ignore if you want, I have no reason to. I'm here to discuss the topic, and if you feel offended, well, ignore away!
 
You can hit ignore if you want, I have no reason to. I'm here to discuss the topic, and if you feel offended, well, ignore away!

No problem, your ignored since you added nothing and ignored my request to stay on topic when quoting me. Less drivel to shift through.
 
Back
Top