AMD's upcoming Ryzen 7 2700X processor appears on Geekbench

[AlienALX]

I will never run my 4690K at 3.7Ghz so what is the point?

Unless the 2700X can overclock to a level that it will outperform my 4690K, its a completely irrelevant comparison.

That's a bit, well, silly. How can you draw conclusions from "unless"? you have no idea how the 2700x overclocks yet. As for the "It's the speed I run my CPU at" bit? well no one will run the AMD stock, either.

So until it comes out you are wasting your time.

 

[Dicehunter]

..anyway like I said in a previous post, this 4700 score would be based on the boost speed of the 2700X, not its base clock.

No real answer but ok.....the X370 board that the 2700X is in is not capable of running Precision boost 2.0, That feature is exclusive for X470 boards, Meaning it's highest boost clock is 3.70GHz which in actual fact going on current information is the 2700X's base clock.

 

[Bagpuss]

That's a bit, well, silly. How can you draw conclusions from "unless"? you have no idea how the 2700x overclocks yet. As for the "It's the speed I run my CPU at" bit? well no one will run the AMD stock, either.

So until it comes out you are wasting your time.

Which is why I said I'd take another look at it when the reviews came out...

 

[AlienALX]

Which is why I said I'd take another look at it when the reviews came out...

You can compare all you like the 1700x wipes the floor with your CPU without any extra clocks or what not.

Geekbench is totally loaded to make Intel look good. Get it threading.

It's like saying "Well my 1960s car can still do the speed limit".

 

[Bagpuss]

You can compare all you like the 1700x wipes the floor with your CPU without any extra clocks or what not.

Geekbench is totally loaded to make Intel look good. Get it threading.

It's like saying "Well my 1960s car can still do the speed limit".

Not that bothered about multi-threading.

I don't do any production based work or play many modern multi-threaded games, hence why i first posted about single core performance

My 4690K is used primarily for emulation, where single core speed is king.

 

[RobM]

I would take 12 threads over 4 any day of the week

 

[Bagpuss]

I would take 12 threads over 4 any day of the week

Of course, if that's what you need.

I dont 'need' 12 threads though, but I'll take a Ryzen CPU if it can match my Intel CPU in emulation at a cheaper price because, why not? free stuff is free stuff.

Although I should add I wouldn't be interested in the 2700X regardless, I'd only look as far as the 2600X, as that is more the sort of price I'm prepared to pay for a CPU.

 

[Chopper3]

impressive results, I wonder how much it would improve on the newer chipset

Am I reading this wrong? Those scores don't make it to the first 1000 pages of geekbench results - they look terrible to me, have I read it wrong?

 

[AlienALX]

Of course, if that's what you need.

I dont 'need' 12 threads though, but I'll take a Ryzen CPU if it can match my Intel CPU in emulation at a cheaper price because, why not? free stuff is free stuff.

Although I should add I wouldn't be interested in the 2700X regardless, I'd only look as far as the 2600X, as that is more the sort of price I'm prepared to pay for a CPU.

It doesn't really matter if you need them or not. If you have them? all's the good.

People seriously forget Windows itself, and how it behaves when you are multi tasking (which we all do whether we realise it or not). Listening to music and browsing? you are multi tasking. Watching Youtube whilst downloading a game on Steam? you are multi tasking. And I can tell you that the more cores you have for that the better. So let's say you are running an app that uses two cores? it's how Windows distributes it. Core handling. A subject never looked at ever, probably because it is hard to gauge.

One thing I do know? this Ivy Macbook I have falls on its face when I open a Facebook group. It literally grinds to a halt.

Two days ago I said Intel would be launching a 8/16 somewhen in the future. Next day we see what could actually be it. It will only continue from here. Once AMD shrink again and go to Ryzen 2? more cores onto the same exact space. So 12 core will become the norm for them.

 

[NeverBackDown]

Multi tasking is not the same as multi threading Alien.
In regards to games, threading is handled by Devs.

Under normal usage where windows handles it(ie not using the DX APIs) it rarely threads enough to make any difference.

Using a 2 core as an example is cheating the argument here. 2 cores are slow in general so of course doing to much makes it crawl. Using a quad core i5 or a 6core i7 in Windows is negligible in performance. Unless you actively go out of your way to use more threads you really won't notice.

This makes the Ryzen vs I series irrelevant with Windows. They both have more than enough threads for it.

 

[AlienALX]

Multi tasking is not the same as multi threading Alien.

Depending on how the OS handles it and distributes the load? yes it is. As I said, no one ever talks about it but it's pivotal.

BITD when I used dual Xeons and P2s (98-2005) you had to run Windows 2000. I don't remember if NT knew what to do with them.. In fact no, it had to be 2k if you were a workstation user. And then you needed the apps to support dual cores, but without the correct OS it wouldn't work properly any way.

Windows is designed to distribute loads, and the more cores it has the more it can allocate for tasks and apps/programs etc.

There is one test. Realbench has a heavy multi tasking test, and believe me it responds to cores alright.

 

[NeverBackDown]

No they are different. You said so yourself in your explanation there. Multi tasking is doing more than one thing at a time. You can still run multiple things off one core. Not everything gets it's own thread.
And because modern CPUs run off a FCFS system (first come first served), you technically aren't even multi tasking. And because they are super fast at doing that in modern CPUs, adding more threads changes nothing in a Window environment. Intel may have less threads it's still faster.
Saying Ryzen is faster in multithreading when in reality Windows barely uses any threads is a poor argument. Intel is more responsive and faster in general. I love Ryzen as much as the next guy but this is really a poor argument to take

Don't really care about back in the day it's not relevant to modern OS's honestly.
Real bench is terrible software.