It's not an overclock btw, it's one parameter in the Z370 bios, "optimize muti core performance". It simply puts all cores at the maximum official turbo speed.
You're right, my mistake. It's not an overclock, you merely compared your processor's boost clock to alternative processor's base clock in a synthetic test that suits your processor particularly well.
In actual rendering performance Ryzen would have been about even with your processor:
So as I said, if one wants to notch performance and money isn't a problem, Intel is still the way to go.
Yes, Intel is still the best.
Before 8xxx processors were released, for a short while Ryzen offered much better price/performance ratio in situations that scale well to multiple threads. But with Intel increasing their number of cores from 4 to 6, they're now about even at that and Intel offers better single thread performance.
AMD's threadripper processors offer still better price/performance than Intel once you need more than 8 cores and 16 threads, but those situations are rare, and for all other situations Intel is either equal or better.
One thing to keep in mind right now is that Intel's meltdown and spectre fixes aren't fully out yet. The first round of fixes caused a number of issues which required a rollback. Any fix is expected to have an impact in performance on Intel more so than AMD. But the 8700K is definitely a step in the right direction for Intel. For my last build I was pretty much stuck looking at AMD due to it performing as good as processors twice to three times as expensive in my typical workload. There are still problems with early Ryzen processors since the issue was with the actual fabrication which was solved in subsequent batches. Things like the limit on memory speed is more due to having an early Ryzen processor than the micro-code.
I did research a week ago to buy a pc for a friend. All benchmarks/reviews showed the i5-8400 coffee lake as punching way above its price tag (don't get fooled by clock speeds, it is not a good indicator of performance these days). In most gaming situations the i5-8400 coffee lake is just as good as the pricier i5-8600K. The lack of hyperthreading will have an effect in special cases, but considering the step up means almost double the price.. Other downside is that coffee lake require a new chipset and there are no budget mainboards out yet. In a few months or half a year I am sure some newer coffe lake or K version will beat the 8400, but right now it is best value for a mid range cpu, and to take a real step up you would need to go to a i7 8700K which is considerably more expensive.
The Ryzen where supposed to be the kings of 3D rendering... well, I feel sorry for that 1800x:
If you compare your overclocked processor against other processors running at stock speeds, then pick a test where your processor does as well as possible, it's a good way to boost your own ego.
More like Intel's Ego, maybe? Lemme guess... Ryzen owner? Do I need to point out that the non boosted 8700k also beats all the other processors?
It's not an overclock btw, it's one parameter in the Z370 bios, "optimize muti core performance". It simply puts all cores at the maximum official turbo speed. And as said, it only gives it an edge on the non optimized 8700k, which still beats the crap out the competition at stock speed.
My ego is ok, but my customer satisfaction is definitely boosted. This is a top chipset with a top processor. My best upgrade since my 4790k.
Give me an AMD Ryzen any day of the week!
If it's only a money problem, and not a performance problem, then I agree. There's none of the current Ryzen line that can compete with the top Intel processors. Sadly. Even thought they have more cores, both physical and logical, they underperform.
I don't pay for processor upgrades, so I'm definitely biased on that part (price). But performance wise, there's still no doubt at all. Intel is the way to go for top notch.
You seem to have forgotten about Intel's meltdown problem and the various OS's having to make major processing demands to alleviate that issue. Of course AMD processors do not that issue and are not effected. There goes your edge in processing power! Yep, Intel will have that fixed in the next year or so, but in the mean time, AMD is not sitting still, all their processors are getting a 10% boost in the March/April timeframe. Not even going to mention that I can build an AMD system for about 15% less than a comparable Intel one.
If you are buying Intel right now you are behind the eight ball.
How big of a hit the Meltdown fixes are going to be depends tremendously on what you're doing. If you're running a server that hosts a bunch of VMs, Meltdown is probably going to be bad enough that some companies that wouldn't otherwise have even considered AMD will drop Intel entirely for future purchases for a while.
It's unclear how big the hit will be for gaming or rendering. My best guess is modest for gaming and negligible for rendering, and not enough to deliver the single-threaded performance crown to AMD in either case. But that's just a guess.
I will say, however, that early benchmarks that have OS updates but not microcode updates are not reflective of final performance, as they haven't fixed the problem. Intel seems to be struggling with their microcode updates.
I am confident that Intel will try to play a double game of saying "look how fast it is without the patches" and "look how secure it is with the patches", trying to imply that you can have both the security and the speed at the same time. Depending on how alert to that the tech media are, it might not be that easy to find proper benchmarks.
I'm always astounded at how many people say they stream frequently, or list it as a priority.
I've never done it, I have no ambition to do it, (I don't have the bandwidth to do it), and I don't really care to watch other people play games when I could be playing them myself. I think I'm too old to "get it".
I am with you and the other gnomes who have agreed, lets sit out in the garden with our PCs and play games. If you see anyone taking a selfie, shout at them to get of the lawn.
One thing to keep in mind right now is that Intel's meltdown and spectre fixes aren't fully out yet.
Seems ok to me...
There are both OS patches and microcode updates. I'm not sure exactly what the InSpectre gadget is checking on, but it was released long before the microcode updates even existed, so it's probably not looking for them.
One thing to keep in mind right now is that Intel's meltdown and spectre fixes aren't fully out yet.
Seems ok to me...
There are both OS patches and microcode updates. I'm not sure exactly what the InSpectre gadget is checking on, but it was released long before the microcode updates even existed, so it's probably not looking for them.
Sorry to disappoint, but inSpectre checks both. If you haven't upgraded your bios for the new microcode, you are still vulnerable.
Considering that Intel only released the microcode updates for Sky Lake and later four days ago--the same day that you posted your benchmarks in this thread--I'm more than a little skeptical that you had it in time to run those benchmarks. And considering Intel's abortive attempts at releasing microcode and then retracting it when it broke computers, I'm also a little skeptical that this is the final microcode update from them, and also that your InSpectre gadget knows how to check for microcode updates that don't yet exist.
That tool is helpful. My mobo ASROCK Fatal1ty Z97 Killer, doesn't have the microcode update yet. Who knows how long it will take them once Intel releases the fix.
Intel has only released the microcode updates for Sky Lake and later.
Comments
In actual rendering performance Ryzen would have been about even with your processor:
Source: https://www.pcworld.com/article/3230369/components-processors/core-i7-8700k-review-prices-specs-benchmarks.html
Before 8xxx processors were released, for a short while Ryzen offered much better price/performance ratio in situations that scale well to multiple threads. But with Intel increasing their number of cores from 4 to 6, they're now about even at that and Intel offers better single thread performance.
AMD's threadripper processors offer still better price/performance than Intel once you need more than 8 cores and 16 threads, but those situations are rare, and for all other situations Intel is either equal or better.
There are still problems with early Ryzen processors since the issue was with the actual fabrication which was solved in subsequent batches. Things like the limit on memory speed is more due to having an early Ryzen processor than the micro-code.
In a few months or half a year I am sure some newer coffe lake or K version will beat the 8400, but right now it is best value for a mid range cpu, and to take a real step up you would need to go to a i7 8700K which is considerably more expensive.
"I am my connectome" https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HA7GwKXfJB0
You seem to have forgotten about Intel's meltdown problem and the various OS's having to make major processing demands to alleviate that issue. Of course AMD processors do not that issue and are not effected. There goes your edge in processing power! Yep, Intel will have that fixed in the next year or so, but in the mean time, AMD is not sitting still, all their processors are getting a 10% boost in the March/April timeframe. Not even going to mention that I can build an AMD system for about 15% less than a comparable Intel one.
If you are buying Intel right now you are behind the eight ball.
It's unclear how big the hit will be for gaming or rendering. My best guess is modest for gaming and negligible for rendering, and not enough to deliver the single-threaded performance crown to AMD in either case. But that's just a guess.
I will say, however, that early benchmarks that have OS updates but not microcode updates are not reflective of final performance, as they haven't fixed the problem. Intel seems to be struggling with their microcode updates.
I am confident that Intel will try to play a double game of saying "look how fast it is without the patches" and "look how secure it is with the patches", trying to imply that you can have both the security and the speed at the same time. Depending on how alert to that the tech media are, it might not be that easy to find proper benchmarks.