Single-core performance of Intel's Sunny Cove chips Surface - Shows Big IPC Increase

Clock speed is kinda overrated when ln2 5ghz zen2 chip beats an ln2 cooled 6ghz skylake x

gotta stop thinking in mhz, the cores are wide and the clocks are "low" with these. and thats ok in my book.

 

All I care is gaming frame count and benchmark numbers.

Clock speed is just a number, for some reason majority losing their breath over it. Makes a great bait though.

 

Why? Hardly anything since Zen1 could hold back your 970 back.
At time you are about to upgrade, you will look at benchmarks for given resolution and GPU will play major role anyway.
Unless you intend to play on low.

 

True

 

I don't change CPU every few years, so I want new CPU/mobo/ram to last as long as possible.

1) We don't know how far will GPU develop in a few years (= we don't know how fast CPU cap will be reached)
2) I prefer smooth gameplay over quality. So I tend to lower game settings until my framerate is stable.

As weird as it might sound, BF4 caps my CPU (2500k@4.5) on 96FPS before it cap GTX970 on medium settings on 1440p@96hz panel.
Unless I go full retard and play on highest settings, CPU is the limiting factor right now.

So yeah, CPU cap does exists and it can easily be reached by lowering quality a bit. We know that by 720p/1080p benchmarks.

Say if I want to get 144hz panel and push framerate as close as possible to 144fps, I know that CPU might be limiting factor in some games.
And no matter how much I am willing to sacrifice video settings, CPU load tends to be static, therefore, once cap is reached, there nothing to be done, beside overclocking.

I am talking from my experience and benchmarks that I see. I am not eye-candy whore that instantly locks all video settings on ULTRA.

 

That's similar to my experiences with the 2600K.

In the Division 2 in particular, though I'm sure it applies to some other modern titles as well, the CPU is definitely the limiting factor if I try to optimize the settings. All Ultra, or maxed out, it's not quite so bad but when I try to squeeze out more by optimizing the game settings I'm clearly limited by the CPU. So the trick ended up being bumping the settings juuust enough to get as much eye candy at the frames my CPU allows.

Though that's hardly the norm I think, we have to recognize that Sandy Bridge is pretty old now and while I've yet to see any issues hitting 60 FPS in any modern titles it can be problematic if you're targeting 90+.

 

We know one thing for sure. CPU use of games is not going to progress as much vertically as it is going to progress horizontally.
Hell, All done in last few years was to decrease verticality and increase horizontality.
- - - -
Your issue is hardly IPC and clock (verticality). It is lack of cores. (horizontality)

 

Oh yeah, you right.

That's why I am looking up to Zen2, at least 8 (16) cores, threads. Maybe 12/24.
Single core speed wouldn't mean much, if there no power behind it.

Looks at short-lived 6600k.

 

MSI didn't do crap.

 

He's not going to because he has no information, just as he never replied to my last request for him to answer essentially the same question.

 

If you look around stock results in their database, you'll an average of non-K 3770 with stock multiplier of around 370-375, which puts it well in its position. Probably just a mistake in the table. Could have been 363, not 263. This is 2017 version of the test, so they probably not paying much attention to older CPUs.

 

But you are still unable to repeat it here.

 

Lol yes, MSI totally did all the tests and got an average of 13% or just did one test and got 13% ipc increase and mysteriously posted it somewhere you won't tell anyone about.

Even though that is impossible. There is not a single reviewer or company that could test ALL situations. As long as there is one application that shows 15% or higher, there is no lie, but you don't get that because YOU don't want to. All the while not showing your sources either.

It's like talking to a wall except i'd probably have more luck with the wall.

Guys, we've found another intel worker. Hello intel

 

Or maybe it's you being the AMD worker here? Ever thought about that?

 

Oh are you prepared to show us the mythical results from MSI that has tested all tests then?

We're waiting.

 

LOL .... all of these threads about chips all end the same way, badly. Alot of you guys know much more than I do I feel stupid sometimes I just don't know as much in depth but all this battleing about it ... man waste of energy and stupid. Peace out ...

 

1st) MSI used AMD's slide. Those 13% were there written by AMD.
2nd) AMD later decided to use different test to show therefore used different value
3rd) IPC varies from app to app

Spoiler: Which IPC change is correct? -2% or +40%

Or is it 18%? Based on which tests? Add any new test suite and average value goes UP or DOWN.

That dude has some trauma which is returning to him.

 

Maybe because the Q9650 had 12MB of L2 cache. That enabled it to keep up with newer chips for a long time in specific (primarily integer) benchmarks, while falling way behind in general.

 

It's quite simple to resolve this debate about the IPC increase. AMD's Robert Hallock has already addressed it on twitter. The 15% figure was taken from SpecINT 2006, and the 13% figure was from CB 1T. Between the two, the SpecINT figure is more reliable as a means of estimating performance increase for average users.

In heavy AVX/AVX2 applications, the IPC increase will be 30 to 60+% in real world, and up to 100% in synthetic benchmarks.