1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Unannounced AMD Ryzen 3 2300X and Ryzen 5 2500X Make An Appearance

Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Hilbert Hagedoorn, Jun 17, 2018.

  1. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    4,341
    Likes Received:
    1,310
    GPU:
    HIS R9 290
    What benchmarks? Neither the 2300X or 2500X exist yet.
    That is objectively false; the 8700K isn't unanimously king. It wins in a lot of cases, but not all. Furthermore, cost, workload, and power consumption all must be considered.
     
    airbud7 likes this.
  2. airbud7

    airbud7 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    7,272
    Likes Received:
    3,888
    GPU:
    pny gtx 1060 xlr8
    If 8700K is not.... then what is?

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2018
  3. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    4,341
    Likes Received:
    1,310
    GPU:
    HIS R9 290
    A few things:
    1. What metric are you going by? Just gaming performance? What about productive work? What about cost? Efficiency?
    2. You're really going to cherry pick 1 test result and use that to crown the 8700K?
    3. Even on that chart you showed, the 8700K wasn't better than the 7900X.
    4. There are other CPUs, even in Intel's lineup, that will outperform either the 8700K or 7900X in other tests.
    5. Games don't care about high core counts, as the 7740X in that chart proves. So, comparing the 8700K to "any 8 core Ryzen" is kind of like comparing an exotic race car to a supercharged truck - they could have similar power outputs but they're not going to accomplish the same thing in the same manner. Get the right tool for the right job; getting an 8c/16t CPU (regardless of brand) specifically for gaming is a dumb idea.
    6. There's more to computers than gaming.
    7. There's more to gaming than getting the highest frame rate. I personally would not want to spend $100 extra for a CPU that will give me more frames than what my display can handle.
    8. Who says any CPU needs to be king? There's no such thing as a one-size-fits-all, there never has been, and maybe there never will be. Keep adding frequency and you get diminishing returns in efficiency. Keep adding cores and you get diminishing returns in cost. Even during the FX series, Intel still wasn't king, because other processors (not from AMD, obviously) could do things Intel couldn't. Meanwhile, there are things Intel is and will be #1 at, but not everything.
     
  4. Fox2232

    Fox2232 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    9,689
    Likes Received:
    2,159
    GPU:
    5700XT+AW@240Hz
    That's just turbo. Even if stock Ryzen 7 clocks occasionally to 4.35GHz, it is not 4.7 intel's 8700k does. But from total CPU standpoint, intel's newest and greatest does have similar IPC as Zen.
    8700k @5GHz does ~1666 points in CB R15. Ryzen 2700X @4.15GHz does ~1880 points in CB R15.
    That's 55.5 points for intel per core, per GHz. And 56.6 points for AMD per core, per GHz.

    Clock to clock, intel is no longer king. And locked intels which do not turbo over 4.3GHz are ultimately worse choice than AMD's counterparts with same amount of Cores/Threads.
    Because while intel's 4C/8T chip may be tiny bit faster in single threaded workload @4.3GHz, That unlocked Zen+ gets all cores to 4.1+GHz. And therefore, in any situation where 2 or more cores are used AMD has equal or better chip.

    Then I would like to point out that those 8700K charts have tiny little mistake which I already mentioned, they do not turbo to 4.3GHz, but to 4.7 out of the box.
     
    airbud7 likes this.

  5. Agonist

    Agonist Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,744
    Likes Received:
    170
    GPU:
    2x RX 480 Nitro 4GB
    In gaming, but most who buy a 8 core ryzen do more then game.
    But to call it king over a 2700x is rather retarded.
    This isnt like a 4790k vs FX 9550
     
  6. Mannerheim

    Mannerheim Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    4,778
    Likes Received:
    10
    GPU:
    Gigabyte RX580 8GB
    My i5 4690k with 4.3Ghz get same points as AMD Ryzen 3 2300X. Only few % difference


    Single-Core Score Multi-Core Score
    4783 14195
     
  7. airbud7

    airbud7 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    7,272
    Likes Received:
    3,888
    GPU:
    pny gtx 1060 xlr8
    Just trying to keep the debate going...

    We all know Threadripper is King!
    :D
     
  8. vbetts

    vbetts Don Vincenzo Staff Member

    Messages:
    14,615
    Likes Received:
    1,191
    GPU:
    RTX 2070FE
    Keep in mind Hitman is a game that is known to scale better on Intel versus AMD. But in other titles where the difference is only about 5 fps, I'd hardly call that an advantage for Intel. That's within margin I'd say. Really gaming rigs with Intel or AMD, unless you knew what was inside of them you probably couldn't tell a difference. Even gaming at 1440p and higher, the gap between the 2 gets even smaller.

    The 2300x is rumored to be $130, whereas the i5 4690k retailed at I think $240? Correct me if I'm wrong, but still a different price category.
     
    fry178 and airbud7 like this.
  9. Mannerheim

    Mannerheim Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    4,778
    Likes Received:
    10
    GPU:
    Gigabyte RX580 8GB
    And how old i5 is? 4years
     
  10. vbetts

    vbetts Don Vincenzo Staff Member

    Messages:
    14,615
    Likes Received:
    1,191
    GPU:
    RTX 2070FE
    And the performance difference from a quad core Intel CPU from 4 years ago to now is how much? Not really all that much at all.

    Point is the i5 was intended to be a higher performing product. The Ryzen 3 is intended as a budget product. This makes sense in the grand scheme of things. The i3 8100 performs similar to the i5 as well being released the same time as Ryzen as well.
     
    typhon6657 and schmidtbag like this.

  11. -Tj-

    -Tj- Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    16,343
    Likes Received:
    1,449
    GPU:
    Zotac GTX980Ti OC
    Don't feed the troll. :p

    Besides what you shown there is 3-5fps difference at best. Even my oc'ed 4770k @4.7ghz would be faster, judging by that stock 4790k.
     
    airbud7 likes this.
  12. airbud7

    airbud7 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    7,272
    Likes Received:
    3,888
    GPU:
    pny gtx 1060 xlr8
    But! But!...-Tj-, I was on a good troll roll man!...:p
     
    -Tj- likes this.
  13. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    4,341
    Likes Received:
    1,310
    GPU:
    HIS R9 290
    I never said it couldn't; note I explicitly stated it is better in single-threaded tasks, but that doesn't make it unanimously better in all tasks. Even with the 8350K at 5GHz, it won't outperform the 1500X (with or without an OC) in every workload. In several cases, the 1500X will be just barely behind.
    However, I would argue the 8350K is overall a better product for modern-day software, particularly games (assuming you intend to OC it, which you should).
     
  14. user1

    user1 Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,363
    Likes Received:
    434
    GPU:
    hd 6870
    The 8350k @$180 isn't really comparable to the 2300x mainly because it is 50$ more, and competes with the r5 1600, 2600 and 2500x in that price range. 2600 is clearly the winner in that price range @$190 unlocked 6core 12 threads.
     
    fry178 likes this.
  15. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    4,341
    Likes Received:
    1,310
    GPU:
    HIS R9 290
    I'm pretty confident that if someone can't afford $50, they're not going to have a display higher than 60Hz, in which case the 8350K's additional speed is totally irrelevant. An i3 8100 or Ryzen 1200 would be plenty sufficient for budget gamers.
    Also, the 2300X is going to be 4c/4t.
    Is that a serious question? That's like asking "why is 10 USD worth more than 5 Euros?". Euros may have more value, but they're not worth more than twice as much.
    A 8350X can clock higher, but a 1500X has double the threads. Therefore, the 1500X often (but not always) is better at multithreading tasks.
     

  16. airbud7

    airbud7 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    7,272
    Likes Received:
    3,888
    GPU:
    pny gtx 1060 xlr8
    8600k has a good price/performance for gaming.

    Ram prices sux!
     
  17. Agonist

    Agonist Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,744
    Likes Received:
    170
    GPU:
    2x RX 480 Nitro 4GB
    It does. And yes ram prices suck.

    Personally, I am just meh with intel anymore. With ryzen being good enough, and bringing AMD back. I wont go back to intel unless AMD falls off again. And they better not. The CPU market is getting crazy awesome!
     
  18. user1

    user1 Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,363
    Likes Received:
    434
    GPU:
    hd 6870
    50 $ is a pretty big chuck of change on a budget , can be the difference between getting 8gb and 16 gb of ram, or not getting an ssd.

    Also modern games can use more than 4 threads. unless your playing arma 3 at 720p with a gtx 1080 or greater you're not going to notice the difference between a 2600 vs even something like an 8700k 90% of the time.

    the i3 8350k is a turd, you can buy basically anything else and its a better deal/ product.
    ( i5 8400 is priced almost exactly the same and it has 6 cores, with a single core boost of 4ghz)
     
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2018
    Fox2232 likes this.
  19. fry178

    fry178 Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,096
    Likes Received:
    119
    GPU:
    MSI 1080 X@2GHz
    Maybe on 10y old stuff optimized for ST, and/or below 1080p gaming.
    As soon as you start doing more than gaming alone (twitching), intel is behind..
     
  20. fry178

    fry178 Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,096
    Likes Received:
    119
    GPU:
    MSI 1080 X@2GHz
    Oh sure, but so far everyone i know that switched from intel to amd, losing ST/clock performance, still saw big gains for min and avg fps, even when going from i7 4/8 to ryzen 8/16, which wouldn't be the case if MT for games wasn't used..
    And as soon as you go beyond 1080p, even high fps gaming isnt faster on intels outside 5fps.
    And even if its 10, 130fps vs 120 arent that noticeable .
     

Share This Page