I was just replying to words I saw. Perhaps I misunderstood what side of the stick you were dishing out. Lol......took some 'stick'? haha.. is that a typo?I think your getting the wrong end of my stick, I'm not and was never concerned.
But me and Eidairman know. We took some stick on fx for heat and power, now it's intels turn it's ok, that's what I meant.
As for 5ghz it's becoming less relevant and wasn't really that important to me ,a 60 hz ish gamer.
Oh and don't be foolish , the Ip in Bd at least some of it went into Ryzen, i find it all ironic tbh.
While surely there was some influence there (BD to Ryzen), the point I was trying to make had everything to do with heat and temperatures as the difference there as to what each CPU can handle is quite different. Nobody is concerned with that because the arch can NOW handle higher temps.
I predict a useless post is useless.I predict here more than 100 comments
Ryzen has better IPC,
considering even Ryzen 2000 have better IPC than i9,
Does it? Are there other reviews showing different than this one?No. It has been shown dozens of times that Intel is still king mainly because of clock speed and IPC. Whenever the clock for clock tests are done, Intel loses almost its entire gaming performance lead and drops to low single digit % leads.
Gaming Benchmarks. We can say upfront that this article is in no way buying advice, but we're testing purely for the science of it. For the unaware, IPC (instructions per cycle) provides a good indicator of how fast a processor is, so with that in mind we're putting Intel and AMD's latest CPU...
Compare apples to apples (6c/12t) and look at the 1600X at 4 GHz versus the 8700K at 4 GHz....
now... their SMT IS more efficient than Intel and in heavily threaded benchmarks which use smt. IPC measurements are typically single threaded, and smt/ht cant be involved, otherwise its a multi-threaded benchmark which shows the difference between HT and SMT.