3 ms·
Kind of curious: How much lower you want them to go on the power/heat metric? Your current CPU is an 84W TDP part. A Ryzen 7 1700 has twice the number of cores
by examancer 9y ago
Kind of curious: How much lower you want them to go on the power/heat metric? Your current CPU is an 84W TDP part. A Ryzen 7 1700 has twice the number of cores and draws 65W with stock settings. The 1700 can get hot, but really only if you overclock it.
Of course more performance per watt is always better and I too hope Zen 2 can be even better. But right now, in certain scenarios, Ryzen is already leading in both performance per watt and per dollar.
- tracker1 9y agoRight now, the Ryzen 1800 isn't enough for me to jump ship, the 1700 is slower for most workloads, so sticking where I am for now. Though if the equivalent to an 1800x were closer to the 65W mark (Rome generation), I'd probably consider switching. My workload is mixed, but definitely advantages to more cores/threads, I have several VMs in the background for development, docker, database, etc. And do some video re-encoding though that's mostly GPU bound. I've had my 4790K for about 2.5-3 years now (iirc), and my last few upgrades have been around the 3 year mark... will probably push my current setup towards 4-5 years. I did upgrade to a GTX 1080 video card, well worth it, but don't see the point in much else, other than more cores, and getting past 32gb ram.
- berkut 9y agoKeep in mind AMD and Intel measure TDP differently - AMD give average for a particular workflow / scenario, and Intel give absolute maximum, so you can't compare them apples-to-apples.
- dom0 9y agoIntel's TDP is not the absolute maximum, but also a maximum-typical value, measured differently from AMDs methodology.