So just as i predicted 4 months ago then by taking the 9900K core from benches with the average clock speed which matched the Intel show cased from power consumption and the clock speed it would be running in all core turbo then comparing to the 2700X adding average 13% IPC well i said 4.4GHz so i am 100MHz off. However what i am interested in in the 2 core max frequency.

Diminishing returns!!!!

15% IPC boost is a lot. 4,5GHz * 1.15 = 5,175GHz performance equivalent of Zen+. That would definitely match everything intel has. May be interesting.

I can see 5.2 on 2 cores being a possibility for the new high end Zen2. Zen2+ is looking very competitive. Low power usage, high clocks and plenty of cores for under £300. I want one already. 6-12 or 8-16 is the question. We'll see....

15% IPC increase means AMD has a real winner with ZEN2! It also means Intel is going to lose their performance crown after a very lengthy rein...

If this is correct I'm not sure Intel is feeling zen now o_O

15% IPC is more than twice what intel has managed to produce in the last half decade, very skeptical

It's possible, Ryzen design is still maturing and going through some changes.

Intels IPC advantage is around 5%. Their main advantage is in outright clock speed and has been for some time.

Key word " samples " = meaning they are lower clocked than Full retail chips. Samples clocking already at 4.5Ghz points to the right direction for AMD 😉 add 15% ipc and we have a real winner right there 🙂 , price accordingly around $329 US Dollars a 8 core 16 thread will be a real competitor to Intel 9900K $550 US dollars 8 cores 16 threads chip for or more less the same performance. Good for everybody , we all winners here as competition brings lower prices and innovation !

I find the 15% claim too good to be true. According to Guru3D's benchmarks, the 9900K is only about 3.4% better in IPC compared to the 2700X. A 15% boost would mean Zen 2 will have a 11.6% IPC advantage over the 9900K! A 15% boost in single-threaded performance would be more realistic (that would make it nearly as fast as the 9900K), based on both IPC and clock speed improvements.

I believe it when I'm benchmarking it myself 😉 Going to upgrade my TR 1950x anyway to TR gen 3 .

Jagman:

Intels IPC advantage is around 5%. Their main advantage is in outright clock speed and has been for some time.

What we want right now, is performance of 2700x + 15% ipc with frequence of 5Ghz +, and support for 4400+ mhz memory

karma777police:

So it will still be slightly slower than 9900k. 9900k over 2700k has more than 15% of IPC.

9900k doesn't have an IPC advantage over 2700x. Sure, in some areas it does, and some areas it doesn't, and some areas they are equal. This is called, equal, as nothing is ever "exactly the same" What the 9900k DOES have over the 2700x is clock 9900k = 3.5Ghz base, 5Ghz 2-core boost, 4.7Ghz 8-core boost and i believe a 4.4 All-Core Boost 2700x = 3.7Ghz base, 4.3ish 2-core boost, 4.2ish 8-core boost and 4.1ish all-core boost If the 2700x could match the boost frequencies of the 9900k, they would be very similar in performance, as again, their IPC is very similar. Yes, there would be areas where one would win out over the other, again, this is normal, nothing can do everything exactly the same being different architectures. Yes, there are likely some scenarios where one wins out significantly. Remember, GPUs do this as well. So lets say this rumor is true, 15% IPC with 4.5Ghz, like above stated, that'd be similar to 5.175Ghz Zen+, which would be similar to 5.175Ghz 9900k. We don't know if this is a base speed or not. Usually from what i have seen, rumors come out with base speeds, so that leads me to believe that, it's possible 4.5Ghz will be base. But lets say its not, lets go with worse case scenario, if this rumor is true, and the all-core boost is 4.5Ghz, remember, the 9900k is 4.4Ghz all-core boost, and doesn't have the advantage of a 15% IPC improvement. Obviously, all of this is rumor, and we need to wait till its release, but please, stop spreading misinformation around, as your statement that the 9900k has 15% more IPC then 2700x, is purely wrong. 9900k has a FREQUENCY advantage over the 2700x, and IF Zen 2 were to even MATCH that frequency advantage with the rumors 15% IPC increase, it will not be "slightly slower than a 9900k" Even if you believe that the 9900k intel has a 5% IPC advantage over the 2700x, which i wouldn't say is untrue, in some circumstances, as again, it's IPC increase between architectures, especially competing companies architectures, is circumstantial, a 15% overall average IPC increase from Zen+ to Zen 2 with similar clock speeds to the 9900k would not be "slightly slower than a 9900k" Get your facts straight.

EspHack:

15% IPC is more than twice what intel has managed to produce in the last half decade, very skeptical

Yeah i'm skeptical too. Of course the IPC could be taking the increased clock speed into account meaning at 4.5Ghz the CPU can complete more cycles per second(I do realize that isn't the spirit of saying 15% better IPC but you never know with leaks). Will have to wait and see how this pans out.

nizzen:

What we want right now, is performance of 2700x + 15% ipc with frequence of 5Ghz +, and support for 4400+ mhz memory

I can't disagree with that, how sweet that would be.. 😀

I don't believe these news, but I do believe AMD is aiming for the laptop market more than ever with 7 nm. It is hard not to raise the power consumption level when you up clocks, even with 7 nm. People usually forget that bumbing clock speeds for total of 8 cores or more is totally different than raise clocks for dual core or quad core. I expect IPC gain of ~3 %, which is impressive I would say for the expected price. These are very impressive chips overall and we will likely see the first affordable twelve core chip too, but not for laptops though. Eight cores is possible for laptops.

GamerNerves:

I don't believe these news, but I do believe AMD is aiming for the laptop market more than ever with 7 nm. It is hard to not raise the power consumption level when you up clocks, even with 7 nm. People usually forget that bumbing clock speeds for total of 8 cores or more is totally different than raise clocks for dual core or quad core. I expect IPC gain of ~3 %, which is impressive I would say for the expected price. These are very impressive chips overall and we will likely see the first affordable twelve core chip too, but not for laptops though. Eight cores is possible for laptops.

Not saying you are wrong, because who knows until they are released. However, AMD i believe have publically stated that the IPC, not clock, increase and surpassed their expectations, and if their expectations were less then 3%, that'd be pretty sad. Remember, zen is brand new unlike intels architecture, meaning there is generally a lot of room for improvement on brand new architectures. You don't get it perfect, or near it, the first time.

GamerNerves:

I don't believe these news, but I do believe AMD is aiming for the laptop market more than ever with 7 nm. It is hard not to raise the power consumption level when you up clocks, even with 7 nm. People usually forget that bumbing clock speeds for total of 8 cores or more is totally different than raise clocks for dual core or quad core. I expect IPC gain of ~3 %, which is impressive I would say for the expected price. These are very impressive chips overall and we will likely see the first affordable twelve core chip too, but not for laptops though. Eight cores is possible for laptops.

Mere 3% is hardly unlikely. That's what AMD can gain from increasing memory clock from 2933MHz to 3200MHz and enabling bit tighter timings. Even from macroscopic design point of view, AMD did huge design changes. We do not really know where that lands chip in terms of memory access, cache latencies. But I would say that AMD aims to improve. What AMD did with cores themselves? [SPOILER="Following is taken from Techreport."]Zen 2 addresses this shortcoming by doubling each core's SIMD register width to 256 bits. The floating-point side of the Zen 2 core has two 256-bit floating-point add units and two floating-point multiply units that can presumably be yoked together to perform two fused multiply-add operations simultaneously. ... To feed those 256-bit-wide execution engines, AMD also widened the load-store unit, load data path, and floating-point register file to support 256-bit chunks of data. Source.[/SPOILER] I would expect around 10% IPC gain on average (depending on workload). But 15% is not out of question and some workloads may do even better.

EspHack:

15% IPC is more than twice what intel has managed to produce in the last half decade, very skeptical

My theory on this is Intel has probably been sandbagging for years, why innovate when there's no competition? they were probably bashing out these ~5% IPC generational improvements just to sell more CPU's and motherboards to those who upgrade every generation.