# Looks like Intel's 8700k 6 core Coffee Lake might be quite a beast.



## Frag_Maniac (Jul 24, 2017)

Early rumors say it's turbo speeds are 4GHz on all 6 cores and 4.3GHz single core.

http://wccftech.com/intel-coffee-lake-core-i7-8700k-6-core-cpu-specifications-details-leak/

Some are expecting it to cost no more than $350 too to compete with Ryzen 6 core sales.

Word is they're launching  Z370 and Z390 chipset MBs, but from what I've read you need a Z370 for these. Z390 supposedly being for Cannonlake.

https://www.pcgamesn.com/intel/intel-z370-chipset

I think I may have found my new CPU.


----------



## Vayra86 (Jul 24, 2017)

Yeah doesn't look bad, but I'll be waiting for this launch to happen first.

Somehow my trust level of Intel not screwing something up about this isn't high.


----------



## Frag_Maniac (Jul 24, 2017)

Vayra86 said:


> Yeah doesn't look bad, but I'll be waiting for this launch to happen first.
> 
> Somehow my trust level of Intel not screwing something up about this isn't high.


The only thing that worries me is what the MB will cost. I will need a knew MB anyway, but I suppose if you need a new chipset to fit it, that will cheese some that just want to upgrade the CPU.


----------



## Vayra86 (Jul 24, 2017)

Frag Maniac said:


> The only thing that worries me is what the MB will cost. I will need a knew MB anyway, but I suppose if you need a new chipset to fit it, that will cheese some that just want to upgrade the CPU.



What worries me is the 4.3 is only one core. Of course, overclockable, but I want to see how well it does on that. The six cores in here are going to have an influence, evident already by how many cores can stay over 4 Ghz within the TDP budget as it is - because that metric really doesn't look so great compared to previous offerings.

I mean how special is 6 cores at 4.0 when there is a Ryzen that has eight of them and can do the same.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 24, 2017)

The only number that matters is 3.7 GHz, stock clock.  Put the chip under any sort of load, it falls from turbo fast.  Certainly respectable but also not something to get excited about.


----------



## Frag_Maniac (Jul 24, 2017)

Vayra86 said:


> I mean how special is 6 cores at 4.0 when there is a Ryzen that has eight of them and can do the same.


I'm talking Turbo speed, not OC speed. The 1800X turbos at 4GHz, yes, but only on ONE core. The 8700k does it on ALL 6 cores. BIG difference.


----------



## Vya Domus (Jul 24, 2017)

Yeah , the clock speeds aren't that incredible , it's a six-core on the same 14nm process after all don't expect miracles in terms of overclocking. But it's good to see they are finally moving away from the same god damn lineup they had for the last decade almost.



Frag Maniac said:


> Some are expecting it to cost no more than $350 too to compete with Ryzen 6 core sales.



That's still far from 6-core Ryzen prices.


----------



## Frag_Maniac (Jul 24, 2017)

Vya Domus said:


> Yeah , the clock speeds aren't that incredible...


The clock speed is slightly better than Ryzen's 6 core, and the Turbo speed obliterates it, so I don't agree. High factory clock speeds like 3.8 to 4 GHz are VERY hard to achieve on a 6 or 8 core, no one's done it.

This is the perfect answer for those not wanting to fiddle with AMD's finicky OCing, and RAM problems, and it hits high speed all by itself and throttles down when you're done gaming to save power and wear and tear.

That said, we'll see how it actually performs and what it costs. I don't want to get ahead of myself.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 24, 2017)

Have you *ever* seen Intel Turbo amount to much of anything on Core i7? I don't think I've ever seen my processor running at higher than stock clock (4.0 GHz).  Nothing that requires any significant amount of CPU grunt these days runs on a single or dual core.  They fairly easily load 3+ cores which means Turbo deactivates.

It's fundamentally marketing bullshit--a reason to spend significantly more money on a Core i7 compared to a Core i5.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Jul 24, 2017)

Frag Maniac said:


> Some are expecting it to cost no more than $350




where is this price coming from?


----------



## RejZoR (Jul 24, 2017)

So, 2 years later and this is all they can muster together? A 6 core that's barely clocked any higher than my almost ancient 5820K made on older node. I know it's not the same since this one has GPU and better IPC, but one would expect a bit more after all this time. I bet these are even dual channel which makes it even worse quite frankly.


----------



## Vayra86 (Jul 24, 2017)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Have you *ever* seen Intel Turbo amount to much of anything on Core i7? I don't think I've ever got my processor running at higher than stock clock (4.0 GHz).  Nothing that requires any significant amount of CPU grunt these days runs on a single or dual core.  They fairly easily load 3+ cores which means Turbo deactivates.
> 
> It's fundamentally marking bullshit--a reason to spend significantly more money on a Core i7 compared to a Core i5.



I don't know man, you're too hung up on stock settings. You can easily OC 4 cores to max turbo on the box already and you can even do it within the base vCore it ships with, more often than not. Did you miss these are K-processors?


----------



## Vya Domus (Jul 24, 2017)

Frag Maniac said:


> The clock speed is slightly better than Ryzen's 6 core, and the Turbo speed obliterates it, so I don't agree. High factory clock speeds like 3.8 to 4 GHz are VERY hard to achieve on a 6 or 8 core, no one's done it.
> 
> This is the perfect answer for those not wanting to fiddle with AMD's finicky OCing, and RAM problems, and it hits high speed all by itself and throttles down when you're done gaming to save power and wear and tear.
> 
> That said, we'll see how it actually performs and what it costs. I don't want to get ahead of myself.



I didn't said it was bad or anything , just not incredible. Thing is it will probably not give much of a boost in gaming if it doesn't OC as much as the 7700K ( which is a possibility ) , actually it may even fall short of that in a few cases. In any multi-core application with perfect scaling you will see 40-50% more performance. At Intel typical prices in my opinion all of this wont be impressive. But it is better than the barley incremental uplift we've seen for quite some time now.


----------



## Frag_Maniac (Jul 24, 2017)

Vayra86 said:


> I don't know man, you're too hung up on stock settings. You can easily OC 4 cores to max turbo on the box already and you can even do it within the base vCore it ships with, more often than not. Did you miss these are K-processors?


Easy to say if your last chip OCed well. I struck out on my last two processors. My i7-950 and 7970 both don't OC worth a damn. Plus I really feel with the 8700k's wattage and being 6 cores, I wouldn't have even wanted to clock it higher than 4GHz anyway. I've seen plenty 4700k users that leave their chip stock with zero problems, and it's even better if you can hit that on all cores via turbo.

As for the pricing, it's what a couple sites estimated based on how Ryzen 6 cores are selling and what Intel's current quad cores are selling for. I'll add that you can probably justify factoring in that even their 8 core pricing dropped 40% since Ryzen debuted. You apply that to their previous hex core pricing, and add that these are for mainstream vs enthusiast platforms, and it makes sense.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 24, 2017)

Vayra86 said:


> I don't know man, you're too hung up on stock settings. You can easily OC 4 cores to max turbo on the box already and you can even do it within the base vCore it ships with, more often than not. Did you miss these are K-processors?


That's overclocking.  Turbo is a stock feature.  Forcing the processor to always use Turbo frequencies is going to significantly increase the voltage/heat/power consumption.


----------



## Frag_Maniac (Jul 24, 2017)

Vya Domus said:


> I didn't said it was bad or anything , just not incredible. Thing is it will probably not give much of a boost in gaming if it doesn't OC as much as the 7700K ( which is a possibility ) , actually it may even fall short of that in a few cases. In any multi-core application with perfect scaling you will see 40-50% more performance. At Intel typical prices in my opinion all of this wont be impressive. But it is better than the barley incremental uplift we've seen for quite some time now.


I can't believe you are talking like you expect a hex core to run at the same speed as a quad no problem, yet here we're talking a hex core that actually DOES match the 4700k's stock speed on turbo, and on ALL 6 cores.

It seems we have quite the gamut of everything from expecting super high OC speed, to expecting super high stock speed here. It's like you guys are still stuck in quad land.

I really think these chips will game fine. I wouldn't be surprised if they'll be hailed as the 4700k of hex cores. This thing in reality is only 200MHz slower than a 7700k, because a 7700k doesn't boost to 4.5 on all cores. Personally, going forward, I'll take 6 cores at 4GHz over 4 at 4.2. I'd trust it to play smoother, and work better on upcoming multi threaded games.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Jul 24, 2017)

Long live socket 1366...........

7 years and counting


----------



## Vya Domus (Jul 24, 2017)

Frag Maniac said:


> I can't believe you are talking like you expect a hex core to run at the same speed as a quad no problem.



That's the thing , I don't expect it to run at the same clock speed as a 7700K that's why I said it's unimpressive. Whatever , we all have different opinions on what is impressive and what isn't.


----------



## Frag_Maniac (Jul 24, 2017)

Vya Domus said:


> That's the thing , I don't expect it to run at the same clock speed as a 7700K that's why I said it's unimpressive. Whatever , we all have different opinions on what is impressive and what isn't.


I'm well aware that's what you said, but it doesn't account for the fact that NO ONE has made or can make a 6 or 8 core chip run as fast as a quad, so it's not unimpressive given that it's not plausible to do so. It comes down to whether you gamble the future will lean more toward 6 or 8 threaded games, vs quad threaded. Many are recognizing that it's already happening with several games. Plus consoles that PC games are ported from have been using 8 core APUs for some time. It's just a matter whether you foresee what that translates to going forward. Plus 6 and 8 core chips can obviously multitask better, IF you want your PC to be versatile too anyway. I really think going 6 or 8 will be beneficial to gaming too though going forward, just my two cents.

Yeah CAPS, I'm on 1366 myself, but with a measly 4 cores. Quite frankly I'm kinda surprised how well it's held up for so long.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Jul 24, 2017)

oh well confirmation for a Ryzen R5 1600 then ...


350$? the 7700K launched around 450$, that's a wishful thinking 350$... also just in case if the i5-8600K will be priced above a R5 1600 ... then another point to AMD for my next move... if a 6C/6T goes around 225$ (i don't think so since the R5 is already 225$ where i live .... and that's still cheaper than my 6600K for a 6C/12T) 

well not really a beast even at 350$ (that would put is close to the R7 1700X) if the launch price is closer to 450$ .... well that's rather the 1800X and if they do the usual (improving ipc by 5% ) then it's not that impressive .... keeping the same socket is nice but the chipset change (basically the same as changing all in the end) 

so basically it's a R5 1600 (6C/12T) counterpart priced like a R7 1700X (8C/16T) and the performances are yet to be seen if it's a +5/10% ... not a beast 




CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> Long live socket 1366...........
> 
> 7 years and counting
> 
> View attachment 90428


CAPS!!! your vinyl record is scratched you are repeating yourself over and over and over in each thread that still show a worthy replacement  (my i7 920 was doing 4.2 4/8 but still gave me lower result compared to any following CPU i had  ok not the same node fab and 2008 cpu but still  )
so .... yep your build is obsolete, but still satisfy your need, no issues indeed 

(not a rant not a sarcasm just tired  )



Frag Maniac said:


> but with a measly 4 cores.


still a 4C/8T while caps is on 6C/12T (tho at what price ... at the time it was literally 1 arm 1 leg)


----------



## Vya Domus (Jul 24, 2017)

Frag Maniac said:


> I'm well aware that's what you said, but it doesn't account for the fact that NO ONE has made or can make a 6 or 8 core chip run as fast as a quad. It comes down to whether you gamble the future will lean more toward 6 or 8 threaded games, vs quad threaded. Many are recognizing that it's already happening with several games. Plus consoles that PC games are ported from have been using 8 core APUs for some time. It's just a matter whether you foresee what that translates to going forward. Plus 6 and 8 core chips can obviously multitask better, IF you want you PC to be versatile too anyway. I really think going 6 or 8 will be beneficial to gaming to though going forward.
> 
> Yeah CAPS, I'm on 1366 myself, but with a measly 4 cores. Quite frankly I'm kinda surprised how well it's held up for so long.



Actually a game like Crysis 3 scales up to 16 threads/cores and that's a game from 2013. Game engines are there , what's on the market however not quite. Your 1366 platform held up fine because since then there hasn't been any major shift towards more cores/threads thanks to Intel and their i3s that flooded the market. The future is all about more cores no doubt. There is no choice literally , as you can see Intel finally gave in and upped their core count , although pricing wise they are still stubborn to think their chips should fetch a large premium.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Jul 24, 2017)

Vya Domus said:


> as you can see Intel finally gave in and upped their core count , although pricing wise they are still stubborn.


and still gave 2C/4T less than the max price available to the "average joe" ( or 6 thread less if taking the R5 1600 versus i5 8600K )

totally agreed about Intel's stubbornness about pricing


----------



## Frag_Maniac (Jul 24, 2017)

GreiverBlade said:


> oh well confirmation for a Ryzen R5 1600 then ...


Oh really, a 1600 can turbo all cores at 4GHz? Don't think so.

And on pricing guys, don't forget Intel's octo cores used to cost $1000 until they came out with one that competes better on price with Ryzen. A lot has happened since that high launch price on the 7700k.

No need to live in the past, things are competitive now. If you ask me the only annoyance price wise lately is what the damn miners are causing on mid range GPU pricing. That and TV prices, but that's another topic.


----------



## trog100 (Jul 24, 2017)

pure sales hype.. when they hit a heat/clock speed ceiling and they cant run a given number of cores quicker (i still remember single core chips) they move to more slower cores.. mostly these extra cores do bugger all as regards extra real world performance and history will repeat..

my 7700K 4 core 8 thread chip has hit a heat ceiling for sure.. it happily runs at 5 ghz (or higher) but it gets too f-cking hot..

people assume that the software will use these extra cores.. some time in the distant future it might but at present it wont.. he he..

people will buy into the more core con just like they did the last time..

trog


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 24, 2017)

Vayra86 said:


> What worries me is the 4.3 is only one core. Of course, overclockable, but I want to see how well it does on that. The six cores in here are going to have an influence, evident already by how many cores can stay over 4 Ghz within the TDP budget as it is - because that metric really doesn't look so great compared to previous offerings.
> 
> I mean how special is 6 cores at 4.0 when there is a Ryzen that has eight of them and can do the same.


remember the 7900x, 10c, max boost is 2 cores now. Not sure if that will trickle down, but... they are already there.

The thing with ryzen, you arent even guaranteed to hit 4ghz on all cores...then you can overclock the intel on too. 



CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> Long live socket 1366...........
> 
> 7 years and counting


----------



## Vya Domus (Jul 24, 2017)

Skylake-X was clearly meant to run at lower clocks as it was also designed for servers , OC them and power efficiency goes out the window. Coffee Lake isn't , therefore they should be able get some more clock speed out of them compared to 6-core Skylake-X.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 24, 2017)

Interesting theory...


----------



## RejZoR (Jul 24, 2017)

Well, considering most ancient 5820K's clock far beyond 4GHz, it would be very underwhelming to see brand new CPU's with same core count clock so poorly. GPU or not, Haswell-E's have other stuff taking their space on the die so it's about the same...


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 24, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> Well, considering most ancient 5820K's clock far beyond 4GHz,* it would be very underwhelming to see brand new CPU's with same core count clock so poorly*. GPU or not, Haswell-E's have other stuff taking their space on the die so it's about the same...



Do you feel that way about Zen compared to Vishera??? You probably should. 

The 7820k hits 4.6 ghz avg on water... 5820k averages a bit below that. 

5820k - http://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_i7_5820k/
7820k - http://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_i7_7820x/

@RejZoR - Curious to see your response to this............


----------



## Vya Domus (Jul 24, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> Well, considering most ancient 5820K's clock far beyond 4GHz, it would be very underwhelming to see brand new CPU's with same core count clock so poorly. GPU or not, Haswell-E's have other stuff taking their space on the die so it's about the same...



People don't realize ICs have hit a wall in term of clock speed. It has become very difficult to squeeze more out of the the same die area like it or not.

Remember Intel speaking in the early 2000s about how they are going to hit 8Ghz in a couple of years down the road ? Yeah...


----------



## RejZoR (Jul 24, 2017)

Yeah, that was for Netburst which was already melting down at 3.2GHz. And they had plans for like 5GHz or so back then. Then Core happened and arrived, starting with sub 2GHz clocks lol. I wonder why...


----------



## Vya Domus (Jul 24, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> Then Core happened and arrived, starting with sub 2GHz clocks lol. I wonder why...



Because there is always a trade off , more execution units/instructions/control/cache in exchange for clock speed. You probably wont see much past 5Ghz in the coming years from both Intel and AMD.


----------



## cdawall (Jul 24, 2017)

FordGT90Concept said:


> That's overclocking.  Turbo is a stock feature.  Forcing the processor to always use Turbo frequencies is going to significantly increase the voltage/heat/power consumption.



Does your board not allow you to tweak the turbo settings? I am at 4.5 1 core /4.4 2 core /4.2 3 core /4.2 4 core for turbo on my 6700k with a hard to limit set for 65w. According to thr killawatt power consumption is the same and it is rare that more than one core drops below 4.2/4.1 in just about anything.



EarthDog said:


> Do you feel that way about Zen compared to Vishera??? You probably should.
> 
> The 7820k hits 4.6 ghz avg on water... 5820k averages a bit below that.
> 
> ...



He wont respond it goes against his incorrect as usual misgivings.


----------



## RejZoR (Jul 24, 2017)

Whole 43MHz difference on average! Man, now you really got me! On 2 generations older CPU made on twice as large fab node. Boy oh boy, call the fanboy police, stat... Yeah, one would expect better from so much newer and better everything. Not to mention 5820K was bottom of the barrel CPU from the X99 platform...


----------



## cdawall (Jul 24, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> Whole 43MHz difference on average! Man, now you really got me! On 2 generations older CPU made on twice as large fab node. Boy oh boy, call the fanboy police, stat... Yeah, one would expect better from so much newer and better everything. Not to mention 5820K was bottom of the barrel CPU from the X99 platform...



Bottom of the barrel motherboards are already averaging nearly 100mhz faster clocks on a month old platform. X99 is relatively tried and true and quite a few upper tier boards are used in those numbers.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 24, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> Whole 43MHz difference on average! Man, now you really got me! On 2 generations older CPU made on twice as large fab node. Boy oh boy, call the fanboy police, stat... Yeah, one would expect better from so much newer and better everything. Not to mention 5820K was bottom of the barrel CPU from the X99 platform...


The point was there is little difference in overclocking between them...you seemed to allude the 5820K overclocks farther, when in reality it is about the same, as you now point out above, and what I pointed out earlier. I'm trying to shed some if you believe the 7820X clocks poorly, then so does the 5820K as they clock about the same with the 7820X having a slight lead.  Did I misunderstand what you meant to say originally?

Nobody is talking fanboy/drama anything here Rejz, save your vitriol for where its needed. 



RejZoR said:


> Not to mention 5820K was bottom of the barrel CPU from the X99 platform...


You mentioned specifically the same # of cores earlier...now its where the CPU is in the product stack?

But if you want to go down a different road...we can compare the 7640K/7740K and how they overclock since its the bottom of the barrel X299... the only subs I see are 5 Ghz on 7640K and 4.7Ghz+ on 7740K... no a lot of data to really get an idea.



cdawall said:


> Does your board not allow you to tweak the turbo settings? I am at 4.5 1 core /4.4 2 core /4.2 3 core /4.2 4 core for turbo on my 6700k with a hard to limit set for 65w. According to thr killawatt power consumption is the same and it is rare that more than one core drops below 4.2/4.1 in just about anything.


Sure they do.. just saying many boards, optimized defaults just set max turbo for all cores by default.


----------



## jaggerwild (Jul 24, 2017)

The usual Intel bashers show up to spew there FUD. Funny thing is he had a 5820 on a top of the line board? Why bother.....a four core on a X99 board is like a volkswagon in the 24 hours of Lemans. Waste of time.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 24, 2017)

cdawall said:


> Does your board not allow you to tweak the turbo settings? I am at 4.5 1 core /4.4 2 core /4.2 3 core /4.2 4 core for turbo on my 6700k with a hard to limit set for 65w. According to thr killawatt power consumption is the same and it is rare that more than one core drops below 4.2/4.1 in just about anything.


 6700K is a 91w processor.


----------



## cdawall (Jul 24, 2017)

FordGT90Concept said:


> 6700K is a 91w processor.



Correct. I downTDP'd it for use in a silent htpc case


----------



## Vya Domus (Jul 24, 2017)

jaggerwild said:


> The usual Intel bashers show up to spew there FUD.



If this discussion looks like FUD to you I wonder what the Vega stuff is...


----------



## Frag_Maniac (Jul 24, 2017)

Vya Domus said:


> If this discussion looks like FUD to you I wonder what the Vega stuff is...


Yeah I feel Vega is the one that's getting far too much ado. It's one thing if you release a 1080 equivalent GPU near launch of Nvidia's card, but when it comes out nearly a year and a half later, with the speculated price being around $600, it's kinda Meh.


----------



## Hood (Jul 24, 2017)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> Long live socket 1366...........
> 
> 7 years and counting


This is why people need to have a little faith - Intel knows what they're doing.  They can only do what's possible at the present state of the art, and all the wishful thinking and derogatory posts won't change the laws of physics...


----------



## GreiverBlade (Jul 24, 2017)

R5 1600 ticking all cores turbo at 4.0 is not decisive.

In terms of pricing, on the other hand, it will be a better option to move from my 6600K instead of a 8600K/8700K or even R7 1700/1800X.

6C/6T is nice, but if it's at the same price or higher than 6C/12T then it's not so nice.

Nonetheless I still have the time before I will feel a real need to upgrade and Ryzen will probably have a lot of corrective patch and BIOS or 2.0 will be ready


----------



## Frag_Maniac (Jul 24, 2017)

GreiverBlade said:


> R5 1600 ticking all cores turbo at 4.0 is not possible.


Fixed it for ya.


----------



## biffzinker (Jul 24, 2017)

Vya Domus said:


> Remember Intel speaking in the early 2000s about how they are going to hit 8Ghz in a couple of years down the road ? Yeah...


Sounds familiar, although I thought it was Pentium 4 = 10 GHz?


> Apparently, there will be no version of the Pentium 4 processor that runs at 4GHz. Intel has decided to switch its emphasis onto other areas of the processor's specifications, such as additional cache, dual cores, faster FSB and so forth. Originally, we were meant to see Pentium 4s that went as high as 10GHz. - https://www.techspot.com/news/16103-intel-drops-plans-for-4ghz-pentium-4.html



Intel also predicted the system bus was going to scale up at 4 GHz?


----------



## Vya Domus (Jul 24, 2017)

biffzinker said:


> Sounds familiar, although I thought it was Pentium 4 = 10 GHz?



8 , 10 I don't remember exactly , it was some ridiculous number.



Frag Maniac said:


> Fixed it for ya.



Pretty sure they can hit 4ghz.


----------



## trog100 (Jul 24, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> Yeah, that was for Netburst which was already melting down at 3.2GHz. And they had plans for like 5GHz or so back then. Then Core happened and arrived, starting with sub 2GHz clocks lol. I wonder why...


 
i will answer that for you.. they came set at high enough clocks to soundly beat amd.. that is all they had to do.. this way they had tons of performance in reserve.. enough to last nearly ten years.. he he..

they are now hitting the performance/heat wall.. current intel chips come clocked near max out of the box.. there isnt much more left.. unlike my core 2 chip which came clocked at 3 ghz which i was benching it at 4.5 ghz.. 

basically the only time intel or amd clock chips at what they are capable of out of the box is when they have to.. or when real competition exists.. most of the time it dosnt.. one team cruises the other team struggles to keep up.. intel has been cruising for years going right back to when the core years began.. 

trog


----------



## Frag_Maniac (Jul 24, 2017)

Vya Domus said:


> Pretty sure they can hit 4ghz.


He was speaking in terms of turbo, the R5 1600 only turbos at 3.6, and not on all cores.

Anyways, we'll see how much of this is mere rumor vs truth when they launch, but seeing as how a chart was dredged up, and given what clock speeds Intel has already given to some chips, it's very plausible.


----------



## toilet pepper (Jul 24, 2017)

How will they differentiate this with the current x299 6 core? Will the buyers of kabylake-x get shafted for being an early adopter or will they gimp coffee lake? This release is interesting because of that.


----------



## Frag_Maniac (Jul 25, 2017)

toilet pepper said:


> How will they differentiate this with the current x299 6 core? Will the buyers of kabylake-x get shafted for being an early adopter or will they gimp coffee lake? This release is interesting because of that.


For one, it's an S version chip, not X. The only thing some people have been able to dig up so far is that it will probably only work on the new Z370 chipset, but that is a mainstream not enthusiast platform. According to what has been found of Z370 is it only brings in USB 3.1, and Gigabit WiFi. While that may not sound exciting, it may also with less bells and whistles be less inclined to restrictions we're seeing on X299.

Anyways, we'll just have to wait and see what the actual details will be.


----------



## Cvrk (Jul 25, 2017)

Release date : Exactly 1 month before you cave and buy a Ryzen cip.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Jul 25, 2017)

Frag Maniac said:


> Fixed it for ya.


did it look like i care to you?  



GreiverBlade said:


> R5 1600 can't do all cores turbo at 4.0 is not decisive.


re-fixed for you then


----------



## Vayra86 (Jul 25, 2017)

Vya Domus said:


> 8 , 10 I don't remember exactly , it was some ridiculous number.
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty sure they can hit 4ghz.



Somebody really needs to explain to me why we are theorizing on stock frequencies when we talk about CPUs that have a markup specifically for being overclockable. Silicon lottery doesnt even apply here, going by how reliably virtually every 4- and 6 core on Intel Core 2xxx and up has clocked to past 4.0 on all cores. 

This topic title says a 6 core on 4.0 is a beast. Effectively we've already had this for quite awhile, be it on AMD or Intel. Ryzen can push 8 cores to 3.9-4.1 and even that bottom end trumps this so called 'beast'.

Again, the feasible OCed clock averages are going make or break this CPU. As was said, the unique bit here is having hexacore Intel on mainstream platform, and for that to really count for much, it will need to be ableto clock high or the same arguments as with Ryzen apply, and that means it neefs pricing on par to be worthwhile.


----------



## qubit (Jul 25, 2017)

I read somewhere that the IPC improvement will be significant. If so this will be a good reason for me to upgrade. Depending on price, I might be happy with the 4 core 8 thread version.


----------



## Vayra86 (Jul 25, 2017)

qubit said:


> I read somewhere that the IPC improvement will be significant. If so this will be a good reason for me to upgrade. Depending on price, I might be happy with the 4 core 8 thread version.



Curious for a source on that, what arch change is going to make that happen?


----------



## Vya Domus (Jul 25, 2017)

Vayra86 said:


> Somebody really needs to explain to me why we are theorizing on stock frequencies when we talk about CPUs that have a markup specifically for being overclockable. Silicon lottery doesnt even apply here, going by how reliably virtually every 4- and 6 core on Intel Core 2xxx and up has clocked to past 4.0 on all cores.
> 
> This topic title says a 6 core on 4.0 is a beast. Effectively we've already had this for quite awhile, be it on AMD or Intel. Ryzen can push 8 cores to 3.9-4.1 and even that bottom end trumps this so called 'beast'.
> 
> Again, the feasible OCed clock averages are going make or break this CPU. As was said, the unique bit here is having hexacore Intel on mainstream platform, and for that to really count for much, it will need to be ableto clock high or the same arguments as with Ryzen apply, and that means it neefs pricing on par to be worthwhile.



I don't think I have ever said the contrary in this thread to any of this. 90% people picking these new CPUs up will overclock them , and stock clocks will be irrelevant for the most part. Unless Intel squeezes out some IPC gain we are looking at a 7700K with an extra 2c/4t and perhaps lower OC headroom.



qubit said:


> I read somewhere that the IPC improvement will be significant. If so this will be a good reason for me to upgrade. Depending on price, I might be happy with the 4 core 8 thread version.



Kind of doubtful there is going to be any improvement in IPC. And I thought there isn't going to be a quad core with HT anymore in their lineup or am I wrong ?

i3=4c/4t
i5=6c/6t
i7=6c/12t


----------



## GreiverBlade (Jul 25, 2017)

qubit said:


> I read somewhere that the IPC improvement will be significant. If so this will be a good reason for me to upgrade. Depending on price, I might be happy with the 4 core 8 thread version.


yep yep .... 5-10% as usual .... for Intel it's impressive .... and the norm for them ...

unless they do a "Piledriver to Zen" increase ...



Vya Domus said:


> I don't think I have ever said the contrary in this thread to any of this. 90% people picking these new CPUs up will overclock them , and stock clocks will be irrelevant for the most part. Unless Intel squeezes out some IPC gain we are looking at a 7700K with an extra 2c/4t and perhaps lower OC headroom.


exactly why Turbo is not a decisive argument for me ... my 6600K is 4.4 non turbo .... if i take a R5 1600 and can reach 3.9-4.1 non turbo ... then it's a better option than go 8600K or 8700K, in term of price mostly and not a big loss in term of performance ... unless Intel do a overly huge IPC improvement, although if they did .... the price would not suits me anyway ... my sweetspot is 6600K price or slightly lower and only the R5 1600 is in that range, the 7600K brings nothing to the table and cost more and the 8600K will bring 2C/2T more than the 6600K and will probably be more expensive, then again, the R5 1600 is the best option, will still get 2C more but also 12T (over the 6600K)

it's not like my 6600K is insufficient tho ... but AMD did good on the CPU side lately.


----------



## hat (Jul 25, 2017)

If it's supposed to turbo to 4GHz on all cores, I don't see why it wouldn't, unless temps got in the way. This is what everyone wanted though, right? 6 core chip in the mainstream socket? Now those looking to upgrade and on the fence between AMD and Intel have a tougher decision to make than they did previously.


----------



## Komshija (Jul 25, 2017)

The problem is that 6C/12T i7 LGA 11XX should came out three years ago as i7 4790K, continuing with 6C/12T i7 6700K and so on, while maintaining the same price tag of the current 4C/8T chips. Financially speaking, Intel would be in the big plus anyway, but their profit margins would be slightly lower.
For almost 10 years we had the same 4C/8T philosophy, where performance increased for 6-7% from generation to generation. So much about Intel respecting their customers...

Now when AMD has better solutions, they finally realized that i7 LGA 11XX CPU could be 6C/12T. WOW! 

On the other hand, I assume that this chip will sell for more than 350$; possibly 379$ or 389$, which already makes it an extremely bad purchase. For the same price tag someone could get an Ryzen 7 1700X which will likely outperform 6C/12T i7 in most cases.


----------



## Vayra86 (Jul 25, 2017)

Vya Domus said:


> I don't think I have ever said the contrary in this thread to any of this. 90% people picking these new CPUs up will overclock them , and stock clocks will be irrelevant for the most part. Unless Intel squeezes out some IPC gain we are looking at a 7700K with an extra 2c/4t and perhaps lower OC headroom.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That was a misquote sorry, was mostly reference to @Frag Maniac who feels this is a beast somehow because it gets 4.3 on one core and his pre-Sandy i7 is a bad OCer  (Followed by a bunch of people who consider OC capable CPUs should be best left on stock, or some strange reasoning)


----------



## qubit (Jul 25, 2017)

Vayra86 said:


> Curious for a source on that, what arch change is going to make that happen?


You know how you read something and then have no idea where? Well, I did some frantic Googling and came up with the TPU article below. Looks like I was thinking of Cannon Lake which is likely to be 15% faster than the previous generation. This will make it way faster than my old 2700K and therefore worth upgrading.

https://www.techpowerup.com/230541/8th-gen-core-cannon-lake-over-15-faster-than-kaby-lake-intel

Having said that Coffee Lake and Cannon Lake seem to be used interchangeably for the 8th gen depending on what article you read, so that's a bit confusing.


----------



## Vya Domus (Jul 25, 2017)

"these processors are expected to have a bigger performance gain over the preceding 7th gen Core "Kaby Lake" micro-architecture, than Kaby Lake had over its predecessor, the 6th gen Core "Skylake."

That's kind of vague , and you can assume that performance comes from the extra cores.


----------



## qubit (Jul 25, 2017)

Vya Domus said:


> "these processors are expected to have a bigger performance gain over the preceding 7th gen Core "Kaby Lake" micro-architecture, than Kaby Lake had over its predecessor, the 6th gen Core "Skylake."
> 
> That's kind of vague , and you can assume that performance comes from the extra cores.


The article title says over 15%, but it's not repeated in the article, which is odd.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Jul 25, 2017)

Komshija said:


> The problem is that 6C/12T i7 LGA 11XX should came out three years ago as i7 4790K, continuing with 6C/12T i7 6700K and so on, while maintaining the same price tag of the current 4C/8T chips. Financially speaking, Intel would be in the big plus anyway, but their profit margins would be slightly lower.
> For almost 10 years we had the same 4C/8T philosophy, where performance increased for 6-7% from generation to generation. So much about Intel respecting their customers...
> 
> Now when AMD has better solutions, they finally realized that i7 LGA 11XX CPU could be 6C/12T. WOW!
> ...


to me it will probably be, as i wrote previously, 450$+ for the 8700K  also 6C/12T mainstream socket .... well we already have 8C/16T for that ... and probably at the same price of future 6C/12T offer from Intel

assuming the pricing would be as rumored:
(using my country's currency)

in the range of 150chf R5 1500X 4C/8T
in the range of 225chf (probably higher for Intel's offer ) i5 8600K 6C/6T and R5 1600 6C/12T
in the range of 350chf (putting the i7 in two category due to the 7700K launch price) i7 8600K 6C/12T, R7 1700 8C/16T and R7 1700X 8C/16T (R7 are respectively 329 and 395chf putting the 1700 as a good option for the 350chf range)
in the range of 450chf i7 8600K 6C/12T and R7 1800X 8C/16T (479chf for the R7 and probably 489chf for the i7 if retailer behave as usual )




qubit said:


> The article title says over 15%, but it's not repeated in the article, which is odd.


5 to 15% is small just as Intel accustomed us to .... over 15%? what, 15,1%? 20%? (if 20% it's slightly interesting but not in term of price prevision )


----------



## Vayra86 (Jul 25, 2017)

qubit said:


> The article title says over 15%, but it's not repeated in the article, which is odd.



Reading the article critically, all I can distill is that a clock bump is predicted to cause the performance increase over previous gen.

Its vague rumor and has no basis as far as I can see within the architecture. Thanks for looking it up though 

@GreiverBlade yes I agree both make sense in Intel marketing.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Jul 25, 2017)

Vayra86 said:


> Reading the article critically, all I can distill is that a clock bump is predicted to cause the performance increase over previous gen.
> 
> Its vague rumor and has no basis as far as I can see within the architecture. Thanks for looking it up though


clock bump or core bump .... after all it's from 4C/4T to 6C/6T and 4C/8T to 6C/12T, that might also be the reason for the performances increase (both are logical, no? )


----------



## Eric3988 (Jul 25, 2017)

GreiverBlade said:


> yep yep .... 5-10% as usual .... for Intel it's impressive .... and the norm for them ...
> 
> unless they do a "Piledriver to Zen" increase ...
> 
> ...




I would like to echo this. Next gen Intel is going to fine, like always, but AMD is simply going to offer more for less to get in that sweet market share. Capitalism, baby!


----------



## erocker (Jul 25, 2017)

I'd be fine with 7700K IPC performance with 6 cores.


----------



## Frag_Maniac (Jul 25, 2017)

GreiverBlade said:


> did it look like i care to you?
> 
> 
> re-fixed for you then


LOL, that's not a fix, that's you fixating on AMD. You'd been better off comparing to 1600X instead of 1600, because at least it turbos at 4GHz, but still not on all cores.


Vayra86 said:


> This topic title says a 6 core on 4.0 is a beast.


Given that it can do so without the user touching it, it is. No one has made a 6 core chip that turbos that high on all cores. No matter how much you harp about OCing, some don't care to, and some chips aren't very good at handling it, especially if you keep your core parts for over 5 years like many do.

I think it's obvious this thread wasn't intended for OCing and brand fanatics, but that's what these topics always devolve to. My question is, where are you guys when someone gets a lemon, low ASIC GPU that doesn't OC worth a damn. Oh, that's right, sitting there rubbing salt in the wound saying it's not a legit reason for refund. Same goes for CPUs, just the luck of the draw. So some of us prepare for that possibility with a chip that's at least guaranteed to turbo at 4GHz on all cores. I don't see why you don't get that. You'd rather wave your OCing epeen than use some common sense understanding the purchase decisions of those whom have had bad chips.


qubit said:


> Having said that Coffee Lake and Cannon Lake seem to be used interchangeably for the 8th gen depending on what article you read, so that's a bit confusing.


If you look for articles that refer to chipsets, I'm pretty sure Coffee Lake will require Z370, and Cannonlake 390.


----------



## notb (Jul 25, 2017)

Komshija said:


> For almost 10 years we had the same 4C/8T philosophy, where performance increased for 6-7% from generation to generation. So much about Intel respecting their customers...


Isn't this exactly respecting customers? Constant improvement?


----------



## qubit (Jul 25, 2017)

Frag Maniac said:


> If you look for articles that refer to chipsets, I'm pretty sure Coffee Lake will require Z370, and Cannonlake 390.


Yeah, could be. I only had a cursory check.


----------



## agello24 (Jul 25, 2017)

Frag Maniac said:


> Early rumors say it's turbo speeds are 4GHz on all 6 cores and 4.3GHz single core.
> 
> http://wccftech.com/intel-coffee-lake-core-i7-8700k-6-core-cpu-specifications-details-leak/
> 
> ...



Can you explain how a $350 dollar 6 core will compete with a $200 6 core ryzen?


----------



## hat (Jul 25, 2017)

notb said:


> Isn't this exactly respecting customers? Constant improvement?



If you're okay with such measly improvements, then yeah... anybody who knows anything about this knows that Intel has been pulling punches for years now. They've offered minimal improvements across the board, with  higher core counts at the top of the top end for years. They've only offered up to 6 core with the original i7, Sandy-E, and Ivy-E. They offered an 8 core with Haswell-E, a 10 core with Broadwell-E, and still 10 core with Kaby Lake-E. All those were available for exorbitant prices (for most). It was only after AMD came along with Ryzen that Intel started attempting to improve their product beyond tossing up marginally better products at continually higher prices.


----------



## Frag_Maniac (Jul 25, 2017)

agello24 said:


> Can you explain how a $350 dollar 6 core will compete with a $200 6 core ryzen?


That's subjective to what the buyer is looking for. Anyway, this thread isn't intended as a pissing contest, and if this kind of posting persists I'll ask that the thread be closed.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Jul 25, 2017)

Frag Maniac said:


> LOL, that's not a fix, that's you fixating on AMD. You'd been better off comparing to 1600X instead of 1600, because at least it turbos at 4GHz, but still not on all cores.


actually i am not fixated on AMD .... nope the 1600 is fine, the 1600X is a little more expensive  1600 and 1600X are the same 1700 and 1700X are the same .... nothing AMD did on the X version can't be achieved by the user on the non X version, granted that you won the silicon lottery  tho my etailer/retailer did also understand that ... luckily they still have listing of the 1600 but only 1600X in stock, tho the 1700 is completely absent of the listing and only stock the 1700X, logically since priced higher albeit being both capable of the same performances, there is less than 1% difference between them in real life usage but the price difference is a little more higher than 1%  .
and the only things i don't consider decisive indeed is the turbo, i am not a heavy OC'er but i always disable turbo (not that my 6600K works 100% of the time @ 4.4 but when i use it i use it fully most of the time and i saw issues with my 6600K and letting the turbo enabled.)



Frag Maniac said:


> I think it's obvious this thread wasn't intended for OCing


actually... it's a little wrong .... we talk about a K chip...  

i am neither a brand fanatic, i had enough CPU's from any known and less known manufacturer, but ... i still have to reckon that this year AMD did a far better job, if we put aside the issues needing BIOS/microcode revision, than Intel and offer some better alternative, either on the price side or the features side.

furthermore, why would i pay 250 for 6C/6T or 350/450 for 6C/12T when i can pay 225/269 for 6C/12T  (1600/1600X)



Frag Maniac said:


> That's subjective to what the buyer is looking for. Anyway, this thread isn't intended as a pissing contest, and if this kind of posting persists I'll ask that the thread be closed.


technically i understand that point, but well you label that future CPU a beast, that a bit asking for it 

anyway, i'm off now, have fun and good luck


----------



## notb (Jul 25, 2017)

hat said:


> If you're okay with such measly improvements, then yeah... anybody who knows anything about this knows that Intel has been pulling punches for years now. They've offered minimal improvements across the board, with  higher core counts at the top of the top end for years.


But in the end they've offered the same improvement AMD did.
However, at any point buying Intel means getting something faster than what was available ~1 year earlier.
You're advocating AMD's +50% a lot, while what this actually means is that for the last 5 years choosing AMD meant buying something dating back to 2011. They were constantly loosing ground to Intel's "measly" +5% yearly.
Also the platform is regularly refreshed, so you're getting all the latest features as well.



> It was only after AMD came along with Ryzen that Intel started attempting to improve their product beyond tossing up marginally better products at continually higher prices.


Now this is some twisted logic.
Imagine what would happen if Intel was marginal and AMD had majority of market. You'd have to use a Bulldozer forever.


agello24 said:


> Can you explain how a $350 dollar 6 core will compete with a $200 6 core ryzen?


By performing better, I suppose.
Also keep in mind 6-core something-lake will have an IGP. Zen-based APUs will be limited to 4C in this generation (most likely).


----------



## Frag_Maniac (Jul 25, 2017)

GreiverBlade said:


> ...granted that you won the silicon lottery


Well at least you recognize that, some others, not so much.


notb said:


> By performing better...


Exactly, it's as if some are still in denial that has been the case for some time. The bottom line is many prioritize performance over price, as long as the price is somewhat reasonable.


----------



## hat (Jul 25, 2017)

notb said:


> But in the end they've offered the same improvement AMD did.
> However, at any point buying Intel means getting something faster than what was available ~1 year earlier.
> You're advocating AMD's +50% a lot, while what this actually means is that for the last 5 years choosing AMD meant buying something dating back to 2011. They were constantly loosing ground to Intel's "measly" +5% yearly.
> Also the platform is regularly refreshed, so you're getting all the latest features as well.
> ...



It's not difficult to hazard a guess that if Intel wanted to, they could have done better than they have been these past several years. They've just coasted along because AMD hasn't had anything besides faildozer for years. 

What do you mean if AMD had the majority of the market? Do you mean that it would be different if AMD and Intel were in opposite places the past several years? If so, I'd be bashing AMD while trying to support underdog Intel. I've said many times before that if the shoe was on the other foot, the same would happen. Business is business and Intel is doing what AMD would have been doing if they were so comfortably in the lead. AMD is not without their thousand dollar "extreme" processors, either. They charged exorbitant prices for the best of the best when they were in a position to, as well. Intel has locked down overclocking, passed along marginal improvements (and some... not so improvements, like the crappy thermal paste) with higher prices each generation, while making real innovation (namely higher core count) available only at the top end of the price spectrum. They were making the most money with the least effort because they could, and they didn't have to do much to stay ahead of AMD. I believe AMD probably would have done the same if they were in Intel's position. They're the underdogs, not magical saviors of the PC world who would continually produce stellar products at low prices because they're so righteous.


----------



## notb (Jul 25, 2017)

hat said:


> It's not difficult to hazard a guess that if Intel wanted to, they could have done better than they have been these past several years. They've just coasted along because AMD hasn't had anything besides faildozer for years.


Of course!
But should they? Is there really a need for more performance in gaming, office and multimedia PCs? Is LGA1151 not enough for the tasks it's used for?

Intel could have improved this platform a lot more. But they decided to move resources elsewhere.
Just look how notebooks have changed in last 5 years. Intel also dominated server/supercomputer segment, where IBM is their main competitor, not AMD.
And they got into AI / autonomous cars business as well.

So we got quite a lot of useful things instead of more fps in games.
I'm not saying I'm glad that my CPU isn't faster. But out of 2 possible scenarios (assuming they couldn't do everything), this is the more appealing one.



> What do you mean if AMD had the majority of the market? Do you mean that it would be different if AMD and Intel were in opposite places the past several years? If so, I'd be bashing AMD while trying to support underdog Intel.


So you're not really against a company or a business strategy. You admit that it's the way things are, but you simply like bashing big corporation. Correct?


> Intel has locked down overclocking, passed along marginal improvements (and some... not so improvements, like the crappy thermal paste)


Sorry, but this is the issue with geeks. A normal user (who Intel makes this CPU for) will be glad that it works, that it's faster than the last one, that notebooks are getting smaller and smaller.
But you can't appreciate any of that, because you can only think about the paste (which is pretty awesome, BTW).


> with higher prices each generation, while making real innovation (namely higher core count) available only at the top end of the price spectrum.


How is "higher core count" an innovation at all? It's the lazy way. Why are people praising this instead of working on IPC and keeping the CPU size down?
Look where this has taken us. Look how vast are the latest CPUs on both X299 and X399.

There hasn't been a car analogy for a while. So which is more innovative: more cylinders or smaller efficient engines?


----------



## Vayra86 (Jul 26, 2017)

Frag Maniac said:


> LOL, that's not a fix, that's you fixating on AMD. You'd been better off comparing to 1600X instead of 1600, because at least it turbos at 4GHz, but still not on all cores.
> 
> Given that it can do so without the user touching it, it is. No one has made a 6 core chip that turbos that high on all cores. No matter how much you harp about OCing, some don't care to, and some chips aren't very good at handling it, especially if you keep your core parts for over 5 years like many do.
> 
> ...



If you had noticed you'd see that I pointed out NOT having a good OC'er myself atm, and where did I frown at your chip? Mine is Ivy Bridge, a 77W TDP package, notable for getting hot, and mine likes to drink too. So, 4.4 @ 2 C is all I could eek out of it, 4.2 on 4 core turbo - and that is on a simple air cooler no less. Now can you see where I'm coming from? The fact still is, and you handily omitted that from the quote, its still a K-CPU.  6 cores @ 4.0 past the Sandy Bridge days has been very doable for quite some time now.

And let's not forget, 8700k is what, 95W? Improvements over the last 5 years and going from 22 > 14nm? Hello?


----------



## Hood (Jul 26, 2017)

notb said:


> There hasn't been a car analogy for a while. So which is more innovative: more cylinders or smaller efficient engines?


Depends on whether you're driving a dragster, or a grocery-getter...


----------



## yotano211 (Jul 26, 2017)

Hood said:


> Depends on whether you're driving a dragster, or a grocery-getter...


Good thing I drink a Prius


----------



## hat (Jul 26, 2017)

notb said:


> Of course!
> But should they? Is there really a need for more performance in gaming, office and multimedia PCs? Is LGA1151 not enough for the tasks it's used for?
> 
> Intel could have improved this platform a lot more. But they decided to move resources elsewhere.
> ...



They may have been doing other things, but there's still a clear lack of innovation as far as desktop CPUs go. Say what you want about the paste, there's no argument to be made when it comes to paste vs solder, solder wins, it's just fact. I am a PC hobbyist, this is what I enjoy doing with my free time, and my free dollars where applicable. I'm not the type to be happy it just works, since I take a heightened interest in these things. If I could have easily gotten a better product if it wasn't for cheap and or lazy manufacturing, I'm going to want the better product. I'd pay Intel $5 more for a soldered CPU (not that it would cost them that much to do it).

Of course higher core count is an innovation. My quad core turbos to a measly 3.2GHz... how easy do you think it would be to make a 12.8GHz single core processor? Not very easy, I'm guessing. That said, I'm all for faster cores, because single threaded performance is still a very important factor... but it's much more practical and efficient to produce processors with multiple cores than processors with fewer cores, which would have to run much faster than a multi core processor to keep up in threaded applications, or simple multitasking. There's a balance to be struck here. I do things that can take advantage of loads of threads... but I don't always need multi threaded performance, I also need single thread performance. That's why a 6 core CPU is a nice balance. In the year 2017, it's possible to make a 6 core CPU with enough multithreaded grunt to be fast at transcoding video, for example, but still be strong enough per core to handle applications that rely heavily on single thread performance.

When it comes to their business practices, I don't mind them incrementally improving their processors, honestly. I was okay with small generational performance gains. They were getting a little faster while being a little more efficient. What I didn't like was locking down the overclocking options. They deliberately made it difficult or impossible to overclock unless you bought the K series processor. That's just a total cash grab right there, by a company that already earns billions per year. I believe that's also the reason they use crappy paste now instead of solder. Cheaper to manufacture, save a buck on each processor.

Meanwhile, AMD, a company with far less resources in every way than the giant Intel, has no problem manufacturing soldered chips with unlocked multipliers. Now like I said before, I believe if the shoe was on the other foot similar things would have happened. AMD would be coasting along, pushing out marginal improvements year after year while underdog Intel tries to keep up. That's just how people are. AMD is giving people what they want because they've been listening to what people don't like about Intel, and there's money to be made offering X, Y and Z that Intel currently doesn't.


----------



## Frag_Maniac (Jul 26, 2017)

Vayra86 said:


> If you had noticed you'd see that I pointed out NOT having a good OC'er myself atm, and where did I frown at your chip? Mine is Ivy Bridge, a 77W TDP package, notable for getting hot, and mine likes to drink too. So, 4.4 @ 2 C is all I could eek out of it, 4.2 on 4 core turbo - and that is on a simple air cooler no less. Now can you see where I'm coming from? The fact still is, and you handily omitted that from the quote, its still a K-CPU.  6 cores @ 4.0 past the Sandy Bridge days has been very doable for quite some time now.
> 
> And let's not forget, 8700k is what, 95W? Improvements over the last 5 years and going from 22 > 14nm? Hello?


I was already aware of your current CPU by looking at your spec chart, well before you posted this. It's just that you keep insisting everyone only look at potential OC limit, which as has already been correctly pointed out, in reality is a lottery.


----------



## Komshija (Jul 26, 2017)

notb said:


> Isn't this exactly respecting customers? Constant improvement?


 It's rather making fools out of customers and laughing behind their backs. Improvement would be 25+% more performance from generation to generation. If AMD didn't release Ryzen, there would be 4C/8T i7 8XXX K, than 4C/8T i7 9XXX K (LGA 11XX sockets) and so on.


----------



## Vayra86 (Jul 26, 2017)

Frag Maniac said:


> I was already aware of your current CPU by looking at your spec chart, well before you posted this. It's just that you keep insisting everyone only look at potential OC limit, which as has already been correctly pointed out, in reality is a lottery.



No, in reality even the worst chips can clock this high. That is the point. You can harp on about how unlucky lottery can get, but there are also some certainties, you having a bad (and super old) chip with 3.06 base clock right now is an N= 1 metric that has no value whatsoever. I am telling you to adjust your frame of reference regarding clocks. Also I never said OC 'limit', the whole time this has been about a relaxed 24/7 air OC on a K series, while you keep acting like 4.0 is some magical number to hit on a 6 core proc and thank god Intel for giving us this wizardry.

If you want to keep living in pre-Sandy lala land be my guest, but you'd do well to look around a bit and see how K series have been clocking across the board. Not the good exceptions, take the worst, and be amazed. And when you take this in to account, along with the clear fact that since Kaby Lake, Intel has been eating into the OC headroom by bumping clocks and with it package TDP budgets, you can not possibly conclude this 8700k stock being 'beast'.

Get with the times, its not 2009 anymore.


----------



## Frag_Maniac (Jul 26, 2017)

Vayra86 said:


> No, in reality even the worst chips can clock this high. That is the point. You can harp on about how unlucky lottery can get...


Really getting sick of your epeen attitude. You buy the way you want to, I have no problem with that. Just don't try to tell me how to.


----------



## qubit (Jul 29, 2017)

Vayra86 said:


> Curious for a source on that, what arch change is going to make that happen?


I was right about the performance increase, but it looks like it's mostly coming from high clock speeds as this new article out today, based on final specs, explains.

http://wccftech.com/intel-coffee-lake-core-i7-8700k-core-i5-8600k-6-core-cpu-leak

Looks like the prices are pretty good too, so I might well want to upgrade to the 8700K which is gonna be $349.


----------



## Frag_Maniac (Jul 30, 2017)

qubit said:


> I was right about the performance increase, but it looks like it's mostly coming from high clock speeds as this new article out today, based on final specs, explains.
> 
> http://wccftech.com/intel-coffee-lake-core-i7-8700k-core-i5-8600k-6-core-cpu-leak
> 
> Looks like the prices are pretty good too, so I might well want to upgrade to the 8700K which is gonna be $349.


AWESOME! This only further confirms this (8700k) is the chip I'm going to get. And to those insisting Intel is being lazy with stock speeds, please, can you not see how they're comparing to AMD in that regard, especially on boost clocks. It's damn near the same speed as a 7700k, and on SIX cores! Plus it's a sign Intel is willing to be more backwards compatible with not only 1151, but Z100 and Z200 support as well. I'll probably wait and see how the Z370 price and performance is though. At this point I'm even wondering if it will be compatible with Z390 as well.


----------



## Solaris17 (Jul 30, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> 7640K/7740K and how they overclock since its the bottom of the barrel X299...



my 7640x hits 4.5 ghz no problem on an msi arctic. which is only like $270


----------



## Bones (Jul 30, 2017)

Vayra86 said:


> If you had noticed you'd see that I pointed out NOT having a good OC'er myself atm, and where did I frown at your chip? Mine is Ivy Bridge, a 77W TDP package, notable for getting hot, and mine likes to drink too. So, 4.4 @ 2 C is all I could eek out of it, 4.2 on 4 core turbo - and that is on a simple air cooler no less. Now can you see where I'm coming from? The fact still is, and you handily omitted that from the quote, its still a K-CPU.  6 cores @ 4.0 past the Sandy Bridge days has been very doable for quite some time now.
> 
> And let's not forget, 8700k is what, 95W? Improvements over the last 5 years and going from 22 > 14nm? Hello?



Must have a bad one - My 3770K can hit 4.5 on air all day long with all 4 cores going. I always disable turbo so that's not a factor here, where it runs is what it's always running at, no up and down speeds with turbo. 
Yes, there is a lottery of sorts in that the exact results you get can vary between chips and there's no way to really know before testing, hence the lotto part of it. Even my 2600K can hit 4.5 with ease under the same conditions but walls suddenly not much higher than that, normally around the 4.8 mark. 

Nothing wrong with older chips either, run 'em all the time myself and as long as they do what I want it's all good. 
You guys spend your $$ as you see fit, you earned it so you should get what you want - I certainly do regardless of what year it may be.


----------



## Melvis (Jul 30, 2017)

It will be a beast of a CPU when it comes out at stock clock settings but then 6-12months later Zen 2 will be out and might have the same turbo or clock speed as this new 6 core from Intel then the "beast" of a CPU will just be another CPU. Bla Bla Bla. Buy what you can afford at the time you can afford it.


----------



## Frag_Maniac (Jul 30, 2017)

Melvis said:


> It will be a beast of a CPU when it comes out at stock clock settings but then 6-12months later Zen 2 will be out and might have the same turbo or clock speed as this new 6 core from Intel then the "beast" of a CPU will just be another CPU. Bla Bla Bla. Buy what you can afford at the time you can afford it.


That only verifies AMD is behind 12 months, and even struggling to match at that, just like Vega.


----------



## RejZoR (Jul 30, 2017)

If I were buying a new system now, I'd still go with Ryzen, most likely 1800X. But already having a 5820K at 4.5GHz kinda makes buying of either Intel or AMD kinda pointless at this moment unless I'd need even more threads, in which case 1800X would make even more sense.


----------



## erocker (Jul 30, 2017)

qubit said:


> I was right about the performance increase, but it looks like it's mostly coming from high clock speeds as this new article out today, based on final specs, explains.
> 
> http://wccftech.com/intel-coffee-lake-core-i7-8700k-core-i5-8600k-6-core-cpu-leak
> 
> Looks like the prices are pretty good too, so I might well want to upgrade to the 8700K which is gonna be $349.


Just scroll down past that article and you will see some similar articles that are wrong. WCCF seems to just throw guesses out as articles. Maybe a 50/50 chance the clock speeds are correct.


----------



## Vya Domus (Jul 30, 2017)

Frag Maniac said:


> That only verifies AMD is behind 12 months, and even struggling to match at that, just like Vega.



Struggle ? You can buy 8c/16t with the same IPC as Intel and slightly lower clocks for 300$. You call that struggle ? Well I guess people deserve the crap Intel does. I would not touch anything Intel right now , it's 2017 and core count should be above all else , I am tired of seeing quad cores  and hyperthreaded dual cores for the past decade. Which is why I am still holding on my FX6300 , I wouldn't gain much in terms of gaming since I only want 60hz but I would very much like extra cores for the things I do besides gaming. Even you probably agree with that because otherwise why pick these new 6 core CPUs and not a get a 7700K ?


----------



## Hood (Jul 30, 2017)

Vya Domus said:


> Struggle ? You can buy 8c/16t with the same IPC as Intel and slightly lower clocks for 300$. You call that struggle ? Well I guess people deserve the crap Intel does. I would not touch anything Intel right now , it's 2017 and core count should be above all else , I am tired of seeing quad cores  and hyperthreaded dual cores for the past decade. Which is why I am still holding on my FX6300 , I wouldn't gain much in terms of gaming since I only want 60hz but I would very much like extra cores for the things I do besides gaming. Even you probably agree with that because otherwise why pick these new 6 core CPUs and not a get a 7700K ?


Same IPC? Not true.  Ryzen averages 5-10% behind Skylake/Kaby Lake in IPC.  Slightly lower clocks?  Ryzen 7 1700 = 3,7GHz, i7-7820 = 4.5GHz - about 20% lower clocks on Ryzen, hardly "slight".  So it's actually much slower than anything Intel makes.  That's why people don't mind paying twice as much for the same core count.  Why do people who love AMD always find it necessary to make up phony specs to try to prove their point?


----------



## Vya Domus (Jul 30, 2017)

Hood said:


> Same IPC? Not true.  Ryzen averages 5-10% behind Skylake/Kaby Lake in IPC.  Slightly lower clocks?  Ryzen 7 = 3,7GHz, 7820 = 4.5GHz - about 20% lower clocks on Ryzen, hardly "slight".  So it's actually much slower than anything Intel makes.  That's why people don't mind paying twice as much for the same core count.  Why do people who love AMD always find it necessary to make up phony specs to try to prove their point?



There are no phony specs , it's a reality.  IPC is a match do some research , as match as 2 different architectures can be (we know Intel does better in AVX instructions but that's about it ).

I call a big difference in clocks when it's bigger than 30% , by the way you missed the fact that Ryzen 7 has 4 extra cores than the 7820 , yeah a little detail you know. I know ya'll Intel lovers think even 1 extra Mhz is huge and don't care about core count at all but I do.

Define slower mate , slower in single thread ? Yeah , however nothing Intel has beats a 8c/16t CPU at 300$ , it just doesn't like it or not.

You want to pay 100$ more for half as much cores but higher clocks , cool go ahead. I don't care , no one is more entitled to justify their preferences .


----------



## qubit (Jul 30, 2017)

erocker said:


> Just scroll down past that article and you will see some similar articles that are wrong. WCCF seems to just throw guesses out as articles. Maybe a 50/50 chance the clock speeds are correct.


Well, not really. I initially found that TPU article reporting a speed increase and posted it here, but that one was quite vague. This new article is based on hard data as reported in the wccf article. The other articles might have been rumours they were reporting on, which of course can be inaccurate. You'd have to click each article and look at the article tag at the top to tell.


----------



## notb (Jul 30, 2017)

Melvis said:


> It will be a beast of a CPU when it comes out at stock clock settings but then 6-12months later Zen 2 will be out and might have the same turbo or clock speed as this new 6 core from Intel then the "beast" of a CPU will just be another CPU. Bla Bla Bla. Buy what you can afford at the time you can afford it.


The key word here is "might". Intel's new offer is around the corner.
But it's not just about being 12 months behind in performance, like @Frag Maniac pointed out. Think about the technologies.
Zen is a pinnacle of AMD technology at the moment, a huge investment that took them years to develop. They might update it a bit next year and move to a smaller node afterwards, but it'll still be Zen with all it's pluses and minuses.
Intel's 2017 offer, seen as "an answer" to Zen, is just an update of old stuff, built from pieces they had. Their new architecture is coming and it could be a real revolution, not just matching the competition with lower price tags. And even if it's nothing special - just a huge boost in performance - it'll be 2013 all over again for AMD.


Vya Domus said:


> Struggle ? You can buy 8c/16t with the same IPC as Intel and slightly lower clocks for 300$. You call that struggle ? Well I guess people deserve the crap Intel does. I would not touch anything Intel right now , it's 2017 and core count should be above all else , I am tired of seeing quad cores  and hyperthreaded dual cores for the past decade. Which is why I am still holding on my FX6300 , I wouldn't gain much in terms of gaming since I only want 60hz but I would very much like extra cores for the things I do besides gaming. Even you probably agree with that because otherwise why pick these new 6 core CPUs and not a get a 7700K ?


Have you already e-mailed AMD asking why are they releasing 4-core Zen "crap"?
And I really doubt you're still using your FX6300 because of anything performance-related. It's 2017 and best of Intel's 2C/4T (i3-7300) have matched your 6-core FX in multicore performance (consuming half as much power). And I'm not talking about some esoteric real-world tests, because that could result in a bloodbath. They're performing similarly in Cinebench R15.


----------



## Frag_Maniac (Jul 30, 2017)

Vya Domus said:


> Struggle ?


On performance, yes, with both CPUs and GPUs. I didn't stutter, and the low price they charge for the CPUs only makes it all the more obvious they can't really compete on performance. Now I suppose you're going to tell me that's because people are still brainwashed by Intel. That's the kind of thinking fanboys do. I happen to be on an AMD GPU, if you noticed. It's just that I don't relish the idea of fiddling with finicky OCs  and expensive RAM and MBs only to hit a 4GHz ceiling. That's Ryzen in a nutshell. I can't believe you're talking like you're a CPU expert when you bit on an FX-6300.


----------



## Vya Domus (Jul 30, 2017)

notb said:


> The key word here is "might". Intel's new offer is around the corner.
> But it's not just about being 12 months behind in performance, like @Frag Maniac pointed out. Think about the technologies.
> Zen is a pinnacle of AMD technology at the moment, a huge investment that took them years to develop. They might update it a bit next year and move to a smaller node afterwards, but it'll still be Zen with all it's pluses and minuses.
> Intel's 2017 offer, seen as "an answer" to Zen, is just an update of old stuff, built from pieces they had. Their new architecture is coming and it could be a real revolution, not just matching the competition with lower price tags. And even if it's nothing special - just a huge boost in performance - it'll be 2013 all over again for AMD.
> ...



Crap quad core Zen ? Not as crap as a dual core at same price. 

Yeah , FX. Shocker , I still use it , hard to believe right ? Everyone was convinced FX was crap , while you all believe that I game at 60hz no problem , if I want more that then yes I would need to upgrade , but I don't. I don't care about power consumption either. I do want to upgrade but for other reasons.

I bought it like 5 years ago , what if Intel has a CPU now that matches it in cinebench and that consumes less power ? Why would I care ? AMD has one too. You want me to go out and buy one ? Oh boi , call the Intel squad  , sign me the f**k up.



Frag Maniac said:


> On performance, yes, with both CPUs and GPUs. I didn't stutter, and the low price they charge for the CPUs only makes it all the more obvious they can't really compete on performance. Now I suppose you're going to tell me that's because people are still brainwashed by Intel. That's the kind of thinking fanboys do. I happen to be on an AMD GPU, if you noticed. It's just that I don't relish the idea of fiddling with finicky OCs  and expensive RAM and MBs only to hit a 4GHz ceiling. That's Ryzen in a nutshell. I can't believe you're talking like you're a CPU expert when you bit on an FX-6300.



You misunderstand me greatly , you like Intel instead of AMD because you believe clock speed is king. I have nothing to say against that , Intel has the edge on manufacturing process have I argued with that ? No. I have argued that core count is also king and AMD gives that , and you think that's inferiority. I don't think that. Clock speed vs core count is preference , has always been.

We all have preferences but you along side many want to turn that preference into fact , *now that's what a fanboy would do*.

I don't know if am an expert or not or that you are one but I do know a thing or two. I bought that FX 6300 at launch and despite your belief that I was some kind of idiot that had no idea what I was buying , you are again mistaken. I did , and I couldn't stand to upgrade from a dual core to another dual core and have it crap on me every time I multitask in exchange for a higher fps in some games that were running at 60 fps anyway. Kind of similar to this whole gaming thing now with Ryzen. It was probably the best investment I did , among cheapest too. Glad I "bit" on it.


----------



## Melvis (Jul 30, 2017)

Frag Maniac said:


> That only verifies AMD is behind 12 months, and even struggling to match at that, just like Vega.



Well you can say the same thing about intel I guess? till there "beast" 6 core is out they will be behind by 12month? its a leap frog thing, nothing has changed.


----------



## qubit (Jul 30, 2017)

Vya Domus said:


> Yeah , FX. Shocker , I still use it , hard to believe right ? Everyone was convinced FX was crap , while you all believe that I game at 60hz no problem , if I want more that then yes I would need to upgrade , but I don't. I don't care about power consumption either. I do want to upgrade but for other reasons.
> 
> I bought it like 5 years ago , what if Intel has a CPU now that matches it in cinebench and that consumes less power ? Why would I care ? AMD has one too. You want me to go out and buy one ? Oh boi , call the Intel squad , sign me the f**k up.


You're happy with your FX CPU and there's nothing wrong with that. If it does what you want and you're happy with 60fps gaming that's fine and no one should tell you to upgrade. However, it's still a crap processor compared to its competition at the time (even worse now, obviously) and that's not a matter for debate as the reviews proved it. You do need to realise this.


----------



## Vya Domus (Jul 30, 2017)

qubit said:


> You're happy with your FX CPU and there's nothing wrong with that. If it does what you want and you're happy with 60fps gaming that's fine and no one should tell you to upgrade. However, it's still a crap processor compared to its competition at the time (even worse now, obviously) and that's not a matter for debate as the reviews proved it. You do need to realise this.



It is certainly not good enough now with high refresh rate panels and highly threaded game and all that. But how could it have been crap then If I still use it now for the same things ? By that claim my PC should be unusable now after 5 years.  

Was Bulldozer/Piledriver inferior in IPC and single thread performance ? Yes. Did it perform worse than what Intel had ? Yes. Was is day and night difference ? No , then why I would I consider it crap. Not to mention it was way cheaper.

You know , these comments really do remind me of exactly of the same discussions that made no sense back then and they still don't today. It's hilarious if you ask me.


----------



## Vayra86 (Jul 30, 2017)

Vya Domus said:


> It is certainly not good enough now with high refresh rate panels and highly threaded game and all that. But how could it have been crap then If I still use it now for the same things ? By that claim my PC should be unusable now after 5 years.
> 
> Was Bulldozer/Piledriver inferior in IPC and single thread performance ? Yes. Did it perform worse than what Intel had ? Yes. Was is day and night difference ? No , then why I would I consider it crap. Not to mention it was way cheaper.
> 
> You know , these comments really do remind me of exactly of the same discussions that made no sense back then and they still don't today. It's hilarious if you ask me.



People seem to also have forgotten that while FX *1xx was horrible (like, really bad as in worse than what preceded it), FX *3xx was a competitive product in terms of raw performance. Not in terms of perf/watt, but perf/dollar and absolute performance was very, very decent. A lot could be done with high clocks, evidenced by all those weak VRM boards that blew up around these CPUs. FX x3xx with OC could match the fastest intel quads at stock and at much lower cost, no Z chipset required.


----------



## Vya Domus (Jul 30, 2017)

Vayra86 said:


> People seem to also have forgotten that while FX *1xx was horrible (like, really bad as in worse than what preceded it), FX *3xx was a competitive product in terms of raw performance. Not in terms of perf/watt, but perf/dollar and absolute performance was very, very decent. A lot could be done with high clocks, evidenced by all those weak VRM boards that blew up around these CPUs. FX x3xx with OC could match the fastest intel quads at stock and at much lower cost, no Z chipset required.



Exactly but people hated FX with a passion  regardless, most of them with no foundation. They just heard they suck from some place and stuck with the idea. I knew I shouldn't have brought this up here. Oh well.


----------



## qubit (Jul 30, 2017)

Vya Domus said:


> It is certainly not good enough now with high refresh rate panels and highly threaded game and all that. But how could it have been crap then If I still use it now for the same things ? By that claim my PC should be unusable now after 5 years.
> 
> Was Bulldozer/Piledriver inferior in IPC and single thread performance ? Yes. Did it perform worse than what Intel had ? Yes. Was is day and night difference ? No , then why I would I consider it crap. Not to mention it was way cheaper.
> 
> You know , these comments really do remind me of exactly of the same discussions that made no sense back then and they still don't today. It's hilarious if you ask me.


@Vayra86 reminded me that I was actually thinking of the first gen FX CPUs, which really were bad, but yours is a later revision. This one wasn't too great, but sorta reasonable as this AnandTech review concludes.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-amd-fx8350-fx8320-fx6300-and-fx4300-tested/9

So nah, I'm no hater, lol.


----------



## notb (Jul 30, 2017)

Vya Domus said:


> Crap quad core Zen ? Not as crap as a dual core at same price.


Why do you care about all this? Number of cores, IPC... it's all pointless. What matters is performance and features. Simple fact is: Kaby Lake i3 and Ryzen 3 are pretty much equal when it comes to that, with the very important exception of having an IGP.

This is, generally speaking, the main problem with evaluating Intel vs AMD. If you look at the specs, Ryzen seems better - that's because it's built to have great specs. But if you look at what a CPU actually offers in the tasks it'll be used most of the time, the pricing makes a lot of sense (with AMD, as usual, being a bit - like 10% - cheaper).
(And it's the same story with GPUs, by the way.)

So yeah, we used to talk for months how how R7 beats i7 in encoding movies and compressing files, but the simple fact is that a huge majority (lets say: 90%) of people buying these CPUs are gamers and Intel has an advantage there. So for 90% the pricing is OK and they'll choose Intel.
The rest, that think they really need 8-cores, will choose a Ryzen. This is not a reason for Intel to revolutionize their whole lineup, in which they have very decent margins. 90% market share is fine as well.

And it's the same story with Ryzen 3. It beats a similarly priced i3 in specs and it could beat it in some tasks, but won't have an advantage in a typical usage: low cost gaming, business desktops etc. High power consumption, no IGP - that's a recipe for sales disaster in the business segment.



> Yeah , FX. Shocker , I still use it , hard to believe right ? Everyone was convinced FX was crap , while you all believe that I game at 60hz no problem , if I want more that then yes I would need to upgrade , but I don't. I don't care about power consumption either. I do want to upgrade but for other reasons.


I've still used an Intel E5400 not so long ago. I'm not mocking you for having an old CPU. But if you're willing to upgrade and you *would consider switching to Intel*, there were more than enough reasons to do that.
And if you don't care about power consumption, why didn't you buy an 8-core FX?



> You misunderstand me greatly , you like Intel instead of AMD because you believe clock speed is king.


Not at all. I don't care about clocks, cores, brands, TIMs and all that sh.t. The sole point of looking at such technicalities is to estimate how a CPU and its successors could perform in the future.
When a CPU is already here, it's just test results that matter to me. And I only buy CPUs that exist and are well analyzed already (no early adopting or pre-ordering).
I only care about characteristics: performance, power consumption, temperatures and features.

And when that's equal, I buy from the company that I identify with more. And that is Intel now (but it used to be AMD 15 years ago).
Why? Because I don't like the gamer/geek-targeting campaign that AMD built around Ryzen (I might have liked it 15 years ago). Because I like the overall strategy of Intel as a company as well.


----------



## infrared (Jul 30, 2017)

It's very irritating reading some people claiming how poor the performance is with Ryzen. Here's a few observations I've made about my 1800x's (one paired with a 1080Ti, the other just a 24/7 cruncher running stock)

They both absolutely monster their way through WCG work units, performance in this workload matches the top end consumer intel chips, only the crazy high core count Xeons really outperform them.

Gaming performance at 4.0-4.1ghz with ram at 3200-3466mhz is outstanding, it has no problem keeping the 1080Ti at 99-100% utilization. And on a core utilization note.. most games I play actively use all the threads, I don't play a single game that only uses "4 cores". That's a long outdated idea.

I have a 165hz 1440p monitor and the cpu has no issues with matching that refresh rate. It's pretty much always gpu bound even with a 1080Ti.

I also have a 4.7ghz capable 6700K and tbh I'd pick the 1800X over that every time, for any workload. There is no situation where my 1800x doesn't perform equally or better than my 6700k. And in crunching workloads the stock 1800x is getting 3X!! the throughput of the 6700k @ 4.6ghz. (based on core count and clocks you'd expect slightly less than 2X).

As @Vya Domus said, if you value frequency over cores that's fine, that's 1 way of getting the job done, but there are disadvantages with that approach just like there are with the more cores approach. They both excel in slightly different areas and we need to respect and appreciate the two different approaches instead of slinging mud at the other camp.

Edit: Anyway, this thread is meant to be about the 8700K, which does look pretty interesting. Hopefully it overclocks and performs well


----------



## RejZoR (Jul 30, 2017)

8700K only looks interesting if you're still stuck on either Bulldozer or Nehalem. For everyone else, not interesting to be quite frank. I'm still on rather old 5820K and it doesn't interests me AT ALL. R7 1800X on the other hand... I mean, I'd have to change whole platform either way. I could save up on RAM since I already have DDR4, but I'd still have to change mobo and CPU. In which case I'd quite frankly rather take a 16 threads R7 1800X than 8700K. Dreaming that 8700K will be just 350 bucks is delusional thinking. It's Intel, they charge 320€ for 7700k. A freaking quad core. There is no way in hell a 6 core from Intel will be this cheap. It's just not possible.


----------



## Frick (Jul 30, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> 8700K only looks interesting if you're still stuck on either Bulldozer or Nehalem. For everyone else, not interesting to be quite frank. I'm still on rather old 5820K and it doesn't interests me AT ALL. R7 1800X on the other hand... I mean, I'd have to change whole platform either way. I could save up on RAM since I already have DDR4, but I'd still have to change mobo and CPU. In which case I'd quite frankly rather take a 16 threads R7 1800X than 8700K. Dreaming that 8700K will be just 350 bucks is delusional thinking. It's Intel, they charge 320€ for 7700k. A freaking quad core. There is no way in hell a 6 core from Intel will be this cheap. It's just not possible.



The 7800x is thereabouts, so it could happen.


----------



## RejZoR (Jul 30, 2017)

It's 370€. I kinda forgot how "bad" Ryzen was with all the drama around it. Last time I was checking, all of this stuff was around 450€... I guess good competition does drive prices down...


----------



## notb (Jul 30, 2017)

Vayra86 said:


> People seem to also have forgotten that while FX *1xx was horrible (like, really bad as in worse than what preceded it), FX *3xx was a competitive product in terms of raw performance. Not in terms of perf/watt, but perf/dollar and absolute performance was very, very decent. A lot could be done with high clocks, evidenced by all those weak VRM boards that blew up around these CPUs. FX x3xx with OC could match the fastest intel quads at stock and at much lower cost, no Z chipset required.



I don't think people have forgotten. You know who did? AMD and reviewers.
I've been pointing this out around the Ryzen launch. Neither the presentations from AMD nor most of reviews included the better FX CPUs (even though some of them included Sandy Bridge!). No one cared about performance/price ratio back then.

The truth is: you could have bought an FX-8350 at the end of 2016 for more or less the MSRP of Ryzen 3 (I think the FX prices went up lately!). And judging by Ryzen 5 benchmarks, it's very likely that the FX may be significantly faster than Ryzen 3 in multi-thread load.
So while the top products in Zen lineup actually offer performance that wasn't available in AMD camp before, the low end is not special at all. It just lets AMD increase the prices in the actual money making segment.

Can you see the inconsistency in argumentation? Few months ago AMD supporters suddenly forgot about FX because it was using more power. Now, when AMD is giving us power-hungry products (Threadripper and, of course, Vega), it's suddenly "who cares about power consumption?".
It's the same with opinion on core count, which evolved from "no one should buy 4 cores anymore" in April to "Ryzen 3 is awesome" in July.



infrared said:


> It's very irritating reading some people claiming how poor the performance is with Ryzen.


But it is not irritating to read posts how 4 cores are obsolete? I haven't seen you pointing out (let alone moderating) anything of this sort.



> Gaming performance at 4.0-4.1ghz with ram at 3200-3466mhz is outstanding, it has no problem keeping the 1080Ti at 99-100% utilization. And on a core utilization note.. most games I play actively use all the threads, I don't play a single game that only uses "4 cores". That's a long outdated idea.


Again, there are people running around this forum claiming that software designers cripple core utilization deliberately, out of pure laziness or because they're sponsored by Intel.

General note is that we're not saying that Ryzen is inferior or bad, so your (very long) post praising its greatness is totally unnecessary.

But there is much aggression on this forum from hardcore AMD supporters, who not just criticize Intel (including things like "die Intel", "I want to see Intel bleed") but also attack users who prefer Intel's stuff. Even if I was deep in AMD gear and loved it, it would make me want to support the blue camp in these discussions.
And maybe I'm expecting too much, but I'd think this would trigger some reaction from TPU moderators. It doesn't... I wonder why.


----------



## infrared (Jul 30, 2017)

notb said:


> But it is not irritating to read posts how 4 cores are obsolete? I haven't seen you pointing out (let alone moderating) anything of this sort.
> We often don't need to, it gets shot down hard usually so might as well leave the conversation intact instead of coming in heavy handed and deleting posts/closing threads.
> 
> Again, there are people running around this forum claiming that software designers cripple core utilization deliberately, out of pure laziness or because they're sponsored by Intel.
> ...



There is equally as much hate from the intel crowd so don't start claiming it's all from the AMD side. This is exactly why I finished my "very long" post with:
"They both excel in slightly different areas and we need to respect and appreciate the two different approaches instead of slinging mud at the other camp."

We have noticed the incredible amount of fanboy posts and are trying to keep on top of it, but we can't just go around editing and deleting posts we don't personally agree with, if someone is sharing their opinion and it's conveyed in a respectful manner then it stays. Even if it is saying they think 4 cores is getting long in the tooth and you don't like it. Overly aggressive posts and extremist fanboy posts are often cleaned up or edited. I don't think you appreciate the sheer number of posts the mod team cleans up daily (on both sides of the amd/intel squabble, so don't start implying we're biased!). We don't have time to read every single new post, we read what we can but we don't sit on the forum all day long, so how about helping us out by reporting posts instead of just whining that the mods aren't doing their jobs?


----------



## Frick (Jul 30, 2017)

notb said:


> And judging by Ryzen 5 benchmarks, it's very likely that the FX may be significantly faster than Ryzen 3 in multi-thread load.
> So while the top products in Zen lineup actually offer performance that wasn't available in AMD camp before, the low end is not special at all. It just lets AMD increase the prices in the actual money making segment.



Aye, I'd love to see Ryzen vs FX under various loads. The FX83xx models have aged very well afaict (in general I mean, depending on workload obviously).

EDIT: Sweclockers have FX and even Phenom II x6 in their charts.

http://m.sweclockers.com/test/24152-amd-ryzen-3-1300x-och-3-1200/4


----------



## Vya Domus (Jul 30, 2017)

notb said:


> Why do you care about all this?





notb said:


> But if you're willing to upgrade and you *would consider switching to Intel*, there were more than enough reasons to do that.





You know what , you're right , I shouldn't care. I am speaking with a person that is 100% biased towards a brand , none of your arguments (if you can even call them that ) make sense or are simply wrong.

And don't bother denying it. I am going to drop this , you should too.


----------



## vega22 (Jul 30, 2017)

if it needs a new socket and doesnt drop into 170/270 mobo then anybody buying it would need to give ryzen and am4 serious consideration. 

if it drops in socket 1151 then one of these might be my next cpu, if not ryzen is in with a shout as i could do with more cores and a longer lifespan for the platform i use.


----------



## notb (Jul 30, 2017)

Frick said:


> Aye, I'd love to see Ryzen vs FX under various loads. The FX83xx models have aged very well afaict (in general I mean, depending on workload obviously).
> 
> EDIT: Sweclockers have FX and even Phenom II x6 in their charts.
> 
> http://m.sweclockers.com/test/24152-amd-ryzen-3-1300x-och-3-1200/4


Even worse than I expected. Great stuff! Thanks!
And Swedes show how things should be done - as usual. 
Anyone who thinks that Intel is treating customers worse than AMD should check this review.
@W1zzard why not include FX-8350 in Ryzen reviews? Cadaveca reviewed it back in 2012 - maybe you still have access to that system?



vega22 said:


> if it needs a new socket and doesnt drop into 170/270 mobo then anybody buying it would need to give ryzen and am4 serious consideration.
> 
> if it drops in socket 1151 then one of these might be my next cpu, if not ryzen is in with a shout as i could do with more cores and a longer lifespan for the platform i use.


It'll need a 300-series chipset to work, but LGA1151 socket remains unchanged (although some here tried to convince me this socket can't support 6 cores - I'll find that discussion sooner or later ).
So it isn't ideal, but still allowing an upgrade path other than replacing half of PC.
New 4-core CPUs will be compatible with 200-series chipsets.


----------



## yotano211 (Jul 30, 2017)

notb said:


> Even worse than I expected. Great stuff! Thanks!
> And Swedes show how things should be done - as usual.
> Anyone who thinks that Intel is treating customers worse than AMD should check this review.
> @W1zzard why not include FX-8350 in Ryzen reviews? Cadaveca reviewed it back in 2012 - maybe you still have access to that system?
> ...


Maybe just maybe it only needs a bios update to get it work on 100 and 200 series boards. I so hope so, I want a laptop with 6 cores, that would cut down so many work loads.


----------



## notb (Jul 30, 2017)

yotano211 said:


> Maybe just maybe it only needs a bios update to get it work on 100 and 200 series boards. I so hope so, I want a laptop with 6 cores, that would cut down so many work loads.


You have a laptop with replaceable desktop CPUs?

I really doubt a 200-series will handle 6 cores. This would mean that Intel planned to release 6-core CPUs on LGA1151 and I don't think that is the case. AFAIK originally they didn't plan to make another generation on this socket at all, which would make it the only thing actually forced by Ryzen's competition - unlike few other things that people tend to believe.

AFAIK 6- and 8-core CPUs were meant to become a standard one generation later - in Icelake (new architecture, expected in 2018).


----------



## yotano211 (Jul 30, 2017)

notb said:


> You have a laptop with replaceable desktop CPUs?
> 
> I really doubt a 200-series will handle 6 cores. This would mean that Intel planned to release 6-core CPUs on LGA1151 and I don't think that is the case. AFAIK originally they didn't plan to make another generation on this socket at all, which would make it the only thing actually forced by Ryzen's competition - unlike few other things that people tend to believe.
> 
> AFAIK 6- and 8-core CPUs were meant to become a standard one generation later - in Icelake (new architecture, expected in 2018).


Yea I do have a laptop model like that. Its more of a niche market but some companies make these types of laptops.


----------



## Frag_Maniac (Jul 30, 2017)

Vya Domus said:


> You misunderstand me greatly , you like Intel instead of AMD because you believe clock speed is king. I have nothing to say against that , Intel has the edge on manufacturing process have I argued with that ? No. I have argued that core count is also king and AMD gives that , and you think that's inferiority. I don't think that. Clock speed vs core count is preference , has always been.
> 
> We all have preferences but you along side many want to turn that preference into fact , *now that's what a fanboy would do*.
> 
> I don't know if am an expert or not or that you are one but I do know a thing or two. I bought that FX 6300 at launch and despite your belief that I was some kind of idiot that had no idea what I was buying , you are again mistaken. I did , and I couldn't stand to upgrade from a dual core to another dual core and have it crap on me every time I multitask in exchange for a higher fps in some games that were running at 60 fps anyway. Kind of similar to this whole gaming thing now with Ryzen. It was probably the best investment I did , among cheapest too. Glad I "bit" on it.



Several wrong assumptions there. First off, let me clarify I'm calling you an AMD fanboy because all you say here is pro AMD, along with slamming Intel as the bad guys. Second, I'm not at all discounting the pros of more cores. I was hoping AMD's 8 core Ryzen would be to my liking, but all I see is having to buy expensive high speed RAM and compatible MBs, only to still end up with a 4GHz ceiling. And that's not because I value clock speed only as you assume. That's because it's the only way you can get a Ryzen to come acceptably close in performance to an Intel chip.

As far as counting on more cores alone to get performance, I think you're basing too much of your decision on that. It will likely be some time before 8 cores is really needed and better performing than 4 or 6 core, so right now, a well clocked 6 core is a great stepping stone. But it's mainly that the reality is, Ryzen and Intel 8 cores come with too many tradeoffs, that are unacceptable IMO. It's not that I wouldn't rather have an 8 core, it's just that I feel given those tradeoffs and the unlikeliness that 8 is a must have now, vs years down the road, the Coffee Lake 6 is a better option for now.

As for your FX-6300, I'm not surprised you bought it over a decent quad core, because they marketed it as a 8 core chip, and that's probably all you cared about. If you can't acknowledge by now that the Bulldozer series was an epic fail, like many whom have suffered through years of poor performance with it, then clearly you are an AMD fanboy in denial. Truth is you bought into 8 core long before it was necessary for gaming, and got one of the worst chips ever made for gaming. Even AMD has admitted by adding WAY more IPC, that Bulldozer was a failure.

There's two ways to look at this. You seem to view Intel as the bad guys based on their prices. Most of the people doing that are wasting money on cheaper product, and either suffering for years with lesser results, or swapping them out sooner than expected. I'm of the pay a bit more and get it right the first time mindset, and that has a lot more to do with than just clock speeds.


Melvis said:


> Well you can say the same thing about intel I guess? till there "beast" 6 core is out they will be behind by 12month? its a leap frog thing, nothing has changed.


You'd have to have evidence of a better performing AMD CPU to say that, and no such evidence exists. Intel certainly wouldn't let it happen, especially for an entire 12 months or more.


----------



## RealNeil (Jul 31, 2017)

I get the feeling that Intel is tossing a bunch of new parts up against the wall, just to see what sticks. They haven't really had to respond to AMD in the market for a very long time, and they aren't used to it.



Frag Maniac said:


> If you ask me the only annoyance price wise lately is what the damn miners are causing on mid range GPU pricing.



That is starting to relax a bit now. For a couple of months, I couldn't find a second 8GB ASUS RX580 Strix Gaming to go with my other one. (one that didn't cost $500 bucks anyways)
I just found a brand new card with the same model number for $300 on Flea-Bay and bought it today. (the first one was a whopping $175)



Frag Maniac said:


> As for your FX-6300, I'm not surprised you bought it over a decent quad core, because they marketed it as a 8 core chip, and that's probably all you cared about.



Isn't the FX-6300 a six-Core part?


----------



## Vya Domus (Jul 31, 2017)

Frag Maniac said:


> As far as counting on more cores alone to get performance, I think you're basing too much of your decision on that. It will likely be some time before 8 cores is really needed and better performing than 4 or 6 core, so right now, a well clocked 6 core is a great stepping stone. But it's mainly that the reality is, Ryzen and Intel 8 cores have too many tradeoffs, that are unacceptable IMO. It's not that I wouldn't rather have an 8 core, it's just that I feel given those tradeoffs and the unlikeliness that 8 is a must have now, vs years down the road, the Coffee Lake 6 is a better option for now.



Oh man , you still insist Ryzen with it's 8 cores is not needed and bad but somehow 6 cores are a great stepping stone coming from Intel. Care to explain the logic behind that ? Wait , don't , I already know what you are going to say  : "Ryzen has broken RAM support , can only do 4 Ghz" . You already said that like 3 times already , did you see me disagree with any of it ? You seem to be in a unusual state of denial where you somehow doubt Ryzen's usefulness with it's many cores yet you look forward to a Intel chip that had it's first meaningful bump in core count since the last few couple of generations.

You have a really hard time figuring out that your reasoning for your preference is perfectly legit but it isn't a stone written fact that anyone should adhere to. You want Coffee Lake for your use case , stop making it look like that is the only viable thing for everyone. This is why I call you a fanboy , that's what fanboys do they turn preference into scientific fact and stand by it while ignoring everything else and refusing to accept that others may not value what they value.

Funny thing you have an AMD card and I have an Nvidia one , we must be like the worst fanboys ever.




Frag Maniac said:


> As for your FX-6300, I'm not surprised you bought it over a decent quad core, because they marketed it as a 8 core chip, and that's probably all you cared about. If you can't acknowledge by now that the Bulldozer series was an epic fail, like many whom have suffered through years of poor performance with it, then clearly you are an AMD fanboy in denial. Truth is you bought into 8 core long before it was necessary for gaming, and got one of the worst chips ever made. Even AMD has admitted by adding WAY more IPC, that Bulldozer was a failure.


So you do think I'm an idiot that bought into something because of marketing. OK , I am an idiot that knows nothing. Stop wasting your time with me knowing you have the superior computer architecture knowledge. 6300 has 6 cores by the way not that it would matter Bulldozer is Faildozer , got it. Thank god I have been illuminated.  ( x3xx is Piledriver not Bulldozer fun fact , that would make it Faildriver , sounds better than Faildozer I got to say)


I think we are done on this subject.


----------



## Nuckles56 (Jul 31, 2017)

notb said:


> Even worse than I expected. Great stuff! Thanks!
> And Swedes show how things should be done - as usual.
> Anyone who thinks that Intel is treating customers worse than AMD should check this review.


My comment is that the old FX chips tend to win when there is a heavy multicore loads where the number of cores is more important than IPC, whilst in games or strongly single threaded workloads, ryzen 3 typically wins or is very close. The other thing is that ryzen 3 wasn't aimed to be an upgrade for someone using a fx 83xx or 9xxx CPU, that's where Ryzen 5 & 7 come in and thrash the old FX CPUs.

The other takeaway from those results are that everyone should be trying to get the i7 5775c (that L4 cache) and overclock the hell out of it as it is a killer gaming CPU (I'd say better than even the i7 7700k)


----------



## RealNeil (Jul 31, 2017)

infrared said:


> They both absolutely monster their way through WCG work units, performance in this workload matches the top end consumer intel chips, only the crazy high core count Xeons really outperform them.



Same with my Ryzen 1700X. Performance in WCG is outstanding, so much so that I have begun to consider a thread-ripper box in the future.
I agreed to buy a 10 core 7900X with an MSI X299 board and a 32GB RAM kit today. But right after that, I'll most likely buy a thread-ripper box.
Both AMD ~and~ Intel are stepping up and that's good for us.


----------



## Frag_Maniac (Jul 31, 2017)

Vya Domus said:


> 6300 has 6 cores by the way...


Yeah I know it's 6, but was thinking of 8300 when I typed that, which is more common for gamers. It was a typo, deal with it. Kinda funny you're all about talking core count though when you now insist I'm failing by choosing a 6 over an 8, for reasons I already explained have zero to do with core count, yet here you are on a 6 yourself, and a very badly designed one no less. All that need be said really, totally in denial.


Vya Domus said:


> I think we are done on this subject.


LOL, you mad bro? Yeah truth hits hard doesn't it? 

Again, you don't preach about CPUs when you have a mere FX-6300. It's where gamers go to fail, not the standard of reference you're making it out to be. If that hurts your feelings, so be it. Maybe it will help you choose better next time.


----------



## Vya Domus (Jul 31, 2017)

Frag Maniac said:


> Yeah I know it's 6, but was thinking of 8300 when I typed that, which is more common for gamers. It was a typo, deal with it. Kinda funny you're all about talking core count though when you now insist I'm failing by choosing a 6 over an 8, for reasons I already explained have zero to do with core count, yet here you are on a 6 yourself, and a very badly designed one no less. All that need be said really, totally in denial.
> 
> LOL, you mad bro? Yeah truth hits hard doesn't it?
> 
> Again, you don't preach about CPUs when you have a mere FX-6300. It's where gamers go to fail, not the standard of reference you're making it out to be.



This has turned into a fanboy shitshow and you're doing your best keep it up and running. I was hoping you're better than that , you're not.

I have said we're done because there is nothing worth discussing with you anymore. You already porved to me how much you know ( I'll let you figure out if that is sarcasm or not ) and how viable are your arguments ( I still don't know against what are you arguing ).

I wont bother you anymore , I'll make sure of that. You can chill.


----------



## erocker (Jul 31, 2017)

You are both gone from this thread. The rest of you carry on in a civil manner, please.

Thank you.


----------



## Melvis (Jul 31, 2017)

Frag Maniac said:


> You'd have to have evidence of a better performing AMD CPU to say that, and no such evidence exists. Intel certainly wouldn't let it happen, especially for an entire 12 months or more.



Erm there is plenty of evidence, the 1600 from AMD in its category has destroyed its Intel counter part. Pretty much every intel CPU apart from the Pentium G4xxx and i7-7700K have been beaten by AMD, why else you think intel is making this "beast" of a CPU in the first place? just for kicks? By the time this "beast" 6 core CPU comes out by intel to shake up AMD's line up it will be damn close to 12months, just saying.


----------



## hat (Jul 31, 2017)

One thing I find interesting is it's supposedly socket 1151. If it works with existing boards, that's 3 generations on the same socket. Maybe Intel doesn't want people with Skylake or Kaby Lake chips jumping ship to AMD to get affordable chips with a higher core count. Of course, if it's priced really high, that plan may not work too well...


----------



## Hood (Jul 31, 2017)

I would love to build systems with all the new CPUs, they all have a place in someone's PC, regardless of performance, price, ability to heat up a room, marketing, or reviews.  The worst CPU in the world has some people feeling all warm and fuzzy, as long as it's just a little better than their last one.  Perspectives, knowledge levels, and requirements vary widely.  90% of all users have no need for the new high-end parts like Ryzen 7, i9 and Threadripper, but all levels of performance and price are well represented at this time, with possibly too many choices for the average buyer to sift through without some confusion.  A lot of new information to digest, reviews to read, opinions to agree or disagree with, and emotions that defy common sense.  I personally don't understand why anyone's upset, this is the most exciting time in years for the enthusiast and system builder.  I'm just gonna kick back, read the reviews, and continue to enjoy my Haswell system until AMD or Intel comes up with a compelling reason to upgrade, that's my plan.


----------



## notb (Jul 31, 2017)

Nuckles56 said:


> My comment is that the old FX chips tend to win when there is a heavy multicore loads where the number of cores is more important than IPC, whilst in games or strongly single threaded workloads, ryzen 3 typically wins or is very close. The other thing is that ryzen 3 wasn't aimed to be an upgrade for someone using a fx 83xx or 9xxx CPU, that's where Ryzen 5 & 7 come in and thrash the old FX CPUs.


I'm not talking about upgrading, but about product segmentation.
FX-8350 used to cost $200 when released (so like the Ryzen 5), but it dropped to $120. So AMD is replacing this product with something worse (in the price range).

Keep in mind just a margin of PC owners is _upgrading_ their PCs - understood as buying something better each time.
Most people are just _updating_: replacing their old parts with something at similar price point. And we tend to expect that our new $120 CPU performs better than the $120 CPU we bought 3 years ago.

Also this leaves AMD with no option for the <$100 buyers (they had FX-6300 earlier) other than the Bristol Ridge APU, which aren't very fast. A10-9700 is slower than i3-7100.
What AMD needs is an APU with strong CPU and an IGP that's just there to product the video signal.
What they actually make are APUs with powerful IGP and a CPU that is there just to support the software.
Disaster.


----------



## Nuckles56 (Jul 31, 2017)

notb said:


> I'm not talking about upgrading, but about product segmentation.
> FX-8350 used to cost $200 when released (so like the Ryzen 5), but it dropped to $120. So AMD is replacing this product with something worse (in the price range).
> 
> Keep in mind just a margin of PC owners is _upgrading_ their PCs - understood as buying something better each time.
> ...


1. Ryzen prices will also drop, my guess is that the ryzen 3 1200 will be $80 or less in 6-12 months time and the 1500x will have taken the 1200's price point and that is better than the FX chips all round. For most, the extra single thread performance is more important than the extra multicore performance from the older FX 8 core CPUs. The average price for the fx 83xx series is about $150 currently, whilst $120 is the fx 6300 price territory (I'm ignoring sales here as they are a variable discount and will also apply to the new Ryzen chips too but we haven't seen many sales yet). The average price for the 83xx series is pretty constant over the last 18 months from the PCPP price trend data. 




 2. The same thing equally applies to intel then seeing as the i7 4790k to i7 7700k has been a minimal performance increase for our money too and I don't see the complaints there. And it also takes me back to one of the points I made in 1, that the single threaded performance is up massively over the fx chips, so they are getting a performance upgrade and also access to things like m.2 SSDs, OC'ing the 1200 to 3.8-3.9GHz also means that the multicore losses are turned into draws or even wins, especially with some nice fast RAM (3000 or 3200MHz)

3. For what you are wanting, we shall see what the ryzen APUs bring to the table. The reason that they made the APUs that way was they didn't have a good CPU core but could build good GPUs, so you use what you have. I suspect there will be a CPU strong and GPU weak option there for people like you. Personally, I'm happy to see a nice strong GPU there as well as good CPU cores, as that will be good for lifting the base level of PC up to decent standards for all. You can still buy the FX 6300 if you wish for roughly the same prices as before Ryzen was released so that is still just as much an option as before.


----------



## Vayra86 (Jul 31, 2017)

notb said:


> Even worse than I expected. Great stuff! Thanks!
> And Swedes show how things should be done - as usual.
> Anyone who thinks that Intel is treating customers worse than AMD should check this review.
> @W1zzard why not include FX-8350 in Ryzen reviews? Cadaveca reviewed it back in 2012 - maybe you still have access to that system?
> ...



This surprised me too - and lets not forget FX 8350 can overclock quite high on top of it, Ryzen cannot. This puts 'bad Ryzen gaming performance in a whole new light  And some perspective on the gap with Intel too, which is rather small on the top end.

And on top of that this also highlights why people picked FX over i5 quads at the time, because they were similar in price. Back then it was i5 3570k all over, or you went with FX x3xx. Its funny to see how little has changed over the past five years of CPU releases - Ryzen is a very similar dilemma compared to the i7 K of this day and age.

EDIT: oh great, the active posters have forcibly left the building 

TW3 @ 720p


----------



## Nuckles56 (Jul 31, 2017)

Vayra86 said:


> This surprised me too - and lets not forget FX 8350 can overclock quite high on top of it, Ryzen cannot. This puts 'bad Ryzen gaming performance in a whole new light  And some perspective on the gap with Intel too, which is rather small on the top end.


Well you can use the FX 9590 as a guide for what you can expect to see from a decent to good overclock on the 8350 and it only gets you a 5fps improvement in performance


----------



## Vayra86 (Jul 31, 2017)

Nuckles56 said:


> Well you can use the FX 9590 as a guide for what you can expect to see from a decent to good overclock on the 8350 and it only gets you a 5fps improvement in performance



Yeah but look at the rest of the playing field and what it is close to at that point, surpassing Haswell @ stock. I wouldn't call that a total failure like many make it out to be. Is it inefficient, oh yes, grossly, but the performance is there.

The irony is that we see Ryzen 3 now recommended for midrange gaming rigs while it performs worse than an FX from five years ago 

Anyway, back to Intel. Way off topic sry


----------



## trparky (Jul 31, 2017)

Vayra86 said:


> performs worse than an FX from five years ago


And that's only because of that stupid design decision to clock the speed of the Infinity Fabric at half the speed of the system RAM. Why the hell they made such a boneheaded design mistake I have no idea.

I'm not saying that building CPUs with a modular design is a bad idea, no, that's not at all what I'm saying. I am however saying that the bandwidth between the modules is just not good enough and is causing performance bottlenecks between the modules. Throw in the fact that despite all of the hype behind AMD's "AI-like" Neural Net Predictor AMD's branch predictor still lags behind that of Intel.

Yeah yeah, I know... more cores but the requirements to have those "more cores" is to clock the cores slower and that's a trade-off I would rather not have to deal with. Yes, more cores is "future proof" (at least as much as you can) but what about the old software? Some of us are still using old software or playing older games where raw clock speed matters. More cores doesn't mean shit for those situations, high clock speed is what matters in those situations and that's where *both* AMD *and* Intel have failed in this recent crop of chips. I have two games that need high clock speed because they are both un-optimized pieces of garbage and I highly doubt that the game developer (Blizzard) is going to come out with some magical multi-core patch that will magically fix those games so that they run better on lower-clocked multi-core CPUs.

I'm not an Intel fanboy nor am I an AMD fanboy, hell... I've not bought a new CPU in years because everything lately has been been about as exciting as watching paint dry. The only thing that's really been interesting lately is in the GPU and SSD side of things lately. If we started talking about cheaper and higher capacity SSDs then we would have something to really talk about. Where's my $150 Terabyte SSD? I want my cheap SSD!!!


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 31, 2017)

Its not even old software or old games. Most modern games dont use more than a couple cores. Clockspeed still rules in gaming so long as you have 4 cores. 

Other software is utilizing more cores, sure but do a lot use it? Nerp.


----------



## Hood (Jul 31, 2017)

notb said:


> What AMD needs is an APU with strong CPU and an IGP that's just there to product the video signal


So you mean like an i3 or i5?  A Ryzen 5 1500X with "Radeon HD" graphics (like the $50 Richland APUs) would do the trick.  It would cost $200, just like the i5, and you'd still need a video card for any real gaming, but at least it would have 8 threads.


----------



## trparky (Jul 31, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Other software is utilizing more cores, sure but do a lot use it?


Basically yes. Outside of specific workstation type situations more cores really means nothing.

Yes, games in the future will probably be more multi-core aware but we're really years away from that. Besides... do you really have any idea just how damn difficult it is to program with multiple threads? Multi-threading may seem easy until you start realizing that you need to keep all of those thread synced and that's where things get really really difficult to do. There's thread locks, mutexes, etc. If multi-threaded programming (especially for games) was easy to do, don't you think we would see more of it?

And besides... you don't really need more cores for more threads. Threads really are just a way to have more things going on at the same time inside the program's execution environment. You don't necessarily need more CPU cores to run more threads.


----------



## notb (Jul 31, 2017)

Nuckles56 said:


> 1. Ryzen prices will also drop, my guess is that the ryzen 3 1200 will be $80 or less in 6-12 months time and the 1500x will have taken the 1200's price point and that is better than the FX chips all round.


Maybe they will. I'm talking about the current situation.



> For most, the extra single thread performance is more important than the extra multicore performance from the older FX 8 core CPUs.


I totally agree! But I've been saying this also in April, when the whole AMD crowd was yelling that single-thread performance is not important - that multi-thread is the way to go.



> The average price for the fx 83xx series is about $150 currently, whilst $120 is the fx 6300 price territory


I don't know where you're getting these prices from. FX 6300 used to cost $100 for the last 2 years:
https://pcpartpicker.com/product/PnxfrH/amd-cpu-fd6300wmhkbox?history_days=730



> 2. The same thing equally applies to intel then seeing as the i7 4790k to i7 7700k has been a minimal performance increase for our money too and I don't see the complaints there.


On the contrary, this forum is full of complaints about lack of performance increase in the Intel camp.
But you know... keeping performance constant and decreasing it are 2 different things.


> And it also takes me back to one of the points I made in 1, that the single threaded performance is up massively over the fx chips, so they are getting a performance upgrade and also access to things like m.2 SSDs, OC'ing the 1200 to 3.8-3.9GHz also means that the multicore losses are turned into draws or even wins, especially with some nice fast RAM (3000 or 3200MHz)


I'm not considering OC at all. It's irrelevant in this case.
As for features: they could have been added to the AM3+ platform as well. And M.2 is just a connector.



Hood said:


> So you mean like an i3 or i5?  A Ryzen 5 1500X with "Radeon HD" graphics (like the $50 Richland APUs) would do the trick.


Of course it would. But it's not here. I can't build my opinion about a platform based on CPU ideas that COULD be realized in the future. 
The reality is that AMD seems to have a big problem with product segmentation. They've just released some $30 GPUs to accompany their IGP-less Ryzens. Guess what will happen to sales of those if they release a 1500X-based APU for a $10 premium.
It's actually even worse, because AMD launched the Ryzen PRO lineup aimed at office desktops and it lacks an IGP as well.

So that a typical business buyer wants is a PRO APU. What he'd get is a choice of non-PRO APUs (lacking security features) and PRO CPUs (lacking IGP). Or is AMD also going to release a Ryzen APU PRO? This will become the most messed up CPU lineup I've seen in the last decade.
But the great thing is that our typical business buyer has one other choice. It's the i5-7500, which covers all his needs and also costs $200.

And now, to make it even worse for AMD, Intel is releasing a 6-core CPU with IGP. And the importance of this is quite obvious: AMD can't do that.


----------



## trparky (Aug 1, 2017)

notb said:


> the whole AMD crowd was yelling that single-thread performance is not important


It's the only form of defense that the AMD camp has. They know that Ryzen isn't up to snuff but instead of admitting that their almighty "god" AMD is... impotent, they trot out this tired argument.

Oh good God, I'm going to so.... get flamed for this comment.  *pulls out the asbestos pants and suit*


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 1, 2017)

trparky said:


> Basically yes. Outside of specific workstation type situations more cores really means nothing.
> 
> Yes, games in the future will probably be more multi-core aware but we're really years away from that. Besides... do you really have any idea just how damn difficult it is to program with multiple threads? Multi-threading may seem easy until you start realizing that you need to keep all of those thread synced and that's where things get really really difficult to do. There's thread locks, mutexes, etc. If multi-threaded programming (especially for games) was easy to do, don't you think we would see more of it?
> 
> And besides... you don't really need more cores for more threads. Threads really are just a way to have more things going on at the same time inside the program's execution environment. You don't necessarily need more CPU cores to run more threads.


I recall several in were swooping in and commenting about the difficulty of multithreading...turned out it was more lazy proframming than it is difficult. That said, i could have misread. 

As far as more threads on cores... there is truth to tbe statement, but, more threads per core would have even less returns than a single hypeethread. Resource sharing etc. I dont imagine that to be worth it... but who knows.


----------



## trparky (Aug 1, 2017)

It's not so much as being lazy but it's damn difficult to not only do it but do multi-threaded right. Imagine you have three threads; one thread is working and two threads are sleeping because the two threads are waiting for the first thread to finish. Finally the first thread is finished but wait, we're not done yet! The third thread is waiting on the second thread to finish so that thread can't work until the second thread is finished. Let's repeat this a couple of more times like what occurs inside a game engine and suddenly you start to realize just how damn difficult multi-threading is.

In theory you could split the graphics and audio engine into separate threads and have the user input in its own thread but then you have data sharing between the threads and now you need to make sure that data sharing is done in a thread safe manner so that data isn't overwritten when it's not supposed to be and... yeah, you get the idea.

*Multi-threading is hard!*

Granted I have only done desktop application programming but even in those situations multi-threading is difficult to do in a safe way so that data isn't clobbered by threads that are stepping over each other.

Basically multi-threading is not some magic wand that can be waved at some programming code, no... it needs to be done carefully and even then weird bugs can crop up because some thread started work before it was supposed to do so thus throwing the whole program out of whack.


----------



## johnspack (Aug 1, 2017)

People who don't know how to use more than 8 threads are irrelevant....  sorry...  I do transcoding and run many vms, so I actually run out of threads.  And I like to game.  And my six core at 4.7ghz does not bad even in single threaded stuff.
Would I like a 22 core that could clock the same?  F.... yeah!  Does the future hold multicore standard gaming,  god I hope so.  But even when I run a 4 threaded game,  I can watch multiple other threads doing other things for the os.  That 
means those original 4 game threads are unbothered by anything else.  Will new games use more than 4 theads,  dam right they will.  So hold on to your quads,  and clock them very,  very high.....
And would I buy a Ryzen,  dam right I would!  That 1950 is drool worthy.


----------



## notb (Aug 1, 2017)

johnspack said:


> People who don't know how to use more than 8 threads are irrelevant....  sorry...


What?!

And if you're doing transcoding and running VMS in background (during e.g. gaming), why not get 2 machines? It'll be much more effective and not necessarily more expensive.


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 1, 2017)

trparky said:


> It's not so much as being lazy but it's damn difficult to not only do it but do multi-threaded right. Imagine you have three threads; one thread is working and two threads are sleeping because the two threads are waiting for the first thread to finish. Finally the first thread is finished but wait, we're not done yet! The third thread is waiting on the second thread to finish so that thread can't work until the second thread is finished. Let's repeat this a couple of more times like what occurs inside a game engine and suddenly you start to realize just how damn difficult multi-threading is.
> 
> In theory you could split the graphics and audio engine into separate threads and have the user input in its own thread but then you have data sharing between the threads and now you need to make sure that data sharing is done in a thread safe manner so that data isn't overwritten when it's not supposed to be and... yeah, you get the idea.
> 
> ...


I disagree.. and so did a programmer that chimed in on another thread when this was brought up.

We'll leave it at that. It's swimming out of my lane...but remember distinctly this debate until a programmer came in and said its lazy programming that is most of the issue.


----------



## notb (Aug 1, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> I disagree.. and so did a programmer that chimed in on another thread when this was brought up.
> 
> We'll leave it at that. It's swimming out of my lane...but remember distinctly this debate until a programmer came in and said its lazy programming that is most of the issue.


Can you point to that thread?
"Lazy programming" can create a difference between a program using a single or many cores. But if a program uses 1<n<MAX then it's usually already a result of some optimization. And yes, it's not easy.


----------



## vega22 (Aug 3, 2017)

so asrock are saying these are not going to work in 200 series mobo....

making ryzen look more and more appealing to me intel :|

edit

https://twitter.com/ASRockInfo/stat...ot-supported-by-intels-200series-motherboards


----------



## GreiverBlade (Aug 3, 2017)

vega22 said:


> so asrock are saying these are not going to work in 200 series mobo....
> 
> making ryzen look more and more appealing to me intel :|


for the 1st part yep ... definitively not an upgrade for the 200 series chipset (even if on the same socket ...  )

for the second part ... yep too ... as i own a Z170 build i was semi happy when i saw the 7XXX series goes up and be backward compatible with Z170 (c'mon .... who need optane support or any of the "new features" the Z270 did bring.... not.) when i saw Ryzen i was quite ecstatic: finally some competition and the future 6/12 Intel beast is technically on the level of the 6/12 midrange from AMD (ok ok ... ipc ipc ipc .... shout the fans but .... nope Ryzen IPC isn't that much slower to justify a higher price from intel as they are now ....)

if i wanted 4/8 i could go 6700K/7700K but ... well the R5 1500X is quite cheaper ... and now that Intel decide 6 real core is the base, at a lower price and not that much underperforming i can have 6/12 or 8/16 .... (and nope the mobo change isn't a negative argument ... since both platform would need it  )

let's wait the 8600/8700K benchies before deciding if it's a beast or not for now : it's a "Intel usual" aka: probably 5-10% better and probably overpriced as usual  

let see ... X or Z ...... 370 (X being obviously X370 and Z is if intel decide to go Z370 of course  ) i will see once the bench are out and pricing known ....


----------



## Hood (Aug 4, 2017)

GreiverBlade said:


> (c'mon .... who need optane support or any of the "new features" the Z270 did bring.... not.)


Don't forget the 4 more chipset PCIe 3.0 lanes (24 vs 20 on Z170) - admittedly only useful for NVMe RAID setups. One would hope Z370 would bring some kind of benefit over Z270, perhaps it will finally get a native Thunderbolt 3 controller, or at least 4 more PCIe lanes.  Could be useful when 8-lane NVMe SSDs arrive in mainstream in a year or two.


----------



## phanbuey (Aug 4, 2017)

GreiverBlade said:


> let's wait the 8600/8700K benchies before deciding if it's a beast or not for now : it's a "Intel usual" aka: probably 5-10% better and probably overpriced as usual
> 
> let see ... X or Z ...... 370 (X being obviously X370 and Z is if intel decide to go Z370 of course  ) i will see once the bench are out and pricing known ....



even if it's a 7600k/7700k with 50% more cores and 50% more cache, and overclocks the same, it is going to be an absolute beast.

If it has anywhere near an additional 10% IPC improvement, it will be putting up 1500-1600 points in cb multithread with 2 less cores.  This chip will stomp on the r7's and r5's extra hard.

Ryzen will still be cheaper and more power efficient, but this is Intel's sweet spot; it will just absolutely run away with anything that isn't heavily threaded/optimized, and keep pace with r7 octacores in things that are.  It's basically a 7800x without the crippling mesh.


----------

