# Linus Has Some Things to Say about Core i9 and X299



## trparky (Jun 4, 2017)

So I watched the video and yes, it's a rant, far more rant-ish (is that even a word?) than his previous videos. He makes some excellent points in the video. I didn't know about these inherent platform limitations and I'm sure that many of you didn't know either. After watching the video it's like Intel didn't even try with this new platform, it's more like "Oh shit, AMD actually has something decent. *runs around the room* Damn. Damn. Damn! What *will* we do? *walks up to engineer* *DO SOMETHING!* That's why I pay you the big bucks!"


----------



## uuuaaaaaa (Jun 4, 2017)

Intel I9 aka "WalletRipper"

It actually looks like Intel is kinda desperate :/ This release of the new high tdp HEDT cpu's kinda remind me of AMD's FX9590...


----------



## FR@NK (Jun 4, 2017)

Just shows how the x299 platform will be very adaptable. The 7740k will be the best gaming chip and on the same platform you can have the best multithreaded chips if you need more cores.

And of course the 18 core chip only exists so Intel can say they have the fastest HEDT processor. In the past we would just get a es version high core xeon and stick these in x79/x99 boards if we needed more cores.



uuuaaaaaa said:


> Intel I9 aka "WalletRipper"



Have you seen the prices? They are pretty cheap compared to what Intel has charged in the past. You get 18 cores for $1999....much better compared to broadwell-e's 10 core at $1700.


----------



## trparky (Jun 4, 2017)

uuuaaaaaa said:


> Intel I9 aka "WalletRipper"


Pretty much.

And like he said in the video, how the hell are the board makers going to be able to adapt to this?



> The motherboard manufacturers have to support any chip that you could put in the socket on every single board. How do you build a board around 16 to 44 PCI Express lanes, dual to quad channel memory, and anywhere from 4 to 18 cores?


From a pure technical standpoint, how the hell is this going to be even possible?! Don't get me wrong, the board manufacturers have to do the same thing with Ryzen (to an extent) but at least they only have to deal with variable core numbers, not all of the other stuff mentioned in the quote above which makes the situation even more complex. This is going to be a bitch and a half to support.


----------



## xkm1948 (Jun 4, 2017)

The new I9 will be DOA. Too little too late. Intel has dug its own grave. They had plenty of time to innovate and move forward. Sadly corporate greed get the better of them. They have been ripping off HEDT market for quite a long time, I will be happy to see Intel suffer for 5 yrs. To teach them a good listen, never underestimate your opponent.


----------



## Vya Domus (Jun 4, 2017)

Why would anyone buy into X299 for Kaby Lake X is beyond me , that's the only strange thing about it.

Again , I still think they knew well ahead of time what AMD is going to do. They just didn't care , they can afford not to.


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Jun 4, 2017)

Vya Domus said:


> Why would anyone buy into X299 for Kaby Lake X is beyond me , that's the only strange thing about it.
> 
> Again , I still think they knew well ahead of time what AMD is going to do. They just didn't care , they can afford not to.


I take it you mean the i5 4c/4t and i7 4c/8t chips? I thought the same...


----------



## trparky (Jun 4, 2017)

Vya Domus said:


> I still think they knew well ahead of time what AMD is going to do.


But this whole new platform feels like a hack-job and a bad one at that.


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Jun 4, 2017)

I think biggest problem falls to the memory support / dimm slot arrangement and PCIe lanes being severely limited at the low end. Pay more for less supported features than if you just went mainstream. Or buy AMD where your not shafted on supported features.


----------



## Vya Domus (Jun 4, 2017)

trparky said:


> But this whole new platform feels like a hack-job and a bad one at that.



Maybe it was and they just held off the whole thing till they felt like they didn't have a choice.



NdMk2o1o said:


> I take it you mean the i5 4c/4t and i7 4c/8t chips? I thought the same...



Yeah. The motherboards are obviously going to more expensive that regular Z270 boards and Kaby Lake-X is clearly not meant for HEDT use. I guess you have left the argument that you can upgrade eventually. But the reality is that you will be wasting so much money by then that going for a Skylake-X or Threadripper from the beginning would have made more sense in the long run.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Jun 4, 2017)

All the motherboards look gorgeous.



BTW
Long live socket 1366......


----------



## Solaris17 (Jun 4, 2017)

Vya Domus said:


> The motherboards are obviously going to more expensive that regular Z270 boards and Kaby Lake-X is clearly not meant for HEDT use



I didnt watch the vid because I personally think Linus is a tool, but I will admit the mobo offerings for x299 are currently fugly beyond belife, and to add to it, I honestly thought x299 was going to be built off of Cannonlake. though for HDET its possible that we will see more than just skylake/kaby lake-X on the platform, so im not too worried.


----------



## trparky (Jun 4, 2017)

Vya Domus said:


> Maybe it was and they just held off the whole thing till they felt like they didn't have a choice.


It definitely has that "half-baked" feeling to it. Almost as if Intel had been working on this for some time but suddenly had an "OH SHIT!" moment (Ryzen) and released it regardless of the fact that it's nowhere near being ready.

Reminds me of another product that was rushed to the public that felt like it wasn't ready, namely Windows 10.


----------



## GoldenX (Jun 4, 2017)

Solaris17 said:


> I didnt watch the vid because I personally think Linus is a tool, but I will admit the mobo offerings for x299 are currently fugly beyond belife, and to add to it, I honestly thought x299 was going to be built off of Cannonlake. though for HDET its possible that we will see more than just skylake/kaby lake-X on the platform, so im not too worried.



The HEDT platform is always one arch behind.
The prices are a LOT better than before, but capping the lower end of the platform (that is more expensive than the mainstream one) to only dual channel and 16 lines is beyond stupid, especially when knowing AMD will give you full specs on every CPU, as they always do.


----------



## trparky (Jun 4, 2017)

GoldenX said:


> only dual channel and 16 lines is beyond stupid


This is basically Intel giving us all the finger.


----------



## Countryside (Jun 4, 2017)

This is what happens when you rush a product.


----------



## Disparia (Jun 4, 2017)

Yeah, I was actually surprised when I found out Intel was going to make the new i5/i7 chips 2066 instead of being 1151 leaders, kind of like Devils Canyon for 1150.


----------



## FR@NK (Jun 4, 2017)

Vya Domus said:


> Why would anyone buy into X299 for Kaby Lake X is beyond me



For highend gaming and benchmarking. 

It will be a faster version of the 7700k which is already pretty fast. The 7740k is already showing to be a strong chip:


----------



## GoldenX (Jun 4, 2017)

It will be fun to have posts in the near future of people buying 8 ram modules for a 7740K and then having to tell them that only 4 work, same with PCI-E ports.


----------



## Tomgang (Jun 4, 2017)

its hard to deside what side to walk. AMD has memory issues and intel just ripping wallets yet again. There is no denial that Intels 14,16 and 18 core is a rushed a tempt to give AMD back from Threadripper and try keep some costumers, but intel is doing it wrong by keeping these stupid pricetags and the fact to re release Quad-core on the big socket that only support dual channel on a quad-channel platform gives no sence to me and even an Core i5 now also. Thats like baying a Lamborghini and them swap a tiny 4 cylinder engine in it 

Looks like i am gonna stay on X58 yet again. its old but at least it has no issues and just runs day in and day out even after serious torture with oc it dosent break a sweet.
If i even upgrade its hard to ignore AMD threadripper but i am an intel man but intel really makes it hard to be on Intels side. Its getting harder and harder to justified baying intel i think at least.



CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> All the motherboards look gorgeous.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No you are wrong. As it goes and has going on for years it looks like its Forever on socket 1366


----------



## trparky (Jun 4, 2017)

Tomgang said:


> AMD has memory issues


The memory issues are apparently getting fixed, slowly but surely. I just wish that they would hurry up already.


----------



## Countryside (Jun 4, 2017)

Tomgang said:


> its hard to deside what side to walk. AMD has memory issues and intel just ripping wallets yet again. There is no denial that Intels 14,16 and 18 core is a rushed a tempt to give AMD back from Threadripper and try keep some costumers, but intel is doing it wrong by keeping these stupid pricetags and the fact to re release Quad-core on the big socket that only support dual channel on a quad-channel platform gives no sence to me and even an Core i5 now also. Thats like baying a Lamborghini and them swap a tiny 4 cylinder engine in it
> 
> Looks like i am gonna stay on X58 yet again. its old but at least it has no issues and just runs day in and day out even after serious torture with oc it dosent break a sweet.
> If i even upgrade its hard to ignore AMD threadripper but i am an intel man but intel really makes it hard to be on Intels side. Its getting harder and harder to justified baying intel i think at least.
> ...




I almost agree with you but the rapid release of bios updates has made things much easier and the memory issues shall remain in the past.


----------



## Devon68 (Jun 4, 2017)

> This is basically Intel giving us all the finger.


Yeah they are known to do that.


----------



## Tomgang (Jun 4, 2017)

trparky said:


> The memory issues are apparently getting fixed, slowly but surely. I just wish that they would hurry up already.



Memory issues shall deffently be fixed completely before i will even thinking of letting go of X58.



Countryside said:


> I almost agree with you but the rapid release of bios updates has made things much easier and the memory issues shall remain in the past.



I hope its getting fixed soon or intel getting there ass up and release something great to a good price in sted of this wallet ripping. Until one of these two things happen i am staying on X58.


----------



## trparky (Jun 4, 2017)

Tomgang said:


> staying on X58


How the hell is that thing even still working? I mean seriously, I would have thought that by now a cap or two would have burst on the board leaving it dead.


----------



## Countryside (Jun 4, 2017)

trparky said:


> How the hell is that thing even still working? I mean seriously, I would have thought that by now a cap or two would have burst on the board leaving it dead.



If the x58 chip could speak it will say " I'm old but not absolute"


----------



## trparky (Jun 4, 2017)

But that thing is like nine years old already! Released back in 2008! That's beyond ancient in terms of technology, technology years is worse than dog years.


----------



## cdawall (Jun 4, 2017)

xkm1948 said:


> The new I9 will be DOA. Too little too late. Intel has dug its own grave. They had plenty of time to innovate and move forward. Sadly corporate greed get the better of them. They have been ripping off HEDT market for quite a long time, I will be happy to see Intel suffer for 5 yrs. To teach them a good listen, never underestimate your opponent.



You are naive if you think this. People will not buy threadripper for the same reason they didn't buy ryzen. It is far from perfect and there are so many issues with them I don't have days to list them.

This will come down to a simple fact, people will pay more money for similar performance on a stable platform. Guess which company provides that?

You also assume AMD can release a product on time. News flash H1 ended and there is still *NO* Vega cards.


----------



## Ferrum Master (Jun 4, 2017)

trparky said:


> How the hell is that thing even still working? I mean seriously, I would have thought that by now a cap or two would have burst on the board leaving it dead.



Why the hate? I also picked up a used X58 and works really fine as a LP machine. Another X58 works 24/7 for WCG no errors whatever for months.


----------



## Tomgang (Jun 4, 2017)

trparky said:


> How the hell is that thing even still working? I mean seriously, I would have thought that by now a cap or two would have burst on the board leaving it dead.



And yet its still alive and kicking well. Runs every game i throw at it. BF1 with 64 players online no problem. getting between 65 and 90 FPS with my setup on ultra settings. The biggest problem is my GPU´s they run out of Vram . No the only thing that will make these setup complete is a GTX 1080 TI to replace GTX 970 SLI. I even have a M.2 NVMe SSD fully working aswell.

further more these scores are not bad from nine year old tech is it?


----------



## Frick (Jun 4, 2017)

I thought that "I wonder what Linus Torvalds has to say about this." and then realized it was Linus the Tool, not Torvalds.


----------



## Solaris17 (Jun 4, 2017)

trparky said:


> How the hell is that thing even still working? I mean seriously, I would have thought that by now a cap or two would have burst on the board leaving it dead.



Really? Other than knowingly beating the piss out of my boards, I never had a issue with 1366, infact with the better tier boards, they were almost exclusively solid state caps.


----------



## notb (Jun 4, 2017)

trparky said:


> And like he said in the video, how the hell are the board makers going to be able to adapt to this?


Why are you so worried?
Most mobo manufacturers have already released their LGA2066 lineup (and the choice is huge), so it seems they've managed to build them somehow.
Are you suggesting they won't work or what? 

Yes, the choice of CPU will limit the features of the platform, but it's nothing new or unique.
To me this is the main issue people have with LGA2066. They expect it to be just a successor to LGA2011, when in fact it's a slightly different approach with wider target audience.

As for Linus... well. I know it's 2017 and we all watch these "youtube personalities", but having watched a few of his videos (I've only discovered him like 3 months ago), I think the technical level is not very high. E.g. he spends a good portion of this Kaby Lake X rant talking about dual and quad channel RAM, but I can't stop the feeling that he doesn't understand how RAM works.

So while some of the things he mentions are fairly obvious issues, I suspect that others come from his lack of understanding of the matter.
Forums like TPU are full of people with a better technical background - it's just that not everyone has the will and charisma to start a youtube channel. It's nothing new or IT-specific, anyway. Thousands of conservatoire students play drums better than Ulrich, but handful of them could play in a top metal band.
Also, I can't stop wondering whether he would become so popular if his parents named him John... ;-)


----------



## trparky (Jun 4, 2017)

Ferrum Master said:


> Why the hate?


No hate, I'm just wondering how something that old is still working. There's so many things that are against you when running old stuff. Tin whiskers, leaking caps, lack of replacement components like RAM, etc.


----------



## Solaris17 (Jun 4, 2017)

trparky said:


> No hate, I'm just wondering how something that old is still working. There's so many things that are against you when running old stuff. Tin whiskers, leaking caps, lack of replacement components like RAM, etc.



?? those platforms like any HEDT "generally" run with top of the line components and 1366 is DDR3 its not some kind of rare leopard.


----------



## Mr.Scott (Jun 4, 2017)

cdawall said:


> You are naive if you think this. People will not buy threadripper for the same reason they didn't buy ryzen. It is far from perfect and there are so many issues with them I don't have days to list them.
> 
> This will come down to a simple fact, people will pay more money for similar performance on a stable platform. Guess which company provides that?


You are being a fortune teller now?
People are tired of spending endless cash.
More for less is looking better to them......even though they'll probably never use it.
Ryzen isn't even a year old and Threadripper isn't even out yet.
Time will tell.


----------



## Tomgang (Jun 4, 2017)

Solaris17 said:


> Really? Other than knowingly beating the piss out of my boards, I never had a issue with 1366, infact with the better tier boards, they were almost exclusively solid state caps.



Amen to that. X58 just keep on going strong no matter what abuse you do to it. I had an I7 920 before that I7 980X i have now. OC to 4.1 GHz for over 4 years and 4.4 GHz for benchmark. In total i had that CPU for old most 8 years and stil worked perfect before i sold it with motherboard. And that I7 980X i have now have even been abused more now with the fact i have had it clokked to 4.77 GHz and even then its like it said its that all, i can do more. i whas limited by cooling and not what the CPU cut do.

A friend of mine had and I7 980X as well years bank running 5 GHz but on water cooling but still 5 freaking GHz with all 6 cores and HT still on.


----------



## Mr.Scott (Jun 4, 2017)

trparky said:


> No hate, I'm just wondering how something that old is still working. There's so many things that are against you when running old stuff. Tin whiskers, leaking caps, lack of replacement components like RAM, etc.



Lol. I have 20+ year old systems that still run no problem.


----------



## trparky (Jun 4, 2017)

Solaris17 said:


> DDR3 its not some kind of rare leopard


Somehow I thought it was DDR2.



Tomgang said:


> I even have a M.2 NVMe SSD fully working aswell.


How did you get it to boot from it? I figured that only the new UEFI-based stuff could boot from a M.2 SSD. Did you have to use some kind of small SATA device to hold the boot loader and then hand it off to the M.2 device?


----------



## Ferrum Master (Jun 4, 2017)

trparky said:


> No hate, I'm just wondering how something that old is still working. There's so many things that are against you when running old stuff. Tin whiskers, leaking caps, lack of replacement components like RAM, etc.



It is an X platform... whatever... Tin whiskers?  The hell, I've powered up an i815 with Pentium III-S in last December and it worked fine. If it is designed to be a flagship product without gimping something up it usually works really for long... they have polymer caps, they don't dry up, lack of DDR3? What?

X58 is still a powerhouse, around TPU there are a lot of users still riding it.


----------



## Vya Domus (Jun 4, 2017)

Also , X299 looks like a clusterfuck in terms of complexity. I would be surprised if it has no issues upon launch.


----------



## trparky (Jun 4, 2017)

Ferrum Master said:


> X58 is still a powerhouse around TPU there are a lot of users still riding it.


Suddenly my five year old machine doesn't seem so old.



Vya Domus said:


> in terms of complexity I mean. I would be surprised if it has no issues upon launch.


I wouldn't be surprised if there was a launch day UEFI update. Hell, I figure there will be rapid-fire UEFI updates to fix the shit that should've been fixed before it went live.


----------



## Ferrum Master (Jun 4, 2017)

Vya Domus said:


> Also , X299 looks like a cluster fuck , in terms of complexity I mean.



What exactly seems to be more complex? Imho older cluster ducks with north bridges and companion nf200 bridges were more complex. There are always issues and erratas, it's a lottery and we are the sponsors.



trparky said:


> Suddenly my five year old machine doesn't seem so old.



Well then it's a win win situation. We use our 50€ hex core Xeons further and you do not have an upgrade itch now


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Jun 4, 2017)

Ferrum Master said:


> X58 is still a powerhouse, around TPU there are a lot of users still riding it.




you wont hear me complaining


----------



## Vya Domus (Jun 4, 2017)

Ferrum Master said:


> What exactly seems to be more complex?



Having one platform that is made to work with such a wide variety of chips that range from consumer grade to what are essentially off the shell modified Xeons isn't exactly the easiest thing to pull off.


----------



## FilipM (Jun 4, 2017)

1080Ti on an X58, no complaints here at all! I wonder if the GPU-CPU combo that I have is the last hurrah of the platform. Probably not


----------



## Tomgang (Jun 4, 2017)

trparky said:


> Somehow I thought it was DDR2.
> 
> 
> How did you get it to boot from it? I figured that only the new UEFI-based stuff could boot from a M.2 SSD. Did you have to use some kind of small SATA device to hold the boot loader and then hand it off to the M.2 device?



No X58 is running on DDR3. Triple channel infact. For DDR2 you need to go back to Core 2 duo/Qaud platform or older.

No that M.2 SSD i use that will be Samsung 950 PRO, samsung put in a little gift called Legacy mode or OPT-rom. that allows legacy bios to se it as a IDE drive and by that in bios where i can set it to main boot drive. Only other thing i needed to get it to work where a M.2 PCIe Adaptor.

You can se more about here if interested. https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/...stem-with-m-2-pci-adaptor-can-it-work.231611/

There is also this guide for X58 boot on other M.2 SSD. severel has reported it works. So it may also work on other chipsæt motherboard. https://audiocricket.com/2016/12/31/booting-samsung-sm961-on-asus-p6t-se-mainboard/






A few more benchmark for the those of interest.

























Oh yeah nealy forgot that CPU-z change there benchamrk. So here is a couple with the never version.


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Jun 4, 2017)

Think you need to update your CPU-Z those scores aren't right so I'm assuming they have changed the scoring system on newer releases... look at @CAPSLOCKSTUCK screenshot a few replies up to see what I mean, but yea it's crazy how a good overclock on 1366 chips can still make them fairly relevant today


----------



## Tomgang (Jun 4, 2017)

NdMk2o1o said:


> Think you need to update your CPU-Z those scores aren't right so I'm assuming they have changed the scoring system on newer releases... look at @CAPSLOCKSTUCK screenshot a few replies up to see what I mean, but yea it's crazy how a good overclock on 1366 chips can still make them fairly relevant today



Is fixed now


----------



## RejZoR (Jun 4, 2017)

FR@NK said:


> Just shows how the x299 platform will be very adaptable. The 7740k will be the best gaming chip and on the same platform you can have the best multithreaded chips if you need more cores.
> 
> And of course the 18 core chip only exists so Intel can say they have the fastest HEDT processor. In the past we would just get a es version high core xeon and stick these in x79/x99 boards if we needed more cores.
> 
> ...



People still think quad cores are gods for gaming. And even if it is, why would you spend extra for a platform you don't need when you could get Z270 cheaper.


----------



## FilipM (Jun 4, 2017)

I'll just slap mine in here.


----------



## r9 (Jun 4, 2017)

Quad core on x299 makes no sense.
Its like having Ryzen 5 on x399.


----------



## FilipM (Jun 4, 2017)

Personally, I think 6-8 core is the sweet spot for the X299.


----------



## r9 (Jun 4, 2017)

FilipM said:


> I'll just slap mine in here.


Ne e loso .


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jun 4, 2017)

Interesting article and bang on for a change ,for linus anyway.

And this all highlights the gouging intel does , kabylake on 299 prooves adequately something i stated before when intel added or took one pin from a socket (i think similar happened more) just to force a whole platform update(1155,1256,1151,1150), when the substrate actually has interconnect and regulatory ciruitry on it ie with a big pin socket you could theoretically wire your cpu to it and their talk of needing to move pins around was likely bollocks.

Intel need to Fix Up yo.


----------



## Ferrum Master (Jun 4, 2017)

Vya Domus said:


> Having one platform that is made to work with such a wide variety of chips that range from consumer grade to what are essentially off the shell modified Xeons isn't exactly the easiest thing to pull off.



From electrical point core count it really doesn't add much more tasks in motherboard board design. Actually older power hungry cores in smaller LGA package was a harder task. VRM's are already good if they survive LN2 sessions with huge loads many times more than usually, RAM traces isolation stay the same, only problems could arise from PCH, usual USB and SATA erratas but again that's not CPU dependent. Other than that... simple... all PLL and gate controls also pretty much defined and do not vary same gen CPU to CPU except for some with stepping bugs and they have workarounds, but those are rare.

The CPU firmware? You think that the CPU variety really add some complexity to the board design? If it handles the flagship with most power usage it handles them all, other mojos are just marketing crap. Tweaks reside only in board CPU initialization phase where some voltage cheats often reside ie pull ups. But's that's the BIOS side only... 

And none will design a board many times really, they have one full core PCB drawing, and slap up minor elements around like sound LAN etc that doesn't change the critical parts like RAM and PCIE ways... if you look at the boards you can distinct same parts in any boards for the same maker... it is like a modular puzzle. It also more easy as we have more robust 10-14 layer PCB fabrication that also eases up the process, years ago there were limitations. Years ago 6 layers were used only, and that's actually more tough to design as you lack space and turns out into a nightmare. That's why ITX boards also appear late, it is tough to make them design wise as autoroute still sucks in certain tasks.


----------



## cdawall (Jun 4, 2017)

Mr.Scott said:


> You are being a fortune teller now?
> People are tired of spending endless cash.
> More for less is looking better to them......even though they'll probably never use it.
> Ryzen isn't even a year old and Threadripper isn't even out yet.
> Time will tell.



I am a history reader. People will buy Intel. You know how I know that? AMD can't hold any kind of volume on anything. CPU, GPU etc. So even if threadripper some how manages to not have more issues than ryzen and is actually released on time the probability of motherboard and CPU stock being good is something between slim, none and nonexistent.


----------



## FilipM (Jun 4, 2017)

r9 said:


> Ne e loso .



Druze od kade si 

Sorry for non-english


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 4, 2017)

I'll just say this:

X299 is why I went Ryzen.  Thermal paste on HEDT CPUs is shameful.


----------



## LiveOrDie (Jun 4, 2017)

I don't see any real reason to upgrade to X299 i did from X79 to X99 but looking at how rushed this are puts me right off.


----------



## r9 (Jun 4, 2017)

FilipM said:


> Druze od kade si
> 
> Sorry for non-english


Od Veles.


----------



## Vya Domus (Jun 4, 2017)

Ferrum Master said:


> From electrical point core count it really doesn't add much more tasks in motherboard board design. Actually older power hungry cores in smaller LGA package was a harder task. VRM's are already good if they survive LN2 sessions with huge loads many times more than usually, RAM traces isolation stay the same, only problems could arise from PCH, usual USB and SATA erratas but again that's not CPU dependent. Other than that... simple... all PLL and gate controls also pretty much defined and do not vary same gen CPU to CPU except for some with stepping bugs and they have workarounds, but those are rare.
> 
> The CPU firmware? You think that the CPU variety really add some complexity to the board design? If it handles the flagship with most power usage it handles them all, other mojos are just marketing crap. Tweaks reside only in board CPU initialization phase where some voltage cheats often reside ie pull ups. But's that's the BIOS side only...
> 
> And none will design a board many times really, they have one full core PCB drawing, and slap up minor elements around like sound LAN etc that doesn't change the critical parts like RAM and PCIE ways... if you look at the boards you can distinct same parts in any boards for the same maker... it is like a modular puzzle. It also more easy as we have more robust 10-14 layer PCB fabrication that also eases up the process, years ago there were limitations. Years ago 6 layers were used only, and that's actually more tough to design as you lack space and turns out into a nightmare. That's why ITX boards also appear late, it is tough to make them design wise as autoroute still sucks in certain tasks.



All I'm saying is that there is a reason why AMD designed Zen like it is. It so that they can put it in any platform no matter how barebone or complex it is and scale every aspect of it easily. Intel is burning cash right now with X299 and especially it's CPUs. Not that they are lacking funds , but they have clearly chosen the most complicated way to go about doing it or rather that's how they have been doing things for a while now.


----------



## FireFox (Jun 4, 2017)

trparky said:


> How the hell is that thing even still working? I mean seriously, I would have thought that by now a cap or two would have burst on the board leaving it dead.



I guess you have been living for a long time in a cave.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jun 4, 2017)

Knoxx29 said:


> I guess you have been living for a long time in a cave.


Like a few round intels dev suite.


----------



## FireFox (Jun 4, 2017)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> Like a few round intels dev suite.



And you again.


----------



## Solaris17 (Jun 4, 2017)

Knoxx29 said:


> I guess you have been living for a long time in a cave.



This isnt even all that offensive, but I am actually surprised Knoxx that you are so argumentative this release. You always seemed relatively cool headed but damn man, you literally havent even commented in this thread except to insult someone like wtf.


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 4, 2017)

Solaris17 said:


> This isnt even all that offensive, but I am actually surprised Knoxx that you are so argumentative this release. You always seemed relatively cool headed but damn man, you literally havent even commented in this thread except to insult someone like wtf.



My theory is he's just mad AMD released something that was somewhat decent.


----------



## cdawall (Jun 4, 2017)

R-T-B said:


> My theory is he's just mad AMD released something that was somewhat decent.



I mean he loves his antique processors and AMD finally released something that not only beats it, but wipes the floor with it handily.


----------



## Solaris17 (Jun 4, 2017)

R-T-B said:


> My theory is he's just mad AMD released something that was somewhat decent.





cdawall said:


> I mean he loves his antique processors and AMD finally released something that not only beats it, but wipes the floor with it handily.



Well I cant say he didn't welcome this.


----------



## trparky (Jun 4, 2017)

Tomgang said:


> that allows legacy bios to se it as a IDE drive


Does it still support TRIM under this kind of setup? I was under the impression that TRIM will only work in AHCI mode, not legacy IDE mode.



r9 said:


> Quad core on x299 makes no sense.
> Its like having Ryzen 5 on x399.


Hey, if I were to go Ryzen I'd be getting the Ryzen 5 and putting it on a x399 board simply because of the additional SATA ports. I needs them SATA ports.


----------



## FireFox (Jun 4, 2017)

Solaris17 said:


> This isnt even all that offensive, but I am actually surprised Knoxx that you are so argumentative this release.



I quoted @trparky's post because what he said about the X58 platform, and it was just a joke.



Solaris17 said:


> except to insult someone like wtf.



As i said it was just a joke,


And all this is BS = müll, und alles was du sagst es ist mir egal.



R-T-B said:


> My theory is he's just mad AMD released something that was somewhat decent.





cdawall said:


> I mean he loves his antique processors and AMD finally released something that not only beats it, but wipes the floor with it handily.


----------



## Tomgang (Jun 4, 2017)

trparky said:


> Does it still support TRIM under this kind of setup? I was under the impression that TRIM will only work in AHCI mode, not legacy IDE mode.
> 
> 
> Hey, if I were to go Ryzen I'd be getting the Ryzen 5 and putting it on a x399 board simply because of the additional SATA ports. I needs them SATA ports.



Motherboard is set to AHCI, but i dont think M.2 SSD use trim as a sata SSD does.

First a sata SSD and then my own M.2 and after that some other M.2 SSD and nonen of them say trim support. Only Sata SSD seems to have it. Trim dosent look to be a feature on M.2 SSD. At least not acording to crystal Disk info.


----------



## cdawall (Jun 4, 2017)

trparky said:


> Hey, if I were to go Ryzen I'd be getting the Ryzen 5 and putting it on a x399 board simply because of the additional SATA ports. I needs them SATA ports.



You do know why Intel is offering kabylake x right? 115x chips can't handle the wattage of crazy overclocks. People are smoking 7700K's with heavy overclocks.



Knoxx29 said:


> As i said it was just a joke,
> 
> 
> And all this is BS = müll, und alles was du sagst es ist mir egal.



get over yourself.


----------



## Toothless (Jun 4, 2017)

As I sit here with my 4790k, twiddling my thumbs.


----------



## FR@NK (Jun 4, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> why would you spend extra



Because highend hardware always cost alot more while only being little bit faster.



cdawall said:


> You do know why Intel is offering kabylake x right?



Linus and most of the posts in this thread don't understand why....


----------



## cdawall (Jun 4, 2017)

FR@NK said:


> Linus and most of the posts in this thread don't understand why....



Nope and Linus doesn't understand much so this doesn't surprise me. The people in this thread however disappoint me. I mean heck what are there three pages of x58 benchmarks? No one cares. This thread has nothing to do with chips that compete with the FX series. We are past that now.

The Kaby lake chips are only releasing with a 100mhz clock increase, but they are on a nice thick high wattage hunk of PCB. I am curious if the release chips end up being soldered or thermal goop. I mean the only stuff out right now is ES, so we don't even have QS parts out. I wouldn't be surprised if it ends up soldered, but if it is not we are still talking about a better platform period. Heck in his own video they were advertising DDR5000 on the MSI boards. There has been some mojo done to these things. I can't wait to see how they do in person.

Also no one who really streams professionally uses quicksync... SO WHO CARES THAT THE IGP IS GONE.


----------



## OneMoar (Jun 4, 2017)

@Tomgang you are running at over 4.6Ghz with probably a tdp pushing 200w
got news for you a kabylake chips puts out better scores at 3.5ghz
thats the difference 
shit chip is shit please just stop


----------



## dorsetknob (Jun 4, 2017)

@Knoxx29 
is probably feeling Sensitive after reading/watching 1st post
He has Stated he WILL BE BUYING NEW INTEL HEDT CPU SOON
and now he might be having choice problems regarding a Suitable MotherBoard 
cheer up @Knoxx29 there will be Board and CPU Reviews Soon on TPU


----------



## FR@NK (Jun 4, 2017)

cdawall said:


> I wouldn't be surprised if it ends up soldered



I dont think we will see any more soldered chips from Intel. Have you read der8auer blog on soldering?



dorsetknob said:


> @Knoxx29 there will be Board and CPU Reviews Soon on TPU



I think Wizzard should just have @Knoxx29 do the TPU review!


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 4, 2017)

Knoxx29 said:


> müll, und alles was du sagst es ist mir egal.



You don't need to care, it's your right to like what you want.  I just would appreciate it if you didn't attack AMD so vehemently, but I guess we can't all get what we want, right?



FR@NK said:


> I dont think we will see any more soldered chips from Intel. Have you read der8auer blog on soldering?



These aren't small chips.



OneMoar said:


> shit chip is shit please just stop



Only if you care about electric costs.  Yes, it's shit if you were to buy one now, but the longevity those things had made them gold purchases back in the day.


----------



## cdawall (Jun 4, 2017)

FR@NK said:


> I dont think we will see any more soldered chips from Intel. Have you read der8auer blog on soldering?



I mean you could be right, but these as the frog said small chips.


----------



## OneMoar (Jun 4, 2017)

d8rs point on the solder isn't really applicable on air
the thermal cycling is negligible at those temps

I don't have a problem with not using solder, they how ever could go the extra step of using a gallium based tim intends of the cheapest gray-gunk tim they could get in bulk

AMD gets the hate because they are historically incapable of a smooth product launch every single product for the last 5 years has had some glaring stupid could-have-been-avoided-but-we-are-retarded launch issue

ryzen should have been-able to go toe to toe with intels platform, the only reason it doesn't and yep you guessed it the IPC isn't great and infinity fabric isn't much better two of the same frigging issues amd have had with there chips since the phenom II(sub par ipc and poor core caching/interconnects) all fundamental stuff that should have been outright handled two generations ago 

whats really inexcusable is that AMD should be capitalizing on Intels stagnation and they aren't.

 by the time they get there heads out of there asses Intel will have released a completely new arch that rewrites the book on CPU design.

 they have gobs of cash and the talent and silicon engineers to make it happen. the only reason it hasn't up until now is there was literally no need

yes x299 is a gaff and will won't likely see the light of day after the backlash,but none of that matters


----------



## FireFox (Jun 5, 2017)

R-T-B said:


> I just would appreciate it if you didn't attack AMD so vehemently



Attacked?, show me where.



dorsetknob said:


> @Knoxx29
> is probably feeling Sensitive after reading/watching 1st post
> He has Stated he WILL BE BUYING NEW INTEL HEDT CPU SOON
> and now he might be having choice problems regarding a Suitable MotherBoard
> cheer up @Knoxx29 there will be Board and CPU Reviews Soon on TPU



I can see you don't know me at all, do you think all what you have been writting in this thread + Linus video will stop me to buy Intel's new toys? if so you are mistaken, i don't need a video or what people talk to decide what to buy.


----------



## cdawall (Jun 5, 2017)

OneMoar said:


> d8rs point on the solder isn't really applicable on air
> the thermal cycling is negligible at those temps
> 
> I don't have a problem with not using solder, they how ever could go the extra step of using a gallium based tim intends of the cheapest gray-gunk tim they could get in bulk



People forget AMD and Intel have used tim for decades without complaint


----------



## r9 (Jun 5, 2017)

trparky said:


> Does it still support TRIM under this kind of setup? I was under the impression that TRIM will only work in AHCI mode, not legacy IDE mode.
> 
> 
> Hey, if I were to go Ryzen I'd be getting the Ryzen 5 and putting it on a x399 board simply because of the additional SATA ports. I needs them SATA ports.


x370 has 6 and x399 has 8 sata ports.
If you want to pay twice as much for two extra ports go for it.
I would just add 4 for $30 via PCIE x1 sata controller.


----------



## trparky (Jun 5, 2017)

A lot of the x399 boards have Intel Ethernet controllers on them whereas the x370 and the lesser b350 uses some RealTek junk.


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 5, 2017)

Knoxx29 said:


> Attacked?, show me where.



I guess "attacked" wasn't the right word.  Let's just drop it for now.



trparky said:


> A lot of the x399 boards have Intel Ethernet controllers on them whereas the x370 and the lesser b350 uses some RealTek junk.



My X370 uses an Intel controller.


----------



## trparky (Jun 5, 2017)

Not the few that I was looking at, then again... I'm basing my observations on the few x370 boards that Microcenter has in stock.


----------



## Solaris17 (Jun 5, 2017)

trparky said:


> A lot of the x399 boards have Intel Ethernet controllers on them whereas the x370 and the lesser b350 uses some RealTek junk.



to be fair I see the benifit to Intel in the work place and on servers, never personally seen or had any issues with reltek in consumer space, infact on the flip getting Intel NICs to PXE boot can be a bitch sometimes if they arent older models.


----------



## trparky (Jun 5, 2017)

I've always found Intel NIC drivers to be pretty damn stable and throughput is very consistent.


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 5, 2017)

trparky said:


> I've always found Intel NIC drivers to be pretty damn stable and throughput is very consistent.



Intel NICs have always been the gold standard, but Realtek has come a long way too.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Jun 5, 2017)

trparky said:


> No hate, I'm just wondering how something that old is still working. There's so many things that are against you when running old stuff. Tin whiskers, leaking caps, lack of replacement components like RAM, etc.


HEDT means high end. They are designed to run many years. The extra premium in price pays off in longevity and performance.


----------



## Solaris17 (Jun 5, 2017)

rtwjunkie said:


> HEDT means high end. They are designed to run many years. The extra premium in price pays off in longevity and performance.



To be candid, its been almost 2 years since I lost all my stuff to my roof collapse. I finally got it replaced last week and in a few months ill be done paying off my loan, I plan on spending $$$$ and honestly the 7980XE as rediculous as it is will probably make it into my rig, though to be fair ill be doing a bit more than gaming with it, I made the dip into consumer land once and I wont be doing it again. I have a mind to keep things as long as some people are still holding onto 1366, and while at first im sure ill be laughed out of threads when ppl read my system specs it will seem alot less ludicrous a few years from now im sure. I'm not paying thousands to play a game for 6 months until I need to upgrade again. I'm spending thousands upfront to not upgrade my PC for 6 years, its a different perspective.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jun 5, 2017)

Solaris17 said:


> To be candid, its been almost 2 years since I lost all my stuff to my roof collapse. I finally got it replaced last week and in a few months ill be done paying off my loan, I plan on spending $$$$ and honestly the 7980XE as rediculous as it is will probably make it into my rig, though to be fair ill be doing a bit more than gaming with it, I made the dip into consumer land once and I wont be doing it again. I have a mind to keep things as long as some people are still holding onto 1366, and while at first im sure ill be laughed out of threads when ppl read my system specs it will seem alot less ludicrous a few years from now im sure. I'm not paying thousands to play a game for 6 months until I need to upgrade again. I'm spending thousands upfront to not upgrade my PC for 6 years, its a different perspective.



Same boat, goin Naples platform though, laugh all they want but I only upgrade gpus mainly or when parts die. I stayed on Skt A till 2014.


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 5, 2017)

OneMoar said:


> IPC isn't great



I don't know.  I'm happy.







@ 4GHz


----------



## Solaris17 (Jun 5, 2017)

R-T-B said:


> I don't know.  I'm happy.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




how are the Aorus boards?! I dont really understand why gigabyte segmented off like that. Do they really offer alot?


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 5, 2017)

Solaris17 said:


> how are the Aorus boards?! I dont really understand why gigabyte segmented off like that. Do they really offer alot?



Yeah, so far the best part is fan control is top notch on this board and the RGB is actually controllable in bios (so I can turn it off forever).

Overall, I am pleased.  The build quality seems good as well.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jun 5, 2017)

Considering the only thing that stands out with Asus is the ram oc.

The msi Gaming Carbon Pro looks nice too


----------



## cdawall (Jun 5, 2017)

R-T-B said:


> I don't know.  I'm happy.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



but intel...






Mind you this is while playing Fallout4, mining and running some other misc items...


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 5, 2017)

cdawall said:


> Mind you this is while playing Fallout4, mining and running some other misc items...



The point was IPC.  What are you clocked to?

And yeah, I was running quite a few installers in the backdrop and a game, so we're probably even on that front.


----------



## cdawall (Jun 5, 2017)

R-T-B said:


> The point was IPC.  What are you clocked to?
> 
> And yeah, I was running quite a few installers in the backdrop and a game, so we're probably even on that front.



Lol um I'm at a clockspeed that was attained on water


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 5, 2017)

cdawall said:


> Lol um I'm at a clockspeed that was attained on water



I think I made my point then.


----------



## FR@NK (Jun 5, 2017)

cdawall said:


> Lol um I'm at a clockspeed that was attained on water



That score seems abit low for 4.8GHz.


----------



## remixedcat (Jun 5, 2017)




----------



## cdawall (Jun 5, 2017)

R-T-B said:


> I think I made my point then.



I like the ryzen stuff for IPC it has other issues imo



FR@NK said:


> That score seems abit low for 4.8GHz.



It score quite a bit higher when there isn't a miner running and fallout... Lol


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 5, 2017)

cdawall said:


> I like the ryzen stuff for IPC it has other issues imo



Honestly, yeah.  The infinity fabric namely.  But to be frank, they've worked wonders on it since launch.  Maybe it's because I'm running Samsung B-Die @3200Mhz though (worked out of the box BTW).  I don't even feel the difference coming from a 7700k, I think it's beyond human perception at this point.


----------



## FR@NK (Jun 5, 2017)

I think broadwell-e has the advantage in this benchmark or maybe no hyperthreading gives it a boost.

@4.4GHz and HT disabled


----------



## OneMoar (Jun 5, 2017)

cpu-z is not a accepted benchmark


----------



## FR@NK (Jun 5, 2017)

OneMoar said:


> cpu-z is not a accepted benchmark



I agree


----------



## TheGuruStud (Jun 5, 2017)

I'm surprised he's not defending it. Intel checks must not be rolling in, anymore.


----------



## cdawall (Jun 5, 2017)

R-T-B said:


> Honestly, yeah.  The infinity fabric namely.  But to be frank, they've worked wonders on it since launch.  Maybe it's because I'm running Samsung B-Die @3200Mhz though (worked out of the box BTW).  I don't even feel the difference coming from a 7700k, I think it's beyond human perception at this point.



Mine more or less worked out of the box, but I was at 3600 lol



FR@NK said:


> I think broadwell-e has the advantage in this benchmark or maybe no hyperthreading gives it a boost.
> 
> @4.4GHz and HT disabled



I'll have to rerun it without crap running. My 6850k scores higher at 4.5 in single core than this at 4.8 though.


----------



## FR@NK (Jun 5, 2017)

TheGuruStud said:


> I'm surprised he's not defending it. Intel checks must not be rolling in, anymore.



Yeah.

Blender is the only benchmark that can prove how fast a processor will preform in the real world.


----------



## Solaris17 (Jun 5, 2017)

FR@NK said:


> Yeah.
> 
> Blender is the only benchmark that can prove how fast a processor will preform in the real world.



and crysis*


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jun 5, 2017)

FR@NK said:


> Yeah.
> 
> Blender is the only benchmark that can prove how fast a processor will preform in the real world.



I used it for stability testing, thats how i found my cpu can run at 70 and 80 in package lol.


----------



## OneMoar (Jun 5, 2017)

cinebench..........


----------



## FR@NK (Jun 5, 2017)

R15?


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 5, 2017)

OneMoar said:


> cpu-z is not a accepted benchmark



It's still a good basic test.  Not much more and I wasn't trying to pass it off as anything more, just a basic figure to counter "bad IPC" which is obviously not the case.

I do think even with the latest patch, it is somewhat Ryzen biased.



TheGuruStud said:


> I'm surprised he's not defending it. Intel checks must not be rolling in, anymore.



Who?  Oh you must mean Linus.

Anyhow, to be clear there is no debating Intel has the crown at the moment if you want the fastest (tm).  I just can't afford the many organs they cost, so I settled on a good value chip.  I think it's a good value, and hell, its heatspreader is soldered on like a proper chip.  I'm happy.  Still not going to pretend AMD has the lead, but they don't suck either.


----------



## LiveOrDie (Jun 5, 2017)

cdawall said:


> but intel...
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Mine 5960x 4.5Ghz


----------



## RejZoR (Jun 5, 2017)

Lets be honest here, up till Ryzen, Intel did in fact have better hardware. With Ryzen out, things changed dramatically. Linus not recommending Intel anymore or wondering about their knee jerk reaction with bizarre release of X299 platform is just a natural result of healthy competition.


----------



## Vya Domus (Jun 5, 2017)

Napels ( something Intel currently dosen't an answer to ) is only possible because of infinity fabric. And it's disadvantages are minimal.

IPC is at least a match to Intel.

They have caught up in all markets in one go, stop living in denial.


----------



## notb (Jun 5, 2017)

eidairaman1 said:


> The msi Gaming Carbon Pro looks nice too


I find many MSI boards unacceptable, to be honest. To much "gaming" garbage on them.

I almost bought the H270 Gaming M3 or H270I Gaming Pro AC. Nice features and I didn't care about the looks (solid case). But then I saw the budnled applications and... honestly... I'd get bored quickly.
(In the end I went for ASRock because of Intel's network solution)


----------



## qubit (Jun 5, 2017)

Linus is right in what he's saying, but when the benchmarks are looked at, it's easy to see why Intel can play these games and win: the CPU is about 30% faster in single threaded tests. People usually want speed above all else, so Intel prevails once again. That's quite frustrating for me, so I can't wait for Ryzen v2 to close the performance gap and hopefully surpass Intel, which would be best of all.

Check out the unofficial results here:

http://wccftech.com/intel-core-i7-7800x-7900x-i9-7900x-cpu-benchmarks-leaked/


----------



## r9 (Jun 5, 2017)

Bottom line is Intel or AMD fan competition is good.
Was so boring before Ryzen.
I personally haven't been this active on TPU since 2008 .


----------



## ensabrenoir (Jun 5, 2017)

....still looking for the article, but intel announced this a while back.  I thought they were moving to a unified socket or pulling high end mainstream(spending $200-$300 dollars on a mainstream board makes no sense) into HEDT but this came out  different.....


----------



## efikkan (Jun 5, 2017)

Except for the quad cores (Kaby-Lake-X) nobody understands, nearly everything he said is nonsense. Anyone who is frustrated about Skylake-X is clearly biased, Linus is just silly. The core counts have been planned long in advance, and 18 core ES versions have existed for a long time. It's not uncommon for Intel to disclose the specifications close to release; they did exactly the same with the 10-core Broadwell-E.



trparky said:


> I've always found Intel NIC drivers to be pretty damn stable and throughput is very consistent.


I always insist on buying NICs from Intel, especially for workstations running Linux.

My largest complaint so far is the lack of 10 Gb Ethernet in X299. This was back in the day planned for X99, but dropped due to cost. Anyone doing productive work knows 1 Gb Ethernet is too slow.


----------



## LiveOrDie (Jun 5, 2017)

efikkan said:


> Except for the quad cores (Kaby-Lake-X) nobody understands, nearly everything he said is nonsense. Anyone who is frustrated about Skylake-X is clearly biased, Linus is just silly. The core counts have been planned long in advance, and 18 core ES versions have existed for a long time. It's not uncommon for Intel to disclose the specifications close to release; they did exactly the same with the 10-core Broadwell-E.
> 
> 
> I always insist on buying NICs from Intel, especially for workstations running Linux.
> ...



What are you smoking its pretty clear Intel has just increase there core counts to match AMDs, which is why there is no details on these chips and why the intels own spec sheets don't cover them.


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 5, 2017)

Live OR Die said:


> What are you smoking its pretty clear Intel has just increase there core counts to match AMDs, which is why there is no details on these chips and why the intels own spec sheets don't cover them.



There have been Xeons like this forever.  They just shuffled the lineup around.  They did not magically make a new chip that fast.


----------



## OneMoar (Jun 5, 2017)

you people really are clueless
its two desktop chips glued together a approach we know doesn't work


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 5, 2017)

OneMoar said:


> you people really are clueless
> its two desktop chips glued together a approach we know doesn't work



Define "work."

Depends on the task, but it certainly has its limitations.


----------



## efikkan (Jun 5, 2017)

Live OR Die said:


> What are you smoking its pretty clear Intel has just increase there core counts to match AMDs, which is why there is no details on these chips and why the intels own spec sheets don't cover them.


Please stop that BS. ES chips of 18 cores has been around since last year, long before the rumors of 16-core Threadripper.
The clocks are undecided because they don't have enough large chips of the final stepping yet. Early estimates was volumes in late Q3, at best.



OneMoar said:


> you people really are clueless
> its two desktop chips glued together a approach we know doesn't work


Skylake-X?
No, it's definitely not. It uses the same core infrastructure as Xeon Gold. AMD is the one "gluing" chips together.


----------



## Aenra (Jun 5, 2017)

efikkan said:


> Please stop that BS. ES chips of 18 cores has been around since last year, long before the rumors of 16-core Threadripper.



That's not what he meant though, is it 
And you know what he meant, you just prefer twisting it into something more.. edible.

No one denies the existence of previous Xeon lineups. What we're saying is that this was a kneejerk reaction, this was an adding of extra SKUs to what was (merely a few weeks ago) a 'sealed' platform. Evident by their still having zero numbers to show, only a core number.
Had this been planned, we'd have as accurate a description as we do for the cheaper SKUs; the actually planned ones.

That's what he means, that's how it is.
Don't make it into a fanboy spitting contest. It was what it was; good for the competition, potentially bad for some Intel customers, as this may entail launch issues.
(and the complaints from the manufacturers further support that btw)


----------



## efikkan (Jun 5, 2017)

Aenra said:


> That's what he means, that's how it is.
> Don't make it into a fanboy spitting contest. It was what it was; good for the competition, potentially bad for some Intel customers, as this may entail launch issues.
> (and the complaints from the manufacturers further support that btw)


As I've mentioned, this is normal practice from Intel, even with Broadwell-E and Haswell-E. They don't disclose the final SKUs too early since the yields might be too low. But make no mistake, the target products are planned >2 years ahead, and rough SKUs ~1 year ahead, leaving only clocks, TDP and price to be decided closer to launch.


----------



## cdawall (Jun 5, 2017)

R-T-B said:


> Define "work."
> 
> Depends on the task, but it certainly has its limitations.



As I have said before this is going to have huge issues. You are basically getting a 4P system that talks across the FSB. Video rendering will be great, cpuz benchmarks great, games not so much, day to day tasks meh, etc


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 5, 2017)

cdawall said:


> As I have said before this is going to have huge issues. You are basically getting a 4P system that talks across the FSB. Video rendering will be great, cpuz benchmarks great, games not so much, day to day tasks meh, etc



I think unless they massively improve how infinity-fabric works, it's basically seeing it's limits already, yeah.


----------



## thebluebumblebee (Jun 5, 2017)

qubit said:


> the CPU is about 30% faster in single threaded tests


What are you talking about?


----------



## qubit (Jun 5, 2017)

thebluebumblebee said:


> What are you talking about?


Look at the benchies in the article I posted. Some of them are roughly 30% faster on Intel. If this is borne out in the official reviews, then it will explain how Intel can put out a seemingly less competitive product as per Linus and yet still win sales.


----------



## radrok (Jun 5, 2017)

About quad core parts on the X299 platform : I think Intel has chosen to release these chips because they will probably clock higher than on the mainstream platform, I remember der8auer saying something about it in one of his recent Computex videos.

Other than that Linus has brought up quite a few good points.


----------



## AsRock (Jun 5, 2017)

Watched this yesterday and thought WOW they did really make this a pain in the ass. To the point were i think it might make people go to AMD to skip all the BS and future headaches.

Was going post it but i knew there was some hate against the guy, but he does have good points, although i would and do not trust him in nVidia \ AMD benchmarks now nVidia own the company.


----------



## Vya Domus (Jun 5, 2017)

As far as I know the method by which they connect cores on Xeon dies is something that adds latency in a similar fashion to Infinity Fabric. I am curios to see if they kept that or went for something else.



AsRock said:


> i would and do not trust him in nVidia \ AMD benchmarks now nVidia own the company.



Pretty sure that was a joke , unless it was meant to be ironic ???


----------



## trparky (Jun 5, 2017)

And now we have JaysTwoCents getting in on the Intel hating.


----------



## Mr.Scott (Jun 5, 2017)

He's a tool also.


----------



## trparky (Jun 5, 2017)

Name me one well known YouTube personality who isn't a tool.


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 5, 2017)

trparky said:


> Name me one well known YouTube personality who isn't a tool.



...

Ok, you got me.


----------



## trparky (Jun 5, 2017)

It basically comes with the territory. Make a channel, get a lot of viewers, get popular, instant ticket to toolz-ville.


----------



## Vya Domus (Jun 5, 2017)

At this point everyone is going with the 'trend'. Can't blame them they need to make a living with those videos.


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 5, 2017)

trparky said:


> It basically comes with the territory. Make a channel, get a lot of viewers, get popular, instant ticket to toolz-ville.



Judging from some of the youtube commenters, you don't even need a channel.


----------



## trparky (Jun 5, 2017)

R-T-B said:


> you don't even need a channel


Yeah, that's true. I've read some comments on both Linus' and Jayz' videos and yep... Toolz-ville.


----------



## trparky (Jun 5, 2017)

JaysTwoCents does make a valid point in his video. He talks about the fact that in what? Two or three months Coffee Lake is going to be coming out and if the rumors turn out to be true it will bring six core, twelve thread CPUs to a mainstream platform. We now have Kaby Lake-X with its four cores (eight threads) existing on the X299 platform that's going to be slower in terms of IPCs with all of its threads than something that's going to possibly exist in another two or three months.

The X299 platform with the lower core based CPUs (i5-7640X, i7-7740X, and i7-7800X) really doesn't make much sense when you sit down and do some thinking about it.


----------



## cdawall (Jun 5, 2017)

trparky said:


> JaysTwoCents does make a valid point in his video. He talks about the fact that in what? Two or three months Coffee Lake is going to be coming out and if the rumors turn out to be true it will bring six core, twelve thread CPUs to a mainstream platform. We now have Kaby Lake-X with its four cores (eight threads) existing on the X299 platform that's going to be slower in terms of IPCs with all of its threads than something that's going to possibly exist in another two or three months.
> 
> The X299 platform with the lower core based CPUs (i5-7640X, i7-7740X, and i7-7800X) really doesn't make much sense when you sit down and do some thinking about it.



Ah, but they will clock well is the plan.


----------



## Frag_Maniac (Jun 5, 2017)

This is why I'm waiting to look at the supposed mainstream Coffee Lake 6 core chips. Granted, $600 for their 8 core, IF it really does bench 25-35% faster (by syn scores) than an 1800X might seem reasonable, but this lane castration is a bit odd, especially at a time when Pci-Ex is becoming more usable. That said, it DOES support quad channel, but I'm not even sure quad mem is that big a gain for what you pay for the RAM.

And what of this 2666 RAM stuff? Are they saying it's got a ceiling, or is that the base speed? Reason I'm skeptical is even the chart showing an extreme OC on LN2 stated 2666 RAM. I don't know about you guys, but my opinion is that 6 core will be plenty for some time, and dual channel is OK if I can get an affordable MB.

Like I was anticipating, it will likely take until the end of the year before all Intel's craziness and AMD's dividers are sorted out. Until then we won't likely be able to make comprehensive comparisons.


----------



## trparky (Jun 5, 2017)

Frag Maniac said:


> this lane castration is a bit odd


Nothing odd about it, it's a pure cash grab.

Want more PCIe lanes? Be prepared to open that wallet wide open!



Frag Maniac said:


> AMD's dividers


Along with updated AGESA.


----------



## Frag_Maniac (Jun 6, 2017)

trparky said:


> Nothing odd about it, it's a pure cash grab.
> 
> Want more PCIe lanes? Be prepared to open that wallet wide open!


No, it IS odd. It's clear just as Linus said that they are panicked by what AMD is doing, yet taking away Pci lanes at a time when they are becoming very useful, and while AMD is literally offering competing high end chips for half the price, will in no way get anyone with half a brain to shell out more for the Intel chips. That's very nonsensical marketing, eg, "odd".

Their only hope to offer any kind of competition now is Coffee Lake. It's clear Intel has always been a cash grab company. It's just that now they have no clue how to get away with it. All they need do is follow what Linus said, make the best chip you can for the best price.


----------



## trparky (Jun 6, 2017)

Maybe it's my more cynical nature that thinks Intel is doing this just to be a dick.


----------



## Frag_Maniac (Jun 6, 2017)

trparky said:


> Maybe it's my more cynical nature that thinks Intel is doing this just to be a dick.


They've always been part dick. They used to be top innovators. Zero competition took them out of that mindset. Now they've been caught off guard and are just panicking. Hopefully when they see what consumers think of this scheme, they'll have an epiphany, and actually try to compete reasonably again.


----------



## trparky (Jun 6, 2017)

Considering the kinds of reviews that can be had on YouTube regarding this platform Intel better wake up and have that epiphany pretty damn quickly. Because (at least to me) unless you have a bottom-less wallet and you just like spending money for the sake of spending money, the x299 platform is a royal fuck up.


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 6, 2017)

efikkan said:


> My largest complaint so far is the lack of 10 Gb Ethernet in X299. This was back in the day planned for X99, but dropped due to cost. Anyone doing productive work knows 1 Gb Ethernet is too slow.



Cost and literally 10 people used it when x99 was in development. 





Being more serious, if you need it, get a 10gb NIC (will cost as much as the board...). GBe is just now starting to hit very select areas, and is quite costly. This yoy may find interesting...: http://www.speedtest.net/reports/united-states/

Again.. intel/board makers being smart and playing the numbers. There are so few that would he useful for on a consumer platform, there isnt a point...well, i guess unpess you are one of those baby's hand full of people that manage to have over 1gb net at home... and manage to actually need it. 

If its for the office, you are likely on fiber and using 10gb sfp. If not...yep...pcie card. 




"Panic"...intel.... haha, oh man.. sorry, need to change my depends...made a booboo laughing.


----------



## FR@NK (Jun 6, 2017)

trparky said:


> Name me one well known YouTube personality who isn't a tool.





R-T-B said:


> ...
> 
> Ok, you got me.





Vya Domus said:


> At this point everyone is going with the 'trend'. Can't blame them they need to make a living with those videos.



I guess you guys dont watch big clive?




Frag Maniac said:


> Granted, $600 for their 8 core, IF it really does bench 25-35% faster (by syn scores) than an 1800X might seem reasonable



It wont bench much faster maybe 10% or less. But it will be alot faster for lightly threaded workloads since the max turbo will be 4.5GHz for 2 of the cores. Quad channel will be supported but will only make a difference under heavy multi threaded workloads that have large worksets in the ram. The default speed will be 2666.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jun 6, 2017)

Frag Maniac said:


> They've always been part dick. They used to be top innovators. Zero competition took them out of that mindset. Now they've been caught off guard and are just panicking. Hopefully when they see what consumers think of this scheme, they'll have an epiphany, and actually try to compete reasonably again.


On the innovation side it's interesting that ibm now has ties to Samsung and Gf ,back when intel were innovating im sure they had strong ties with IBmzzz


----------



## Frag_Maniac (Jun 6, 2017)

FR@NK said:


> It wont bench much faster maybe 10% or less.


Reason I said 25-35% is there's already been LN2 benches shown with those results over an LN2 OCed 1800x, but of course no source to say if it's credible.


----------



## Vya Domus (Jun 6, 2017)

Benchmarks on LN2 ... why they would bear any meaning is again , beyond me.


----------



## Countryside (Jun 6, 2017)

This image explains the x299 situation the best way.


----------



## Mr.Scott (Jun 6, 2017)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> On the innovation side it's interesting that ibm now has ties to Samsung and Gf ,back when intel were innovating im sure they had strong ties with IBmzzz


Interesting that you said that. I was just looking at this.
http://redirect.viglink.com/?key=bb...ware/ibm_has_revealed_their_first_5nm_chips/1


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jun 6, 2017)

Mr.Scott said:


> Interesting that you said that. I was just looking at this.
> http://redirect.viglink.com/?key=bbb516d91daee20498798694a42dd559&u=https://www.overclock3d.net/news/misc_hardware/ibm_has_revealed_their_first_5nm_chips/1


I saw something similar but the slide I mentioned was for Amds future schedule, after 7nm Zen++ 3 weva they listed gate around transistors to follow sometime 2019-20 i think but for the life of me i cant think where i think it was a minor detail in their Threadripper presentation but can't be sure , could even have been wccftech which would make it dube.


----------



## trparky (Jun 7, 2017)

If they can get Ryzen down to 7nm maybe they can increase the clock speeds of these chips. That's the number one thing that's holding Ryzen back, the lack of high clock speeds. High clock speeds equals high IPC.


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 7, 2017)

trparky said:


> High clock speeds equals high IPC.


No.

Instructions Per Clock is what it stands for. By definition it means how many instruction per clock cycle the cpu can process. That does NOT change with clockspeed.

In other words, if a cpu can handle 1M instructions per hz/clock cycle at 4.2ghz, its still doing 1M instructions per hz/clock cycle at 5ghz. The difference is you are pushing more clock cycles, not what it can do per clock cycle.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jun 7, 2017)

trparky said:


> If they can get Ryzen down to 7nm maybe they can increase the clock speeds of these chips. That's the number one thing that's holding Ryzen back, the lack of high clock speeds. High clock speeds equals high IPC.


That's not really true of multi core despite it appearing so , if clocks were all that we would not have HCC cpus and since they have gone down the wider is better route , similar to gpus ,core clocks are pretty much stalled until graphene or molybdenum chips are sorted out , the 7700 k could well have been a last harrar of 5ghz capable cpus of which mine happily partook five years earlier, that times past, as has the time of pure ipc improvement , there's only so much resource can be put in a core and the prefetching and handling of data must be approaching a plateau.
Neither intel or Amd are going to up integer ,scaler or vector functionality within the next 3 years and by then we Will be talking 124 core chips so , like i said the Hz dream is done.


----------



## trparky (Jun 7, 2017)

Then tell me why IPC numbers increase as one overclocks a chip? I overclocked my Core i5 3570k from the stock speed of 3.4 GHz to 4.3 GHz and it definitely helped, not in all situations but it did help. Bumping the clock speed up improved performance. If clock speed isn't connected to IPC then what happens when you overclock a chip? Why does a 7700k at 4.5 GHz beat a Ryzen at 3.5 GHz? There's got be some kind of correlation between clock speed and IPC.


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 7, 2017)

trparky said:


> Then tell me why IPC numbers increase as one overclocks a chip? I overclocked my Core i5 3570k from the stock speed of 3.4 GHz to 4.3 GHz and it definitely helped, not in all situations but it did help. Bumping the clock speed up improved performance. If clock speed isn't connected to IPC then what happens when you overclock a chip? Why does a 7700k at 4.5 GHz beat a Ryzen at 3.5 GHz? There's got be some kind of correlation between clock speed and IPC.


Read my passage again bud... 

IPC doesnt increase, the number of times the processor can process those instructions for each clock do. To use my example above, you would be able to process 42B instructions in a second at 4.2ghz, and 50B instructions at 5ghz...but the IPC (again, the number of instructions per clock cycle) does not change. But since you are cramming more clock cycles in that same second, performance goes up... IPC does NOT.


----------



## okidna (Jun 7, 2017)

trparky said:


> Then tell me why IPC numbers increase as one overclocks a chip? I overclocked my Core i5 3570k from the stock speed of 3.4 GHz to 4.3 GHz and it definitely helped, not in all situations but it did help. Bumping the clock speed up improved performance. If clock speed isn't connected to IPC then what happens when you overclock a chip? Why does a 7700k at 4.5 GHz beat a Ryzen at 3.5 GHz? There's got be some kind of correlation between clock speed and IPC.



I think you misinterpreted what IPC is. What you described is *NOT* IPC (IPC is Instructions Per Cycle, the average number of instructions executed per clock cycle at any given clock speed) what you described above  is instructions per *SECOND*.

Already answered by @EarthDog :



EarthDog said:


> In other words, if a cpu can handle 1M instructions per hz/clock cycle at 4.2ghz, its still doing 1M instructions per hz/clock cycle at 5ghz. *The difference is you are pushing more clock cycles, not what it can do per clock cycle.*


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jun 7, 2017)

trparky said:


> Then tell me why IPC numbers increase as one overclocks a chip? I overclocked my Core i5 3570k from the stock speed of 3.4 GHz to 4.3 GHz and it definitely helped, not in all situations but it did help. Bumping the clock speed up improved performance. If clock speed isn't connected to IPC then what happens when you overclock a chip? Why does a 7700k at 4.5 GHz beat a Ryzen at 3.5 GHz? There's got be some kind of correlation between clock speed and IPC.


There is but your not getting me , look the feck around.
Show me a 16 core plus cpu doing 5ghz then think 32/ 64/ 128 cores , clocks wont go up because they All (every company making processors/feckin any asic)chose wider and x86 is already at the pinicle of what is possible (obv not technically) for consumers to own and use.
3 years minimum before that could change and im wagering not then.

My future viewing powers arent bad, radeon on intel for instance ,i said it's likely not just myth and i posited it could be for Apple based on rumours and the way shit rolls ,you may be hearing about kabylake G at some point ,not that i knew per say but shit does Always roll downhill.


----------



## trparky (Jun 7, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> you would be able to process 42B instructions in a second at 4.2ghz, and 50B instructions at 5ghz...


Ah, now it makes sense!!!


----------



## Frag_Maniac (Jun 7, 2017)

Vya Domus said:


> Benchmarks on LN2 ... why they would bear any meaning is again , beyond me.


Even worse, they tossed in a stock clock bench of the 1800x, but no such thing for the 7820x.

And it's not real world similarity I'm implying with LN2, it's apples to apples comparison against 1800x, because the only way they compared them in that regard in that bench was both OCed on LN2.

None the less, take it with a grain of salt like I said. I'm thinking it might be a while before we even get any credible reviews or consumer feedback, because with this scheme not many are going to want to shell out for them, and I wouldn't be surprised if review samples will be cherry picked by Intel to skew results.


----------



## FR@NK (Jun 7, 2017)

Frag Maniac said:


> I wouldn't be surprised if review samples will be cherry picked by Intel to skew results.



How would cherry picked review samples effect reviews results? Would effect overclocks for sure but it wouldn't effect the performance of the chips running at the stock clock speeds.

We dont really need reviews anyways. These chips are similar IPC to current broadwell-e chips. Since we already have a good idea how broadwell-e performs, we can conclude that because skylake-x chips are running faster they will be faster. They also will cost less per core. Skylake-x will be the best performance per dollar jump compared to the previous generation we have ever seen from Intel. I'm sure anyone looking to spend $500 on a processor will gladly shell out the extra Benjamin for the 7820x.


----------



## JunkBear (Jun 7, 2017)

Oh Man Im so happy to not have that Power craving. Im still rocking my Dell Inspiron 640m laptop and the rig under my avatar.


----------



## Solaris17 (Jun 7, 2017)

trparky said:


> JaysTwoCents does make a valid point in his video. He talks about the fact that in what? Two or three months Coffee Lake is going to be coming out and if the rumors turn out to be true it will bring six core, twelve thread CPUs to a mainstream platform. We now have Kaby Lake-X with its four cores (eight threads) existing on the X299 platform that's going to be slower in terms of IPCs with all of its threads than something that's going to possibly exist in another two or three months.
> 
> The X299 platform with the lower core based CPUs (i5-7640X, i7-7740X, and i7-7800X) really doesn't make much sense when you sit down and do some thinking about it.



The issue with this mindset, is that these people compare consumer and HEDT platforms. talk about lol-fest. x299 life span is going to span multiple desktop generations. x299 isnt going to get coffee lake because its probably going to get its bigger brother. You dont even need to be an Intel fanboy to see thats how its always been.


----------



## jboydgolfer (Jun 7, 2017)

FR@NK said:


> I guess you guys dont watch big clive?



if You enjoy His videos, You might also like....

This guy's Vid's

or This guy's

a lot of Cool video's with some Great Server tear downs, etc..

I thought linus was a girl for the longest time...although i didnt watch many of his Video's to be fair, he's a nub imo


----------



## remixedcat (Jun 7, 2017)

but honestly.. if you had 1200USD for a cpu would you get ryzen and have spare or spring for an i9?


----------



## cdawall (Jun 7, 2017)

remixedcat said:


> but honestly.. if you had 1200USD for a cpu would you get ryzen and have spare or spring for an i9?



As far as I have seen from personal use Ryzen is still a broken platform. So I would probably buy an i9 to be able to actually use things at rated specs.


----------



## FR@NK (Jun 7, 2017)

remixedcat said:


> but honestly.. if you had 1200USD for a cpu would you get ryzen and have spare or spring for an i9?



“I'm a man of simple tastes. I'm always satisfied with the best.” 

― Oscar Wilde


----------



## GoldenX (Jun 7, 2017)

Then buy tons of Cuda compute cards.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Jun 7, 2017)




----------



## Frag_Maniac (Jun 7, 2017)

FR@NK said:


> How would cherry picked review samples effect reviews results? Would effect overclocks for sure but it wouldn't effect the performance of the chips running at the stock clock speeds.
> 
> We dont really need reviews anyways. These chips are similar IPC to current broadwell-e chips. Since we already have a good idea how broadwell-e performs, we can conclude that because skylake-x chips are running faster they will be faster. They also will cost less per core. Skylake-x will be the best performance per dollar jump compared to the previous generation we have ever seen from Intel. I'm sure anyone looking to spend $500 on a processor will gladly shell out the extra Benjamin for the 7820x.



Don't most OC 8 core chips just due to them being clocked lower? I mean look at all the fuss over OCing the Ryzens. Of course people will want to know how well these chips OC. If nothing else to see how they compare on max OC to Ryzen. Plus they've never come out with a well under $1000 8 core before. I also don't think it's good enough research, especially if you plan to buy one or at least compare to Ryzen before making a purchase decision, to just assume performance will be similar to past chips based on IPC alone.

The 7820x IS the one chip in the X line that drew my interest, just not sure I'm up for spending $600 on one, especially since I've seen Newegg promo the 1800x for about $450. One of the biggest tests will be how smoothly the 7820x games compared to the 1800x. I'm really not into bragging about how many more frames a chip cranks out (especially if I have to spend $100+ more for it) if it isn't as smooth at delivering them.

Then again, I'll likely be looking at prices end of year, not now, so we'll see how they compare then. Intel might have to get even more desperate on pricing if too many people pass on these chips. I can''t help but think though that when you consider the price of the 7820x, plus the fact that you have to buy an expensive MB and RAM just to use it, that the Coffee Lake S model 6 core will do much better sales wise. It just might prove to be the go to chip for those disgusted with Intel's X platform elitism and restrictions, yet not up for all the trial and error tweaking needed to make a Ryzen competitive.


----------



## HTC (Jun 7, 2017)

cdawall said:


> As far as I have seen from personal use Ryzen is still a broken platform. So I would probably buy an i9 to be able to actually use things at rated specs.



That's a bit premature IMO: how do you know the I9 works as intended right out of the box? Do you have a sample to test?

Until it's out, you shouldn't choose to go with I9 just because I7s work @ rated specs and Ryzen is a bit broken. When it's out, if indeed works @ rated specs, then you can go with I9 all you like.


----------



## johnspack (Jun 7, 2017)

I hope both threadripper and i9 succeed,  more selection for us broke bottom feeders who need multi cores to select from after they go used!


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 7, 2017)

cdawall said:


> As far as I have seen from personal use Ryzen is still a broken platform. So I would probably buy an i9 to be able to actually use things at rated specs.



Honestly that hasn't been my experience, but I jumped in at a beta bios of AGESA 1.0.0.6.  Everything worked wonderfully.



HTC said:


> That's a bit premature IMO: how do you know the I9 works as intended right out of the box? Do you have a sample to test?
> 
> Until it's out, you shouldn't choose to go with I9 just because I7s work @ rated specs and Ryzen is a bit broken. When it's out, if indeed works @ rated specs, then you can go with I9 all you like.



Intel does kinda have a "it just works" reputation, to be fair.


----------



## qubit (Jun 7, 2017)

AsRock said:


> Watched this yesterday and thought WOW they did really make this a pain in the ass. To the point were i think it might make people go to AMD to skip all the BS and future headaches.
> 
> Was going post it but i knew there was some hate against the guy, but he does have good points, although i would and do not trust him in nVidia \ AMD benchmarks now nVidia own the company.


He's owned by NVIDIA?! Well, that's interesting...


----------



## Frag_Maniac (Jun 7, 2017)

HTC said:


> That's a bit premature IMO: how do you know the I9 works as intended right out of the box? Do you have a sample to test?
> 
> Until it's out, you shouldn't choose to go with I9 just because I7s work @ rated specs and Ryzen is a bit broken. When it's out, if indeed works @ rated specs, then you can go with I9 all you like.


i9? Why is everyone calling the 7820X i9 when Intel is calling it an i7?
http://ark.intel.com/products/123767/Intel-Core-i7-7820X-Processor-11M-Cache-up-to-4_30-GHz

I also never implied it would "work as Intended" out of the box. If anything I said people are going to want to see reviews and consumer feedback to see how it compares to Ryzen when OCed.

Besides, I merely said it's the only one of the X series that drew my attention. I clearly said the 6 core Coffee Lake S will likely be priced more reasonably.


----------



## HTC (Jun 7, 2017)

R-T-B said:


> Honestly that hasn't been my experience, but I jumped in at a beta bios of AGESA 1.0.0.6.  Everything worked wonderfully.
> 
> 
> 
> *Intel does kinda have a "it just works" reputation, to be fair.*



Really? Wasn't there a problem with one of Intel's lower end chips that had to be re-called or something?

Tried finding it to link here but i'm having no success : would help if i knew exactly which chip but i don't recall  It's very recent, as in about 1 month or so ago, i think.


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 7, 2017)

HTC said:


> Really? Wasn't there a problem with one of Intel's lower end chips that had to be re-called or something?



The Atom C2000 In NASes.  They still "just worked" as far as platform.  The chips just burned up eventually.


----------



## HTC (Jun 7, 2017)

R-T-B said:


> The Atom C2000 In NASes.  They still "just worked" as far as platform.  *The chips just burned up eventually.*



That's impossible ... you just said "Intel just works" ...

Are you sure it isn't some other brand?


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 7, 2017)

HTC said:


> That's impossible ... you just said "Intel just works" ...
> 
> Are you sure it isn't some other brand?



The "platform" just works.  Big difference.  Bios, etc.  The CPUs were flawed as hell but that doesn't mean the bios wasn't doing its job.

EDIT:  Ah, I see.  I did indeed apply the "just works" to Intel globally.  That may be a bit of a stretch and that's not what I meant.


----------



## HTC (Jun 7, 2017)

R-T-B said:


> The "platform" just works.  Big difference.  Bios, etc.  The CPUs were flawed as hell but that doesn't mean the bios wasn't doing its job.
> 
> EDIT:  Ah, I see.  I did indeed apply the "just works" to Intel globally.  That may be a bit of a stretch and that's not what I meant.



I see!

AFAIK, Intel doesn't usually have issues precisely because they haven't been rushing any CPU launches, which leads to more time for all other partners to develop the necessary components (boards, BIOSes, memory, etc). But they seem to be rushing now.

So:

- AMD rushed (for all intents and purposes) the Ryzen launch, which led to broken BIOSes and compatibility issues, like memory.

- Intel appears to be rushing the I9s launch: what makes you think they wont have issues in a rushed launch?


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 7, 2017)

I think it won't have issues because it's Skylake based.  It's essentially a super-polished Nehalem core.  This is why Intel almost never has bios problems.  AMD braved new waters with Ryzen, and it's got both benefits and downsides.

To be fair, I could be completely wrong.  It has happened.


----------



## HTC (Jun 7, 2017)

R-T-B said:


> *I think it won't have issues because it's Skylake based.*  It's essentially a super-polished Nehalem core.  This is why Intel almost never has bios problems.  AMD braved new waters with Ryzen, and it's got both benefits and downsides.
> 
> To be fair, I could be completely wrong.  It has happened.



That just reduces the odds of having problems with the launch, IMO: but it doesn't eliminate them.

That's why i say it's a bit premature to choose something that's rushed and isn't even out yet over something that has a few problems: how about waiting for it to be out *and then choose*?


----------



## TheLostSwede (Jun 7, 2017)

R-T-B said:


> Intel does kinda have a "it just works" reputation, to be fair.



Really? That's not my experience as a someone that has tested and reviewed components and PC and whatnot for close to a decade. There's always some shit that's causing problems and it applies to all tech companies, regardless of product. I can't think of a single flawless product I have ever tested, but maybe it's just bad luck... 

Silly example, my last three Intel boards (Z77, Z77, Z170) always had problems starting the Ethernet in a timely fashion so I would get a warning every time I started Windows that I couldn't connect to my NAS automatically. This doesn't happen on my X370 board, which co-incidentally also uses an Intel Ethernet controller. Maybe this was a board maker issue, but even so...

Intel had had plenty of strange launch bugs, broken SATA controllers and what not, but apparently no-one remembers these things. AMD, VIA, Cyrix and the rest have all had issues too, but I guess not everyone is old enough to remember this.


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 7, 2017)

Maybe I just get lucky, I do buy hardware late.  I'll recant my statement for now.

I remember the dying SATA controller thing, but that wasn't Intel but a third party chip I thought?  Either way, doesn't change that I'll admit my experience may not be the norm.


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 7, 2017)

I recall the sata port thing on p67... but, that really didnt affect most and took time for them to die...they also died when a lot of them were in use... not a huge deal for most...and something the b3 version of boards fixed for free iirc. 

There are always teething issues on every platform. Some worse than others. Many complaints about ryzen platform out of the gate... memory is still sketch...


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 7, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> There are always teething issues on every platform. Some worse than others. Many complaints about ryzen platform out of the gate... memory is still sketch...



I must be incredibly lucky that I had no issues with 4 high speed sticks.  Samsung B-Die probably helped though.


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 7, 2017)

The sammy b die thing came out during its worst teething issues. That with the bios/microcode updates have helped since release. But you can see the stir it has caused with new people buying the platform being concerned about memory compatibilty and speed.


----------



## AsRock (Jun 7, 2017)

qubit said:


> He's owned by NVIDIA?! Well, that's interesting...




My bad, apparently it was a April fools joke from, well don't know but it was convincing HA, not the 1st time they done it apparently either.  wish i could find the actual video though.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Jun 7, 2017)

I've tested motherboards that wouldn't even get past POST despite multiple BIOS updates. One of the worst boards I ever got was a 955X board from Winfast shortly after Foxconn took over. It never actually worked, regardless of various processor and memory configurations and several new BIOSes. 

I've tested boards from VIA that was supposed to work with I think it was DDR 266 memory or something along those lines, but it wouldn't have anything to do with the stick of Winchip memory that VIA supplied for testing.

I've tested IDE controllers from Promise that they shipped with non working firmware for no sensible reason.

I've tested ATI graphics cards (Rage Fury MAXX) that I don't think ever worked right due to poor drivers.

I've tested so many products over the years that I've forgotten about half of them, but at some point or another, every single company out there have released flawed products that simply doesn't do what they're supposed to do. Being an early adopter brings with it certain challenges, sometimes they're minor, sometimes you end up with a chocolate teapot...


----------



## cdawall (Jun 7, 2017)

HTC said:


> That's a bit premature IMO: how do you know the I9 works as intended right out of the box? Do you have a sample to test?
> 
> Until it's out, you shouldn't choose to go with I9 just because I7s work @ rated specs and Ryzen is a bit broken. When it's out, if indeed works @ rated specs, then you can go with I9 all you like.



In the history of Intel when have they released something that didn't work?

Even as far back as the early phenom days amd had massive issues (tlb bug). 

I have a strange nagging feeling threadripper won't correctly clock ram, on top of other issues like behaving like it is a 4P system. Time will tell, but one of the two companies definitely releases a more finished product.


----------



## HTC (Jun 7, 2017)

cdawall said:


> In the history of Intel when have they released something that didn't work?
> 
> Even as far back as the early phenom days amd had massive issues (tlb bug).
> 
> I have a strange nagging feeling threadripper won't correctly clock ram, on top of other issues like behaving like it is a 4P system. Time will tell, but *one of the two companies definitely releases a more finished product.*



One of two companies is (was) so far ahead they could afford to give partners 6+ months (if need be) to ensure compatibility for upcoming launches.

Not so far ahead anymore ...

Perhaps threadripper will have it's own set of problems, perhaps not: the point of my original reply was to not throw away a choice because it has a few issues and directly opt for another that is months away from being launched. Instead, wait for said choice to be launched and then, if the choice serves his needs, then choose it.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Jun 7, 2017)

cdawall said:


> In the history of Intel when have they released something that didn't work?
> 
> Even as far back as the early phenom days amd had massive issues (tlb bug).
> 
> I have a strange nagging feeling threadripper won't correctly clock ram, on top of other issues like behaving like it is a 4P system. Time will tell, but one of the two companies definitely releases a more finished product.



Because Intel didn't have similar bugs? 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_FDIV_bug
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_F00F_bug
https://arstechnica.com/security/20...ecution-bug-that-lurked-in-cpus-for-10-years/

Why make AMD look bad when Intel is just as bad?

Both companies have had and will continue to have issues, can we leave it at that?


----------



## FilipM (Jun 7, 2017)

People need to understand that there is no such thing as a perfect product. If we had a perfect CPU we wouldn't be upgrading at all. 

Some products are more refined than others, but not perfect.


----------



## trparky (Jun 7, 2017)

remixedcat said:


> but honestly.. if you had 1200USD for a cpu would you get ryzen and have spare or spring for an i9?


If I had the money I would definitely go Intel, no doubt about it.



Frag Maniac said:


> Intel might have to get even more desperate on pricing if too many people pass on these chips.


Considering that the whole X299 platform seems like Intel is giving the finger to their users I have a feeling that it's not going to sell as well as Intel would hope. The limitations of the platform alone are enough for me to stay clear of it. Things like the inability to use anything but Intel NVMe SSDs with their new special storage controller. Not only that but don't forget about the special "RAID Keys" that you have to buy in addition to the motherboard itself. The "keys" are nothing but a cash grab on an already expensive platform.

I certainly hope that Intel gets desperate on pricing, we need better pricing since some of Intel's prices are beyond stupid.



Frag Maniac said:


> that the Coffee Lake S model 6 core will do much better sales wise. It just might prove to be the go to chip for those disgusted with Intel's X platform elitism and restrictions, yet not up for all the trial and error tweaking needed to make a Ryzen competitive.


I'm one of those people, I don't want to have to deal with the fact that you have to tweak this or tweak that to get Ryzen to work with memory. I pretty much want to plug in my RAM and have it work.

I also don't want to have to buy expensive system RAM because of some CPU interconnect (Infinity Fabric) that I feel has been gimped out of the gate. Why the hell they tied the speed of that thing to half the speed of the system RAM I have no earthly idea but it's just plain stupid.



R-T-B said:


> I think it won't have issues because it's Skylake based. It's essentially a super-polished Nehalem core. This is why Intel almost never has bios problems. AMD braved new waters with Ryzen, and it's got both benefits and downsides.


I understand that when a new platform is brought about there's going to be teething issues but AMD exacerbated many of them by being so damn secretive with their partners. These RAM, UEFI, and other various issues should have been solved before the launch of the platform. I can't help but to think that AMD used their buyers as beta testers.



EarthDog said:


> Many complaints about Ryzen platform out of the gate... memory is still sketch...


And that's a major reason why I'm not buying into Ryzen, that and the less IPCs that Ryzen has when compared to that of Intel. I have a few applications and games that require as much CPU power as I can throw at them and even then I need more simply because they're that damn un-optimized under the hood. Only more CPU power will be able to make them run better.



EarthDog said:


> But you can see the stir it has caused with new people buying the platform being concerned about memory compatibility and speed.


That and the fact that you're pretty much forced to buy more expensive, higher speed system RAM just because AMD stupidly tied the speed of the Infinity Fabric to half the speed of the system RAM. Stupid.


----------



## cdawall (Jun 7, 2017)

TheLostSwede said:


> Because Intel didn't have similar bugs?
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_FDIV_bug
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_F00F_bug
> https://arstechnica.com/security/20...ecution-bug-that-lurked-in-cpus-for-10-years/
> ...



So the bugs for the pentium happened before most of our new members were even born. The remote execution bug didn't touch performance. Intel has issues yes, not nearly as bad as amd. Go figure with an R&D thats larger than amd. Maybe I am just tired of half finished shit hitting the market or I'm still waiting for Vega. Something I was actually excited for.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 7, 2017)

Really late to this party but I got what he was talking about within the first third of the video.  He's absolutely right: Intel is making a bad situation worse.  Trying to figure out why something on even an X99 board isn't running as it should is a PITA.  There's so many asterisks on those boards based on which processor you choose to install in it; moreover, that documentation often becomes obsolete as new processors are released.  Intel is making a bad situation worse with X299.  The fact that DIMMs may be non-functional because of the chosen CPU takes the same principle to new extremes. We can no longer look at how many DIMMs are empty and decide what upgrades are available.  We have to look up the CPU, look up the motherboard, find the manual where it references that specific CPU, then figure out which DIMMs will actually work.

I'm glad motherboard OEMs are lining up to skip the platform.  Consumers should to.  Intel is doing it on X299 for the same reason they did it on X99: encourage people to spend more money on a processor and not for processor performance.  It needs to stop.


----------



## trparky (Jun 7, 2017)

okidna said:


> I think you misinterpreted what IPC is. What you described is *NOT* IPC (IPC is Instructions Per Cycle, the average number of instructions executed per clock cycle at any given clock speed) what you described above is instructions per *SECOND*.


In theory, one could get around lower IPC by increasing the clock speed since that would be increasing the average amount of instructions that are executed per second since there would be more clocks to do more work per second. At least in my mind it seems like it would work.


----------



## cdawall (Jun 7, 2017)

HTC said:


> One of two companies is (was) so far ahead they could afford to give partners 6+ months (if need be) to ensure compatibility for upcoming launches.
> 
> Not so far ahead anymore ...
> 
> Perhaps threadripper will have it's own set of problems, perhaps not: the point of my original reply was to not throw away a choice because it has a few issues and directly opt for another that is months away from being launched. Instead, wait for said choice to be launched and then, if the choice serves his needs, then choose it.



Intel also hands off an almost complete bios to companies hence why we don't normally see weird ram compatibility issues with those and why they all seemed the same.

I don't see us having too many issues with X299. If they don't sell Intel will adjust pricing so it does. I am excited for both platforms to hit the market and have zero faith after the ryzen launch that x399 will go well, but you know I'm going to test it lol.



trparky said:


> In theory, one could get around lower IPC by increasing the clock speed since that would be increasing the average amount of instructions that are executed per second. At least in my mind it seems like it would work.



Ask Intel and amd how that worked with netburst and bulldozer.


----------



## Frick (Jun 7, 2017)

cdawall said:


> Ask Intel and amd how that worked with netburst and bulldozer.



It worked for Pascal, and current Intel.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 7, 2017)

Even if X399 doesn't go well at launch, you can bank on the fact they'll fix the hiccups eventually.  At this point, I have zero interest in X299 and a lot of interest in x399 just because it vastly simplifies set up by all processors having all 64 PCIE lanes available.


----------



## cdawall (Jun 7, 2017)

Frick said:


> It worked for Pascal, and current Intel.



Pascal isn't pure clockspeed. IPC is still good and current Intel IPC is stronger than amd?

It is a balancing act and always has been you cannot go too far either way or you either have a useless heat box that needs to be clocked to the moon to do anything (bulldozer) or you can't overclock at all (amd Hawaii and later)



FordGT90Concept said:


> Even if X399 doesn't go well at launch, you can bank on the fact they'll fix the hiccups eventually.  At this point, I have zero interest in X299 and a lot of interest in x399 just because it vastly simplifies set up by all processors having all 64 PCIE lanes available.



I thought it was 44? I have seen a couple of different postings on usable pcie now for them...


----------



## Slizzo (Jun 7, 2017)

cdawall said:


> Intel also hands off an almost complete bios to companies hence why we don't normally see weird ram compatibility issues with those and why they all seemed the same.
> 
> I don't see us having too many issues with X299. If they don't sell Intel will adjust pricing so it does. I am excited for both platforms to hit the market and have zero faith after the ryzen launch that x399 will go well, but you know I'm going to test it lol.



You've got some awesome rose tinted glasses...  The platform that you and I are currently on? X99? Guess what, it was a shit show when first launched.

From our very own TPU here: https://www.techpowerup.com/207979/intel-facing-hedt-chipset-troubles-again

Also, X79 had issues.

Just because Intel is a large company with a lot of money, does not mean that they always release a flawless product.


EDIT: Also, X299 is 28 or 44 PCI-E lanes depending on processor, and X399 is 64 PCI-E lanes across the entire Threadripper lineup.


----------



## cdawall (Jun 7, 2017)

Slizzo said:


> You've got some awesome rose tinted glasses...  The platform that you and I are currently on? X99? Guess what, it was a shit show when first launched.
> 
> From our very own TPU here: https://www.techpowerup.com/207979/intel-facing-hedt-chipset-troubles-again
> 
> ...



I had prerelease ryzen, wrote a review on it here. I will probably have a prerelease threadripper. Again I am excited for both, however amd can't see to do a proper release of anything. My h1 release vega card still isn't out.


----------



## 64K (Jun 7, 2017)

cdawall said:


> I had prerelease ryzen, wrote a review on it here. I will probably have a prerelease threadripper. Again I am excited for both, however amd can't see to do a proper release of anything. My h1 release vega card still isn't out.



Well H1 isn't over until June 30th but I don't expect any miracle to take place and AMD meet that deadline. Last they said was end of July. If they put it off again at that point it's going to get ugly on tech forums.


----------



## Slizzo (Jun 7, 2017)

cdawall said:


> I had prerelease ryzen, wrote a review on it here. I will probably have a prerelease threadripper. Again I am excited for both, however amd can't see to do a proper release of anything. My h1 release vega card still isn't out.




Yeah, launch of Ryzen was rocky for sure; but I am willing to give AMD a little leeway here as they haven't launched a proper product in, what, 6? 7? years?  They did rush it and didn't communicate with their board partners well, that's for sure. But they did correct issues quite quickly. I don't expect that X399 will go the same way; should be a good launch.


----------



## cdawall (Jun 7, 2017)

64K said:


> Well H1 isn't over until June 30th but I don't expect any miracle to take place and AMD meet that deadline. Last they said was end of July. If they put it off again at that point it's going to get ugly on tech forums.



I have zero faith we will have anything more than a paper launch of the FE. This is getting old quick, why can't they release them so I can get the mining?



Slizzo said:


> Yeah, launch of Ryzen was rocky for sure; but I am willing to give AMD a little leeway here as they haven't launched a proper product in, what, 6? 7? years?  They did rush it and didn't communicate with their board partners well, that's for sure. But they did correct issues quite quickly. I don't expect that X399 will go the same way; should be a good launch.



Ryzen still has a multitude of bugs. I was playing with some non-hynix/samsung -b and still can't get the ram above 2666 with more than one board. The IMC had better be vastly improved with threadripper and I am hopping it isn't just two dual channel IMC's that are running in a ganged mode across the infinity fabric between the two sets of CCX units. That will be crap on a stick and is exactly how BD/PD worked for their higher core count MCM parts.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Jun 7, 2017)

cdawall said:


> So the bugs for the pentium happened before most of our new members were even born. The remote execution bug didn't touch performance. Intel has issues yes, not nearly as bad as amd. Go figure with an R&D thats larger than amd. Maybe I am just tired of half finished shit hitting the market or I'm still waiting for Vega. Something I was actually excited for.



I think we're all tired of half finished shit, but it's also what has become acceptable in the world of early adopters for whatever reason. Customers are now beta and sometimes even alpha testers, because we live in a world where shareholders have to be pleased first and foremost and this means pushing out new products as quickly as possible. As long as it can be fixed in software, this is considered acceptable praxis. A lot of companies have actually gone bust before they've fixed all their software issues and a previous employer of mine is heading that way as well.


----------



## Aenra (Jun 7, 2017)

How can some of you 'experts' have had so, so much trouble with Ryzens and memory freqs when a clueless person such as i did not? In _two_ different Ryzen rigs thus far?

/rhetorical

Anyway, assuming one left all the immaturity (combined with some incredibly uninformed opinions) aside..
People spend thousands more for an extra tiny percentage of performance (say in cars) or an extra tiny percentage of quality (say in music). Has always been so and so it will remain. Very logical.

- If you have it, you get an Intel (as things currently stand) knowing you are being milked for it.
- If you don't have it or are unwilling to spend it, you get a Ryzen, knowing you are a few percentile units behind, but with half the cost.

It's really that simple folks.
(if you have managed not to fall into either category, congratulations, lol, either for fanboying or living in denial)

Back to my /popcorn


----------



## Duality92 (Jun 7, 2017)

I'll just leave this here.


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 7, 2017)

Aenra said:


> How can some of you 'experts' have had so, so much trouble with Ryzens and memory freqs when a clueless person such as i did not? In _two_ different Ryzen rigs thus far?



Timing.  It was really bad early on I understand.  Now?  I bought one a week ago and had no trouble either.



cdawall said:


> Ryzen still has a multitude of bugs. I was playing with some non-hynix/samsung -b and still can't get the ram above 2666 with more than one board.



What AGESA were you playing with out of curiosity?  1.0.0.6 seems to have solved damn near any issue I can find.


----------



## Aenra (Jun 7, 2017)

R-T-B said:


> It was really bad early on



Nooo no no.. not that easy, not with me.

It's --your-- fault if you rushed, it's ---your--- fault for rushing _and_ having expectations. Entirely yours.
(yours as in figuratively, am uninterested in targetting individuals)

Also, again.. this doesn't work with me. You paint the full picture, or quote me not. May i? 

- People buying an 8core to run it on 'Balanced' mode. Whose fault is that. Now before you say it, no, i don't care about the new age trends and hug-me-a-tree mentalities and save the planet; putting mentality on top of logic is still a fault. Your fault (again figuratively).
- People eschewing disabling power states and wondering why or why not. Can link you post after post; yet they too had an "opinion" on Ryzen's bad launch.
- People not taking the time or lacking the knowledge to ensure some semblance of compatibility between their components. They too had an "opinion".
- People neglecting to switch to Gen2 (or entirely unaware of this) when tweaking their BCLK. They too had an  "opinion".
- People not having done their reading and as such incapable of grasping SoC's import for both core and ram freqs.
- People so.. useless, so used to "we do it for you" mentality of today that are unable to even upgrade their own BIOS properly... enter a gazillion of issues i've never had simply because i updated the proper way; what a surprise (again, a gazillion posts i could link you of just this).
- People rushing to buy brands they shouldn't be rushing to buy except they were anyway, because such is the market, its mentality and its victims nowadays.
- People being so cheap.. so petty.. they HAD to save 30bucks, buy the non-X version of a cheap as peanuts CPU; and then complain about how it did not quite reach the 'X' variant's frequencies.. why really.. yet they too had an  "opinion".
- People buying a certain brand's mobos even after they released a version that fried the mobo, lol.. and i can link you their posts, complaining it was Ryzen's fault for that too!
- People (can name you some we have here, as members), buying the wrong RAMs, entirely, and then making threads here asking for help. Which is O.K., unless they then complain, you guessed it, that this platform has "issues".

I could go on, so really, spare me.
I have made mistakes few here have. I have less than half the knowledge most here have; and yet twice thus far, nothing. All it took was reason. No AGESAs out, no beta mobo BIOSes out, just reason.

So while i respect your opinion (in regard to "early on it really was bad", aka their fault, not ours), i'm really not the one to help you with solidifying it


----------



## Slizzo (Jun 7, 2017)

R-T-B said:


> What AGESA were you playing with out of curiosity?  1.0.0.6 seems to have solved damn near any issue I can find.



This, yeah I'd like to know. 1.0.0.6 has been around for a little bit and from all reports has cleared up pretty much all issues with memory.


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 7, 2017)

trparky said:


> In theory, one could get around lower IPC by increasing the clock speed since that would be increasing the average amount of instructions that are executed per second since there would be more clocks to do more work per second. At least in my mind it seems like it would work.


.....and like fractions, do to one side what you did to the other..intel overclocks too, and more/higher clocks so.....


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 7, 2017)

Aenra said:


> Nooo no no.. not that easy, not with me.
> 
> It's --your-- fault if you rushed, it's ---your--- fault for rushing _and_ having expectations. Entirely yours.
> (yours as in figuratively, am uninterested in targetting individuals)
> ...



I can pretty much counter that with a one liner: "not all of us are nerds."


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 7, 2017)

Aenra said:


> Nooo no no.. not that easy, not with me.
> 
> It's --your-- fault if you rushed, it's ---your--- fault for rushing _and_ having expectations. Entirely yours.
> (yours as in figuratively, am uninterested in targetting individuals)
> ...


The platform clearly came out immature.

Im not going to address each point you made, but i dont agree with several...namely

* people buying wrong ram.. while im sure that happened, people bought off the damn qvl list and had problems.
* who cares about overclocking expectations. The reality is it sucks across the board.

...i can go on, but.... i simply wont. Too much to counter on my phone.

The bottom line is there were many issues out of the gate. Good on you for not running into them... twice. Have a cookie . Some issues were certainly caused by user error, be it poor choices in ram, expectations not set properly  etc. Many however, were not. 

Things have gotten better all around, but make no mistake about it.. out of the gate there were issues.


----------



## Mr.Scott (Jun 8, 2017)

cdawall said:


> In the history of Intel when have they released something that didn't work?



Itanium.

https://www.extremetech.com/computi...anium-9700-series-cpu-finally-officially-dies


----------



## cdawall (Jun 8, 2017)

Mr.Scott said:


> Itanium.
> 
> https://www.extremetech.com/computi...anium-9700-series-cpu-finally-officially-dies



Don't lie itanium was great.


----------



## trparky (Jun 8, 2017)

Did someone mention that Intel cable modem chipset that's flawed from here to next Tuesday?


----------



## dorsetknob (Jun 8, 2017)

Mr.Scott said:


> Itanium.


That CPU worked and was good but too expensive
seem to remember Intel tried to Drop it ( Support and product line ) as it basicly only sold in few numbers to ( Server and Enterprise customers).
there was a heck of a legal battle between intel and HP/Oracle over itanium about ongoing promised Support


----------



## trparky (Jun 8, 2017)

cdawall said:


> Don't lie itanium was great.


Bullshit. They never could get the compilers to produce good enough (binary) code to run on it. The thing is that Itanium removed a lot of things that x86 does for you and puts it into the hands of the developers. Since we know that most developers can't write good, clean, and secure code to save their lives Itanium turned out to be shit.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jun 8, 2017)

cdawall said:


> In the history of Intel when have they released something that didn't work?
> 
> Even as far back as the early phenom days amd had massive issues (tlb bug).
> 
> I have a strange nagging feeling threadripper won't correctly clock ram, on top of other issues like behaving like it is a 4P system. Time will tell, but one of the two companies definitely releases a more finished product.


It's argued on the interwebz if there entire lineup is compromised regardless of fusing by there active or inert security features, it is argued rumour backed by a few knowledgeable people but not prooven il admit.
But they have router chips that pop early ,usb ports compromised and all sort of erata in Every chip but its the same for all so im not personally singling them out just saying they are far from perfect ,but then what corporation is , ,,,yes men.....


----------



## Mr.Scott (Jun 8, 2017)

Lemme highlight a few things for you Itanium lovers.



> It’s a bit of a sad end to what was once billed as Intel’s most exciting, forward-looking design. Back in the late 1990s, Itanium was pitched as a joint project between HP and Intel, one that would produce a true successor to the various RISC architectures that were still in-market at that time. Intel and HP both spent huge amounts of money and burned an enormous amount of development time trying to bring a new type of microprocessor to market, only to see Itanium crash and burn while x86 boomed. So what went wrong with Itanium?





> The only problem was, it didn’t work well in practice. Memory accesses from cache and DRAM are non-deterministic, which meant the compiler _can’t_ predict how long they will take — and if the compiler can’t predict how long they’ll take, it’s going to have a hard time scheduling workloads to fill the gap. Itanium was designed to present a huge array of execution resources that the compiler would intelligently fill, but if the compiler can’t keep them filled, it’s just wasted die space. Itanium was designed to extract and exploit instruction-level parallelism, but compilers of the time struggled to find enough ILP in most workloads to justify the expense and difficulty of running code on the platform. And EPIC was so radically different from any other architecture, there was no way to cleanly port an application.





> But its failure is also a testament to how some of the ‘facts’ that get passed around CPU industry aren’t as simple as we might think. x86 is often discussed in disparaging terms as an outdated and ancient architecture, as if no one had the guts to take it outside and shoot it. But in reality, Intel made multiple attempts to do just that, from the iAPX 432 (begun in 1975) to the i860 and i960, to Itanium itself. And despite an emphasis on parallelism that sounds superficially promising, given the difficulty modern programmers have had with scaling applications to use multiple threads in an effective manner, Itanium represented another dead-end branch of research that never managed to deliver the real-world performance it promised on paper.


----------



## trparky (Jun 8, 2017)

x86 may be a shitty architecture but its proven time and a time again it can go further, it has stood the test of time.


----------



## Mr.Scott (Jun 8, 2017)

> given the difficulty modern programmers have had with scaling applications to use multiple threads in an effective manner, Itanium represented another dead-end branch of research that never managed to deliver the real-world performance it promised on paper.



Gee, isn't this the same thing the Ryzen haters are saying?
Will it not be the same road traveled for the Intel X platform?


----------



## cdawall (Jun 8, 2017)

Can we keep this list going I am having fun


----------



## Mr.Scott (Jun 8, 2017)

cdawall said:


> Can we keep this list going I am having fun



*kiss*


----------



## Solaris17 (Jun 8, 2017)

not sure if we are being serious, but the C2000 series atm cpus used in networking equip caused quite a stir in the circles earlier this year.

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/02/06/cisco_intel_decline_to_link_product_warning_to_faulty_chip/


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 8, 2017)

trparky said:


> Did someone mention that Intel cable modem chipset that's flawed from here to next Tuesday?



Me.  Ironic in hindsight, I'll admit.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 8, 2017)

Xeon Phi?  Was meant to be a catch-all x86 GPGPU and was unceremoniously reduced to a many-core co-processor with zero GPU functionality.

3D XPoint memory?  Was supposed to be _amazebawls_ fast and now they're aiming for it to barely compete with the latest NVMe SSDs.

I can't say Intel truly impressed since the original Core i7 launched almost a decade ago.


----------



## FR@NK (Jun 8, 2017)

cdawall said:


> I thought it was 44? I have seen a couple of different postings on usable pcie now for them...



As far as I can tell, its 24 lanes from each die and 16 from the chipset. So 2x24 + 16 = 64 total lanes. Because of how the lanes are split up you can still only get two 16x slots; one from each die.


----------



## cdawall (Jun 8, 2017)

FR@NK said:


> As far as I can tell, its 24 lanes from each die and 16 from the chipset. So 2x24 + 16 = 64 total lanes. Because of how the lanes are split up you can still only get two 16x slots; one from each die.



Good to know. This will be a real test of how the CCX units can communicate between each other then...That is going to be a metric shit ton of data across infinity fabric.


----------



## HTC (Jun 8, 2017)

Here's AdoredTV take on the x299 "blunder" and threadripper:










He makes some interesting points. Dunno if threadripper will scale as high as he suggests but, as long as it's not that far off, Intel really does seem to be screwed ...


----------



## Slizzo (Jun 8, 2017)

FordGT90Concept said:


> 3D XPoint memory?  Was supposed to be _amazebawls_ fast and now they're aiming for it to barely compete with the latest NVMe SSDs.




On this point, supposedly Optane is truly amazing; even in it's early implementation. Allyn Malvantano over at PCPer.com gave a good go over about it.


----------



## Aenra (Jun 8, 2017)

R-T-B said:


> "not all of us are nerds"



Oh it's besides that i think.
When you buy something new and in this case, doubly new (new as in not only your components/build in its entirety, but also new as in the whole platform per se), you're meant to do some research. It's really that simple and it applies to everything.. form buying a new watch all the way to buying a new car.

None of us, myself included, needed a degree or decades of expertise to do just the basic.. read a little bit.



EarthDog said:


> The reality is it sucks across the board
> ...
> make no mistake about it.. out of the gate there were issues



Will start from the latter and again state that yes, of course there were. Will only reiterate that:
i) even two weeks, a measly two weeks of waiting would have ensured 80% of them would never have been reported. Rushing and then blaming someone else is at best immature.
ii) a significant number of them would have been reported even 6 and 8 months later, because people did a lot of things wrongly, did not acquaint themselves with the platform, etc., as i mention above (and let me repeat myself, have even more 'idiotic' examples to post if needed)
iii) fanboyism at work, as usually, only added to the negativity. A lot of manchildren expected the Intel-killer and when they saw something only a few percentile units behind but at half the price? Were disappointed.... and then bitter and resentful. No further comments.

Now as to the former, lol.. it sucks across the board? Seriously? 

Bit lower in most, bit faster in some select few, but let us say (even though falsely) that it is behind in _everything_, compared to a 6900K, O.K.?

- $1200 for the i7 + $500ish for the Intel mobo (and i'm being generous here) = $1700 total
- $500 for the X + $250 tops for the mobo (not even holding back like above, buying the best this time around) = $750 total

If you think that with _this_ pricing difference ($950), being a few percentile units behind is a "fail", you need re-examine your criteria. Wholly.

Anyway, this is off topic, but i would only remind that the reason i mentioned this in my first post is to showcase how.. warped.. people's thinking is. And how that is the number one issue at hand far as i'm concerned.
It applies for the X299 too, albeit differently (see my original post).


----------



## Grings (Jun 8, 2017)

cdawall said:


> Good to know. This will be a real test of how the CCX units can communicate between each other then...That is going to be a metric shit ton of data across infinity fabric


 
I cant see its 'quad channel' ram working great tbh, even more so with epyc, given they will be using slower ecc ram

with ryzen we saw its ccx latency issues quite apparent until you get the ram up around 3000mhz


----------



## trparky (Jun 8, 2017)

Does anyone know if AMD is tying the speed of the Infinity Fabric to the speed of the system RAM in Threadripper and Epyc?


----------



## cdawall (Jun 8, 2017)

Grings said:


> I cant see its 'quad channel' ram working great tbh, even more so with epyc, given they will be using slower ecc ram
> 
> with ryzen we saw its ccx latency issues quite apparent until you get the ram up around 3000mhz



And this will have the ram controllers split between the CCX units... LOL this is going to be great


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 8, 2017)

cdawall said:


> And this will have the ram controllers split between the CCX units... LOL this is going to be great



As I said before, I think Infinity Fabric is in need of a major revision.  A clock doubler vs memory, or something.  It sucks in it's current implementation, and is only really good for two CCXs.


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 8, 2017)

trparky said:


> Does anyone know if AMD is tying the speed of the Infinity Fabric to the speed of the system RAM in Threadripper and Epyc?


I dont see why it would be any different...do you? Its all Zen...


----------



## trparky (Jun 9, 2017)

I would have to agree with @R-T-B here, the Infinity Fabric as it exists today sucks. It really needs to have a clock speed independent of the system RAM speed. The Infinity Fabric as it exists today is a bottleneck in terms of performance on the Ryzen chip. Either run it at system RAM speed or get rid of it all together and stitch the cores together as one die as versus having two CCXs.


----------



## Mr.Scott (Jun 9, 2017)

Every next good thing has to start somewhere. 
You would rather step backward in tech than move forward and try to work the problems out?


----------



## FR@NK (Jun 9, 2017)

Aenra said:


> Bit lower in most, bit faster in some select few, but let us say (even though falsely) that it is behind in _everything_, compared to a 6900K, O.K.?
> 
> - $1200 for the i7 + $500ish for the Intel mobo (and i'm being generous here) = $1700 total
> - $500 for the X + $250 tops for the mobo (not even holding back like above, buying the best this time around) = $750 total



Cant really compared prices since the 6900k came out last year.

Myself and I'm sure plenty of the members in this thread would have paid close to x99 prices if ryzen would have been released last summer. Well released last summer and without all the issues it had on march 2nd.


----------



## Aenra (Jun 9, 2017)

FR@NK said:


> Cant really compared prices



Give us a break, of course i can. At the time R7 came out, we only had 2 8cores. One from Intel (and only one) and one from AMD (because it was just one.. the 'fail' ones were simply renamed as non-X).
I can and do as such compare prices, just like i compare performance between the two and only between the two; equally fairly 

Important this last.. i never compared a Volvo station wagon (8c) to a Nissan Z (4c), i never compared a Rolex to my army G-Shock. I would however compare a Nissan Z with a Mazda MX. Sounds logical, but.. yeah..
So again, warped minds. Take it or leave it, but do smell the coffee guys, it's getting stale already and here we are, still debating on it.


----------



## FR@NK (Jun 9, 2017)

Car analogies dont translate really well into computer tech....


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 9, 2017)

FR@NK said:


> Car analogies dont translate really well into computer tech....



This is techpowerup, it never stops us.


----------



## cdawall (Jun 9, 2017)

FR@NK said:


> Car analogies dont translate really well into computer tech....



They do depending on scenario. That wasn't one.


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 9, 2017)

cdawall said:


> They do depending on scenario. That wasn't one.



I'm actually of the opinion they are actually very poor, but then, I don't drive.


----------



## dorsetknob (Jun 9, 2017)

cdawall said:


> They do depending on scenario. That wasn't one.


hows this then
"bulldozer was  volkswagon with 4 pregnent women passengers"    gotta say it carried 8 persons in total


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 9, 2017)

cdawall said:


> They do depending on scenario. That wasn't one.


Just QFT.. because I love them.. and most of mine work out fine... at least, for those that understand cars and computers. For the daft, well, not so much.


----------



## HTC (Jun 9, 2017)

trparky said:


> I would have to agree with @R-T-B here, the Infinity Fabric as it exists today sucks. It really needs to have a clock speed independent of the system RAM speed. *The Infinity Fabric as it exists today is a bottleneck in terms of performance on the Ryzen chip. Either run it at system RAM speed or get rid of it all together and stitch the cores together as one die as versus having two CCXs*.



I think you have it backwards: it's because this "fabric" exists that AMD is able to produce high core count CPUs for cheap, which is why AMD may very well be able to surpass Intel when threadripper and epyc launch.

It's very costly to produce big chips that run @ intended speeds because of the yields. The existence of infinity fabric allows for very big chips to be produced much more easily because they're essentially small chips "glued together" by the fabric.

This approach has it's drawbacks because in it's smaller size (only 2 CCXs), this fabric has no room to "stretch it's legs" but it's advantage is that you won't lose much speed when scaling the core count. This is not possible with Intel's architectures (as well as previous AMD's architectures) because, when the core count increases, you'll be forced to reduce the clocks by a significant amount. If infinity fabric works as intended, which is yet to be seen in larger chips, the reduction in clock speeds will be much smaller.


----------



## Frick (Jun 9, 2017)

cdawall said:


> They do depending on scenario. That wasn't one.



Nah, not really. I can't remember a single apropriate car analogy actually. Well they can work if you have lots of chrome in your case and it actually is styled after a classic Cadillac, but technically a car and a computer is two completely different beasts operating on different principles, even though the borders are blurring the more tech we squeeze into the cars. Why not use computer parts to describe computer parts?


----------



## cdawall (Jun 9, 2017)

Frick said:


> Nah, not really. I can't remember a single apropriate car analogy actually. Well they can work if you have lots of chrome in your case and it actually is styled after a classic Cadillac, but technically a car and a computer is two completely different beasts operating on different principles, even though the borders are blurring the more tech we squeeze into the cars. Why not use computer parts to describe computer parts?


Plenty work. I mean more heat is bad, make more hp required cooling goes up, everything is a wear item when racing (overclocking), people love specific brands, people hate specific brands, half the guides posted for fixing them are wrong, repair shops can be crooks. 

I mean the list goes on.


----------



## Frick (Jun 9, 2017)

cdawall said:


> Plenty work. I mean more heat is bad, make more hp required cooling goes up, everything is a wear item when racing (overclocking), people love specific brands, people hate specific brands, half the guides posted for fixing them are wrong, repair shops can be crooks.
> 
> I mean the list goes on.



But they are also unneccesary. Heat = bad is not a car thing. Neither is more work = more cooling. Hating brands is definitely not a car thing. Overclocking is most definitely not like racing.


----------



## r9 (Jun 9, 2017)

FR@NK said:


> How would cherry picked review samples effect reviews results? Would effect overclocks for sure but it wouldn't effect the performance of the chips running at the stock clock speeds.
> 
> We dont really need reviews anyways. These chips are similar IPC to current broadwell-e chips. Since we already have a good idea how broadwell-e performs, we can conclude that because skylake-x chips are running faster they will be faster. They also will cost less per core. Skylake-x will be the best performance per dollar jump compared to the previous generation we have ever seen from Intel. I'm sure anyone looking to spend $500 on a processor will gladly shell out the extra Benjamin for the 7820x.


AMD: You're welcome.


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 9, 2017)

Frick said:


> But they are also unneccesary. Heat = bad is not a car thing. Neither is more work = more cooling. Hating brands is definitely not a car thing. Overclocking is most definitely not like racing.


Random mentions of car/pc associations clearly mean nothing when they are not wrapped in context.

Make no mistake about it though, they can be spot on....though weve seen plenty of fails. I dont blame it on the differences between them, but the user dishing it out and the daft/not daft users reading it.


----------



## trparky (Jun 9, 2017)

HTC said:


> It's very costly to produce big chips that run @ intended speeds because of the yields. The existence of infinity fabric allows for very big chips to be produced much more easily because they're essentially small chips "glued together" by the fabric.


OK, I get that but perhaps they should start trying to get the manufacturing to be better when making this silicon so that perhaps in the future the CCXs will be six-core CCXs instead. There's no reason why a CCX needs to only be a quad-core, in fact there's no "quad" in CCX since it means "CPU complex". That way with a six-core CCX they can make the lower-end dual, quad, and six core Ryzen CPUs as one single CCX ditching the Infinity Fabric and keeping it only for those chips that need it due to higher core count.



HTC said:


> This approach has it's drawbacks because in it's smaller size (only 2 CCXs), this fabric has no room to "stretch it's legs"


That's because the Infinity Fabric is being gimped by not having more than two CCXs to work with. Like I said above, if they can get more cores on a CCXx there would be no need for the Infinity Fabric on lower-end CPUs since a single CCX would have all of the cores needed for those lower-end CPUs on one single CCX.



HTC said:


> but it's advantage is that you won't lose much speed when scaling the core count.


Yes, it seems that as you add more CCXs into the mix (Threadripper and Epyc) the Infinity Fabric scales far better. Perhaps the Infinity Fabric can run at full system RAM speed instead of half of it in the current crop of desktop Ryzen chips.



HTC said:


> This is not possible with Intel's architectures (as well as previous AMD's architectures) because, when the core count increases, you'll be forced to reduce the clocks by a significant amount.


Yeah, that I know since I've already seen the next crop of Intel x299-based chips that have lower clock speeds due to higher core count.



HTC said:


> If infinity fabric works as intended, which is yet to be seen in larger chips, the reduction in clock speeds will be much smaller.


They really need to get the manufacturing of these chips to be better since apparently the Threadripper and Epyc chips (according to rumors) have much higher out-of-the-box base clock speeds than the current crop of desktop Ryzen chips. The only thing that I can think of is that AMD is saving the very best silicon for these high-end to ultra high-end CPUs while leaving the less-than-best silicon for the desktop CPUs. Getting the manufacturing to be better would solve this thus allowing for the desktop CPUs to clock higher out of the box just like the high-end Threadripper and Epyc chips.


----------



## cdawall (Jun 9, 2017)

Frick said:


> But they are also unneccesary. Heat = bad is not a car thing. Neither is more work = more cooling. Hating brands is definitely not a car thing. Overclocking is most definitely not like racing.



Overclocking is just like racing throw money at it and you can have the best parts doesn't mean you will have the fastest car or computer. I happen to do both...user side is by far the most important.


----------



## HTC (Jun 9, 2017)

trparky said:


> OK, I get that but perhaps they should start trying to get the manufacturing to be better when making this silicon so that perhaps in the future the CCXs will be six-core CCXs instead. There's no reason why a CCX needs to only be a quad-core, in fact there's no "quad" in CCX since it means "CPU complex". *That way with a six-core CCX they can make the lower-end dual, quad, and six core Ryzen CPUs as one single CCX ditching the Infinity Fabric and keeping it only for those chips that need it due to higher core count.*



For all we know that might be their plan for Zen+.



trparky said:


> Yes, it seems that as you add more CCXs into the mix (Threadripper and Epyc) the Infinity Fabric scales far better. Perhaps the Infinity Fabric can run at full system RAM speed instead of half of it in the current crop of desktop Ryzen chips.



You do realize that within the same CCX, the latency is *way* better then Intel's, right? It's between CCXs that the latency is worse. Perhaps they should have limited the DDR4 RAM speed to 3000 MHz while having the fabric run @ RAM's speed? I'm guessing they chose half RAM because of some limitation @ higher RAM speeds? Dunno: just an hypothesis.



trparky said:


> Yeah, that I know since I've already seen the next crop of Intel x299-based chips that have lower clock speeds due to higher core count.



You just have to look @ high cores count xeons and opterons: their speeds decrease as the cores count goes up.



trparky said:


> They really need to get the manufacturing of these chips to be better since apparently the* Threadripper and Epyc chips (according to rumors) have much higher out-of-the-box base clock speeds than the current crop of desktop Ryzen chips*. The only thing that I can think of is that *AMD is saving the very best silicon for these high-end to ultra high-end CPUs* while leaving the less-than-best silicon for the desktop CPUs. Getting the manufacturing to be better would solve this thus allowing for the desktop CPUs to clock higher out of the box just like the high-end Threadripper and Epyc chips.



I've heard threadripper and epyc will have similar speeds to the 1800X: perhaps just a small decrease. This should only be possible if the fabric works as intended.

Ofc AMD is saving their very best silicon for epyc and threadripper: think along the lines of threadripper with 16c / 32 t using just 140w and running @ 1800X clocks (just a guess)?


----------



## trparky (Jun 9, 2017)

HTC said:


> I've heard threadripper and epyc will have similar speeds to the 1800X: perhaps just a small decrease.


I thought I read somewhere that Threadripper was to start at 4 GHz as an out-of-box clock.

They really need to increase the base clocks on these things, at least a base clock of 4 (maybe 4.2) GHz. We're already pushing the envelope in terms of what this silicon can do since anything past 4 GHz on the current crop of Ryzen CPUs causes the chip to throttle internally due to heat issues.


----------



## HTC (Jun 9, 2017)

trparky said:


> *I thought I read somewhere that Threadripper was to start at 4 GHz as an out-of-box clock.*
> 
> They really need to increase the base clocks on these things, at least a base clock of 4 (maybe 4.2) GHz. We're already pushing the envelope in terms of what this silicon can do since anything past 4 GHz on the current crop of Ryzen CPUs causes the chip to throttle internally due to heat issues.



Seriously doubt this: double the cores means nearly 2 times the wattage (assuming better binned chips that need less power to run @ R7 speeds. By starting @ 4 GHz, the required power would negate it's efficiency. It may very well be overclockable to those speeds, but not out-of-box, IMO.

Check this pic, where highlighted:


 

AMD doesn't need 4 GHz for 16 cores when Intel has it's 16 core chip @ 2.1 GHz. If they run it @ 3 GHz it should run circles around Intel's 16 core chip.


----------



## trparky (Jun 9, 2017)

I meant that they need to increase the clock speed on their desktop chips. either that or find a way to increase single-thread IPC. Either bump the speed up or increase IPC. Whatever they choose to do they need to do it fast. There's still many of us that need better single-core IPC performance. If Ryzen v2,0 can somehow make that possible it may just become the Intel killer that we all wanted in the first place.


----------



## HTC (Jun 9, 2017)

trparky said:


> I meant that they need to increase the clock speed on their desktop chips. either that or find a way to increase single-thread IPC. *Either bump the speed up or increase IPC. Whatever they choose to do they need to do it fast. There's still many of us that need better single-core IPC performance.* If Ryzen v2,0 can somehow make that possible it may just become the Intel killer that we all wanted in the first place.



You do realize that AMD has made a gigantic comeback that pretty much 99.9% of the tech world never thought possible. If threadripper and epyc deliver what we think they'll deliver, that will be nothing short of a miracle with the resources AMD has had lately.

Try not to be too greedy with the 1st Zen generation. Who knows: perhaps the 2nd generation will bring a bump to IPC to an already outstanding architecture!


----------



## trparky (Jun 9, 2017)

And why can't I be greedy? Why can't I have my cake and eat it too?

There's no question, I know that AMD came from way behind; this I know very much so. But in some circumstances Ryzen v1.0 is not good enough. There's a lot of old software that will never see Ryzen optimizations and that's where more raw IPC is needed.


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 9, 2017)

HTC said:


> You do realize that AMD has made a gigantic comeback that pretty much 99.9% of the tech world never thought possible. If threadripper and epyc deliver what we think they'll deliver, that will be nothing short of a miracle with the resources AMD has had lately.
> 
> Try not to be too greedy with the 1st Zen generation. Who knows: perhaps the 2nd generation will bring a bump to IPC to an already outstanding architecture!


Why are more cores on existing architecture which they made scalable due to their CCX structure be a miracle?


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jun 9, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Why are more cores on existing architecture which they made scalable due to their CCX structure be a miracle?


True but zen+ not 2 is likely better binned and produced 14nm chips that Wont have more cores but could clock or boost higher.
Zen 2 is going to be tricky for Amd to hit a home run with since it will be on the virtually new 7nm node so I personally am expecting similar clocks but improvement in ipc and slight arch tweaks since they will need to remake masks etc anyway ,but it would not be much different in core count or spec imho.
Because node swaps = little change in chip normally other than node size obviously.


----------



## trparky (Jun 9, 2017)

I certainly hope that IPCs will improve on Ryzen v2 because based upon this thread over at Blizzard Entertainment's forum, going with Ryzen with Starcraft 2 will result in worse performance than I'm already experiencing on my Core i5 3570k.


----------



## HTC (Jun 9, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Why are more cores on existing architecture which they made scalable due to their CCX structure be a miracle?



Before there was even a mention of Zen, if someone were to tell you "AMD will launch a new architecture that will severely close the gap to Intel in desktop market while likely surpass Intel in the server market": would you believe it? Would anyone outside AMD believe it?

Considering how far back AMD was from Intel + it's R&D size, to think that before Zen was unrealistic @ best, would you not agree?


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jun 9, 2017)

trparky said:


> I certainly hope that IPCs will improve on Ryzen v2 because based upon this thread over at Blizzard Entertainment's forum, going with Ryzen with Starcraft 2 will result in worse performance than I'm already experiencing on my Core i5 3570k.


Right thats one game though yeah , i have not got Ryzen but fx and i play GtaV ,it likes cores and your i5 would do worse than my Fx never mind Ryzen ,does that define your cpu.
And enough with the Ipc shit ,at least use the right words or figur out what ipc is , someone told you the other day ffs.
Plus read up on cores , actual cores , they are like mini multicores in themselves with a few Alu's ,and such bound together with some memory , they have the amount of resources they do because science dictated that, that much worked best running actual code , they could have widened said core add infinitum but they didn't because they found the efficient optimum and stuck with it , the inner workings of cores dont change much or often ,get in the loop , read something on it.
More cores Is more instructions per socket not core, they have peaked ,get it.


----------



## trparky (Jun 9, 2017)

Yeah, that's one game. One game is stopping me from buying Ryzen. Why would I want to build a new machine with new hardware only to see a game that I like to play perform worse on it than my previous hardware? Yeah, I wouldn't and I bet you wouldn't either. The general idea is if you play this game you have no choice but to have your wallet raped by Intel.


----------



## notb (Jun 9, 2017)

HTC said:


> I think you have it backwards: it's because this "fabric" exists that AMD is able to produce high core count CPUs for cheap, which is why AMD may very well be able to surpass Intel when threadripper and epyc launch.



AMD was able to make CPUs competing with Intel's at a much lower price pretty much as long as they exist. It's clearly not thanks to the Infinity Fabric.
And the fact that they went for a single universal design means their chips could be cheaper to make, but most likely worse than purpose-designed models from Intel.
So then there's the question of volume, because a CPU selling in small numbers has to be expensive (or totally unprofitable).
Is Ryzen selling well enough to support the whole project? We'll see in Q2 results.

Threadripper is just a nuance and EPYC could be a commercial flop if it has issues similar to those of Ryzen. In the server segment robustness of platform is everything.

I'm still very worried about the lack of notebooks/AIO and business desktops. What's going on?


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Jun 9, 2017)

trparky said:


> Yeah, that's one game. One game is stopping me from buying Ryzen. Why would I want to build a new machine with new hardware only to see a game that I like to play perform worse on it than my previous hardware? Yeah, I wouldn't and I bet you wouldn't either. The general idea is if you play this game you have no choice but to have your wallet raped by Intel.


You have no intention of buying ryzen, it's not down to one game, you keep going around amd threads saying how ryzen ipc is worse than your 3570k, I know this to be utter crap cause I've moved from a 4.3ghz 3570k and even at stock the ryzen performs better in nearly everything which is even more apparent when I oc to 3.8-3.9 and the core i5 really can't compete with it. I mean aren't you the same guy who said Dell monitors were crap, what rock have you been living under, go and spend more money on an Intel system with equal performance or less in some cases and be done with it


----------



## infrared (Jun 9, 2017)

trparky said:


> I certainly hope that IPCs will improve on Ryzen v2 because based upon this thread over at Blizzard Entertainment's forum, going with Ryzen with Starcraft 2 will result in worse performance than I'm already experiencing on my Core i5 3570k.





trparky said:


> Yeah, that's one game. One game is stopping me from buying Ryzen. Why would I want to build a new machine with new hardware only to see a game that I like to play perform worse on it than my previous hardware? Yeah, I wouldn't and I bet you wouldn't either. The general idea is if you play this game you have no choice but to have your wallet raped by Intel.


You should be whining about blizzard's game, that's the problem, not the CPU  The vast majority of games games run extremely well on Ryzen, the CPU definitely isn't "Gimped", why do you keep saying that? Infinity fabric doesn't hold it back. And it doesn't run at 'half ram speed', it runs at the 'actual ram speed'. (remember 3000mhz ddr is 1500mhz actual).. And IPC is the same as intel's current range so idk why you keep going on about IPC as if it isn't good enough. Whatever, if all you want to do is play starcraft then get an intel cpu. In fact it sounds like gaming is the only thing you'll be doing, so just get a 7700k and be done with it.


----------



## notb (Jun 9, 2017)

infrared said:


> You should be whining about blizzard's game, that's the problem, not the CPU


What happened with the world? Is really the purpose of games to utilize hardware? You must be a fan of Ashes of Singularity...
Last time I checked games were meant to entertain and Blizzard seemed to be understanding this idea pretty well.


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Jun 9, 2017)

notb said:


> What happened with the world? Is really the purpose of games to utilize hardware? You must be a fan of Ashes of Singularity...
> Last time I checked games were meant to entertain and Blizzard seemed to be understanding this idea pretty well.


oh here he is, right on cue in another AMD thread spouting rubbish. Sorry but most users here are talking from experience, you don't game, what are you basing your experience from? Reddit, some other forums you just happen to pick up quotes from other intel fanbois and regurgitate the stuff they post? sure seems like it.. just anything to carry on your little AMD hate campaign


----------



## trparky (Jun 9, 2017)

Yeah, I should probably complain to Blizzard Entertainment but I highly doubt that they're going to give a damn about my complaint. They're too busy with their Overwatch game to care one bit about their seven year old garbage written game.

I'm surprised that many of you don't play the game (Starcraft 2). There's online tournaments and a almost cult like following of the game amongst hard-core real time strategy gamers.


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Jun 9, 2017)

trparky said:


> Yeah, I should probably complain to Blizzard Entertainment but I highly doubt that they're going to give a damn about my complaint. They're too busy with their Overwatch game to care one bit about their seven year old garbage written game.
> 
> I'm surprised that many of you don't play the game (Starcraft 2). There's online tournaments and a almost cult like following of the game amongst hard-core real time strategy gamers.


So your whole Ryzen issues boil down to an unoptimised 7 year old game, when you're talking about 100+ FPS do you really need 150+ FPS instead of 200+ FPS? and you're basing you're opinion on a 2017 new processor, chipset and ecosystem on a 7 year old game... interesting dude..


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 9, 2017)

NdMk2o1o said:


> oh here he is, right on cue in another AMD thread spouting rubbish.



Actually, this is an Intel thread, just sayin...


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Jun 9, 2017)

R-T-B said:


> Actually, this is an Intel thread, just sayin...


 shit incoming edit anytime now  but point still stands, when it comes down to Intel/Ryzen threads there are a few people banging the same drum about Ryzen, none of which have any first hand experience to speak of...


----------



## infrared (Jun 9, 2017)

notb said:


> What happened with the world? Is really the purpose of games to utilize hardware? You must be a fan of Ashes of Singularity...
> Last time I checked games were meant to entertain and Blizzard seemed to be understanding this idea pretty well.


Processors just do what they're instructed to do. If a game isn't using the hardware efficiently I'd say it's a software problem, not a hardware problem. You don't design hardware based on old software. That's backwards!
I don't play AotS by the way notb... If you're going to try to discredit me find something real instead of assumptions.

Anyway, we need to get this back on topic.. 

Since the high 14, 16 and 18 core x299 CPU's were originally destined to be more expensive Xeons, I wonder if any servers will end up getting equipped with the consumer version. Cheaper and higher clockspeeds too if they're more interested in throughput than power efficiency... I bet Intel really wish they hadn't had to do this!


----------



## trparky (Jun 10, 2017)

NdMk2o1o said:


> So your whole Ryzen issues boil down to an unoptimised 7 year old game, when you're talking about 100+ FPS do you really need 150+ FPS instead of 200+ FPS? and you're basing you're opinion on a 2017 new processor, chipset and ecosystem on a 7 year old game... interesting dude..


I'm lucky I get 15 FPS in some parts of the game when a lot of action is going on with many units on the screen. GPU usage is hovering around 60% usage while CPU usage is in the high 80% range.


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 10, 2017)

HTC said:


> Before there was even a mention of Zen, if someone were to tell you "AMD will launch a new architecture that will severely close the gap to Intel in desktop market while likely surpass Intel in the server market": would you believe it? Would anyone outside AMD believe it?
> 
> Considering how far back AMD was from Intel + it's R&D size, to think that before Zen was unrealistic @ best, would you not agree?


@HTC

Yes, but...zen is here and has been for months... so, i look at the present, and dont prentend like it isnt here. 

I also look at their architecture and what they said and how scalable it is. So, i dont remotely think its a miracle now....before zen came out, sure. But, its out, its scalable, and im not remotely surprised.


----------



## R-T-B (Jun 10, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> @HTC
> 
> Yes, but...zen is here and has been for months... so, i look at the present, and dont prentend like it isnt here.
> 
> I also look at their architecture and what they said and how scalable it is. So, i dont remotely think its a miracle now....before zen came out, sure. But, its out, its scalable, and im not remotely surprised.



I'm guessing nothing ever surprises you, living in the present and all.


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 10, 2017)

Omnipresent.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jun 10, 2017)

trparky said:


> I'm lucky I get 15 FPS in some parts of the game when a lot of action is going on with many units on the screen. GPU usage is hovering around 60% usage while CPU usage is in the high 80% range.


Seriously wtf ,why you in an intel thread moaning when it plays shit anyway on your pc about another company's performance in it then.


----------



## HTC (Jun 11, 2017)

infrared said:


> Processors just do what they're instructed to do. If a game isn't using the hardware efficiently I'd say it's a software problem, not a hardware problem. You don't design hardware based on old software. That's backwards!
> I don't play AotS by the way notb... If you're going to try to discredit me find something real instead of assumptions.
> 
> *Anyway, we need to get this back on topic..*
> ...



Sorry: i'm a bit @ fault, hehe

Returning to the topic ...

Never has Intel been in more desperate need of a socket change ...

Think about it: as Linus said, the fact that this socket covers a range of 4 c to 18 c CPUs, dual channel to quad channel RAM and a range of 16 to 44 PCIe lanes is only really gonna confuse a whole lot of people.

EDIT

Regarding the server to consumer version CPUs: isn't the socket different?


----------



## Frick (Jun 11, 2017)

notb said:


> I'm still very worried about the lack of notebooks/AIO and business desktops. What's going on?



It's still very new on the desktop, there's no mobile version of it yet and the OEMs haven't really used AMD in years (at least not business side) so it'll probably be awhile before they come out, if at all. I assume it depends on what agreements they have with Intel as well, and most of those business desktops don't need many threads anyway.


----------



## notb (Jun 11, 2017)

Frick said:


> and most of those business desktops don't need many threads anyway.


No, no! This can't be right. More cores is the way to go! :-D

But honestly, professional software (even the ubiquitous Excel) can actually utilize 8 cores - unlike most games.


----------



## FR@NK (Jun 11, 2017)

notb said:


> professional software (even the ubiquitous Excel) can actually utilize 8 cores



Have you seen the reviews? Excel will run faster on a 7700k compared to a 1800x.....because even if excel does use 8 cores; its not maxing out all 8 but instead waiting on 1 demanding thread to complete. These new skylake-x that have turbo boost 3.0 speeds of 4.5GHz will be just as fast as a 7700k or even faster in excel and similar workloads.



HTC said:


> this socket covers a range of 4 c to 18 c CPUs, dual channel to quad channel RAM and a range of 16 to 44 PCIe lanes is only really gonna confuse a whole lot of people.



How is it confusing when Intel has clearly released all the information on what each processor supports?

Do you also think its confusing that ryzen motherboards have video outputs yet none of the ryzen processors released so far have integrated GPUs? 

 Intel has even made up a nice graphical aid to help the simple minded understand what they are getting from each processor:







Intel is giving hardware "enthusiasts" the flexibly to use a wide range of processors on this platform and lowering the price of admission on entry to the HEDT socket. As long as you dont have more then 4 sticks of ram and 2 videocards you wont have any issues.


----------



## HTC (Jun 11, 2017)

FR@NK said:


> Have you seen the reviews? Excel will run faster on a 7700k compared to a 1800x.....because even if excel does use 8 cores; its not maxing out all 8 but instead waiting on 1 demanding thread to complete. These new skylake-x that have turbo boost 3.0 speeds of 4.5GHz will be just as fast as a 7700k or even faster in excel and similar workloads.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think you missed the point: try watching the video in OP starting from about 9:43.


----------



## FR@NK (Jun 11, 2017)

HTC said:


> I think you missed the point: try watching the video in OP starting from about 9:43.



I've seen the video and concluded that linus is the same idiot he has been since forever. He creates drama to increase his ad revenue.


Linus: "How do you build a board supporting 16 to 44 PCIe lanes?"

FR@NK: Using the same PCIe switching hardware thats already on most enthusiast boards already....


----------



## HTC (Jun 11, 2017)

FR@NK said:


> I've seen the video and concluded that linus is the same idiot he has been since forever. He creates drama to increase his ad revenue.
> 
> 
> Linus: "How do you build a board supporting 16 to 44 PCIe lanes?"
> ...



I think you still missed the point.

Depending on *which CPU you match a X299 board with*, some PCIe lanes will be disabled and memory channels may be affected. I'd guess the amount of customers complaining about "But X299 board fully supports Y CPU: how come parts of the board are disabled?" may likely be quite higher then normal, no?

That's the problem Linus was referring to.


----------



## FR@NK (Jun 11, 2017)

HTC said:


> Depending on *which CPU you match a X299 board with*, some PCIe lanes will be disabled and memory channels may be affected. I'd guess the amount of customers complaining about "But X299 board fully supports Y CPU: how come parts of the board are disabled?" may likely be quite higher then normal, no?



If you are buying a cheap $300 processor do you really need 8 sticks of ram? Or 3 video cards?

*You don't seem to understand* that the x299 chipset will support 24 lanes of PCIe 3.0 so it wont be that slots are disabled but instead that they wont be directly connected to the CPU.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 11, 2017)

Potentially yes.  There's applications out there that are extremely RAM and GPU heavy with low CPU overhead (e.g. 3D scanning).  They could buy a cheap X399 solution or a very expensive X299 solution.  Most in that situation will choose the former.

And yes, slots will be disabled (or have very few lanes tied to it) on low end processors.  They don't magically change over to the chipset lanes if there aren't enough.  We already see this on X99 and mainstream Intel boards (insert M.2 x4 card here, this PCIe x16 slot will no longer function).


----------



## HTC (Jun 11, 2017)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Potentially yes.  There's applications out there that are extremely RAM and GPU heavy with low CPU overhead (e.g. 3D scanning).  They could buy a cheap X399 solution or a very expensive X299 solution.  Most in that situation will choose the former.
> 
> And yes, slots will be disabled (or have very few lanes tied to it) on low end processors.  They don't magically change over to the chipset lanes if there aren't enough.  *We already see this on X99 and mainstream Intel boards (insert M.2 x4 card here, this PCIe x16 slot will no longer function)*.



Yes, but that's *after* installing something in the board. PCIe lanes being disabled *before* installing anything in the board is "a new concept", right?


----------



## Solaris17 (Jun 11, 2017)

HTC said:


> That's the problem Linus was referring to.



right, but you are also assuming that Linus understands the problem. He does not. This is not a big deal. AMd and intel systems have always done this. a board may be electrically or not connected for x amount of PCI-e lanes but depending on the CPU may or may not run them from the CPU. this is NOT new technology. 1366 boards were FAMOUS for this. looking at you EVGA 3x SLI.


----------



## Vya Domus (Jun 11, 2017)

I can't understand why people are still arguing.

Intel is clearly at a point where they do not care what AMD does simply because they have so much more market share and avid fans. But don't be fooled that does not mean they aren't aware of that. As matter of fact X299 is just them profiting from that , do not mistaken it with them being taken by surprise by AMD. It's as obvious as it can get. I am sure that for their next HEDT platform or any future platform they will actually put effort into , because "VR premium and 12K gaming" was clearly just another way of saying that they do not giving a damn this round.


----------



## dont whant to set it"' (Jun 11, 2017)

such a shame that the last couple of pages did not come with popcorn;

@Vya Domus ; well yeah, one might scratch his/her's head not reading anywhere Intel , come to making a purchase.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 11, 2017)

HTC said:


> Yes, but that's *after* installing something in the board. PCIe lanes being disabled *before* installing anything in the board is "a new concept", right?


Pretty sure there were some X99 boards that did the same depending on what processor was installed.  Especially boards with >3 PCIe x16 slots.


Yeah, I don't know what there is to argue about either.  If you need lots of PCIe lanes, you're going to buy Threadripper.  If you don't, you might look at X299.  Considering the fact that AMD is going to price Threadripper to move like they did Ryzen, I get the distinct impression that not many will be looking at X299.

Intel got blindsided by Ryzen.  They wouldn't have made X299 the way it is if they knew Threadripper was a hugely better value proposition that doesn't skimp on anything.


----------



## trparky (Jun 11, 2017)

Usually I'm dead wrong about this kind of stuff but isn't the only reason you would need a lot of PCIx lanes is if you're doing dual-GPUs? I thought the whole concept of dual-GPU setups are no longer the craze that it used to be.


----------



## Vya Domus (Jun 11, 2017)

trparky said:


> Usually I'm dead wrong about this kind of stuff but *isn't the only reason you would need a lot of PCIx lanes is if you're doing dual-GPUs? *I thought the whole concept of dual-GPU setups are no longer the craze that it used to be.



No it isn't , a lot of storage and expansion cards such as capture cards is what many HEDT users mainly want and what benefits from more PCI lanes. Conventional multi-GPU setups never were the craze and they certainly wont be , there is going to be a shift to different way of handling multi-GPU in the future that's going to be a lot less depended on the PCI bus.


----------



## trparky (Jun 11, 2017)

Oh, I just remember when SLI and Crossfire were all the rage. People were dumping $1500 or more into dual, triple, and even quad GPU setups. I always thought it was kind of crazy really.


----------



## Vya Domus (Jun 11, 2017)

trparky said:


> Oh, I just remember when SLI and Crossfire were all the rage. People were dumping $1500 or more into dual, triple, and even quad GPU setups. I always thought it was kind of crazy really.



It was all the rage for people with tons of cash to burn , in other words for very few people. It was never meant to be a wise investment. Today you can't even do that anymore for the most part , Nvidia killed off 3-way and 4-way SLI. You can still pop-in multiple cards for compute tasks , in which case you do need a lot of PCI-lanes.


----------

