A shame is just 2x 8 core CPUS pack as one with more Cache...

lets see how it does, but it will still suck if you OC :/

So, when do we get PCI-E x32?

NicklasAPJA shame is just 2x 8 core CPUS pack as one with more Cache...

lets see how it does, but it will still suck if you OC :/

Honestly I do not see a problem on that! That is one of the main points of the infinity fabric.

PCIe 4 is coming "soon" which is the same as PCIe 3 x32 near enough but in the same slot size. ;)

Kurt MaverickWell, so much AMD circlejerk out here...so I suppose that I have to be the voice of reason:

1) So many PCIe lanes are completely useless. People generally don't even recommend mounting a SLI 2x setup, let alone a 3x or 4x one. So unless you're rich and you put tons of M.2 and/or U.2 drives, IDK what will you use so many PCIe lanes for (and if you're rich...what are you doing buying an AMD CPU?).

2) Are you REALLY comparing the memory controller from some 16-core, 1000+ bucks CPU with the ones from 4-core, less than 350 ones? Wow, someone here is really an AMD fan.

And 3) I don't care how many cores does it has if their IPC are crap. Games hardly even use 8 cores, and actual consoles have only 8 cores (face it: 99% of the PC market are consoleports). Add to that weak IPC, and by the time that games finally use them they'll be TERRIBLY outdated, and there will be much better options in the market already. So you're basically paying for shooting your own knee today with poor performance compared to other options, and sub-par performance in the future compared to future options.

Final observation: And people complains that Intel "does nothing innovative but to increase core count". /facepalm

As a content creator that needs to have 2x GPUs, a 3.0x8 10GBit NIC (2xRJ-45 jacks), a RAID card, and a Blackmagic Design DeckLink 4K Extreme 12G Capture & Playback Card which is another 3.0x4....so far that's 48 lanes, and I haven't even added in my PCIe SSD's yet, which I would ALWAYS prefer to run from CPU direct lanes than chipset lanes, which Threadripper offers. So basically, for someone like myself, I can get all of the PCIe Lanes I need, WITHOUT having to buy a two xeon motherboard, and I'll also save a ton of money on AMD's 16 core cpu over Intels, not to metion that I'm sure AMD's motherboards will be cheaper. So, perhaps for gamers who were NEVER INTENDED TO USE HEDT platforms JUST for gaming 64 lanes might be overkill, but not for content creators.

Another one of the 5% which may need it....found at an enthusiast site.

We know there are uses, but you have to admit the need is really not that much... at least to have intel on its heels...or, "in trouble"...because of it. :kookoo:

GasarakiAMD's marketing is shit. I HATE how they made everything R3, R5, R7 to copy Intel and now X399 chipset like the Intel X chipsets. Can't they just so something original for once? R4, R6, R8 would have been better. Now there's a X299 chipset and a X399 chipset.

Even numbers are used for APUs

EarthDogAnother one of the 5% which may need it....found at an enthusiast site.

We know there are uses, but you have to admit the need is really not that much... at least to have intel on its heels...or, "in trouble"...because of it. :kookoo:

Obviously we know, but Kurt don't. Or rather he does, but ... his brain gets in the way or something.

EarthDogAnother one of the 5% which may need it....found at an enthusiast site.

We know there are uses, but you have to admit the need is really not that much... at least to have intel on its heels...or, "in trouble"...because of it. :kookoo:

So YOU were that one I remember calling people 5%ers when AGP launched.
Now i get it.

BoosnieSo YOU were that one I remember calling people 5%ers when AGP launched.
Now i get it.

The question is, are HEDT and AGP users true 5%ers, do they have what it takes?

nemesis.ieBecause an awful lot of the general populus don't even know AMD exists, they still walk into a shop and say "I want that iX thing" (which could include Apple products).

So I can understand why AMD are marketing their names in a similar way. The whole A series was a bit like Audi naming versus the BMW sounding ix, probably for the same reason.

Yeah i mite go out and buy a apple galaxy s8 as well cheers.

uuuaaaaaaThe question is, are HEDT and AGP users true 5%ers, do they have what it takes?

For he doesn't know the Moore Rule : "PCIe lanes shall be halved every 18 months"

If all you have to complain about is having too many PCIe lanes then HEDT is not for you, i see it as added bonus/feature without paying xtra for it.

BoosnieSo YOU were that one I remember calling people 5%ers when AGP launched.
Now i get it.

lol, i wasnt here when AGP was released ...it was already in the market. I dont recall ever saying that before really, lol!

And youve been here for like, 8 days. So, YOU dont get it. :p

Kurt MaverickWell, so much AMD circlejerk out here...so I suppose that I have to be the voice of reason:

1) So many PCIe lanes are completely useless. People generally don't even recommend mounting a SLI 2x setup, let alone a 3x or 4x one. So unless you're rich and you put tons of M.2 and/or U.2 drives, IDK what will you use so many PCIe lanes for (and if you're rich...what are you doing buying an AMD CPU?).

2) Are you REALLY comparing the memory controller from some 16-core, 1000+ bucks CPU with the ones from 4-core, less than 350 ones? Wow, someone here is really an AMD fan.

And 3) I don't care how many cores does it has if their IPC are crap. Games hardly even use 8 cores, and actual consoles have only 8 cores (face it: 99% of the PC market are consoleports). Add to that weak IPC, and by the time that games finally use them they'll be TERRIBLY outdated, and there will be much better options in the market already. So you're basically paying for shooting your own knee today with poor performance compared to other options, and sub-par performance in the future compared to future options.

Final observation: And people complains that Intel "does nothing innovative but to increase core count". /facepalm

I'm sorry but you are terribly miss informed or blind Intel fanboy. First, in the comparison of the 4 core 1500X@3.5GHz vs. 7700k@3.5GHz shows a difference of 12 points for single thread performance. The 1500X will same cores and same frequency beats 7700K in multi-threaded performance. And single thread score of ~150 is more than enough to play video games. Gaming heavily relies on GPU performance. Only high end video cards like a 1080Ti or Titan are going to make the CPU a bottle neck, which is why they use them a lot in benchmarks. There were a lot of video games not optimized for Ryzen, which were tested and gave Ryzen a bad name. Look at the new benchmarks with Tomb Raider now that it is optimized for Ryzen. Only a few FPS difference between a 4GHz Ryzen vs. a 5GHz i7700K. Main stream video cards 1060/480/580 paired with and overclocked Intel i7700K or 1400 will have very similar performance, because of the GPU bottleneck. The higher clock speed gives the i7700K an advantage that will only be academic unless you are using a 144Hz monitor at 1080p will an FPS meter running to see the difference. Even then if you use a 1080Ti you hit 144Hz or higher in most game. At 60Hz and 1080p without a FPS counter you will not know the difference between the two.
Is a $160 CPU Enough for Gaming?
Tech YES City
Published on Jun 14, 2017
Today we pit the AMD Ryzen 5 1400 against the Intel i7 7700k with the Radeon and Geforce Mid-Range Champions (The RX 580 & GTX 1060 Cards) to see how much of a difference there is and also whether the performance you could gain off a 7700k is worth it when compared to the Ryzen 5 1400. Everything in this comparison was overclocked to relatively normal levels for air and water overclocks.

There is nothing wrong with the Ryzen memory controllers. They just needed micro code updates to fix memory comparability. Which they have fixed to a large degree now. Being able to have all those PCI-E lanes help content creators who use programs that utilize GPU's individually will have 3 or 4 video cards. Also, it's great for dedicated peripherals for virtual machines you can assign cores and hard drives per VM. Professionals are not using these CPU's to play video games, because that would be silly when a $200 1600 is the best bang for your buck CPU in that market. Small business could use the $850 16 core Ryzen, and set up 4 or 8 VM workstations with enough hard drives and peripherals, because of all the PCI-E they don't need a bunch of separate cards plugged into their Motherboard to add peripherals like you will need to do with the Intel X series. ThreadRipper will devastate Intel in the HEDT market. Professionals will not be able to use the 6 and 8 core models, because they only have 28 PCI-E lanes. There only option for the true HEDT market that Intel offers will be the 7900X 10 core for $999. That's if you don't need NVME raid. That will cost you another $399, and will only support lesser performing Intel NVME drives. At $1,398 for all the bells and whistles. Also, all the other processors will have to add $399 to the price if you want full NVME raid support. With the hidden cost it now looks like the prices haven't changed very much at all.

Kurt MaverickWell, so much AMD circlejerk out here...so I suppose that I have to be the voice of reason:

1) So many PCIe lanes are completely useless. People generally don't even recommend mounting a SLI 2x setup, let alone a 3x or 4x one. So unless you're rich and you put tons of M.2 and/or U.2 drives, IDK what will you use so many PCIe lanes for (and if you're rich...what are you doing buying an AMD CPU?).

2) Are you REALLY comparing the memory controller from some 16-core, 1000+ bucks CPU with the ones from 4-core, less than 350 ones? Wow, someone here is really an AMD fan.

And 3) I don't care how many cores does it has if their IPC are crap. Games hardly even use 8 cores, and actual consoles have only 8 cores (face it: 99% of the PC market are consoleports). Add to that weak IPC, and by the time that games finally use them they'll be TERRIBLY outdated, and there will be much better options in the market already. So you're basically paying for shooting your own knee today with poor performance compared to other options, and sub-par performance in the future compared to future options.

Final observation: And people complains that Intel "does nothing innovative but to increase core count". /facepalm

So what is it you are actually crying about? So you are an INTEL-igent person, I'm assuming here, of course. Well we've proven the tech is actually pretty similar, certain patents are up and the INTEL, AMD collaboration is going forth with Kaby lake, if you have paid attention. These are all important Technologies', Without bias or favor shown to either party. Well, what truly intelligent people do is consider both sides's of the coin first, and where the industry is going. Just throwing console stats have really no bearing on the PC market, can you reference your information, maybe a website or some information to back up your claims. Your reason has be found Wanting 3.) 2.) 1.) . 1.)Pci-e lanes aren't just useful for GPUs either, yes you are not likely to fill them up though, but isn't having more than enough reasonable, you didn't seem to complain when Intel put 40 lanes' onto thier CPUs', now did you. I'm more than sure it was a bragging point when intel released it? 2.)memory controllers really haven't changed that much and yes tech on a 4 to a 16 core really isn't different bro sorry it just depends on the generation of CPU. 3.) Your IPC is DOA...We All Screwed, brah. Then you go use Linux and have fun with your single core performance, brah, Intel pentium 3 is waay better than having a 16 core, I can prove it. Ridiculous buddy, go get your abacus out and tell me what is the Square root of your intelligence.

I Serve nor get paid by Intel or Amd, why would I promote or condemn the useage of either. when my loyalty will be bought and sold by logic and reason, not by heralds yelling on the rooftops. Good luck with that reasoning, bud.

AMD's problem isn't IPC, at least it's not as much of a problem as many people (including myself) think (I used to think this). OK, maybe IPC is a problem on AMD but it's not a huge problem. The biggest problem is that Ryzen just has no high clock headroom along with lower base clocks. If AMD could some how manage to clock Ryzen chips closer to 5 GHz like most Intel chips are they could easily overcome the IPC difference with pure clock speed. However this won't happen until Ryzen is manufactured at 7nm.

Basically it comes down to one thing... Clock speed matters!

Case it point, I overclocked my Core i5 3570k CPU to 4.4 GHz (a full 1 GHz faster than stock speeds) and it's amazing what an extra 1 GHz will do for performance.

trparkyAMD's problem isn't IPC, at least it's not as much of a problem as many people (including myself) think (I used to think this). OK, maybe IPC is a problem on AMD but it's not a huge problem. The biggest problem is that Ryzen just has no high clock headroom along with lower base clocks. If AMD could some how manage to clock Ryzen chips closer to 5 GHz like most Intel chips are they could easily overcome the IPC difference with pure clock speed. However this won't happen until Ryzen is manufactured at 7nm.

Basically it comes down to one thing... Clock speed matters!

Case it point, I overclocked my Core i5 3570k CPU to 4.4 GHz (a full 1 GHz faster than stock speeds) and it's amazing what an extra 1 GHz will do for performance.

You're almost right.

Computing power for one core = IPCxClock speed. When the IPC is roughly the same, it's the clock speed that makes the difference, when clock speed is roughly the same, then it's up to IPC.

On the other hand, both Intel and AMD are overkill for office needs and web browsing. Gaming leans a bit towards Intel. More heavily threaded (but also more specialized apps) lean a bit towards AMD. I'd hate to be forced to upgrade my CPU this year :D

Clocking Ryzen higher would help narrow the IPS gap, or at least make it less noticeable in single threaded tasks.

IPS = Instructions per Second

trparkyClocking Ryzen higher would help narrow the IPS gap, or at least make it less noticeable in single threaded tasks.

IPS = Instructions per Second

The commonly accepted metric is IPC (instructions per clock). Instructions per second is a derivative (sp?) measurement (it's IPC x clock speed). I.e. there's virtually no IPC gap, but there's a clock gap, hence your perceived (and real) IPS gap ;)

While everybody's concerned about AMD being able to scale up and become faster than Intel all around, I'm more interesting in seeing them scale down and start offering something for mobile. Though I wouldn't be surprised if they left mobile for later and concentrated on Epyc/enterprise for now. Because there's big money to be made there.

That's the thing, I don't think AMD Ryzen's issue is IPC. People have said and even AMD has confirmed that Ryzen's IPC is about what Haswell's IPC numbers were which really isn't all that bad. The key difference is that most Intel chips today are clocked higher. And as you, @bug have said, clock rate multiplied by IPC equals what I refer to as IPS or Instructions Per Second. The higher the IPS the faster the chip is perceived to be to the end user.

To increase the perceived performance of the chip you can do one of three things...
1. Increase IPC while keeping the clock rate the same.
2. Increase the clock rate while keeping IPC the same.
3. Increase both.

If AMD can improve upon both Ryzen's IPC and the clock rate it will dramatically increase the perceived performance of the processor. I figure that until Ryzen is fab'ed on the 7nm process node that Global Foundries was talking about a couple of days ago higher clock rates on Ryzen won't be possible.

bugYou're almost right.

Computing power for one core = IPCxClock speed. When the IPC is roughly the same, it's the clock speed that makes the difference, when clock speed is roughly the same, then it's up to IPC.

On the other hand, both Intel and AMD are overkill for office needs and web browsing. Gaming leans a bit towards Intel. More heavily threaded (but also more specialized apps) lean a bit towards AMD. I'd hate to be forced to upgrade my CPU this year :D

100% disagree with both are overkill. The difference in web browsing and any single thread limited program is very tangible if you remove all fixed animation bloat. My 4.8GHz 6700K is substantially faster than my 1650v3 in day to day takes which is why I stick with 4 cores for main desktop.

You should read this and educate yourself because this has been know since 1982.
jlelliotton.blogspot.com/p/the-economic-value-of-rapid-response.html

Also any game that is single thread is still CPU limted, Planetside 2, Ware Thunder, Natural Selection 2, Star WArs Empire at War, RCT3, Total War, and the list is basically 99% of all games are still single thread limited. HL2, CS Source in some cases though a 4.8GHz 6700K has just barely keeps it from dipping now.

All the above even a 4.8GHz 6700K is cpu limited. Some are just barely limited like Source. War Thunder is limited a little bit. NS2 and the res are still very much CPU bottleneck.

This is gaming at 120hz and minimum frame drop on ULMB is awful.

I really want to get a 5.2 GHz Kaby and phase change it to 5.5-5.7GHz :/

but money....

trparkyClocking Ryzen higher would help narrow the IPS gap, or at least make it less noticeable in single threaded tasks.

IPS = Instructions per Second

Id try not making up new acronyms....lol!

Being more serious, by the time they can ramp up clocks on Zen2 and the new fab, intel is going to have something new out too...

EarthDogId try not making up new acronyms....lol!

Being more serious, by the time they can ramp up clocks on Zen2 and the new fab, intel is going to have something new out too...

biggest advantage intel has is the fact their CPUs and cores are not MCM (?) unless your getting to the much larger CPUs. They use a much faster interconnect or are one big blob of cores.

So intel has the mainstream users and work stations and niche highend locked but affordable rendering and server space AMD is going to kill Intels market share.

EarthDogby the time they can ramp up clocks on Zen2 and the new fab, intel is going to have something new out too...

No doubt but there would be less of a gap knowing Intel's recent "lets throw them a bone" strategy.