Only because Ryzen forced their hand. They didn't increase core count through good will.

FordGT90ConceptOnly because Ryzen forced their hand. They didn't increase core count through good will.

So when RyZen+ clocks at 4.5GHz+, will you also say Intel forced AMD's hand or will that be out of good will?

mouacykSo when RyZen+ clocks at 4.5GHz+, will you also say Intel forced AMD's hand or will that be out of good will?

By end of life cycle current Ryzen will hit 4.5

@btarunr Let's assume that 40% improvement is accurate and not just marketing hype. How much faster would you hazard that the 8700K is than my old, trusty 2700K? I'm talking stock speeds here.

I'm asking, because it looks like this generation will finally be worth spending all that upgrade money for improved gaming performance. Note that I'm shooting for 120/144fps and more in the latest games and this old CPU can't always manage it now. Overclocking will help though, of course.

@W1zzard Assuming you review the 8700K, any chance of comparing it to a few older generations, especially Sandy Bridge?

FordGT90ConceptOnly because Ryzen forced their hand. They didn't increase core count through good will.

OR maybe AMD rushed out Ryzen because they saw this coming from Intel (roadmaps show this) and tried to undercut Intel with pricing. There were a lot of Ryzen motherboard issues and ram still being very iffy to get up to speed.

Look at the Vega launch, drivers not up to scratch, very high power consumption, heat and noise.

Threadripper, how is that going for AMD? There's how many motherboards out so far? There's 2! Yes 2 in stock on newegg.

There are 23 Intel X299 readily available to purchase on newegg and they call Skylake-X rushed.

"40% more performance*"

*in a single pre-selected benchmark that does not reflect real world usage, using a platform without the power/thermal limits of an ultrabook*.

Why not 50% it adds 50% of cache and core.
I guess +80% to sandy 2700K at equal clocks. 2500K here but waiting for Tiger lake. Not giving in to temptation yet.

ppnWhy not 50% it adds 50% of cache and core.
I guess +80% to sandy 2700K at equal clocks. 2500K here but waiting for Tiger lake. Not giving in to temptation yet.

If 50% more cores/threads and around 20% IPC increase isn't enough to tempt you from a 2500K, not sure what will. Keep waiting....

I'm ready for the core jump, if Coffee Lake games well with IPC. If not, then it's time to go up a step to 7820x. I really did wish RyZen would have come out swinging with 4.4GHz+ clocks.

So since the vast majority of performance is just an increase in core count, this is only true if they are going to displace their CPUs with new models with at least 2 more cores. And if that would be iffy if the i3 2C/4T get replaced by an "i3" with 4C/4T because the delta would drop in 15% due to the lost of hyper-threading.

So this is just marketing BS for people who don't pay attention.

TheLaughingManSo since the vast majority of performance is just an increase in core count, this is only true if they are going to displace their CPUs with new models with at least 2 more cores. And if that would be iffy if the i3 2C/4T get replaced by an "i3" with 4C/4T because the delta would drop in 15% due to the lost of hyper-threading.

So this is just marketing BS for people who don't pay attention.

If it's clockspeeds can match Kabylake's, they could be real-ish.

The question for me is power usage. This is the fourth generation on 14nm for Intel, and Skylake-X was a massive joke when it comes to efficiency (Or performance really). If the 8700K can actually use just 95w, I will be impressed. But I am expecting 125-150w when turboing all cores to 4.3GHz or higher.

That would make it only ok if it is priced at $299 imo.

qubit@btarunr Let's assume that 40% improvement is accurate and not just marketing hype. How much faster would you hazard that the 8700K is than my old, trusty 2700K? I'm talking stock speeds here.

I'm asking, because it looks like this generation will finally be worth spending all that upgrade money for improved gaming performance. Note that I'm shooting for 120/144fps and more in the latest games and this old CPU can't always manage it now. Overclocking will help though, of course.

@W1zzard Assuming you review the 8700K, any chance of comparing it to a few older generations, especially Sandy Bridge?

I think it would be safe to say its going to be much more powerful than the 2700k, but since most of that 40% because of the extra cores its not going to be night and day (At least in my opinion). Personally speaking, I would finally upgrade to one of the 6 core options if it was me. Though I bet you could get another couple years off that CPU easy as I can still game on Ultra setting with a i7 920 lol.

So actually going by Intel standards, Ryzen 7 offers 20-25% more performance than Intels top end mainstream offerings still due to be released... At a better perf/watt

Nice

qubit@btarunr Let's assume that 40% improvement is accurate and not just marketing hype. How much faster would you hazard that the 8700K is than my old, trusty 2700K? I'm talking stock speeds here.

I'm asking, because it looks like this generation will finally be worth spending all that upgrade money for improved gaming performance. Note that I'm shooting for 120/144fps and more in the latest games and this old CPU can't always manage it now. Overclocking will help though, of course.

@W1zzard Assuming you review the 8700K, any chance of comparing it to a few older generations, especially Sandy Bridge?

How would he know??? You can easily look up results which include SB all the way to KL and see what the performance difference is there. www.anandtech.com/show/10968/the-intel-core-i7-7700k-91w-review-the-new-stock-performance-champion/3

That said, we do not know what IPC increases will come from CL, so one has to assume, and can do so since history is on our side, that 40% is mostly/all over a core increase.

So, you still haven't taken the time to overclock your CPU yet? Please log out and proceed to Tom's :p. Being more serious, it really takes no time at all to do so and test again what was asked of you several weeks ago... we want to know... :)

GhostRyderI think it would be safe to say its going to be much more powerful than the 2700k, but since most of that 40% because of the extra cores its not going to be night and day (At least in my opinion). Personally speaking, I would finally upgrade to one of the 6 core options if it was me. Though I bet you could get another couple years off that CPU easy as I can still game on Ultra setting with a i7 920 lol.

It's true, my 2700K isn't dead in the water, nowhere near it. It's not quite good enough for really high frame rates any more sometimes, though. Far Cry 4 is a very good example. Luckily, I didn't like that game much, so stopped playing it anyway, but the issue is still there.

Even if it the 8700K was four cores only I'll bet it would still be significantly faster than mine, what between those incremental IPC improvements, faster clocks, faster RAM and probably more and faster cache. Would be nice to quantify it though as that can really help me to make up my mind.

EDIT

EarthDogHow would he know??? You can easily look up results which include SB all the way to KL and see what the performance difference is there. www.anandtech.com/show/10968/the-intel-core-i7-7700k-91w-review-the-new-stock-performance-champion/3

That said, we do not know what IPC increases will come from CL, so one has to assume, and can do so since history is on our side, that 40% is mostly/all over a core increase.

So, you still haven't taken the time to overclock your CPU yet? Please log out and proceed to Tom's :p. Being more serious, it really takes no time at all to do so and test again what was asked of you several weeks ago... we want to know... :)

Damn you, why'd you have to post while I was posting! :p

I was only asking him to hazard a guess. Thanks for the Anandtech link. No doubt it will be updated soon with the 8700K. And yeah, that core count does skew the claim somewhat, I'm aware of that.

Been thinking of that overclocking you're badgering me into. Just got so much sh*t on right now that's all and I need my PC to be ultra reliable. :ohwell: Also, that CPU heatsink needs a bit of a clean first...

btw, remember that thread I started ages ago about the blue screening on my main rig that got fixed? Still completely cured after moving to the Intel SATA controller. :) I think the SATA cable was a bit suspect too, so I changed it at the time and binned the suspect one.

Intel have announced that their 8th-gen CPU’s will be a massive 40% faster, when compared to 5 year older products for which Intel expect consumers to upgrade from.

qubitbtw, remember that thread I started ages ago about the blue screening on my main rig that got fixed? Still completely cured after moving to the Intel SATA controller. :) I think the SATA cable was a bit suspect too, so I changed it at the time and binned the suspect one.

EDITED........

you know, that was rude, what was post previously... I removed it.

I look forward to your testing there and digress in this thead. :)

EarthDogYou could literally be done in 15 mins, including overclocking. You used one jenky arse, low res, low setting benchmark. But, on the other hand, who can blame you for running tests which would bunk your previous work (as my tests showed).

...and knowing is half the battle... GO JOE! :p

You haven't discredited my testing.

It really widdled it down to a piece of information/dataset for that specific setting versus the blanket interpretation in the thread, which, nobody in their right mind uses those settings (low res no AA) with a 1080.

Again, sorry... not the time nor place. Done here on that front. Will be happy to hash it out via PM if you choose. :)

40% faster then and i quote "previous-generation" meaning faster then lets say i5 2500k :roll:

mouacykSo when RyZen+ clocks at 4.5GHz+, will you also say Intel forced AMD's hand or will that be out of good will?

No company advances out of good will alone. Of course competition drives innovation.

So frankly, yeah.

I'm considering upgrading after Intel bring Finallake to market

EarthDogEDITED........

you know, that was rude, what was post previously... I removed it.

I look forward to your testing there and digress in this thead. :)

EarthDogIt really widdled it down to a piece of information/dataset for that specific setting versus the blanket interpretation in the thread, which, nobody in their right mind uses those settings (low res no AA) with a 1080.

Again, sorry... not the time nor place. Done here on that front. Will be happy to hash it out via PM if you choose. :)

Oh go on then, pm me. :p Oh and we can double post like nobody's business!
Appreciated that public apology. :toast: No offence taken. :)

R-T-BNo company advances out of good will alone. Of course competition drives innovation.

So frankly, yeah.

To the original point, it isn't fair to claim that AMD forced Intel to up core count on the mainstream platform. Video editing is becoming more prevalent with an increasingly socialized consumer base making core count critical for editing and streaming. So not really sure what you're yeah'ing about...

"Video editing is becoming more prevalent"

Always question myself how people can come up with such assumptions... you know what´s prevalent? Using a computer for Office, Spotify, social media, movies, watching streams, league of legends, youtube, email. That´s prevalent. Don´t come and say everyone is suddenly interested in video editing, and even if they were, a 2c/4t can do basic video editing wich is what majority would be doing anyway.

Most of computer users don´t need 6 cores, not even 4c/8t. 2c/4t or 4c/4t is plenty for most computer users. Even 95% of the games only use 4 cores, and most of them don´t even stress an i5.

Now, are the 6 core handy? Well in some cases yes, but far from being essential for everyone. Don´t forget we reached a point where software didn´t evolve as hardware, that´s why a CPU with 6 years old can still deliver what you need.

Captain_TomIf it's clockspeeds can match Kabylake's, they could be real-ish.

The question for me is power usage. This is the fourth generation on 14nm for Intel, and Skylake-X was a massive joke when it comes to efficiency (Or performance really). If the 8700K can actually use just 95w, I will be impressed. But I am expecting 125-150w when turboing all cores to 4.3GHz or higher.

That would make it only ok if it is priced at $299 imo.

I am not saying the performance is not real. I am saying it is superficial. Its like saying the 7700K is XX% faster than the 7600K. Yeah, no $#^&.

Manu_PT"Video editing is becoming more prevalent"

Always question myself how people can come up with such assumptions... you know what´s prevalent? Using a computer for Office, Spotify, social media, movies, watching streams, league of legends, youtube, email. That´s prevalent. Don´t come and say everyone is suddenly interested in video editing, and even if they were, a 2c/4t can do basic video editing wich is what majority would be doing anyway.

Most of computer users don´t need 6 cores, not even 4c/8t. 2c/4t or 4c/4t is plenty for most computer users. Even 95% of the games only use 4 cores, and most of them don´t even stress an i5.

Now, are the 6 core handy? Well in some cases yes, but far from being essential for everyone. Don´t forget we reached a point where software didn´t evolve as hardware, that´s why a CPU with 6 years old can still deliver what you need.

And games are moving in that direction. While is it not required, we already have games that can and do benefit from more than 4C. And while extra threads due to hyper-threading is helpful, it doesn't match up to a reach core. Right now I personally think 6C/12T is the sweet spot for the next few years of gaming.