they talking IPC or just 40% more cores?

TheLaughingManI 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 $#^&.



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.

Battlefield 4, a game released on 2013 (4 years old), used more than 4 cores/threads. In that time people came up saying that´s the future, "games are starting to use more cores". Still 2017 and most of them actually don´t. It depends on the engine and the type of game. A good 4,5ghz clocked 4c/8t CPU will rape any game you throw at it for a long time. Sure 6 core CPU will be better on some rare cases, but I would never say that it is the "sweet spot". Look at 7700k performance on any game. And let me tell you this right now, when 8700k vs 7700k comparasions arrive, you will see most games run as good on one cpu vs the other, at the same clocks and ram speeds, unless Intel bumped the IPC a lot (wich I highly doubt).

Yeah, especially if your are gaming on a 2K or bigger resolution, any i7 from 2600K have almost identical performance. Pfff. And considering that the freqs of 8700K will be significantly lower than of the 7700K.... I really have a bad feeling about this CPU in games.

Prima.VeraAnd considering that the freqs of 8700K will be significantly lower than of the 7700K....

The 8700k will have higher clocks based on whats been posted so far.

News link from TPU

4.7 GHz 1 core turbo clocks should give it a slight boost in rendering games compared to the 7700k's 4.5 GHz. Also the four core turbo speeds are the same @ 4.4GHz.

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

Intel are more interested in screwing people over than actually making a better product, even there slides on Intel v's AMD are so darn lame.

Tell ya what all that money they used to screw other company's over with heavy pay offs they could of made a better product.

Now they bringing all kinds of crap out all over the place as they are panicking due to a company who they been putting down for such a long time and come up with some thing that's kicked them in the teeth.

I see this is more to stop people from buying AMD, don't believe it until i see solid proof. And even then why would some one want to back a company who does not want to progress and only drag it's feet.

Anyways, maybe Intel has finally got some thing decent out soon but still kinda feels rushed, will have to see i guess.


My current 3770k's are just fine for me, not games out there wanting more so i just watching the fireworks.

Well I need an 8+ core cpu badly, but still need to game on it. If this has 8-16 core versions with quad channel ram and that ipc increase with 4.5ghz clocks+.... sign me up!

This news reads more like after years of domination Intel has competition and has decided to give us a real upgrade instead of milking us incrementally less.

To make it even worse for Intel, looks like Vega was meant more for APU "ravenridge" to compete with Intel and thier mobile market. I don't think it was ever obviously meant to compete as as a GPU.

www.techpowerup.com/236312/zen-meeting-vega-in-amd-raven-ridge-apu-confirmed

So the question you have to ask yourself, next upgrade do you stay with Intel or thank the competition by switching?

Let Intel feel a chunk out of thier sales on both fronts, maybe next upgrade is 50% the following year. :D

No, they were going to introduce 6-core mainstream anyway. It was meant as a test for the 10nm Ice-lake which will reduce the die size to 40-50% of its 14nm counterpart. And they cant cool the damn thing as it is too small for the cooler to make good contact.

Power SlaveThis news reads more like after years of domination Intel has competition and has decided to give us a real upgrade instead of milking us incrementally less.

To make it even worse for Intel, looks like Vega was meant more for APU "ravenridge" to compete with Intel and thier mobile market. I don't think it was ever obviously meant to compete as as a GPU.

www.techpowerup.com/236312/zen-meeting-vega-in-amd-raven-ridge-apu-confirmed

So the question you have to ask yourself, next upgrade do you stay with Intel or thank the competition by switching?

Let Intel feel a chunk out of thier sales on both fronts, maybe next upgrade is 50% the following year. :D

I have just gotta chime in here that CoffeeLake (With 6 cores) has been on Intel's internal roadmap for 2 years now, look up the leaks. It was supposed to come out early 2018, so all AMD "did" is force Intel to rush the launch up a quarter or 2. You can't just pull a new arch out of your ass.

Intel doesn't compete with AMD. It competes with itself. When AMD has marketshare that's worth mentioning then maybe Intel will compete with them. But these have been in development for probably 2-3 years. Whatever AMD did in that time is irrelevant. You can't just up and release a new architecture because you want to. Even from a design perspective it takes close to a year to get these things worked out, not to mention 9-12 months or more to get it production ready.

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

Was Intel offering 6 cores in mainstream segment before ? Did you see 6 core CPU under $400 before Ryzen.

Ryzen is struggling to go beyond 4 GHZ on air so its obvious AMD is going to try improve their CPU frequency.

EDIT: Removed some stupid rude sentences.

jigar2speedWhy do you act dumb ? Was Intel offering 6 cores in mainstream segment before ? Did you see 6 core CPU under $400 before Ryzen. Is there a special competition to act dumb that we are not aware of ?

Phenom II X6. Launched at $200-300 MSRP in 2010.

xenocidePhenom II X6. Launched at $200-300 MSRP in 2010.

And they were bloody brilliant chips.

cdawallAnd they were bloody brilliant chips.

AMD really should have worked on refining the Phenom line rather than whatever the hell they hoped to achieve with Bulldozer. I almost bought one back in the day, but then Sandy Bridge came out and it seemed like the best option.

Am I drunk, or did I just read some replies of people complaining about having too high of a core count for people doing small tasks? So what if someone has a 6 core cpu and only plays around in office? The point is we are finally getting true quad cores and above in lower price brackets due to competition. This is a great win for consumers no matter what. If they are giving me more for the same price; I say roll those babies down the line, because papa wants some new cores.

If Intel can really pull out a 20% increase IPC for this upcoming generation. That is pretty good.

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.

Pretty much.

yogurt_21they talking IPC or just 40% more cores?

40% is the more cores argument mixed with the IPC increase.

qubitIt'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.

Well even if we just assume a safe base 10% increase per generation from Sandy bridge - Coffee Lake, that would be roughly 1.7 times as powerful clock for clock just at a base level with rough calculations. Then include the extra cores, better tech on the motherboard and cpu, improved ram, and you end up with a chip that would be a significant upgrade. In gaming I still would say except when doing high FPS scenarios, it would not be much of a difference. However you said you do so I would go for it in your shoes. I know I am not showing evidence but just based off what we know so far I think its a worth while upgrade since that chip is so old now.

Manu_PTBattlefield 4, a game released on 2013 (4 years old), used more than 4 cores/threads. In that time people came up saying that´s the future, "games are starting to use more cores". Still 2017 and most of them actually don´t. It depends on the engine and the type of game. A good 4,5ghz clocked 4c/8t CPU will rape any game you throw at it for a long time. Sure 6 core CPU will be better on some rare cases, but I would never say that it is the "sweet spot". Look at 7700k performance on any game. And let me tell you this right now, when 8700k vs 7700k comparasions arrive, you will see most games run as good on one cpu vs the other, at the same clocks and ram speeds, unless Intel bumped the IPC a lot (wich I highly doubt).

Thank you for agreeing.

jigar2speedWas Intel offering 6 cores in mainstream segment before ? Did you see 6 core CPU under $400 before Ryzen.

Ryzen is struggling to go beyond 4 GHZ on air so its obvious AMD is going to try improve their CPU frequency.

EDIT: Removed some stupid rude sentences.

As someone already pointed out, Intel hexacore on mainstream was already on roadmap at least several months prior to RyZen release. The original statement that one company pushed another to a specific action isn't conclusive, but is being thrown around repeatedly on the interwebs these days.

You take my question to imply bias where none was intended and instead was meant to point out the partiality towards AMD in the statement.

qubitBeen 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..

You could do an easy 4.2 GHz overclock, which is mild, get improved performance, and still be ultra reliable, since you likely wouldn't need to up your voltage much, if even at all.

Or just overclock it, run the single damn bench, and put it back to stock. 15 mins tops. :)

Weve got a thread at ocf on these chips.. a 4.5ghz for dummies. Set 1.3v multi at 45... go. Works? Great! Bench. Doesnt? Add .05v and try again.
www.overclockers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=693613

GhostRyderWell even if we just assume a safe base 10% increase per generation from Sandy bridge - Coffee Lake, that would be roughly 1.7 times as powerful clock for clock just at a base level with rough calculations. Then include the extra cores, better tech on the motherboard and cpu, improved ram, and you end up with a chip that would be a significant upgrade. In gaming I still would say except when doing high FPS scenarios, it would not be much of a difference. However you said you do so I would go for it in your shoes. I know I am not showing evidence but just based off what we know so far I think its a worth while upgrade since that chip is so old now.

Hey thanks, that's really helpful. :toast: In ballparky figures that seems about right to me and worth that upgrade. afaik, this is a direct response to the increased competition from Ryzen, which is great.

@rtwjunkie @EarthDog Ya, I'll overclock it, but when I feel ready to do it. The thing boosts to 3.9GHz out of the box anyway, so agreed it wouldn't need much voltage increase for 4.2, if at all. 4.5 it can also do really easily, probably with a slight voltage bump, too. I remember having it at 4.7 for quite some time as a sweet spot between speed and heat output and I could really feel it, even on the desktop.

So again, I'll get to it, but let me get round to it when I feel ready to do so please.

EarthDogOr just overclock it, run the single damn bench, and put it back to stock. 15 mins tops. :)

Weve got a thread at ocf on these chips.. a 4.5ghz for dummies. Set 1.3v multi at 45... go. Works? Great! Bench. Doesnt? Add .05v and try again.
www.overclockers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=693613

I was planning on OCing my 2500k soon and this definitely helps. Thanks.

they say it before every launch

dorsetknobI'm considering upgrading after Intel bring Finallake to market

Gonna milk your processor till 2042?