ranker.sisoftware.co.uk/show_run.php?q=c2ffcfe988e9d4ecd8eedaeadef88ab787a1c4a19cac8af9c4fc&l=en

10700KF, 9900K+ performance.

New Intel CPU; new socket; new motherboard required - why am I not surprised....

ChosenNameNew Intel CPU; new socket; new motherboard required - why am I not surprised....

Honestly, after 4 years of Socket 1151 I wouldn't be that bummed out about a new socket, if it weren't for the fact Intel intentionally fucked over users by claiming they couldn't use newer gen CPUs in older 1151 boards.... only for it to then be proven that there was no reason for them to do so and that with some hackery, you can run those CPUs just fine in those boards.

GlacierNineHonestly, after 4 years of Socket 1151 I wouldn't be that bummed out about a new socket, if it weren't for the fact Intel intentionally fucked over users by claiming they couldn't use newer gen CPUs in older 1151 boards.... only for it to then be proven that there was no reason for them to do so and that with some hackery, you can run those CPUs just fine in those boards.

Bingo ! hence my X570 / Ryzen 3950X setup.

GlacierNineHonestly, after 4 years of Socket 1151 I wouldn't be that bummed out about a new socket, if it weren't for the fact Intel intentionally fucked over users by claiming they couldn't use newer gen CPUs in older 1151 boards.... only for it to then be proven that there was no reason for them to do so and that with some hackery, you can run those CPUs just fine in those boards.

Another way to look at it, is that if you need to replace your CPU within 4 years, you didn't really look around quite well the first time and bought the wrong product :) There was indeed a very rare occasion post Skylake when Intel announced the first 6 cores and Ryzen offered 8c16t while everyone was stuck with quads... but before that and with the current core count war kinda stabilizing on MSDT (huge range of options) its not hard to buy the right CPU right away and be set for 5-7 years easy.

And even 4 years to put a 2nd CPU on the same board is quite a long time. Your feature set will be outdated. And.... even AMD is forced to revise the socket every once in a while. All things considered, the target market for same board CPU replacements is extremely small.

For me personally it has honestly never been a consideration, Not once. CPUs should last 5 years minimum IMO (and still be able to get along fine on everything). Especially in this day and age of failing Moore's Law.

Vayra86Another way to look at it, is that if you need to replace your CPU within 4 years, you didn't really look around quite well the first time and bought the wrong product :) There was indeed a very rare occasion post Skylake when Intel announced the first 6 cores and Ryzen offered 8c16t while everyone was stuck with quads... but before that and with the current core count war kinda stabilizing on MSDT (huge range of options) its not hard to buy the right CPU right away and be set for 5-7 years easy.

And even 4 years to put a 2nd CPU on the same board is quite a long time. Your feature set will be outdated. And.... even AMD is forced to revise the socket every once in a while. All things considered, the target market for same board CPU replacements is extremely small.

For me personally it has honestly never been a consideration, Not once.

The fact AMD have gone 3 generations and will go for 4 before their stuff isn't BC, shows that they designed an architecture that had plenty of room to grow without the need for a change in anything so fundamental that it required a platform change. Intel have proven exactly the same thing while denying enthusiasts the opportunity to upgrade at every possible opportunity - there are Z170 boards that will, with a hacked BIOS, run a 9th gen chip just fine. Intel could absolutely have allowed motherboard manufacturers to release 9th Gen BIOSes for Z170 boards that had sufficient power delivery (Which is a lot of boards).

The fact we *can* do that but Intel won't *allow* us to do that doesn't show anything except that Intel wants to force chipset upgrades as well as CPU upgrades in order to abuse consumers.

Put another way - why would you ever want to make excuses for the fact consumers who bought good quality motherboards, that can totally support an 8 core 5GHz CPU on both an architecture and an electrical level... can't install one? What justification is there for locking that away from people when you **literally don't have to** ?

GlacierNineThe fact AMD have gone 3 generations and will go for 4 before their stuff isn't BC, shows that they designed an architecture that had plenty of room to grow without the need for a change in anything so fundamental that it required a platform change. Intel have proven exactly the same thing while denying enthusiasts the opportunity to upgrade at every possible opportunity - there are Z170 boards that will, with a hacked BIOS, run a 9th gen chip just fine. Intel could absolutely have allowed motherboard manufacturers to release 9th Gen BIOSes for Z170 boards that had sufficient power delivery (Which is a lot of boards).

The fact we *can* do that but Intel won't *allow* us to do that doesn't show anything except that Intel wants to force chipset upgrades as well as CPU upgrades in order to abuse consumers.

Put another way - why would you ever want to make excuses for the fact consumers who bought good quality motherboards, that can totally support an 8 core 5GHz CPU on both an architecture and an electrical level... can't install one? What justification is there for locking that away from people when you **literally don't have to** ?

Its not so much an excuse as it is an economical consideration. I mean yes, it CAN be an advantage to be able to upgrade on same board, I'm not denying that.

But consider Intel. It sees the numbers and the average life time of a CPU in the market. The incentive for them to deliver a platform that can last multiple gens is really not there. Quite the opposite. They can feed board makers with new sales every gen, it makes for happy partners. It also means the support cycle per board is probably shorter and simpler. Why not make that profit despite the few % of the market that doesn't fancy it? ... and then still buys an Intel CPU regardless?

Now consider the typical customer. If a USP does not apply to him, why would he care? That is what I am saying from a personal standpoint. I don't care, because my upgrade cycle warrants a new board anyway.

Another retarded idiotic i-wanna-hate topic where people are blaming Intel for the fact that they have so much money to burn they need to replace their CPUs each year for measly improvements in performance. Why do you do that? Why?? My previous CPU was Intel Core i5 2500. I replaced it 9.5 years after the purchase and could run it even longer but I actually needed more RAM than the platform supported (32GB). And even though I'm now rocking Ryzen 7 3700X I cannot say my system has become substantially faster - most day-to-day tasks run at the seemingly equal speed. The tasks which need/use a lot of cores of course run up to three times faster - no doubt about that.

AMD indeed designed the AM4 socket from the get go to to support many-core CPUs. Also, AMD kinda was the first to merge mainstream and HEDT in order to win customers.

Intel wasn't so forward-looking. Meanwhile Intel has had enterprise sockets which last for years which people kinda sorta completely overlook.

So, again, why are you so concerned that Intel introduces new sockets each year? Actually it's not been true for ages: LGA 1151 was introduced over four years ago (August 2015)! And then the Z370 chipset was released in October 2017 (!) and it supports all Coffee Lake CPUs. This kinda sorta looks like over 2.5 years of CPUs compatibility - so whoever says that Intel releases new sockets each year is lying through his teeth.

birdieAnother retarded idiotic i-wanna-hate topic where people are blaming Intel for the fact that they have so much money to burn they need to replace their CPUs each year for measly improvements in performance. Why do you do that? Why?? My previous CPU was Intel Core i5 2500. I replaced it 9.5 years after the purchase and could run it even longer but I actually needed more RAM than the platform supported (32GB). And even though I'm now rocking Ryzen 7 3700X I cannot say my system has become substantially faster - most day-to-day tasks run at the seemingly equal speed. The tasks which need/use a lot of cores of course run up to three times faster - no doubt about that.

AMD indeed designed the AM4 socket from the get go to to support many-core CPUs. Also, AMD kinda was the first to merge mainstream and HEDT in order to win customers.

Intel wasn't so forward-looking. Meanwhile Intel has had enterprise sockets which last for years which people kinda sorta completely overlook.

So, again, why are you so concerned that Intel introduces new sockets each year? Actually it's not been true for ages: LGA 1151 was introduced over four years ago (August 2015)! And then the Z370 chipset was released in October 2017 (!) and it supports all Coffee Lake CPUs. This kinda sorta looks like over 2.5 years of CPUs compatibility - so whoever says that Intel releases new sockets each year is lying through his teeth.

How is the gaming on your Ryzen 7 3700X compared to the old Core i5-2500?

ARFHow is the gaming on your Ryzen 7 3700X compared to the old Core i5-2500?

Minimal changes. I still have NVIDIA GTX 1060 which I bought almost four years ago which runs most games at 1080p perfectly (and ran them just fine with the Core i5 2500). Again, I don't have the money to burn to buy something like RTX 2080 Super/Ti. And I know for a fact that most people out there also have the same GPU, so all this craze about replacing CPU yearly is just it: a craze. And most tech websites are fueling this craze by running their GPU reviews with top of the line CPUs which most people cannot bloody afford.

birdieMinimal changes. I still have NVIDIA GTX 1060 which I bought almost four years ago which runs most games at 1080p perfectly (and ran them just fine with the Core i5 2500). Again, I don't have the money to burn to buy something like RTX 2080 Super/Ti. And I know for a fact that most people out there also have the same GPU, so all this craze about replacing CPU yearly is just it: a craze. And most tech websites are fueling this craze by running their GPU reviews with top of the line CPUs which most people cannot bloody afford.

Well, people mean that if you have, for example, an AM4 B350 board from 2017, with Ryzen 3 1300, you can upgrade it today with the Ryzen 9 3950X, and why not later the new Ryzen 4000 which are about later this year.

This is why future boards/CPU support is so important.
It's just a nice option to have. And better to have it than not to have it.
It keeps the platform alive for much much longer.

Imagine in 2025 how Ebay will be full with second hand awesome Ryzen 16-core and 12-core for cheapo and you would be able to keep your older B350 board still working.

Not to mention how environmentally friendly it is because it saves all the resources for manufacturing all the new components for a brand new build.

Win-win-win for everyone. Except the competition.

Even Intel had previously offered such upgrade paths, but they no longer do it.

"The incentive for them to deliver a platform that can last multiple gens is really not there."

That's well and good but to keep the same socket and lie that a new chipset is required when in fact it is not is crooked and dishonest.

People who buy Intel tend go keep it for years due to fast~fastest gaming performance. Having long term motherboard compatibility is pointless. Zen owners had to constantly upgrade just to keep up, which ends up costing more in the long run and still be slower than an Intel gaming build from 2017-2020. Skylake has to be one of the best CPU arch in history... I mean look at who’s still topping gaming charts despite all the performance nerf with security patches lol.

dicktracyPeople who buy Intel tend go keep it for years due to fast~fastest gaming performance. Having long term motherboard compatibility is pointless. Zen owners had to constantly upgrade just to keep up, which ends up costing more in the long run and still be slower than an Intel gaming build from 2017-2020. Skylake has to be one of the best CPU arch in history... I mean look at who’s still topping gaming charts despite all the performance nerf with security patches lol.

yet another one who thinks the 10 to 20 fps in a game @ 1080p is what adults are talking about here. Intel If I buy into your high end platform don't artificially cripple my upgrade path by adding a pin 1150 to 1151 or requiring a new chipset.

svan71yet another one who thinks the 10 to 20 fps in a game @ 1080p is what adults are talking about here. Intel If I buy into your high end platform don't artificially cripple my upgrade path by adding a pin 1150 to 1151 or requiring a new chipset.

Must be tough to swallow the fact that a 5 year old CPU arch is still in the lead in the only thing most DIY builders care about: PC gaming and not Cinebench.

champsilvaranker.sisoftware.co.uk/show_run.php?q=c2ffcfe988e9d4ecd8eedaeadef88ab787a1c4a19cac8af9c4fc&l=en

10700KF, 9900K+ performance.

And this is supposed to be a new product?
:shadedshu: :shadedshu: :shadedshu: :shadedshu: :shadedshu: :shadedshu: :shadedshu: :shadedshu: :shadedshu:

Not supposed to be new from the ground up, Supposed to sell. To introduce the 10 core flagship. Honesty they should have back ported willow cove Xe already. So 1 more year of waiting. Just to get the bad news again knowing that the real new socket 1700 is 3 years away.

Aren't G5900 and G5920 the ones for Celeron instead? Celeron is usually behind by 1 in first digit and second digit is always 9:

Celeron	Pentium (Gold)
Sky/Kaby	G39XX	G4XXX
Coffee	G49XX	G5XXX

Has the new price for the 10k Intel CPUs' been revealed ?

dicktracyMust be tough to swallow the fact that a 5 year old CPU arch is still in the lead in the only thing most DIY builders care about: PC gaming and not Cinebench.

Interesting comment - a 2 - 4% FPS lead (at 1080p) for Intel, while having a 10 - 20% price difference (9900k vs. 3900x) and also higher power consumption.
What most DIY builders look at is not the peak performance, but the costs vs benefits comparison.

If you're only interested in the max amount of FPS you're still not "most DIY builders", but a small sub-set of the same - a niche in a niche.
Nothing hard to swallow there when looking at the costs vs. benefits as Intel is not even close in that regards.

Not even starting to talk about feature differences in chipsets or the fact that most games are still heavily favouring Intel in relation to optimization and cannot deal with / utilize the amount of cores available.

dicktracyMust be tough to swallow the fact that a 5 year old CPU arch is still in the lead in the only thing most DIY builders care about: PC gaming and not Cinebench.

It isn't. Ryzen has higher IPC than Intel Core does, by about 4%. The only thing keeping Intel at the top of the increasingly small number of benchmarks it wins in, is the clockspeeds, and it's become increasingly obvious over time that they can only maintain those clockspeeds on 14nm, as their 10nm parts are comparitively low clocked.

dicktracyPeople who buy Intel tend go keep it for years due to fast~fastest gaming performance. Having long term motherboard compatibility is pointless. Zen owners had to constantly upgrade just to keep up, which ends up costing more in the long run and still be slower than an Intel gaming build from 2017-2020. Skylake has to be one of the best CPU arch in history... I mean look at who’s still topping gaming charts despite all the performance nerf with security patches lol.

That is just it indeed. Those who bought Ryzen 1st gen, probably did upgrade, and they knew beforehand they would. That is how the USP works and should work, too. Its not like it de facto applies to everybody else. And everybody else is probably a LOT smarter about his or her money buying an Intel CPU that still matches the current day Ryzen crop. The devaluation of 1st gen Ryzen is insane, its worse than a car.

Beyond that... how often do you get into that situation where you really want to keep upgrading on the same board? Back in the FX days it wasn't really useful because even if you did drop that 8 core in your budget board, you'd probably burn your VRM. After that... well there was just nothing. So all things considered... why on earth would we care, and why is Intel a bad guy for not offering something people barely use.

The Z170 ~ 370 affair... yeah agreed. That was weird, and Intel should have handled that differently. But I still don't care because I still believe that if you had the need to upgrade that every gen... you're doing it wrong. Basically, I don't understand why you'd feed CPU makers with a new purchase every gen, with the baby steps they offer. Its rewarding the wrong things really and even supports stagnation.

GlacierNineIt isn't. Ryzen has higher IPC than Intel Core does, by about 4%. The only thing keeping Intel at the top of the increasingly small number of benchmarks it wins in, is the clockspeeds, and it's become increasingly obvious over time that they can only maintain those clockspeeds on 14nm, as their 10nm parts are comparitively low clocked.

Irrelevant. The end performance is still as high, or higher, so it still makes for a relevant product. Over time, yes, if Intel won't do anything about it, Ryzen will surpass Intel even in the last bastion of high refresh or pure single core scenarios. But its 2020 now, already. Its safe to say AMD closed the gap and have surpassed Intel in multi thread scenarios, for sure though.

Vayra86But I still don't care because I still believe that if you had the need to upgrade that every gen... you're doing it wrong. Basically, I don't understand why you'd feed CPU makers with a new purchase every gen, with the baby steps they offer.

Its as if you intentionally don't get this.

With AM4 I could buy one motherboard in 2017 and go from 8 cores, 4GHz and 100% IPC to 16 cores, 4.5GHz, 115%IPC without buying a new board. And that's with there still being a generation of forward compat yet to come.

In Intel's case I SHOULD be able to go from 4.2GHz on 4 cores to 5GHz on 8 cores, no problem. The only reason I can't is because Intel didn't let motherboard vendors push BIOS updates to compatible motherboards.

That's not "buying every year", its not "buying the wrong product", and it's not "baby steps" - its more than doubling your computing performance and saving £150 in the process by not upgrading to a new motherboard that you dont need because it offers no compelling advantage in its own right.

And that's true even if you're comparing top end products, which means completely ignoring people who buy a midrange item due to finances at that time, with the intention of moving up the product stack a couple generations later.

You're in no position to tell anyone how to feel about Intel limiting their upgrade path solely to line their pockets with extra chipset sales. Especially when neither Intel nor AMDs last 3 chipsets have had any killer features that would make dropping a 3950X or 9900K into an X370 or Z170 board actually a bad thing for most users doing most tasks.

Especially since your argument rests entirely on the faulty premise that people want forward compatibility so they can buy *every year*, which is ridiculous, because people *have had* that much forward compatibility with Intel, - they're complaining that more was always possible, and should be given to consumers instead of consumers being artificially locked off from it due to a near-monopoly abusing it's position at the consumer's expense.

GlacierNineIts as if you intentionally don't get this.

With AM4 I could buy one motherboard in 2017 and go from 8 cores, 4GHz and 100% IPC to 16 cores, 4.5GHz, 115%IPC without buying a new board. And that's with there still being a generation of forward compat yet to come.

In Intel's case I SHOULD be able to go from 4.2GHz on 4 cores to 5GHz on 8 cores, no problem. The only reason I can't is because Intel didn't let motherboard vendors push BIOS updates to compatible motherboards.

That's not "buying every year", its not "buying the wrong product", and it's not "baby steps" - its more than doubling your computing performance and saving £150 in the process by not upgrading to a new motherboard that you dont need because it offers no compelling advantage in its own right.

And that's true even if you're comparing top end products, which means completely ignoring people who buy a midrange item due to finances at that time, with the intention of moving up the product stack a couple generations later.

You're in no position to tell anyone how to feel about Intel limiting their upgrade path solely to line their pockets with extra chipset sales. Especially when neither Intel nor AMDs last 3 chipsets have had any killer features that would make dropping a 3950X or 9900K into an X370 or Z170 board actually a bad thing for most users doing most tasks.

Especially since your argument rests entirely on the faulty premise that people want forward compatibility so they can buy *every year*, which is ridiculous, because people *have had* that much forward compatibility with Intel, - they're complaining that more was always possible, and should be given to consumers instead of consumers being artificially locked off from it due to a near-monopoly abusing it's position at the consumer's expense.

I'm not in a position to tell others how to feel about how Intel conducts its business. But I do know how I feel about it. And I don't care. And this goes for many many others. In the same vein, you are not the one telling me I should care either. This works both ways, no?

So yes, you could theoretically double your perf on the same board. But will you, and do you need it? I'm not saying NOBODY does it. I'm saying the percentage of the market that even considers it, is ridiculously small; too small obviously for Intel to care about. We will see if they start doing it now that they have competition...

It also means buying a pretty expensive board to begin with if you want the upgrade path. Not exactly the use case of that midrange buyer short on cash... You call it 'limiting an upgrade path'. I just don't see it that way, sorry. I'm not feeling limited at all and I don't see the advantage of same board CPU upgrades.

Its simple. If its not a baby step, you had a subpar CPU in the board to begin with and you should have waited. If it is a baby step, you're wasting money. If you need 8/16 today and think you need 16/32 two gens later... yeah...right. Again, this applies only to a very tiny minority.