Intel's Core i3-7350K to Reportedly be Absent From Initial Kaby Lake Launch

[dalekdukesboy]

Your "flip side" proves my point, I could go back to even older or even newer lower end intel hardware and make the point it won't bottleneck any game with any high end card or cards and literally can still be within striking range of a brand new x99 system with any 6-10 core processor...what is your point? I can buy and overclock a good ivy bridge and your 25% will be zero or less in most situations. Isn't that kinda sad for 6 year old hardware? Should be 75% slower or more being over a half decade old.

 

[EarthDog]

The flip side, was AMD. AMD CPUs do bottleneck modern high end GPUs. Intel's will not starting around SB/IB. But X58 chips do hold back high end GPUs. Benchmarks all over that place.

 

[GoldenX]

Too expensive for a dual core.

 

[dalekdukesboy]

The flip side, was AMD. AMD CPUs do bottleneck modern high end GPUs. Intel's will not starting around SB/IB. But X58 chips do hold back high end GPUs. Benchmarks all over that place.

Exactly, you have to go all the way back to x58 and that is ancient and even that I bet if you get a good enough system overclocked the bottleneck on the best GPU and intensive game is fairly minimal.

Too expensive for a dual core.

Exactly, my whole point with all of this is how ridiculous this all is. If I want a dual core I could use a core 2 duo and probably not be that far behind this lol.

 

[Blueberries]

Your "flip side" proves my point, I could go back to even older or even newer lower end intel hardware and make the point it won't bottleneck any game with any high end card or cards and literally can still be within striking range of a brand new x99 system with any 6-10 core processor...what is your point? I can buy and overclock a good ivy bridge and your 25% will be zero or less in most situations. Isn't that kinda sad for 6 year old hardware? Should be 75% slower or more being over a half decade old.

Yes, you can buy and overclock an Ivy Bridge... but then you need to compare it to a 6700k, in which case it still loses by 25%. They've also made improvements in die size and power usage.

You're just talking out of your butt, honestly. Looking at video game benchmarks to determine CPU ability is equally stupid, why would you release a video game that modern CPUs can't handle? PC Games only made up 32% of video game revenue in 2016 (the rest being tablets, smart phones, and consoles), and it's much much much more likely that poor optimization, memory leaks, or just poor programming would cause a CPU bottleneck than an actual need for GPU-queuing.

8C/16T CPUs were never intended for video games. The only (sensible) reason that higher end CPUs have ever been used for video gaming PCs is the exaggerated PCI-e lanes, which is no longer an issue with modern GPUs.

Exactly, my whole point with all of this is how ridiculous this all is. If I want a dual core I could use a core 2 duo and probably not be that far behind this lol.

Only about 200% slower.

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core2-Duo-E8400-vs-Intel-Core-i3-6100/2720vs3511

 

[dalekdukesboy]

I will and can point to my statements and yours and show who's seriously talking out his butt, however I will concede the floor to others' who I hope will see the major errors of your statements in the sense that...well yeah. That core 2 duo thing, kinda a joke to make my point, and you actually took my throw away line of a now over 10 year old platform and compared it to a modern day 2 core cpu and think by even comparing them you help your case? Come on man, also unless you think 60-120 % exaggeration of the differences in scores is statistically irrelevant, yeah either reading comprehension is not your thing or basic math isn't. Yes in some tests it scores over 200% however you don't get to just cherry pick and when you factor in 4 cores (2 virtual) versus 2 cores yeah honestly it does better than I'd expect for decade old hardware.

 

[Sempron Guy]

i didnt say it was a good call at launch, but it'll drop over time. plenty of people exclusively play DX9 games on modern hardware (LoL, Dota2, SCII, etc) and a super clocked dual core like these would be ideal (if the price is good)

I bet that "plenty of people" will buy and not even bother overclock it. Heck they wouldn't even know it's overclockable. Those people will think, hey it has a "k" on it, it must be dang good regardless of price. And the intel marketing team will be applauded for another successful marketing scam as always.

 

[EarthDog]

Well, it does have higher clocks, by a couple hundred mhz, over the next, and locked, i3...

 

[Blueberries]

I will and can point to my statements and yours and show who's seriously talking out his butt, however I will concede the floor to others' who I hope will see the major errors of your statements in the sense that...well yeah. That core 2 duo thing, kinda a joke to make my point, and you actually took my throw away line of a now over 10 year old platform and compared it to a modern day 2 core cpu and think by even comparing them you help your case? Come on man, also unless you think 60-120 % exaggeration of the differences in scores is statistically irrelevant, yeah either reading comprehension is not your thing or basic math isn't. Yes in some tests it scores over 200% however you don't get to just cherry pick and when you factor in 4 cores (2 virtual) versus 2 cores yeah honestly it does better than I'd expect for decade old hardware.

CPU design / throughput and video game design / performance are mutually exclusive, the sooner you realize that the more my "major errors" will make sense to you.

"I'm still using this phone, my signal strength is the same! iPhone 7s are a waste of money!"

 

[dalekdukesboy]

CPU design / throughput and video game design / performance are mutually exclusive, the sooner you realize that the more my "major errors" will make sense to you.

"I'm still using this phone, my signal strength is the same! iPhone 7s are a waste of money!"

You may as well start comparing the cord on my cpu vs. yours it's almost as relevant as this idiotic "signal strength" argument. Jokes are only funny when they rely on some basis of intelligent analysis that is relevant to what is being spoken about.

You address nothing I say just continue with exaggeration and a terribly flawed analogy with about the first ever cell phone ever comparing it to the iphone 7 referencing only signal strength vs actual device performance (obviously what I'm talking about with CPU's and platforms). The more ridiculous your analogies and less you address anything I say directly simply tells me you can't debate anything with substance, just bad analogies and generalizations. The fact that you even wasted the ten seconds to compare an e8400 and a 2017 dual core Intel chip and then misrepresent the numbers is even more sad. Also your other cpu comparisons were woefully wrong but I won't embarrass you further.

I have a suggestion for you...your screenname should NOT be blueberries it should be "blowing raspberries"...

 

[Blueberries]

Signal Strength is to Cell phone performance
as much as
Video game FPS is to CPU performance

I used the cell phone rhetoric because it's literally what your posts sound like. If you use your computer as the equivalent of a PlayStation, yes of course you won't notice a difference, but nowhere in Intel's strategy are they designing processors with the intention of you getting higher FPS in Crysis. They ARE significantly better, both in throughput and efficiency.

 

[dalekdukesboy]

No kidding. No, it's because you choose to pick "video game" out of one thing I said and run with it, and disregard the rest. I correctly state you badly misstate the performance metrics AND I never mentioned efficiency did I? And incorrect entirely, you can't even make the signal strength vs video game reference work especially if you factor in many new games that do take use of multiple cores etc. By even mentioning Crysis you date yourself as well as make inferences to points I never made, your points and relevance are....mutually exclusive.

 

[Blueberries]

No kidding. No, it's because you choose to pick "video game" out of one thing I said and run with it, and disregard the rest.

???

I could go back to even older or even newer lower end intel hardware and make the point it won't bottleneck any game with any high end card or cards and literally can still be within striking range of a brand new x99 system with any 6-10 core processor...what is your point? I can buy and overclock a good ivy bridge and your 25% will be zero or less in most situations. Isn't that kinda sad for 6 year old hardware? Should be 75% slower or more being over a half decade old.

Exactly, you have to go all the way back to x58 and that is ancient and even that I bet if you get a good enough system overclocked the bottleneck on the best GPU and intensive game is fairly minimal.

I could use a core 2 duo and probably not be that far behind this lol.

 

[dj-electric]

lol!! (I was entertained with that thread! lol)


" expected to carry a base clock of 4 GHz, with 5 GHz on air being the expected OC potential of the chips."

@Dj-ElectriC will not be pleased... Next time, you must remember-- pretty please with a cherry on top

Here i wouldn't say that. I... i kinda know first hand. shh

 

[dalekdukesboy]

Ok, I was going to say yes I talked of video games but that wasn't it, was it? No. Smh. Then when I specifically talked about all your inflated numbers and performance metrics etc I thought it was fairly obvious I wasn't talking just "crysis"? Perhaps not, thanks for quoting me on only 2 things and thinking that somehow changes everything else I said though.

 

[dalekdukesboy]

Also, I started by saying I just wanted AMD to come up with a good product generally to stimulate the market with competition because for several years the improvements are minimal. Yes I realize I just made the point later about video games (ironically that I never play any more) but once I left that realm of conversation and spoke of general performance you were having none of it, like a good liberal news reporter....you just get your template and run with it regardless of what someone tries to say off the topic of your template. I will reiterate to make it clearer, there is nowhere near enough progress between x79 and x99 and over a half a decade of time thanks to stagnation in competition and the fact you still have to fork out 400$ or so for a 4960x kind of proves my point. If a processor almost 4 years old can sell for 400 dollars in a defunct socket and as a defunct CPU it is pretty obvious it has too much value and relevance thanks to such little technological advancement.

 

[Blueberries]

Also, I started by saying I just wanted AMD to come up with a good product generally to stimulate the market with competition because for several years the improvements are minimal. Yes I realize I just made the point later about video games (ironically that I never play any more) but once I left that realm of conversation and spoke of general performance you were having none of it, like a good liberal news reporter....you just get your template and run with it regardless of what someone tries to say off the topic of your template. I will reiterate to make it clearer, there is nowhere near enough progress between x79 and x99 and over a half a decade of time thanks to stagnation in competition and the fact you still have to fork out 400$ or so for a 4960x kind of proves my point. If a processor almost 4 years old can sell for 400 dollars in a defunct socket and as a defunct CPU it is pretty obvious it has too much value and relevance thanks to such little technological advancement.

 

[dalekdukesboy]

When the best you can do is devolve to the point of posting really dumb memes...I know I've obviously won thank you.

 

[Ubersonic]

Intel: Remember those i3 500 chips we made? The ones that could overclock 1-1.5GHz above their base clock with ease?
Shareholder: Yup
Intel: We're releasing some new ones, at twice the price, because "lol".
Shareholder: Nice