And GPU's aren't bought for long term? That's interesting - even more when you think about the price difference.
In a well balanced gaming rig the GPU is usually twice as expensive as CPU, isn't it?
GPUs are bought for 1-4 years, depends heavily on the user, while CPUs are usually bought for much longer.
It's fine as long as you're guessing - not deducing from personal experience.
Trying to sound smart isn't the same as really being smart, you know?
Like most, I'm not overly happy with Intel CPU performance. They could have left i7 as a HEDT part and give us a 4C/8T i5 at a lower price point.
They will maybe do that, after Ryzen gave them some competition - the same Ryzen you hate so much.
Looking at Ryzen - the performance is great and it's clearly more affordable than Intel (as usual). But everything else is meh, IMO. Putting raw performance aside, there's nothing in Ryzen platform that I'd find more attractive than Intel's counterpart.
Suddenly you accept Ryzen has great performance - but then again you try to talk down Ryzen with strange statements like "raw performance aside...". Too bad that raw performance is the main thing. Let me give you an example for that: I use a platform right now (X79) that has not much else than "raw performance". It does not have USB 3.1, not many 3.0, not many SATA 3.0, no NVME, no DDR4 ... etc. you get the idea. Performance is utterly important. No sense in talking it down.
And when new generations arrive, your CPU will no longer have the performance advantage. You're left with just the meh stuff.
"My" CPU? I don't own a Ryzen and I'm not planning on buying one atm either, yet I'm very much interested in it and its success because it's simply important for me as a user and for the market. You also sound like a Intel fanboy here, very much so. For once, try to see the positivity in Ryzen and don't try to talk it down all the time. You take this way too personal anyway.
Actually someone here unwillingly gave me a very good analogy (in the RX580 thread he said that no one buys a Corvette to complain about fuel consumption).
To me Ryzen has an appearance of a muscle-car. It's very striking, it has great power and attractive price. But it's not a car for everyone. Most people end up buying sophisticated german high-end saloons or sensible hatchbacks. And just like I could not own a Corvette, I'm just not attracted at all by the whole Ryzen "encasement".
Comparing Ryzen to a RX 580 or a Corvette is just bad, because Ryzen is still more efficient than Intel's stuff. Did you even read a single review about Ryzen, or why are you making such boldly wrong statements?
And you are trying to persuade me that Ryzen is better in every way, aren't you?
No I'm not. Actually I only recommended Ryzen to users that are in need for more than just gaming, I recommended it to streamers and users who do more than just gaming. Atm I'm recommending i7 5820K or 6800K for highend gamers for example.
Oh you're so wrong about this. But it shows that you don't really get how powerful CPUs are used in general. Maybe it's because you're looking at it with a gamer's point of view.
But I guess we can forgive you that. AMD does the same mistake and they should've known better.
I'm not. Even the workstation only users would simply go and buy a discrete GPU if Intel would not gift them one. Intel just did this to counter AMDs APU line and - as I already said and you so boldly ignored - increase die space in an effort to still have a usable CPU.
Well... you're an AMD user, so you tell me. Don't you want to know how Ryzen performs compared to your CPU? How will you decide whether replacing your system is worth it?
There's a system spec button right under my name, did you care to check it before you made false assumptions like "you're an AMD user"?
My last AMD CPU was a Phenom II 940 and that was over 3 1/2 years ago. And your question: ofc I do, that's why I'm better informed on it than you!
So if 8 cores or more are the future, why is AMD selling 4-6 core CPUs?
I thought I already said that? They need to sell defective CPUs, the DIE of 4-6 core Ryzen is the same as the 8 Core ones. Also not everyone wants a 8 core or needs a 8 core. Same with 6 cores. 4 Cores is still the sweetspot for a mainstream user. 6-8 is more enthusiast-like or for more than just gaming oriented.
As for the 10-year-old lifespan: I have a CPU from 2009 (bought in June, 2010). Honestly, I'd replace it years ago if I didn't have a good notebook provided by my company. And it's not even about performance. It's simply an old platform: old RAM, old interfaces, old drivers. The mobo doesn't work with modern GPU, it uses DDR2, has hardly any support for SSD, no USB 3.0 etc. For some reason I couldn't install W10 (even though it's working well on an even older laptop). It's very hard to upgrade. So when you're telling me that I could use Ryzen for 10 years - you're most likely right. But will I accept all the drawbacks of having a 10-y-o PC? I doubt that. Not in a main PC I use for everyday tasks - maybe in a home server or something (but again... as Ryzen lacks IGP, it's not the ideal choice).
That's why I said "up to 10 years" or "5-10 years". I didn't say it's optimal to do something like that, I never did it myself. The longest I had a CPU was 5 years. That is, as an active gamer who plays AAA games and needs constant upgrades to be able to do that. Still, it doesn't change my point, the point was, a CPU is for longterm usage (nowadays), more than anything else in a PC.
