• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Intel to Debut 8th Generation Core Family on August 21

R-T-B said:
Well no shit, you are talking 6-core and 8-core parts son.

Besides, in terms of standard open source projects, chromium is a pretty mixed workload.
Click to expand...

7740x is 4 core. half the cores. and its faster.

as i said, plenty of situations where per core speed matters for programming.

i dont care AMD or intel. i have everything and I only care about what works.

all i want is a 300W 6Ghz quad core because its better for me for most things. wish they could start working in that direction again. but physics?

now its just a core war. sad.
 
LukeCuda said:
7740x is 4 core. half the cores. and its faster.

as i said, plenty of situations where per core speed matters for programming.

i dont care AMD or intel. i have everything and I only care about what works.

all i want is a 300W 6Ghz quad core because its better for me for most things. wish they could start working in that direction again. but physics?

now its just a core war. sad.
Click to expand...

Meh, I'll concede then but only to the fact that it's a mixed bag. The core focus is a benefit to some of us.
 
PowerPC said:
How is it religious when you can prove it with facts? More cores and cheaper = better for 99% of people.
Click to expand...
Hard to believe that you figured that out all by yourself, since you obviously never picked up on the much more important aspects of either platform. Question: A 9-passenger Dodge minivan carries a lot more people than a Corvette - which one do you want to drive to take your date out for dinner? 99% of respondents picked the 'Vette...
 
Hood said:
It's because all their recent bragging is basically empty arguments and fake stats. Ryzen/TR have their place, but only for the 5% who create/edit/stream large video files and a few professional scientists, but even these people would be better served by an i9, if they can afford it. Intel is still the best option for most people and Ryzen worshipers hate it, hence the constant spewing of hatred.

What, are you talking about? Just because they keep releasing the absolute best and fastest CPUs in every price segment? And performance/price is rapidly increasing across the board at Intel, even on the traditionally ultra-expensive HEDT platform. Yeah, that's SO messed up. It's not panic, bro, it's laughter, as in "let's release some more fast CPUs that marginalize Ryzen even further than it already is, we'll have a another good laugh at their expense, while making a ton of money".
Click to expand...
Don't mind the AMD trolls. They do this same crap in every social media. People don't usually brag about products that's inferior than the opposition but I guess the red team have no self-respect, speaking as if AMD is the one with the superior product.
 
a lot of bs in comments again grow-up and move on
giphy.gif
 
a 6GHz single core cpu is always better than 2 x 3GHz cpus because of Amdahls Law.

the problem is there is a cap on the Ghz so everyone goes wider. but if they invented new physics and we had 24Ghz cpus, we would not need these oct cores.
 
PowerPC said:
I'll grant you your first point, but again, this goes back to my professional gamer example who does nothing but game all day. Sorry, but most people don't even have or need a 240 Hz Monitor for gaming right now. It's too expensive and the benefit is only there if you actually use it all day, like a professional gamer. So you're around 1% of people like that.

The second point is not the way you use a CPU when you work at a computer. Productivity is key and having multiple programs open that benefit from more cores/threads is all that matters. People don't use only one program as you're describing here. What if you just open Chrome, Photoshop and something else at the same time? That kind of parallelism will all benefit from more threads and it's how 99% of people actually use a computer.
Click to expand...

Who talked about 240hz? Quake engine benefits from locked 240fps even at 60hz just like CS GO. You have no idea about competitive shooters. Also GamerNexus did a review some days ago about ryzen on 144hz and there wasn't a single game tested, I repeat, a single one that assured locked 144fps, while 7700k was flying.

You amd bots like to damage control a lot and minimize the ryzen disadvantages. Like for you there are a ton of guys that use photoshop while gaming, but "only 1% use high refresh gaming". Right.
 
Manu_PT said:
Who talked about 240hz? Quake engine benefits from locked 240fps even at 60hz just like CS GO. You have no idea about competitive shooters. Also GamerNexus did a review some days ago about ryzen on 144hz and there wasn't a single game tested, I repeat, a single one that assured locked 144fps, while 7700k was flying.

You amd bots like to damage control a lot and minimize the ryzen disadvantages. Like for you there are a ton of guys that use photoshop while gaming, but "only 1% use high refresh gaming". Right.
Click to expand...
Skylake X can also push high framerates as well. It isn't a one trick pony like Threadripper that only "pwns in Cinebench" but has the same gaming performance as Ryzen.

iajKWcp.png
 
Manu_PT said:
Who talked about 240hz? Quake engine benefits from locked 240fps even at 60hz just like CS GO. You have no idea about competitive shooters. Also GamerNexus did a review some days ago about ryzen on 144hz and there wasn't a single game tested, I repeat, a single one that assured locked 144fps, while 7700k was flying.

You amd bots like to damage control a lot and minimize the ryzen disadvantages. Like for you there are a ton of guys that use photoshop while gaming, but "only 1% use high refresh gaming". Right.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I see so many people crying for 240 fps. Hehe... poor guy.
 
Manu_PT said:
Who talked about 240hz? Quake engine benefits from locked 240fps even at 60hz just like CS GO. You have no idea about competitive shooters. Also GamerNexus did a review some days ago about ryzen on 144hz and there wasn't a single game tested, I repeat, a single one that assured locked 144fps, while 7700k was flying.

You amd bots like to damage control a lot and minimize the ryzen disadvantages. Like for you there are a ton of guys that use photoshop while gaming, but "only 1% use high refresh gaming". Right.
Click to expand...
Come on... We all know games benefit much more from a good graphics card rather than the CPU. I'm saying 99% should rather invest that extra money into that instead of overpriced Intel. You're also very much on the "future proof" side, if you go for AMD today because of all those cores will not just benefit you today. It's all about cost/benefit at the end of the day. I never actually said "AMD is faster everywhere, guys" but people still freak out... Do people actually know what cost/benefit means? I'm starting to doubt it. People always assume when somebody is questioning Intel, it's like a personal attack on their livelihood lol.

If you're in the 1% who already has the best graphics card and needs that extra fps, yea, go Intel all the way. I said it right at the beginning about pro gamers before all the shit dropped as expected. But if you're actually interested in cost/benefit like 99% of people, it's AMD all the way right now. Disprove this claim, not what you think I said (strawman). If you buy AMD today, you can have enough extra money to buy a better graphics card and still have more cores than going Intel. But get Intel if you are going for prestige and think the CPU is your best bet to get more fps. o_O
 
Last edited:
B-Real said:
Desktop Ryzens in laptops seem way more interesting.
Click to expand...

In the magical world where thermodynamics is irrelevant maybe.
 
B-Real said:
ASUS already released a notebook with Ryzen. Only ASUS. Do you think that it is a notebook CPU released earlier by AMD? We will see.
Click to expand...

No. ASUS announced a Notebook with Desktop Ryzen. It's yet to actually appear for purchase (it's listed at Overclockers.uk but it doesn't appear in Google's Shopping Search and the specs listed don't match the Ryzen variant). It can likely be done, but odds are any laptop with a desktop CPU in it is going to have insanely low battery life, run incredibly hot, or be underclocked to make everything work. They could easily downclock a Ryzen 7 1700 and still advertise it as having the same CPU as a Desktop. In fact, their press release and information page makes no mention of clock speed at all.
 
xenocide said:
No. ASUS announced a Notebook with Desktop Ryzen. It's yet to actually appear for purchase (it's listed at Overclockers.uk but it doesn't appear in Google's Shopping Search and the specs listed don't match the Ryzen variant). It can likely be done, but odds are any laptop with a desktop CPU in it is going to have insanely low battery life, run incredibly hot, or be underclocked to make everything work. They could easily downclock a Ryzen 7 1700 and still advertise it as having the same CPU as a Desktop. In fact, their press release and information page makes no mention of clock speed at all.
Click to expand...
Nope. It was already tested but he cannot tell anything precise about performance:

As far as I remember, it is a 1700 inside.

Also, https://www.bit-tech.net/previews/t...preview-asus-rog-strix-gl702zc-benchmarked/5/ has tested early version of the ASUS laptop with R6 1600. They say:
"Again, our results should be taken with a pinch of salt due to this being an early sample."
"where core and thread counts matter – Cinebench and Terragen 4 – the Ryzen 5 1600 CPU shows real strength, smashing the scores of laptops with the four-core/eight-thread Intel Core i7-7700HQ"
"Stressing the CPU with Prime95 saw temperatures hit 95°C with 3.3GHz maintained across the cores and 173W being drawn at the wall."
 
Last edited:
xenocide said:
No. ASUS announced a Notebook with Desktop Ryzen. It's yet to actually appear for purchase (it's listed at Overclockers.uk but it doesn't appear in Google's Shopping Search and the specs listed don't match the Ryzen variant). It can likely be done, but odds are any laptop with a desktop CPU in it is going to have insanely low battery life, run incredibly hot, or be underclocked to make everything work. They could easily downclock a Ryzen 7 1700 and still advertise it as having the same CPU as a Desktop. In fact, their press release and information page makes no mention of clock speed at all.
Click to expand...

Yeah desktop cpus on laptops are done before i.e. Eurocom Sky X9W with 91W i7 6700k. But I have hard time to call them laptops, some sort of franken portable PCs they are. The real laptop would be with ryzen APU when ever they come. I'm just a bit worried about the graphics division though, which perf/W is now quite low. I.e. desktop RX 550 is a dog of gpu and it's still 50W part.
 
B-Real said:
Nope. It was already tested but he cannot tell anything precise about performance:

As far as I remember, it is a 1700 inside.

Also, https://www.bit-tech.net/previews/t...preview-asus-rog-strix-gl702zc-benchmarked/5/ has tested early version of the ASUS laptop with R6 1600. They say:
"Again, our results should be taken with a pinch of salt due to this being an early sample."
"where core and thread counts matter – Cinebench and Terragen 4 – the Ryzen 5 1600 CPU shows real strength, smashing the scores of laptops with the four-core/eight-thread Intel Core i7-7700HQ"
"Stressing the CPU with Prime95 saw temperatures hit 95°C with 3.3GHz maintained across the cores and 173W being drawn at the wall."
Click to expand...
35mm thick and weighing in at 3.2kg.
Click to expand...

'Nuff said.
 
birdie said:
Only in the world of rabid AMD fanboys someone gets shafted. In this world anyone who buys anything produced by NVIDIA and Intel gets shafted automatically.

By this token there should be no progress at all.

By the same token companies should never release new slightly better products within 24 months after release.

By the same token people who strive for the highest performance, no matter the cost, are utter idiots (e.g. all those who have bought NVIDIA's Titans/Ti's or Intel's HEDT CPUs).

It's getting utterly ridiculous. Every news where Intel or NVIDIA gets mentioned turns into some holy war against these companies even when they release decent products at decent prices.

Could we please stop with that and instead discuss the actual products without this frantic fanboyism?

This final paragraph will probably draw a lot of flak but I'm gonna utter it anyways. Last but not least anyone who has replaced their working Sandy Bridge/Ivy Bridge/Haswell/SkyLake systems with equivalent (the same core/threads count) Kaby Lake CPUs is indeed an idiot unless the said person absolutely couldn't live without new platform features (NVMe/M.2/USB-C/etc.).
Click to expand...


Amen.
 
Dimi said:
Stop with this annoying AMD religious hate preaching against Intel. What are you? Jehova's witness? Its becoming really annoying trying to find any constructive comments.
Click to expand...
Stop being a drama queen.
Dimi said:
BTW you couldn't PAY me to use AMD products ever again after getting screwed over TWICE by AMD products.
Click to expand...
Seems like your loss. AMD's latest offerings are very impressive and are much more capable then Intel's current lineup. Even the newest Intel products are somewhat lacking by comparison. Though there is no doubt they will catch up, it is clear AMD caught Intel with their pants down. There is however no reason to hold a grudge like this.
 
lexluthermiester said:
AMD's latest offerings are very impressive and are much more capable then Intel's current lineup. Even the newest Intel products are somewhat lacking by comparison.
Click to expand...
Another so-called enthusiast who only believes AMD press releases and fanboy posts regardless of all facts to the contrary. Happy gaming on that slow crap. Instead of crying inconsolably from buyer's remorse, you can bask in the glow of AMD's new press release lies when "Ryzen 2" comes out, and continue to deny reality. Not surprising from people who can't do simple math.
 
lexluthermiester said:
Seems like your loss. AMD's latest offerings are very impressive and are much more capable then Intel's current lineup. Even the newest Intel products are somewhat lacking by comparison. Though there is no doubt they will catch up, it is clear AMD caught Intel with their pants down. There is however no reason to hold a grudge like this.
Click to expand...
At this moment AMD is getting their pants up you mean?
They offer cheaper products but the BEST offering comes from Intel when we talk about the real deal, performance, we are all agree that Intel's prices are too high, i won't be gaming on that slow crap from AMD anyways, and i am sure Coffe Lake will wipe the floor with AMD next offerings.
 
B-Real said:
U series? Than it is more like a desktop i3 in performance. :D Desktop Ryzens in laptops seem way more interesting.
Click to expand...

A desktop i3 has like 2Ghz on it in base clock speeds, so the desktop i3 wins. As for desktop CPUs in laptops ... generally a terrible idea unless you want one of them 15kg "laptops".
Hood said:
Another so-called enthusiast who only believes AMD press releases and fanboy posts regardless of all facts to the contrary. Happy gaming on that slow crap. Instead of crying inconsolably from buyer's remorse, you can bask in the glow of AMD's new press release lies when "Ryzen 2" comes out, and continue to deny reality. Not surprising from people who can't do simple math.
Click to expand...

The only way Ryzen can be called "slow crap" is if you define it as "slower than Intel".


I really don't understand why this is so polarizing. It's CPU performance, not religion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top