Page 84 of 95 FirstFirst ...
34
74
82
83
84
85
86
94
... LastLast
  1. #1661
    Fluffy Kitten Remilia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Avatar: Momoco
    Posts
    15,160
    Quote Originally Posted by Zenny View Post
    To be fair, the new Skylake chips have about a 11% lead in IPC over the Haswell parts when it comes to cinebench.
    Doesn't really mean 11% increase in multi-core scaling and even if it did, that means it just went on par with Ryzen, not over. Still SMT implementation is better on Ryzen yielding 28% increase vs 25% increase in kabylake average. CPUs are a lot less straight forward than GPUs when it comes to workstation load since it can fluctuate depending on load type.

  2. #1662
    The Lightbringer Artorius's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Natal, Brazil
    Posts
    3,781
    Quote Originally Posted by Evildeffy View Post
    That said Intel's CPUs are still good, there's no question about that, but in terms of overall capability and even in gaming the only 2 "viable" CPUs left out there are the G4560 and 7700K, the rest is all Ryzen unless you are looking at a certain price point which has no Ryzen option.

    Having done some, anecdotal of course, testing I've seen Ryzen making 0 difference with an i5-7600K @ stock speeds in WoW f.ex. (~2 - 3 frames max)
    It's not until you OC the 7600K where it pulls ahead in WoW, but for any other newer game choosing any Core i3/5/7 that aren't the aforementioned G4560 or 7700K is honestly downright irresponsible, GTA5 not included, RotTR is likely nVidia's fault.
    To be honest, for any power-user who always has some shit going on on his computer, I find it really hard to recommend anything from Intel right now simply because HEDT is too expensive for what it offers when you can simply go with Ryzen and call it a day. Sure the 7700K is still supposed to be better in some gaming scenarios, but I wonder if the difference is even anything noticeable enough outside of the very few games that are extremely CPU sensitive to outweight all the pros of going with the competitor in basically almost everything else. People also tend to fail in realising that it's not exactly about having all your programs being able to scale to infinity, it's also about being able to have more things smoothly going at the same time.

    IMO the Pentium G4560 is the only one that still makes any sense. Raven Ridge APUs with Vega based graphics will be awesome for low cost budget builds though, I wonder how much better Intel's iGPUs are going to be now that they signed that contract with AMD.

  3. #1663
    Deleted
    Ryzen 9 - now with even more cores.

    Apparently with a new socket and no pricing for now.

    Starting at the bottom, there will be two 10-core parts with 20 threads, including the Ryzen 9 1955 clocked at 3.1GHz (base) to 3.7GHz (boost) and Ryzen 9 1955x clocked at 3.6GHz to 4GHz. Both will have a max TPD of 125W.

    There will also be two 12-core CPUs, both with 24 threads and also with a max TPD of 125W. These will consist of the Ryzen 9 1956 clocked at 3GHz to 3.7GHz, and the Ryzen 9 1956X clocked at 3.2GHz to 3.8GHz.

    Next up are three 14-core/28-thread chips starting with the Ryzen 9 1976X clocked at 3.6GHz to 4.1GHz with a 140W TPD. Just above that is the Ryzen 9 1977 clocked at 3.2GHz to 3.7GHz, also with a 140W TPD. And finally there is the Ryzen 9 1977X clocked at 3.5GHz to 4GHz, but with a 155W TDP.

    That leaves us with two 16-core/32-thread beasts. The first is the Ryzen 9 1998. It will come clocked at 3.2GHz to 3.6GHz and have a 155W TDP, and the second is the Ryzen 9 1998X clocked at 3.5GHz to 3.9GHz, also with a 155W TDP.

    http://hothardware.com/news/amd-ryze...2-thread-beast




    http://hexus.net/tech/news/cpu/10572...-offer-16c32t/

  4. #1664
    the info on Intel in that table is still unconfirmed btw, we will only find out Skylake-X specs for sure either @ Computex or at E3 PC gaming Show

  5. #1665
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by lloewe View Post
    Ryzen 9 - now with even more cores.

    Apparently with a new socket and no pricing for now.

    Starting at the bottom, there will be two 10-core parts with 20 threads, including the Ryzen 9 1955 clocked at 3.1GHz (base) to 3.7GHz (boost) and Ryzen 9 1955x clocked at 3.6GHz to 4GHz. Both will have a max TPD of 125W.

    There will also be two 12-core CPUs, both with 24 threads and also with a max TPD of 125W. These will consist of the Ryzen 9 1956 clocked at 3GHz to 3.7GHz, and the Ryzen 9 1956X clocked at 3.2GHz to 3.8GHz.

    Next up are three 14-core/28-thread chips starting with the Ryzen 9 1976X clocked at 3.6GHz to 4.1GHz with a 140W TPD. Just above that is the Ryzen 9 1977 clocked at 3.2GHz to 3.7GHz, also with a 140W TPD. And finally there is the Ryzen 9 1977X clocked at 3.5GHz to 4GHz, but with a 155W TDP.

    That leaves us with two 16-core/32-thread beasts. The first is the Ryzen 9 1998. It will come clocked at 3.2GHz to 3.6GHz and have a 155W TDP, and the second is the Ryzen 9 1998X clocked at 3.5GHz to 3.9GHz, also with a 155W TDP.

    http://hothardware.com/news/amd-ryze...2-thread-beast




    http://hexus.net/tech/news/cpu/10572...-offer-16c32t/
    16 core at 3.9 Ghz? WTF

    The TDP is still within range of certain air coolers to use, though I'm sure that TDP is for stock speeds which is very decent for the core count.

    The 12 core however is more my thing, good upgrade path from the 6 core 5820K.

  6. #1666
    If I can get that 16C/32T variant for 1k$ with a +2.6 GHz base clock then its goodbye Intel for me considering the cheapest price for a E5 v3/v4 is 2.5k$+

    If there are MoBos for dual socket configuration for a tower-based build, the long wait would pay off for me. I do have access to C7000s with 24C configuration per blade but nothing beats the convenience of a local server. And in case I validate the compatibility for our platforms, I guess ourselves' and our customers POs for the coming year to HP or Dell will be for AMD-based offerings, obviously Intel will retaliate and things will heat-up for better performance/price and compute/price.

  7. #1667
    Well just finished off my Ryzen build and all I can say is, it does live up to the hype. My only issue for gaming is the poor 60hz on the monitor its using. Every game thrown at it runs at 59-60 fps, it would easily be higher if the rig had a better monitor but I'm broke atm. Runs ME Andromeda at ultra settings and is smooth as butter.

    Boot up time with a Toshiba 240g SSD is at 17 seconds. The old AMD 8320 the Ryzen is replacing was constantly at 45 seconds.

    All in all, pleased as punch.

    Did I buy the Ryzen too soon before Intel launches their new I9 processors with more cores? Maybe, but for the price and performance the 1600x is a monster and no matter what is said, its a huge, absolute huge upgrade over the FX series.

  8. #1668
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Thick View Post
    Well just finished off my Ryzen build and all I can say is, it does live up to the hype. My only issue for gaming is the poor 60hz on the monitor its using. Every game thrown at it runs at 59-60 fps, it would easily be higher if the rig had a better monitor but I'm broke atm. Runs ME Andromeda at ultra settings and is smooth as butter.

    Boot up time with a Toshiba 240g SSD is at 17 seconds. The old AMD 8320 the Ryzen is replacing was constantly at 45 seconds.

    All in all, pleased as punch.

    Did I buy the Ryzen too soon before Intel launches their new I9 processors with more cores? Maybe, but for the price and performance the 1600x is a monster and no matter what is said, its a huge, absolute huge upgrade over the FX series.
    Intel i9 are enthusiast chips and would cost an arm and a leg.
    Violence Jack Respects Women!

  9. #1669
    Quote Originally Posted by foofoocuddlypoopz View Post
    Intel i9 are enthusiast chips and would cost an arm and a leg.
    I don't know if they do.. According to the "leaked" info, the 6 and 8 core have so little cache and only 28 PCI-E lanes, that it seems like they are trying to cut down costs to at least be in the same ball park as AMD when it comes to pricing.

  10. #1670
    Skylake-X has less L3 cache, but 4x more L2 cache (1MB instead of 256KB)

  11. #1671
    intel is using the 2 quad core kaby lake x to open the platform for more people.

  12. #1672
    Quote Originally Posted by mrgreenthump View Post
    I don't know if they do.. According to the "leaked" info, the 6 and 8 core have so little cache and only 28 PCI-E lanes, that it seems like they are trying to cut down costs to at least be in the same ball park as AMD when it comes to pricing.
    There is 4 current X series cpu's, 6800k, 6850k, 6900k, 6950x the i9 lineup will reflect the exact same thing.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by foofoocuddlypoopz View Post
    Intel i9 are enthusiast chips and would cost an arm and a leg.
    So you're stating that the 3 workstation grade cpu's are just for enthusiasts?

  13. #1673
    Quote Originally Posted by VooDsXo View Post
    There is 4 current X series cpu's, 6800k, 6850k, 6900k, 6950x the i9 lineup will reflect the exact same thing.

    - - - Updated - - -



    So you're stating that the 3 workstation grade cpu's are just for enthusiasts?
    It's like slang for me and everyone in my inner circle calls them that it's just something I've picked up.
    Last edited by Varvara Spiros Gelashvili; 2017-05-21 at 05:08 PM.
    Violence Jack Respects Women!

  14. #1674
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Denpepe View Post
    intel is using the 2 quad core kaby lake x to open the platform for more people.
    Open for who exactly?

    The X99 boards are expensive even for the cheapest one, HEDT tend to be the most feature rich boards for consumers by default for a reason, mean my MSI X99 board is loaded compared to my Z77 board before it.

    The type of people who are interested in this platform will want the CPU up for the task which is the extra core count, if you want a quad core, stick to the cheaper offerings especially for the motherboards. If the X299 boards can be cheap, and I mean cheap at around $70 then nothing wrong with the platform, but if the cheapest board is $200, then those quad cores make no sense.

    AMD gets around this issue for the Ryzen 7 because all the motherboards in this platform will support the 8 core, which includes the non overclocking boards.

    The cheapest B350 board is around $70, and access to the high core count chips will get cheaper thanks to the cheaper board, then again its all depending on what features you need.
    Last edited by mmoc80f347fccc; 2017-05-21 at 02:52 PM.

  15. #1675
    Ya the entire range of CPU's coming from intel make no sense lol.

  16. #1676
    only Kaby-X makes no sense


    the rest is perfectly fine, especially if the reduced l3 cache/lanes on some i9 models actually do result in prices lower then BW-E .. as someone who doesnt use or need lanes for SLI I would trade lanes for a lower price any day


    and Coffee can be a real winner for pure gaming machines



    though of course a lot will depend on max clocks

  17. #1677
    Mechagnome
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Noll åtta
    Posts
    548
    Lower prices than BW-E? Keep dreaming. You'll be paying the same for a new name, less lanes, slightly higher clocks and 2-3% higher performance. Oh, and the 12C/24T model will probably go for 2000$ just like the new high end 6950x got a price bump going from HSWL-E TO BW-E.

    I was looking forward to Skylake-x but it looks completely underwhelming.
    Last edited by Livevil; 2017-05-21 at 05:12 PM.

  18. #1678
    oh, well since you said so, it must be all true

  19. #1679
    Quote Originally Posted by Life-Binder View Post
    oh, well since you said so, it must be all true
    The high core ones will go for higher price for sure, but the 6 and 8 core may be as low as $399 and $499 to compete with Ryzen 7. Else with the increased platform cost, it doesn't really many any sense to even produce those CPUs.. Then again the 4 cores don't make any sense anyways, so they might continue the trend.

  20. #1680
    Quote Originally Posted by Livevil View Post
    Lower prices than BW-E? Keep dreaming. You'll be paying the same for a new name, less lanes, slightly higher clocks and 2-3% higher performance. Oh, and the 12C/24T model will probably go for 2000$ just like the new high end 6950x got a price bump going from HSWL-E TO BW-E.

    I was looking forward to Skylake-x but it looks completely underwhelming.
    if they intend to replace their 4 cores with 6 cores with coffee lake or at the very least add those to the line up they will need a somewhat affordable price for those and while they are different from the -x line of CPU's they can't really price them far apart.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •