Page 39 of 78 FirstFirst ...
29
37
38
39
40
41
49
... LastLast
  1. #761
    Quote Originally Posted by Lathais View Post
    That is flat out not true. Even BF1, which is known for it's ability to make use of more cores, still runs fine on Dual-Cores.

    http://www.gamersnexus.net/game-benc...5-i7-fx/page-2

    Even on an i3, on the most standard monitor in the market, 1080p@60hz, not going to be seeing a difference between that i3 and a 7700k.
    I was being a little dramatic because WoW most likely won't be upgraded to benefit from extra cores and WoW can surely last 10 more years, when we're most likely going to see games that benefit a lot from multi cores.

  2. #762
    Quote Originally Posted by Hellshout View Post
    I was being a little dramatic because WoW most likely won't be upgraded to benefit from extra cores and WoW can surely last 10 more years, when we're most likely going to see games that benefit a lot from multi cores.
    Well, I only said something because there are a lot of people out there that do believe you need at least 4 cores to even be able to play games. If they read what you said, that would support that idea and they would believe it even more. It is simply not true. Dual Cores are still mostly fine for gaming for at least another couple years and likely another 4-6.

  3. #763
    Quote Originally Posted by Lathais View Post
    Well, I only said something because there are a lot of people out there that do believe you need at least 4 cores to even be able to play games. If they read what you said, that would support that idea and they would believe it even more. It is simply not true. Dual Cores are still mostly fine for gaming for at least another couple years and likely another 4-6.
    Yes of course. I play on a G3258 and I love it. The only reason I'm changing to kaby is because I want that 5GHz sweet spot. And maybe simcraft will work faster )

  4. #764
    Source:
    http://wccftech.com/intels-8th-gener...per-threading/

    Coffee Lake i3: 4 cores 8 threads
    Coffee lake i5: 6 Cores 6 threads

    Why doesn't that make sense to me? Based on the threads, wouldn't you want a i3 over an i5?

  5. #765
    thats not confirmed (and ppl think a 4c/8t @ 4.0 Ghz for i3 prices is too good to be true and would destroy both Intels own offerings and Ryzens 3/5 in price/perf .. especially since it would also feature an IGP, which can be pretty important in some cases, not needing to pay for a dGPU if you just need to run basic desktop/HTPC tasks or very light games)


    but no, for pure gaming, all else equal, I would take 6c/6t over 4c/8t


    plus that i3, if true, is likely to be locked, while the i5 would feature an unlocked K model

    - - - Updated - - -

    http://bbs.pceva.com.cn/thread-140322-1-1.html

    this is the source I reckon
    Last edited by Life-Binder; 2017-08-07 at 02:31 PM.

  6. #766
    It's almost like Intel is trying to cure any buyer's remorse anyone would have by going Ryzen/Threadripper right now instead of waiting for their next scam.

    They're not gonna cannibalize their X299 line. So expect ~$370 for the 8700K. And $120-200 for a Z370? mainboard that will be replaced in Q1-2018.
    Last edited by Sorshen; 2017-08-07 at 04:29 PM.

  7. #767
    Personally, I think it would make more sense if the Pentiums moved up to 4c/4t, i3's went 4c/8t, i5s went 6c/6t and 8c/8t with i7s being 6+c/12+t, but since when has the tech industry made any sense?

  8. #768
    Quote Originally Posted by RogueDurr View Post
    Coffee Lake i3: 4 cores 8 threads
    Coffee lake i5: 6 Cores 6 threads

    Why doesn't that make sense to me? Based on the threads, wouldn't you want a i3 over an i5?
    On Intel side of things, 6 cores is better than 8 threads by decent bit.

  9. #769
    Quote Originally Posted by RogueDurr View Post
    Source:
    http://wccftech.com/intels-8th-gener...per-threading/

    Coffee Lake i3: 4 cores 8 threads
    Coffee lake i5: 6 Cores 6 threads

    Why doesn't that make sense to me? Based on the threads, wouldn't you want a i3 over an i5?
    IIRC hpyerthreading is at best ~30% better than no HT while being a somewhat sporadic performance boost. 6 cores is 6 cores.
    The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.

  10. #770
    Quote Originally Posted by mrgreenthump View Post
    On Intel side of things, 6 cores is better than 8 threads by decent bit.
    While you are probably right, I would think for non-educated user it would be a marketing nightmare. Think of the middle aged mom going in. Saying "but the that has more threads & its cheaper. Why shouldn't I just get that?". Then explaining why less is better to the middle aged mom is going to be a nightmare.

  11. #771
    Stood in the Fire mojo6912's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    433
    yeah but on the box it will probably just list the cores

  12. #772
    Quote Originally Posted by RogueDurr View Post
    While you are probably right, I would think for non-educated user it would be a marketing nightmare. Think of the middle aged mom going in. Saying "but the that has more threads & its cheaper. Why shouldn't I just get that?". Then explaining why less is better to the middle aged mom is going to be a nightmare.
    While it's not entirely true, all that need to be explained is that with only 4 physical cores, those 8 threads are basically 8 half cores. With a 6 core, you get 6 full threads, not 8 half threads.

    Yes, in reality it's more like having 8 cores operating at 70%, but that's just it, no matter how you look at it, it's still just 4 cores. 6 cores is more than 4 cores.

  13. #773
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Lathais View Post
    While it's not entirely true, all that need to be explained is that with only 4 physical cores, those 8 threads are basically 8 half cores. With a 6 core, you get 6 full threads, not 8 half threads.

    Yes, in reality it's more like having 8 cores operating at 70%, but that's just it, no matter how you look at it, it's still just 4 cores. 6 cores is more than 4 cores.
    I'm not 100% convinced you're a fully certified sales person

  14. #774
    Quote Originally Posted by Dkwhyevernot View Post
    I'm not 100% convinced you're a fully certified sales person
    Not for PC Parts. Talk to me about safety supplies and equipment or work boots though. I get what you are saying though. A real sales person would be trying to sell the higher priced product, not the one that is best for the consumer. In this forum, I always try to help people choose what's best for them, not for intel/retailers.

  15. #775
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Lathais View Post
    Not for PC Parts. Talk to me about safety supplies and equipment or work boots though. I get what you are saying though. A real sales person would be trying to sell the higher priced product, not the one that is best for the consumer. In this forum, I always try to help people choose what's best for them, not for intel/retailers.
    Actually I just meant your sales pitch was a little confusing.

  16. #776
    Fluffy Kitten Remilia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Avatar: Momoco
    Posts
    15,160
    Hyper threading isn't really reliable in terms of performance gain. It depends entirely on load type and sometimes it ranges from 0% to 40%. Average wise for Intel I believe it was around 25%. With physical core it's more reliable which imo makes a better choice. You're guaranteed a certain performance as opposed to HT which is more sporadic and load dependent.

  17. #777
    Quote Originally Posted by Dkwhyevernot View Post
    Actually I just meant your sales pitch was a little confusing.
    Well, it kinda is, but again, it can just be boiled down to 6 cores is more than 4 cores.

  18. #778
    The Unstoppable Force Gaidax's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    20,872
    I am more excited about laptops getting 4 cores baseline in 2018, because all current 4/8 laptops are either cheaply made or super expensive, but other than that I do plan updating my desktop next year, so I won't mind going with 6/6 or 6/12 Intel CPU there.

  19. #779
    I think its too late to get any 14nm now, its too old (unless you really have to upgrade) .. getting a 6700K/6600K on launch was by far the best decision to make as far as a gaming 14nm CPU goes .. you would have already had a super fast gaming CPU for ~2 years, that OCes well and is only slightly behind 7700K and ahead of Ryzens and most other Intels in games

    Ice Lake 10+nm should be set for H2 2018 and theres even potential for 7nm Zen 2 in very late 2018 (maybe), so might as well wait for 7/10nm


    the one thing that worries me is that according to this:



    10+nm (Ice Lake) will offer about the same perf as 14++nm (Coffee) at lower power

    and only 10++nm (Tiger Lake in 2019-ish) will get a decent perf boost over Coffee

    this is only from process though, not counting arch changes I guess





    also, official news:
    https://newsroom.intel.com/news-rele...cessor-family/
    https://www.techpowerup.com/235943/i...y-on-august-21

    On Aug. 21, Intel will unveil the 8th Generation Intel Core processor family on Facebook Live.

    1. Don't be caught in the dark. Learn how the 8th Gen Intel Core processor family will offer blazing fast performance.
    2. Hear directly from Gregory Bryant, senior vice president of the Client Computing Group at Intel, and others about the details on the latest processor family and what it can help you do.
    3. Discover how immersive experiences will bring you from spectator to participant with 8th Gen Intel Core processor capabilities.
    4. Don't just take our word for it. See the power of 8th Gen Intel Core technology come to life in the hands of a VR creator and imaging technologist.
    5. Get a sneak peek at some of the amazing system designs based on 8th Gen Intel Core processors.
    6. Start planning for what new 8th Gen Intel Core processor-based device to purchase in the holiday season and even before.
    7. Don't worry, you won't miss the solar eclipse. Tune in before it descends upon Oregon and the West Coast and then makes its way across the U.S.
    8. See how the 8th Gen Intel Core processor is designed for today and what comes next.
    if 8700K is coming first then maybe its for September-October

  20. #780
    Quote Originally Posted by Life-Binder View Post
    I think its too late to get any 14nm now, its too old (unless you really have to upgrade) .. getting a 6700K/6600K on launch was by far the best decision to make as far as a gaming 14nm CPU goes .. you would have already had a super fast gaming CPU for ~2 years, that OCes well and is only slightly behind 7700K and ahead of Ryzens and most other Intels in games

    Ice Lake 10+nm should be set for H2 2018 and theres even potential for 7nm Zen 2 in very late 2018 (maybe), so might as well wait for 7/10nm


    the one thing that worries me is that according to this:



    10+nm (Ice Lake) will offer about the same perf as 14++nm (Coffee) at lower power

    and only 10++nm (Tiger Lake in 2019-ish) will get a decent perf boost over Coffee

    this is only from process though, not counting arch changes I guess





    also, official news:
    https://newsroom.intel.com/news-rele...cessor-family/
    https://www.techpowerup.com/235943/i...y-on-august-21



    if 8700K is coming first then maybe its for September-October
    Yep just read the news hopefully doesnt take too long and the i7 series comes out waiting to buy it if the price/performance is good

Posting Permissions

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