RIP Intel? AMD new cpu's are insane!

[Unholyground]

Then you have nVidia who is crushing everyone in the mobile chipset world, it is always good to have competition.

[piitxu]

I disagree. Benchmarks still show intel winning at every point where it matters. High end PC enthusiasts are not going to cheap out on $50-100 for a chip that is 5-10% slower. They just won't do it.

The 10-15% performance difference is not 50-100$. A 9900k with cooler and mobo is anything between 650 (cheap mobo and cooler that will make your cpu throttle and not even reach stock boost speeds) and 1100$ (top of the line mobo and 240mm quality aio).
Meanwhile stock cooler and a mid range b450 mobo will let your 2700x run at it's advertised boost clocks with no problem and even let some room for OC for 450$. We are looking at a minimum of 45% price increase for that 10-15% performance increase. Now, if you are building a new system you are much better off by investing the price difference in your gpu. Now you have a 2700x with a 2080 instead of a 9900k with a 1080.

Bottom line tho, I agree that enthusiasts are willing to pay whatever they need for the best thing available.

[Bigbamboozal]

/yawn, back and forth happens, it's been that way for a long time and will continue to.
It's not a big upset in either direction.
For further proof of this see the back and forth between nvidia and amd.
Same shit different day.

[SLSAMG]

LMAO, AMD fanboys have been saying this since the P4 days. And each time AMD has failed to deliver on something that beats Intel's offerings.

This lmao...

/thread

[Nitex]

I used to buy AMD when I had little income do to having a part time job. They weren't terrible CPUs just you get what you pay for. They lasted about a year for me before I would start getting random BSODs. Once I could afford Intel I never went back.

[unbound]

Will you guys support AMD?. Intel needs competition so it starts making better products.

I always support competition. But you sound no different than any other fan boy.

"RIP Intel?" and Intel needs to make better products? /facepalm

AMD is a very capable processor. In some ways better than Intel, and in some ways worse. Intel hasn't been sitting still themselves. While Intel may be Goliath, AMD is hardly David doing good work for the masses. They are just corporations competing with each other.

I hope that they continue to go at each other for many years to come...that works out best for me as a consumer.

[aarro]

AMD has been vastly superior compared to Intel since they released Ryzen. AMD offers so much more power per buck.

Depends what your wanting really.. For the average gamer, Intel has still been the better choice.

[potis]

They were right back in the P3/P4 days. I don't think they'll get there again, but be fair

But they dont have to, they just have to release something decent, to shake Intel.

I am an Intel fanboy, but the pricing shit after 2016 is disgusting.

Lately i have only been suggesting Ryzen 5 2600X for the majority of people thats not gonna play "Only some ancient engine MMO" and frankly it is the better choice.

~4.3Ghz/6 core for 195e in Greece, with decent motherboards half the cost in some cases of the Intel ones..Considering what a shitty period Greece is having, even if we go for the 8600K and not the 9600K, right now its about 120e difference for the same build, and the difference in performance in newer games that these clients are interested in (Mostly F2P game of the year + a couple single player games), there is no reason to make them pay up to 150e extra.

I have at least 5 people waiting to buy a PC, told them all to wait because the pricing shit of the 2060 (450e here) with an Intel build is insane.

But generally, the actual problem of the Ryzen 2000 series is the low clock base compared to the newer Intel ones, if they can push another 300Mhz and keep the same pricing, it will be godly.

[Purpleisbetter]

Gaming wise, latency is key and the I/O die is anything but helpful.

But, for the first time ever since X2s at CES we had a better AMD cpu than an Intel's core-to-core, altho that was only a CB MT pass.

Btw, that AdoredTV scammy leak is really overhyping people too much. This is worse than the 1080ti killer days (AKA Vega)

- - - Updated - - -

Depends what your wanting really.. For the average gamer, Intel has still been the better choice.

Higher clocks, much lower latency, really made a difference for all those 1080p / 1440p which are like almost the whole pc gaming audience.

[Nathasil]

I may be in the minority, but Power Consumption / Heat generation is more important to me than a 5-10% speed gain.

Comparing my current CPU (Intel 4690K) with the a Ryzen 7 2700X says the single core speed is almost identical, multicore speed is also almost identcal and only when an application starts to use more than 4 threads the Ryzen can actually put the Intel to shame. This is comparing a 56 month old Intel CPU to a 9 month old Ryzen. The Ryzen consumes ~20% more power.

I'm not impressed. For almost 4 years difference in technology a minimal (almost non-existant) single-core speed boost with 20% more power consumption is not what makes me want to buy a product. The same is true for newer Intel CPUs as well. The 9900k has a ~20% higher single-core performance than my old 4690K...at 7% more power consumption. Which is a little better than the Ryzen, but still nowhere near the values that make me want to buy.

What i want is either a substantially higher single-core performance...or a MUCH lower power-consumption. No current CPU offers that.

Disappointment is real.

[ZenX]

This is just baseless rumormongering.

There might be a 16c chip.. but there's nothing that says that that will be consumer.

For one thing, its pointless.

There is no one in the consumer stack that needs 16 cores. There's really no reason for even 8+8.

If they want to shoot themselves in the foot and release a 16 core to the consumer market.... and sell it for way less than they could by putting it up against an intel HEDT chip....

that seems like a way to burn perfectly good profit potential for no gain.

Hey, you take that back. I need it (granted we can get quad-channel memory and those 32GB non-ecc single dimm which would hopefully open-up the way for octa-channel HEDT) as my hobbies do involve prototyping of data-center grade infrastructure seed systems (This is not sarcasm) and there is the occasional FDTD based plasmonics simulations (Never enough RAM )

[Dorfadin]

Counting the days for the 3700x

[Kuntantee]

It's hard to believe that Intel is behind when it comes to RnD. They just enjoyed market domination which manifested itself as poor price/performance ratio. If AMD push the limit to the point where price/perf. ratio is too good to pass, Intel will respond in a similar fashion. The competition is good, we are going to reap the benefits.

[Twoddle]

Throw more power at it and hope it works isn't that what this game's all about?

[Livevil]

I may be in the minority, but Power Consumption / Heat generation is more important to me than a 5-10% speed gain.

Comparing my current CPU (Intel 4690K) with the a Ryzen 7 2700X says the single core speed is almost identical, multicore speed is also almost identcal and only when an application starts to use more than 4 threads the Ryzen can actually put the Intel to shame. This is comparing a 56 month old Intel CPU to a 9 month old Ryzen. The Ryzen consumes ~20% more power.

I'm not impressed. For almost 4 years difference in technology a minimal (almost non-existant) single-core speed boost with 20% more power consumption is not what makes me want to buy a product. The same is true for newer Intel CPUs as well. The 9900k has a ~20% higher single-core performance than my old 4690K...at 7% more power consumption. Which is a little better than the Ryzen, but still nowhere near the values that make me want to buy.

What i want is either a substantially higher single-core performance...or a MUCH lower power-consumption. No current CPU offers that.

Disappointment is real.

You are mixing TDP with power consumption. TDP is the maximum amount of heat generated by the cpu. The ryzen you described has 100% more cores and generates 20% more heat, so if anything, it's a sign of efficiency.

If you want actual power consumption:

[Kagthul]

Hey, you take that back. I need it (granted we can get quad-channel memory and those 32GB non-ecc single dimm which would hopefully open-up the way for octa-channel HEDT) as my hobbies do involve prototyping of data-center grade infrastructure seed systems (This is not sarcasm) and there is the occasional FDTD based plasmonics simulations (Never enough RAM )

Then you should be on HEDT.

What you are describing are NOT consumer uses.

Thats WHY there is product segmentation.

All you did here was make my argument for me.

[Nathasil]

You are mixing TDP with power consumption. TDP is the maximum amount of heat generated by the cpu. The ryzen you described has 100% more cores and generates 20% more heat, so if anything, it's a sign of efficiency.

If you want actual power consumption:

Yes, you are absolutely right, i only had TDP available in my comparison metric and called it power consumption; thanks for pointing it out.

You are also right that the Ryzen is a lot more efficient with 100% more cores but just 20% more power consumption, BUT the additional cores will do jack shit for my performance if the applications i use do not employ more than 4 threads. Which is a situation i find myself in and i am probably not alone with it. If i am happy with 4 cores/threads, the CPUs from the last 4 years add extremely little for me. The performance per core/thread has not really increased a whole lot. Even comparing to the current Intel CPUs.

Again, what i would like to see is a much higher single-core performance compared to the 4xxxK Intel line of CPUs from >4 years ago, or the same performance at a much lower power consumption. I'm sure the current CPUs will shut down unemployed cores and therefore actually use less power in a real-world measurement when computing only 4 threads, but will it be significantly lower than a 4xxxK? No, it won't.

[Ealyssa]

And yet intel will still be better at gaming.

IDGAF of cinebench. I'll just use what's best on the games I play. And I'll stay on my 6700k @4.5 for at least one big year I would guess.

[ZenX]

Then you should be on HEDT.

What you are describing are NOT consumer uses.

Thats WHY there is product segmentation.

All you did here was make my argument for me.

Although it did cheat me out of some feature I did my switch to a R7 build from a Z97 and X99 due to the sheer core count (Though Skylake-X being space heaters and me favoring Air-cooled over liquid played more of a role as well). X299 still has the same issues that had prevented me from getting a 7920x and X399 not playing well with Windows' scheduler (CPU-pinning is almost non-existent compared to what you can accomplish with a *nix distro) is basically my invisible wall in going for an HEDT platform. My hope is that this MCM-backed designs making it to mainstream will hopefully fix this so that I can return back to an HEDT build.
But it is a chicken and egg problem. Prior to Ryzen no-one had the incentive to accelerate their development for mainstream software to have proper multi-core due to lack of more cores in mainstream systems while enterprise has been about multi-core performance for a long while now.

The HEDT of yesterday is today's mainstream and is in turn pushing the required software development associated with it, and same will be the case as the feature-set of HEDT is made available to mainstream in the foreseeable future.

[Temp name]

You are mixing TDP with power consumption. TDP is the maximum amount of heat generated by the cpu.

This makes no sense. If you slam your CPU with more power, it'll generate more heat. That's just how it works. Intel claims the 9900k is a 95W CPU, but it generates 150+ Watts of heat. If you OC it, it'll generate more.

If you look at something like the 9980XE which Intel claims is a 165W TDP, you can EASILY get that up to 1000W with LN2. It'll still generate 1000W (ish, some is lost in the VRM and traces) of heat