Intel Ice Lake 10th Gen Desktop CPU "leak".

[Evildeffy]

Ugh ... never mind.

Wasted effort when you're ignoring the point entirely.

[Fascinate]

Ugh ... never mind.

Wasted effort when you're ignoring the point entirely.

What point did i sidestep lol? AMD is not catching intel this go round, not in gaming at least. In fact i doubt they will ever catch intel here because of the way they build CPU's, i think the way their business model works disallows that.

- - - Updated - - -

Except for that time you bought a Ryzen PC to discover it sucked, which required selling it so you could build one you were happy with.

It didn't suck per-se, it just played old games a lot worse than i (or anyone) really expected. Ryzens single core scores in synthetic benchmarks does not line up with its real world perfomance in older/competitive titles.

- - - Updated - - -

For example lets take the leaks as real for a second, i believe the 3600x scored something like 190 in cinebench single core which would put it at nearly 7700k levels. If you put that pc next to a 7700k system i guarantee the ryzen system would be well behind in average and minimum fps, especially in crowded areas like boralus. Its just something about the way WoW's engine accesses the cpu's it has a major preference for intel.

[Fascinate]

Lots of assumptions from someone with a shoddy track record...

Not assumptions here actually, ryzen 1700 with 3200 memory vs 8700k 3200 memory both clocked to 3.9ghz the 8700k was upwards of 40% faster in WoW. Even if AMD's claims are true and they hit 15% IPC gain (which i doubt) they are still going to be behind before you take into account the clockspeed advantage intel has when overclocking.

[mrgreenthump]

i dont make random guesses i do a ridiculous amount of research on things before i come to conclusions

i know for myself that my 5ghz 8700k is going to beat all the ryzen 3000 parts in the vast majority of games on the market (the 12 core might win in a few select titles like watchdogs).

You do know how ridiculously contradicting those two statements are?

We know nothing about Zen 2 performance other than what AMD has said. Do all research you want, but you cannot say anything definitive on Zen 2 performance, because you I or anyone else on this forum have no access to reliable 3rd party info on it.

[js3915]

People can buy whatever they want, i just want them to be aware that AMD chips fall flat on their face in some games while the opposite does not happen on the blue side. If you are a content creator first and foremost of course AMD is a solid choice, the fact of the matter is most people around here mainly game on their pc's. Given that we are on a world of warcraft forum you think that talking about the performance for that game would be fairly relevant, no?

@Evildeffy also the reason i mentioned the first PC i built was to show i have no brand loyalty, i buy what best suits my usage scenario/budget.

I am not sure how you can judge a chip that hasn't even been released to the market yet... Lets be honest though Wow doesnt require a super intensive CPU its not that complex of a game I have an CPU from 2013-2014 and it still barely sweats when I run wow on a 4k monitor CPU maybe purrs to 15-20% when loading then quickly settles down to 5-10%

[Ahovv]

I knew full well a 7700k would outperform a 1700 in WoW but given the lack of benchmarks at the time i really had no idea how bad ryzen was for this game, there was just zero chance i was buying a quad core anything in 2017. In the end it worked out as i sold my ryzen pc for more than i paid for it (thanks memory and gpu price hikes)

@Nozuka I know from personal testing that ryzen 3000 will fall short of current intel CPU's in popular titles like WoW, there is more to it than just straight IPC and clockspeeds some games just prefer intels ring bus architecture and optimize for it. My 8700k clocked to 5ghz will easily outperform any new ryzen cpu in the vast majority of games on the market.

Rofl now this guy is pretending to have personally tested the 3000 series.

What a nutjob.

[Thunderball]

Rofl now this guy is pretending to have personally tested the 3000 series.

What a nutjob.

Hmm? A lot of people have tested it already. It's the new X570 boards are kind of a mystery right now.

[Temp name]

Hmm? A lot of people have tested it already. It's the new X570 boards are kind of a mystery right now.

No one is allowed to actually talk about it though. And the leaked benchmarks put it above the 9000 series in performance, and way above it in performance per dollar

[Ahovv]

Hmm? A lot of people have tested it already. It's the new X570 boards are kind of a mystery right now.

So we're to assume, without evidence, that he's one of the few reviewers who received the CPUs? Ok.

[moremana]

A month? Pretty sure there was nearly a year between the 8700k announcement and ryzen launch, all i remember is i bought my 1700 in march. If i had known the 8700k was going to be announced the same year as ryzen i of course would have waited.

The links are in my post.
Dude you would not have waited on an 8700k, not at that time as you were on a "Bring Intel" down campaign in 2017 just like you want to "put AMD back in its place" campaign now.

Rejoice, there is competition!

[Thunderball]

So we're to assume, without evidence, that he's one of the few reviewers who received the CPUs? Ok.

No he doesnt have to be a reviewer to have access to the CPU.

[Temp name]

No he doesnt have to be a reviewer to have access to the CPU.

Then who else has access to a CPU that isn't out yet?

[Gaidax]

Then who else has access to a CPU that isn't out yet?

Engineers

But really, I bet you have a couple of units slipping through the cracks here and there or are given to various people for various reasons.

[Thunderball]

Then who else has access to a CPU that isn't out yet?

I'm just gonna keep my mouth shut Maybe he's bullshitting, but as a matter of fact, when it comes to Ryzen 3000 it wasnt that hard to get access to those.

[Gray_Matter]

Until they go out of stock. Theyre being sold at a ~40$ loss. There is not a budget-cost six core available at MSRP. Im not sure why this is such a hard concept for people on this forum to grasp, but most people are on limited budgets. In about 3-5 months, they wont be available anymore, as AMD has already sent a letter to vendors saying that they might recall them if they dont sell through because they cant have them cannibalizing Ryzen 3.

Again, until they sell out. Theyre desperately trying to flush over-produced parts so they can sell Ryzen 3 parts for full MSRP without looking like assholes.

There are two statements here that are contradictory. You say they are selling the CPU's at a $40 loss but in the next breath you say that AMD is threatening to recall them. Companies would rather just hang onto them and wait for AMD to recall the CPU's rather than eat a loss on them. If you are trying to say that AMD are making a $40 loss on the CPU's then there is no way that is true. People have already worked out the Ryzen gen 1 costs and they are much lower than that.

Now, what doesn't really make much sense is that you are saying that these older 6 core CPU's (gen 1 and gen 1+) will suddenly vanish from the market in 3-5 months. AMD sold the first gen Ryzen for long after the 2000 series was released. When the 2000 series came out, they dropped the price on the old first gen CPU's but kept making and selling them. There is, of course, a chance that they stop making the first and second gen Ryzens but that is very unlikely because they still have to make the APU's and other Ryzen 12nm products. There are Ryzen Pro's out there that AMD guarantee long-term support for so they aren't just going to pull the plug on that stuff.

The whole premise of your argument is based on rumors that the market is going to suddenly be void of older Ryzen 6 core CPU's. Let me put it to you this way then. There is no reason right now for anyone to buy a 4 core CPU unless someone is very budget constrained and buying an APU as a short term solution. There are plenty of 6 core options on the market and very good prices. The 4 core is a dead processor in the long run.

You, and others, keep saying that, but that wont make it true. There are no game engines where four cores are "holding you back". The problem with your thinking here is that you assume that because an engine CAN make worthwhile use of more than 4 cores (all 2 of them) that therefore, running them on 4 cores is "holding them back" -

this is grade-A bullshit of the highest order.

It's not bullshit. There are plenty of examples right now where the CPU is holding people back. It's not happening with every game but it is happening now with the odd game and that is going to start happening more often. These are people talking about their CPU's maxed out at 100%. Of course, they could drop the settings and play the game at a lower resolution or graphic quality but that's defeating the purpose. I could do the same thing with WOW and a single core CPU.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Battlefield...equadcore_pcs/

Here is an example benchmark with BFV beta at 1080p:



If you peg your requirements at 1080p - 60hz with medium settings then that's the same as saying you only want crappy settings that can be paid on a single core. You are putting a limit on the hardware to artificially limit the CPU requirements. That would mean that a person buying a 4 core CPU wouldn't be able to upgrade the rest of their system.

.. no it doesn't. There are plenty of processes that simply CANNOT be run in parallel in game design.

As someone who is heavily involved in multi-threaded development, I can safely say that the first part of your statement is wrong "no it doesn't" if you look at the comment of mine that you were responding to. You don't build your software with a specific number of threads in mind, you build it and use the number of available cores/threads. If there are 20 cores then you will use 20 threads. There are parts of the application that have to be done in the main thread (e.g. interacting with the keyboard) but those are the exception, not the rule. What people are seeing when games like WOW battle to make use of multiple cores is a design problem, not a technical one. There are games out now that are proving this (e.g. Ashes of the Singularity) and more are being released all of the time. You are going to get more games that support multiple threads, not less. Most of the examples that people give for things that have to work in a specific sequence are simple and they take very little processing to perform.

Multi-threaded development is hard but a lot of developers are insulated from that side of things. Game engines are being updated constantly for better multi-threaded support. At bigger companies, only a few developers and the software architects need to know about multi-threaded development. At my company there are only a few of us that get involved with that stuff. The rest of the people do more mundane stuff. They don't have to deal with race conditions and atomic operations.

... once again, this ENTIRE belief is proven wrong in that the Bone and PS4 are ALREADY 8 CORE X86-64 CPUs.

Those engines should all already be optimized for an 8+ core X86-64 system, and therefore should run like fucking rocket-boosted jets on a modern (Ryzen/Intel) 8-core chip that is twice the clock speed at 50% higher IPC.

Those are low IPC CPU's, the newer ones match the modern day CPU's much closer. Those people are already developing games using multiple threads and they are doing quite well. Having bad PC ports just means that there are bad PC ports out there.

But having a quad-core isn't going to render games unplayable or produce sub-par performance at the expected settings for a budget rig. Thats what i said.

And it wont.

You stated that "The real issue is "is having a fast quad core chip going to be a LIABILITY in the reasonable life expectancy of the machine?" - with a reasonable life expectancy being about ~4 years if you maintaining "excellent" performance is your goal." and that is absolutely not true. You are saying that a person buying a 4 core machine now can expect that machine to maintain excellent performance for 4 years. Come on, there are already games out there that 4 cores are battling on. You can blame bad ports or unpopular games but that doesn't magically make those games vanish. They are still there, they are AAA games and 4 core CPU's are battling with those games. That is the simple fact. You throw out budget as a way to justify a 4 core but there are budget 6 core processors out there now so that makes the argument moot.

You can face palm as much as you want but it won't make what you say true and I am choosing to ignore your snide remarks because they add nothing to the discussion.

[Fascinate]

From tomshardware's 3700x review:

Intel still holds the absolute performance crown in gaming

That's all that needs to be said, second rate gaming chips yet again....dont buy into claims made by manufacturers and use your sense before spouting stuff on forums.

[Temp name]

From tomshardware's 3700x review:

Intel still holds the absolute performance crown in gaming

That's all that needs to be said, second rate gaming chips yet again....dont buy into claims made by manufacturers and use your sense before spouting stuff on forums.

Depending on the game/resolution it's within margin of error:

Or AMD wins:


It's getting to the point where if you're doing LITERALLY ANYTHING but gaming, you're better off with an AMD chip.

[Fascinate]

I am not going to get into the back and forth linking of specific games, what toms said is true intel still holds the overall lead in gaming and thats that. AMD has made a nice jump here with zen 2 but the pricing makes no sense with ryzen 1+2 pricing where it is, who would spend 330 dollars on a 3700x when you can get a 8700k for cheaper? Not only that but you can get 2700x's at microcenter for ONE NINETY NINE.

Edit: thats before taking into account the absurd costs of x570 motherboards.

[Temp name]

I am not going to get into the back and forth linking of specific games, what toms said is true intel still holds the overall lead in gaming and thats that. AMD has made a nice jump here with zen 2 but the pricing makes no sense with ryzen 1+2 pricing where it is, who would spend 330 dollars on a 3700x when you can get a 8700k for cheaper?

What's the market for the 8700k? You can only get them second hand, which means no warranty. Zen 2 makes sense in that it's a new product that competes directly with Intel's newest processors in games, at reasonable prices, and both are capable of pushing more FPS than 99% of people will care about.
Seriously, the amount of people who care about anything above 1080p or 60fps is MINISCULE. And even of those that do, the difference is so small that it's almost imperceptible. Can you tell the difference between 136fps and 147? I can't. That's the 2nd biggest difference I could find in guru3d's review. The biggest is this: https://www.guru3d.com/index.php?ct=...e171002a287bc1 where someone might reasonably be able to tell the difference

And AMD does that while at the same time being WAY better value in everything other than gaming, something that a lot of people do. Streaming or recording yourself playing is more popular than ever, and there's still the people who do actual professional work, who this will benefit too.

[Life-Binder]

It's getting to the point where if you're doing LITERALLY ANYTHING but gaming, you're better off with an AMD chip.

pretty much

but this is a gaming forum xD


streamers and productivity users should be getting these

pure gamers - if they already have a decent Intel (anything 6700K or later really) - no need to do anything .. if they dont (if they have a really old chip) - either AMD or Intel will work (but you might as well go AMD, assuming memory issues arent a thing)


the real battle will be when Intel releases its next arch, 7nm dekstop CPUs - I dont think AMD will be able to match that perf leap (but they can fight with lower prices)