WYP
News Guru
i3 and I5 series CPUs are also expected to receive a core/thread upgrade.
Read more on Intel's rumoured 9th generation of CPUs.
Read more on Intel's rumoured 9th generation of CPUs.
Intel's 9th Generation i7 9700K is rumoured to have 8 cores and 16 threads
- Thread starter WYP
- Start date
Excalabur50
Well-known member
Intel are a pack of ASSHATS they've screwed over everyone who bought the 7700k and the 8700k by doing this, they don't deserve the loyalty they have from people. Yet they will be lapped up like cream and they will continue bite the hand that feeds them, so silly.
g0ggles1994
Active member
This, so much this. AMD really have shaken them up by pushing for higher core counts. Although I can guarantee if it is an 8C CPU, it will be at least £500 because this is Intel we're talking about
The_Governour
New member
This would be good for me. I would upgrade from my 5820k into a ITX build that I want.
Dark NighT
New member
You could now with Ryzen and the asus ITX board for it though, and have a proper upgrade path because your socket wont be outdated within a year.
Dawelio
Active member
This is exactly what I’m doing, going from X99 and 6850K to 1700X with X370-I Strix
ryzen plus will already be out by then, probably hitting 4.4ghz boosts and 4ghz all core boost, (stock) probably at the same prices we have now, so the perf of ryzen, especially in games will be much better by then, so we are in for some good compettion
NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
You can all get on the Intel hate wagon but if this is true AMD will not have an answer for those new CPUs. Intel will still sell
AngryGoldfish
Old N Gold
But they need to do something. If ryzen 2 is out in first half of 2018, then that might be a 1700-1800x with higher clocks = It will really kick Intel in the balls.
So they need to do something.
I don't get people being mad, its just the way the world works
Ehhh... so? People are thieves, murderers, rapists, etc, that's the way the world works. But do you expect me not to want to change that or even be mad about it? The smiley face maybe means you were joking, but there are a lot of defeatists idiots out there who aren't joking when they say that. They're the idiots that pay for Loot Boxes in EA games and excuse themselves by saying, 'Well, it's just the way the world works. If you can't beat them, join them.'
Unless they completely undercut them in cost, which is what they're doing now. Generally Intel's CPUs are faster overall. They're just behind in price to performance. If the 8700K isn't enough for you, the 7900X is there.
Last edited:
AlienALX
Well-known member
And that is the kicker. Yesterday my pal out in the USA specced up a rig for his brother. I then found him a HP Omen (the new one) with the same spec only $200 cheaper as a whole PC. So he bought it. 1700, R560 etc $949.
He is editing music so didn't need a strong GPU. But yeah, basically the 8700k would have cost half of that nearly and isn't as fast (the new Omen overclocks too).
Only the elite braggarts care about blistering performance. Every one else cares about their bank balance, as they should.
Intel are pulling the "cup trick". IE - watch us with all of these cups swirling them around on a table really fast. Those are the CPUs. The price? same as it ever was, they just span it all around really fast to fool the eyes.
Their higher end CPUs cost just as much now as they did before Ryzen. And that is the kicker, as you rightly point out.
looz
Active member
AlienALX
Well-known member
Sure it's a much better deal for production use but let's stick to facts.
Overclocked 8700k (6c 12t) is not as fast as a 1700/X/1800X overclocked.
AngryGoldfish
Old N Gold
Doesn't it depend on the test? I would say they're about equal in general, with maybe the Ryzen CPUs being marginally faster overall.
NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
sometimes
You have over exaggerated this quite a bit recently. I love AMD as much as anyway here but I can see the truth. They are slower. They just have better price/performance
AlienALX
Well-known member
Yes, sometimes depending on how you look at it.
Apples are apples for me. If a CPU is quicker at rendering in Cinebench with all balls to the wall and all cores and threads used? it is faster than another CPU.
Hobbling it doesn't count for me (for example a quad core no threads game engine).
There will come a time when that Ryzen is supported properly and can do what it does in Cinebench in anything.
Besides, if you buy an 8 core 16 thread CPU for gaming and no other use you are as daft as a brush. You buy it because it is better and faster at doing the things you need it to.
That is why I have a 14/28 2.8ghz BE and not a quad core K. However, that said in Superposition my CPU walks all over lower threaded CPUs, indicating what can be done with more cores in a game type scenario.
But saying sometimes and using situations that clearly favour lower thread counts and higher clocks? is no better than Intel fiddling with a benchmark (as they have done in the past) IMO.
As said above yes it depends on the test but when the test takes advantage of everything a CPU has it is a better indication, IMO.
Another example, my 8 core Ivy. Why buy that over a 2500k, for example? lanes and cores/T. It pees all over the 2500k for what I use it for.
looz
Active member
No, not every fully multithreaded task becomes Cinebench. There are highly optimised tools which prefer Intel as well, for example gcc. Reasons for that are too complex for me, though I'm willing to bet it has something to do with the memory controller.
Also, there are plenty of single core happy professional tools. For some reason Premiere's rendering strongly prefers 8700k as well.
It boils down to what you do with your computer, and luckily there's plenty of benchmark results all over the net. Advantages of Ryzen are price and sensible requirements for cooling. Intel has single core performance and better memory compatibility along with latencies in the bag. It's not like programming for multiple threads is new, there's just plenty of applications where it isn't feasible, or even if it is like in the case of compilers, low memory latency is important. Fully multithreaded games won't become the norm in Ryzen's usable lifetime either.
Certain situations will always favour one or the other, so make your pick based on the situations which matter the most to you. Nobody buys their computer for the sole purpose of running Cinebench, though I'd imagine the Cinebench craze makes CPU purchase decisions easy for studios using Cinema 4D.
Also, there are plenty of single core happy professional tools. For some reason Premiere's rendering strongly prefers 8700k as well.
It boils down to what you do with your computer, and luckily there's plenty of benchmark results all over the net. Advantages of Ryzen are price and sensible requirements for cooling. Intel has single core performance and better memory compatibility along with latencies in the bag. It's not like programming for multiple threads is new, there's just plenty of applications where it isn't feasible, or even if it is like in the case of compilers, low memory latency is important. Fully multithreaded games won't become the norm in Ryzen's usable lifetime either.
Certain situations will always favour one or the other, so make your pick based on the situations which matter the most to you. Nobody buys their computer for the sole purpose of running Cinebench, though I'd imagine the Cinebench craze makes CPU purchase decisions easy for studios using Cinema 4D.
AngryGoldfish
Old N Gold
Adode, Microsoft Excell/Word/Powerpoint/etc, audio production, all of these prefer Intel and are considered 'optimised' tasks and programs—optimised being well-established.
AlienALX
Well-known member
No, not every fully multithreaded task becomes Cinebench. There are highly optimised tools which prefer Intel as well, for example gcc. Reasons for that are too complex for me, though I'm willing to bet it has something to do with the memory controller.
Also, there are plenty of single core happy professional tools. For some reason Premiere's rendering strongly prefers 8700k as well.
It boils down to what you do with your computer, and luckily there's plenty of benchmark results all over the net. Advantages of Ryzen are price and sensible requirements for cooling. Intel has single core performance and better memory compatibility along with latencies in the bag. It's not like programming for multiple threads is new, there's just plenty of applications where it isn't feasible, or even if it is like in the case of compilers, low memory latency is important. Fully multithreaded games won't become the norm in Ryzen's usable lifetime either.
Certain situations will always favour one or the other, so make your pick based on the situations which matter the most to you. Nobody buys their computer for the sole purpose of running Cinebench, though I'd imagine the Cinebench craze makes CPU purchase decisions easy for studios using Cinema 4D.
99% of the time it does not boil down to what you do, it boils down to cold hard cash.
Everything I buy I am mindful of the costs. So for example, yes the Intel I3 or whatever they call it now (the quad core) is expensive when compared to the 1200, and the 1200 is perfectly adequate in most scenarios. It's not like it grinds to a halt and refuses to run your games.
Similar threads
