Well the socket might be the same but things like ddr5 or pcie4 or usb4 will force you to upgrade. That been said, yes, Intel is changing sockets way too fast.
Intel's 9th Generation i7 9700K is rumoured to have 8 cores and 16 threads
- Thread starter WYP
- Start date
AngryGoldfish
Old N Gold
The likelihood of DDR5 releasing in 2018 on mass scale for a price worth the investment is minuscule. DRAM prices are already abnormally high and DDR4 isn't causing any major issues for most systems. Even Ryzen 2 which is slated for 2019 with a new chipset won't likely support DDR5 since Ryzen 2 will be almost finished by the time JEDEC even releases the specifications for their new technology. AMD supporting it is unlikely, unless it would help with the Infinity Fabric dramatically.
USB 4.0 is pointless for the majority as we're still stuck with HDDs which won't be able to write or read data fast enough to keep up with USB 4.0. No devices will support it. USB 3.1 has been out for quite a while now and barely any devices actually take advantage of it. USB 4.0 is miles away from becoming a common reality.
PCI-e gen 4, which was said to be released in 2017, is more suited for GPUs that are actually bandwidth starved, which most consumer grade graphics cards aren't, and some storage devices. AMD said that PCI-e 4.0 won't be included in their motherboards until 2020. Intel might introduce it sooner with their enthusiast platform, and that says it all really. Also, PCi-e gen 5 is supposedly to quickly replace gen 4. 2019 is the reported time for PCI-e 5.0. Are we really going to have GPUs that take advantage of 32GT/s?
Last edited:
TheF34RChannel
New member
Additionally I'm beginning to dislike certain parts of this site for all the needless hate, it's beneath its great members!
Mark, it's not Cannonlake because again, that's been canceled a long time ago. 9th gen is ice lake
NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
If cherry picking results means it is always faster to you, then sure. You are right and I won't argue against it
AlienALX
Well-known member
That is exactly what I am not doing. I am comparing the results when the CPU is utilised 100%.
Tell me a single game that utilises any CPU 100% over 100% of the CPU, then we'll talk.
And yes, I mean certain levels in Crysis 3, for example, that use all of a Ryzen and have it pegged identically to an Intel CPU.
It's like saying "Well I bought a Ferrari, but you are only allowed two wheels to demonstrate how fast it is".
I've been into PCs for a long, long time. So I know exactly what separates the wheat from the chaff when it comes to telling what a CPU is made of. I'm not interested in tests that only use a certain part of the CPU and or are designed to use a certain feature set of a certain CPU and hobble the feck out of anything else (see also - Geekwasteoftimebench). The same Geekwasteoftimebench that Intel keep using every time they are about to launch a new CPU. *THAT* is how you cheat.
I showed you the other day how Ryzen fares on Cinebench at 700mhz less than BE. That's legit. Anything that uses all of it produces very similar results.
It's just marred by clock speed at the moment. If the next gen can hit 4.5ghz? then let's come back and have this chat again
Kei
Member
Probably got a lot to do with the fact that you get certified hardware that companies have to stick to in order to be able to get software support. Usually that means intel xeon workstations and certainly in the video editing world, mainly nvidia quadro gpus.
Dicehunter
Resident Newb
That is exactly what I am not doing. I am comparing the results when the CPU is utilised 100%.
Tell me a single game that utilises any CPU 100% over 100% of the CPU, then we'll talk.
And yes, I mean certain levels in Crysis 3, for example, that use all of a Ryzen and have it pegged identically to an Intel CPU.
It's like saying "Well I bought a Ferrari, but you are only allowed two wheels to demonstrate how fast it is".
I've been into PCs for a long, long time. So I know exactly what separates the wheat from the chaff when it comes to telling what a CPU is made of. I'm not interested in tests that only use a certain part of the CPU and or are designed to use a certain feature set of a certain CPU and hobble the feck out of anything else (see also - Geekwasteoftimebench). The same Geekwasteoftimebench that Intel keep using every time they are about to launch a new CPU. *THAT* is how you cheat.
I showed you the other day how Ryzen fares on Cinebench at 700mhz less than BE. That's legit. Anything that uses all of it produces very similar results.
It's just marred by clock speed at the moment. If the next gen can hit 4.5ghz? then let's come back and have this chat again
I'm hopeful that the refresh Ryzen chips coming in Q1 for AM4 will hit 4.50GHz, Imagine an 1800X with slight architectural improvements but being able to hit 4.50GHZ ? That would be nuts especially at the given price point.
NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
I don't care how you think about it. I care about results. And it's not as fast and the fact you bring up it's worst performance metric compared to intel and say it doesn't count because of a poor analogy you made up, just makes you seem naive. I'm not attacking you but be realistic. Nobody buys a CPU because it is theoretically faster. They tried that with a PS3 and it's Vector Units. Yeah it was more powerful than the Xbox, but how long did it take until Playstation games showed that let alone PS3 catching up in the market in terms of units sold? 7 years? You telling me you want to wait a similar amount of time at which point your argument is in an even worse position because it'll be completely out of date?
Intel CPUs are faster right now. You're cherry picked results show it's not always the case sure, but cinebench is honestly worthless in terms of real life usage. It's a syntehtic benchmark. The engine is also not nearly used enough in the real world to warrant a sufficient win for AMD in terms of "faster". People want results now without the promise of later. Don't believe me? Nvidia vs AMD. Exactly the same thing. AMD are losing that battle, granted much worse, but nobody waits for AMD. They buy the next gen card and that's Nvidia because they are ahead and release more often.
But I am not going to continue to risk a very long post. This is one of the few times on this forum one person can say you are wrong. And this is it. I give you the fact your certain results are true, but in the end it quite literally doesn't matter. Even if you go up to 18 cores vs 16 cores or to make it even 16v16, Intel still wins 9.5 times out of 10.
Again I am not attacking you. I'm being realistic. I've said it before. I love AMD as much as the next guy here and I probably even supported them more than most people would. But don't be blinded by Ryzen. It's a great chip, but don't hype it up beyond what it is. We don't want to be labeled as a "biased forum".
Last edited:
AlienALX
Well-known member
No you're correct people buy CPUs for what they use them for in the here and now and thus I buy massively cored CPUs as it's the best for VMware. So that is how I grade a CPU and that is what I look for. And I've been doing that for years. So that's what I use a CPU for and that's how I grade them. Each to his own correct?
I have not cherry picked results. If I did I would not have conceded that games are faster on Intel because game engines are crap, would I? I just don't think it's very fair to grade a CPU on that (for all of the reasons I have pointed out) and that information is also useless to me any way.
And as I keep saying, any one who buys an 8/12/16+ core CPU for gaming is stupid any way.
You can say whatever you like. It doesn't make you right. However I totally agree, there is a point where Intel's lower cored CPUs (very HEDT with some actual lanes and lots of cache) can overclock and be faster than TR but again they cost a fortune. Especially with TRs latest price drops. And again it all comes back to money and what it costs, because if it did not we would all have TRs and 18 core Intels on this forum, eh? but we don't because we bought what we could afford. So basically that makes about 99.9999999999% of this forum (apart from one person I know on here) that buys and their entire purchase is all about the money.
BTW before you accuse me of any more Intel hating AMD fanboyizm please ask yourself why I am running a 14 core BE. Quite simply? money ! it was cheaper than a 1800x and flat out is a good 20% faster. So even all of my hatred for Intel and dislike of how they operate as a company did not stop me making the correct financial decision. Do you see?
And you could sit here and argue with me all day about how Ryzen is faster at gaming and etc etc but I didn't buy it for gaming so the only benchmarks that would matter to me are the ones that use all of the CPU and push it flat out.
Make sense? because you seem awfully close to starting the insults or something.
Last edited:
The_Governour
New member
Its since Ryzen that *everyone* needs the extra cores for rendering and streaming etc. We all know that the 8700k is the best for GAMING and now you can even render and stream well with it.
Its NOT the best price but its the BEST in general terms for gaming and that is where the majority are doing.
AMD is not up to par but they have the best performance/price ratio.
This new i7 will probably be the best for gaming again. No matter what AMD throws on the line.
If u Game 》》 Stream 》》 Render then this cpu will be the best. If u want the best then u pay.
Its like the GPU's and the 1080ti... is it best performance/price ratio? No. Not at all. But if you want the best for Gaming then u pay.
I love a good competition but to say that AMD cpus are equal at gaming then one is only lying to one self.
I want to upgrade from my 5820k, I game-stream-render youtube videos. For that then i would say a new i7 9700k would be possibly ideal.
Its NOT the best price but its the BEST in general terms for gaming and that is where the majority are doing.
AMD is not up to par but they have the best performance/price ratio.
This new i7 will probably be the best for gaming again. No matter what AMD throws on the line.
If u Game 》》 Stream 》》 Render then this cpu will be the best. If u want the best then u pay.
Its like the GPU's and the 1080ti... is it best performance/price ratio? No. Not at all. But if you want the best for Gaming then u pay.
I love a good competition but to say that AMD cpus are equal at gaming then one is only lying to one self.
I want to upgrade from my 5820k, I game-stream-render youtube videos. For that then i would say a new i7 9700k would be possibly ideal.
Last edited:
AngryGoldfish
Old N Gold
This. This 100%. You want the best? Intel offers it. But you'll have to pay for it. AMD has shaken things up, but by no means are they on top.
AlienALX
Well-known member
It wasn't since Ryzen that every one needed the cores for streaming. The issue persisted long before that and was why people were still buying FX8s for X-Split etc.
I wouldn't even mind if Intel was the best and you paid for it but in some cases it clearly is not and you still pay for it.
BTW just so I am clear on this. Intel were the ones holding us back. Four cores mainstream and that was your lot. If you were lucky you got 4 cores and HT. Don't forget they were the ones charging £185 for an unlocked I3 with 2c 4t !
So now that they have had a core enema they have had no choice but to give us what they should have been giving us for ten years or more. However, they seem to have missed the memo that their prices are stupid. They could have killed Ryzen stone dead a week after it came out very easily but greed. If they weren't so greedy you wouldn't buy Ryzen for anything.
As it stands? paying for Intel is stupid. It really is. But people will still do it, giving Intel a reason to keep taking the pee. And so it goes on.
However, given it seems to be Intel that dictates how many cores we use (and they are lining up a 8c mainstream CPU) you can now expect core use to increase also. You would be incredibly naive to buy a 4 core CPU now hoping that Intel are going to keep that as the go to CPU. The times have changed now.
I wouldn't even mind if Intel was the best and you paid for it but in some cases it clearly is not and you still pay for it.
BTW just so I am clear on this. Intel were the ones holding us back. Four cores mainstream and that was your lot. If you were lucky you got 4 cores and HT. Don't forget they were the ones charging £185 for an unlocked I3 with 2c 4t !
So now that they have had a core enema they have had no choice but to give us what they should have been giving us for ten years or more. However, they seem to have missed the memo that their prices are stupid. They could have killed Ryzen stone dead a week after it came out very easily but greed. If they weren't so greedy you wouldn't buy Ryzen for anything.
As it stands? paying for Intel is stupid. It really is. But people will still do it, giving Intel a reason to keep taking the pee. And so it goes on.
However, given it seems to be Intel that dictates how many cores we use (and they are lining up a 8c mainstream CPU) you can now expect core use to increase also. You would be incredibly naive to buy a 4 core CPU now hoping that Intel are going to keep that as the go to CPU. The times have changed now.
Last edited:
AngryGoldfish
Old N Gold
While I agree that Intel have held innovation back in order to earn the most amount of money—and I resent that greatly, to the point that I don't want to support them—that doesn't change the fact that if you wanted an 8-core CPU now, Intel has the fastest option there is. The 7820X is faster than the 1800X in almost all benchmarks, including gaming and Cinebench. It also offers quad channel memory and four more PCI-e lanes. You pay a darn site more and is largely not worth it for the average consumer, but it is a faster CPU. Its market demographic is smaller than the Ryzen 7 range, but it is still the faster CPU.
So is it really so stupid to pay for Intel? If you want the fasted performance now and that's it, you buy Intel. One man's stupidity is another man's common sense since everyone has different needs and goals. Do you need a blazingly fast gaming CPU now and don't have a budget? Buy an 8700K. If you need a blazingly fast CPU for multitasking, productivity, and gaming? Buy something like a 7960X. If you need the fastest purely gaming CPU and have a slightly smaller but not low budget? Buy an 8600K. It's not about the future, what's good for the industry, what's the most fun, what's the most morally sound, what's the most economically sensible—it's about who is making the fastest CPU right now, and that's still Intel.
To me that's not a big deal and I don't mind admitting it. I have a 1600X that's inferior to the competing 6c/12t CPU. I have less overclocking headroom, lower multithreaded scores, lower FPS in games, more issues with platform instabilities, etc. But I don't mind. I WANT to support AMD. The 1600X made more sense for me. If I were buying my system now, I'd consider waiting for an 8700K price drop, but I'd be more eager to wait for Ryzen refresh to see if it could hit higher clock speeds, because if an R7 1700 could hit 4.5Ghz I'd actually sell my 1600X and get an 8-core and clock it to 4.5Ghz. That would be a huge performance increase for me, another fun project to add to my build, and another way to support the industry and AMD.
Last edited:
AlienALX
Well-known member
Well I have seen quite a few Threadripper owners state that they wanted the lanes, as no Intel can offer that many lanes. So the techs definitely swing if you compare the individual bits of them.
It's kinda like Top Trumps really isn't it? you could say well the Ryzen is better at this and that, and the Intel better at something else all the way down the specs list.
Bottom line though is clock speed. That is what hinders Ryzen in a very big way. Even Core 2 Duos (E8400 was it?) were hitting 4ghz years ago.
It's a funny scenario really. Intel could drop the price and kill Ryzen stone dead (but obviously they are not going to, principles and all that) and if AMD could get a 4.5ghz Ryzen out right now Intel would also be bang in trouble.
Ah well, here is hoping that next year brings some more clock speed
It's kinda like Top Trumps really isn't it? you could say well the Ryzen is better at this and that, and the Intel better at something else all the way down the specs list.
Bottom line though is clock speed. That is what hinders Ryzen in a very big way. Even Core 2 Duos (E8400 was it?) were hitting 4ghz years ago.
It's a funny scenario really. Intel could drop the price and kill Ryzen stone dead (but obviously they are not going to, principles and all that) and if AMD could get a 4.5ghz Ryzen out right now Intel would also be bang in trouble.
Ah well, here is hoping that next year brings some more clock speed
AngryGoldfish
Old N Gold
Yeah, clock speed would help so much with Ryzen. A 4.5Ghz (overclocked on all cores) R7 1700 for €300 would trump the 8700K in everything but niche gaming.
It is also true that if you wanted the most amount of PCI-e lanes, AMD is the unequivocal best. I forgot about that.
It is also true that if you wanted the most amount of PCI-e lanes, AMD is the unequivocal best. I forgot about that.
TIL hardware gets outdated
Dawelio
Active member
Damn dude, this post was the best I've read from you. The best post I've ever read on a forum, period.
Plus guys, don't forget something that someone like myself, which is a pure ITX person and that is soon switching to basically the smallest chassi which can hold a full size GPU, also thinks about the TDP. And wether or not a CPU is soldered or not.
Which AMD has a huge win here, with all of their Ryzen CPUs being soldered. Intel doesn't offer this as much in their own range yet. Mostly on their higher end platforms.
Similar threads
