Arctic Liquid Freezer II 280 liquid cooler review
Promo: Windows 10 Pro licenses for under 10 USD
Team Group MP33 NVMe 512 GB SSD Review
ADATA SE800 1TB Portable SSD review
Promo: Microsoft Office 2016 for $29.82
Corsair H100i RGB Pro XT liquid cooler review
Corsair K95 RGB PLATINUM XT review
AORUS Radeon RX 5700 XT 8G review
Endgame XM1 gaming mouse review
Guru3D Rig of the Month - December 2019
Intel Launches its Core i3-8130U Mobile CPU
Intel is expanding the performance options available for mainstream laptops and 2 in 1s with the 8th Gen Intel Core i3 processor. The new Intel Core i3-8130U features 2 cores and 4 threads, up to 3.4 GHz and DDR4-2400 memory.
This rounds out the portfolio for the first mobile processors Intel introduced in the 8th Gen Intel Core processor family in August. Expect to see new systems from our partners soon powered by the 8th Gen Intel Core i3 that give consumers even more choice in finding a great laptop and 2 in 1 with the right balance of features, performance and price that fits their needs.
The new chip has a base clock of 2.2GHz, and gets a 3.4GHz turbo mode. Cache is 1MB, and memory speed is now DDR4-2400, up from DDR4-2133. The integrated graphics is HD 620.
| Processor Number | Cores/Threads | Base Freq (GHz) | Intel Turbo Boost Technology 2.0 | Graphics | Graphics Base / Max Freq (MHz) | LPDDR3 Memory Speed Support (MHz) | DDR4 Memory Speed Support (MHz) | L3 Cache | TDP | |
| Max Single Core Turbo (GHz) | Max Dual Core Turbo (GHz) | |||||||||
| Intel® Core™ i3-8130U | 2/4 | 2.20 | 3.40 | 3.40 | Intel® UHD Graphics 620 | 300/1000 | 2133 | 2400 | 4MB | 15W |
Intel Launches Xeon D-2100 Processors with up to 18 cores and 36 threads - 02/07/2018 04:58 PM
Intel just announced a new series of Xeon D SoCs for servers, these are based on Skylake-SP architecture. The flagship SoC would be the Xeon D-2191 which gets whopping 18 cores and 36 threads. The X...
Intel Launches NUC8i7HVK and NUC8i7HNK NUC - 01/08/2018 10:13 AM
Intel launched the latest Intel NUCs, based on the newly announced 8th Gen Intel Core i7 processor with Radeon RX Vega M graphics. The new Intel NUC (formerly code-named Hades Canyon) brings this powe...
Intel Launches Skylake-SP for Servers With up-to 28 cores - 07/11/2017 06:48 PM
Intel today introduced its latest generation Xeon server platform, codenamed Skylake-SP or what is called the Xeon Scalable Processor Series, based on the Skylake architecture used in laptops and de...
Computex 2017: Intel Launches X299, Kabylake-X, and Skylake-X - 05/30/2017 08:11 AM
Intel this summer will be releasing a new series of processor and accompanying motherboards. When you open your eyes and focus like a hawk here at Computex, you can stumble into some motherboards that...
Intel Launches SSD DC P4500 Series and SSD DC P4600 Series - 05/03/2017 07:33 AM
Intel announced two new Intel 3D NAND solid state drives for data centers, the Intel SSD DC P4500 Series and DC P4600 Series up-to 4TB, along with reinforcing its commitment to expanding 3D NAND suppl...
schmidtbag
Senior Member
Posts: 4632
Joined: 2012-11-10
Senior Member
Posts: 4632
Joined: 2012-11-10
#5519634 Posted on: 02/13/2018 05:23 PM
Remember, TDP!=wattage. Also, Intel for years has been extremely vague about their TDPs. Nowadays, the only reason to pay attention to it is to get a rough idea of what kind of heatsink you need if you don't intend to overclock. Otherwise, you might as well ignore the TDP value they advertise, because it's pretty much meaningless. This is exacerbated when you consider that turbo-clocked chips will sometimes ignore the TDP whenever they get the opportunity.
I don't see point in releasing 2 core CPUs that have same TDP but way lower performance as their quad core counterparts like i5-8250U.
Remember, TDP!=wattage. Also, Intel for years has been extremely vague about their TDPs. Nowadays, the only reason to pay attention to it is to get a rough idea of what kind of heatsink you need if you don't intend to overclock. Otherwise, you might as well ignore the TDP value they advertise, because it's pretty much meaningless. This is exacerbated when you consider that turbo-clocked chips will sometimes ignore the TDP whenever they get the opportunity.
SweenJM
Senior Member
Posts: 670
Joined: 2017-09-10
Senior Member
Posts: 670
Joined: 2017-09-10
#5519684 Posted on: 02/13/2018 08:47 PM
a new i3. yay! i can play crysis now..
a new i3. yay! i can play crysis now..
airbud7
Senior Member
Posts: 7652
Joined: 2011-07-20
Senior Member
Posts: 7652
Joined: 2011-07-20
#5519758 Posted on: 02/14/2018 03:26 AM
coffee lake i3/ 1050ti/1060 would blow this off the map @ gaming! ...get a grip folks.
per core performance still counts.
anyone that tells you that a new ryzen is faster than a 7700k (2years old) is stupid....
its funny how gaming benchmarks no longer matter?....synthetic benchmarks are just that...synthetic...much less the 8700k/8600k
I'm starting to see a prejudism here and hey!....Is there a ryzen that can beat a 7700k? Nope!
Much less a 8600k....8700k....Nope! ..Facts are Facts.............
coffee lake i3/ 1050ti/1060 would blow this off the map @ gaming! ...get a grip folks.
per core performance still counts.
anyone that tells you that a new ryzen is faster than a 7700k (2years old) is stupid....
its funny how gaming benchmarks no longer matter?....synthetic benchmarks are just that...synthetic...much less the 8700k/8600k
I'm starting to see a prejudism here and hey!....Is there a ryzen that can beat a 7700k? Nope!
Much less a 8600k....8700k....Nope! ..Facts are Facts.............
awang
Junior Member
Posts: 16
Joined: 2005-06-26
Junior Member
Posts: 16
Joined: 2005-06-26
#5519763 Posted on: 02/14/2018 04:32 AM
coffee lake i3/ 1050ti/1060 would blow this off the map @ gaming! ...get a grip folks.
per core performance still counts.
anyone that tells you that a new ryzen is faster than a 7700k (2years old) is stupid....
its funny how gaming benchmarks no longer matter?....synthetic benchmarks are just that...synthetic...much less the 8700k/8600k
I'm starting to see a prejudism here and hey!....Is there a ryzen that can beat a 7700k? Nope!
Much less a 8600k....8700k....Nope! ..Facts are Facts.............
fact is, amd won certain benchmarks and so does intel..sysh
coffee lake i3/ 1050ti/1060 would blow this off the map @ gaming! ...get a grip folks.
per core performance still counts.
anyone that tells you that a new ryzen is faster than a 7700k (2years old) is stupid....
its funny how gaming benchmarks no longer matter?....synthetic benchmarks are just that...synthetic...much less the 8700k/8600k
I'm starting to see a prejudism here and hey!....Is there a ryzen that can beat a 7700k? Nope!
Much less a 8600k....8700k....Nope! ..Facts are Facts.............
fact is, amd won certain benchmarks and so does intel..sysh
airbud7
Senior Member
Posts: 7652
Joined: 2011-07-20
Senior Member
Posts: 7652
Joined: 2011-07-20
#5519765 Posted on: 02/14/2018 04:33 AM
not gaming dude
8700k will kick the dog shit out of any AMD @ Gaming
fact is, amd won certain benchmarks and so does intel..sysh
not gaming dude
8700k will kick the dog shit out of any AMD @ Gaming
schmidtbag
Senior Member
Posts: 4632
Joined: 2012-11-10
Senior Member
Posts: 4632
Joined: 2012-11-10
#5519767 Posted on: 02/14/2018 04:57 AM
anyone that tells you that a new ryzen is faster than a 7700k (2years old) is stupid....
its funny how gaming benchmarks no longer matter?....synthetic benchmarks are just that...synthetic...much less the 8700k/8600k
I'm starting to see a prejudism here and hey!....Is there a ryzen that can beat a 7700k? Nope!
Much less a 8600k....8700k....Nope! ..Facts are Facts.............
not gaming dude
8700k will kick the dog crap out of any AMD @ Gaming
The only one here who brought up Ryzen is you, so.... considering you're ranting on a thread about something that was never said, you mind toning down the trolling?
Anyway, in most cases (but obviously not all), a 7700K or 8700K will only win by up to 5 FPS, and that's taking into consideration the significant frequency boost they have. That's not "kicking the dog crap out of any AMD @ gaming". The vast majority of people play below 90FPS with vsync on and tend to bottleneck their GPUs, so I think most people are fine with buying a cheaper CPU with no perceivable performance loss. Everyone knows that if you want a 120Hz+ display, Intel is still the better option.
When you phrase things the way you do, you might want to reconsider who you think is being prejudiced. Not everyone has, wants, or needs every last frame they can get. Remember, most console games operate at 30FPS, which millions of people are satisfied with.
anyone that tells you that a new ryzen is faster than a 7700k (2years old) is stupid....
its funny how gaming benchmarks no longer matter?....synthetic benchmarks are just that...synthetic...much less the 8700k/8600k
I'm starting to see a prejudism here and hey!....Is there a ryzen that can beat a 7700k? Nope!
Much less a 8600k....8700k....Nope! ..Facts are Facts.............
not gaming dude
8700k will kick the dog crap out of any AMD @ Gaming
The only one here who brought up Ryzen is you, so.... considering you're ranting on a thread about something that was never said, you mind toning down the trolling?
Anyway, in most cases (but obviously not all), a 7700K or 8700K will only win by up to 5 FPS, and that's taking into consideration the significant frequency boost they have. That's not "kicking the dog crap out of any AMD @ gaming". The vast majority of people play below 90FPS with vsync on and tend to bottleneck their GPUs, so I think most people are fine with buying a cheaper CPU with no perceivable performance loss. Everyone knows that if you want a 120Hz+ display, Intel is still the better option.
When you phrase things the way you do, you might want to reconsider who you think is being prejudiced. Not everyone has, wants, or needs every last frame they can get. Remember, most console games operate at 30FPS, which millions of people are satisfied with.
airbud7
Senior Member
Posts: 7652
Joined: 2011-07-20
Senior Member
Posts: 7652
Joined: 2011-07-20
#5519769 Posted on: 02/14/2018 05:01 AM
Love my 2600k but i tell ya....that 8700k/8600k looks like some bad ass mofo's a good value
The only one here who brought up Ryzen is you, so.... considering you're ranting on a thread about something that was never said, you mind toning down the trolling?
Anyway, in most cases (but obviously not all), a 7700K or 8700K will only win by up to 5 FPS, and that's taking into consideration the significant frequency boost they have. That's not "kicking the dog crap out of any AMD @ gaming". The vast majority of people play below 90FPS with vsync on and tend to bottleneck their GPUs, so I think most people are fine with buying a cheaper CPU with no perceivable performance loss. Everyone knows that if you want a 120Hz+ display, Intel is still the better option.
When you phrase things the way you do, you might want to reconsider who you think is being prejudiced. Not everyone has, wants, or needs every last frame they can get. Remember, most console games operate at 30FPS, which millions of people are satisfied with.
8700k is still faster......Still waiting on your point? ....7700k is to?
Love my 2600k but i tell ya....that 8700k/8600k looks like some bad ass mofo's a good value
The only one here who brought up Ryzen is you, so.... considering you're ranting on a thread about something that was never said, you mind toning down the trolling?
Anyway, in most cases (but obviously not all), a 7700K or 8700K will only win by up to 5 FPS, and that's taking into consideration the significant frequency boost they have. That's not "kicking the dog crap out of any AMD @ gaming". The vast majority of people play below 90FPS with vsync on and tend to bottleneck their GPUs, so I think most people are fine with buying a cheaper CPU with no perceivable performance loss. Everyone knows that if you want a 120Hz+ display, Intel is still the better option.
When you phrase things the way you do, you might want to reconsider who you think is being prejudiced. Not everyone has, wants, or needs every last frame they can get. Remember, most console games operate at 30FPS, which millions of people are satisfied with.
8700k is still faster......Still waiting on your point? ....7700k is to?
schmidtbag
Senior Member
Posts: 4632
Joined: 2012-11-10
Senior Member
Posts: 4632
Joined: 2012-11-10
#5519770 Posted on: 02/14/2018 05:11 AM
Love my 2600k but i tell ya....that 8700k/8600k looks like some bad ass mofo's a good value
8700k is still faster......Still waiting on your point?
I don't disagree, but I don't see how any of that is relevant to this thread. Seems very off-topic to me - we're talking about mobile i3s...
As for the 8700K being faster, so what? What's the point of paying extra for performance you won't use? If you can take advantage of its higher clock speeds (like for 120Hz+ gaming or streaming) then great. But most people don't apply to that, and therefore, that "bad ass mofo's good value" suddenly looks like an unnecessary expense. I'm not saying to avoid Intel - my point is they're not a one-size-fits-all solution, and that Ryzen is perfectly adequate for gaming. As awang put, one brand wins some tests, one brand wins other tests. Get what you need. If an 8700K fits your needs that a competing Ryzen won't, then go get the 8700K.
Love my 2600k but i tell ya....that 8700k/8600k looks like some bad ass mofo's a good value
8700k is still faster......Still waiting on your point?
I don't disagree, but I don't see how any of that is relevant to this thread. Seems very off-topic to me - we're talking about mobile i3s...
As for the 8700K being faster, so what? What's the point of paying extra for performance you won't use? If you can take advantage of its higher clock speeds (like for 120Hz+ gaming or streaming) then great. But most people don't apply to that, and therefore, that "bad ass mofo's good value" suddenly looks like an unnecessary expense. I'm not saying to avoid Intel - my point is they're not a one-size-fits-all solution, and that Ryzen is perfectly adequate for gaming. As awang put, one brand wins some tests, one brand wins other tests. Get what you need. If an 8700K fits your needs that a competing Ryzen won't, then go get the 8700K.
Fox2232
Senior Member
Posts: 9837
Joined: 2012-07-20
Senior Member
Posts: 9837
Joined: 2012-07-20
#5519791 Posted on: 02/14/2018 08:30 AM
Tell it to throttlestop. Intel's mobile parts have several clock limiting factors.
But main two are power consumption limit and temperature. And both revolve around TDP.
With throttlestop you can partially get over power draw limit, but there is hard one in BIOS. I remember that unpleasant finding that after BIOS update on tablet, CPU refused to eat more than 10W while before it could go up to 12W.
Here this chip at least does not have limited speed due to number of cores used (Same turbo for both cores under load.)
Remember, TDP!=wattage. Also, Intel for years has been extremely vague about their TDPs. Nowadays, the only reason to pay attention to it is to get a rough idea of what kind of heatsink you need if you don't intend to overclock. Otherwise, you might as well ignore the TDP value they advertise, because it's pretty much meaningless. This is exacerbated when you consider that turbo-clocked chips will sometimes ignore the TDP whenever they get the opportunity.
Tell it to throttlestop. Intel's mobile parts have several clock limiting factors.
But main two are power consumption limit and temperature. And both revolve around TDP.
With throttlestop you can partially get over power draw limit, but there is hard one in BIOS. I remember that unpleasant finding that after BIOS update on tablet, CPU refused to eat more than 10W while before it could go up to 12W.
Here this chip at least does not have limited speed due to number of cores used (Same turbo for both cores under load.)
Agonist
Senior Member
Posts: 2759
Joined: 2008-10-13
Senior Member
Posts: 2759
Joined: 2008-10-13
#5520069 Posted on: 02/15/2018 01:40 AM
coffee lake i3/ 1050ti/1060 would blow this off the map @ gaming! ...get a grip folks.
per core performance still counts.
anyone that tells you that a new ryzen is faster than a 7700k (2years old) is stupid....
its funny how gaming benchmarks no longer matter?....synthetic benchmarks are just that...synthetic...much less the 8700k/8600k
I'm starting to see a prejudism here and hey!....Is there a ryzen that can beat a 7700k? Nope!
Much less a 8600k....8700k....Nope! ..Facts are Facts.............
Why you so bent?
Seriously. I went from a 3930k @ 4.6 to a 1500x @ 3.9, and guess what. I literally only can tell the difference in once game. BF1.
Ryzen is better then Intel in my opinion except for 144hz+ users @ 1080p. 1440p 120hz+ is a whole different story IMHO. Both are great. This past almost year has been awesome in the CPU world finally.
I had a i7 3820( same as 2600k) and was it was shit until I pushed it to 4.5ghz.
Personally Id rather have a 1600x @ 4ghz then a 6700/770k @ 4.5ghz. Why, because I am tired of quadcores. I still hate that I couldnt get even a R5 1600. My last 3 cpus before Ryzen, x5650@4.5, i7 3820 @ 4.5, i7 3930k@ 4.5.
Quad core 8 thread cpus have been the near top end gaming cpu for 10 years now. X58 12 thread cpus were retarded expensive and still are outside of the xeons. X79 was expensive as hell too.
I paid $375 for my 3930k.
My 1500x was $189. Cheaper them 3820 was @ $220.
Thats rather crappy IMHO.
coffee lake i3/ 1050ti/1060 would blow this off the map @ gaming! ...get a grip folks.
per core performance still counts.
anyone that tells you that a new ryzen is faster than a 7700k (2years old) is stupid....
its funny how gaming benchmarks no longer matter?....synthetic benchmarks are just that...synthetic...much less the 8700k/8600k
I'm starting to see a prejudism here and hey!....Is there a ryzen that can beat a 7700k? Nope!
Much less a 8600k....8700k....Nope! ..Facts are Facts.............
Why you so bent?
Seriously. I went from a 3930k @ 4.6 to a 1500x @ 3.9, and guess what. I literally only can tell the difference in once game. BF1.
Ryzen is better then Intel in my opinion except for 144hz+ users @ 1080p. 1440p 120hz+ is a whole different story IMHO. Both are great. This past almost year has been awesome in the CPU world finally.
I had a i7 3820( same as 2600k) and was it was shit until I pushed it to 4.5ghz.
Personally Id rather have a 1600x @ 4ghz then a 6700/770k @ 4.5ghz. Why, because I am tired of quadcores. I still hate that I couldnt get even a R5 1600. My last 3 cpus before Ryzen, x5650@4.5, i7 3820 @ 4.5, i7 3930k@ 4.5.
Quad core 8 thread cpus have been the near top end gaming cpu for 10 years now. X58 12 thread cpus were retarded expensive and still are outside of the xeons. X79 was expensive as hell too.
I paid $375 for my 3930k.
My 1500x was $189. Cheaper them 3820 was @ $220.
Thats rather crappy IMHO.
sykozis
Senior Member
Posts: 21143
Joined: 2008-07-14
Senior Member
Posts: 21143
Joined: 2008-07-14
#5520078 Posted on: 02/15/2018 03:07 AM
coffee lake i3/ 1050ti/1060 would blow this off the map @ gaming! ...get a grip folks.
This processor isn't meant for gaming. It's a ULV processor....and it's a mobile processor.
per core performance still counts.
And the ULV i3's have excellent "per core performance"
anyone that tells you that a new ryzen is faster than a 7700k (2years old) is stupid....
its funny how gaming benchmarks no longer matter?....synthetic benchmarks are just that...synthetic...much less the 8700k/8600k
I'm starting to see a prejudism here and hey!....Is there a ryzen that can beat a 7700k? Nope!
Much less a 8600k....8700k....Nope! ..Facts are Facts.............
This thread is about a mobile ULV processor. Why are you bashing AMD and Ryzen processors? Hell, why are you even mentioning the 7700K, 8600K or 8700K? They're all desktop processors.
The only prejudice here appears to be from you.... I mean, sure, Hilbert did just post 2 reviews of AMD processors the other day, but you're the only one that seems to see any prejudice. This is a tech forum, right? It's a bit ironic to see someone complain about "prejudice" considering this forum's long standing history of being insanely Intel/NVidia biased...
Also, as a point of fact, there are applications that favor Intel processors and applications that favor AMD processors. Neither maintains an advantage in every market. Gaming happens to be the market that matters least in the real world.
coffee lake i3/ 1050ti/1060 would blow this off the map @ gaming! ...get a grip folks.
This processor isn't meant for gaming. It's a ULV processor....and it's a mobile processor.
per core performance still counts.
And the ULV i3's have excellent "per core performance"
anyone that tells you that a new ryzen is faster than a 7700k (2years old) is stupid....
its funny how gaming benchmarks no longer matter?....synthetic benchmarks are just that...synthetic...much less the 8700k/8600k
I'm starting to see a prejudism here and hey!....Is there a ryzen that can beat a 7700k? Nope!
Much less a 8600k....8700k....Nope! ..Facts are Facts.............
This thread is about a mobile ULV processor. Why are you bashing AMD and Ryzen processors? Hell, why are you even mentioning the 7700K, 8600K or 8700K? They're all desktop processors.
The only prejudice here appears to be from you.... I mean, sure, Hilbert did just post 2 reviews of AMD processors the other day, but you're the only one that seems to see any prejudice. This is a tech forum, right? It's a bit ironic to see someone complain about "prejudice" considering this forum's long standing history of being insanely Intel/NVidia biased...
Also, as a point of fact, there are applications that favor Intel processors and applications that favor AMD processors. Neither maintains an advantage in every market. Gaming happens to be the market that matters least in the real world.
airbud7
Senior Member
Posts: 7652
Joined: 2011-07-20
Senior Member
Posts: 7652
Joined: 2011-07-20
#5520082 Posted on: 02/15/2018 03:19 AM
This processor isn't meant for gaming. It's a ULV processor....and it's a mobile processor.
And the ULV i3's have excellent "per core performance"
This thread is about a mobile ULV processor. Why are you bashing AMD and Ryzen processors? Hell, why are you even mentioning the 7700K, 8600K or 8700K? They're all desktop processors.
The only prejudice here appears to be from you.... I mean, sure, Hilbert did just post 2 reviews of AMD processors the other day, but you're the only one that seems to see any prejudice. This is a tech forum, right? It's a bit ironic to see someone complain about "prejudice" considering this forum's long standing history of being insanely Intel/NVidia biased...
Also, as a point of fact, there are applications that favor Intel processors and applications that favor AMD processors. Neither maintains an advantage in every market. Gaming happens to be the market that matters least in the real world.
I clicked on the wrong thread...good grief give me a lashing and get over it.
Love ya sykozis!...you make America great better than Trump...
This processor isn't meant for gaming. It's a ULV processor....and it's a mobile processor.
And the ULV i3's have excellent "per core performance"
This thread is about a mobile ULV processor. Why are you bashing AMD and Ryzen processors? Hell, why are you even mentioning the 7700K, 8600K or 8700K? They're all desktop processors.
The only prejudice here appears to be from you.... I mean, sure, Hilbert did just post 2 reviews of AMD processors the other day, but you're the only one that seems to see any prejudice. This is a tech forum, right? It's a bit ironic to see someone complain about "prejudice" considering this forum's long standing history of being insanely Intel/NVidia biased...
Also, as a point of fact, there are applications that favor Intel processors and applications that favor AMD processors. Neither maintains an advantage in every market. Gaming happens to be the market that matters least in the real world.
I clicked on the wrong thread...good grief give me a lashing and get over it.
Love ya sykozis!...you make America great better than Trump...
Neo Cyrus
Senior Member
Posts: 9255
Joined: 2006-02-14
Senior Member
Posts: 9255
Joined: 2006-02-14
#5520117 Posted on: 02/15/2018 07:50 AM
8700k will kick the dog crap out of any AMD @ Gaming
Not gaming that's not optimized to properly use more than 4 cores. That gap wouldn't exist vs 8 core Ryzens if games actually made proper use of 16 threads. We already know clock for clock Ryzen is not insanely far behind Intel's latest chips. Pretty much everything is optimized for 4 cores and Intel CPUs in general. I expect that to change in the near future. Everything is so heavily bottlenecked by the GPU anyway that I'm not even considering an Intel CPU if the next Ryzens offer similar relative value as the current.
The cheapest 8700K I see available is $450 CAD (that's a "sale" LOL), versus $365 for a Ryzen 7 1700, not exactly the same value per dollar, especially considering we all know Intel motherboards are only used for 1 generation while the AMD boards will function for the next with BIOS updates. Considering the GPU bottleneck, I'd say screw it and go for a Ryzen 5 1600 for $239 at the moment if I was upgrading.
Edited to be less of a mess.
8700k will kick the dog crap out of any AMD @ Gaming
Not gaming that's not optimized to properly use more than 4 cores. That gap wouldn't exist vs 8 core Ryzens if games actually made proper use of 16 threads. We already know clock for clock Ryzen is not insanely far behind Intel's latest chips. Pretty much everything is optimized for 4 cores and Intel CPUs in general. I expect that to change in the near future. Everything is so heavily bottlenecked by the GPU anyway that I'm not even considering an Intel CPU if the next Ryzens offer similar relative value as the current.
The cheapest 8700K I see available is $450 CAD (that's a "sale" LOL), versus $365 for a Ryzen 7 1700, not exactly the same value per dollar, especially considering we all know Intel motherboards are only used for 1 generation while the AMD boards will function for the next with BIOS updates. Considering the GPU bottleneck, I'd say screw it and go for a Ryzen 5 1600 for $239 at the moment if I was upgrading.
Edited to be less of a mess.
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 329
Joined: 2015-06-18
I don't see point in releasing 2 core CPUs that have same TDP but way lower performance as their quad core counterparts like i5-8250U.