Priyeshbabariya:

How can people who had Intel system over the years in the past and cheering as well as thanking AMD to bringing out the competition also upping the game in core count as well as the thermal solution when they don't intend to switch to AMD at all in future?! I do not understand mentality of customers, on one side people thank AMD to bringing out competition & then they buy Intel. how the hell AMD would come back when you do not buy their products at all or not intend to buy the products from them in future at all?

It's like those animal intelligence tests people like to think they are so clever at which elevates them above most animals (and babies, although corvids are actually good at those tests too). It tests for perception of a better future over short term gratification.... most animals and small babies will take what appears in front of their nose in the moment despite having been shown that if they ignore the 1st treat they will shortly be able to receive something much more desirable. Smart birds and young children+ will use some of their intelligence to attain a better future... we are understandably quite proud of this. ...So it confuses me somewhat to see so many people in a tech sector shooting themselves in the foot repetitively when it comes to helping shape the future of a competitive PC hardware market !?????? Almost without exception everyone seems to acknowledge that they want competition in the market, "but oh what's this, a berry, "yoink!" will take that Now thank you very much... " pervades all too often lol We really have the power to shape our future of this industry, I put my money where it will plant the seeds for the best future possible personally.

Honestly for just gaming my 1600 @3.925ghz is a massive overkill at least in 4k gaming I can only imagine what these would be like in my system would probably never pass 25% utilization.

icedman:

Honestly for just gaming my 1600 @3.925ghz is a massive overkill at least in 4k gaming I can only imagine what these would be like in my system would probably never pass 25% utilization.

Who game in 4k 60hz LOL

nizzen:

Who game in 4k 60hz LOL

99.8% of people do not game on 4k resolution even if some of them own 4k screen. But 99% of all people game on 60Hz. So, take your "lol" elsewhere. I say it as someone with screen capable to utilize same pixel rate as that 4k 60Hz.

Meanwhile at Intel: Engineer guy 1: "Can we chip a portable chiller unit with each CPU? Cuz you know, tooth past ain't gonna cut it this time!" Engineer guy 2: "I think it's better if we just solder the die to the IHS." Marketing guy 1: "And then we sell the chiller unit separately?" Marketing guy 2: "Good idea, everyone will buy it to get 5Ghz on all 8 cores and we will make millions!" Engineer guy 3: "What if you know who gets out an affordable CPU with more cores that does not need the chiller to stay cool?" Everyone else: "Shut up!"

To some comments above.. Because some of us choose as an example, a 8700k over a 1700(x)/1800(x)/2700(x), it doesn't automatically mean that we dislike AMD cpu's. And same goes for why some chose 1080(ti) over Vega 56/64, it doesn't mean we dislike AMD gpu's. On the contrary, I'm equally enjoying and cheering for all of them and absolutely enjoy reading about each release and their reviews, especially the 1700X release the most in the last few years! Most of us purely love hardware unbiasedly. So please, take those fanboy hats off and buy/enjoy whatever fits your needs or preference. 🙂 And on topic, it kinda obvious Intel chose to solder it for temp control. I would had loved to see internal testing results of this cpu with tim. But no complains. It's a start. Eagerly waiting for HH's review of those mainstream Intel octa-cores. Better late than never.

Koniakki:

To some comments above.. Because some of us choose as an example, a 8700k over a 1700(x)/1800(x)/2700(x), it must automatically means that we dislike AMD cpu's? And same goes for why some chose 1080(ti) over Vega 56/64, it doesn't mean we dislike AMD gpu's. On the contrary, I'm equally enjoying and cheering for all of them and absolutely enjoy reading about each release and their reviews, especially the 1700X release the most in the last few years! Most of us purely love hardware unbiasedly. So please, take those fanboy hats off and buy/enjoy whatever fits your needs or preference. 🙂

YES ! I buy hardware for the performance. I don't car what color/name it is. I just want the fastest 😀

Fox2232:

It's called hypocrisy. And it is consequence of instant gratification culture. People would not support AMD to keep competition if it delivered just 5% lower value per money spent even if they know that it would allow them to get much better CPU/GPU in 4 years. They'll rather have now 5% higher performance. And then get new CPU in 4 years where they would get 30% lower performance per same money (If AMD was gone). 2nd option where they would have 5% lower performance per money now, and 30% higher for same money in 4 years... No! They need instant gratification. And they are kind of ungrateful too.

I cannot say I agree with you, in your argument you are putting aside all those people that are resilent to marketing and buy just for their needs or when they see a real improvement (at least 80%), which is the silent majority that buys intel. From a pure egoistic point of view (and not an enthusiast one) if intel stop improving generation by generation, it becomes more convenient for the buyer because the chip you bought will age slower, hence the argument "we need amd to force intel to step up" is flawed; as many others have pointed out AMD just sped up this process. Let me be clear here, I still own my 2600k@ 4.5 ghz and till now I did not see any point in upgrading it because the lack of competition brought intel to improve little by little (being either for a lack of ipc improvement, the lack of new cores for the segment i'm interested in and the lack of soldering); this meant till now, after 8 years, that with the 8700k (about 71% faster Cinebench score than my OCed2600k overall but just 17% in single thread) and the 2700x (136% but 9% in single) there was basically no point in upgrading for me. If you extend this argument you will see that if intel didn't step up, sooner or later their sales would have dropped because 1) people wouldn't have noticed any differences for their upgrades 2) reviewers to keep loyal their viewer/reader base and keep their integrity sooner or later will say (as Hilbert did many times at the end of the 6700k and 7700k review) that there is still no real point in upgrading coming from a X platform. IMO, fanboys and enthusiasts as well, are just vocal minorities that do not reflect the reality of the market, hence the average user does not care about absolute performances (as this cpu is better than this other one), but they do care about completing tasks and maybe feel comfortable while doing it.

nizzen:

YES ! I buy hardware for the performance. I don't car what color/name it is. I just want the fastest 😀

You are a spoiled bratty minor buyer in the market, doesn't matter what performance you need. This elitist attitude means nothing to shareholders. All your posts have the same scheme. Money, best, performance. I suggest find a deeper meaning in life and learn something for PC in these forums.

Makes sense, the six core versions are already very hot so it´s necessary to (finally) solder the heat spreader to control the temps on an hexa core version.

Prometheus336:

I cannot say I agree with you, in your argument you are putting aside all those people that are resilent to marketing and buy just for their needs or when they see a real improvement (at least 80%), which is the silent majority that buys intel. From a pure egoistic point of view (and not an enthusiast one) if intel stop improving generation by generation, it becomes more convenient for the buyer because the chip you bought will age slower, hence the argument "we need amd to force intel to step up" is flawed; as many others have pointed out AMD just sped up this process. Let me be clear here, I still own my 2600k@ 4.5 ghz and till now I did not see any point in upgrading it because the lack of competition brought intel to improve little by little (being either for a lack of ipc improvement, the lack of new cores for the segment i'm interested in and the lack of soldering); this meant till now, after 8 years, that with the 8700k (about 42% faster Cinebench score than my OCed2600k overall but just 15% in single thread) and the 2700x (57% and 8% in single) there was basically no point in upgrading for me. If you extend this argument you will see that if intel didn't step up, sooner or later their sales would have dropped because 1) people wouldn't have noticed any differences for their upgrades 2) reviewers to keep loyal their viewer/reader base and keep their integrity sooner or later will say (as Hilbert did many times at the end of the 6700k and 7700k review) that there is still no real point in upgrading coming from a X platform. IMO, fanboys and enthusiasts as well, are just vocal minorities that do not reflect the reality of the market, hence the average user does not care about absolute performances (as this cpu is better than this other one), but they do care about completing tasks and maybe feel comfortable while doing it.

Good for you. 3 hours ago you did ask question and stated your lack of understanding. 🙂 Now you seem expert on problematic 🙂 ad 1st paragraph) Did I mention marketing? No. I wrote about people who buy intel's chip which performs tiny bit better in ST workloads and that is quite likely something which will cost them performance in long run. ad 2nd paragraph) Egoistically speaking, I want chips to evolve. it is not convenient for HW to be relevant for long. it is convenient for technology to improve, therefore make things easier and nicer. ad 3rd paragraph) Damn, that's fast 2600k. What CB R15 score you have again? 1200? Because Ryzen 2700X does mostly between 1800~1900. ad 4th paragraph) Intel did only minor upgrades over time. That's why you had no reason to change 4C/8T chip till Ryzen or till intel released 6C/12T as intel stopped using solder after Sandy. But people needed those upgrades over time anyway. Anything under Sandy was quite weak for some time as 1st gen was not exactly able to reach high clock without high voltage and cooling requirements. And even from Sandy era, people who had locked or lower end chips needed upgrades. ad 5th paragraph) Then AMD is perfect choice. Average user does not play games on screen above 60Hz. And many more are not playing at all. In that situation, Even old bulldozer proven to be better for daily multitasking life. Using 4C/4T intel chips vs. bulldozer with similar performance for streaming (basic multitasking activity). And bulldozer always wins in user experience. Because 4C/4T CPU allows streamed application to eat most of it's resources and then streaming application/encoding suffer. With Ryzen, it is same thing on steroids. I used to have i5@4.5GHz, delivered high fps on modern games, but newer the game, more stutter. (Therefore I was forced to limit fps to leave more CPU cycles for background processes.) Changed to 2700X, no stutter, and fps was just bit better. Number of cores matter. Average user is better off with bit lower ST performing CPU which has more cores. There are very few, very specific tasks where that ST performance advantage outweighs all rounded benefit from higher multi threaded performance.

I find it amazing to consider that this is news at all. Intel should have been using solder all along, and delidding should have never become a thing. This could be the first step to correcting one of the biggest mistakes any CPU maker ever made.

Memorian:

8c/16t soldered and up to 5.5Ghz with overclock(If the rumors are true). A true beast.

I think the results would be similar to delivering and using liquid metal. It basically saves you the cost of delidding, but won't lead to better overclocking.

Priyeshbabariya:

How can people who had Intel system over the years in the past and cheering as well as thanking AMD to bringing out the competition also upping the game in core count as well as the thermal solution when they don't intend to switch to AMD at all in future?! I do not understand mentality of customers, on one side people thank AMD to bringing out competition & then they buy Intel. how the hell AMD would come back when you do not buy their products at all or not intend to buy the products from them in future at all?

I can certainly see it as being a bit hypocritical, but I don't blame them. After all, I do the same myself - I don't buy AMD CPUs because I want to support the competition, I buy them because they are the best CPUs for my needs (computing and gaming). If Intel offered better value for their products then I'd buy their chips as well (again). In the end, we should all buy products according to our needs.

FOX 22 , Dude everything you just said was complete bullshit and as for bulldozer good enough is it a load of shit too, have a mate who has the highest clock bulldozer cpu and it cant even get over 60fps in minecraft windowsmode with a 290x

Angushades:

FOX 22 , Dude everything you just said was complete bullshit and as for bulldozer good enough is it a load of crap too, have a mate who has the highest clock bulldozer cpu and it cant even get over 60fps in minecraft windowsmode with a 290x

Your friend has PICNIC: [youtube=XdYvGZfp3Oc] I can get best intel's CPU to its knees too. And then I would be automatically called idiot here for making artificial BS.

Without mods mate.

Sounds like it could finally be time for me to upgrade from my 3770K@4.5GHz.

Kinda makes me want one due to the longevity of it being soldered if this is true... just wish if rumours also be true we don't have to replace the motherboard. 8700k is great, but in this summer heat it sure does run hot! Will look forward to the review and temps of this, with it being soldered it wouldn't shock me if it runs a tad cooler than the 8700k even with the extra cores. Hopefully me moving soon to a colder area will help! saw my 8700k spike to 80c in games (mind you ambient temps are in the 30s atm)

D3M1G0D:

I can certainly see it as being a bit hypocritical, but I don't blame them. After all, I do the same myself - I don't buy AMD CPUs because I want to support the competition, I buy them because they are the best CPUs for my needs (computing and gaming). If Intel offered better value for their products then I'd buy their chips as well (again). In the end, we should all buy products according to our needs.

Fine if bearing the future and your needs in the future in mind too. If AMD (or whoever is the underdog in need of a helping hand to fund future R&D) hardware is enough to do what you need, say to comfortably keep you above 60fps, then it is a good time to buy the slightly slower hardware to help secure much faster hardware in the near future produced from increased competition. - faster hardware will also drive the software forward too as the avg level rises. That CPU tech has moved so slowly is Also why software has not (apparently) needed it to advance quicker. Software is aimed at avg user's hardware capabilities. In Reality software Clearly needed the hardware to move Much faster, with certain aspects being moved to GPU to lighten the load on avg 4 or less core gamer's CPUs to raise FPS. This situation helped the illusion of don't need more than 4 cores going far longer than it should have. - (ofc some tasks would still be better suited to operating on a GPU) Sure if you have bought a 144Hz monitor then that Intel chip is currently a no brainer in most games. Such a small percentage of gamers have monitors above 60Hz it would not hurt the situation whatsoever, even help move the cutting edge further forward showing interesting in excellent hardware 🙂 But most people want that "berry" treat now even though they don't really need it and that hurts not just their, but also everyone's future... [youtube=7kU76pzd-Hw]

foetopsyRus:

but the DerBauer test showed that the liquid metal is better than the solder by 4 degrees! When DerBauer opened the 2600X riser and replaced the solder with a liquid metal I'm sure 95% of the solder will not be returned and will be left just in case for an AMD response and just as sure that for the sake of 9900k the lines will not be rebuilt There is no sense at all considering the speedy release of 7nm from the amd and the hole of vulnerability in place! I would wait 10nm and considering that if you play in 2k or 4k, then the overpayment for Intel is simply not goal-oriented, because everything will rest against the possibility of a graphics processor

Yeah, I remember hearing about his test, but I thought it was more like 2 degC difference, but now I've looked it up after you mentioned it - yes it's 4 degC cooler with liquid metal vs solder. Well, in that case the solder may only make a 10-15 degC lower temp than toothpaste then - still reckon 9700/9900K will run same or lower temps than 8700K, we'll see though.

Humanoid_1:

Fine if bearing the future and your needs in the future in mind too. If AMD (or whoever is the underdog in need of a helping hand to fund future R&D) hardware is enough to do what you need, say to comfortably keep you above 60fps, then it is a good time to buy the slightly slower hardware to help secure much faster hardware in the near future produced from increased competition.

Gaming is not my primary concern regarding CPU purchases (like most people, I play with a GPU cap). I run computing apps on my system in the background - which heavily utilizes all cores - so this is what I base my purchases on; the only thing that I require of my CPU for games is that it can properly feed the GPU at 1440p. I was perfectly happy with the gaming performance of my old 4790K (and probably still would be) but I wanted to increase my computing power, which is why I went with AMD when Ryzen came out.

Humanoid_1:

Sure if you have bought a 144Hz monitor then that Intel chip is currently a no brainer in most games. Such a small percentage of gamers have monitors above 60Hz it would not hurt the situation whatsoever, even help move the cutting edge further forward showing interesting in excellent hardware 🙂

I have a 1440p/144Hz monitor, and I use it with my Ryzen system. I don't try to max out 144 FPS at all times though - as long as I get a consistent 60+ FPS (preferably around 100) then I'm fine with it. I'm not the competitive gamer type who games at low rez just to max out the frames (I would consider that an insult to my 1080 Ti 😉). Like most gamers, I want smooth gameplay + gorgeous graphics (if I'm not maxing out my GPU during games then I know I'm doing it wrong).