Intel has to put out a mainstream 8-core CPU, thanks to AMD.

Embra:

Intel has to put out a mainstream 8-core CPU, thanks to AMD.

But at the price they'll ask, just fanboys or rich people will buy them.

Silva:

But at the price they'll ask, just fanboys or rich people will buy them.

And gamers, Intel is still single thread king..

Silva:

But at the price they'll ask, just fanboys or rich people will buy them.

To bad it's impossible to sell used AMD cpu's. No one want the second best, and used... Intel is way more easy to sell used. Then we have to wait for AMD to be the fastes on singlecore, to be a good buy. Ps: I have 1800x and 1950x TR.

ruthan:

And gamers, Intel is still single thread king..

Intel's lead is getting tenuous.

ruthan:

And gamers, Intel is still single thread king..

There is no point to buy intel 8C/16T for gaming. It will not deliver better single threaded performance than current 6C/12T they have. And due to passive power consumption of additional cores it will likely lead to TDP limitation kicking in earlier. If someone buys intel for gaming, it should be 6C/12T as that has sufficient untapped potential for few coming years. And at time one feels need to upgrade, 8C/16T price may be reasonable.

My new mainstream 8 core CPU Just arrived at my door about 15mins ago =) Not an Intel and looking forward to the other bits arriving so I can get it together! CPU's seem fun again, seemed so stagnant for Way too many years... My Xeon X5680 (6c/12t) has been Great company in the mean time 🙂

Silva:

But at the price they'll ask, just fanboys or rich people will buy them.

Look, i see that you always complain about prices... but let me tell you a story of my own experience in 2010. At that time i have built 2 systems one Intel and other AMD... the Intel was a i7 875k (witch I still use) and a AMD 1090T... AMD CPU was if i recall correclty was around 279. (value in US dollar) Intel CPU was around 329... Intel mobo was around 189 and my AMD mobo was 119 at the time... Now that we have values let me tell you my experience... I have used a lot both systems... for like 3 years my main rig was the AMD one and it was amazing... the intel one was at my office... As the time passed and games become more complex and demanding i started to see that my AMD system started bottlenecking my 7850 2GB in some titles, i also noted that some games started to have some serious stutters, then i decided to give my intel a run... picked up my Radeon and plugged on my intel one... and boy it was better... stutter gone and video card always at 100% usage. A year and half ago I sold my AMD rig to buy a new videocard. My point is... yeah Intel at the time was way more expensive... but payoff of my investimenet was also better in the long run... I am not saying that this will be the case now since Ryzen is doing pretty well... but in the long run if you intend to keep your rig for more than 5 years that extra you pay now you will be an advantage in the future because you will not need to buy a new rig so soon... I am not a fanboy (I hate brainless fanboys) since I always recommend people to buy AMD's Ryzen 2600 witch is an awesome processor and the owner of the "bang for the buck crown." I personally would pay a little extra and get a Intel 8/16 part. Best Regadrs, Will.

Turbo All-Core Boost Clocks or bust. Given the numbers of the 8700(K), particularly in relation to its thermals I don't see the 8/16 piece to be going places unless they return to IHS soldering.

ruthan:

And gamers, Intel is still single thread king..

I'm a gamer and I coulnd't give a rats ass about single thread performance. I'll buy the best price/performance for every workload.

nizzen:

To bad it's impossible to sell used AMD cpu's. No one want the second best, and used... Intel is way more easy to sell used. Then we have to wait for AMD to be the fastes on singlecore, to be a good buy.

It's all a matter of how much you want to sell it for and demand.

liesenberg:

Look, i see that you always complain about prices... but let me tell you a story of my own experience in 2010.

Most people would have bought the Intel for gaming and get rid of it after 2/3 years. We (I'm still rocking that i5 2500k) are the 1% that holds on to tech for as long as possible and try to make responsible purchase decisions based on our budget and needs. How much extra would you be willing to pay if the 2700X and 8700K are both around 350€ average here? The 8 core Intel will probably be at least 100€ more expensive. With DX12 and Vulkan how fast a core is stops being relevant, but the overall performance of the CPU is. If only developers bothered to code for those API.

Silva:

But at the price they'll ask, just fanboys or rich people will buy them.

Imagine you bought 1700x or 1800x and now, you want to upgrade to 2700x. 1700x cost 430e when released in my country, 1800x even more. Now, people sell them for 180e. So you already lost 250e. Gonna upgrade to 2700x? The best price you can get here for is 310 E. So you have to add another 60e to upgrade. There is a saying in my country. I am not rich enough to buy cheap things. So the AMD policy of backward compatibility in many cases cost you just additional money and actually the final cost is higher because you are more or less stuck in the circle of upgrading because their solutions offer less performance.

If only Intel had competitive 8 core chips then that could keep prices in check. Competition is a good thing. Maybe if when do come out I will buy them. Right now though the price and the performance goes to AMD.

Silva:

With DX12 and Vulkan how fast a core is stops being relevant, but the overall performance of the CPU is. If only developers bothered to code for those API.

I totally agree with you in the matter of using those API's that spread the workload equally to all processor core threads that will even make those FX 8xxx have more life in them... but it is a very very slow change... Here in Brazil tech is very expensive so people here usually hold their PC's for a long time... Taxes here are absurd and only really rich people can change PC's every 2 or 3 years... Best Regards, Will

SaLaDiN666:

Imagine you bought 1700x or 1800x and now, you want to upgrade to 2700x. 1700x cost 430e when released in my country, 1800x even more. Now, people sell them for 180e. So you already lost 250e. Gonna upgrade to 2700x? The best price you can get here for is 310 E. So you have to add another 60e to upgrade. There is a saying in my country. I am not rich enough to buy cheap things. So the AMD policy of backward compatibility in many cases cost you just additional money and actually the final cost is higher because you are more or less stuck in the circle of upgrading because their solutions offer less performance.

Nothing about your statement made any sense, at least without competitions pricing. Are you saying that selling and upgrading to a 2700x from a 1700x/1800x is more expensive then having to buy a whole new motherboard and CPU from one generation to another on Intels side? If that's what you're trying to say, then that's your countries fault. Don't fault anything but your country there. If that's not what you're trying to say, then i don't know what it is you're getting at, since it seems to have no point to the statement you replied to or any conversation at all, since ofcourse an upgrade will cost you money. This is common knowledge.

SaLaDiN666:

So the AMD policy of backward compatibility in many cases cost you just additional money and actually the final cost is higher because you are more or less stuck in the circle of upgrading because their solutions offer less performance.

Anyone who feels the "need" to upgrade between 1000 and 2000 generations of AMD ryzen is again their own fault and has zero to do with AMD having "less performance", since for one, it doesn't, the 1000 series are massively fast for the price even compared to the 2000 series, and for two, there's almost never, ever a reason to upgrade from one generation to the exact next generation when it comes to CPUs. We're not talking about GPUs here, we're talking about CPUs. Will some upgrade from the 1000 to 2000? Sure, but those same people are likely to upgrade from the 6000 to 7000 and 7000 to 8000 and 8000 to 9000 on intels side, because that's their hobby, they always have to have the newest processor. Again, that's their fault, that's their doing, and has nothing to do with "less performance" Quite frankly you're talking about longevity here and longevity is on AMDs side when it comes to processors currently since longevity is all about the number of cores you have. AMD made 6 and 8 core processors cheap, 6 and 8 core processors, no matter which ones you have, either 1000 or 2000 series, will last for years to come, and likely will snuff out the 4 core and 6 core intel current processors (4 vs 6&8, 6 vs 8) as more programs and games become BETTER multithreaded. And then there's the 16 core $1000 processor from AMD that if you really wanted longevity will likely last someone the next 10 years if they wanted, since it's fairly unlikely that 16 cores are going to become "too little" any time soon, and the ONLY reason for upgrading then, will be because someone WANTS to, not because they need to. Those are two very, very different things.

Silva:

I'm a gamer and I coulnd't give a rats ass about single thread performance. I'll buy the best price/performance for every workload.

It really depends how gamer you are, because if want to play, only new games at 1440p or 4k, Ryzen performance is the same as Intels and get usually much more performance for non games use - i like it too, but i can live with slower boot / winzip / virtualization and video editing, but slower games are problem for me.. And when you use some emulators, Dosbox and want to play older games at very high framerate with 120Hz monitor.. intel is still the best. There also a bit better backwards compatibility and support, because companies still mainly use /used intel cpus. You can boot with older Linux kernel, older rescue cds, install older OS with less issues. IntelHD graphics could help too, in some cases like backup GPU or for GPU Passthrough. Ryzen was also as far as i know far more fussy about memory sticks. For me is Core i7 8700K, better compromise than Ryzen, is would not play the games i would probably buy Threadripper. Other good choice seems to be X299 and 7820X - 28 PCI-E lanes, quad channel and price is not too much bigger than 8700K

I wont be touching Intel for my next upgrades. Threadripper all the way. I'll probably only use 4 of the cores but it gives me comfort to hear the other 12 cores purring like kittens in the background.

ruthan:

And when you use some emulators, Dosbox and want to play older games at very high framerate with 120Hz monitor.. intel is still the best.

That has got to be the trolliest thing I have ever read in these forums. Really? Dosbox? Even a P4 will get you framerates so high that you have to intentionally slow it down to make some games playable.

There also a bit better backwards compatibility and support, because companies still mainly use /used intel cpus. You can boot with older Linux kernel, older rescue cds, install older OS with less issues.

It's a non-issue with modern hardware... You do realize that all of the widely used instruction sets exist on both platforms, right? Look at the instruction set section here and quit spreading misinformation: http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/38/AMD_Ryzen_7_1700_vs_Intel_Core_i7_i7-8700K.html There are plenty of minuses on both sides. The vast majority of them aren't worth concerning over, especially when it comes to gaming. Most of the fancier instruction sets are only for professional workloads.

Other good choice seems to be X299 and 7820X - 28 PCI-E lanes, quad channel and price is not too much bigger than 8700K

You are probably the only person on the internet to have said a 7820X is a good choice. Also, not only are X299 motherboards expensive, but the 7820X is about $600 MSRP. Compared to the 8700K, you're paying nearly double the price for an extra 2 cores and a few more PCIe lanes. The extra memory channels aren't going to improve performance enough. Meanwhile, it actually has a smaller L3 cache, RAID becomes a hassle, and you don't get the IGP (keep in mind, you're the one advocating for those). So yes, it is a much bigger price.

Something doesn't make sense on the TDP of these chips and 8 cores based on what we know about the existing node process. I assume these will have very low clocks?

ruthan:

And gamers, Intel is still single thread king..

You don't need an 8 cores CPU then.

SaLaDiN666:

1700x cost 430e when released in my country, 1800x even more. Now, people sell them for 180e.

If price is so low for a used Ryzen, then don't buy new,. buy used and stay with "last year" products.

schmidtbag:

That has got to be the trolliest thing I have ever read in these forums. Really? Dosbox? Even a P4 will get you framerates so high that you have to intentionally slow it down to make some games playable.

Just try last Dos games as Daggerfall or dos Quake.. I now that Gourmet3D not testing this, but there are other webs, they have in history also X99 CPU like 5960x,6950X and some X299 Cpus is realy interesting reading, i dont link it just to show how bad Ryzen is for this, i just discovered it now: https://pctuning.tyden.cz/ilustrace3/obermaier/amd_ryzen_2700x/dosbox.png

schmidtbag:

It's a non-issue with modern hardware... You do realize that all of the widely used instruction sets exist on both platforms, right? Look at the instruction set section here and quit spreading misinformation: http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/38/AMD_Ryzen_7_1700_vs_Intel_Core_i7_i7-8700K.html There are plenty of minuses on both sides. The vast majority of them aren't worth concerning over, especially when it comes to gaming. Most of the fancier instruction sets are only for professional workloads.

I tried it mutiple times, 40 years of history doesnt means nothing, so i do need bad site like : cpu-world.

schmidtbag:

You are probably the only person on the internet to have said a 7820X is a good choice. Also, not only are X299 motherboards expensive, but the 7820X is about $600 MSRP. Compared to the 8700K, you're paying nearly double the price for an extra 2 cores and a few more PCIe lanes. The extra memory channels aren't going to improve performance enough. Meanwhile, it actually has a smaller L3 cache, RAID becomes a hassle, and you don't get the IGP (keep in mind, you're the one advocating for those). So yes, it is a much bigger price.

Problem is that Gourmet3D never tested 7820X it.. I had to find out some review is there: https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-threadripper-1900x-cpu,5222.html , it looks like good compromise between cpu for gaming and work. There are loaded non-expensive boards like this: https://www.anandtech.com/show/12358/asrock-x299-extreme4-motherboard-review // 200 bucks If you have enough money for 8700K, its not big difference, i dunno how is prices in your location, but here in europe are prices quite similar: - paid around 170$ for Z370 - Gigabyte Z370 Auros Gaming ultra board, that Asrock x299 board is just 40 bucks more - CPU Core i7-8700K is here - 9390 CZK ( 425$) and Core i7 7820X is 11590 CZK (525$) so its + 23 % of price difference