Using that same logic you can also blame them for the stagnation that happened in the Bulldozer era. You don't owe any corporation anything, the best way you can support competition is by making an informed decision after reading quality reviews and buying the product that's best for your use case.
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Core 9000 series
- Thread starter orbitalwalsh
- Start date
No.
Intel is still in stagnation. They haven't released anything revolutionary for decades.
Associate
So its not revolutionary to jump from the recent 4 cores and double it up to 8 core 16 threads (mainstream) and yet still maintain and even further surpass the 5ghz+ core speeds they already achieve and also do so whilst holding the IPC crown?
Some sites leaking 5.5ghz for 9700k!...taking into consideration amds best max oc on any core/chip they have seems to be almost 1ghz less than this (with a lesser ipc) id say that isnt revolutionary at all is it?
Some sites leaking 5.5ghz for 9700k!...taking into consideration amds best max oc on any core/chip they have seems to be almost 1ghz less than this (with a lesser ipc) id say that isnt revolutionary at all is it?
Associate
That clock is not for every day use the volts needed would kill it.
Paint the entire picture? 5.5ghz? not without custom outrageous non long term cooling and volts its not.
Yes Intel may have an 8/16 cpu coming with soldered HS to aid thermals and yes it might OC to 5ghz, and yes it will definitely take the crown as best gaming cpu, but it will also be very expensive, we have seen how the 8700k basically needs delidding to achieve 5ghz+ OC's on 6/12, the fact Intel has to Solder these 8/16 to achieve 5ghz is telling, straight away we know these are going to be hot. They will be very good cpu's, but dont for one minute think they wont be excessively hot, even while soldered, if you are trying to push 5ghz+ on all cores.
For some people who absolutely have to have the best, these chips will be a no brainer, but its little more than a marketing stunt really, when you consider you can buy the AMD equivalent for much much cheaper, yes it wont be as fast, or OC as high, but it will still give you 90%+ of the performance for a lot cheaper, also with the Intel offering your probably already buying into a dead end platform. Atleast with AMD you have the option of dropping in the 7nm chip next year, who knows, AMD might even match Intel then and still be cheaper
Soldato
Temps aren't bad at all, actually. Not sure where you're getting your info from, KentMan.
Soldato
by equivalent i mean 8c/16t cpu, yes its not going to run at the same speeds, but its got the equivalent core countWhich part of "equivalent" are you struggling with?
Soldato
by equivalent i mean 8c/16t cpu, yes its not going to run at the same speeds, but its got the equivalent core count
Does that make a FX8350 equivalent too then?
- Joined
- 1 Dec 2015
- Posts
- 18,512
@KentMan both Zen/zen2 (AM4) & Coffeelake (lga 1151) are dead end anyways.. DDR5 is 2020
nothing is truely upgrade-able , AM4 socket is good, but would you slap a possible 12+ core Zen2+ 2020 chip on a 2017 A320 board... etc etc
either way , glad to see some CPU competition!
and dont see the point to much in 9900k, most gamers will buy 9700k 8 core or for media creation the cheaper i8 8700 with 12 threads and B340 board
nothing is truely upgrade-able , AM4 socket is good, but would you slap a possible 12+ core Zen2+ 2020 chip on a 2017 A320 board... etc etc
either way , glad to see some CPU competition!
and dont see the point to much in 9900k, most gamers will buy 9700k 8 core or for media creation the cheaper i8 8700 with 12 threads and B340 board
Soldato
Soldato
Paint the entire picture? 5.5ghz? not without custom outrageous non long term cooling and volts its not.
Yes Intel may have an 8/16 cpu coming with soldered HS to aid thermals and yes it might OC to 5ghz, and yes it will definitely take the crown as best gaming cpu, but it will also be very expensive, we have seen how the 8700k basically needs delidding to achieve 5ghz+ OC's on 6/12, the fact Intel has to Solder these 8/16 to achieve 5ghz is telling, straight away we know these are going to be hot. They will be very good cpu's, but dont for one minute think they wont be excessively hot, even while soldered, if you are trying to push 5ghz+ on all cores.
For some people who absolutely have to have the best, these chips will be a no brainer, but its little more than a marketing stunt really, when you consider you can buy the AMD equivalent for much much cheaper, yes it wont be as fast, or OC as high, but it will still give you 90%+ of the performance for a lot cheaper, also with the Intel offering your probably already buying into a dead end platform. Atleast with AMD you have the option of dropping in the 7nm chip next year, who knows, AMD might even match Intel then and still be cheaper
So like virtually every piece of technology that's ever existed, buy the mid to high end and get most of the performance of the top end product at a much lower price point. It's nothing new and I'm surprised people still post as if it's some kind of new marketing model
Associate
Why does it matter if one has a soldered IHS or not? I thought that this was actually a possitive move and something thats been addressed from all the people previously moaning about it for years.
If the 9700k boots and runs an OS and further runs benchmark/validation tests at 5.5ghz, i doubt its too far away from 24/7 use (probably 5.1-5.3 24/7?) Id like to see amd even boot to an OS at 5ghz by 2020.
As for temps, who knows? It just seems amd and budget enthusiasts feel better about justifying their purchases by trying to insinuate Intel is worse by nitpicking or making presumptuous claims.
All i know is that if you want the best tech (core for core speed, oc potential and ipc) it's currently Intel and amd's only answer to this is to make their chips the budget alternative option by chucking more and more lesser/slower cores at the situation whilst also charging less and undercutting Intel.
If you mainly use software that can even see or utilise more than 8 cores (not benchmarking software) then sure, go for amd, but for those that can afford it and want to do absolutely everything from booting to gaming quicker, go for Intel.
This is not to a statement to suggest that amd aren't pushing Intel for innovation of late and it doesn't mean amd can't overtake Intel in the future. I personally like the recent competition, it's healthy for all of us consumers for both pricing and innovation but Intel is currently core for core champ right now.
As with most cases in life and more often than not, you tend to only get what you pay for.
Intel is teetering on a 1ghz higher oc potential along with a bit of an ipc advantage above amd and this is why there is a difference in price.
What's next? 6ghz Intel with another ipc jump vs amds 64 cores and 128 threads of slower poorer, cheaper cores that only benefit a renderer who is probably otherwise software bottlenecked anyway?
I'll gather the defensive responses will now be 'yeah, but I paid half the price and amd's better because i went budget and i can use all cores on cinebench, and I can also use the same board until 2020 without spectre/meltdown issues'
Well I can also use an i9 9900k and also stick with a z370/z390 board until 2020 if i want to and it'll likely still be better than amds 7nm core for core and probably still maintain better performance beyond 2020.
As for spectre/meltdown, most security issues require a super hacker to be physically sat at the pc for it to even become a potential issue and most general users will have absolutely nothing to warrant the effort and time involved in making such a sophisticated attack attempt.
Most noise seems to be coming from the pro amd budget buyers justifying themselves and trying to convince others about their purchase whilst in clear second place.
I also notice that for some reason Linux fans seem to love amd and these also want to feel better. They classify as enthusiast but are getting secondrate performance and benchmark figures in windows on absolutely every scenario but multicore workloads and those users probably dont have the software to utilise those benefits outside of these benchmarks anyway
I guess loading a lightweight, featureless OS with nothing to boot up but a few dev code boxes in a totally incompatibility ridden environment makes some feel better about their performance...When there's absolutely no features to load or run in the background I guess it makes everything a bit snappier on an amd chip
If the 9700k boots and runs an OS and further runs benchmark/validation tests at 5.5ghz, i doubt its too far away from 24/7 use (probably 5.1-5.3 24/7?) Id like to see amd even boot to an OS at 5ghz by 2020.
As for temps, who knows? It just seems amd and budget enthusiasts feel better about justifying their purchases by trying to insinuate Intel is worse by nitpicking or making presumptuous claims.
All i know is that if you want the best tech (core for core speed, oc potential and ipc) it's currently Intel and amd's only answer to this is to make their chips the budget alternative option by chucking more and more lesser/slower cores at the situation whilst also charging less and undercutting Intel.
If you mainly use software that can even see or utilise more than 8 cores (not benchmarking software) then sure, go for amd, but for those that can afford it and want to do absolutely everything from booting to gaming quicker, go for Intel.
This is not to a statement to suggest that amd aren't pushing Intel for innovation of late and it doesn't mean amd can't overtake Intel in the future. I personally like the recent competition, it's healthy for all of us consumers for both pricing and innovation but Intel is currently core for core champ right now.
As with most cases in life and more often than not, you tend to only get what you pay for.
Intel is teetering on a 1ghz higher oc potential along with a bit of an ipc advantage above amd and this is why there is a difference in price.
What's next? 6ghz Intel with another ipc jump vs amds 64 cores and 128 threads of slower poorer, cheaper cores that only benefit a renderer who is probably otherwise software bottlenecked anyway?
I'll gather the defensive responses will now be 'yeah, but I paid half the price and amd's better because i went budget and i can use all cores on cinebench, and I can also use the same board until 2020 without spectre/meltdown issues'
Well I can also use an i9 9900k and also stick with a z370/z390 board until 2020 if i want to and it'll likely still be better than amds 7nm core for core and probably still maintain better performance beyond 2020.
As for spectre/meltdown, most security issues require a super hacker to be physically sat at the pc for it to even become a potential issue and most general users will have absolutely nothing to warrant the effort and time involved in making such a sophisticated attack attempt.
Most noise seems to be coming from the pro amd budget buyers justifying themselves and trying to convince others about their purchase whilst in clear second place.
I also notice that for some reason Linux fans seem to love amd and these also want to feel better. They classify as enthusiast but are getting secondrate performance and benchmark figures in windows on absolutely every scenario but multicore workloads and those users probably dont have the software to utilise those benefits outside of these benchmarks anyway
I guess loading a lightweight, featureless OS with nothing to boot up but a few dev code boxes in a totally incompatibility ridden environment makes some feel better about their performance...When there's absolutely no features to load or run in the background I guess it makes everything a bit snappier on an amd chip
Soldato
So like virtually every piece of technology that's ever existed, buy the mid to high end and get most of the performance of the top end product at a much lower price point. It's nothing new and I'm surprised people still post as if it's some kind of new marketing model
But some people are only interested in absolute top-end performance regardless of cost just to extend their e-peen that little bit more; a Ryzen, for instance, getting 90% of the performance of a i7 for half the cost would be irrelevant and automatically renders the Ryzen worthless. Sad really.
Soldato
You post like it occurs only in the CPU market. You can apply it to virtually anything you buy. Some people can afford the top end performance just like they can afford the top end of everything. You say it's about bragging rights when for them, they can often easily afford it. I know someone who purchased a new haswell i7 and top end gpu years ago who probably switched it on less than 10 times, it's sat gathering dust currently. Their bonus is more than most peoples yearly wage, they don't care. It's not about rendering the better value product as worthless, it's about value being subjective. People here don't seem to get it.
Soldato
Associate
Also after the huuuge rant, I actually forgot to mention....
Regarding Intel's temps and saying the i7-8700k needed delidding 'JUST' to get to 5ghz...
What do you now make of Intel being 2 more cores and 4 more threads later boosting to 5ghz out of the box at stock? (And thats conservative knowing that someone daft is bound to do this under a poor cooler)?
Temps can't be that bad hey?
Regarding Intel's temps and saying the i7-8700k needed delidding 'JUST' to get to 5ghz...
What do you now make of Intel being 2 more cores and 4 more threads later boosting to 5ghz out of the box at stock? (And thats conservative knowing that someone daft is bound to do this under a poor cooler)?
Temps can't be that bad hey?
Soldato
I'd say that was the perfect example of why the IHS should always have been soldered in the first place. I'm not sure what you're getting at with such uneven comparisons; the 8700K had awful temps because of Intel's patented toothpaste and proven to be the issue once delidding happened. I should imagine the 9900K would have been even worse if Intel stuck with the crud. But suddenly they're back to solder and all is well.
"Hey, the i9 can hit 5GHz without cooking itself no problem, so the 8700K wasn't bad after all, you Intel haterz!" is basically what you're saying. Solder the 8700K and the temp argument would never have even started.