-
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
Associate
What on earth is that supposed to mean?
Do you honestly have anything remotely worthy to add or back and support anything you say, or do you just put anything and everything down without having anything evedential or concrete to offer?
No offence here, but it looks to me as though you've just sort of resigned yourself to resorting to one and 2 liners of insults as you've basically got absolutely zilch to offer.
Soldato
It's odd as I upgraded from a 4770k @ 4.3ghz to a 1700 @ 3.9 and I find my Ryzen rig a ton smoother than my Intel one, plus I went from a 290 with freesync to a 1070 on the same monitor.
I do miss freesync though, the 1070 gives decent frame rates but I do notice the freesync smoothness is not there
Overall though the 1700 just handles everything I throw at it, no more stutters when I have chrome open with 12 tabs including a YouTube video while I'm tabbed out of WoW or Grim Dawn etc.
I used to have to run an app that aggressively culls memory usage when only having 8gb of ram on the Intel platform or games would really suffer when I had a ton of other things going on.
Since I had Ryzen I don't even have the app installed anymore, admittedly though I've gone to 16gb of ram so that is also helping.
It's odd how people just have different experiences, I'm also running ripjaw5 ram at 3200mhz which a lot of people struggled with.
All in all Ryzen gas bern a massive positive for me, but I'm not against getting the 9900k as after using 8/16 I'm not going lower, and if Intel can bring their IPC lead to the platform I'm happy to swap, the kids will get my Ryzen Rig and if 7nm trump's the 9 series it's an easy swap back
It is strange. My system was 100% stress test stable, you name it, it could handle it. At 3.9gjz 3466 CL14 ram, it was still getting beaten by my 4770. It was smoother and faster when alt tabbing, but frame rates were overall down and frame spikes were real. This is just powering a mid range 1070 :/
Anyways it according to geek bench it looks like the 9700k won't be a worthy upgrade over the 8700k. Might have to go big boy i9.....
you finally found out his trick.
Honestly for some of his posts I just ignore really. Some AMD fans actually have strong arguments with some sort of evidence like @humbug for example, @Panos is too optimistic about AMD and pessimistic about Intel, it influences his bias a little bit. I don't think Gav is too much of a fanboy, I got a feeling that he is too "responsive" against "ambitious" claims.
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Feb 2011
- Posts
- 5,849
Hmm this could be a big factor in the smoothness
As could 8gb to 16gb RAM!
It's a 1440p 144hz freesync screen, the 290 was great but at the time I was into playing The Division, freesync meant it was smooth as butter but moving to the 1070 it's not nearly as smooth, but it's still a decent experience on the 1070.
I may just go Vega 64 as it's cheap now, just to go back to Freesync, waiting on the 9900k though to see if it's worth doing a full system build or not though
Soldato
Wondering whether it's worth going from 5820k to 9900k, though I'd already said before I'd like a bit bigger increase in IPC. That might not even come until Ocean Cove now, from Intel at least. And no hardware fixes for the vulnerabilities yet.
Icelake I recall was their uarch with more L1 and L2 cache so an IPC bump, but that's going to be on 10nm/10nm+, which will come with a decrease in clocks.
The 8 cores they'll release right now or the possible consumer 14nm refresh for next year are most likely the best gaming CPUs you will be able to get for a while. Hardware fix wise remains to be seen, because the mobile Whiskey Lake and HPC Cascade Lake includes some.
The 8 cores they'll release right now or the possible consumer 14nm refresh for next year are most likely the best gaming CPUs you will be able to get for a while. Hardware fix wise remains to be seen, because the mobile Whiskey Lake and HPC Cascade Lake includes some.
£30 per core is the price for Intel to compete if we ignore the problems with Intel CPU's right now.
Soldato
But they dont need to, intel will sell this just fine and they know that.
Associate
I think you're getting confused with blue and red and who currently does in fact offer more for less in order to be more competitive in the market.
I don't think Intel has really had a big struggle to compete with amd for the best part of the last decade really, do you?
Intel still lead in terms of core performance now as well, so quite how Intel needs to suddenly compete with amd by being lower priced per core than the competition (for being the best performer) is beyond me..
We will see about how Intel cores are only worth £30 a core when the i9 is £5-600+ and is as good as sold out or totally pre ordered in the first day or so of release.
To be fair, this last comment suggesting Intel are desperately struggling to compete and are having to roll over and lower prices just to be relevant when they will indeed be selling what will be the best gaming cpu on the planet, holding significant clockspeed avantages and oc capabilities compared to the competition whilst also holding the ipc crown, just really reinforces to me that i cannot take you seriously any longer..This being said, this is the last response i have for you.
I hope you enjoy the debate, i will say once again that i have nothing against amd, I appreciate amd offers excellent value for money with top multicore performance. I can see they're taking giant steps that could potentially see them take a complete lead at some point in the future (we shall see).
Amd have done much better lately and they have made intel push for innovation whilst also contributing to pushing them into releasing things today that they probably only had planned and pencilled in for the many years ahead.
For now however, Intel is core for core the best performer and this thread is about talking about Intel 9000 series cpus and I want to stay on topic.
All the best anyway.
Associate
Yeah ive spoken to humbug before i believe. He does give substance to his opinions and views and backs them with supporting evidence. I do like a good debate but I feel you do need to be able to have some backing or evidence to your debate if you are to hold your own in one.you finally found out his trick.
Some AMD fans actually have strong arguments with some sort of evidence like @humbug for example, @Panos is too optimistic about AMD and pessimistic about Intel, it influences his bias a little bit. I don't think Gav is too much of a fanboy, I got a feeling that he is too "responsive" against "ambitious" claims.
I was personally so close to pulling trigger on the ryzen 1800x when that first came to the scene, it was really hyped and shown off to be a real game changer (I was even hyping it everywhere myself)...it was advertised as a top gaming chip with a workhorse core count (to me amds mistake was hyping it mostly as a gamers chip). it looked like it had the potential to edge Intel or at least be toe to toe in gaming but include a high core count similar to a 1k extreme platform Intel chip. In the end however, it wasn't terrible but it did let me down in terms of what i was expecting from it. It was at stock out of the box pretty much already at its max oc headroom, it had a few year old IPC comparison and also suffered so many teething problems with memory and compatibility etc. It was a let down for me and i was so close to buying it, im just glad i didnt.
Anyway, my point is that this goes to show that I am no fanboy and should amd come and prove to be the best or at least on par then I'll gladly jump ship and go the other way to give them a chance.
The one thing i wil say that every one seems to forget to consider is that should amd ever take the top performance crown, will they still offer the same value for money as they do now? I highly doubt it and they'll be the higher priced chip and only follow suit in doing the exact same as Intel have done and still do now (just like Nvidia also)...
Manufacturer names make no difference, you simply pay more for what is the best at the time, the lesser performer will usually offer higher quantity for less cash in order to compete (often the better value for money).
The best performer of anything will always come at a higher premium than the competition, this often never reflects the best value for money but will still always sell because there are those with the money who will fork out just to taste the very latest and most cutting edge tech (even if its for purely bragging rights).
Associate
In terms of pure gaming, we will probably see very small if any improvements on the 8700k (especially at the higher resolutions). If there are indeed any improvements, it will likely be from the soldered IHS. The thermal difference will likely give that extra couple of hundred mhz of oc headroom.
As far as I am aware, the i9 series is a very slightly refined 8th gen coffee, the real reasons i want the i9 is because not only will it offer the best gaming performance, it also adds a more rounded sounding core count figure with 8 cores/16 threads.
With 5ghz+ on all cores with decent cooling, it will totally blitz through most workloads as well. It's basically the best gamer going and an extremely competitive high ranking multicore performer as well, you essentially sacrifice nothing for either use cases making the i9 the best all rounder for any task.
This chip will be good for many many years as well and i feel this one will settle with me for a while. Lets also be honest here, although it maybe simply psychological and part of Intel's marketing ploy (I know I'll probably get pounced on for this), but who doesn't want to settle on this kind of future proofing and also have a chip that holds it's value for carrying that recent top of the line core i9 label?
Last edited:
Associate
So when is the 9900K due out? Do we have a date?
- Joined
- 1 Dec 2015
- Posts
- 18,514
Z390 is week 40 launch .. no idea is core is same date
Good to see 8600k using ''STIM" as well as the 8700/9900k
Soldato
This is my thoughts exactly. Not bashing AMD at all, Zen is amazing and have definitely given Intel something to think about, but Intel is the better product at the end of the day, and it does come with a price tag to match. But the i9 8c/16t is a nice upgrade and should be relevant for years to come in gaming. I would rather spend the money on something that will last me, just like my 2600k has, and it makes me even happier knowing it will be a soldered chip too. 5ghz on 8c will be nothing short of awesome.
Of course, but Intel will struggle to sell to people that understand what they're buying.
Soldato
I don't think they will struggle at all, that German retailer that shares it's sales data will show this.
People who want the absolute fastest no matter the cost go to Intel.
Apart from the HEDT, that's where AMD have the upper hand I reckon. X299 is meh