-
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.
Difference between i7 Cpu's ?
- Thread starter bells
- Start date
You already nailed it. Small incremental speed increases, small increases in efficiency. That's it, standard progression.
And different socket types so cross compatibility goes out the window forcing you to buy a new one :-/
And different socket types so cross compatibility goes out the window forcing you to buy a new one :-/
No-one forces anyone to buy anything, in fact its often recommended that anyone with a sandy or newer processor not bother upgrading. However everyone has a different upgrade path and 5% year on year is still better than nothing and in 5 years time will still be an upgrade
The PC industry has been moving forward that way since the 1990's.
PCI-E 3.0, SATA Express, M.2 all are recent technologies that Intel have integrated into their motherboards, it's not their fault that AMD have been stale since 2010 so progression is now classed by some as milking.
It's not true progression though.
It's Intel being constipated. I mean yeah, I didn't expect to see an unlocked 12 core CPU on 2011-13 but the chips are there.
Intel have been making hex cores for absolute eons now. You can pick one up for £59. So why do they insist on keeping 4 cores for their mainstream desktops? I don't get it.
Way, way too precious of their cores TBH. 6 core should now be an absolute given on an affordable motherboard and ram combo. There's absolutely no excuse.
Intel have, like you say, been leading the way for ages now. So why won't they allow us to breathe and move forward by starting to introduce more cores into the actual market instead of the 'enthusiast' *cough* market and making devs ignore the high end completely.
There's absolutely no fathomable reason why hex core CPUs are not proudly sitting in Z97 boards. Hell, the 980x came out years ago and fitted a somewhat mainstream board.
Don't blame AMD. They launched an 8 core CPU absolutely ages ago into a desktop board and socket that was more than affordable.
My mate showed me an article the other day where a 8350 basically beat a hex core Ivy with SLI at 4k.
I've just asked him to remind me of the link.....
Associate
- Joined
- 31 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 2,243
- Location
- Edinburgh
Depends how you look at it. If you've got an existing one then the new ones are not really of much interest due to the small improvement. But if you're buying a new computer then it's better to get those small improvements along with it.
I agree that progress has been disappointing since the start of the 'i' series processors though
biggest step was when sandybridge arrived and a good chunk of that was only because previous chips had been so conservatively clocked. Having said that, the 5960X is a fair bit better than the i7 965, so I guess it depends which bit you look at.http://www.tweaktown.com/tweakipedi...g-gtx-780-sli-vs-gtx-980-sli-at-4k/index.html
Just in case I get lynched.....
Just in case I get lynched.....
AMD released 990FX specifically for Bulldozer and guess what? it was a rebadged 890FX chipset. Both vendors have a long history of releasing new sockets at every opportunity, it's nothing new. Super Socket 7, Slot A, Socket A, Socket 754, Socket 939, AM1, AM1+, AM2, AM2+, AM3, AM3+, that's about one new socket every year for AMD up until they gave up in ~2011.
In GPU bottlenecked situations that can happen, it doesn't take away the fact that Ivy hex is a far superior CPU and that PCI-E 3.0 offers more than twice the bandwidth when actually needed. You can probably find situations where a PCI-E 1.0 system competes well with a PCI-E 2.0 system but it didn't stop AMD from making the progression to PCI-E 2.0 did it? AMD have all but given up on the processor/motherboard front at least until they release their new non-modular architecture, that doesn't mean Intel have to.
Last edited:
Because of the price, 4 core chips are more accessible for most compared to the 6 core price tag.
Makes more sense as a company to put most of its attention in to which ever pulls in more revenue.
Nice, the 8350 has better minimum and average FPS in games than the 4930K at 4K. Who'd have thought?
That's a tidy £300 saving before even considering the motherboard. Then again, if you can afford two 980s you can probably afford the i7.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,506
- Location
- Dormanstown.
I'd be concerned that their Intel rig is crippled. It's a 49XX.
The 980x fitted in the enthusiast grade X58 LGA1366 boards (the predecessor to X79 LGA2011) not mainstream H/P series LGA1156 boards.
The reason you don't see hex cores in mainstream boards is basically because most mainstream software can't take advantage fo the extra cores and the more cores you put on the chips the lower you can clock them at stock speeds (not accounting for turbo) and if Intel did sell six core chips you can guarantee they would be bought by idiots who would then complain their 3.6Ghz hex was slower than their buddies 4.4GHz quad.
It's a similar situation to the problem AMD have at the moment with their CPUs, too many weak cores.
The follow up article comparing the 4770K is available:
http://www.tweaktown.com/tweakipedi...-with-gtx-980-vs-gtx-780-sli-at-4k/index.html
The rule seems to be: for 4K, get an AMD and put the difference into GPUs.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,506
- Location
- Dormanstown.
I know years and years and years ago, that in absolutely GPU limited scenario's, AMD were slightly ahead, literally by a frame or 2 quite consistently, back when they were both on PCI-E 2.0.
Then again, looking at the results, the best results come from the 4770K SLI set up, but no where near enough worth the extra cost involved, and you'd almost certainly do as you've mentioned.
The 4930 results still look shady to me.
At 4K for the foreseeable future, you really may's well just go for an FX83 and dump money into GPU's. Pretty sure I touched on that last year too, the difference in CPU at 4K will be tiny.
I'd like to see them do it with a 5820 really.
Last edited:
But it wasn't expensive and guess what? BD worked in older chipsets and older motherboards. What you are forgetting here is that yeah, AMD have had a good few chipsets but they're usually always backward compatible and forward compatible.
Had I bought a Crosshair IV all those years ago I would still be making sweet love to it with brand new AMD FX 8320Es and the likes. Try saying that about Intel !!
I don't believe that. I know for a fact that SLI on 990FX works better than CFX. That's pretty embarrassing to say but it's proven fact.
And it wasn't just close, the AMD won by a considerable margin. The type of margin that the 4670k wins over the 8320 when the 8320 is not fully supported.
All of this hot air, all of this pump..... And you still only need to spend £100 (and soon to be £80) on a CPU.
THAT is why AMD have not bothered. There's no point. If what you have sells? sell it !! simple as that. Intel wasting money on god knows what when they could have been investing into finally having their own GPU sector.
And they have about as much use as a ham sandwich does to a vegan.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,506
- Location
- Dormanstown.
AMD don't officially recognize AM3 as support Bulldozer, let alone Piledriver.
And while the chipsets were BC/FC it shows how little progressed AMD made, and how arbitrary the lack of AM3 support is.
How you managed to put a pro AMD spin on that I don't know.
And BD was very expensive at launch, it was priced at the i7 2600K!
And while the chipsets were BC/FC it shows how little progressed AMD made, and how arbitrary the lack of AM3 support is.
How you managed to put a pro AMD spin on that I don't know.
And BD was very expensive at launch, it was priced at the i7 2600K!
First gen i7 would be an i7 9xx, most recent would be Haswell E I guess.
You've gone from max 4 cores @3.3ghz, to 8 cores @3ghz, turbo has become much more of a factor, we've gone from 3 channel DDR3 to 4 channel DDR4. Lots of IPC improvements, and integrated PCIe (i7 9xx the PCIe lanes came from x58, it linked to x58 via QPI)
You've gone from max 4 cores @3.3ghz, to 8 cores @3ghz, turbo has become much more of a factor, we've gone from 3 channel DDR3 to 4 channel DDR4. Lots of IPC improvements, and integrated PCIe (i7 9xx the PCIe lanes came from x58, it linked to x58 via QPI)