Intel CPU Pricing

Brazo · 6 Mar 2017 at 14:43

humbug said:
Its much too subjective to make blanket statements like that, if all you do is play games, watch youtube and have little interest in future proofing then a 4 core CPU will suit you fine.

However, as someone with an Intel 4 core i'm finding my hobbies which include various productivity work very hampered and extremely laborious, my gaming is also starting to suffer.

A 16 thread Ryzen CPU would be 3 times better for me than my 4690K, i have no doubt my gaming would also get a boost.

Then absolutely, you'll be one of the few who would benefit from Ryzen and you wouldn't notice much of a drop in gaming either...

humbug · 6 Mar 2017 at 14:48

Brazo said:
Then absolutely, you'll be one of the few who would benefit from Ryzen and you wouldn't notice much of a drop in gaming either...

Drop? Don't wink at me like that, i'm not stupid or an Intel fanboy

I don't run a Pascal Titan-X, i don't run any of my games with all Image Quality settings on low, i don't run 720P, half the time i run 1440P despite having a 1080P screen.
There will be no game performance drop.

Firestar_3x · 6 Mar 2017 at 14:59

Martini1991 said:
The 7700K and 1700 are the same price. I absolutely can't understand anyone buying into kaby over ryzen, even with the current SMT issue.

Because if you play something like FSX, then clock speed matters a massive amount.

Martini1991 · 6 Mar 2017 at 15:06

Firestar_3x said:
Because if you play something like FSX, then clock speed matters a massive amount.

Clock speed isn't a measurement of performance.

But then you'd get a 7600K if you want core for core performance.

humbug · 6 Mar 2017 at 15:09

Upping the clock speed is one of many ways to increase performance, as Martini says it is not the measure of performance, if it was the FX-8370 would be faster than a 4790K, it isn't, its slower.

Firestar_3x · 6 Mar 2017 at 15:19

Martini1991 said:
Clock speed isn't a measurement of performance.

But then you'd get a 7600K if you want core for core performance.

Clock speed isn't a measurement of performance?, so if we had one 4690k operating at 3ghz and another operating at 4ghz the performance would be the same?

I understand what you are saying, architecture and efficiency matter, the 1700 isn't efficient enough to make up its core frequency deficit in games like FSX, single core performance is king and for this reason the 7700k is the best choice over a 1700.

Your previous comment about failing to understand why someone would pick a 7700k vs a 17000 is ignorant.

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 6 Mar 2017 at 15:20

humbug said:
Upping the clock speed is one of many ways to increase performance, as Martini says it is not the measure of performance, if it was the FX-8370 would be faster than a 4790K, it isn't, its slower.

The issue is sadly in its current state,IPC is way below what I expected for some titles. If it had been a tad better than Haswell like what I expected,and what we are seeing in non-gaming situations,it would be another kettle of fish. Its like death by a 1000 cuts currently,ie, multiple issues reducing potential performance.

Its like with their graphics cards,AMD tends to release the hardware before its fully realised on the software side,so it looks worse than it really probably is!!

Martini1991 · 6 Mar 2017 at 15:24

Firestar_3x said:
Clock speed isn't a measurement of performance?, so if we had one 4690k operating at 3ghz and another operating at 4ghz the performance would be the same?

I understand what you are saying, architecture and efficiency matter, the 1700 isn't efficient enough to make up its core frequency deficit in games like FSX, single core performance is king and for this reason the 7700k is the best choice over a 1700.

Your previous comment about failing to understand why someone would pick a 7700k vs a 17000 is ignorant.

If you're picking a 7700K, you're doing it for the extra threads.

But the performance when using those extra threads will be below a 1700.

And a MHZ isn't a measurement of performance. It's not a constant.
On the same series of chips, then yeah sure, one chip at a higher frequency is faster, but frequency still isn't a measurement of performance.

I can understand why you'd want higher core for core performance. But not through a 7700K.

humbug · 6 Mar 2017 at 15:31

Firestar_3x said:
Clock speed isn't a measurement of performance?, so if we had one 4690k operating at 3ghz and another operating at 4ghz the performance would be the same?

I understand what you are saying, architecture and efficiency matter, the 1700 isn't efficient enough to make up its core frequency deficit in games like FSX, single core performance is king and for this reason the 7700k is the best choice over a 1700.

Your previous comment about failing to understand why someone would pick a 7700k vs a 17000 is ignorant.

I hope Martini will forgive me for butting in on this debate, yes you are right and for something like a flight simulator that probably does depend single threaded performance, so a higher clocking similar IPC 7700K is your best choice, you probably need every Frame of every second you can get.

But in general terms high FPS and resulting averages are less important, in fact minimums are higher on RyZen, the game is smoother, surely that makes it just as good if not better?

CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
The issue is sadly in its current state,IPC is way below what I expected for some titles. If it had been a tad better than Haswell like what I expected,and what we are seeing in non-gaming situations,it would be another kettle of fish. Its like death by a 1000 cuts currently,ie, multiple issues reducing potential performance.

Its like with their graphics cards,AMD tends to release the hardware before its fully realised on the software side,so it looks worse than it really probably is!!

It has Broadwell - Haswell - Devils Canoyn +3% IPC, it is a tad better than Haswell, every benchmark outside of Games show exactly that, you have been reading the same stuff i have about wrong PStates, treating Virtual cores as Logical, parking the wrong cores and so on.... when less than all threads are loaded.

Teething problems CAT, give it time to mature and get all the necessary fixes and patching.

X99 was similarly problematic in its infancy.

Martini1991 · 6 Mar 2017 at 15:38

My issue isn't with the premise of better core for core performance. But it's the 7700K that I don't agree with. You get a 7700K for the HT

humbug · 6 Mar 2017 at 15:39

Martini1991 said:
My issue isn't with the premise of better core for core performance. But it's the 7700K that I don't agree with. You get a 7700K for the HT

True.

ubersonic · 6 Mar 2017 at 15:41

Martini1991 said:
My issue isn't with the premise of better core for core performance. But it's the 7700K that I don't agree with. You get a 7700K for the HT

Indeed, if you wanted a 7700K because the 7600K didn't have enough threads for what you're doing then there's a good chance a R1700 would be even better for what you're doing.

Firestar_3x · 6 Mar 2017 at 15:49

Martini1991 said:
If you're picking a 7700K, you're doing it for the extra threads.

But the performance when using those extra threads will be below a 1700.

And a MHZ isn't a measurement of performance. It's not a constant.
On the same series of chips, then yeah sure, one chip at a higher frequency is faster, but frequency still isn't a measurement of performance.

I can understand why you'd want higher core for core performance. But not through a 7700K.

A compromise needs to be reached, does you usage profile dictate you can give up some threads for better single core performance or not? Whilst something like a 7600k is great for FSX what if you play a wide range of games too?

Glad we established that clock speed isn't a measurement of performance until it is a measurement of performance when looking at cpus in the same range

Martini1991 · 6 Mar 2017 at 15:51

Man, I thought AMD would struggle to sell me one of their Ryzen chips.

AMD stand no chance.

humbug · 6 Mar 2017 at 15:56

Firestar_3x said:
A compromise needs to be reached, does you usage profile dictate you can give up some threads for better single core performance or not? Whilst something like a 7600k is great for FSX what if you play a wide range of games too?

Glad we established that clock speed isn't a measurement of performance until it is a measurement of performance when looking at cpus in the same range

If you play a wide range of games, that compromise, in my opinion, would be AMD's 8 core, or better yet wait for their 6 core. As i am.

Firestar_3x · 6 Mar 2017 at 16:01

humbug said:
If you play a wide range of games, that compromise, in my opinion, would be AMD's 8 core, or better yet wait for their 6 core. As i am.

And this is a great unknown, how will the 6 core chips be and how good will the current chips become once the bugs are worked out.

The real answer to my dilemma is i should wait and see, might happen might not

humbug · 6 Mar 2017 at 16:08

Firestar_3x said:
And this is a great unknown, how will the 6 core chips be and how good will the current chips become once the bugs are worked out.

At worst in games no worse than the 8 core, which is to say not bad at all and sometimes excellent.

The thing with games and CPUs right now is this: 4 cores are fine, 6 cores are better both now and more so in the future, 8 cores are overkill for now and a while yet.

It gets more complicated when one type of CPU has more performance per core but less cores, often the former will yield higher performance, sometime less than the one with a higher core count.
One thing is sure, the higher core count chips have more resources to call on, not just core count but also larger cache, so less stress overall on the CPU, this is perhaps why people are finding that RyZen and 'Broadwell CPUs', are often smoother even when the FPS are on average not as high.
So perhaps 'a good compromise.

WJA96 · 6 Mar 2017 at 16:35

Martini1991 said:
Man, I thought AMD would struggle to sell me one of their Ryzen chips.

AMD stand no chance.

Then surely you should be kissing their feet because they've done something marvellous - they have given Intel some competition. And that's very, very, good for all of us. Because now Intel will have to put up something better. And I'm sure they will.

koooowweeee · 6 Mar 2017 at 17:57

Armageus said:
Because some people will buy Intel (or equally AMD/NVIDIA/Playstation/XBOX etc) no matter what (due to brand loyalty). Equally you have the potentially smaller group, who want to buy Intel for whatever reason, but are hoping that AMD being competitive means that Intel chips will drop in price.

This is very true. I do it myself 90℅ of the time. Intel/nvidia

humbug · 6 Mar 2017 at 18:04

^^^^^ Which is why Intel CPU's will not drop in price, Intel know they have a loyal army to rely on so lowing prices by anything significant would just put them out of pocket.

And i don't care, i have no sense of brand loyalty, so i get more for less money by not going Intel.