• 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.

Intel demoes 11th Gen Core Rocket Lake CPU against 12-core AMD Ryzen

Tetras said:
A high clocked 6700 or 7700 with top-end memory only gets beaten in single thread by Ryzen 5 series, so if mainly playing older games the upgrade can be dubious. I think everyone was expecting more.
Click to expand...
That's a very specific case you're naysaying Zen 2 with, as was always the case when the Inte die hards tripped over themselves to find something, anything to justify their overpriced hunks of junk (and yes, I'm still running a 6700K). If you're only playing games and those games you play are only old things reliant on single thread performance then yes, even the Ryzen 5000 series still loses out to some. But in every other case, Ryzen 3000 is a compelling upgrade over Skylake. So for the poster to say "I've not seen anything worth upgrading from my 6700K" is ill-informed, ignorant or fanboi. Select as appropriate. Doubly-so with the launch of Ryzen 5000.
 
LePhuronn said:
That's a very specific case you're naysaying Zen 2 with, as was always the case when the Inte die hards tripped over themselves to find something, anything to justify their overpriced hunks of junk (and yes, I'm still running a 6700K). If you're only playing games and those games you play are only old things reliant on single thread performance then yes, even the Ryzen 5000 series still loses out to some. But in every other case, Ryzen 3000 is a compelling upgrade over Skylake. So for the poster to say "I've not seen anything worth upgrading from my 6700K" is ill-informed, ignorant or fanboi. Select as appropriate. Doubly-so with the launch of Ryzen 5000.
Click to expand...

It's not that I think they're a bad upgrade, I'd be perfectly content with a 3700X. What bothers me is that if I buy e.g. a 3700K or 10700 (assuming I have a 6700K), then I'm buying half the CPU I already have. Whereas, by now, 5 years later, shouldn't they be blown away in every context, including older games? I was hoping the new architecture would achieve this, but in games so far it seems rather disappointing. True, Ryzen 5000 is a nice bump, it does pull away from Skylake, but it's still not spectacular.
 
Tetras said:
It's not that I think they're a bad upgrade, I'd be perfectly content with a 3700X. What bothers me is that if I buy e.g. a 3700K or 10700 (assuming I have a 6700K), then I'm buying half the CPU I already have. Whereas, by now, 5 years later, shouldn't they be blown away in every context, including older games? I was hoping the new architecture would achieve this, but in games so far it seems rather disappointing. True, Ryzen 5000 is a nice bump, it does pull away from Skylake, but it's still not spectacular.
Click to expand...

You're not going to see a new cpu give massive gains in older games even if they are cpu limited. The big increases in processing power are simply unusable.

AMDs Zen really kicked it off saying **** it we can't make big advancements in clock speed and IPC to run each thread faster so lets increase processing power by having the CPU have lots more cores and threads so if program writers want more processing power they will have to work out how to use the extra threads.

The older games don't know how to use anything other than 1 thread or if you're lucky, 2. So a highly clocked 6700K is plenty competitive at running an old game compared to a new cpu.

Also applies to business use. There's no value in buying new expensive cpus when the software you use is blind to most of it.
 
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom