Intel kills 10nm ?? oO

Doobedoo · 30 Jan 2020 at 19:51

FoxEye said:
Well just because you have no use for single threaded perf doesn't mean nobody does.

Again the claim is being made that AMD are better in all metrics and it just isn't true today. It might be true after Zen 3... watch this space.

I think you need to go back and read what was said because I’m pretty sure Humbug said the 9900k is still the gaming king.

Anyway people are free to do or buy whatever they feel they need but not everyone needs a couple of extra fps’s.

humbug · 30 Jan 2020 at 21:12

FoxEye said:
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-7-3700x/16.html

Again showing the 9600 and esp 9700 well ahead of Ryzen 3 in gaming.

I'm just not seeing AMD dominate anything here. They still look to be behind in gaming perf.

The graphs don't lie.

So your first lot of graphs failed to prove your point now you're trying new ones, well these don't work either as most of them all the CPU's are with in a few % of eachother, a couple of them have a 4.3Ghz 8600K beating a 5Ghz 9900K, am i supposed to believe the 8600K is better than the 9900K?

This is the sort of crap that happens when you try to find differences between CPU's where there is no difference, you keep going until you can find something that differentiates them to put on slides, even if its outlier margin of error none sense. A lot of them feel like they have to do this because they can't just say "its all the same really"

Journey · 30 Jan 2020 at 22:36

Back to the death of Intel 10nm, it's looking like even the mobile chips are being scaled back with volume expected late Q3, and moving into Q4 this year.

I'm going to say they'll be prioritising the low volume high margin chips too make the most of the few chips they get from the wafers, with the high volume low cost bring stuck on 14nm+++++ until 2H 2021.

FoxEye · 30 Jan 2020 at 22:41

humbug said:
So your first lot of graphs failed to prove your point now you're trying new ones, well these don't work either as most of them all the CPU's are with in a few % of eachother, a couple of them have a 4.3Ghz 8600K beating a 5Ghz 9900K, am i supposed to believe the 8600K is better than the 9900K?

This is the sort of crap that happens when you try to find differences between CPU's where there is no difference, you keep going until you can find something that differentiates them to put on slides, even if its outlier margin of error none sense. A lot of them feel like they have to do this because they can't just say "its all the same really"

I don't really care if it's "a few percent" or "a few FPS" or whatever. Single-threaded perf is not as good on AMD as it is on Intel, and Intel still has the lead in gaming scenarios.

For me it's that simple. Ryzen 3 isn't what I wanted, so I wait for Ryzen 4.

You can evangelise for AMD all you like.

Journey · 30 Jan 2020 at 22:45

FoxEye said:
I don't really care if it's "a few percent" or "a few FPS" or whatever. Single-threaded perf is not as good on AMD as it is on Intel, and Intel still has the lead in gaming scenarios.

For me it's that simple. Ryzen 3 isn't what I wanted, so I wait for Ryzen 4.

I find your commentary on this weird, you'd never fork over the cash for a GPU that would show the difference, so what does it matter even if you were using a potato CPU? :confused:

FoxEye · 30 Jan 2020 at 22:55

Journey said:
I find your commentary on this weird, you'd never fork over the cash for a GPU that would show the difference, so what does it matter even if you were using a potato CPU?

If all I did was play console ports you'd probably have a point. There are ... other scenarios where your CPU can be as/more important than your GPU. Even for gaming purposes.

Journey · 30 Jan 2020 at 22:58

FoxEye said:
If all I did was play console ports you'd probably have a point. There are ... other scenarios where your CPU can be as/more important than your GPU. Even for gaming purposes.

But you are using a 2500K, so clearly the speed of your CPU doesn't matter to you at all. :confused:

FoxEye · 30 Jan 2020 at 23:07

Journey said:
But you are using a 2500K, so clearly the speed of your CPU doesn't matter to you at all.

I'm saving my pennies for an upgrade. Geez, do I have to justify having a small budget now?

When I do upgrade I want something nice. Really nice.

I've had extremely good value for money from the 2500k, but you're right it's had its day.

I'm not going to compromise when I upgrade it. It's a once a decade thing for me.

jigger · 31 Jan 2020 at 20:12

FoxEye said:
I don't really care if it's "a few percent" or "a few FPS" or whatever. Single-threaded perf is not as good on AMD as it is on Intel, and Intel still has the lead in gaming scenarios.

For me it's that simple. Ryzen 3 isn't what I wanted, so I wait for Ryzen 4.

You can evangelise for AMD all you like.

Most games engines fall apart between 60-100. FPS.

jigger · 31 Jan 2020 at 20:26

FoxEye said:
I'm saving my pennies for an upgrade. Geez, do I have to justify having a small budget now?

When I do upgrade I want something nice. Really nice.

I've had extremely good value for money from the 2500k, but you're right it's had its day.

I'm not going to compromise when I upgrade it. It's a once a decade thing for me.

So you upgraded from a P3/4 or Athlon XP to the 2500K, but wouldn’t or can’t upgrade the 2500K.

Anyone else not buying this?

Doobedoo · 31 Jan 2020 at 20:33

jigger said:
So you upgraded from a P3/4 or Athlon XP to the 2500K, but wouldn’t or can’t upgrade the 2500K.

Anyone else not buying this?

Not really, it baffles me why people will spend so much more for such a small performance gain.

FoxEye · 1 Feb 2020 at 02:27

jigger said:
Most games engines fall apart between 60-100. FPS.

"Most"? Nah, I'm not buying *that*.

Rroff · 1 Feb 2020 at 02:51

I'm not even sure what he means by that - most game engines run at their best when you are sustaining 60-120FPS. Some older engines will fall apart when the frametimes start falling close to 1-2ms due to precision issues and a lot of game engines feel pretty nasty when you drop below around ~40 FPS especially if they are running 30+Hz tickrate internally for game logic, etc.

Personally these days unless I was purely gaming I'd rather have more cores even if that was slightly less gaming performance - 4 core 8 thread and 6 core, etc. still cut it for purely gaming but you have to shut everything down sometimes - if you want to leave stuff running in the background, have companion programs like voice comms, etc. it can be smoother with the higher thread count CPUs even when the all out in-game performance isn't quite as good (though that said I rarely struggle even with this 4820K yet - if anything I'm more GPU limited than CPU if it comes to it).

Grim5 · 1 Feb 2020 at 06:43

Journey said:
But you are using a 2500K, so clearly the speed of your CPU doesn't matter to you at all.

You'd think someone on a 2500k would realize the value of having lots of cores if you are planning to keep it for 10 years. But it seems he wants to upgrade to fewer cores for slightly better performance today at the sacrifice of performance tomorrow even though he only upgrades every 10 years

james.miller · 1 Feb 2020 at 08:30

FoxEye said:
I'm not going to compromise when I upgrade it. It's a once a decade thing for me.

Its 2020, choosing single digit ST improvements over big MT gains IS a compromise unless you have a very specific use case. And gaming isnt one, not any more.

NinjaCool · 1 Feb 2020 at 09:10

If someone said what desktop CPU do you recommend today for a 10 year build, I would say without doubt a Ryzen 3950X together with a PCIe4 equipped motherboard.
But if the person can wait later into 2020, a Ryzen 4950X would probably be my main choice.

Boot_Loop · 1 Feb 2020 at 09:58

Intel 'ahead' in gaming, sure. But read the friggin graphs and the context.

Intel's 9900K is about 3-4% faster than a 3900X on average and only when using a 2080 Ti @ 1080p res... this is when comparing a large suite of games (10+). they're basically neck and neck. So much for Intel 'still king in gaming' misleading BS.

FoxEye · 1 Feb 2020 at 10:54

james.miller said:
Its 2020, choosing single digit ST improvements over big MT gains IS a compromise unless you have a very specific use case. And gaming isnt one, not any more.

Depends what games, tbh.

james.miller · 1 Feb 2020 at 13:55

FoxEye said:
Depends what games, tbh.

If you are narrowing it down to individual games then its even more of a compromise.

Destination · 1 Feb 2020 at 14:01

james.miller said:
If you are narrowing it down to individual games then its even more of a compromise.

Indeed, and one is most unlikely to be upgrading for a 1 or 2 games purpose when on a small budget, as Foxeye states, he'll wait for 4, which will likely give him the lead in all fields.
I'll do the same, as I think future wise that'll be best, given console releases etc, the 4000 series should works nicely as a jump from the excellent 3000 series.
I upgraded my wife to a 3600, and its a superb chip.
I'll see what 4000 offers and likely spend big to do me 8 years on CPU and MOBO.
Similar to what my i7 920 managed only to be bumped to a xeon when they were 20 quid.
GFX will still get upgraded every 3-4 years, but not likely to be upgraded to top of line, as I can't justify that amount of spending.