Intel launches Core-X series with up to 18-cores for 1999 USD

[TheF34RChannel]

But it could be terrible price / performance compared to AMD?

I have no interest in that; I want performance and the better product (higher frequencies, IPC, highest single and multicore performance), not price/performance and the lesser product (extremely likely lower frequencies, IPC). I hope no one here minds if I don't go into company vs. company further; there's already too much of that on the internet.

 

[Journey]

Indeed, the Intel option does look like it will still win in the IPC side of things, given the technology being used. So from an outright performance point of view, if you only want 8-10 cores maximum, then it's the only choice regardless of the cost, I'm still annoyed at the 28 lane limit on the 8 core, silly move by Intel from my perspective anyhow!

Ignoring price/performance is a bit odd, as it is still very relevant, especially if you only play games though. Getting 95% of the performance, for 50-60% of the cost, you'd have to say it would be the exception that doesn't not find that sensible, rather than the rule, even more so considering most of the time gaming is GPU limited at higher resolutions, and quality settings.

I'm glad I still game at 1080/1440p on medium settings, using a crap old graphics card.

 

[=XDC=FluphyBunny]

I have no interest in that; I want performance and the better product (higher frequencies, IPC, highest single and multicore performance), not price/performance and the lesser product (extremely likely lower frequencies, IPC). I hope no one here minds if I don't go into company vs. company further; there's already too much of that on the internet.

Okay. I think for the money it costs for that Intel option you could get a very interesting AMD setup. I would still be waiting for reviews before planting your flag but its your money and either way it will be a very nice setup

 

[humbug]

I have no interest in that; I want performance and the better product (higher frequencies, IPC, highest single and multicore performance), not price/performance and the lesser product (extremely likely lower frequencies, IPC). I hope no one here minds if I don't go into company vs. company further; there's already too much of that on the internet.

He says that with an old i5 6600K is his signature bottlenecking his GTX 1080, clearly he has no idea what he is talking about.

Cough cough.....

What was it you were saying about price for performance? you have a CPU that is 60% slower that the AMD equivalent.

 

[TheF34RChannel]

He says that with an old i5 6600K is his signature bottlenecking his GTX 1080, clearly he has no idea what he is talking about.

Cough cough.....



What was it you were saying about price for performance? you have a CPU that is 60% slower that the AMD equivalent.

I said no such thing anywhere.

 

[azazl187]

He says that with an old i5 6600K is his signature bottlenecking his GTX 1080, clearly he has no idea what he is talking about.

Cough cough.....

What was it you were saying about price for performance? you have a CPU that is 60% slower that the AMD equivalent.

Who plays at that res?

 

[mmj_uk]

Who plays at that res?

humbug but only since AMD released Ryzen.

 

[azazl187]

humbug but only since AMD released Ryzen.

Haha, its not exactly a real world example now is it?

 

[Panos]

Haha, its not exactly a real world example now is it?

Any benchmark Intel is been beaten by AMD is not real world example..........
Rule of thumb.......

muahahha

 

[humbug]

Who plays at that res?

humbug but only since AMD released Ryzen.

Haha, its not exactly a real world example now is it?

These are exactly the same arguments AMD fanboys used to make when reviewers tested CPU performance by making the CPU, 'not the GPU' work for it.

What a turn of events, now its the Intel lot who want to have everything turned up so that the CPU is not the bottleneck, or don't use GPU's that are powerful enough for the CPU to bottlenerck it....

If the GPU not the CPU is doing all of the work then any CPU is as fast as anyother, thats as true for AMD's CPU's 5 years ago as it is for Intel's CPU's today, when testing CPU performance its not about what res you are playing at, its about how much performance the CPU actually has to give, as i said you can make any CPU look as fast as anyother just so long as you don't push it over the fresh-hold of where its performance limit is.

This next slide illustrated that perfectly, the performance of the 5Ghz 7700K on the right is the same as the 4Ghz 1700 on the left, but the 7700K is at 98% while the 1700 is at about 60%, use a faster GPU (which you can replicate by turning the res down) and the 5Ghz 7700K will bottleneck it, the 4Ghz 1700 still has 40% left in the tank.

This BTW is 1080P Ultra High. just what you want to see, oh, but.. the 100% stressed 8 threads on the 7700K, no... we don't want to see that

 

[Panos]

These are exactly the same arguments AMD fanboys used to make when reviewers tested CPU performance by making the CPU, 'not the GPU' work for it.

What a turn of events, now its the Intel lot who want to have everything turned up so that the CPU is not the bottleneck, or don't use GPU's that are powerful enough for the CPU to bottlenerck it....

If the GPU not the CPU is doing all of the work then any CPU is as fast as anyother, thats as true for AMD's CPU's 5 years ago as it is for Intel's CPU's today, when testing CPU performance its not about what res you are playing at, its about how much performance the CPU actually has to give, as i said you can make any CPU look as fast as anyother just so long as you don't push it over the fresh-hold of where its performance limit is.

This next slide illustrated that perfectly, the performance of the 5Ghz 7700K on the right is the same as the 4Ghz 1700 on the left, but the 7700K is at 98% while the 1700 is at about 60%, use a faster GPU (which you can replicate by turning the res down) and the 5Ghz 7700K will bottleneck it, the 4Ghz 1700 still has 40% left in the tank.

This BTW is 1080P Ultra High.

Let's not forget the Tomb Raider patch came out recently and couple of related benchmark videos came out last day.
Showing a stock 1600 (3.8) with 1080 is as fast if not faster than a stock 6700K (4.2) with 2666 ram also!! At 1080p (DX12 perf is up around 30% plus)

And their difference between them is around 400mhz and in many scenes shows the threads 11 & 12 asleep at 0%

 

[mmj_uk]

Haha, its not exactly a real world example now is it?

No but my point is basically that last generation Bulldozer/Piledriver would have got utterly destroyed when you removed any GPU bottlenecks from the equation, the only real reason that they were competitive in gaming at all was because Intel CPU's were largely GPU bottlenecked by the incredible rise in monitor resolutions in recent years and GPU's lagging behind. If you had used low resolution settings back then humbug would have been leading the argument that "nobody plays at those resolutions" but suddenly now that it shows AMD in a good light it's the bees knees for testing. It's more the flip flopping whenever it suits that gets me.

I'd definitely buy a Ryzen 1700 over a 7700K though, overall there's way more processing power even if most normal gaming situations don't really show it. The perfect balance of CPU would be to wait for Intel 6-8 cores @4.5ghz+ though.

 

[humbug]

No but my point is basically that last generation Bulldozer/Piledriver would have got utterly destroyed when you removed any GPU bottlenecks from the equation, the only real reason that they were competitive in gaming at all was because Intel CPU's were largely GPU bottlenecked by the incredible rise in monitor resolutions in recent years and GPU's lagging behind. If you had used low resolution settings back then humbug would have been leading the argument that "nobody plays at those resolutions" but suddenly now that it shows AMD in a good light it's the bees knees for testing. It's more the flip flopping whenever it suits that gets me.

I'd definitely buy a Ryzen 1700 over a 7700K though, overall there's way more processing power even if most normal gaming situations don't really show it. The perfect balance of CPU would be to wait for Intel 6-8 cores @4.5ghz+ though.

CoffeeLake will be 6 core on mainstream and i have no doubt because of higher clock rates it will be that much faster, but, judging by how Intel are reacting to AMD so far they still want you to pay Intel Tax for that.

With X299 its becoming clear the one thing Intel will not compromise on is their profit margins, their pricing.

Also: AMD are working on Zen+ so if we are going to wait for CoffeeLake, why not wait for Zen+?

 

[azazl187]

These are exactly the same arguments AMD fanboys used to make when reviewers tested CPU performance by making the CPU, 'not the GPU' work for it.

What a turn of events, now its the Intel lot who want to have everything turned up so that the CPU is not the bottleneck, or don't use GPU's that are powerful enough for the CPU to bottlenerck it....

If the GPU not the CPU is doing all of the work then any CPU is as fast as anyother, thats as true for AMD's CPU's 5 years ago as it is for Intel's CPU's today, when testing CPU performance its not about what res you are playing at, its about how much performance the CPU actually has to give, as i said you can make any CPU look as fast as anyother just so long as you don't push it over the fresh-hold of where its performance limit is.

This next slide illustrated that perfectly, the performance of the 5Ghz 7700K on the right is the same as the 4Ghz 1700 on the left, but the 7700K is at 98% while the 1700 is at about 60%, use a faster GPU (which you can replicate by turning the res down) and the 5Ghz 7700K will bottleneck it, the 4Ghz 1700 still has 40% left in the tank.

This BTW is 1080P Ultra High. just what you want to see, oh, but.. the 100% stressed 8 threads on the 7700K, no... we don't want to see that

I completely agree with your sentiments but what you are missing here is that i would have supported the same argument then as i do now no matter what CPU is being used to demonstrate FPS at low resolutions. Clap Clap well done AMD for beating an Intel CPU at a resolution that was last used over 10 years ago. I understand your argument though. I am a PC gamer that plays at 4k while still using my OCed 2600K paired with a 1080ti. When i next see a decent difference in performance at 4k that includes a CPU and not a GPU i dont care who i buy it off, AMD or Intel, it doesnt matter.

 

[Curlyriff]

I completely agree with your sentiments but what you are missing here is that i would have supported the same argument then as i do now no matter what CPU is being used to demonstrate FPS at low resolutions. Clap Clap well done AMD for beating an Intel CPU at a resolution that was last used over 10 years ago. I understand your argument though. I am a PC gamer that plays at 4k while still using my OCed 2600K paired with a 1080ti. When i next see a decent difference in performance at 4k that includes a CPU and not a GPU i dont care who i buy it off, AMD or Intel, it doesnt matter.

I also agree with your view but get what humbug is saying because the people pointing this out advocated the above point even when we initially got 1080p and 4k benches when Ryzen was released.

This was because Ryzen in terms of average and max FPS was not what Intel was. Intel were king when showing 720p resolution initially and that's all Intel wanted to be shown. We had reviews showing what is now being stated and they got slated for not showing the CPU off and hiding behind the GPU being the bottleneck.

No matter which way the reviews went AMD always got flak and reviews always got bashed because it didn't show Intel smashing them. It got really frustrating. The point should be that the utilisation on all the cores is well below 100% and thus there is potential for more performance from that CPU where as the alternative shown looks to be maxed out and thus wont provide much if any ability to get more performance.

AMD was always doing just fine against the Intel lineup from release at 1080p & 4k and that was shown and people all went "hang on though, what happens at 1080p where I want 144fps or more. Show us something at 720p & 1080p so we can compare then".

That has happened and initially AMD lost out at least for max FPS but now we are seeing it shift the argument has shifted again to "no one games at 720p" we want 4k reviews.

I have always advocated I want to see the following setup

• Resolution: 1080p, 1440p and 4k
• GPU levels: low, mid and high end GPU options from both AMD & Nivida
• RAM Speeds: 2133Mhz, 2933Mhz & 3600Mhz RAM
• Overclock Levels: Stock clocks, average overclock & max overclock settings. For example we know that average we get 3.9GHz out AMD but 4.5GHz out of Intel but we can get 4.2Ghz out AMD as top OC and 5.1/2GHz ish out Intel.
• Games: A selection of 24 games, 6 developers, each with 4 different games over the last 4-5 year period so we can see not only which system is best now but for people who have a back catalog to play and also it may even highlight if someone plays games from developer 'X' mostly or only then they would be better with system 'Y'

It would be a massive review with lots of data points and take weeks to put together but it would be a great article to really show all of the information as enthusiasts and what affects the performance.

To get that amount of data through I think you would need 4 systems set up. Two with the Nvidia drivers and two with the AMD drivers and then config them the same with a W10 ISO and then you can compare directly.

The monitors should all be the same and the videos should be captured externally for the benchmarks at least as this could also show any difference in colours etc that people suggest sometimes.

Videos should be set so that they play side by side with one another and that way the visual difference is easier to see. It should also be recorded with a 4k camera so that it doesn't loose any quality during compression of editing and uploading the video. Of course YouTube kills a lot but that still seems the most accessible video platform.

Ah well, one can dream. Instead we get instant reaction, on day review with no real thought (for the most part) and thus rubbish output.

 

[azazl187]

I also agree with your view but get what humbug is saying because the people pointing this out advocated the above point even when we initially got 1080p and 4k benches when Ryzen was released.

This was because Ryzen in terms of average and max FPS was not what Intel was. Intel were king when showing 720p resolution initially and that's all Intel wanted to be shown. We had reviews showing what is now being stated and they got slated for not showing the CPU off and hiding behind the GPU being the bottleneck.

No matter which way the reviews went AMD always got flak and reviews always got bashed because it didn't show Intel smashing them. It got really frustrating. The point should be that the utilisation on all the cores is well below 100% and thus there is potential for more performance from that CPU where as the alternative shown looks to be maxed out and thus wont provide much if any ability to get more performance.

AMD was always doing just fine against the Intel lineup from release at 1080p & 4k and that was shown and people all went "hang on though, what happens at 1080p where I want 144fps or more. Show us something at 720p & 1080p so we can compare then".

That has happened and initially AMD lost out at least for max FPS but now we are seeing it shift the argument has shifted again to "no one games at 720p" we want 4k reviews.

I have always advocated I want to see the following setup

• Resolution: 1080p, 1440p and 4k
• GPU levels: low, mid and high end GPU options from both AMD & Nivida
• RAM Speeds: 2133Mhz, 2933Mhz & 3600Mhz RAM
• Overclock Levels: Stock clocks, average overclock & max overclock settings. For example we know that average we get 3.9GHz out AMD but 4.5GHz out of Intel but we can get 4.2Ghz out AMD as top OC and 5.1/2GHz ish out Intel.
• Games: A selection of 24 games, 6 developers, each with 4 different games over the last 4-5 year period so we can see not only which system is best now but for people who have a back catalog to play and also it may even highlight if someone plays games from developer 'X' mostly or only then they would be better with system 'Y'

It would be a massive review with lots of data points and take weeks to put together but it would be a great article to really show all of the information as enthusiasts and what affects the performance.

To get that amount of data through I think you would need 4 systems set up. Two with the Nvidia drivers and two with the AMD drivers and then config them the same with a W10 ISO and then you can compare directly.

The monitors should all be the same and the videos should be captured externally for the benchmarks at least as this could also show any difference in colours etc that people suggest sometimes.

Videos should be set so that they play side by side with one another and that way the visual difference is easier to see. It should also be recorded with a 4k camera so that it doesn't loose any quality during compression of editing and uploading the video. Of course YouTube kills a lot but that still seems the most accessible video platform.

Ah well, one can dream. Instead we get instant reaction, on day review with no real thought (for the most part) and thus rubbish output.

What you suggest is the Mecca of reviews and i completely agree

 

[humbug]

I also agree with your view but get what humbug is saying because the people pointing this out advocated the above point even when we initially got 1080p and 4k benches when Ryzen was released.

This was because Ryzen in terms of average and max FPS was not what Intel was. Intel were king when showing 720p resolution initially and that's all Intel wanted to be shown. We had reviews showing what is now being stated and they got slated for not showing the CPU off and hiding behind the GPU being the bottleneck.

No matter which way the reviews went AMD always got flak and reviews always got bashed because it didn't show Intel smashing them. It got really frustrating. The point should be that the utilisation on all the cores is well below 100% and thus there is potential for more performance from that CPU where as the alternative shown looks to be maxed out and thus wont provide much if any ability to get more performance.

AMD was always doing just fine against the Intel lineup from release at 1080p & 4k and that was shown and people all went "hang on though, what happens at 1080p where I want 144fps or more. Show us something at 720p & 1080p so we can compare then".

That has happened and initially AMD lost out at least for max FPS but now we are seeing it shift the argument has shifted again to "no one games at 720p" we want 4k reviews.

I have always advocated I want to see the following setup

• Resolution: 1080p, 1440p and 4k
• GPU levels: low, mid and high end GPU options from both AMD & Nivida
• RAM Speeds: 2133Mhz, 2933Mhz & 3600Mhz RAM
• Overclock Levels: Stock clocks, average overclock & max overclock settings. For example we know that average we get 3.9GHz out AMD but 4.5GHz out of Intel but we can get 4.2Ghz out AMD as top OC and 5.1/2GHz ish out Intel.
• Games: A selection of 24 games, 6 developers, each with 4 different games over the last 4-5 year period so we can see not only which system is best now but for people who have a back catalog to play and also it may even highlight if someone plays games from developer 'X' mostly or only then they would be better with system 'Y'

It would be a massive review with lots of data points and take weeks to put together but it would be a great article to really show all of the information as enthusiasts and what affects the performance.

To get that amount of data through I think you would need 4 systems set up. Two with the Nvidia drivers and two with the AMD drivers and then config them the same with a W10 ISO and then you can compare directly.

The monitors should all be the same and the videos should be captured externally for the benchmarks at least as this could also show any difference in colours etc that people suggest sometimes.

Videos should be set so that they play side by side with one another and that way the visual difference is easier to see. It should also be recorded with a 4k camera so that it doesn't loose any quality during compression of editing and uploading the video. Of course YouTube kills a lot but that still seems the most accessible video platform.

Ah well, one can dream. Instead we get instant reaction, on day review with no real thought (for the most part) and thus rubbish output.

With all that is known that ^^^ would be a proper in depth review.

You're going to find it hard these days to find a reviewer willing to do that, too many reviewers these days are run like businesses, employing multiple offices and staff, as well as supporting the lifestyle of a lot of these mainstream reviewers, Youtube and Google ads doesn't scratch the surface let alone cover any of that, crates of $1000 CPU's do and they ain't going to risk loosing them if the supplier of those wants you to review their products in certain scripted way.

Those who are independently wealthy enough to do it don't have the time, they work for a living.

 

[Chuk_Chuk]

Unfortunately, embargo's don't allow for such reviews to made. It would take to long and you probably wouldn't get a video out till a week or 2 after the release of the product at that point you would lose a lot of your viewership.
There are few youtube channels that could successfully pull off releasing a review weeks or months after a product launch and still retain high viewership (Totalbiscuit, is the only one that comes to mind)

 

[GAC]

Unfortunately, embargo's don't allow for such reviews to made. It would take to long and you probably wouldn't get a video out till a week or 2 after the release of the product at that point you would lose a lot of your viewership.
There are few youtube channels that could successfully pull off releasing a review weeks or months after a product launch and still retain high viewership (Totalbiscuit, is the only one that comes to mind)

to be honest on the hardware sites it seems to be a case the better ones are at least trying to do fuller tests rather than banging stuff out day one just to get in first. which is paying off in more views i bet. as after all when your looking at dropping £1200 on a new build you'd rather trust someone who took their time and did a proper review rather than a half baked rushed review. hopefully a few of them will do updated ryzen tests when the beta bios's aint so beta.

edit.......

just as a side note and keeping with the x299 stuff jayz2cent posted a picture of a msi board he got yesterday so reviews coming soon i guess.

 

[Chuk_Chuk]

to be honest on the hardware sites it seems to be a case the better ones are at least trying to do fuller tests rather than banging stuff out day one just to get in first. which is paying off in more views i bet. as after all when your looking at dropping £1200 on a new build you'd rather trust someone who took their time and did a proper review rather than a half baked rushed review. hopefully a few of them will do updated ryzen tests when the beta bios's aint so beta.

Yes and No, how many people watching/viewing these reviews will actually buy the product. For the HEDT stuff i think less than 35% of viewers will be buying into that platform. Mainstream probably around 70% but i think most of them will be buying on day 1. So while i do agree with you, i think the gain in viewership from informed consumers that are reading up on what they are about to buy isn't going to be high enough to offset the loss.

Out of curiosity, which sites have been doing detailed reviews?