Intel Price hike

RavenXXX2 · 10 Sep 2018 at 16:28

What's that all about, is it because they game better than AMD. AMD really need to shake that worse than Intel at gaming stigma.

Destination · 10 Sep 2018 at 17:02

No, they are short on chips, they cannot produce enough, so the prices are climbing.
They are outsourcing some production to TSMC so by next year they will be back on track with chips production rates and delivery.

chroniclard · 10 Sep 2018 at 17:04

RavenXXX2 said:
What's that all about, is it because they game better than AMD. AMD really need to shake that worse than Intel at gaming stigma.

Its not really a stigma, on the whole they are worse for gaming, even though the whole package is excellent.

gavinh87 · 10 Sep 2018 at 17:21

chroniclard said:
Its not really a stigma, on the whole they are worse for gaming, even though the whole package is excellent.

+1

Panos · 10 Sep 2018 at 17:23

chroniclard said:
Its not really a stigma, on the whole they are worse for gaming, even though the whole package is excellent.

Ehm.... If the bellow leak is true (and your mates on the other discussion taking it as gospel), yeah, 33% higher power consumption, 12% higher clocks, on fully patched Z370 board, result to 1fps max at 1080p over a far cheaper CPU? (2600x/2700x).

https://www.guru3d.com/news-story/spanish-website-posts-core-i7-9700k-benchmarks.html

Here you see the effects of the security patches on the Z370 platform, which the reviewers are forced to implement if they want to benchmark the 9xxx series...

RavenXXX2 · 10 Sep 2018 at 17:24

Well AMD should be raking it in, nearly £400 for 12 Intel threads lol. They have that much **** on 14nm they can't keep up.

gavinh87 · 10 Sep 2018 at 17:28

Panos said:
Ehm.... If the bellow leak is true (and your mates on the other discussion taking it as gospel), yeah, 33% higher power consumption, 12% higher clocks, on fully patched Z370 board, result to 1fps max at 1080p over a far cheaper CPU? (2600x/2700x).

https://www.guru3d.com/news-story/spanish-website-posts-core-i7-9700k-benchmarks.html

Here you see the effects of the security patches on the Z370 platform, which the reviewers are forced to implement if they want to benchmark the 9xxx series...

Did you actually post the same thing on guru3d too? Or steal it?

Besides, those gaming results look like a mid/low end GPU to me, results are far too close which is the opposite of what we see with a decent GPU

SiDeards73 · 10 Sep 2018 at 17:28

Intel prices creeping up yet people still think the 9900k is going to be £400...

Get ready for £500-600 with my bet being £550

Aretak · 10 Sep 2018 at 17:29

chroniclard said:
Its not really a stigma, on the whole they are worse for gaming, even though the whole package is excellent.

Worse if you game at 1080p using a 1080 Ti, certainly. The difference is entirely negligible at big boy resolutions though.

4% faster on average at 1440p using a 1080 Ti across 35 different games. Yet there are those on here who will still insist that you absolutely need a delidded 8700K running at 5.3GHz to get any sort of half-decent gaming experience. Mostly those who shelled out for one, coincidentally.

SiDeards73 · 10 Sep 2018 at 17:34

Aretak said:
Worse if you game at 1080p using a 1080 Ti, certainly. The difference is entirely negligible at big boy resolutions though.

4% faster on average at 1440p using a 1080 Ti across 35 different games. Yet there are those on here who will still insist that you absolutely need a delidded 8700K running at 5.3GHz to get any sort of half-decent gaming experience. Mostly those who shelled out for one, coincidentally.

Most of those also gamed on a 4 core i5 or i7 with a a 780ti as well perfectly fine.

What is even more hilarious is lots of us are using adaptive sync, and unless your not dropping out if the range if it's freesync and capping the range, it's irrelevant what FPS you are getting.

But some people need straws to cling to so as to justify their choices of hardware.

Panos · 10 Sep 2018 at 17:36

Aretak said:
Worse if you game at 1080p using a 1080 Ti, certainly. The difference is entirely negligible at big boy resolutions though.

4% faster on average at 1440p using a 1080 Ti across 35 different games. Yet there are those on here who will still insist that you absolutely need a delidded 8700K running at 5.3GHz to get any sort of half-decent gaming experience. Mostly those who shelled out for one, coincidentally.

Starcraft 2 and CS:GO. Yeah..... Greatest bench marking games ever.... not.

RavenXXX2 · 10 Sep 2018 at 17:36

UK is ****, I can order the 8700K from the us with postage and import charges for £45 less than buying at OCUK.

gavinh87 · 10 Sep 2018 at 17:37

SiDeards73 said:
Most of those also gamed on a 4 core i5 or i7 with a a 780ti as well perfectly fine.

What is even more hilarious is lots of us are using adaptive sync, and unless your not dropping out if the range if it's freesync and capping the range, it's irrelevant what FPS you are getting.

But some people need straws to cling to so as to justify their choices of hardware.

Gsync goes down to like 36fps, are you saying its irrelevant if you are doing 36 or 150?

SiDeards73 · 10 Sep 2018 at 17:39

gavinh87 said:
Gsync goes down to like 36fps, are you saying its irrelevant if you are doing 36 or 150?

If you never ever drop below gsynx then yeah, the sync tech should always deliver a smooth experience, that's the idea of it.

I always try to aim for 100fps on my freesync screen when using AMD cards, why chase 144hz or more? Normally it means I can make the game look better by turning options higher

gavinh87 · 10 Sep 2018 at 17:42

SiDeards73 said:
If you never ever drop below gsynx then yeah, the sync tech should always deliver a smooth experience, that's the idea of it.

I always try to aim for 100fps on my freesync screen when using AMD cards, why chase 144hz or more? Normally it means I can make the game look better by turning options higher

36fps is 36fps, with gsync or not. Its smoother than a regular 60hz non adaptive sync monitor yes. But having high fps is still very relevant if you have a high refresh rate display whether it has adaptive sync or not.

SiDeards73 · 10 Sep 2018 at 17:45

gavinh87 said:
36fps is 36fps, with gsync or not. Its smoother than a regular 60hz non adaptive sync monitor yes. But having high fps is still very relevant if you have a high refresh rate display whether it has adaptive sync or not.

Must be something wrong with my eyes then, as I don't notice 50fps Vs 120fps on my freesync screen and 290 when playing Division 1

gavinh87 · 10 Sep 2018 at 17:47

SiDeards73 said:
Must be something wrong with my eyes then, as I don't notice 50fps Vs 120fps on my freesync screen and 290 when playing Division 1

You should get a console then.
Maybe we should put up a poll for people with adaptive monitors as I can absolutely tell the difference from 50 vs 120, synced or not.

EsaT · 10 Sep 2018 at 17:47

SiDeards73 said:
Intel prices creeping up yet people still think the 9900k is going to be £400...

Get ready for £500-600 with my bet being £550

And good availability maybe for the Christmas...
Intel being forced to increase core counts of chips causing bigger die sizes is no doubt further worsening situation with manufacturing capacity.

https://www.extremetech.com/computing/276481-intel-faces-14nm-shortage-as-cpu-prices-rise
https://www.crn.com/news/components...pu-shortage-delaying-shipments-raising-prices

When big volume OEMs, who no doubt have priority, are having trouble in getting CPU shipments that means clear manufacturing capacity issues.
I wonder if there's still someone believing official explanation for firing Krzanich...

Doobedoo · 10 Sep 2018 at 17:56

gavinh87 said:
You should get a console then.
Maybe we should put up a poll for people with adaptive monitors as I can absolutely tell the difference from 50 vs 120, synced or not.

I’ve not tried an adaptive monitor so I wouldn’t know what the benefits are but I’ll take peoples word for it that it’s worth the investment, problem is your talking about a small niche within a a small niche. Most people will be happy with either to be honest 2700x etc or 8700k etc. But 4% difference at 1440p+ is not really much to write home no matter what you say.

gavinh87 · 10 Sep 2018 at 18:03

Doobedoo said:
I’ve not tried an adaptive monitor so I wouldn’t know what the benefits are but I’ll take peoples word for it that it’s worth the investment, problem is your talking about a small niche within a a small niche. Most people will be happy with either to be honest 2700x etc or 8700k etc. But 4% difference at 1440p+ is not really much to write home no matter what you say.

That difference is only on the games they bench. Take bfv for example, granted its in beta but there are many games that perform that way.
Even now, a year on ryzen can only match a 7600k in certain titles.

They need to be topping the benchmarks for me and many other to consider them, its not fanboyism and its not brand loyalty, its outright performance and they don't have that. If ryzen 3000 can deliver than then i'll swap it out the day it releases.