Intel to launch 6 core Coffee Lake-S CPUs & Z370 chipset 5 October 2017

[Drollic]

CPU cores are like GPU memory, if an nVidia GTX 680 GPU has 2GB then the 3GB on the HD 7970 was overkill and would not be needed for many decades.... the 290X had 4GB, that was too much the 3GB 780TI was perfect.... remember all that?

As apparent Hardware Enthusiasts some of us are a pretty strange bunch, arguing till blue in the face that less hardware for more money is better.

Pointless analogy though. By the time games required more vram than what nvidia put out with the exception of the 770, you needed more gpu grunt to get the best out the games anyway. I say this having owned the 7950 then 780. The same will apply with core count on CPUs I'd imagine.

 

[Brazo]

This needs to be put into perspective though....

200fps on a 60hz 1080p screen is useless, 200fps on a 165hz or a 144hz screen is still pretty useless. Add in adaptive sync tech, as long as your in the range of that, who cares if your 200fps, if your capping your fps to keep within the range etc, if your 7700k is effectively wasting fps at that point as your adaptive sync + gpu are keeping your game silky smooth, you dont really have much room for other tasks on the 4c 8t chip.

Swap to a 6c 12t or 8c 16t Chip, you might take a hit in overall FPS, who cares as long as your still in your adaptive sync range, all those extra cores can then be put to use streaming your game to twitch / youtube etc, or doing other stuff. Software does not really need to catch up, not if you are offering people the chance to do other stuff while you game, dunno about you, but i play a lot of MMO's which are notoriously CPU bound, quite often i read websites for info while playing, raid tactics etc or youtube videos and whatnot. Your limited in this scenario on an i7 and on an i5 its just painful to do. More cores at this point alleviates these issues.

I think I must be one of the last remaining few who just plays a game! I don't feel the need to do anything else, broadcast it to the world or check the web.

That said my next upgrade will almost certainly be 6+ cores but in all honesty I expect it to be a downgrade from my 7700k as benchmarks aside the software that I use just doesn't scale well past four.

 

[Brazo]

CPU cores are like GPU memory, if an nVidia GTX 680 GPU has 2GB then the 3GB on the HD 7970 was overkill and would not be needed for many decades.... the 290X had 4GB, that was too much the 3GB 780TI was perfect.... remember all that?

As apparent Hardware Enthusiasts some of us are a pretty strange bunch, arguing till blue in the face that less hardware for more money is better.

It's all very well having a bigger army but if half or more of your army is sat on the bench watching you have to weigh up the pros and cons of keeping them, feeding them etc...

 

[SiDeards73]

I think I must be one of the last remaining few who just plays a game! I don't feel the need to do anything else, broadcast it to the world or check the web.

That said my next upgrade will almost certainly be 6+ cores but in all honesty I expect it to be a downgrade from my 7700k as benchmarks aside the software that I use just doesn't scale well past four.

Play World of Warcraft or any other MMORPG with Raid content, you'll be glad of a 2nd screen with strats and stuff on it, Play Diablo 3 and you'll be glad of a 2nd screen with build info on it, same with POE, infact a lot of RPG type games benefit from having access to various websites / youtube etc to explain mechanics or correct steps to complete things.

Also having a 2nd screen up with Discord or Teamspeak etc running is good as you dont have to have all the overlays on the game screen showing whose logged in etc and who is talking etc, these are just some extra useful things, by no means required but they are excellent QOL additions that make many games more enjoyable as you have references to stuff should you need it, without having to alt tab out every few mins.

 

[humbug]

It's all very well having a bigger army but if half or more of your army is sat on the bench watching you have to weigh up the pros and cons of keeping them, feeding them etc...

Ridiculous analogy, fame buffers are nothing to do with performance, it has no effect on power consumption, its something where if you don't have enough of it your games slows down and stutter, there is only a upside to having more frame buffer as opposed to less. the more of it you have the less chance of the effects or running out of frame buffer.

Miss information is clearly another reason some people think less is better, where did this crap originate from? did nVidia have a V-Ram PR campaign at the time?

 

[humbug]

Ridiculous analogy, fame buffers are nothing to do with performance, it has no effect on power consumption, its something where if you don't have enough of it your games slows down and stutter, there is only a upside to having more frame buffer as opposed to less. the more of it you have the less chance of the effects or running out of frame buffer.

Miss information is clearly another reason some people think less is better, where did this crap originate from? did nVidia have a V-Ram PR campaign at the time?

In fact... on topic... an example where more (in this case 6) is batter than 4...

Not much going on here, performance on the 4 core looks pretty good.....

Spoiler

But wait, now the CPU needs to work for it and..... oh dear its all gone to ##### for the 4 core....

Spoiler

Less is NEVER better than more.

 

[gavinh87]

I'm with humbug on this, 4 cores will be obsolete soon enough. No matter what the IPC/clockspeed is.

 

[Brazo]

Play World of Warcraft or any other MMORPG with Raid content, you'll be glad of a 2nd screen with strats and stuff on it, Play Diablo 3 and you'll be glad of a 2nd screen with build info on it, same with POE, infact a lot of RPG type games benefit from having access to various websites / youtube etc to explain mechanics or correct steps to complete things.

Also having a 2nd screen up with Discord or Teamspeak etc running is good as you dont have to have all the overlays on the game screen showing whose logged in etc and who is talking etc, these are just some extra useful things, by no means required but they are excellent QOL additions that make many games more enjoyable as you have references to stuff should you need it, without having to alt tab out every few mins.

None of that is relevant or important to me. Of course your mileage may vary...

 

[Brazo]

Ridiculous analogy, fame buffers are nothing to do with performance, it has no effect on power consumption, its something where if you don't have enough of it your games slows down and stutter, there is only a upside to having more frame buffer as opposed to less. the more of it you have the less chance of the effects or running out of frame buffer.

Miss information is clearly another reason some people think less is better, where did this crap originate from? did nVidia have a V-Ram PR campaign at the time?

No ones saying less is better. Although more doesn't always translate to better either. More cores didn't help the fx series of cpus. They couldn't compete with an i3 let alone an i7. Cores are about as relevant as cylinders in a car engine. Having eight cylinders doesn't mean your faster than a car with 4. Too many other factors at play.

Ipc and clockspeed is just as important. What's more important is the overall cpu speed and the application in use.

 

[humbug]

No ones saying less is better. Although more doesn't always translate to better either. More cores didn't help the fx series of cpus. They couldn't compete with an i3 let alone an i7. Cores are about as relevant as cylinders in a car engine. Having eight cylinders doesn't mean your faster than a car with 4. Too many other factors at play.

Ipc and clockspeed is just as important. What's more important is the overall cpu speed and the application in use.

Correct, Intel had '''''''''MORE'''''''' IPC.

That's no longer the case, the IPC difference between KabyLake and Ryzen is very subjective, it depends on what application or even game is being tested, where as you could and rightfully would say Intel had better IPC than AMD back when all AMD had was the FX CPU's; one cannot say that today, not when you understand what IPC is, the diffrence between Intel vs FX and now, Intel vs Ryzen Intel had better clock for clock performance across the board vs FX, now they don't.

This slide perfectly illustrates this.

Across Tech Spot's mix of 30 games @ 1080P with a 1080TI the 7800X six core has the same performance as the Ryzen 1600 Six core, the Intel 6 core was running at 4.7Ghz, the 6 core Ryzen was running at 4Ghz, so the clock rate was <20% higher with the Intel, and yet despite that it was no faster than the AMD chip, so what that means is in this specific situation the Ryzen CPU had <20% higher IPC... anyone can easily pull up another slide of other games where the Intel CPU is perhaps much faster, if you do the maths it would have higher IPC.

As i said its subjective.

Spoiler

 

[Martini1991]

Saw Humbugs post. I decided to check if he'd posted that chart again as a joke. HE ONLY FLIPPING DID!

Jesus Christ, give it a rest. If you want to support AMD, put your money where your mouth is and buy one!

As a Ryzen owner, I have absolutely no problems admitting Intels latest has better IPC and higher clocks speeds for generally much better core for core performance. But that's less relevant looking into the future and the current crop of AMD CPU's are well worth that "trade off".

Ryzen stands on its own two feet without help, it doesn't need people blowing smoke up everyones ass.

 

[humbug]

I really don't know what your problem is, with me, Martini, all you ever do is attack me for saying or doing something rather than the reasoning of what i said, its almost as if you don't like what i'm saying but also can't fault it so you just attack the messenger.

 

[Martini1991]

I really don't know what your problem is, Martini, all you ever do is attack me for saying or doing something rather than the reasoning of what i said, its almost as if you don't like what i'm saying but also can't fault it so you just attack the messenger.

Because you're using a chart to come up with an outright lie about ~20% superior IPC for Ryzen. It's not an accurate statement at all!

What you're saying is absolutely flawed. There's no reasoning to it!

 

[humbug]

Because you're using a chart to come up with an outright lie about ~20% superior IPC for Ryzen. It's not an accurate statement at all!

What you're saying is absolutely flawed. There's no reasoning to it!

Why isn't it? explain yourself... i can, watch....

If CPU A is running at a clock rate of 4.7Ghz and is executing 100% Instructions vs CPU B running at 4.0Ghz executing 100% Instructions then CPU B is exicuting the same number of Instructions as CPU A at a lower clock rate, it is executing more "Instructions Per Clock"

 

[Martini1991]

Why isn't it?

If CPU A is running at a clock rate of 4.7Ghz and is executing 100% Instructions vs CPU B running at 4.0Ghz executing 100% Instructions then CPU B is exicuting the same number of Instructions as CPU A at a lower clock rate, it is executing more "Instructions Per Clock"

Ryzen's obviously so fast that even the owners don't realise how fast it is........... (Doesn't sound very realistic to me)

You're literally the ONLY person to bang on about how Ryzen has the best IPC on the planet. The reason being is that it's a lie.

Surely the stock i7 7770K results disprove this magic Ryzen IPC? Since it's got 50% less cores, the i7 7770K must have like much much much much much higher IPC? Nope that'd be a lie too.

 

[humbug]

#1 You obviously didn't even bother to read my post before going on the attack because if you did you would know that i didn't say "Ryzen has the best IPC on the planet" < your words; i didn't even say "Ryzen has the best IPC" what i said was it was subjective, in one instance Intel has higher IPC in another the Ryzen CPU. "ITS SUBJECTIVE"

#2 I'm still waiting for you to even attempt to fault anything i said.

 

[Martini1991]

You said Ryzen in this instance has 20% better IPC than Skylake, which would make it the best on the planet, saying it's subjective or not wouldn't change that.

The stock i7 7770K bugger up your completely flawed analogy anyway. Hell, I may's well say IPC's still king based on that chart then given it's the best performance outright even when running stock. But I know the landscape is changing. Which is why I own an R7 1700.

 

[humbug]

You said Ryzen in this instance has 20% better IPC than Skylake, which would make it the best on the planet, saying it's subjective or not wouldn't change that.

The stock i7 7770K bugger up your completely flawed analogy anyway. Hell, I may's well say IPC's still king based on that chart then given it's the best performance outright even when running stock. But I know the landscape is changing. Which is why I own an R7 1700.

You still havet read it, what i said was....

so what that means is in this specific situation the Ryzen CPU had <20% higher IPC..... ... anyone can easily pull up another slide of other games where the Intel CPU is perhaps much faster, if you do the maths it would have higher IPC.

its subjective.

Correct, Intel had '''''''''MORE'''''''' IPC.

That's no longer the case, the IPC difference between KabyLake and Ryzen is very subjective, it depends on what application or even game is being tested, where as you could and rightfully would say Intel had better IPC than AMD back when all AMD had was the FX CPU's; one cannot say that today, not when you understand what IPC is, the diffrence between Intel vs FX and now, Intel vs Ryzen Intel had better clock for clock performance across the board vs FX, now they don't.

This slide perfectly illustrates this.

Across Tech Spot's mix of 30 games @ 1080P with a 1080TI the 7800X six core has the same performance as the Ryzen 1600 Six core, the Intel 6 core was running at 4.7Ghz, the 6 core Ryzen was running at 4Ghz, so the clock rate was <20% higher with the Intel, and yet despite that it was no faster than the AMD chip, so what that means is in this specific situation the Ryzen CPU had <20% higher IPC... anyone can easily pull up another slide of other games where the Intel CPU is perhaps much faster, if you do the maths it would have higher IPC.

As i said its subjective.

Spoiler

You still haven't attempted to fault my reasoning, you can't, you know its right, as usual you got the wrong end of the stick because you didn't even bother to read what i said before losing your mind over it, again, (you never do with anyone for that matter) and now you think by repeating the same blanket crap over and over again you think that will detract from your #### up!

Saying the sky is pink dose not make it pink, you should just get your eye's checked. read before you post.

 

[AthlonXP1800]

https://videocardz.com/72511/msi-z370-motherboards-pictures-and-possible-pricing

Cheapest $159 CAD (around £118 inc VAT) MSI Z370-A PRO motherboard with 6 phase power look much better and cheaper than cheapest £121.99 MSI Z270 PC Mate motherboard aimed for business solutions lacked phase power. Also cheaper than £162.95 AM4 MSI X370 Gaming Pro Carbon AMD X370 motherboard which has 8+2 phase power.

 

[Martini1991]

30 games is a lot of games and engines, it's not specific. You're creating a lie based on that chart either way. Same as I would be if I said the 7770K has such high IPC that it's faster than 6 cores