-
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 to launch 6 core Coffee Lake-S CPUs & Z370 chipset 5 October 2017
- Thread starter AthlonXP1800
- Start date
If you only take one aspect into consideration then I guess it is. No matter what I'm sure everyone will be happy respectively. Bring on the price cuts
Yep, getting away from stupid price points for mediocre clocks on cpu's with above average core's will always be worthwhile.
I get what Gavin is saying and if it was priced similar and Zen 2 wasn't in the pipeline I would be very impressed. However if someone wants to buy it then that's fine and completely up to them, I just find what AMD is able to do at this current moment, in relation to a huge monolith such as Intel, far more impressive.
Given the current posted prices on 2 difference etailers, in UK the 8700K will land north of £360, not £280.
So someone could buy a 1700 and good board to overclock it for the money of the 8700K alone.[/QUOTE]
Then it stops Intel desperately clinging to the 4 core rock, but they still aren't close to parity with Coffeelake and Z370.
£280 for the 8700k is still way long way from AMD in the price per core stakes. Coffeemaker would have been great pre Broadwell.
Not sure why people are shouting down intel's throat for 7% gains each generation while AMD did what 0? until Ryzen came out.
But the performance wasn't the argument. 8 core systems have been with us for a decade. X58 offered 6 cores and 12 threads.
Associate
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2007
- Posts
- 966
So why bother with 8 cores over 4 then?
Would you fancy gaming on an 8 core phone SoC just because it has 8 cores?
Get real.
Because 7% nothing and Intel's budget for its cleaning department is probably bigger than the whole of AMD. Clearly Intel have been holding out on the enthusiast for a very long time.
So we all stay on 4 cores for the next decade? It's progress and that's the way it is going, drag your heels all you want but we are now at a time where 4 cores will begin to fade out.
With the current market 6+ cores are becoming mainstream. Embrace it.
The industry has been working with large core counts since forever.
You might as well say dual cores are mainstream.
Speaks volumes then on why their budget is much lower than intel's maybe they can step up there game after 8 years, Maybe they could put out a decent card while they are at it.
Its saying something when Intel's best Mainstream CPU matching AMD's mid range Mainstream CPU is impressive on Intel's part.
6 months ago i never would have imagined anyone would say something like that with a straight face
Intel have always dwarfed AMD and Nvidia.
AMD have some great graphics cards, they are horribly over priced like ever other card.
We could compare Intel's best mainstream vs AMD's best mainstream instead but we both know who would win that. Going with the 1700 was actually doing AMD a favour.
If the 8700K can't match the 1700 then how is it going to match the 1700X, or the 1800X?
The 1700 I compared to was mine, heavily overclocked as far as it will go. Do the same on the 8700k and it should have no issue beating the 1800x.
So you have already convinced yourself that whoever posted that benchmark turned the 4.7Ghz Turbo boost off? conveniently....
Here it is running at 4.7Ghz in Cinebench, it scores less than the 1800X....
Look at the 7800X, that all core boosts to 4Ghz, its also a 6 core, it scores about 25% less than the 8700K, so its boosting to about 4.7Ghz. its still slower than the 1700X and the 1800X.
So you have already convinced yourself that whoever posted that benchmark turned the 4.7Ghz Turbo boost off? conveniently....
Here it is running at 4.7Ghz in Cinebench, it scores less than the 1800X....
Look at the 7800X, that all core boosts to 4Ghz, its also a 6 core, it scores about 25% less than the 8700K, so its boosting to about 4.7Ghz. its still slower than the 1700X and the 1800X.
The all core boost of the 8700k is supposedly 4.3ghz. 4.7ghz is the single core speed.
Lets say you are correct and the 8700k is boosting on all cores to 4.7ghz. The multicore performance compared to the 1800x is -5.8%
Lets look at the single core performance of those 2 CPU's and the difference there is 25%
Which do you think is going to make the biggest difference to the end user?
Exactly. It's already clocked high but will go further albeit with a delid and some decent cooling.
It's not about winning or having a top trumps mentality. The 8700k will be a very good cpu and so is the 1700 but Gavin should know the plus and minuses, I've seen him debate over kabylake for quite a while now.