I get the impression you're still growing.
-
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
I get the impression you're still growing.
This thread now... Change the title to 'pointless fights about everything'
Yep, its become a dickfest with claims being thrown around with nothing to back them up.
Going back to the actual topic, it looks like coffeelake will get a whole 9 months of being intels mainstream before the icelake is released.
That is if 10nm goes to plan, I know they have had a few setbacks there. And looking at the slides intel released, it looks like the first iteration of 10nm will be slightly slower than the 14++nm chips.
9 months is enough really, waiting on the reviews but will either be an 8700k or if it's a non starter skylake x until the following release next year. Will see how it pans out...
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Feb 2011
- Posts
- 5,849
Bah not sure what to do now.... had my mind set on the 8700k to replace my 4770k and was going to use the CH6 and Ram / M2 etc i have for the kids, put in a 1600 for them with my 1070 and they'd be sorted for a good while. But now it seems CL will be short lived, thinking now i should just wait til next year and get Z390 or whatever it is, but then if im waiting should i just wait and see what Zen+ or Zen2 etc looks like lol... forever waiting.
Might just go for the 8700K anyhow, moneys burning a hole and my wifes eyeing up furniture and stuff and i know for sure if i dont use it i will end up losing it to her.. Got a new house im renovating currently so wont be looking at any PC upgrades til thats finished, so will be early next year, atleast then 8700k will be on a semi mature platform and Vega cards should be well into the 3rd party releases, just sucks waiting is all.
Might just go for the 8700K anyhow, moneys burning a hole and my wifes eyeing up furniture and stuff and i know for sure if i dont use it i will end up losing it to her.. Got a new house im renovating currently so wont be looking at any PC upgrades til thats finished, so will be early next year, atleast then 8700k will be on a semi mature platform and Vega cards should be well into the 3rd party releases, just sucks waiting is all.
Yeh I was tempted by a 8700k, but if the die shrinks are all coming next year and Intel releases a mainstream 8 core, 16 thread on 10nm that will probably the one to get (unless the next Zen stuff manages to seriously up their clock speeds).
There's always something better around the corner.
It could be a year until the rumoured eight core chips are out. If you can afford the 8700k in a few weeks, you can probably afford to flog it in a year and take the hit on its value (assuming the performance gains justify it, which they might not).
It could be a year until the rumoured eight core chips are out. If you can afford the 8700k in a few weeks, you can probably afford to flog it in a year and take the hit on its value (assuming the performance gains justify it, which they might not).
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 5,155
- Location
- South Wales
Thing is, Intel bringing 8 cores to mainstream is kind of a big deal, because it means both Intel and AMD will have 8 cores. So developers are bound to start using them more surely.
I think 8 cores will probably be a sticking point for at least a little while, could be wrong.
I'd wait for the Ice Lake/Zen 2 chips personally.
I think 8 cores will probably be a sticking point for at least a little while, could be wrong.
I'd wait for the Ice Lake/Zen 2 chips personally.
I don't think may people will buy such chips.
With Intel mainstream what most people look at is Gaming performance, that's why very high clocked 4 cores like the 7700K make up about half of Intel's total CPU sales despite its high price.
I think the bulk of Intel's chip sales may switch from the 4 core i7 to the new 6 core i5, a lot my now also buy the 4 core i3's instead of the i5's.
Intel may find that what they are actually doing is cannibalising their own margins.
With Intel mainstream what most people look at is Gaming performance, that's why very high clocked 4 cores like the 7700K make up about half of Intel's total CPU sales despite its high price.
I think the bulk of Intel's chip sales may switch from the 4 core i7 to the new 6 core i5, a lot my now also buy the 4 core i3's instead of the i5's.
Intel may find that what they are actually doing is cannibalising their own margins.
We heard the same theory with the xbox 360 and ps3 era that games will start using more threads, and many got the fx chips because of this and well, we all know how that turned out.
A bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush. My advice would be to buy what works well now, not what might in the future.
The 1600 can keep up with the 1700 because games aren't using 8c/16t yet.
Anyone looking to buy a CPU for gaming should look no further than the 1600 or 8700 (k) Though the latter is better suited to high refresh rate, at 1440p or above it wont make much difference.
A bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush. My advice would be to buy what works well now, not what might in the future.
The 1600 can keep up with the 1700 because games aren't using 8c/16t yet.
Anyone looking to buy a CPU for gaming should look no further than the 1600 or 8700 (k) Though the latter is better suited to high refresh rate, at 1440p or above it wont make much difference.
You mean Xbox One and PS4?
Those are 8 thread CPU's, and actually a lot of games these days will use 8 or more compute threads, anything Unreal Engine, Frostbyte, Cryengine, Duna, Source Engine...... i could go on and on.
The thing is while those consoles are well threaded and have resulted in well threaded games those threads on those consoles are incredibly weak. so for the most part high performance 4 thread Desktop CPU's do just fine, altho when pushed in some games they can have a catastrophic loss in performance compared to other CPU's with more threads, you know i can provide examples of this
The weak CPU cores on consoles are the reason why some of these multi-platform games use Async. Compute, they have to offload some logic from the extremely weak Jaguar cores to the GPU to cope.
But all of those engines require a lot of effort from the devs to be properly multi-threaded, reason why a lot of Unreal Engine 4 games you see on Steam only use 1-2 cores.
But all of those engines require a lot of effort from the devs to be properly multi-threaded, reason why a lot of Unreal Engine 4 games you see on Steam only use 1-2 cores.
You mean Xbox One and PS4?
Those are 8 thread CPU's, and actually a lot of games these days will use 8 or more compute threads, anything Unreal Engine, Frostbyte, Cryengine, Duna, Source Engine...... i could go on and on.
The thing is while those consoles are well threaded and have resulted in well threaded games those threads on those consoles are incredibly weak. so for the most part high performance 4 thread Desktop CPU's do just fine, altho when pushed in some games they can have a catastrophic loss in performance compared to other CPU's with more threads, you know i can provide examples of this
Whilst they do use 8 threads they aren't used well. As i said the difference between the 1600 and 1700 is minimal for the most part.
In games like crysis and battlefield that do use the extra threads, they still lose out the higher clocked i7. There is no such thing as future proofing, buy for what we know now.
By the time 16 threads are needed you can bet there will be much faster CPU's out there.
The 1600 has 12 compute threads, the 1700 16 threads ^^^^^ the 1500X has 8
------------------
@AndreiD
Unreal Engine 4 is an old engine, tho still on iteration 4 we are now on version 4.17.1 which is very different to 4.5.3 or something like that.
Bioshock Infinite was built on Unreal Engine 4, how old is that game? its not the same engine as the one we have now.
------------------
@AndreiD
Unreal Engine 4 is an old engine, tho still on iteration 4 we are now on version 4.17.1 which is very different to 4.5.3 or something like that.
Bioshock Infinite was built on Unreal Engine 4, how old is that game? its not the same engine as the one we have now.
I am aware of how many threads ryzen CPU's have
My point still stands, you can give games like bf1 32 ryzen threads and it will still lose out to 8 of intels at 5.0ghz.
There is no point buying for what may or may not happen. We've established that 6 cores are the new recommended CPU's, buying anything higher for gaming is a waste imo.
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 5,155
- Location
- South Wales
Bit of a different situation there though since only AMD had all those extra cores.
@humbug Based on your logic the 1950X should absolutely destroy the 1800X in games, but it's actually slower.
And what are you even talking about? Bioshock Infinite was Unreal Engine 3, Unreal Engine 4 is basically state of the art when it comes to game engines, Hellblade Senua's Sacrifice is a recent game that made use of it and you can see it doesn't scale past 4 cores:
https://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/software/hellblade_senua_s_sacrifice_pc_performance_review/8
And what are you even talking about? Bioshock Infinite was Unreal Engine 3, Unreal Engine 4 is basically state of the art when it comes to game engines, Hellblade Senua's Sacrifice is a recent game that made use of it and you can see it doesn't scale past 4 cores:
https://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/software/hellblade_senua_s_sacrifice_pc_performance_review/8
You're either incapable of or just not reading what i'm telling you. ^^^
You've just repeated what i have already said, you're agreeing with me on that, at least.
This is why Intel's user base will not switch to higher core count CPU's like the 12 thread 8700K, instead will most likely move to the 6 core i5 or the 4 core i3, what i'm saying is Intel will simply lose out of the higher revenue of the smaller, lower core count more expensive 4 core i7's, which currently makes up about half of Intel's total Desktop CPU sales.
I already said all of this, why am i saying it again?
I am aware of how many threads ryzen CPU's have
My point still stands, you can give games like bf1 32 ryzen threads and it will still lose out to 8 of intels at 5.0ghz.
There is no point buying for what may or may not happen. We've established that 6 cores are the new recommended CPU's, buying anything higher for gaming is a waste imo.
You've just repeated what i have already said, you're agreeing with me on that, at least.
This is why Intel's user base will not switch to higher core count CPU's like the 12 thread 8700K, instead will most likely move to the 6 core i5 or the 4 core i3, what i'm saying is Intel will simply lose out of the higher revenue of the smaller, lower core count more expensive 4 core i7's, which currently makes up about half of Intel's total Desktop CPU sales.
I already said all of this, why am i saying it again?
