you mean what intel and amd have been saying since the 90's and has been part of the limited warranty forever.
-
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
you mean what intel and amd have been saying since the 90's and has been part of the limited warranty forever.
it's still something that amd/nvidia/Intel all say, overclocking voids your warranty.
fwiw though, that issue was blown out of proportion, the reason the Intel rep on a forum said that was because users basically said
"HALP OUR CHIPS ARE OVERHEATING WITH 1.5V"
they didint say what cooling they were using, what voltages/frequencies they were at, or any specifics on the issue.
**** if someone on here posted "my cpu is overheating/crashing whilst overclocking" one of the first things people would say is go back to stock and work from there.
for all we know they could have just lost the silicone lottery, wanted that magical 5ghz so decided 1.5v was fine to push it with a evo212
Yeah I know what you mean but you can't deny that Amd are currently much more favorable than Intel, unless you want to give them more money for overclocking insurance
.With Amd they encourage it up to safe levels, this is shown by the fact that they advertise them as "all our cpu's are unlocked", didn't they even release a sort of help guide just after ryzen released also. They ain't stupid they know what people like us are going to doing, they just make sure they cover their end when someone inevitably goes to far.
Spot on. All the rubbish spouted by both Intel and AMD about overclocking breaking a warranty has always been complete rubbish. If Intel did not want you to, then why make and sell unlocked cpu's and the same with AMD. Hell, AMD have a youtube vid on exactly how to overclock Ryzen including recommendations on what SOC voltage to use and what they consider is a max Vcore.
They were hot chips though weren't they. That is the reason overclockers were selling delidded chips because temps were getting too high when pushed to 5ghz unless you had very good ones.
yeah when pushed to the limit, my point was the Intel rep response was basically an auto response"you're getting too hot overclocking? got back to stock"
they can't exactly say "sort our your ghetto cooling tight arse did you really expect 5ghz on a £20 cooler?" (would be funny if they could)
Yeah we are aware of that that is the whole point though unless you had a really good one, delidding and or expensive cooling solutions your not going to get the best out of them. That will be the same for skl-x with it's 100-150% more cores and possibly even coffeelake, maybe to a lesser extent.
As many have said Intel seem to be hitting a bit of a wall now.
As many have said Intel seem to be hitting a bit of a wall now.
I think that was mostly early batches, I've done about 4 or 5 7700ks with 240mm AIOs and they've all done 5ghz with reasonable temps)
only one did 4.9 but that was just it's limit, even 1.45 wouldn't get 5ghz.
That's what we are likely seeing with skl-x now. Early steppings, lots more cores requiring lots more power and inevitably much more cooling. The majority of these chips will never be stressed that high anyway so it shouldn't be too much of an issue, only when pushed hard will it come into play. Just like kabylake.
Coffeelake looks by far the more appealing platform though, if I was Intel I would take my time and not rush it out the door, these early issues as amd found out with ryzen tend to stick in the minds of people, with Zen 2 looming on the horizon and Threadripper, Intel can't afford to make to many mistakes.
Coffeelake looks by far the more appealing platform though, if I was Intel I would take my time and not rush it out the door, these early issues as amd found out with ryzen tend to stick in the minds of people, with Zen 2 looming on the horizon and Threadripper, Intel can't afford to make to many mistakes.
I wasn't aware that AMD had videos on overclocking
Don't think the early steppings reason/excuse, works in this case. This isn't a new node (3 years on this node?) and we had skylake to iron out the problems of production.
By stressed do you mean overclocked or usage. If you mean overclock i agree if you mean usage; I disagree, these CPUs will be left running 100% on all cores for hours at a time.
Associate
- Joined
- 12 Jul 2015
- Posts
- 1,694
And maybe easier to develop since it's more closely related to the last two mainstream generations than SKL-X is (they are renamed and reconfigured server parts after all; an entirely different ballgame).
Yeah it's a step in the right direction with more cores being pushed in the mainstream. We hear all the time that games are not threaded for more cores because 2-4 cores is still more popular so why bother. Well we need that to change so the more people that buy more than 4 cores will help speed that up.
I'm interested to see what it brings to the table although I'm more interested to see what zen 2 offers, luckily I'm in a position where I am able to wait.
Yeah sorry I meant overclocking, it is after all a workstation platform rather than a gaming platform and due to this Threadripper looks to be a real problem for Intel which may be a reason for the release being brought forward. We have yet to see just how well Ryzen scales up with quad channel memory. The 7900x may become a hard sell for Intel.
Associate
- Joined
- 12 Jul 2015
- Posts
- 1,694
I hope that more people having more cores on mainstream will help, however until I see it I remain skeptical. And if it does happen, in all likelihood progression might be slow. I do see more reports coming in from the i5 line where it just isn't enough and where an i7 offers the way out from under its limitations. And I like having two more cores just to be ready, even when they're not always used in games I'll still have the IPC and high frequency on the cores that are being used.
Last edited:
Why would they when they don't need to? They're having to make 3 new high end boards this year just for Intel, let alone for the lower class chipsets, plus all the AM4 boards.
I I think it's going to be many years (5 mininum) before 8 cores are actually mainstream and used in games.
we've all heard the arguments before, like consoles using 8 cores for years now, and it hasn't made a difference.
pc devs target their audience, the average pc gamer has an i3 or i5 at best, which is what devs will program for.
even look at games on both systems, take big titles such as fallout 4. on console it runs on 8 slow add jaguar cores at 2ghz, and it's essentially perfectly multithreaded.
now on pc, you could take a 4ghz piledriver and it runs like crap because it's not multithreaded, because it runs better on a i3.
many many games that are indeed multithreaded on consoles are still single threaded when developed on pc.
even with ryzen, if you go off of amds 2% marketshare then you're saying roughly by the end of this year 3% or 4% of gamers by the end of this year will have more than 4 cores, so it's still going to be a minority of their target audience.
realistically if Intel pushes 6 cores and amd 8, 6 core cpus will be recommended maybe by 5 years time.
I disagree. AMD has sent out 300+ Ryzen developer kits and are planning to send out 1000+ by the end of the year. AMD lowest CPU has 4C/4T. People in this category are going to see one CPU with 4 cores and one with 2 and guess what they are going to pick.
IMO by the end of year, i think we will start to see more games using more cores.
I think we will see a shift in 1-2 years. In 3 years 8 core will be mainstream/normal. That's my prediction.
iv said it before and il say it again, look at the steam survey and you will see the main issue. 44.8% of steam users have 2 cores, and 49.21% have 4. now not sure how much extra work it involves in making games use all cores but if it does cost more than a small amount of cash to the devs/publishers i can see this dragging on a while longer but it will change as devs have found out having them extra cores being used comes in handy to offload stuff to and at the very least help a game run smoother rather than balls to the wall fps numbers.