Raptor Lake Leaks + Intel 4 developments

[eddyr]

Isn't Ryzen a response to what Intel had at the time as well? So how is that an argument, lol.

The argument is sound if you would care to engage honestly.
Your argument is to attribute the 8700k to Intel as an example of their progression and product/price offerings during stagnant years where they had no competition - which is factually inaccurate. You purposefully choose to span a timeframe into 2017 that falls beyond that period, because it allows you to include the 8700k into your 'data'.

Tell me, had AMD released a 16c/32t Zen 1 cpu into mainstream in 2017 at around the $330 price point, and Intel were forced to then offer their 8700K at half the price they actually did, to who do you attribute the initiative of 6c/12t level mutli thread performance at X price?

 

[Bencher]

The argument is sound if you would care to engage honestly.
Your argument is to attribute the 8700k to Intel as an example of their progression and product/price offerings during stagnant years where they had no competition - which is factually inaccurate. You purposefully choose to span a timeframe into 2017 that falls beyond that period, because it allows you to include the 8700k into your 'data'.

Tell me, had AMD released a 16c/32t Zen 1 cpu into mainstream in 2017 at around the $330 price point, and Intel were forced to then offer their 8700K at half the price they actually did, to who do you attribute the initiative of 6c/12t level mutli thread performance at X price?

But the fact is, I don't need to include the 8700k. Even in the 4core 4core 4core era, intel offered more performance increase than AMD is right now. That's exactly what makes ridiculous the notion that Intel was stagnant while AMD is bringing down performance improvements from heaven, which is what gondar said in his initial post. The mediocre jump from a 2600k to a 6700k is a bigger performance jump than the jump from an R7 1700 into a 5600x, which is basically the exact same time span (2011 to 2015, 2017 to 2021). It's bonkers when you actually think about it, but yes, Intel in their stagnant years were better than AMD today. Sad but true

 

[Bencher]

Lol, fanboy talks about fanboysm, i have good idea who you are now.

And that's another thing you are wrong about. You cannot have any idea who I am cause this is my first and only account.

 

[cliffy]

And that's another thing you are wrong about. You cannot have any idea who I am cause this is my first and only account.

It can be assumed based on your posts and there content

 

[humbug]

But the fact is, I don't need to include the 8700k. Even in the 4core 4core 4core era, intel offered more performance increase than AMD is right now. That's exactly what makes ridiculous the notion that Intel was stagnant while AMD is bringing down performance improvements from heaven, which is what gondar said in his initial post. The mediocre jump from a 2600k to a 6700k is a bigger performance jump than the jump from an R7 1700 into a 5600x, which is basically the exact same time span (2011 to 2015, 2017 to 2021). It's bonkers when you actually think about it, but yes, Intel in their stagnant years were better than AMD today. Sad but true

What?

The Intel CPU during the Ryzen 1700 era was the 7700K, before that the 6700K, before that the 4790K, before that the 4770K, before that the 3770K, before that the 2700K, before that the i7 870, before that the Core 2 Quad Q9650.

What do they all have in common? They are all quad cores. A full decade of it

 

[Vulture]

And that's another thing you are wrong about. You cannot have any idea who I am cause this is my first and only account.

i can based on your behavior and meltdown. And another lie from you, as usual.

 

[Bencher]

i can based on your behavior and meltdown. And another lie from you, as usual.

You can ask the mods, im pretty sure they can enlighten you. Of course I don't expect you to, you seem to not care about actual facts so yeah...tough luck with that

 

[humbug]

@Bencher The 8700K was a direct response to AMD raising the bar for mainstream performance.

Change my mind.

 

[Bencher]

@Bencher The 8700K was a direct response to AMD raising the bar for mainstream performance.

Change my mind.

I don't think CPUs get designed and into production in a couple of months. That's absurd. The 8700k is a response to Intel failing at 10nm, so they got stuck at 14 with skylake cores. Im pretty sure even as back as in 2014 there was a 6 core mainstream Intel CPU coming up. They had it in the roadmap.

But doesn't matter. That's like saying Ryzen was a direct response to Intel raising the bar for mainstream performance.

Change my mind.

PS1. Also you need to realize Intel had a 6core that cost pretty much just slightly above the 8700k (around 20$ more) but with quad channel support and all the goodies of a high end platform back from 2014....it's called 5820k. Just saying. It's also, even today, a very capable CPU, even for a gamer. Today it's what, 8 years old? Yeah, Intel milking at its finest, sold you a 380$ CPU back from 2014 that's still very good for gaming and you can keep it until it dies. Miliking overdose

 

[Vulture]

You can ask the mods, im pretty sure they can enlighten you. Of course I don't expect you to, you seem to not care about actual facts so yeah...tough luck with that

Say hello to your Intel buddies on the disqus.

 

[eddyr]

But the fact is, I don't need to include the 8700k.

I mean, sure, you can slip away from half the foundation of your original claim like that should you like, I guess its appreciated you conceding at all.

Even in the 4core 4core 4core era, intel offered more performance increase than AMD is right now. That's exactly what makes ridiculous the notion that Intel was stagnant while AMD is bringing down performance improvements from heaven, which is what gondar said in his initial post. The mediocre jump from a 2600k to a 6700k is a bigger performance jump than the jump from an R7 1700 into a 5600x, which is basically the exact same time span (2011 to 2015, 2017 to 2021). It's bonkers when you actually think about it, but yes, Intel in their stagnant years were better than AMD today. Sad but true

Let's lay it out.
In the 4 core era spanning Sandybridge (Q1 2011) to Skylake/kabylake (kabylake Q1 2017), a period spanning 6 years , intel gave a 25% IPC increase, with roughly ~15% increase in stock clocks (base and boost).
See Anandtech review: https://www.anandtech.com/show/9483/intel-skylake-review-6700k-6600k-ddr4-ddr3-ipc-6th-generation/23

So at stock speeds this amounted to a 37% performance increase from 2600k to 6700K, as detailed in the review conclusion.

 

[humbug]

I don't think CPUs get designed and into production in a couple of months. That's absurd. The 8700k is a response to Intel failing at 10nm, so they got stuck at 14 with skylake cores. Im pretty sure even as back as in 2014 there was a 6 core mainstream Intel CPU coming up. They had it in the roadmap.

But doesn't matter. That's like saying Ryzen was a direct response to Intel raising the bar for mainstream performance.

Change my mind.

PS1. Also you need to realize Intel had a 6core that cost pretty much just slightly above the 8700k (around 20$ more) but with quad channel support and all the goodies of a high end platform back from 2014....it's called 5820k. Just saying. It's also, even today, a very capable CPU, even for a gamer. Today it's what, 8 years old? Yeah, Intel milking at its finest, sold you a 380$ CPU back from 2014 that's still very good for gaming and you can keep it until it dies. Miliking overdose

But doesn't matter. That's like saying Ryzen was a direct response to Intel raising the bar for mainstream performance.

Change my mind.

It is like saying that and it was, AMD knew what they had to do and they did it, just as Intel did.

 

[Tetras]

But the fact is, I don't need to include the 8700k. Even in the 4core 4core 4core era, intel offered more performance increase than AMD is right now. That's exactly what makes ridiculous the notion that Intel was stagnant while AMD is bringing down performance improvements from heaven, which is what gondar said in his initial post. The mediocre jump from a 2600k to a 6700k is a bigger performance jump than the jump from an R7 1700 into a 5600x, which is basically the exact same time span (2011 to 2015, 2017 to 2021). It's bonkers when you actually think about it, but yes, Intel in their stagnant years were better than AMD today. Sad but true

What are you using to measure performance? Why are you comparing a 1700 to a 5600X? If you compare a 2600k to a 6700k and a 1700 to a 5800x (though a 5700X would perhaps be fairer) then the AMD increase is bigger.

 

[Vulture]

He is just trolling, i doubt he will last long here, from the first post he is arrogant and offensive, pretty clear he isn't new here.

 

[Bencher]

I mean, sure, you can slip away from half the foundation of your original claim like that should you like, I guess its appreciated you conceding at all.



Let's lay it out.
In the 4 core era spanning Sandybridge (Q1 2011) to Skylake/kabylake (kabylake Q1 2017), a period spanning 6 years , intel gave a 25% IPC increase, with roughly ~15% increase in stock clocks (base and boost).
See Anandtech review: https://www.anandtech.com/show/9483/intel-skylake-review-6700k-6600k-ddr4-ddr3-ipc-6th-generation/23

So at stock speeds this amounted to a 37% performance increase from 2600k to 6700K, as detailed in the review conclusion.

From your link, the difference between a 2600k and a 6700k in cinebench is more than 45%. Which is pretty terrible for 4 years, but it's still better than what AMD offered us in the same time period, since from 2017 to 2021 we went from the r7 1700 @ 300€ to the 5600x @ 300€ which gave us around a 35% performance increase. So...Intel was bad indeed, AMD is worse

 

[Dave2150]

What?

The Intel CPU during the Ryzen 1700 era was the 7700K, before that the 6700K, before that the 4790K, before that the 4770K, before that the 3770K, before that the 2700K, before that the i7 870, before that the Core 2 Quad Q9650.

What do they all have in common? They are all quad cores. A full decade of it

There were 6 cores CPU's available from Intel (i7 980X) on the X58 HEDT platform, shortly after the Core2 days. i7 980X launched Q1 2010, for $1k, so quite expensive for the time, though obviously available and best in class performance. Many other 6, 8, 10+ core Intel CPU's available over the years on their respective HEDT platforms available also.

Of course in 2022, Intel offer more CPU's than AMD on the mainstream, which is a huge reversal and one we have to be thankful to AMD for!

 

[Bencher]

There were 6 cores CPU's available from Intel (i7 980X) on the X58 HEDT platform, shortly after the Core2 days. i7 980X launched Q1 2010, for $1k, so quite expensive for the time, though obviously available and best in class performance. Many other 6, 8, 10+ core Intel CPU's available over the years on their respective HEDT platforms available also.

Of course in 2022, Intel offer more CPU's than AMD on the mainstream, which is a huge reversal and one we have to be thankful to AMD for!

Shouldnt you first and foremost be thankful to intel for their fast per core perfromance as back as in 2015 with first skylake core that forced amd to move to more cores since they couldnt compete with an equal core configuration?

 

[cliffy]

Shouldnt you first and foremost be thankful to intel for their fast per core perfromance as back as in 2015 with first skylake core that forced amd to move to more cores since they couldnt compete with an equal core configuration?

Change the tune, you are getting boring now

 

[Journey]

Change the tune, you are getting boring now

Personally I think you need a few posters like that, I mean a stopped clock is still right twice a day, maybe after a few thousand posts there will be a couple of hidden treasures in there somewhere.

Getting back to Raptor Lake though, I was reading an interesting article about the ability to release a KS version of the 13900K, with the headline core speed having to be less than the 12900KS due to increased E-core count, so in effect the 12900KS could end up being as fast or faster as the Raptor Lake 13900K for things like games, where not all the E-cores are being used, even with the increased cache sizes on the newer part. Time will tell though.

 

[Vulture]

Change the tune, you are getting boring now

Let him and his Intel fellows from disqus have fun, he won't last long.