Upgrade itch, am i mad to want an 8600k with new Ryzen around the corner?

[humbug]

ingames what you have is stil faster why would you upgrade ? the only reason is for multitasking.that is it.see many in here as normal have no idea.four core still cover most bases never mind 6 with almost 5ghz speed lol.by the time you need 8 or more at high 4 or 5ghz you will be two or 3 cpus on from now.

the new ryzens are 3 percent quicker than older ryzen on single thread.in general ryzens in gaming are min 10-15 percent behind what is out now ! so they still slower than any new intel i5/i7 in games.the multithreaded is up though.over old ryzen.still behind in all popular games though.so if you going to go for the new ryzens you doing it because you either on old platform.you on a ryzen platform and just wanna upgrade cpu or you use the multithreaded capability.not soley for gaming.there is the i5 and i7 intel for that.

You're just making crap up, you may say "oh but benchmark leaks" well there have been many benchmark leaks and in terms of performance and they range from 3% to 20% in single threaded, what you are doing is picking the worst of all the proven fake benchmarks and presenting it as fact to drive your own agenda.

Anyone who takes a rumor, especially one as flaky as the ones you chose, and then talk about them
as if they are already a fact has an agenda to drive a false narrative.

 

[sideways14a]

Of course its not going to just be 3%, thats utter nonsense, would be pointless doing an refresh with only that as an improvement.

 

[~>Dg<~]

as usual pro amd humbug spouting nonsense.infact do this.just save your post until release of ryzen two.then post decent reliable benchmarks for games showing ryzen 2 and intel i5 and i7 8700k.not no ashes of singularity crap some proper games. 99 percent of those benchmarks will show i5 and i7 8700k on top.you know this i know this so does most people with common sense because it comes down to who has the highest mhz most of the time in gaming with recent chips.

ryzen 2 wont be public chips doing past 4.4-4.5. literally every intel chip out now will do 4.6-4.8 min.so they always behind its just how it is.most will do more so 4.9-5.0.

what will happen is when the benchmarks come out is this.those with common sense will say meh..its just another 200mhz from ryzen 1 on avg.not worth upgrade from what i already have.those with i5/i7 will say meh...my chip is faster across the board.

those who are pro amd will list every random benchmark showing ryzen 2 quicker in the most random unplayed games to try and show benefits ! . as i have said to you before i have a ryzen 1 rig . i have intel rigs also. it doesnt matter to me who is faster.just who is faster better is who i generally buy more of.no company bias.

last time you spouted your figures there were hundreds of benchmarks showing in games a i5 7600k was generally faster than even the top ryzen chip in games.this will continue with ryzen just it will now be a intel i5 8600k and a intel 8700k.dont need to reply i dont need a response.its been the same way for 15 years .why would it change now ?

 

[humbug]

as usual pro amd humbug spouting nonsense.infact do this.just save your post until release of ryzen two.then post decent reliable benchmarks for games showing ryzen 2 and intel i5 and i7 8700k.not no ashes of singularity crap some proper games. 99 percent of those benchmarks will show i5 and i7 8700k on top.you know this i know this so does most people with common sense because it comes down to who has the highest mhz most of the time in gaming with recent chips.

ryzen 2 wont be public chips doing past 4.4-4.5. literally every intel chip out now will do 4.6-4.8 min.so they always behind its just how it is.most will do more so 4.9-5.0.

what will happen is when the benchmarks come out is this.those with common sense will say meh..its just another 200mhz from ryzen 1 on avg.not worth upgrade from what i already have.those with i5/i7 will say meh...my chip is faster across the board.

those who are pro amd will list every random benchmark showing ryzen 2 quicker in the most random unplayed games to try and show benefits ! . as i have said to you before i have a ryzen 1 rig . i have intel rigs also. it doesnt matter to me who is faster.just who is faster better is who i generally buy more of.no company bias.

last time you spouted your figures there were hundreds of benchmarks showing in games a i5 7600k was generally faster than even the top ryzen chip in games.this will continue with ryzen just it will now be a intel i5 8600k and a intel 8700k.dont need to reply i dont need a response.its been the same way for 15 years .why would it change now ?

You do do some very strange things, make some very strange posts, after having been told to stop conflating fake rumors into facts, because you're the only one doing it, your rebuttal is to tell me to stop conflating rumors into facts and then in the next paragraph go on to conflate more rumors into facts.

You know, accusing people of doing what you constantly do is probably the most unimaginative and ineffective way to detract from your behavior. If anything it just draws more attention to it.

 

[DragonQ]

Of course its not going to just be 3%, thats utter nonsense, would be pointless doing an refresh with only that as an improvement.

Didn't stop them with the RX 5xx series.

its been the same way for 15 years .why would it change now ?

Because there's more choice in the mainstream market than a 4c/8t chip for the first time in 10 years?

Look, everyone knows Intel's chips are faster in games and cost a premium because of it, but the majority of people will not see the performance chasm you claim exists because they are not running stupidly expensive high-end GPUs at mainstream screen resolutions. Most people also don't just game on their machines, and a lot of people don't go for products that offer a small increase in performance for a significant increase in cost. If you want an out-and-out gaming machine which'll last a few years (at least) and you don't care about cost, go for the i7-8700K for sure. No-one disputes this but that doesn't make it the right buy for everyone.

Also, the way you talk is just ridiculous. "99% of games?" No. "Certain games don't count because they don't fit my narrative?" Don't be stupid. "Things won't change because things didn't change before when circumstances were very different?" That's a rather bold statement. "Pinnacle Ridge will be 3% faster than Summit Ridge?" You have zero evidence for this.

If you're trying to convince people you're not doing a very good job.

 

[~>Dg<~]

i only responded to you because of your previous posts you used to do every day with the same silly image. it was 30 game avg which was totally false i have posted numerous benchmarks which show what i have said is true.yet you only posted the same 30 game avg slide over and over a 100 times.its not like im lying either. if we honest we all know intel make faster better straight gaming chips.is that wrong or a lie ?

will amd new ryzen 2 chips be faster on single thread than intel chips ? no.you know that i know that everyone who is honest knows that.so that means they are already slower in games .period. doesnt matter if you agree or not.

as i have said when ryzen 2 are out post the picture of proper games.showing ryzen 1 or ryzen 2 beating intel i5 8600k or 8700k across the board.you know it isnt happening .period.

i havent been told to stop posting fake rumours ? its not fake either.everything i posted is pure truth. as said wait for drop.if its wrong ill take a week holiday no problem.as i said you dont need to reply to what i put as i know its true.you dont need to agree.

 

[humbug]

Which one of us is he ^^^^ responding too? its so twisted i can't even tell where its relevance to anything said here in this thread begins.

 

[David Bisset]

waffle.

You keep making blanket statements then ask if it's a lie. Hint: blanket statements like these are always at least partially a lie as they're choosing to ignore cases that don't agree with them.

On faster gaming chips... All main CPUs give the same rough performance in realistic use. Yes, very high end GPUs at low resolution will have the Intel's ahead in most scenarios but honestly for most people an 8400, 1700, 8700k etc will all work out much the same as without setting up unrealistic scenarios you hit GPU bottlenecks and don't flood the CPU with pointless draw calls.

You seem to be attacking a 30 game average because you don't like the games in it. That remains subjective and not really relevant to the discussion. You are also continuing to say you're not using rumours while saying what performance will be based on... Yep, you guessed it, rumours.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but please stop with the long contentless posts repeating the same statements. I'm not telling you to, I'm asking. On the performance of new ryzens perhaps we should ALL take your advice and wait and see.

 

[McBain]

For the sake of a couple of weeks i'd wait and see.

 

[~>Dg<~]

dont use common sense.

 

[Calo]

...but what about using VR?

 

[humbug]

...but what about using VR?

What about it?

 

[Terrorfirmer]

I've a 165hz monitor so for me it's gotta be Intel. I think for the 'average' gamer it doesn't really matter so much (if at all), one's as good as the other. For me a big killer of Coffee Lake is the lack of availability of cheaper boards. Makes Ryzen the only choice for more budget conscious builds.

Actually bought a new 8600K OEM + Z370 from OCUK the other day to replace a 6700K and they arrived today.....the 8600K with a bent corner out of the box. Gutted.

 

[humbug]

I've a 165hz monitor so for me it's gotta be Intel. I think for the 'average' gamer it doesn't really matter so much (if at all), one's as good as the other. For me a big killer of Coffee Lake is the lack of availability of cheaper boards. Makes Ryzen the only choice for more budget conscious builds.

Actually bought a new 8600K OEM + Z370 from OCUK the other day to replace a 6700K and they arrived today.....the 8600K with a bent corner out of the box. Gutted.

Yeah, I think if you have a GTX 1080TI and a 165Hz screen £400 or £500 on a CPU + Board vs £250 is not going to matter to you too much anyway but for the other 90% with lesser GPU's they don't have that GPU muscle to push those very high frame rates anyway so a 1600 vs 8600 / 8700K setup it makes no difference to the performance you are getting, in fact if like me you also use the CPU for productivity work the 1600 is faster than the 8600K.

Having said i play Insurgency at 300 FPS so i have no trouble hitting those high refresh rates where my GPU will stretch that far.

 

[Terrorfirmer]

I use mine for limited productivity work but nothing that would stress either noticeably. I do the same work, at work, on an i3-4160!

Confused though as to how the 1600 could be better? 8600K v 1600 - both with the same number of cores/threads but 8600K has faster boost clock + superior IPC?

 

[humbug]

I use mine for limited productivity work but nothing that would stress either noticeably. I do the same work, at work, on an i3-4160!

Confused though as to how the 1600 could be better? 8600K v 1600 - both with the same number of cores/threads but 8600K has faster boost clock + superior IPC?

MT IPC Ryzen is actually as near as makes no difference identical, we put it to the test on this forum somewhere a while ago and the clock for clock thread for thread difference was 1.2% to Coffeelake.

The Ryzen 1600 has SMT, so 6 cores 12 threads, the 8600K does not, so 6 cores 6 threads, Cinebench i score 1325 at 3.9Ghz, try and match that, even at 5Ghz you can't, you're about 10 or 15% short.

 

[Robi_uk]

I dont see why there has to be a Intel V AMD argument all the time! Just choose the one that meets your requirement and budget, end of!
Not like any of the die hard Intel or AMD fans gets anything out of winning an argument on the forums? Or did I miss something??

 

[Terrorfirmer]

Ahhh....sorry. That's my ignorance at play. I actually thought the 8600K was a 6/12 part as well which is why I was confused!

In fact I bought one thinking that. ****...maybe it arriving DOA was a sign....one could argue that I should stick with my 6700K, but I'll see it as a nudge towards the 8700K.

 

[humbug]

Ahhh....sorry. That's my ignorance at play. I actually thought the 8600K was a 6/12 part as well which is why I was confused!

In fact I bought one thinking that. ****...maybe it arriving DOA was a sign....one could argue that I should stick with my 6700K, but I'll see it as a nudge towards the 8700K.

The 8600K is just as good as the 8700K for gaming on very high end GPU's and yes better than any Ryzen 1### series CPU.

I wouldn't worry about it its a great CPU, if you don't need SMT the 8700K is just overkill.

 

[DragonQ]

I use mine for limited productivity work but nothing that would stress either noticeably. I do the same work, at work, on an i3-4160!

Confused though as to how the 1600 could be better? 8600K v 1600 - both with the same number of cores/threads but 8600K has faster boost clock + superior IPC?

i5-8600K doesn't have SMT.