Intel processors not looking so brilliant anymore. Plus AMD's debt problems get better with each passing quarter

[Guest]

9 hours ago, Nowak said:

What I mean is, if your needs are email and Facebook, a quad core CPU with no HyperThreading is fine. There still is a market for these CPUs!

6600K is a perfectly great CPU. Unless you are a content creator, it’s still got lots of life. IMO switching right now is a side-grade until Zen 2 comes out. Never upgrade until you have to - it’s that trap why Intel was able to sucker people into buying 5% iterative upgrades for so long.

[Stefan Payne]

6 hours ago, mr moose said:

They're not saying "but but AMD" because they want to highlight AMD,  They're pointing to AMD because they are countering the naive claims that AMD are immune to exploits.

Why do people always have to emphasis "but it has to be on AMD as well", when its about an Intel exploit and there is nothing known for AMD in that regard?

AMD already said that they believe that they are not affected and Spectre/Meltdown was 1 Year ago, one would think that if there was something as severe on AMD, we would know about it!

Intel surely would pay big money for such a vulnerability on AMD, wouldn't they??

 

And that's what you can accuse the RYZENFALL team as well: be paid by Intel, to find something on AMD.

 But they didn't find anything that is particularly useful.

 

6 hours ago, mr moose said:

No hardware is immune to the discovery of exploits.  

No, but can't we just stop the pointing fingers bullshit and trying to claim that AMD has to be as bad as Intel??

After almost 1,5 Years we haven't found much in the Spectre/Meltdown area that points towards AMD.

 

But every other month something based on Spectre/Meltdown pops up on Intel.

 

AMD said themselves that Ryzen has, quote AMD: ’ because of the hardware protection checks in our architecture.'

 

6 hours ago, mr moose said:

All hardware will have a weak point somewhere, the only difference in the last few cases is that the Intel ones have been found.

Yes but AMD has implemented some "Hardware Protection Checks", Intel has not.

We haven't been shown anything of interest in AMD Hardware, yet people still claim "it has to be on AMD as well". No it doesn't...

 

Just think about it for a minute:
A Company that has a history of paying their partners to not include AMD Products and where we even today see some major "mistakes" made with AMD Notebooks for whatever reason, do we really think that they aren't working on finding Exploits on AMD Products??

Especially now when AMD has a manufacturing advantage, they also have the security advantage. Do you really think that Intel sits idly by and does nothing?!

 

But even almost 1,5 Years after the release of Spectre/Meltdown exploit, the best we got is that you can exploit something with a hacked driver or a modified BIOS/UEFI. And NOT some more serious stuff...

 

But hey, Intel would never pay someone to find Vulnerabilitys on Competing Products. That would never happen. And they wouldn't pay "good money for that".

Or even use their own resources to find such things...

[maartendc]

6 hours ago, floofer said:

6600K is a perfectly great CPU. Unless you are a content creator, it’s still got lots of life. IMO switching right now is a side-grade until Zen 2 comes out. Never upgrade until you have to - it’s that trap why Intel was able to sucker people into buying 5% iterative upgrades for so long.

I cannot believe the level of misinformation and deceit that gets spread on these forums sometimes. You should be ashamed misguiding inexperienced users.

 

Going from a 4C/4T CPU to a 8C/16T CPU is definitely NOT a side-grade. No matter which way you look at it. It is just not. It is a major major UPgrade.

 

As evidenced by the dozens of theads on here from people who are struggling with their 4C/4T i5 haswells, Skylakes, etc. with framestutters, cannot stream and game at the same time, why is my CPU at 100%?!, etc. etc.

 

Today's games such as Battlefield V (and even Battlefield 1, which is from 2016) already demand more than 4 threads to get any good gameplay experience. Streaming and gaming at the same time is more popular than ever, people need more than 4C/4T. And that is not even talking about any kind of real work such as CAD / rendering / video editing / etc. 

 

If your workloads are so light that your i5 is still fine, great! Enjoy it. But for a lot of people, it is just not sufficient anymore, has not been for the past 1.5 years or so.

 

Look, I HAD a i5 6600, I am speaking from experience here. I WISH the i5 6600 was still fine, because I could have saved myself money. It was just NOT.

 

 

 

[Drak3]

2 minutes ago, maartendc said:

Today's games such as Battlefield V (and even Battlefield 1, which is from 2016) already demand more than 4 threads to get any good gameplay experience.

False. 6T (remaining within the realm of quad core i7's) are only requisite for high refresh rate gaming.

4C/4T is still highly capable of good gaming.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.techspot.com/amp/review/1754-battlefield-5-cpu-multiplayer-bench/

6 minutes ago, maartendc said:

I cannot believe the level of misinformation and deceit that gets spread on these forums sometimes.

Yeah, misinformation like quadcores being inadequate.

 

7 minutes ago, maartendc said:

Going from a 4C/4T CPU to a 8C/16T CPU is definitely NOT a side-grade. No matter which way you look at it. It is just not. It is a major major UPgrade.

It's a side grade if you can't leverage the cores. Current "mainstream" octocores are wasted on most gamers and home users.

[JustWantTech]

We forgot Intel has no hyperthreading CPUs....

[maartendc]

3 hours ago, Drak3 said:

 

4C/4T is still highly capable of good gaming.

 

Tell it to my battlefield 64-player framedrops.

 

Also: the article you posted has this paragraph in it, basically disproving what you are trying to say:

 

Quote

Battlefield V is playable on quad-cores but you can expect frequent frame dips, resulting in less consistent frame rates. For the most part, we’ve found that the older Core i5-7600K has been hanging in there pretty well with AAA titles released in 2018, but for the multiplayer portion of Battlefield V you will want to avoid the big 64-player battles.

 

[Drak3]

14 minutes ago, maartendc said:

Tell it to my battlefield 64-player framedrops.

Because one (bad) game means a CPU is no longer viable.

[illegalwater]

18 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Because one (bad) game means a CPU is no longer viable.

It's a sign of what the future holds. I wouldn't want to be stuck on 4c/4t once the next gen consoles roll out.

 

EDIT:

 

When even Intel is relegating quad cores to the entry level you know their time is over.

Edited May 21, 2019 by System32.exe

[Drak3]

2 minutes ago, System32.exe said:

When even Intel is relegating quad cores to the entry level you know their time is over.

It's either that or die. Realisitically, Ryzen 7 is wasted on most consumers, and Ryzen 5 isn't super useful.

 

4 minutes ago, System32.exe said:

It's a sign of what the future holds.

Not really. Few games can be heavily multithrraded, as games are serial in nature.

[Master Delta Chief]

1 hour ago, maartendc said:

Tell it to my battlefield 64-player framedrops.

 

Also: the article you posted has this paragraph in it, basically disproving what you are trying to say:

Got to keep in mind that the problem usually is software-sided when it comes to high/medium-end processors, especially with games. I still have a 4c/4t processor and I don't notice that much of a problem on multiplayer or singleplayer games. 

 

I don't get why there are still people out there that just buy a high-end processor and then at the end of the day complain about the fact that their game isn't running so well. 

[maartendc]

44 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Realisitically, Ryzen 7 is wasted on most consumers, and Ryzen 5 isn't super useful.

Cool story bro.

38 minutes ago, System32.exe said:

With open world games and high player count multiplayer games being the norm these days, that's totally false.

 

Battlefield V isn't the only game where 4c/4t CPUs have issues, and it certainly won't be the last.

Word.

 

Not to mention streaming + gaming.

6 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

AMD offers quad cores for a tad over $100 and octocores for the price of Intel's older quadcores. They Intel can't compete on price and percieved value.

Fixed that for you.

[maartendc]

13 minutes ago, Master Delta Chief said:

Got to keep in mind that the problem usually is software-sided when it comes to high/medium-end processors, especially with games. I still have a 4c/4t processor and I don't notice that much of a problem on multiplayer or singleplayer games.

Well, I had a i5 6600, and I had significant frametime issues / framedrops / stutters in Witcher 3, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V, etc. etc.

 

Again, I never said 4C/4T CPU's are TERRIBLE. You can definitely play the average game WELL ENOUGH, if you are not streaming also. But to say that 6-core and 8-core CPU's are totally unnecessary for the majority of people, or a useless SIDE-GRADE instead of an UPgrade is just ridiculous. 

 

I am not going to say everyone should throw their i5's in the trash. I am merely pointing out when someone is talking major B/S. @Drak3

 

Again bro, I am not a fanboy. I had an Intel i5 6600 and I genuinely WISH it was good enough for my needs in 2019. It was not. If it is good enough for you, I am honestly glad for you, enjoy it and upgrade when you need to for your needs.

[Master Delta Chief]

9 minutes ago, maartendc said:

 But to say that 6-core and 8-core CPU's are totally unnecessary for the majority of people, or a useless SIDE-GRADE instead of an UPgrade is just ridiculous. 

Well nowadays 6-core or 8-core processors tend to be more on the medium-end price range these days, but that was not the type of processors I was talking about. I meant more the i7 or i9 types or the more expensive AMD options you have out there. These type of processors are meant for getting the best highest performance as much as possible. But for the average consumer, it isn't really that necessary. They're more meant for pro-gamers or for other high tasking software usage. 

 

18 minutes ago, maartendc said:

Well, I had a i5 6600, and I had significant frametime issues / framedrops / stutters in Witcher 3, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V, etc. etc.

 

Again bro, I am not a fanboy. I had an Intel i5 6600 and I genuinely WISH it was good enough for my needs in 2019. It was not. If it is good enough for you, I am honestly glad for you, enjoy it and upgrade when you need to for your needs.

Again, that part most likely had to do with bad optimization. The ones you mentioned were known for some performance issues. And for the record, I don't own a i5 6600, but I do own a i3-8350K which has similarly specs. 

[pas008]

2 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

They're heavily serialized.

 

What few games that genuinely do take advantage of more than a quadcore see little improvement from it, so the handful of badly developed games that hammer a CPU unecessarily is a sign of bad development.

not to mention the move of everything going higher res like 4k where cpu doesnt really matter all that much

 

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i9_9900K/19.html

 

look at those numbers on 4k lol

[PocketNerd]

On 5/19/2019 at 11:24 PM, GoldenLag said:

You have a 6600k. Any upgrade to current AMD hardware isnt worth it. 

From a gaming perspective, sure. But the need for my PC to become a production/professional machine is growing ever more and the lack of multi-thread performance is getting on my nerves.

[GoldenLag]

2 minutes ago, PocketNerd said:

But the need for my PC to become a production/professional machine is growing ever more and the lack of multi-thread performance is getting on my nerves.

i was also speaking in the context of current hardware and Zen 2 being so close. 

[mr moose]

10 hours ago, Stefan Payne said:

<snipping saves lives and electrons>

Why did you completely ignore the discussion? what has already been said and the context of it would have shown you that people aren't talking about one specific exploit but the general fact that no CPU is free of vulnerabilities and that the only difference between those we know about and those we don't is time.

 

There was no "Emphasis" on AMD.   If any "Emphasis" was put on AMD it wasn't by those making the responses, it was by the initial claims that AMD are immune to exploits.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 21, 2019 by SansVarnic
Snipped quote

[SansVarnic]

-= Thread Cleaned =-

 

This is a discussion not argument make your point (using source material if necessary) and move on.

No need to derail/hijack the discussion in the process.

[Arika]

11 hours ago, Stefan Payne said:

Yes but AMD has implemented some "Hardware Protection Checks", Intel has not.

False. Intel implemented hardware fixes in their 8ths gen and 9th gen CPUs 

Quote

MDS is addressed in hardware starting with select 8th and 9th Generation Intel® Core™ processors, as well as the 2nd Generation Intel® Xeon® Scalable processor family. More details can be found here. We expect all future Intel® processors include hardware mitigations addressing these vulnerabilities.

https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/architecture-and-technology/mds.html

[ravenshrike]

2 hours ago, Arika S said:

False. Intel implemented hardware fixes in their 8ths gen and 9th gen CPUs 

https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/architecture-and-technology/mds.html

"Starting with select 8th and 9th gen"

 

Very important word select. The actual list being found here. No 8700k's or below on desktop are covered through hardware mitigation at all, only 8th gen mobile parts. What's more, until stepping 13 it appears that not all the MDS attacks are hardware mitigated, only some of them. But keep carrying water for Intel.

[Arika]

6 minutes ago, ravenshrike said:

"Starting with select 8th and 9th gen"

yes, that's why i posted that quote.

[Zodiark1593]

8 hours ago, maartendc said:

Well, I had a i5 6600, and I had significant frametime issues / framedrops / stutters in Witcher 3, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V, etc. etc.

 

Again, I never said 4C/4T CPU's are TERRIBLE. You can definitely play the average game WELL ENOUGH, if you are not streaming also. But to say that 6-core and 8-core CPU's are totally unnecessary for the majority of people, or a useless SIDE-GRADE instead of an UPgrade is just ridiculous. 

 

I am not going to say everyone should throw their i5's in the trash. I am merely pointing out when someone is talking major B/S. @Drak3

 

Again bro, I am not a fanboy. I had an Intel i5 6600 and I genuinely WISH it was good enough for my needs in 2019. It was not. If it is good enough for you, I am honestly glad for you, enjoy it and upgrade when you need to for your needs.

The "Majority" of users don't have a tendency to run overly demanding tasks on their machines. Certainly, Sims 4 (my friend plays this) doesn't require an 8 core Ryzen. For my own use case, I probably wouldn't benefit much either as I play old games/emulation, edit photos, and maybe encode a Blu Ray to h.265 once a month or so. Ironically, it was running aggressive deinterlacing on a 640i DVD anime set that had me wanting for a Threadripper.  

 

I am hurting for more storage though. Could probably use a few more TBs (mirrored to external storage) than upping to a 4790K. I certainly appreciate that we finally have something beyond 4 cores that is accessible without paying the HEDT premium.

 

That being said, typically, I would recommend as a bare minimum (for the lightest of users, such as Grandma) is a dual core with SMT. Such a system browses the internet with ease, plays any relevant video, and allows some headroom for things to misbehave before the experience gets compromised. A fast SSD is arguably more important for user experience here. If SMT were not to be counted however, then I would probably not recommend anything lesser than a Quad to anyone at all (budget aside).

 

People that know what they're doing can get away with pretty miserly stuff (as well as punishing high end parts, but beside the point). Typing this on my 2013 Atom tablet which gets mowed over by even non-HT dual core CPUs (and by my phone, for that matter).

[thorhammerz]

1 minute ago, Zodiark1593 said:

That being said, typically, I would recommend as a bare minimum (for the lightest of users, such as Grandma) is a dual core with SMT. Such a system browses the internet with ease, plays any relevant video, and allows some headroom for things to misbehave before the experience gets compromised. A fast SSD is arguably more important for user experience here. If SMT were not to be counted however, then I would probably not recommend anything lesser than a Quad to anyone at all (budget aside).

Ryzen APUs ftw .

[Zodiark1593]

2 minutes ago, thorhammerz said:

Ryzen APUs ftw .

Well, perhaps buying brand new. The graphics hardware kind of goes to waste on little ol' Granny as well.

 

I tend to like buying older business machines and outfitting them with SSDs. Zippy, and low cost. Most of the time, quad core machines can be had cheaply, so the question of dual cores seldom come up anyway.

[ravenshrike]

33 minutes ago, Arika S said:

yes, that's why i posted that quote.

Except they haven't implemented any general hardware security checks at all. Instead they're implementing hardware checks that only block those very specific security holes. AMD has significantly more general hardware security checks that made them immune to those shenanigans in the first place. Closing the side barn door after the horses have left is far inferior to keeping the door closed in the first place.