Devil’s Canyon proves Intel doesn’t care about PC enthusiasts .

[Guest]

 

Easy! 

lol. Because....modding.

[fringie]

I don't know how to feel about this. I was expecting broadwell this year but they've fixed a big deal problem. But I'm more disappointed in AMD, stronger cores pls. 

[Xorbot]

Sandy Bridge (E) Master Race.

 

Still going strong, still will be posting this in 2018.

[Heisenbleurgh]

Maybe I'm just not that into overclocking but they said "up to 5GHz" and that's what we're seeing  :rolleyes:

[Gamingfreak]

As far as I can tell Devils Canyon CPUs are just higher binned Haswell CPUs. Just like the 9590 was to the 8350 from AMD. I don't really see this as a bad thing since the 4790k costs the same as the 4770k and you're guaranteed 4.4GHz out of the box with a little more from overclocking. Yes they don't reach 5GHz but who really cares, it's just a number that would only matter in benchmarks for the most part. Personally I'm far more interested in getting more performance out of GPUs than CPUs at this point since current CPUs handle everything just fine.

[Albatross]

I don't get why people are upset over Devil's Canyon. I was under the impression it was still Haswell, but a newer line to fix previous "problems". You had to have known, going in, it wasn't going to have a super awesome performance improvement...right? Or am I misunderstand something here?

[BookerDeWitt]

Yet mine has a longer life span. You're more likely to upgrade again in the near future. I however will probably not need to upgrade for a long time. There are still a lot of people out there still using the first ever i7's etc that were released years ago.

You mean the exact opposite. Because the 8320 has 8 cores, performance will scale with every passing year as developers release more multi-core games thanks to the next gen consoles both having 8 core AMD CPUs.

Your intel i7 will only beat the 8320 in legacy software that can't take advantage of multiple cores while on the other hand the 8320 will only perform better with each passing year and actually perform better in future software. You want future proof 8320, you want legacy 4770k. In either case your wasting nearly 200$ on that 4770K when you can get the 8320 for 200$ less.

[TheProfosist]

Granted most enthusiasts wouldn't use FM2+, but LGA1150? What the hell? You realize that 90% of enthusiasts use LGA1150/1155, etc? That's actually the core enthusiast platform. Most can't afford, or wouldn't need LGA2011.

 

I assume you're either a troll or ignorant to the facts. If the latter, I apologize but you should definitely search this topic more before commenting.

that depends on what you define enthusiast. But 2011 is the true enthusiast platform. Up until now K series cpu's were nothing more than a normal cpu with a unlocked multiplier. The main reason some enthusiasts did switch with sandy bridge was that X79 was taking its pretty time coming out and sandy bridge was a beast OCer.

[deathjester]

You mean the exact opposite. Because the 8320 has 8 cores, performance will scale with every passing year as developers release more multi-core games thanks to the next gen consoles both having 8 core AMD CPUs.

Your intel i7 will only beat the 8320 in legacy software that can't take advantage of multiple cores while on the other hand the 8320 will only perform better with each passing year and actually perform better in future software. You want future proof 8320, you want legacy 4770k. In either case your wasting nearly 200$ on that 4770K when you can get the 8320 for 200$ less.

 

Yeah about that. Consoles are limited to 6 cores on the SDK. 2 of those pathetic 1.6-1.7ghz cores are locked to the OS and always will be. It is like people freaking out that we will need more VRAM. Yup we will as a temporary problem (devs not using an API with tiled resources). Consoles can use 4.5 GB TOTAL between sys ram and vram for a game. That is it. Rest is locked for their Doritos and Mountain Dew background programs/OS.

 

3 GB will be all you need at 1080p and you only need that when the dev sucks ass (aka Ubisoft) and refuses to do any optimization for the title. BF4 kicked butt on 2 GB VRAM GTX 770's. BF4 sucked on consoles. 

 

People selling the AMD cores as all that are delusional. The I5 K is STILL faster on a low level API than the 8350 though the gap is closed considerably (which is awesome, I am glad it is closing). The only thing the 8350 will beat an I5, let alone I7 at though is rendering. Direct X 12 will look just like this. This is AMD's low level API (Mantle). 

 

http://pclab.pl/art55953-3.html

 

As far as Crysis 3? The benchmarks were laughable for the most part. What matters? FPS lows. 

 

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/crysis-3-performance-benchmark-gaming,3451-8.html

 

The 8350 will NEVER catch the I5, not even in a low level API. It WILL get close. It is also going to continue to be absolute garbage in things like Dolphin Emulator and MMO's where it gets destroyed by Intel. The only games the 8350 will be almost as good as an I5 in for the next few years is Mantle titles and that is if you have a AMD GPU. Direct X 12 comes out Holiday 2015. Add to that? Not all titles will be DirectX 12 unless MS gives us Win 9 for free (they might) or DX 12 on Win 7 (they might). 

 

"In either case your wasting nearly 200$ on that 4770K when you can get the 8320 for 200$ less".

 

My 4770k was $199.99 at Microcenter. My motherboard got an additional combo price cut. Total was 260 something before Tax. Evo 212 was 30 bucks. Can you show me the 24/7 8350's close to my CPU on the LTT cinebench thread?

 

Here is multicore (rendering).

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AlC81MjwelBgdEZNV3l6aHl1eUNwSUR4Rml0MXMzN1E&usp=sharing#gid=0

 

Here is single core which has a giant effect on games not on a low level API.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AlC81MjwelBgdEZNV3l6aHl1eUNwSUR4Rml0MXMzN1E&usp=sharing#gid=1

 

I bought a overclocked e8400 in 2008. I have no desire to have that kind of single core performance on a 2014 chip. That chip still runs in a Hackintosh and it is just as fast as a AMD 8350 for internet crap and 2 core games. I am not saying AMD is garbage. I am saying there is a reason we bought I5's and I7's. You don't buy a computer for something in 2 years that may not even have 100 percent adoption. If you do? You are really silly, bought into half truth marketing and are selling half truth marketing. AMD made Mantle for a reason. Without it, they are getting their ass kicked by Intel in gaming.

[imdavidh96]

ah well. thats a different story then but in most cases, it should be thrown in the bin

 

you cant throw it away its needed, unless you get the kit that allows direct die mounting but its so risky because too tight by the tinyest bit and it cracks

not to mention having the ihs gives better temps then direct die(after delid)

[LukaP]

you cant throw it away its needed, unless you get the kit that allows direct die mounting but its so risky because too tight by the tinyest bit and it cracks

not to mention having the ihs gives better temps then direct die(after delid)

ive always done direct die, never had problems...

[daemonowner]

Browsing Devil's Canyon reviews (described in terms of overclocking potential, compared between their 4790k and 4770k samples):

 

Kitguru: Positive. "...our 4790K hit a rock-solid 4.6GHz at 1.25V, whereas the retail 4770K we use requires 1.325V for 4.5GHz."

 

Tomshardware: Positive: At 4.2GHz, the 4790k was 6°C cooler than the 4770k. The 4790k reached a stable 4.6GHz at 1.31V, and 4.8GHz at most with the same voltage.

 

Guru3D: Negative. Their 4790k reached 4.8GHz at 1.4V, but was not stable. 4.9Ghz was not achievable even with 1.45V. 4.6-4.7GHz is more realistic. Their 4770k managed 100MHz more.

 

Techspot: Negative. Their 4790k "wouldn't budge past 4.7GHz at 1.36v and it wasn't for a lack of trying." They couldn't stabilize at 4.8GHz.

 

Bit-tech: Negative. Their 4770k reached 4.8GHz at 1.28V. Their 4790k reached 4.8GHz at 1.33V, and 4.9GHz was not achievable even with 1.4V.

 

Tweaktown: Negative. Their 4770k reached 4.9-5.0GHz. Their 4790k managed 4.7GHz at 1.4V.

 

HardOCP: Negative? Difficult to overclock their 4790k, managing a stable 4.7GHz in the end. Seems to require more voltage than their 4770k's.

 

HardwareHeaven: Negative. Both their 4790k and 4770k overclocked similarly, reaching an impressive 4.9GHz, although at 1.4V.

 

Extremetech: Negative? Their 4790k reached a stable 4.6GHz at 1.35V.

 

PCPer: Negative. 4790k reached 4.7GHz with 1.36V, far worse than their 4770k.

 

Legitreviews: Negative. 4.7GHz stable at 1.351V. About the same as their 4770k.

 

HardwareCanucks: Negative. 4.719GHz at 1.35V. Not impressively more than their 4770k overclock.

 

2 reviews I would consider positive for overclocking the 4790k in comparison to the 4770k, and 10 negative reviews.

 

Note: These reviews used engineering samples. The reviewers seemed to suggest retail 4790k's may overclock better. Some of these tests involved liquid coolers, possibly only AIO's like the H110.

 

The average review summary:

• The 4790k runs a couple of degrees cooler than the 4770k.
• It is clocked higher out of the box (duh).
• It is not worth upgrading from your 4770k to a 4790k.
• Overclocking potential is marginally better, if anything.
• Intel was bullshitting with their 5GHz on air claims.

[jmaster299]

The "enthusiast" labeled chips have yet to be released, yet you are going to complain that you can't achieve enthusiast level performance???

[LukaP]

• Intel was bullshitting with their 5GHz on air claims.

 

It was NEVER intel who claimed that the chips would do 5 on air... it was rumour spreading sites such as (iirc) WFCCT and similar. never intel.

[daemonowner]

It was NEVER intel who claimed that the chips would do 5 on air... it was rumour spreading sites such as (iirc) WFCCT and similar. never intel.

Most of the reviews said outright that it was Intel who said it. An employee of Intel was quoted saying he achieved 4.6GHz without a fan.

 

"At Computex, Intel president Renee James said the chip could be pushed to 5GHz in air-cooled systems and the company's Francois Piednoel tweeted that he got 4.6GHz without a fan, so he'd have to offer some training to those who couldn't manage to hit 5GHz." - Techspot

 

"Intel has specially spelled out that this new Devil's Canyon processor has "Robust Overclocking Capabilities." Many were expecting 5GHz overclocking on air with this processor. Why are we expecting 5GHz overclocking on air? That would be because that is what Intel is quoted as saying." HardOCP

 

"It can be overclocked to 5GHz in air-cooled systems, said Renee James, president of Intel, during a keynote speech at the Computex trade show in Taipei." ComputerWorld, the source HardOCP cites.

[LukaP]

 

Most of the reviews said outright that it was Intel who said it. An employee of Intel was quoted saying he achieved 4.6GHz without a fan.

 

"At Computex, Intel president Renee James said the chip could be pushed to 5GHz in air-cooled systems and the company's Francois Piednoel tweeted that he got 4.6GHz without a fan, so he'd have to offer some training to those who couldn't manage to hit 5GHz." - Techspot

 

"Intel has specially spelled out that this new Devil's Canyon processor has "Robust Overclocking Capabilities." Many were expecting 5GHz overclocking on air with this processor. Why are we expecting 5GHz overclocking on air? That would be because that is what Intel is quoted as saying." HardOCP

 

"It can be overclocked to 5GHz in air-cooled systems, said Renee James, president of Intel, during a keynote speech at the Computex trade show in Taipei." ComputerWorld, the source HardOCP cites.

 

my bad, if this is true (might be nice including a source)

[Lays]

I am actually curious as to what the reviewers did overclocking-wise with their samples, whether they actually took time adjusting all the possible settings, rather than just voltage and multi.

[daemonowner]

my bad, if this is true (might be nice including a source)

I'm looking up the computex footage now. They could really do with a list of timestamps like the WAN show. This will take a while.

[daemonowner]

I am actually curious as to what the reviewers did overclocking-wise with their samples, whether they actually took time adjusting all the possible settings, rather than just voltage and multi.

Some of them spent a while reaching the highest multiplier possible, with some finding it easy and others very difficult. Many tried to lower the voltage as much as possible while keeping the overclock stable, or lowered the multiplier because they couldn't keep it stable and the voltage was too high for comfortable temperatures. Some tried to increase the multiplier by one by adding as much voltage as possible, up to 1.45V. None of the 12 reviews I summarized above reached 5.0GHz. I don't think any reached a stable overclock of 4.9, and few at 4.8.

[LukaP]

I'm looking up the computex footage now. They could really do with a list of timestamps like the WAN show. This will take a while.

oh no need, just for me as i really dont care about DC im waiting for Hw-E anyway

[daemonowner]

54:30 for Devil's Canyon. The only mention of 5GHz that I caught was just a mention of it at their booth, where attendees of Computex could see what 5GHz was like. Nothing about air cooling, or expectations of 5GHz being the norm. Unless there is more footage where Renee James discusses Devil's Canyon, this may just be a myth.

[ericlee30]

Very intersting reveiw and points.

[rabidz7]

Granted most enthusiasts wouldn't use FM2+, but LGA1150? What the hell? You realize that 90% of enthusiasts use LGA1150/1155, etc? That's actually the core enthusiast platform. Most can't afford, or wouldn't need LGA2011.

I assume you're either a troll or ignorant to the facts. If the latter, I apologize but you should definitely search this topic more before commenting.

If they can't afford LGA2011, They should get AM3+. With a few exceptions, LGA115x is dumb.

[dalekphalm]

If they can't afford LGA2011, They should get AM3+. With a few exceptions, LGA115x is dumb.

This doesn't make any sense at all. Can you please logically explain why someone would either go AM3+ or LGA2011?

 

Also please define "Enthusiast". This word is being thrown around a LOT lately and many are giving it a pretty loose definition.

 

With AM3+, if they go with an 8-Core/4-Module chip like the 8350, they get pretty decent multi-threaded performance, but utter crap single threaded performance. They'll still be able to game pretty well, as most games are GPU bound unless you're looking at upper high end. Remember that the 8350 isn't a true 8-core CPU. Each module has 2 Integer cores but share the FPU core. Since most regular tasks don't use FPU, then it's fine most of the time. But in heavy multithreading, the lack of a dedicated FPU for each core DOES hurt the 8350 on a core-by-core basis. This architecture was designed with the APU and HuMA in mind, which has been AMD's end game for a while. The reason is that GPU cores are much better at FPU processing, so ideally they would offload FPU tasks onto an on-board GPU (APU). However, HuMA isn't where it needs to be yet, and there needs to be major programming changes to take full advantage of this architecture type.

 

If they go with LGA1155/etc, then they're getting decent (albeit not as good) multi-threaded performance, and absolutely kickass single threaded performance. Also good for games, but much better for applications that need beast processing power.

 

If you REALLY need multi-threaded performance for your job or what have you, then you likely want workstation grade equipment, so I'll grant you that LGA2011 is better in that regard, however, for the rest of "enthusiasts" who can't afford LGA2011, dropping down to LGA1150/1155 makes so much more sense.

 

ONCE Mantle and ONCE HuMA programming architecture is here and WIDESPREAD, then something like the AM3+ platform starts to make sense as an enthusiast/power platform. But right now, it just falls too short.

 

The thing about this is, I'm not even an Intel fanboy. 8350's are great choices for gaming rigs if you want to save a bit of cash. But then again, an i7 is not for gaming either unless you just have money to blow. Everyone knows (and has known for years) that an i5 is the sweet spot for gaming rigs. But if you want to save a few bucks, going AMD will get you "nearly but not quite" the same performance IN GAMES ONLY.

 

But you're not even being rational about this. It's like you're blinded by the underdog AMD. Believe me, I WISH AM3+ was the enthusiast platform you claim it to be. I yearn for the good old days where AMD was innovating out their ass and was destroying everything Intel could throw at them. But those days are long gone, and AMD needs to come up with something revolutionary to get back into the enthusiast game. Because right now there's no compelling reason to choose AMD over Intel once you get over the $800-ish builds.

[ForsakenLive]

This is not news, this is an illogical rant.