Friends PC

[LogicWeasel]

1 minute ago, jerubedo said:

Again, Intel wins at every price point right now. The i5 is only $181.

 

It's all speculation right now.

http://www.logicalincrements.com/  That chart used to have only AMD at the bottom 1-2 rungs, now since Ryzen came out there's more AMD on that chart for given price-points than ever before.  Gee I wonder why that is.  It couldn't be that the R5 2600 is a good value for it's price and plays games just fine, that's clearly not it (/sarcasm).  

[LogicWeasel]

2 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

No, when you plug in an M.2 wifi or Bluetooth adapter, you are using 4 lanes, not 1 lane. So using an M.2 drive and a wifi adapter will suck up 8 lanes. Not 5.

Why do you insist on using M.2 for wifi and bluetooth?  Are we building a laptop here wth?  You just said yourself that wifi and bluetooth don't need more bandwidth, so which is it.  Trying to stay consistent here, I don't see why we're not keeping the M.2 for NVMe drives and wasting them on stuff you can run on even just a USB 3.0 port.

[jerubedo]

Just now, LogicWeasel said:

http://www.logicalincrements.com/  That chart used to have only AMD at the bottom 1-2 rungs, now since Ryzen came out there's more AMD on that chart for given price-points than ever before.  Gee I wonder why that is.  It couldn't be that the R5 2600 is a good value for it's price and plays games just fine, that's clearly not it (/sarcasm).  

Of course Ryzen is the best value. It's performance is unbelievable for the price. That's why I always recommend it over Intel, in EVERY situation for productivity. For gaming I recommend Intel for any productivity at all, and for mixed gaming and productivity I recommend Ryzen. There's no middle ground with me. I go for one or the other depending on the situation.

[jerubedo]

1 minute ago, LogicWeasel said:

Why do you insist on using M.2 for wifi and bluetooth?  Are we building a laptop here wth?  You just said yourself that wifi and bluetooth don't need more bandwidth, so which is it.  Trying to stay consistent here, I don't see why we're not keeping the M.2 for NVMe drives and wasting them on stuff you can run on even just a USB 3.0 port.

Because of the form factor. Who wants to have several cards hanging off their motherboard? That's ugly. M.2 for everything is my motto. Plus more and more wifi adapters are coming out for M.2 now and less for PCIe-1.0 slots.

[Stefan Payne]

8 minutes ago, LogicWeasel said:

Last I checked most wifi cards that use PCIe run on a 1x connector, but thanks for playing. 

Some mini PCIe WiFi Cards might even be using USB.

As USB is on the Connector - and needed for Bluetooth.

And its enough for most stuff....

The High Power WiFi Stuff might need a PCIe Connector.

But also a Heatsink...

Looks like this:

https://geizhals.de/tp-link-ac1900-dualband-desktop-archer-t9e-a1223964.html?hloc=at&hloc=de

 

Or maybe even that:

https://geizhals.de/qnap-qwa-ac2600-a1822867.html?hloc=at&hloc=de

 

A lower Performance Card looks like this:

https://geizhals.de/gigabyte-gc-wb1733d-i-rev-1-0-a1853996.html?hloc=at&hloc=de

 

[GoldenLag]

11 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

The 2200g is $95 and the i3 is $118. The i3 handily beats the 2200g in all games, so the extra ~$20 is well spent.

20$ for near no gain in performance. Which is 20$ that can be spent elsewhere. The small budget area that these occupy makes 20$ a lot. 

11 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

would not consider the handful of games discussed a "shift." When the next 5 AAA games launch and they all take advantage of all cores/threads THEN I'll say there's a shift. 

In other words. Ignore this shift and wait for the next one?

 

Just because somethign starts to use all the threads doesnt mean CPUs with less threads will automatically get slower.

11 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

Yes but we're also talking about upgradeability. If 2021 comes around and the CPUs only support DDR5 then the upgrade path is still cut off for the consumer buying a board today, making it no better than having an intel setup on a dead-end socket

That is assuming youll upgrade then. But you also have the option of getting a gen old CPU instead of having to buy new. Justifying a dead-end plattform by saying they are both dead end in 2 years is silly. 

11 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

If you're agreeing that most people will upgrade at 2021

I did not do that. People upgrade whenever. Active gamers and builders it can be roughly every 3 years. 1st gen Ryzen people are very happy to be able to slot in a new CPU in a years time. Same with second geners. 

 

People will upgrade in 2021, but then its a new plattform. And we dont know the lenght of AM5 or whatever 1156 plattform intel puts out. 

11 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

then the upgrade path doesn't really matter does it?

It very much does. Especially for the budget we are working at here. 

5 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

Again, Intel wins at every price point right now. The i5 is only $181.

Um what?

 

The 2600 is 164$. Cheaper and better option. 

 

Same with the 2200G.

 

4 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

, when you plug in an M.2 wifi or Bluetooth adapter, you are using 4 lanes, not 1 lane. So using an M.2 drive and a wifi adapter will suck up 8 lanes. Not 5.

Regardless of PCIe revision. Meaning it needs an expencive multiplex chips to be worth it. Something we also needs for PCIe 4.0 and 5.0, 

4 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

Once AMD wins

Arguing based on the top product isnt what we are doing here. We have a set budget to work from and at the budget provided intel looses.

 

[jerubedo]

1 minute ago, Stefan Payne said:

Some mini PCIe WiFi Cards might even be using USB.

As USB is on the Connector - and needed for Bluetooth.

And its enough for most stuff....

The High Power WiFi Stuff might need a PCIe Connector.

But also a Heatsink...

Looks like this:

https://geizhals.de/tp-link-ac1900-dualband-desktop-archer-t9e-a1223964.html?hloc=at&hloc=de

 

Or maybe even that:

https://geizhals.de/qnap-qwa-ac2600-a1822867.html?hloc=at&hloc=de

 

A lower Performance Card looks like this:

https://geizhals.de/gigabyte-gc-wb1733d-i-rev-1-0-a1853996.html?hloc=at&hloc=de

 

Again, form factor. Having 1x cards dangling on the motherboard is ugly and a thing of the past. And who wants to have something taking up a USB slot permanently? M.2 slots for everything.

[GoldenLag]

3 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

That's why I always recommend it over Intel, in EVERY situation for productivity

Flawed baseline. Productivity doesnt allways favor cores. Such a hard wall is not great when picking out parts.

5 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

There's no middle ground with me. I go for one or the other depending on the situation.

This seems to be the flaws in the way you pick CPUs then. Because setting hard borders is a bad way to recommend systems. 

3 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

Again, form factor. Having 1x cards dangling on the motherboard is ugly and a thing of the past. And who wants to have something taking up a USB slot permanently? M.2 slots for everything

Costs are everything. USB solutions are perfectly fine. Also why take up a slot when it can be on the mobo? Why not in the chipset itself? Because of costs.

[jerubedo]

10 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

20$ for near no gain in performance. Which is 20$ that can be spent elsewhere. The small budget area that these occupy makes 20$ a lot. 

It's a huge difference for the price:

 

In Kingdom Come, the difference is 49 FPS average vs 75 FPS average. In AC:Origins it's 45 FPS vs 56 FPS. In all the other games it's 20% more performance.

 

10 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

In other words. Ignore this shift and wait for the next one?

My point was there is no shift. We're talking about 5 or 6 games released since 2017, not even 5 or 6 games released just last year. A shift would be when many games start to exhibit this trend.
 

10 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

That is assuming youll upgrade then. But you also have the option of getting a gen old CPU instead of having to buy new. Justifying a dead-end plattform by saying they are both dead end in 2 years is silly. 

The same can be said for the intel one then as well. From an i3 8100 you can also get the 8700K which should be more than capable for many years.

 

10 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

The 2600 is 164$. Cheaper and better option. 

Yeah it's cheaper, but the 8400 wins hands down in gaming by a wide margin.

[LogicWeasel]

13 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

Of course Ryzen is the best value. It's performance is unbelievable for the price. For gaming I recommend Intel for any productivity at all, and for mixed gaming and productivity I recommend Ryzen. There's no middle ground with me. I go for one or the other depending on the situation.

And yet that chart is still acknowledging that while an 8600k costs more, if the budget is $165 for a CPU you just buy a Ryzen 2600, with no suggestion to consider the Intel CPU priced at $165 because it would be a crap choice to pay about $10 more for an i3-8350k (and the more expensive motherboard to run it) and get a lesser CPU (and upgrade path) that can min-max some more FPS in CS:GO at 1080p but who cares about that?  That's stupid and not a priority to go from 100 fps to 110 fps since most people in that budget don't get 144Hz + monitors and play only CS:GO and no other titles).  Aside from picking apart some min-maxed games that like Intel CPUs, the Ryzen 2600 will game and is the overall superior choice (even if user is 100% pure gaming) for the price.

[jerubedo]

5 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

This seems to be the flaws in the way you pick CPUs then. Because setting hard borders is a bad way to recommend systems. 

Those hard borders are based on how the landscape is right now. If a CPU releases soon that changes that landscape then my working definitions at the time will change as well. For example if Ryzen 3000 comes out and it is better at gaming AND productivity then that will be the recommended product from me. 

[jerubedo]

5 hours ago, LogicWeasel said:

And yet that chart is still acknowledging that while an 8600k costs more, if the budget is $165 for a CPU you just buy a Ryzen 2600, with no suggestion to consider the Intel CPU priced at $165 because it would be a crap choice to pay about $10 more for an i3-8350k (and the more expensive motherboard to run it) and get a lesser CPU (and upgrade path) that can min-max some more FPS in CS:GO at 1080p but who cares about that?  That's stupid and not a priority to go from 100 fps to 110 fps since most people in that budget don't get 144Hz + monitors and play only CS:GO and no other titles).  Aside from picking apart some min-maxed games that like Intel CPUs, the Ryzen 2600 will game and is the overall superior choice (even if user is 100% pure gaming) for the price.

The 8350K will outperform the 2600 not just in CS:GO, but almost every title, and in some by a wide margin. So yes for pure gaming it'd be better. The motherboard is not that much more expensive. A cheap motherboard for it is $95, making it $25 more expensive overall, but you do get the performance gains for the $25.

[LogicWeasel]

1 minute ago, jerubedo said:

Those hard borders are based on how the landscape is right now. If a CPU releases soon that changes that landscape then my working definitions at the time will change as well. For example if Ryzen 3000 comes out and it is better at gaming AND productivity then that will be the recommended product from me. 

You keep repeating the idea that your "tune will change when AMD takes the gaming crown" and you keep trying to frame this as black and white.  It's shades of gray and until you see that you'll continue to repeat yourself while seeing binary when the devil is in the details.

[Stefan Payne]

1 hour ago, jerubedo said:

There's a place for everything. There's a place for the 8100, a place for the R5 2200g, a place for the Pentium G5420, etc.

There is a Place for FX8350

There is a Place for FX9590

There is a place for everything!
You just said it!

1 hour ago, jerubedo said:

As even Stefan pointed out, both the i3 8100 and the R5 2600 are over 60 FPS in almost all games. So how exactly is it an irrelevant product?

AC: Odyssey shows you the direction where it goes.

The AMD is just soo much faster without paying that much more, because of the +8 Threads and 2 Cores.

 

Look at how much 4 Core/4 Thread AMD CPUs are.

They are like 75€ or so.

1 hour ago, jerubedo said:

No it's not, because by the time a consumer is ready to upgrade, CPUs will be out that use DDR5 and PCIe 5.0, which will require a board change on both systems. 

1) we do not know, when the COnsumer will get PCIe 5.0 or IF the Consumer will get it at all, as there is no real need for it.

Same thing as AMD castrated the Radeon 7 Interface and removed the Infinity Fabric for the Consumer version, while the Professional version has Infinity Fabric. And AMD also mentioned CCIX, wich is 25GT/s - half way between PCIe 4.0 and 5.0. 

And also THE REASON FOR PCIe 5.0!

Its not for the Desktop. Its for the Server/Workstations.

 

2) no, as AMD can do whatever!!

The Socket AMD supports depends on the I/O Die they use! The CPU Die is irrelevant for that!

There was a reason why I posted a Link to an old ASUS Board from the mid 90s, because that's essentially what AMD does with AM4: They integrated the Chipset onto the CPU. The thing on the Board is only a PCIe to USB 3.0 and S-ATA Switch made by ASMEdia

 

And because they did that, they could, if they wanted to, put Zen 4 and 5 in an AM4 Package. The only question remaining is: Does AMD do that?

 

ANyway, here A link to TOmshardware you love so much:

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-64-core-128-thread-7nm-rome-cpu,38032.html

 

Here Desktop AMD:
https://www.extremetech.com/computing/283668-amd-wont-launch-a-chiplet-based-apu-on-ryzen-matisse

https://www.io-tech.fi/uutinen/amd-kertoi-lisaa-yksityiskohtia-tulevista-ryzen-prosessoreista-matisse/

 

You see the small dies??? THAT IS THE CPU!

The big die is the Chipset!

 

Its the same as back in the day, when you had an FSB!
The CHipset controls the Memory, PCIe an provides Connection to the Southbridge.

In AMD's Case even a bit of USB and S-ATA is inside that chip.

 

So the conclusion is:
CPU is independant of the Socket.

AMD can make a Chipset and Package for whatever.

If they wanted to, they could make a DDR-3 SDRAM I/O Bridge and put it on a Package for FM2+.

If they wanted to they could make a DDR-3 SDRAM I/O Bridge with Hyper Transport and put it on an AM3+ Package.

 

They are very flexible with that design!

If the I/O DIe doesn't get too hot, they could put HBM Memory on top, and even remove the DDR-SDRAM Memory Controller. 

And put a GPU right next to it.

 

Intel can not. They stil have monolithic designs.

1 hour ago, jerubedo said:

Yes it will need a board change. If Ryzen 4000 only supports DDR5 (which is quite a possibility since it's way more expensive to support two generations of RAM) then the chipset on the motherboard needs to support that, making a board change necessary.

First:
Coffee Lake supports DDR-3 SDRAM.

 

Second: The Socket Change is Abitrary, no reason, here proof:

 

1 hour ago, jerubedo said:

No one is upgrading from Ryzen 1000 to 2000 or from 2000 to 3000. People in general will be happy with 2000 performance even after 3000 hits.

I am "Upgrading" from 1000 and 2000 to 3000.

As soon as 3000 hits the market, I'm getting one. Depending on the price, either 8 or 16 Cores.

Right now I have a 2400G in the System I write this from, wich consumes around 24W right now - while I listen to a Youtube Video in the background and have other stuff running as well.

1 hour ago, jerubedo said:

They will most likely be looking to upgrade by 4000, at which point all of what I'm saying becomes relevant. By then, all CPU releases will assuredly be DDR5 only.

YOu don't know that.

Ryzen 4000 can be Am4 as well.

Hell even Ryzen 5000 can be AM4 as well, if AMD wants it.

Even Ryzen 6000 can be AM4 as well, if AMD Wants it.

That is the beauty of the CHiplet Design AMD does with 7nm because its impractical to integrate the I/O Stuff into the 7nm Die because 7nm is expensive as hell and I/O Stuff doesn't scale well because of the power that the Trannies need to provide.

14nm is good enough for that, 

 

1 hour ago, jerubedo said:

Umm, did you just recommend a 4c/4t part after going on and on about how you should never do that? The 2200g is 4 cores and 4 threads. And the i3 beats it in every single game, even the ones where the 2600 took the lead.

NO, I didn't.

The 2200G is not the only AMD 4C/4T CPU, there is also this one:

https://geizhals.de/amd-ryzen-3-1200-yd1200bbaebox-a1663145.html?hloc=at&hloc=de

The 2200 is  22€ more than the Ryzen 3/1200.

The Ryzen 2400G makes little to no sense right now if you do not want to use the integrated Graphics Unit as the 1600 is like 3€ more, the 1600X is another 5€ or so.

 

1 hour ago, jerubedo said:

In what world? 6 cores is just fine, and even for more multithreaded games coming out it will hold up.

In this World, as the 8400 is realy expensive and around 200€ right now with a garbage Heatsink that doesn't even allow it to run well out of the box.

The Core CLocks are really low and just 2.8GHz. And no SMT either.

THe 1600x is like 140€ right now, 3,6GHz Base and 4GHz boost.

 

Why pay more for the Intel? Oh wait, there is Intel on the Label. It has to be better.

1 hour ago, jerubedo said:

Of course I do. The PCIe 5.0 specification specifies that there will be no less than 24 lanes, meaning we'll never see as low as 16 lanes again. And yes, cards right now only need an 8x 3.0 lane to be fully utilized but soon enough they will be using 16x. Being stuck on 16 lanes has sucked.

What the hell are you talking about?!
YOu do know that Intel only offers 16 Lanes while AMD offers 24 for AM4 (while the CPU has 32).
So basically you're arguing in favor of AMD. As they already offer more PCIe Lanes in the CPU than Intel is.

 

Why not flat out say that AMD is the better choice because you can have a PCIe 3.0 x4 SSD with AMD and also 2 PCIe NVMe SSD make sense while it doesn't on Intel.

I think it was this Video that talks about it:

 

On Intel Desktop its worthless.

On AMD its awesome.

 

Remind you that Threadripper offers up to 64 PCIe Lanes - a whopping 20 more than Intels LGA20xx Plattforms.

 

1 hour ago, jerubedo said:

They've still been able to get 7-8% gains each time, while Ryzen was only able to eek out 10% on a die shrink???

12nm is an improved 14nm Process, so its not really a shrink.

The Real Shrink is coming later this year with Matisse.

 

And the 7-8% are, as said, mostly clock and boost related...

And bullshit, as you can see here:

https://www.anandtech.com/show/9483/intel-skylake-review-6700k-6600k-ddr4-ddr3-ipc-6th-generation/9

 

Where are the 7-8% you are talking about in Cinebench??(granted, its 4C/4T), but the Difference between the Genrations?

I see here 2,5% Sandy -> IVY.

The biggest jump is Haswell, wich is to be expected.

From Haswell to Broadwell, its just 5%, Broadwell -> Skylake is only 2,5% more than Broadwell.

 

In Cinebench!

 

1 hour ago, jerubedo said:

How is that "good?" And I'm not bashing AMD here. I'm bashing both companies. 30% is a good generation over generation performance gain, which is what both companies should target, not a measly 10%.

No, you're just hyping Intel without many facts and claiming it is better and inventing arguments that are proven wrong many times.

30% Gain on Intel is just bullshit. That never happened - well, maybe twice -> Pentium 4 to Core 2 and Core 2 to Core i.

 

1 hour ago, jerubedo said:

This is just one example, but JayzTwoCents recently recommended a budget build using the Pentium G4560, a dual core part (albeit 4 threads). It performed admirably and even beat out the 2200g in terms of stutter.

Do you have any original thought or are you just parroting what other people are saying?!

 

The G4560 is total horse shit as it is old LGA1151 -> 100 and 200 Series, nobody in their right mind should consider this thing as you can't upgrade it in a way that don't require the replacement of the Board!

That one is totally out of the Question.

The Pentium Gold G5400 is 72€ right now with only 2 Cores /4 Threads - the same Price I can get a 4 Core AMD for.

The Athlon 200GE is for example just 50€ FYI.

 

So to be clear: You have to look at the price and see it in contect!

Just because someone said something 2 years ago, doesn't mean its true today, with the Prices and situation we have right now!!

Especially your mentioning of the G4560 KABY LAKE Chip makes no sense...

[jerubedo]

6 minutes ago, LogicWeasel said:

You keep repeating the idea that your "tune will change when AMD takes the gaming crown" and you keep trying to frame this as black and white.  It's shades of gray and until you see that you'll continue to repeat yourself while seeing binary when the devil is in the details.

That's because to me it's pretty clear:

 

For top of the line performance with no concern for money: I9-9900K

For all other productivity: Ryzen

For mixed productivity/gaming: Ryzen\

For pure gaming: Intel

 

Again, for now. And again, I'm not the only one saying this.

[Stefan Payne]

21 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

Again, form factor. Having 1x cards dangling on the motherboard is ugly and a thing of the past. And who wants to have something taking up a USB slot permanently? M.2 slots for everything.

My Boards don't have a WiFi Card compatible M.2 Slot.

 

I have a regular M.2

But the WiFi M.2 Slots are completely different.

I know. I tried.

I have an M.2 WiFi Card in my MSI B450I - keyed different than normal M.2 Slots. You need an M.2 specifically for WiFi/BT.

[jerubedo]

2 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

1) we do not know, when the COnsumer will get PCIe 5.0 or IF the Consumer will get it at all, as there is no real need for it.

Same thing as AMD castrated the Radeon 7 Interface and removed the Infinity Fabric for the Consumer version, while the Professional version has Infinity Fabric. And AMD also mentioned CCIX, wich is 25GT/s - half way between PCIe 4.0 and 5.0.  

And also THE REASON FOR PCIe 5.0!

Its not for the Desktop. Its for the Server/Workstations.

This is all speculation. You don't know that 5.0 won't come to the desktop market. You just don't.

 

3 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

The Socket AMD supports depends on the I/O Die they use! The CPU Die is irrelevant for that!

I've literally NEVER argued that. I don't know why you keep brining that up when I'm not making any argument against it. I've said that the change to DDR5 will still need a board change because the Data Flow Management System chip the board itself will need to be updated making the MOTHERBOARD ITSELF obsolete, not the socket or the CPU. Plus the PCIe slots would need to be changed out on the board.

 

10 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

I am "Upgrading" from 1000 and 2000 to 3000.

As soon as 3000 hits the market, I'm getting one. Depending on the price, either 8 or 16 Cores.

Right now I have a 2400G in the System I write this from, wich consumes around 24W right now - while I listen to a Youtube Video in the background and have other stuff running as well.

You're not a typical consumer. You're an enthusiast. Completely different story.

 

15 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

The Core CLocks are really low and just 2.8GHz. And no SMT either.

THe 1600x is like 140€ right now, 3,6GHz Base and 4GHz boost.

That i5 boosts to 3.8GHz on all cores, making it 3.8GHZ vs 4.0GHz. And the Intel at 3.8 still wins. Look up the benchmarks, and not the outlying examples, the majority.

 

18 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

What the hell are you talking about?!
YOu do know that Intel only offers 16 Lanes while AMD offers 24 for AM4 (while the CPU has 32).
So basically you're arguing in favor of AMD. As they already offer more PCIe Lanes in the CPU than Intel is.

I'm only talking about the minimum spec, not who's gone over.

 

19 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

Where are the 7-8% you are talking about in Cinebench??(granted, its 4C/4T), but the Difference between the Genrations?

I see here 2,5% Sandy -> IVY.

The biggest jump is Haswell, wich is to be expected.

From Haswell to Broadwell, its just 5%, Broadwell -> Skylake is only 2,5% more than Broadwell. 

 

In Cinebench!

You can't go off of cinebench alone. You need to look at the entire test suite used. 

 

19 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

No, you're just hyping Intel without many facts and claiming it is better and inventing arguments that are proven wrong many times.

30% Gain on Intel is just bullshit. That never happened - well, maybe twice -> Pentium 4 to Core 2 and Core 2 to Core i.

Reading comprehension again. I said 30% is what we should strive for. I never said we've ever hit it recently.

 

 

[jerubedo]

25 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

I have an M.2 WiFi Card in my MSI B450I - keyed different than normal M.2 Slots. You need an M.2 specifically for WiFi/BT.

Yep, I never stated otherwise.

[GoldenLag]

31 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

In Kingdom Come, the difference is 49 FPS average vs 75 FPS average. In AC:Origins it's 45 FPS vs 56 FPS. In all the other games it's 20% more performance

Just had a look through those games. And if you dont like those outliers due to cache among other reasons there is allways the even cheaper 1200 which keeps uo wothy the 2200G and doesnt excibit those results in those titles. And im not saying the 8100 isnt faster, im saying its not worth it. 

 

31 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

same can be said for the intel one then as well. From an i3 8100 you can also get the 8700K which should be more than capable for many years

You can do that... Or do the exact same thing there when AM4 is also 2 years dead. That renders that kinda mute doesnt it?

31 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

Yeah it's cheaper, but the 8400 wins hands down in gaming by a wide margin.

But its lack of HT, pricing, upgrade path, mobo, and more makes it a poor Choice at its pricepoint. There is a reason why people stopped recommending it 5 months ago. Compared to 8-11 months ago when it made some sense. 

25 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

8350K will outperform the 2600 not just in CS:GO, but almost every title, and in some by a wide margin. So yes for pure gaming it'd be better. The motherboard is not more expensive. A cheap motherboard for it is $55, the same as the AMD boards

At that point buying a 4th gen CPU is better, because they are better than the 8350k because they have HT. 

 

Also noone should buy garbage 55$ boards. It renders any upgrades practically mute and you are also wasting OC potential of the unlocked CPU. 

 

28 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

Those hard borders are based on how the landscape is right now. If a CPU releases soon that changes that landscape then my working definitions at the time will change as well. For example if Ryzen 3000 comes out and it is better at gaming AND productivity then that will be the recommended product from me. 

This has never been the landscape

 

Adobe suite, photo editing and more just clashes with it super hard. Same with numerous other workloads.

 

There isnt a hard border.

16 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

For top of the line performance with no concern for money: I9-9900K

For all other productivity: Ryzen

For mixed productivity/gaming: Ryzen\

For pure gaming: Intel

I used to think like this a long time ago, but the more you dig into this its kot like this at all. 

 

BUDGET is king when deciding parts. And intel sadly doesnt fit in untill you have quite a lot of cash to throw at it. 

 

17 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

 

Again, for now. And again, I'm not the only one saying this.

Well. You are the only one in quite some time.... Because a lot of the stuff you threw at us was old news. 

 

And as a person who plays a part in the build recommending community a lot i havent seen anyone suggest that. And there is a lot of people who base their builds on various sources. Yet that there hasnt been relevant since like 8 months ago at least. When it made sort of sense. Now it doesnt, that is the cycle of life.

 

Just now, jerubedo said:

This is all speculation. You don't know that 5.0 won't come to the desktop market. You just don't.

And we dont know when. We do know PCIe 4.0 is comming in a short ammount of time with Zen 2. 5.0 might not come at all since there is no need.

 

You know we light just leapfrog that untill PCIe 6.0. i hear they are drawing up requirements

3 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

I've said that the change to DDR5 will still need a board change because the Data Flow Management System chip the board itself will need to be updated making the MOTHERBOARD ITSELF obsolete, not the socket or the CPU. Plus the PCIe slots would need to be changed out on the board.

Well good thing they are swapping sockets exactly when DDR5 is expected to hit mainstream adoption in 2021.

4 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

That i5 boosts to 3.8GHz on all cores, making it 3.8GHZ vs 4.0GHz. And the Intel at 3.8 still wins. Look up the benchmarks, and not the outlying examples, the majority

If you are arguing IPC here. That is dependant in workload. And its very similar IPC wise. Its a differense but not worth the cost. 

6 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

only talking about the minimum spec, not who's gone over

He is pointing out the irrelancy of the minimum spec when looking at excisting products.

8 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

You can't go off of cinebench alone. You need to look at the entire test suite used

Iirc the numbers line up similrly across the board. 

[jerubedo]

2 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

You can do that... Or do the exact same thing there when AM4 is also 2 years dead. That renders that kinda mute doesnt it?

Yep, that was my point exactly, it's a moot point. It's never really a "dead-end" unless you've bought the best CPU that can go into that socket already.

 

3 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

But its lack of HT, pricing, upgrade path, mobo, and more makes it a poor Choice at its pricepoint. There is a reason why people stopped recommending it 5 months ago. Compared to 8-11 months ago when it made some sense. 

This is why I brought up DDR5 and PCIe 5.0 to begin with. Yes, Ryzen has an "upgrade path" but by the time someone is ready to upgrade DDR5 and PCIe 5.0 make it so that you need to change out the motherboard anyway, making it a dead-end no matter what you pick right now. And HT is only a 30% gain in the real world, and not usually for most games. And in some games, like Metro Exodus that just came out, users have reported that stuttering was relieved by DISABLING Hyperthreading. So in some cases  Hyperthreading in games can cause some unexpected issues. I remember the same thing happened with Battlefield 3 back in the day. Stuttering was introduced with Hyperthreading on. HT can be good for some games, though. I'm making no blanket statement here.

 

7 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

Also noone should buy garbage 55$ boards. It renders any upgrades practically mute and you are also wasting OC potential of the unlocked CPU. 

In the budget category those $55 boards are what we're looking at, and yes I agree that getting any unlocked CPU for them is pretty pointless, which was one of my original arguments back on page 1 lol. But anyway, as I've stated before upgrade paths right now are a moot point across the board because of DDR5 and PCIe 5.0.

 

9 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

And we dont know when. We do know PCIe 4.0 is comming in a short ammount of time with Zen 2. 5.0 might not come at all since there is no need.

But we do know it's being ratified next month and that "PCIe 5.0 devices are in deep development stages" as per those articles.

 

10 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

Well good thing they are swapping sockets exactly when DDR5 is expected to hit mainstream adoption in 2021.

Right, making upgrade path, again, a moot point for right now.

 

11 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

That is dependant in workload.

The workload is gaming in this case.

 

 

[Stefan Payne]

Just now, jerubedo said:

This is all speculation. You don't know that 5.0 won't come to the desktop market. You just don't.

Neither do you!

But I know why they are pushing for 5.0 and that is CCIX/Gen-Z, and also Infinity Fabric, wich probably won't come to the Desktop market anyway.

And I know the technical difficulties/Problems with (probably) 16GHz Clock on a Board.

 

Its said that even PCIe 4.0 will limit the PCIe Socket Configuration dramatically and also signal lenth.

That won't be much better on 5.0 at all.

 

I really do not get why you are hyping 5.0 so much, when 4.0 isn't even here...

Here an Article about 4.0:

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-ryzen-pcie-4.0-motherboard,38401.html

 

Just now, jerubedo said:

 I've literally NEVER argued that.

Then why you're arguing against the Upgradability on AMD??
Its unlikely that we see another generation on Intel.

Its likely that we will see another genration on AMD after 3k.

 

Just now, jerubedo said:

I've said that the change to DDR5 will still need a board change because the Data Flow Management System chip the board itself will need to be

Data Flow Managment System??

And you see that Coffee Lake still supports DDR3???

 

Just now, jerubedo said:

updated making the MOTHERBOARD ITSELF obsolete, not the socket or the CPU. Plus the PCIe slots would need to be changed out on the board.

No, not really....

 

Just now, jerubedo said:

You're not a typical consumer. You're an enthusiast. Completely different story.

 

That i5 boosts to 3.8GHz on all cores, making it 3.8GHZ vs 4.0GHz. And the Intel at 3.8 still wins. Look up the benchmarks, and not the outlying examples, the majority.

 

I'm only talking about the minimum spec, not who's gone over.

 

You can't go off of cinebench alone. You need to look at the entire test suite used. 

 

Reading comprehension again. I said 30% is what we should strive for. I never said we've ever hit it recently.

 

 

 

[jerubedo]

3 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

Its likely that we will see another genration on AMD after 3k.

EXACTLY. So for your average user who buys 2000 right now (and won't upgrade to 3000) going to 4000 or 5000 will be what they want, at which point they have no upgrade path except for buying older used parts. 

[GoldenLag]

1 minute ago, jerubedo said:

Yep, that was my point exactly, it's a moot point. It's never really a "dead-end" unless you've bought the best CPU that can go into that socket already

Well. AM4 has a 2 years newer CPU that you can slot in. Which renders the upgrade path of the 8100 irrelevant

3 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

This is why I brought up DDR5 and PCIe 5.0 to begin with. Yes, Ryzen has an "upgrade path" but by the time someone is ready to upgrade DDR5 and PCIe 5.0 make it so that you need to change out the motherboard anyway, making it a dead-end no matter what you pick right now

We have been over this twice now. Please dont make me go through it again.

5 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

the budget category those $55 boards are what we're looking at, and yes I agree that getting any unlocked CPU for them is pretty pointless

Oh dear god. Why would you ever recommend garbage boards?

 

You DO NOT SKIMP ON BOARDS. 

People make this misstake way to often and its painfull. Same with PSUs. 

 

There is a reason why we gave "minimum" boards we pick from when crafting systems for people. 

8 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

Right, making upgrade path, again, a moot point for right now.

I have no words. Here, im just tired of having to say this again. Having no upgrade path and having a upgrade path with 1,5 years ahead doesnt render it mute because you decide noone will upgrade during that period. 

5 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

EXACTLY. So for your average user who buys 2000 right now (and won't upgrade to 3000) going to 4000 or 5000 will be what they want, at which point they have no upgrade path except for buying older used parts

Vs buying even older parts....

 

Now that is an argument right there. You are arguing that the eol plattform of the 8100 is worth it because its more expencive, offer minor performance benefits and because AM4 will be eol in 2 years?

 

Um... Okay...

 

12 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

But we do know it's being ratified next month and that "PCIe 5.0 devices are in deep development stages" as per those articles.

We have been through this with @Stefan Payne. You know im too tired at this point to repeat the exact same points when you repeat the exact same points every time?

 

[jerubedo]

9 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

We have been through this with @Stefan Payne. You know im too tired at this point to repeat the exact same points when you repeat the exact same points every time?

You're both doing nothing more than taking guesses based on your assumptions. The hard facts are that PCIe 5.0 is coming, yes to server first, but then likely to desktop as well. We'll see soon enough.

 

9 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

Vs buying even older parts....

 

Now that is an argument right there. You are arguing that the eol plattform of the 8100 is worth it because its more expencive, offer minor performance benefits and because AM4 will be eol in 2 years?

 

Um... Okay...

Most people won't buy used parts anyway, they want new when upgrading.

 

9 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

Oh dear god. Why would you ever recommend garbage boards?

They serve their purpose on the lowest of budgets. I would never use them in a mid range budget build, that's for sure.

 

 

9 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

We have been over this twice now. Please dont make me go through it again.

Yes we have, and my point still stands at the end of it all. 

 

9 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

I have no words. Here, im just tired of having to say this again. Having no upgrade path and having a upgrade path with 1,5 years ahead doesnt render it mute because you decide noone will upgrade during that period. 

Firstly, PLEASE, it's moot, not mute lol. Secondly, yeah it does make it a moot point. Why would anyone spend money on a used older part when they can have the latest tech at the time which will be way faster. When 4000 or 5000 hits, who is going to want to buy a 'lowly' 3000? Who is going to want to be on DDR4 when DDR5 is out?

 

[GoldenLag]

3 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

They serve their purpose on the lowest of budgets. I would never use them in a mid range budget build, that's for sure.

No builds deserve bad boards regardless of how budget they are. Mostl because you can make it work when you dont spend 20$ extra on a CPU that isnt worth it.

5 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

Most people won't buy used parts anyway, they want new when upgrading.

That is system overhauls. People quite often like to just swap one component at the time. And AM4 has a tendency to stay on tye market ling after the actual products havr been superceeded. Hence the r3 1200 being around. 

6 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

s we have, and my point still stands at the end of it all

Your point is: they wont upgrade untill x date. Hense those extra gens of upgrade paths are irrelevant. 

 

Yep, rock solid that one......

 

8 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

When 4000 or 5000 hits, who is going to want to buy a 'lowly' 3000?

Quitw a few people who are looking at budget stuff. 

8 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

Who is going to want to be on DDR4 when DDR5 is out?

Just about everyone on a previous plattform that wants to do a cheap upgrade without having to swap mobo? DDR5 arrived with a plattform swap and end in 2021. I dont get how its an argument when its an adoption coming at some point in the future. Like i get it, but its such a poor reasoning its sad.

11 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

Firstly, PLEASE, it's moot, not mute lol. Secondly, yeah it does make it a moot point.

My english is fine. Idc.

 

Ill be gone for 8 hours. This thread is just depressing at this point. We have gone through every reasoming and 8 month old info you have. Like i get your Points, but they dont add up nor apply in todays market. At this point its repetition, something that doesnt go anywhere with you standing not budging to admit that perhaps the 8100 isnt as good of a choice as you first thought.