Intel Core i5-10600 spotted in MSI board company

[Magus]

[deleted]

[LogicWeasel]

4 hours ago, porina said:

If they had used better binned parts

and that's a luxury they cannot afford right now with all the OEMs screaming at them to fix supply shortages.  Dell and HP are losing money right now because Intel didn't get enough 10th gen parts in their hands and their 9th gen supply was wound-down (back when they still thought they were going to make 10nm work) so now they're scrambling hard to get 14nm silicon out the door.  Intel doesn't have time to cherry pick their 10th gen stuff, they just need to ship more SKUs before Dell and HP get fed up enough to wait for AMD to fill that gap more and ramp their production instead.

[Arika]

And here i am still happily sitting on a 7600k with no desire to upgrade because it keeps up with literally everything i do.

[porina]

1 hour ago, LogicWeasel said:

 

I was talking about AMD. They're using all the higher bins on Epyc and Threadripper, lesser extent 39xxX. The 3600/3700 get the bottom of the barrel parts.

[LogicWeasel]

16 minutes ago, porina said:

I was talking about AMD. They're using all the higher bins on Epyc and Threadripper, lesser extent 39xxX. The 3600/3700 get the bottom of the barrel parts.

Gotcha, I was following the logic on the other side that for gaming Intel is still competing with itself on Coffee-Lake 8000-series and until they find performance gains or better binned parts, they will be stuck trying to beat the 8700k prior-gen product.  It seems the only thing they could tack-on for i7-9700k was adding 2 more real cores, but to not give away the farm they yanked out Hyperthreading.

[Unixsystem]

14 hours ago, Magus said:

Since mitigations largely negate improvements, new CPUs from Intel are basically just security updates.

 

Intel is becoming the new Adobe Flash security-wise. One bandaid after another. People will eventually start leaving it because they'll realize that it's the very science behind their designs that are flawed security-wise, and thus every security update will just be followed by a new way of getting around it.

 

They obviously need some big changes to the fundamentals of their CPU architectures, and I think that's what they're struggling with right now. They've come to realize (or, rather, recently forced to acknowledge) that the way they've been doing things for the past decade or so is wrong, and undoing that this far into the future after they've built upon that flawed design for years and years is... going to be clusterfuck for them.

 

This is why they should've done the right thing and fixed it when they first became aware of it. Not just because it was the morally correct thing to do, but because it was also logically the right thing to do, unless you're absolutely short-sighted and prioritize only tomorrow's gains. Unfortunately, most businesses tend to be that way, especially publicly traded ones which have stockholders to answer to.

 

I hope they get this fixed in Comet Lake and so forth, but I have a feeling that this is an issue that exists in the very science of their designs and will take years to fully fix, so they'll just keep patching for one specific thing after another until they can finally get a truly fixed product to market in 5+ years. Total speculation on my part of course, but it makes sense that it'd take a decade to fix a problem that you refused to acknowledge and continued to build on top of for a decade.

While Intel absolutely deserves to be criticized for its security failures the last few years, I don't think we have any real evidence that AMD is inherently more secure. Hackers are always going to target whatever has the most marketshare in order to maximize the impact of their exploits; there's no real benefit to digging out AMD exploits if it means that at best you'll be able to hit 10-15% of computers. 

 

Is AMD potentially more secure than Intel? Possibly, but until AMD has comparable or greater marketshare then there's really no way to have an apples to apples comparison. It's just the "Macs don't get viruses" argument all over again. 

[MageTank]

On 12/13/2019 at 5:14 PM, RejZoR said:

It has everything to do with money. If that was irrelevant, EVERYONE would be rocking 1099999999KS and EPYC ROMAN EMPIRE CPU's... The sole reason I even mentioned my ancient 5820K is how little we've progressed in all these years when it comes to CPU's. And if it wasn't for AMD's recent insane core count releases, my old clunker would still be relevant for next 5 years...

It really doesn't. You stated there was no IPC increase between Haswell and Skylake, which is false. You changed the context to make it about money once that was pointed out. The price of a processor has nothing to do with it's IPC relative to older processors.

[RejZoR]

1 hour ago, MageTank said:

It really doesn't. You stated there was no IPC increase between Haswell and Skylake, which is false. You changed the context to make it about money once that was pointed out. The price of a processor has nothing to do with it's IPC relative to older processors.

Bullshit. Would you pay 400 or 500 EUR or USD for whatever pointless tiny pathetic IPC gain they made from Haswell to Skylake? Bullshit you would. Money. It's all about money.

[Princess Luna]

8 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

Bullshit. Would you pay 400 or 500 EUR or USD for whatever pointless tiny pathetic IPC gain they made from Haswell to Skylake? Bullshit you would. Money. It's all about money.

I'm truly not understanding what you're trying to say here.

 

Are you trying to say that the i7 8700K is bad because you bought an i7 5820K and felt it wasn't enough of a upgrade? Because if that's the case then good for you that you don't have to spend any money yet as your current processor is still adequate.

 

It doesn't change one bit that the i7 8700K is indeed a faster processor and was more affordable than the i7 5820K were making it a superior product. That's very straight forwards.

 

Whoever was buying a CPU then and opted for the i7 8700K made a good choice and I'm fairly sure most of them weren't coming from something like the i7 5820K.

[justpoet]

On 12/14/2019 at 6:25 PM, Waffles13 said:

While Intel absolutely deserves to be criticized for its security failures the last few years, I don't think we have any real evidence that AMD is inherently more secure. Hackers are always going to target whatever has the most marketshare in order to maximize the impact of their exploits; there's no real benefit to digging out AMD exploits if it means that at best you'll be able to hit 10-15% of computers. 

 

Is AMD potentially more secure than Intel? Possibly, but until AMD has comparable or greater marketshare then there's really no way to have an apples to apples comparison. It's just the "Macs don't get viruses" argument all over again. 

So, both of your arguments are a bit incorrect here, but because you're using absolutes.

 

AMD *IS* inherently more secure with the zen architectures in that the designs and methodologies have been from/for the server space, including virtualization security, as primary thoughts and guidelines, and then filtered back to mainstream.  Much like Apple built upon unix with OS X and Windows was at the time struggling to try and figure out if they could keep Windows Me as a base instead of NT/Server 2000.  

 

In both cases, the examples absolutely *ARE* inherently more secure.  More secure doesn't mean perfect security though, obviously.  I'm sure we will see a couple come out for AMD specific issues that don't affect intel, but the sheer number of them that have come out for intel and been because of "we just went for performance gains with this even though the people who came up with it said we shouldn't use it because of security concerns, or never expected us to use it so didn't refine it" is pretty telling.

[MageTank]

9 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

Bullshit. Would you pay 400 or 500 EUR or USD for whatever pointless tiny pathetic IPC gain they made from Haswell to Skylake? Bullshit you would. Money. It's all about money.

Dial back on those emotions buddy. The only point I am making is that when I originally quoted you, you never mentioned price. You made a false statement which I've highlighted below:

On 12/13/2019 at 12:28 PM, RejZoR said:

8700K is better just because of higher clocks. People keep on lapping about "IPC" improvements, but the reality is, IPC hasn't changed for years in Intel's camp, all the per core gains they make are clock based. 8700K is faster per core because it turbos to 4.7GHz or is all core overclocked to that or more. And because of cache sizes or tweaks in that department. IPC frankly isn't one of them. If my 5820K could clock to 4.7GHz it would be pretty much the same thing.

Nowhere in this post did you mention price or cost. Even in the post you made prior to this, cost was never discussed:

On 12/13/2019 at 11:23 AM, RejZoR said:

I still have 5820K which is basically the same thing. The IPC thing is debatable and it has 200MHz higher clock than mine in OC state. It's nic ethat R5 2600 and 3600 series kicked Intel around to finally step up the game.

You did not mention price until AFTER I quoted you. The context prior to that was simply about performance and IPC between the two processors. Price has absolutely nothing to do with how fast a processor is to one another. It only matters if you are discussing price:performance, which you were not in the posts I quoted. Don't remove context and supplement it with your own simply because it suits your narrative. If you're going to change the context of the conversation, then do it correctly by saying "I understand. Let's discuss price:performance". 

 

Oh, and to answer your first question, yes, I would. I've owned every Intel processor since Core2Quad. I tend to upgrade every year (aside from the last year, still using my 8700k). For me, money has nothing to do with it. I care only about benching and overclocking. Worth is subjective my friend.

[RejZoR]

Just now, Princess Luna said:

I'm truly not understanding what you're trying to say here.

 

Are you trying to say that the i7 8700K is bad because you bought an i7 5820K and felt it wasn't enough of a upgrade? Because if that's the case then good for you that you don't have to spend any money yet as your current processor is still adequate.

 

It doesn't change one bit that the i7 8700K is indeed a faster processor and was more affordable than the i7 5820K were making it a superior product. That's very straight forwards.

 

Whoever was buying a CPU then and opted for the i7 8700K made a good choice and I'm fairly sure they most weren't coming from something like the i7 5820K.

My point was, if overclocking is not a problem and you already have 5820K, buying 8700K is a money thrown away. In fact, as I was looking at 3900X game tests, buying 3900X wouldn't really benefit me much even in gaming either, despite many more cores and IPC gains that are even above anything Skylake. I'd be throwing money away even with this one. I was hyped by Zen 2 and it delivered, just not for my needs and as such decided to skip it yet again. If you do compute and encoding, sure, it's a huge upgrade. For gaming, 3-5fps difference really wouldn't change much on the low end and on the high, framerates are usually so high anyway even 20 or 30fps doesn't change anything either. As upgrades, most of CPU's are pointless, it all only matters if you are a new user and you have nothing to upgrade from. Which is why I'm just waiting for AM5 with latest CPU tech and DDR5. And even then I wonder if CPU's will evolve enough to make a worthy difference.

[justpoet]

9 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

As upgrades, most of CPU's are pointless, it all only matters if you are a new user and you have nothing to upgrade from. Which is why I'm just waiting for AM5 with latest CPU tech and DDR5. And even then I wonder if CPU's will evolve enough to make a worthy difference.

I would suggest that whatever the next mainstream full pc memory tech is (probably DDR5), will be enough of an advantage in most workflows once chips are designed for it, that it will be worth it, even if it is in the Ryzen example, just an updated IO die between the existing chiplets.  That being said, AMD did say their next would have other gains as well as a process node upgrade, so it could hit on several fronts and be "the time" rather than "a reasonable upgrade".  Nobody will really know until much closer to next gen parts launch though.  That should™ also bring along PCIe 5, which while not even close to being needed now (we still don't saturate 3 except with SSD), would be a decent element of future-proof type tech as well.

 

Depending on the promises of the new socket (if it is normal vs a multi-year promise like AM4), I'll probably bother to build a dedicated gaming/simulation rig around then, either with cheaper 3950 or whatever is new, depending on the performance/value tradeoff.

 

I expect the generation after that, intel will be fully back into the competition.

[Princess Luna]

1 minute ago, RejZoR said:

My point was, if overclocking is not a problem and you already have 5820K, buying 8700K is a money thrown away. In fact, as I was looking at 3900X game tests, buying 3900X wouldn't really benefit me much even in gaming either, despite many more cores and IPC gains that are even above anything Skylake.

You're making your personal case sound like it's a rule of thumb for every one else, if you don't need the i7 8700K or R9 3900X because your i7 5820K is holding strong that's your individual case, a lot of people need to buy a brand new processor for multiple reasons and to them whatever improvements these SKUs had over the past ones is welcome.

3 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

I'd be throwing money away even with this one. I was hyped by Zen 2 and it delivered, just not for my needs and as such decided to skip it yet again.

That's all fine like we have been talking now, nobody is trying to justify to you that upgrading from your i7 5820K is worth the money investment, that is something only you can decide on. What people are trying to explain to you is that these processors are worth what they cost on today's market.

 

5 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

If you do compute and encoding, sure, it's a huge upgrade. For gaming, 3-5fps difference really wouldn't change much on the low end and on the high, framerates are usually so high anyway even 20 or 30fps doesn't change anything either. As upgrades, most of CPU's are pointless, it all only matters if you are a new user and you have nothing to upgrade from.

This has been what we've been telling you all along, there are multiple instances someone simply needs a new processor and if they are cashing in extra 3-5fps that's already added value vs older parts. In no moment this was ever a discussion that one must upgrade for gaming.

 

6 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

Which is why I'm just waiting for AM5 with latest CPU tech and DDR5. And even then I wonder if CPU's will evolve enough to make a worthy difference.

You can do whatever the hell you want, this thread is about how Intel may have gotten stale for the 10th gen so if you think you'll be better off with AMD's 5000 series that's great for you to have a plan, I just don't get it why you're claiming Intel's making no progress what so ever and bashing it beyond necessity.

 

Intel did improve over the years with the 14nm refreshments, if these changes are enough to warrant an upgrade or not is up to the individual user to decide.

[Stu_Bear]

On 12/16/2019 at 8:35 AM, RejZoR said:

My point was, if overclocking is not a problem and you already have 5820K, buying 8700K is a money thrown away. In fact, as I was looking at 3900X game tests, buying 3900X wouldn't really benefit me much even in gaming either, despite many more cores and IPC gains that are even above anything Skylake. I'd be throwing money away even with this one. I was hyped by Zen 2 and it delivered, just not for my needs and as such decided to skip it yet again. If you do compute and encoding, sure, it's a huge upgrade. For gaming, 3-5fps difference really wouldn't change much on the low end and on the high, framerates are usually so high anyway even 20 or 30fps doesn't change anything either. As upgrades, most of CPU's are pointless, it all only matters if you are a new user and you have nothing to upgrade from. Which is why I'm just waiting for AM5 with latest CPU tech and DDR5. And even then I wonder if CPU's will evolve enough to make a worthy difference.

I don't think anything more powerful than a 8700k is of any use to us simple enthusiasts (perhaps only speaking for myself).  Only advantage it has over my old i5-8500 is it removed the stuttering in a few games like Dayz.  Did not boost fps in any games that I've noticed nor in Heaven benchmark.  Overclocking a 8700k too is just a means to kill boredom and an exercise in futility in my case.  Overclocking mine to 5ghz results in a lower R15 score than just enabling MCE @ 4.7ghz and ramping up the clock to 102.9.

 

I too am a firm believer that frame rates above 54hz is just for bragging rights to 95% of us.  That 54hz is the minimum number where fluid gameplay is perceived...54hz is achievable with even an i3-8300 provided you have a graphics card to match your display's demand to drive the pixel-count/frames.  Not saying more fps is bad...just not worth the hassle to chase after 144hz/240hz at the expense of hundreds/thousands of dollars.  That said when a 4k ultrawide monitor and graphics card powerful enough to drive all games at 54hz @ 0.1% minimums can be had for $800 combined and including tax/shipping...I'll be the first in line.  Maybe we are 5 years away?

 

 

[RejZoR]

15 hours ago, Stu_Bear said:

I don't think anything more powerful than a 8700k is of any use to us simple enthusiasts (perhaps only speaking for myself).  Only advantage it has over my old i5-8500 is it removed the stuttering in a few games like Dayz.  Did not boost fps in any games that I've noticed nor in Heaven benchmark.  Overclocking a 8700k too is just a means to kill boredom and an exercise in futility in my case.  Overclocking mine to 5ghz results in a lower R15 score than just enabling MCE @ 4.7ghz and ramping up the clock to 102.9.

 

I too am a firm believer that frame rates above 54hz is just for bragging rights to 95% of us.  That 54hz is the minimum number where fluid gameplay is perceived...54hz is achievable with even an i3-8300 provided you have a graphics card to match your display's demand to drive the pixel-count/frames.  Not saying more fps is bad...just not worth the hassle to chase after 144hz/240hz at the expense of hundreds/thousands of dollars.  That said when a 4k ultrawide monitor and graphics card powerful enough to drive all games at 54hz @ 0.1% minimums can be had for $800 combined and including tax/shipping...I'll be the first in line.  Maybe we are 5 years away?

 

 

It's not. Killing Floor 2 is locked to 60fps out of the box. In main menu, mouse is literally stuttering at 60fps across the screen in a sluggish fashion which is literally unplayable for me. And during gameplay, I can actually sense it's everything wrong. Yesterday I tried locking it to 100fps with NVIDIA's new setting in latest drivers. Same. Only way it feels good is if framerate goes way beyond that for me. At locked 144fps is perfectly smooth, but gets pretty bad when framerate drops to 100-ish. I'm suspecting it's game's fault too since NFS Heat wasn't exhibiting this issue so terribly and I know framerate dropped there to 100-ish too. But still, the fact is, 50fps or 60fps is no longer a golden standard and hasn't been for as long as I own 144Hz display with graphic card that can push the framerate to feed it. Playing at anything else is literally painful for me. I may question 240Hz or now even 360Hz, because it's hard to push such framerate from modern AAA game on basically any graphic card so they are only eSports thing which I frankly don't care about.

[Bombastinator]

On 12/13/2019 at 9:48 AM, LogicWeasel said:

There were already signs that with hardware mitigations added to the 10th gen (and the fact that they're so stuck on 14nm it hurts) that the chips are hardly even an improvement.  I think it was also some leaks about how the mobile 10th gen is almost no better, and the high-end 10th gen can't really top the 9900KS.  Makes sense then that they'd start tacking on features they held back on before like hyperthreading for the i5 line just to try to differentiate an already crowded stack of refreshed 14nm Skylake-based design.

They may not be.  They’ll likely have to compete on price.  Competing on price sucks.  It’s the thing sellers least like to do.  It may have to be done though.  A 6/12 core i5 of it meets the same single and multi thread benchmarks is a slightly better 3600. Mostly because of the iGPU. As such if they sell it at the same price as a 3600 they win.  They’ll have to do so though.

[Bombastinator]

On 12/14/2019 at 7:46 AM, Arika S said:

And here i am still happily sitting on a 7600k with no desire to upgrade because it keeps up with literally everything i do.

Wouldn’t that get warm?  Asses don’t make great heat sinks.