Why I switched from a 3700X to a 9700K (a reaction to Linus' Why I still love Intel video)

[KarathKasun]

Just now, GDRRiley said:

It’s not always low hanging fruit. It’s just a push to make the chips actually faster so they can gain market share. they also though have 2 teams working on chips that leapfrog. Intel has at least 4 right now. (Cove, lake, and 2 others I can’t remember)

Not really as much as you think.  Intel has problems that stem from basic architecture design concepts that can only be addressed with a VERY low level redesign.  That kind of thing takes the better part of 5 years to push out.  Ryzen wasn't something that just happened, it was the reason that AMD dropped any work on BD/PD core designs.  It took 5+ years of work to get 1st gen Ryzen to market, and it still had major issues when it launched.

 

AFAIK Intel has a central development team for the basic architecture and other teams that take that and twiddle it for specific markets.  Intel also has 10x the workforce.

[5x5]

And yet, 4 years after the launch of Zen, intel are still on Skylake+++++++++. I think their workforce is slacking quite a bit. Maybe if the CEO wasn't busy with his secretary and I sider trading, intel wouldn't be in a hole (Krzanich is a meme at this point)

[KarathKasun]

1 minute ago, 5x5 said:

And yet, 4 years after the launch of Zen, intel are still on Skylake+++++++++. I think their workforce is slacking quite a bit. Maybe if the CEO wasn't busy with his secretary and I sider trading, intel wouldn't be in a hole (Kraznich is a meme at this point)

Quote

Intel has problems that stem from basic architecture design concepts that can only be addressed with a VERY low level redesign.  That kind of thing takes the better part of 5 years to push out.  Ryzen wasn't something that just happened, it was the reason that AMD dropped any work on BD/PD core designs.  It took 5+ years of work to get 1st gen Ryzen to market, and it still had major issues when it launched.

This is why they are still using Kaby Lake cores with no real improvement.  They are 100% working on something from scratch new while the minor dev teams just copy and paste cores onto existing designs.

[5x5]

Just now, KarathKasun said:

 

Intel have been vocal that the earliest we can expect a new uarch is 2022. Meaning they were literally circlejerking themselves while Zen+ was already here

[KarathKasun]

2 minutes ago, 5x5 said:

Intel have been vocal that the earliest we can expect a new uarch is 2022. Meaning they were literally circlejerking themselves while Zen+ was already here

2017 to 2022 sounds a lot like ~5 years.  Which is about the time needed for a new ground-up architecture.

[5x5]

2 minutes ago, KarathKasun said:

2017 to 2022 sounds a lot like ~5 years.  Which is about the time needed for a new ground-up architecture.

Skylake came out in 2015, though, and intel haven't been able to raise IPC since Haswell in 2013. The Skylake performance came from DDR4 and memory management, not a CPU innovation on the chip itself. The ringbus design is even older dating back to 2011 with Sandy. They hVent done anything meaningful for around 7 years at least

[KarathKasun]

2 minutes ago, 5x5 said:

Skylake came out in 2015, though, and intel haven't been able to raise IPC since Haswell in 2013. The Skylake performance came from DDR4 and memory management, not a CPU innovation on the chip itself. The ringbus design is even older dating back to 2011 with Sandy. They hVent done anything meaningful for around 7 years at least

And AMD hadnt done anything of real merit for 12 years before Ryzen (excepting that they blew a ton of cash on hookers and blow).  Whats your point?

[5x5]

1 minute ago, KarathKasun said:

And AMD hadnt done anything of real merit for 12 years before Ryzen (excepting that they blew a ton of cash on hookers and blow).  Whats your point?

12? You mean 6. Phenom II was competitive up until 2011. Also my point is intel have been resting on their laurals for a long time because they were the market leader and now they're getting punished for selling the same old CPU under a new IHS

[KarathKasun]

3 minutes ago, 5x5 said:

12? You mean 6. Phenom II was competitive up until 2011. Also my point is intel have been resting on their laurals for a long time because they were the market leader and now they're getting punished for selling the same old CPU under a new IHS

12.

 

Phenom II was not considerably better than Phenom I outside of much better clocks.  Phenom I was A64 with some tweaks and four cores per package.  BD was slower than PH I/II per clock.  AMD coasted on the A64 design for nearly 15 years in total.

[Mister Woof]

2 minutes ago, KarathKasun said:

12.

 

Phenom II was not considerably better than Phenom I outside of much better clocks.

It was better than FX though lol

 

I had both an AMD Phenom IIx4 965 and later an FX-6300.

 

The Phenom played games better.

 

Intel may be only moving at a snail's pace, but at least they aren't going BACKWARDS.

[KarathKasun]

1 minute ago, Mister Woof said:

It was better than FX though lol

 

I had both an AMD Phenom IIx4 965 and later an FX-6300.

 

The Phenom played games better.

 

Intel may be only moving at a snail's pace, but at least they aren't going BACKWARDS.

They are moving at the A64 -> Phenom II pace currently, but they are doing dev work on something new.  I'd put money on it.

[5x5]

3 minutes ago, Mister Woof said:

It was better than FX though lol

 

I had both an AMD Phenom IIx4 965 and later an FX-6300.

 

The Phenom played games better.

 

Intel may be only moving at a snail's pace, but at least they aren't going BACKWARDS.

Well, the 250W stock i9 in the news section is reminiscent of the 9590

[Mister Woof]

1 minute ago, 5x5 said:

Well, the 250W stock i9 in the news section is reminiscent of the 9590

Except it at least puts out. The 9590 just got hot, that's it.

[KarathKasun]

Just now, 5x5 said:

Well, the 250W stock i9 in the news section is reminiscent of the 9590

Except its actually significantly faster overall than the lower wattage chip it replaces.

[5x5]

Just now, Mister Woof said:

Except it at least puts out. The 9590 just got hot, that's it.

 

Just now, KarathKasun said:

Except its actually significantly faster overall than the lower wattage chip it replaces.

So far, still behind the competition, though. As was FX9590

[Escapenz]

How are you hitting 40-50c on idle water cooled ? Mine runs at 20c. As for everything you said i have not had this. Possible could of had a bad chip or a rough mother board ? 

[AshRiver]

2 minutes ago, KarathKasun said:

Except its actually significantly faster overall than the lower wattage chip it replaces.

How fast are we talking? 10% fast for bleeding edge 14mn, a new motherboard, and $500ish cpu?

[KarathKasun]

6 minutes ago, AshRiver said:

How fast are we talking? 10% fast for bleeding edge 14mn, a new motherboard, and $500ish cpu?

Well, 2 more cores... so 25% at minimum.  Clocks are higher too, so likely closer to 35%.

 

CB R15 scores...

 

9900k - 2030

10900k - 2670

 

Look at that, 31%.  Ive gotten pretty good at pulling numbers out of thin air over the last 25 years.

[AshRiver]

Just now, KarathKasun said:

Well, 2 more cores... so 25% at minimum.  Clocks are higher too, so likely closer to 35%.

I wouldn't say 25% at minimum though. My bet is roughly 15% for the 14nm. In gaming probably 5% difference.

[KarathKasun]

3 minutes ago, AshRiver said:

I wouldn't say 25% at minimum though. My bet is roughly 15% for the 14nm. In gaming probably 5% difference.

Added numbers from the leaks.  31%.  i9 isnt a gaming CPU TBQH, its a low end workstation CPU.

[Mister Woof]

2 minutes ago, AshRiver said:

I wouldn't say 25% at minimum though. My bet is roughly 15% for the 14nm. In gaming probably 5% difference.

In gaming I don't expect a real world difference between equally clocked 8700k and 10900k tbh

[AshRiver]

1 minute ago, KarathKasun said:

Added numbers from the leaks.  31%.

Waiting for the reviews. -16%

[Mister Woof]

11 minutes ago, 5x5 said:

 

So far, still behind the competition, though. As was FX9590

Yeah, bit there's orders of magnitude of difference 

[KarathKasun]

Just now, Mister Woof said:

In gaming I don't expect a real world difference between equally clocked 8700k and 10900k tbh

Nope.  They use the same core, if you can get equal clocks you get equal performance.

 

You shouldnt be looking at more than 8 cores for gaming anyway.

[Mister Woof]

2 minutes ago, KarathKasun said:

Nope.  They use the same core, if you can get equal clocks you get equal performance.

 

You shouldnt be looking at more than 8 cores for gaming anyway.

Yeah, I'm just saying there's no improvement for real life users because usually only enthusiasts buy k chips and most enthusiasts overclock anyway so the stock clock improvements are largely meaningless.