The new Intel Core i7 11700K is being sold already in Germany and Denmark, list price of the 11900K leaked

[D13H4RD]

9 hours ago, RejZoR said:

Priced close? 5800X is around 450€, 5900X is around 700€ (I know prices are weird currently, but that's what it is). I wanted more cores than I had before (8c/16t vs 6c/12t), but didn't feel like I need that many to justify almost 700€ for 5900X. Also single CCX has its perks. Smaller, but there are. I don't see how it's positioned weird when you're not buying these things for just 2 years.

As I said, there are reasons to buy a 5800X, there just aren’t nearly as many to buy it over a 5600X or 5900X assuming both are at MSRP. And those reasons tend to be specific like wanting more cores but unable to justify going all the way to a 12 core or you want the higher binned Zen 3 cores in a single CCX.

 

I’ve already also said no one should feel bad for buying a 5800X because it’s a fundamentally good product...

[Bombastinator]

4 minutes ago, D13H4RD said:

As I said, there are reasons to buy a 5800X, there just aren’t nearly as many to buy it over a 5600X or 5900X assuming both are at MSRP.

 

I’ve already also said no one should feel bad for buying a 5800X because it’s a fundamentally good product...

Agreed.  There’s nothing actually wrong with the 5800x, especially since msrp has left the building. 

[leadeater]

6 hours ago, Kisai said:

Intel can't produce a cooler chip, otherwise it would be able to produce a 16 core cpu and beat the AMD cpu's by a mile

Yes they can, Intel uses the same 14nm process on Xeons all the way up to 28 cores. What Intel cannot do is have a consumer desktop die with up to 16 cores that is cost effective (they could refresh their HEDT line which is already ~3950X but it would still be only roughly that but slightly better). Intel has also been struggling to meet demand and by putting their high volume consumer products on to an architecture and die design that is significantly larger would greatly reduce the number of chips per wafer, lower yields which in turn results in a reduction of end product output compounding the supply issue even more.

 

Intel right now has no problem producing 16 core CPUs with actually decent clocks even though these are exclusively found in their stability focused Xeon product range, HEDT doesn't have a 16 core option and also has lower default TDP but they are unlocked so that's basically irrelevant.

 

We can look at something like the Xeon W-3245 which is a 16 core CPU, ~4.0GHz all core, 4.6GHz peak boost and 205W TDP with strict adherence to that. Xeon 6246R is very similar as well, more expensive and supports dual socket.

 

Or we could look at the Xeon 6242 which is a 16 core CPU, ~3.5GHz all core, 3.9GHz boost (TB2.0) and 150W TDP with strict adherence to that.

 

Now lets have a look at a stock 5950X. Also 16 cores, ~3.8GHz all core, ~ 5GHz peak boost, 105W TDP 142W PPT with ~120W-130W all core.

 

AMD with TSMC 7nm as you can see from above is actually not that significantly ahead under higher clocks and higher loads, it's decently better but Intel's 14nm is certainly comparable in all aspects other than transistor density and power management (but that's an architectural aspect not fabrication node).

 

6 hours ago, Kisai said:

So part for part, Intel's CPU's are 14nm and therefor take 4x the area that a 7nm cpu would.

This is not at all accurate. AMD Ryzen 9 2x CCD + 1x IOD (80.7 + 80.7 + 125) is 286.4mm² where as Intel's Cascade Lake-SP HCC (18 cores) die is 484mm² so less than double the size for complete functional product vs complete functional product, and Intel's HCC die has vastly more PCIe lanes and memory channels. AMD has yet to move any of the IOD to a more dense node for their CPUs (not APUs).

 

6 hours ago, Kisai said:

cpu's since their 14nm's are max out at 8

Also not correct, Intel has had 10 core consumer desktop parts on 14nm. The 10900K.

[RejZoR]

3 hours ago, D13H4RD said:

As I said, there are reasons to buy a 5800X, there just aren’t nearly as many to buy it over a 5600X or 5900X assuming both are at MSRP. And those reasons tend to be specific like wanting more cores but unable to justify going all the way to a 12 core or you want the higher binned Zen 3 cores in a single CCX.

 

I’ve already also said no one should feel bad for buying a 5800X because it’s a fundamentally good product...

I mean, most people buying 5600X are coming from ancient 2500K or lesser core count modern CPU's like 6700K/7700K. For them 5600X is a significant upgrade in IPC and core count. For me, coming from 5820K, it just wouldn't be. It's why I opted for 5800X. It's a good balance of core count and IPC uplift. It's why I didn't even consider Ryzen 3000 series. They just weren't significant enough. Also I wasn't particularly limited by budget as I was by picking a reasonable "powerhouse".

[WolframaticAlpha]

On 2/28/2021 at 5:33 PM, leadeater said:

Zen 3 isn't on a different node, Zen 2 and Zen 3 are on the same TSMC 7nm node.

 

Ryzen is exclusively product naming btw, if you're talking about microarchitectures it's Zen (Product = longer name, architecture = shorter name). 

Sorry to be that annoying guy, but

Zen is a micro architecture, whereas x86/x64 is the architecture.

 

And so, intel has the opposite thing going on,

Their products are: Core iX

 but their microarchitectures are: Alder Lake-S, Sandy Bridge etc.

 

Peace out.

 

[leadeater]

3 minutes ago, WolframaticAlpha said:

Zen is a micro architecture, whereas x86/x64 is the architecture.

 

On 3/1/2021 at 1:03 AM, leadeater said:

if you're talking about microarchitectures it's Zen

[WolframaticAlpha]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

 

Sorry didn't read that message. Very sorry.

[leadeater]

2 minutes ago, WolframaticAlpha said:

Sorry didn't read that message. Very sorry.

It's fine, thought it was funny/amusing tbh.

[Dabombinable]

18 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

I mean, most people buying 5600X are coming from ancient 2500K or lesser core count modern CPU's like 6700K/7700K. For them 5600X is a significant upgrade in IPC and core count. For me, coming from 5820K, it just wouldn't be. It's why I opted for 5800X. It's a good balance of core count and IPC uplift. It's why I didn't even consider Ryzen 3000 series. They just weren't significant enough. Also I wasn't particularly limited by budget as I was by picking a reasonable "powerhouse".

My 3700X is substantially faster single threaded with eco mode enabled than my i7 4790K was at 4.8GHz (check the Cinebench thread for comparison). Even the 3000 series would have been significant as an upgrade.

[RejZoR]

35 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

My 3700X is substantially faster single threaded with eco mode enabled than my i7 4790K was at 4.8GHz (check the Cinebench thread for comparison). Even the 3000 series would have been significant as an upgrade.

You were gaining IPC and also many many cores. What would I gain with 5600X ? Some IPC? Just not worth the effort.

[ravenshrike]

On 3/1/2021 at 7:27 AM, AzzaNezz said:

For noob like me who doesnt understand it,why cant intel go lower then 14nm,and amd can go to 7nm

Because as I understand things they got way, way too aggressive in density when designing their 10nm and to a lesser extent their 7nm processes so the processes have completely shit yields.

On 3/1/2021 at 7:50 PM, FakeKGB said:

No.

Intel region-locks chips.

 

/s

If they thought they could get away with it I'm sure they would.

[Dabombinable]

3 hours ago, RejZoR said:

You were gaining IPC and also many many cores. What would I gain with 5600X ? Some IPC? Just not worth the effort.

3700X would have still given you both. The 5820X is only Haswell E after all. The 5600X would still be a massive improvement in both areas as multi threaded it is very close to the 3700X. With 2 cores less.

 

CBR15 multi:

Spoiler

i7 5820K:

3700X with Eco mode enabled (the top 4790K score was the 4.8GHz run on my Asus H87M Pro):

Spoiler

 

5600X:

Spoiler

https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_ryzen_5_5600x_review,8.html

 

[AlphaLemming]

On 3/1/2021 at 5:52 PM, CTR640 said:

What are the normal prices of the 5800X? Did AMD raise it by €50? Netherlands got them in stock but I ain't upgrading my 4770.

If I want/have to upgrade, I wanna make it big.

 

The 5800X prices so far:

https://tweakers.net/pricewatch/1618234/amd-ryzen-7-5800x-boxed.html

You can try to order it from alternate.de, there are often offers for ~430€, last week it was also on sale for 419€ for a day or so.

If you know anyone in Germany they could also get it from mindfactory.de for you, it goes on sale frequently for even less, currently they have an offer for the 5600x for 319€ (sadly they don't ship to other countries).

[D13H4RD]

2 hours ago, Dabombinable said:

3700X would have still given you both. The 5820X is only Haswell E after all. The 5600X would still be a massive improvement in both areas as multi threaded it very close to the 3700X. With 2 cores less.

 

CBR15 multi:

  Hide contents

i7 5820K:

3700X with Eco mode enabled (the top 4790K score was the 4.8GHz run on my Asus H87M Pro):

  Reveal hidden contents

 

5600X:

  Reveal hidden contents

https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_ryzen_5_5600x_review,8.html

 

This all goes back to a statement HWUnboxed Steve made when wrapping up one of his CPU reviews.

 

In that people should be focusing on CPU performance as a whole, not just the core count. There's far more into what makes a good CPU than cores, threads and IPC.

[Loote]

4 hours ago, AlphaLemming said:

If you know anyone in Germany they could also get it from mindfactory.de for you, it goes on sale frequently for even less, currently they have an offer for the 5600x for 319€ (sadly they don't ship to other countries).

Or use https://www.mailboxde.com/, for me it's a bit over 12 Euro additionally, I bought my Oneplus One using it years ago and everything worked well.

[porina]

17 hours ago, Kisai said:

I really want people to stop using this as a defense against picking Intel.

It was stating a simple fact, in a similar way it would be wrong to say for example 14F was hotter than 7C. At best the numerical values might be comparable within one scale, but even that is not a given. If you know of a way the "nm" rating directly relates to a physical feature of the process, please enlighten us. Without that, the rest of your reply is pretty much meaningless.

[Bombastinator]

4 minutes ago, porina said:

It was stating a simple fact, in a similar way it would be wrong to say for example 14F was hotter than 7C. At best the numerical values might be comparable within one scale, but even that is not a given. If you know of a way the "nm" rating directly relates to a physical feature of the process, please enlighten us. Without that, the rest of your reply is pretty much meaningless.

My understanding is it kind of doesn’t.  Or at least not in a way that is intuitive.  I’ve personally droppped the nm entirely because it’s deceptive.  I call it intel14 or TSMC7 or Samsung8.  They might as well be intelCat, SamsungDog, and TSMCParrokete

[porina]

2 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

My understanding is it kind of doesn’t.  Or at least not in a way that is intuitive.  I’ve personally droppped the nm entirely because it’s deceptive.  I call it intel14 or TSMC7 or Samsung8.  They might as well be intelCat, SamsungDog, and TSMCParrokete

That was the point. The nm rating isn't related to any particular physical feature in the process now. Maybe it did at some distant point in the past. So using it to compare very different processes across different fabs is nonsensical. Maybe it would be better to use the exact process name since they have variations, but I think like many I simply wouldn't be able to keep up with all of them.