Intel leak

[done12many2]

Just now, typographie said:

They could have just stayed with the Core 2 branding, if you want to look at it that way.

 

I personally think it makes a lot of sense to have a unique name for the pro/prosumer series of processors. "i3" and "i5" have a reasonably consistent meaning associated with them, but right now "i7" is a diluted catch-all term for everything between $350 and $1700. It's not a useful identifier if it applies to products so drastically different from one another. We enthusiasts already have to tell them apart by the 7700K/6900K/6950X digits or socket name anyway, and casual consumers have no idea why one i7 is different from another if Intel gives them no easy guideline to follow.

 

It is funny when you ask someone what processor they're running and they reply with "i7".  Then you ask them for more specifics and they say, "a newer one."

[Princess Luna]

4 minutes ago, done12many2 said:

 

It is funny when you ask someone what processor they're running and they reply with "i7".  Then you ask them for more specifics and they say, "a newer one."

You think that's bad? I know someone from college who bought an A10-7700k online thinking it was the i7 7700k.

[done12many2]

Just now, Princess Cadence said:

You think that's bad? I know someone from college who bought an A10-7700k online thinking it was the i7 7700k.

 

That is just sad.  I wonder if they notice a difference in performance.  lol

[Princess Luna]

2 minutes ago, done12many2 said:

 

That is just sad.  I wonder if they notice a difference in performance.  lol

He was clueless towards brands, he got an used Gigabyte z170 and asked the guy what processor is good for it, he said "the BIOS is already up-to-date so buy the 7700k.... well he did buy a 7700k.... lol.

[PCGuy_5960]

32 minutes ago, tom_w141 said:

You conveniently ignored half of my post  The other half says IPC and single core performance will be stronger but no one should be buying a 12-16 core CPU for single threaded tasks/gaming therefore making your comment rather invalid.

 

And yes it was there not edited in after this  

I know, but I don't think that a 5GHz 12 core would be much slower than a 3.8GHz 16 core, even in multithreaded applications...

For example, a 7700K at 5GHz is actually faster than a stock 6800K....

[tom_w141]

6 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

I know, but I don't think that a 5GHz 12 core would be much slower than a 3.8GHz 16 core, even in multithreaded applications...

For example, a 7700K at 5GHz is actually faster than a stock 6800K....

Very highly doubt this will run at 5GHz for a daily OC. we will have to wait and see though I guess for both companies. Also remember even if the i9 is slightly better its likely to be double the cost and therefore just like X99 vs AM4 very bad value. Intel are not alone anymore they may still edge out on top but no where near enough to justify their pricing.

[done12many2]

3 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

I know, but I don't think that a 5GHz 12 core would be much slower than a 3.8GHz 16 core, even in multithreaded applications...

For example, a 7700K at 5GHz is actually faster than a stock 6800K....

 

As far as the feel of the system, it'll kill it.  As far as gaming, again, it'll kill it. 

 

I don't think will see 5 GHz out of the 12c part, but I wouldn't doubt 4.7 to 4.8.  That'll be enough to crank out 205cb to 215cb single-threaded scores, which just makes for a snappy system.

 

This community still makes me laugh.  6 months ago, everyone swore by single-threaded performance and higher IPC/clockspeed chips.  Then Ryzen came out and more people could afford higher core count parts, but at the cost of single-threaded performance.  Over night, those people changed their minds and now swear by multi-threaded performance that they rarely use.  The best part.  Nothing's changed software wise in the last 6 months.  lol

 

I've been running my overclock 5960x for a long time and I can tell that it has been my most under utilized CPU to date.   

[PCGuy_5960]

8 minutes ago, tom_w141 said:

Very highly doubt this will run at 5GHz for a daily OC. we will have to wait and see though I guess for both companies. Also remember even if the i9 is slightly better its likely to be double the cost and therefore just like X99 vs AM4 very bad value.

You can't be sure... AMD will be using a 4000+ pin LGA socket, which will probably not be cheap, also, we can't be sure about performance either, because it looks like Intel will increase the L2 cache size, which may lead to significant performance improvements.

And TBH, I don't think that i9s will cost 2x more, since AMD is competitive right now

When X99 launched the best CPU made by AMD was the 9590

(But I think that X299 will cost 1.5x more or something like that)

[done12many2]

4 minutes ago, tom_w141 said:

Very highly doubt this will run at 5GHz for a daily OC. we will have to wait and see though I guess for both companies. Also remember even if the i9 is slightly better its likely to be double the cost and therefore just like X99 vs AM4 very bad value. Intel are not alone anymore they may still edge out on top but no where near enough to justify their pricing.

 

Agreed.  The Intel Extreme line has never been about value.  Intel doesn't market it with this purpose.  It's for the guys who want the best of the best.  Those guys are willing to spend money and Intel is willing to take it from them.  

 

A great example are the guys in the links below.  

 

http://www.3dmark.com/hall-of-fame-2/

 

http://www.3dmark.com/hall-of-fame-2/fire+strike+3dmark+score+performance+preset/version+1.1

[PCGuy_5960]

8 minutes ago, done12many2 said:

This community still makes me laugh.  6 months ago, everyone swore by single-threaded performance and higher IPC/clockspeed chips.  Then Ryzen came out and more people could afford higher core count parts, but at the cost of single-threaded performance.  Over night, those people changed their minds and now swear by multi-threaded performance that they rarely use.  The best part.  Nothing's changed software wise in the last 6 months.  lol

That's TRUE. Everyone was recommending the 7700K over the 6800K because of its superior single core performance. Now, suddenly everyone recommends a 1700 over a 7700K because of its superior multithreaded performance, make up your minds people, FFS. Lol

[typographie]

22 minutes ago, done12many2 said:

This community still makes me laugh.  6 months ago, everyone swore by single-threaded performance and higher IPC/clockspeed chips.  Then Ryzen came out and more people could afford higher core count parts, but at the cost of single-threaded performance.  Over night, those people changed their minds and now swear by multi-threaded performance that they rarely use.  The best part.  Nothing's changed software wise in the last 6 months.  lol

There's a constant preoccupation with what the community believes will happen in the future, even if the current advantages are hard to prove. That's not a new thing. Imagine all the people who bought FX-8150's in 2013 because they just knew Microsoft was going to patch Windows 8 to "properly use all the cores," or since the Xbone and PS4 had eight-core SoCs games would definitely start needing that many cores. Meanwhile, in most of the gaming benchmarks I've seen, i5's are still usually in competition with or often beating similarly priced Ryzen chips.

 

What they always forget is how glacially slow the installed user base moves to new tech. Yes, Ryzen is out and you can get a 6/8 core CPU with reasonably good per-core performance for much cheaper than ever, but most people don't buy a new CPU every time a new one comes out. Most people don't even pay attention to the launches. Ryzen's existence means core counts have gone up for the mainstream, and in maybe two or three years they will filter down to the masses enough that developers can feel secure in assuming we all have them.

[tom_w141]

22 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

That's TRUE. Everyone was recommending the 7700K over the 6800K because of its superior single core performance. Now, suddenly everyone recommends a 1700 over a 7700K because of its superior multithreaded performance, make up your minds people, FFS. Lol

People make this recommendation because of the new availability of this multithreaded performance to the mainstream by making it cheaper than the mainstream i7. This is why the recommendation has changed. When the 6800k cost more and required an expensive motherboard people said "yo don't waste your money on things you don't need just get the 6/7700k for cheaper, you don't need the multi core performance". Now an 8c/16t thread is not that far behind the 7700k on IPC and is cheaper than the i7. THAT is why advice has shifted. With these processors getting cheaper we should finally start to see gaming climbing out of the quad core stagnation caused by the Intel monopoly.

[tom_w141]

23 minutes ago, done12many2 said:

 

Agreed.  The Intel Extreme line has never been about value.  Intel doesn't market it with this purpose.  It's for the guys who want the best of the best.  Those guys are willing to spend money and Intel is willing to take it from them.  

 

A great example are the guys in the links below.  

 

http://www.3dmark.com/hall-of-fame-2/

 

http://www.3dmark.com/hall-of-fame-2/fire+strike+3dmark+score+performance+preset/version+1.1

Whitehaven based on info so far sounds like it will break current multicore records while still (likely) costing less than the i9

[PCGuy_5960]

1 minute ago, tom_w141 said:

People make this recommendation because of the new availability of this multithreaded performance to the mainstream by making it cheaper than the mainstream i7. This is why the recommendation has changed. When the 6800k cost more and required an expensive motherboard people said "yo don't waste your money on things you don't need just het the 6/7700k for cheaper. Now an 8c/16t thread is not that far behind the 7700k on IPC and is cheaper. THAT is why advice has shifted. With these processors getting cheaper we should finally start to see gaming climbing out of the quad core stagnation caused by the Intel monopoly.

But a 6800K/5820K didn't cost more than a 7700K and actually, AMD's Ryzen processors are 12% behind in IPC compared to Kabylake (according to AMD) and clocks suck (4GHz vs 5GHz). And games aren't using up to 4C/8T because Intel CPUs don't have more threads, games are usually built for consoles (unfortunately) which have 8 threads, so games really like the i7's Hyperthreads and can't really take advantage of more than 8 threads.

And the situation will probably not change for another 3-4 years

[done12many2]

6 minutes ago, tom_w141 said:

People make this recommendation because of the new availability of this multithreaded performance to the mainstream by making it cheaper than the mainstream i7. This is why the recommendation has changed. When the 6800k cost more and required an expensive motherboard people said "yo don't waste your money on things you don't need just get the 6/7700k for cheaper, you don't need the multi core performance". Now an 8c/16t thread is not that far behind the 7700k on IPC and is cheaper than the i7. THAT is why advice has shifted. With these processors getting cheaper we should finally start to see gaming climbing out of the quad core stagnation caused by the Intel monopoly.

 

That's actually not what the majority of recommendations were based on at all.  They were based on pure performance data.  All you've done is reshaped this.

 

[PCGuy_5960]

4 minutes ago, tom_w141 said:

Whitehaven based on info so far sounds like it will break current multicore records while still (likely) costing less than the i9

But don't forget that the i9s will probably have a way larger L2 cache and we don't know how that will affect performance....

[done12many2]

8 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

 AMD's Ryzen processors are 12% behind in IPC compared to Kabylake

 

It was actually 19% difference in singe-threaded performance at stock clock speed according to AMD. 

 

 

[PCGuy_5960]

Just now, done12many2 said:

It was actually 15% according to AMD. 

Yeah, even worse  I think they said 12-15% depending on the application, so in other words Haswell IPC +/- 1%

[tom_w141]

7 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

But a 6800K/5820K didn't cost more than a 7700K and actually, AMD's Ryzen processors are 12% behind in IPC compared to Kabylake (according to AMD) and clocks suck (4GHz vs 5GHz). And games aren't using up to 4C/8T because Intel CPUs don't have more threads, games are usually built for consoles (unfortunately) which have 8 threads, so games really like the i7's Hyperthreads and can't really take advantage of more than 8 threads.

And the situation will probably not change for another 3-4 years

I hit agree because of the some games being designed for consoles aspect. Although I'd expect progress to take 1-3 years not 3-4 (we are already seeing it in some games).

 

Pricing however is wrong the 6800k is and always was more expensive than the mainstream i7, but i'm sure that was an honest mistake.

 

EDIT: that's a 6800k on top and a 7700k below. You can see the 6800k fell closer to the 7700k as a result of Ryzen probably, but is and always has been more expensive than the mainstream.

 

 

 

 

 

[done12many2]

3 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

Yeah, even worse  I think they said 12-15% depending on the application, so in other words Haswell IPC +/- 1%

 

I'm sorry.  Go back to my last post as I updated it.  It's actually 19% difference in single-threaded performance at stock clock speeds.  (7% IPC + 12% clock speed).

[PCGuy_5960]

Just now, tom_w141 said:

I hit agree because of the some games being designed for consoles aspect. Although I'd expect progress to take 1-3 years not 3-4 (we are already seeing it in some games).

 

Pricing however is wrong the 6800k is and always was more expensive than the mainstream i7, but i'm sure that was an honest mistake.

Prices have gone up... A few months ago, you could pick up a 5820K for $330, which was less than a 7700K 

I don't think a lot of games will start using more than 8 threads TBH, even in BF1 and Watch_dogs 2 that can use 16 threads, the 7700K at 5GHz can outperform a 4.4GHz 6900K... 

[tom_w141]

1 minute ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

Prices have gone up... A few months ago, you could pick up a 5820K for $330, which was less than a 7700K 

I don't think a lot of games will start using more than 8 threads TBH, even in BF1 and Watch_dogs 2 that can use 16 threads, the 7700K at 5GHz can outperform a 4.4GHz 6900K... 

Prices have gone down.. See above charts

[PCGuy_5960]

Just now, tom_w141 said:

Prices have gone down.. See above charts

For the 6800K, yes. But when the 6800K launched, you could get a 5820K for as low as $320 (at least in microcenter)

[tom_w141]

10 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

But don't forget that the i9s will probably have a way larger L2 cache and we don't know how that will affect performance....

This is pure speculation from all sides, like I said I guess we have to wait and see but remember price will be a big deciding factor here.

[done12many2]

2 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

Prices have gone up... A few months ago, you could pick up a 5820K for $330, which was less than a 7700K 

I don't think a lot of games will start using more than 8 threads TBH, even in BF1 and Watch_dogs 2 that can use 16 threads, the 7700K at 5GHz can outperform a 4.4GHz 6900K... 

 

Don't forget that just because a game is "using" more cores doesn't mean that it's using more effectively.