Intel leak

[tom_w141]

Just now, PCGuy_5960 said:

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

We were talking about the 6800k  

[done12many2]

Just now, tom_w141 said:

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.

 

I'd be willing to bet on it.  

[Biggerboot]

3 hours ago, Princess Cadence said:

Personally I think the name "i9" is stupid

 

Could have stayed with i7 but whatever.

It might sound a little silly to you and me, but it does get the point across of who it's for.  It's confusing to explain to people sometimes that an i7 CPU on a mainstream board and enthusiast board and totally different chips.

 

I feel like with this, they should start rebranding laptop CPUs to their actual performance class and not just relative to other laptop cpu's. In other words, a quad-core should be an i5, dual core i3, etc.

[PCGuy_5960]

1 minute ago, tom_w141 said:

We were talking about the 6800k  

True, but the 6800K sucks. The 5820K is cheaper and overclocks better

[tom_w141]

2 minutes ago, done12many2 said:

 

I'd be willing to bet on it.  

Which side do you want to bet on and how much?

 

I'll give you £20 on the R9 (if that's its name) to beat or come within 15% of the i9, whilst dominating it on price/performance.

 

EDIT: Dominating is a vague term  Lets say beating it by 40-50% on price to performance.

[done12many2]

Just now, Biggerboot said:

It might sound a little silly to you and me, but it does get the point across of who it's for.  It's confusing to explain to people sometimes that an i7 CPU on a mainstream board and enthusiast board and totally different chips.

 

Exactly!  Most of the commotion and back and forth going is with folks who will never own any of these CPUs.  It's the peanut gallery sitting back judging stuff that they really aren't ever planning on using.  

 

[tom_w141]

Just now, done12many2 said:

 

Exactly!  Most of the commotion and back and forth going is with folks who will never own any of these CPUs.  It's the peanut gallery sitting back judging stuff that they really aren't ever planning on using.  

 

I use these things and would still like a fast way to differentiate like we have for i3, i5 and i7. I doubt i'm the only one.

[done12many2]

21 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....

10 minutes ago, tom_w141 said:

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.

10 minutes ago, done12many2 said:

I'd be willing to bet on it.  

 

8 minutes ago, tom_w141 said:

Which side do you want to bet on and how much?

 

I'll give you £20 on the R9 (if that's its name) to beat or come within 15% of the i9, whilst dominating it on price/performance.

 

EDIT: Dominating is a vague term  Lets say beating it by 40-50% on price to performance.

 

Not sure where you got confused on what I was proposing.  

 

Also, I agree that the AMD version will be within 15% or so.  I also agree that it will win in price to performance.  Not something that high on my priority list.  Also not a goal with i9 for Intel.

[tom_w141]

7 minutes ago, done12many2 said:

 

 

Not sure where you got confused on what I was proposing.  

Don't see the point in being indirect. Instead of quoting 3 different people you could have said "I bet X and Y" far quicker and everyone would understand faster.

 

For example from the range of the above quotes you could be saying any of the below:

 

I bet the i9 with have more cache

I bet having more cache will make a significant difference

I bet the speculation is in fact accurate

I bet price will be a determining factor

I bet the i9 will be better than the R9 (most likely imo hence why I "bet" my prediction above)

 

So instead of trying to be clever just speak  

[done12many2]

6 minutes ago, tom_w141 said:

Don't see the point in being indirect. Instead of quoting 3 different people you could have said "I bet X and Y" far quicker and everyone would understand faster.

 

For example from the range of the above you could be saying any of the below:

 

I bet the i9 with have more cache

I bet having more cache will make a significant difference

I bet the speculation is in fact accurate

I bet the i9 will be better than the R9 (most likely hence why I "bet" my prediction above)

 

So instead of trying to be clever just speak  

 

That's exactly why I did what I did.  To elevate confusion, but you chose not to pay attention otherwise the "I bet having more cache will make a significant difference" and the rest of the stuff you just made up wouldn't have happened.  I specifically bolded what I was talking about.  

 

If you focus on that instead of "trying to be clever" yourself, we'd avoid that back and forth that I've come to expect from you based on other threads.

 

Either way it doesn't matter.  Directly that one off course served you well. 

[tom_w141]

11 minutes ago, done12many2 said:

 

That's exactly why I did what I did.  To elevate confusion, but you chose not to pay attention otherwise the "I bet having more cache will make a significant difference" and the rest of the stuff you just made up wouldn't have happened.  I specifically bolded what I was talking about.  

 

If you focus on that instead of "trying to be clever" yourself, we'd avoid that back and forth that I've come to expect from you based on other threads.

 

Either way it doesn't matter.  Directly that one off course served you well. 

You still haven't answered  do you have a problem speaking directly? Also you bolded a lot

 

EDIT: Try this with me now: Picture what you meant in your head, got it? Good now type it. Welcome to conversing

[done12many2]

Just now, tom_w141 said:

You still haven't answered  do you have a problem speaking directly? Also you bolded a lot

 

Actually I did.  You chose not to see it.  Good luck bud.  

[tom_w141]

1 minute ago, done12many2 said:

 

Actually I did.  You chose not to see it.  Good luck bud.  

Man you are a weird guy to converse with  so 3 posts later are we concluding you meant "I bet having more cache will make a significant difference"?

[done12many2]

30 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

True, but the 6800K sucks. The 5820K is cheaper and overclocks better

 

That's one thing often overlooked in the Haswell-E vs Broadwell-E debate.

 

If you plan to run stock clocks or mild overclocks, Broadwell-E is the answer.

 

If you plan to max your overclock with water cooling or higher, Haswell-E is the answer.  Performance at max overclock favors Haswell-E.  

[PCGuy_5960]

8 minutes ago, tom_w141 said:

Man you are a weird guy to converse with  so 3 posts later are we concluding you meant "I bet having more cache will make a significant difference"?

FFS, read the post. The bolded part says: The i9 will probably have more L2 cache, then @done12many2 replies I'd be willing to be on it. I am 99% sure that you can guess what the "it" refers to.

[tom_w141]

1 minute ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

FFS, read the post. The bolded part says. The i9 will probably have more L2 cache, then @done12many2 replies I'd be willing to be on it. I am 99% sure that you can guess what the "it" refers to.

TBH it was the speculation that threw me

 

EDIT: Combined with the fact he replied to me and not you.

 

My whole point was instead of the whole dance all he had to do was reply "I bet the larger cache will make a difference"

[done12many2]

3 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

FFS, read the post. The bolded part says. The i9 will probably have more L2 cache, then @done12many2 replies I'd be willing to be on it. I am 99% sure that you can guess what the "it" refers to.

 

It really was THAT simple.  The engineer in him must have prevented him from seeing that.  lol

 

Yet, I'm the weird one to "converse" with.  

[DildorTheDecent]

1 hour ago, done12many2 said:

most under utilized CPU to date.   

same

[done12many2]

Just now, DildorTheDecent said:

same

 

Yeah buddy.  I'm still getting Skylake X, but I know that my 7700k will still be plenty more then needed.  It's getting time for the 5960x to find a new home.  

[tom_w141]

4 minutes ago, done12many2 said:

 

It really was THAT simple.  The engineer in him must have prevented him from seeing that.  lol

 

Yet, I'm the weird one to "converse" with.  

Eerie I don't remember saying what I was  so that's either an accurate stereotype or I have it written elsewhere...

 

I tried to explain above what confused me in my reply to @PCGuy_5960 and lets be honest ignoring all else you could have still just said  There's no doubt then and everyone is 100% the same page. Sorry for saying weird to converse with that was rude and unnecessary.

[done12many2]

7 minutes ago, tom_w141 said:

Eerie I don't remember saying what I was  so that's either an accurate stereotype or I have it written elsewhere...

 

I tried to explain above what confused me in my reply to @PCGuy_5960 and lets be honest ignoring all else you could have still just said  There's no doubt then and everyone is 100% the same page. Sorry for saying weird to converse with that was rude and unnecessary.

 

I can sense an engineer a 1000 miles away.  

 

At the end of the day.  Everybody wins.  Intel is going to release Sklylake X and AMD will hopefully do the same with their equivalent.  Each architecture has it's advantages.  Whether that be cost, performance or some feature.  The fact that there are more chips to chose from thanks to direct competition makes today's market much better then it's been in years.

[tom_w141]

Just now, done12many2 said:

 

I can sense an engineer a 1000 miles away.  

 

At the end of the day.  Everybody wins.  Intel is going to release Sklylake X for and AMD will hopefully do the same with their equivalent.  Each architecture has it's advantages.  Whether that be cost, performance or some feature.  The fact that there are more chips to chose from thanks to direct competition makes today's market much better then it's been in years.

True I really don't care who is better (unless you are trying to advise someone on a build where spending the budget wisely is important). The fact that there is competition again is good for everyone. Although Intel do still really need to get off their pricing high horse and realise the monopoly is gone and they can't pull that shit now. If AMD undercut them a lot like they did with 1700 vs 6900k then sales may indeed suffer.

[done12many2]

19 minutes ago, tom_w141 said:

True I really don't care who is better (unless you are trying to advise someone on a build where spending the budget wisely is important). The fact that there is competition again is good for everyone. Although Intel do still really need to get off their pricing high horse and realise the monopoly is gone and they can't pull that shit now. If AMD undercut them a lot like they did with 1700 vs 6900k then sales may indeed suffer.

 

That's the thing.  Intel doesn't have to really do anything at the moment pricing wise.  They are beyond healthy as a company, while AMD is maintaining.  

 

Do I want Intel to drop prices?  Absolutely.  Will I still buy Skylake X if they don't?  Absolutely.   That also happens to be how the majority of other HEDT owners and companies think.

 

The high end market is dominated by Intel.  That's not to say that AMD isn't fantastic performance or cost wise because they are.  It's just a simple fact.  HEDT and higher is remains dominated by Intel.  Contrary to what I keep reading on LTT, the burden is on AMD, not the other way around.  They have to get their high end shit together before they start seeing a shift in anything.

 

With that said, this may be different in 5 years if Intel doesn't adjust and assuming that AMD can keep up.  It has been like this for decades.  Regardless of previous successes in trumping Intel in a couple of previous architectures (really old architecture that is ), it was never enough for them to maintain or build  momentum on. 

 

Please don't confuse what I'm saying as I don't appreciate what AMD is doing because I do.  Keeping Intel on their toes is good for everyone, but if all you do is fire a couple of shells across the bow of an enemy ship, you might not convince the enemy to change course, let alone sink their ship.

 

If AMD pulls off rocking the HEDT and higher markets, I see great things for the upcoming years.  The burden is on them.