What is your opinion about the intel -x series processors?

[Fluffybakon]

Im interested to hear others opinions.

 

My current opinion (feel free to disagree) is that, at least for the time being, intel feels very cornered by AMD. I believe what happened at intel when threadripper was announced and with the success of ryzen :crap! Red alert! Red alert! Amd has launched something too powerful! Red alert!. Crap! Computex is in 3 days. Quick, think up something new. Umm... higher clock speeds?  i got it, 18 cores! Pull out the child fotoshop and immediately make retail packaging!

 

And thus the intel i-9 is a thing. 

 

Tell me what you think, im interested

 

-Lukas

 

 

(btw mods, i wasnt sure where to put this thread, so feel free to move it  sorry for any inconveniance$

[GDRRiley]

wrong place but it in cpus or GD @Energycore

[Energycore]

Just now, GDRRiley said:

wrong place but it in cpus or GD @Energycore

Hey, please use the report button in the future

 

Moved to CPUs etc

[Skanky Sylveon]

25 minutes ago, Fluffybakon said:

My current opinion (feel free to disagree) is that, at least for the time being, intel feels very cornered by AMD. I believe what happened at intel when threadripper was announced and with the success of ryzen :crap! Red alert! Red alert! Amd has launched something too powerful! Red alert!. Crap! Computex is in 3 days. Quick, think up something new. Umm... higher clock speeds?  i got it, 18 cores! Pull out the child fotoshop and immediately make retail packaging!

The 18 core chip was probably in development before thread ripper.  You can't just pull a new CPU out of your ass.  However, I do think that whether or not Intel released the 18 core was up to AMD.

Glad to see Intel scared of AMD for once.  Competition is good for consumers.

[Tellos]

i9 has a "thing: exsisted in intel in theroy sicne the early 2000s but never came to life. They were already makign these chips jsut they got forced to chat about them faster sicne AMD is back to being not a joke now. It doeisnt beat Intel strictly but it does exactly the ONLY thing it had to do. offer a compelling alternative.

[Electronics Wizardy]

5 minutes ago, Cinnabar Sonar said:

The 18 core chip was probably in development before thread ripper.

they had 18 cores since haswell-e, they just have to stamp i7 on them and remove ecc, vpro, dual socket and make they unlocked and a new box and sell them. They just had no reason to until now. The new xeon parts will be about 26-32 cores.

[RadiatingLight]

Sad and happy at the same time

 

nice to see intel responding to competition, cutting prices, and moving forward for the first time in many years

however, these CPUs are, in many ways, better than Ryzen, and I know that AMD really needs dat revenue, so I'm partially sad that AMD's core dominance only lasted a few months

to be clear, Ryzen is still the cheapest 6, and 8 cores on the market, but with a 6-core at less than $400, and an 8-core at $600 from intel, with better IPC, better gaming performance, better RAM support, and higher clock speed, and better overclockability to boot, then it's harder to recommend an AMD CPU. especially high-end Ryzen 7 (which were already hard to reccomend)

[RadiatingLight]

Just now, Electronics Wizardy said:

they had 18 cores since haswell-e, they just have to stamp i7 on them and remove ecc, vpro, dual socket and make they unlocked and a new box and sell them. They just had no reason to until now. The new xeon parts will be about 26-32 cores.

you mean i9..

 

[Tellos]

@RadiatingLight better how? they cost more and for enthisusts won't give oyu much extra preformance. Again Ryzen 5 and 7 chisp are not competeting agaisnt these or least were nto designed to. What gamer is gonna need 16 threads?

[Skanky Sylveon]

6 minutes ago, Tellos said:

@RadiatingLight better how? they cost more and for enthisusts won't give oyu much extra preformance. Again Ryzen 5 and 7 chisp are not competeting agaisnt these or least were nto designed to. What gamer is gonna need 16 threads?

Probably not many, also remember that the 1500X exists for less than 200.00, and is all that most gamers "need".

AMD is by far the better value, also the 1700 would be excellent for cheap render farms.

[Froody129]

I don't think you can manufacture a new 18-core CPU and make packaging etc. in 3 days...

 

They've been planning this for a while

[RadiatingLight]

1 minute ago, Tellos said:

@RadiatingLight better how? they cost more and for enthisusts won't give oyu much extra preformance. Again Ryzen 5 and 7 chisp are not competeting agaisnt these or least were nto designed to. What gamer is gonna need 16 threads?

Comparing Intel's 7820X (8-core, $600):

• CPU Boosts to 4.5Ghz, so already much faster clock speed than a Ryzen 7 1800X
  • if you're not overclocking, then the 7820X is more worth it than the 1800X, or any other Ryzen.
• None of Ryzen's shortcomings
  • Not confirmed yet, but it will probably will support higher-clocked memory.
  • Not confirmed yet, but it will probably OC higher

when overclocking, Ryzen still makes sense, and for 6-core and lower products, Ryzen still wins by a landslide.

(and Threadripper will probably beat the 10-core + products as well.)

[RadiatingLight]

1 minute ago, Froody129 said:

I don't think you can manufacture a new 18-core CPU and make packaging etc. in 3 days...

 

They've been planning this for a while

3 days, where'd that number come from.

 

ECC support, Overclockability, Vpro, Dual-socket support, etc. is only a firmware update away.

Packaging is pretty easy to design, and it looks ugly as _{^{your mom}} shit anyway IMO.

 

[Skanky Sylveon]

5 minutes ago, RadiatingLight said:

Comparing Intel's 7820X (8-core, $600):

• CPU Boosts to 4.5Ghz, so already much faster clock speed than a Ryzen 7 1800X
  • if you're not overclocking, then the 7820X is more worth it than the 1800X, or any other Ryzen.
• None of Ryzen's shortcomings
  • Not confirmed yet, but it will probably will support higher-clocked memory.
  • Not confirmed yet, but it will probably OC higher

when overclocking, Ryzen still makes sense, and for 6-core and lower products, Ryzen still wins by a landslide.

(and Threadripper will probably beat the 10-core + products as well.)

The 1800x is a terrible value compared to the 1700.  For almost half the price then the 7820X, it's a solid CPU even with its shortcomings.

[RadiatingLight]

2 minutes ago, Cinnabar Sonar said:

The 1800x is a terrible value compared to the 1700.  For almost half the price then the 7820X, it's a solid CPU even with its shortcomings.

assuming you don't overclock, then a 1700 is not comparable to a 7820X. it gets smoked.

 

[Skanky Sylveon]

11 minutes ago, RadiatingLight said:

assuming you don't overclock, then a 1700 is not comparable to a 7820X. it gets smoked.

 

The 1700, on average over clocks to about the same clock speed as the 1800x when overclocked, so yes.  

Also, almost half price.  If the 1700 was the same price as the 7820X it would be a terrible CPU.

[dizmo]

11 minutes ago, RadiatingLight said:

assuming you don't overclock, then a 1700 is not comparable to a 7820X. it gets smoked.

 

Why do you keep ignoring the price differential?

[Froody129]

1 hour ago, RadiatingLight said:

3 days, where'd that number come from.

 

ECC support, Overclockability, Vpro, Dual-socket support, etc. is only a firmware update away.

Packaging is pretty easy to design, and it looks ugly as _{^{your mom}} shit anyway IMO.

 

OP said that they thought that Intel pulled it out of their ass following threadripper, and my point was more that you can't set up fabrication for a new CPU just like that

[RuLeZ]

5 hours ago, RadiatingLight said:

Comparing Intel's 7820X (8-core, $600):

• CPU Boosts to 4.5Ghz, so already much faster clock speed than a Ryzen 7 1800X
  • if you're not overclocking, then the 7820X is more worth it than the 1800X, or any other Ryzen.
• None of Ryzen's shortcomings
  • Not confirmed yet, but it will probably will support higher-clocked memory.
  • Not confirmed yet, but it will probably OC higher

when overclocking, Ryzen still makes sense, and for 6-core and lower products, Ryzen still wins by a landslide.

(and Threadripper will probably beat the 10-core + products as well.)

And you are forgetting the price of the mb, which will probably be 200€ or higher. You can get a decent Ryzen mb for 80€. You are compering a 800€ combo to a 350€, like saying that my PC beats a PS4. Ryzen 1800x doesnt compensates, 1700 is way better for the price

[Princess Luna]

I do buy the idea that originally Intel only planned going up to 12c/24t and when they saw Threadripper incoming they were forced to add up to 18c/36t on the mix to remain in front of AMD, in other words competition has saved the day.

 

I am very excited about Intel finally quitting the lazyness though I'm still not picking up any of these HEDT cpu's the 1800x is still more than enough for multi-threaded applications and the i7 7700 is going to suffice me until the CPUs I DO want to purchase which should be the mainstream Canon Lake 10nm 6c/12t i7, on latest IPC and great base clocks that will be the true gaming king.

[Guest Darth Revan]

You guys do realize that these processors were in development long before AMD even said that their processors will be called Ryzen, right?

Like 2 maybe 3 years in development.

[Princess Luna]

11 minutes ago, Darth Revan said:

You guys do realize that these processors were in development long before AMD even said that their processors will be called Ryzen, right?

Like 2 maybe 3 years in development.

These processors are still a response, since  AMD and Intel are direct competitors every thing they do will be a response to each other regardless how long it was in development.

[DocSwag]

6 hours ago, Cinnabar Sonar said:

The 18 core chip was probably in development before thread ripper.  You can't just pull a new CPU out of your ass.  However, I do think that whether or not Intel released the 18 core was up to AMD.

Glad to see Intel scared of AMD for once.  Competition is good for consumers.

It was... for server parts. Skylake X probably would've maxed out at 12c if Threadripper hadn't come along, as evidenced by the 12+ core parts not having anything set besides name, core count, and price. When amd announced Threadripper Intel probably went into overdrive to have consumer parts that were better.

[typographie]

5 minutes ago, DocSwag said:

It was... for server parts. Skylake X probably would've maxed out at 12c if Threadripper hadn't come along, as evidenced by the 12+ core parts not having anything set besides name, core count, and price. When amd announced Threadripper Intel probably went into overdrive to have consumer parts that were better.

That theory asks me to believe that a $1999 CPU has any hope of competing with anything but Intel's own Xeons, and at price even that is suspect. It's ridiculous to think AMD would price any Threadripper SKU anywhere near that high, and even more ridiculous to think that Intel would have thought they would. I think this is Intel's Titan Z: it's a sexy product to show to a crowd, but irrelevant to basically everyone, especially AMD.

 

I think it's a lot easier to believe the price cuts on the 8/16 and 10/20 core SKUs were a response to Threadripper. But even so, the entire 4–6 core lineup seems to be continuing as though Ryzen 5/7 never even happened, so I don't see why Intel would suddenly drop everything for Threadripper.

[The Benjamins]

(can't confirm or deny)

wasn't their reports that some publication got slides of intels presentation with out the 14-18 core parts and was told that the slides were updated.