new intel lineup of cpus is stupid

[gameboy3800]

i'm assuming that everyone's heard of the new intel lineup. i'm going to be completely flat out and say the entire series is extremely stupid for almost any argument. this is going to be a long post with a lot of reading. if you are afraid of words, you've been warned.

 

i'm going to link oc3d's graph here to help show my point. source: https://www.overclock3d.net/news/cpu_mainboard/intel_officially_announce_their_new_skylake-x_and_kaby_lake-x_series_processors/1

	Archtecture	Process	Cores/Threads	Base	Boost 2.0	Boost 3.0	PCIe lanes	TDP	Price
Core i9 7980XE	Skylake-X	14nm+	18/36	?	?	?	?	165W?	$1999
Core i9 7960X			16/32	?	?	?	?	165W?	$1699
Core i9 7940X			14/28	?	?	?	?	165W?	$1399
Core i9 7920X			12/24	?	?	?	?	165W?	$1199
Core i9 7900X			10/20	3.3GHz	4.3GHz	4.5GHz	44	140W	$999
Core i7 7820X			8/16	3.6GHz	4.3GHz	4.5GHz	28	140W	$599
Core i7 7800X			6/12	3.5GHz	4.0GHz	N/A	28	140W	$389
Core i7 7740X	Kaby Lake-X		4/8	4.3GHz	4.5GHz	N/A	16	112W	$339
Core i5 7640X			4/4	4.0GHz	4.2GHz	N/A	16	112W	$242

 

at the bottom end, there's the i5 7640x. quad core with no hyperthreading. almost nothing at all has changed with its pricing over the 7600k, that is a seriously fatal flaw since the ryzen 5 1600 is a 6 core with hyperthreading for $20 less. other than raw clock speed and consuming a crazy amount of power, what does it gain? its on the fancy new socket, yet has no additional pcie lanes. unless intel is planning to go to a one socket system for every chip form now on, this bottom tier chip makes absolutely no sense. 

 

the i7 7740x is a very similar story. same price bracket as before. no extra pcie lanes. very slight bump in clock speed. you can pick up an 8 core 16 thread for $20 less again. if the 2066 socket is supposed to be the workstation/enthusiast gaming hybrid type, so far the bottom tier chips are extremely underwhelming considering the new amd chips.

 

the i7 7800x is, as far as i can see, a faster 6800k. this is one of the more impressive clock speed bumps here, and it is actually lower in price compared to the 6800k. this is one of the least worst chips of the lineup. its only downside is the price still. even though its cheaper than last gens counterpart, we still have to keep in mind that the ryzen 1700 is only $315, and features more cores and consumes less power. 

 

the i7 7820x looks good on paper. faster speeds than the 7800x, and with 2 more cores. but then the price of $600 comes and shoots itself in the foot. if they could've had it at $500, it would've been an incredibly good choice. but instead theres a $100 gap between the 7800 and 7820 for just 2 more cores. once again i bring up amd ryzen. the 1500x is quad core and cost $190. the 1700 is $315. that's only $125 for 4 more cores and 8 more threads! all this new intel series is proving is just how good price/perf is on amd ryzen.

 

the first of the i9s, the 7900x, seems to mostly be a 6950x rebadge using the price it should've originally had at $1000 instead of the ludicrous $1700. I still feel like its a solid $300 too expensive, because you have to consider the 1800x. 8 cores for $500. 10 cores for $700. seems fair enough to me. but no. overpriced intel is overpriced. it seems more overpriced if you consider that you can fairly easily overclock a 1700 or 1700x to perform at or above 1800x speeds.

 

the rest of the lineup might as well be xeons they're so overpriced. only the foolish should look at these, unless they really must HAVE to have an intel badge on their cases and hate their money.

 

ryzen threadrippers details havent been annoucned yet as of this post, but if their current pricing lineup is going to be anything like the ryzen 3/5/7 series, then i wouldn't expect their top end 16c/32t chip to cost more than $1300. in fact i suspect them to be even less than that. intel has lost their mind this generation.

 

i know that the price of the new boards and socket come into play as well when it comes to price/perf. but if i look at that, then the story only gets worse for intel. considering you can pick up and overclocking b350 motherbard for around $80, and an 8 core ryzen chip for $315, you can have a $400 combo that will be much better value than any of the intel combinations. i'm sure that x299 boards will not be cheap. before you could argue that intel had a few things going for it like thunderbolt tech, but now that thats open source, i see very little reason to even consider the new intel lineup. 

 

it is true that we have no idea how these new chips will overclock. but unless they can be like the legendary sandy bridge lineup and hit 5ghz without getting stupidly hot (looking at you 7700k), i see no reason to look at team blue until they can fix their prices. even so, given intels bad history with high tdp cpus not overclocking that great, i dont think many of these chips will live up to that.

 

i know one of the first thoughts going through your minds might go something like 'wow such an amd fanboy/intel hater', but i'm not. i've run intel for many years starting at second gen, and until recently was running a 5820k system. but with amd back in the game with unbeatable price/perf, i went team red for the first time since the old phenom II days.

 

 

those are my thoughts. not sure how many people will see this, or how many will even give their own opinions. but i wanted to get my views out there anyways.

 

thanks for reading so far. you deserve an internet cookie. you already have the attention span grater than 99% of the internet.

[Electronics Wizardy]

13 minutes ago, gameboy3800 said:

at the bottom end, there's the i5 7640x. quad core with no hyperthreading. almost nothing at all has changed with its pricing over the 7600k, that is a seriously fatal flaw since the ryzen 5 1600 is a 6 core with hyperthreading for $20 less. other than raw clock speed and consuming a crazy amount of power, what does it gain? its on the fancy new socket, yet has no additional pcie lanes. unless intel is planning to go to a one socket system for every chip form now on, this bottom tier chip makes absolutely no sense. 

 

the i7 7740x is a very similar story. same price bracket as before. no extra pcie lanes. very slight bump in clock speed. you can pick up an 8 core 16 thread for $20 less again. if the 2066 socket is supposed to be the workstation/enthusiast gaming hybrid type, so far the bottom tier chips are extremely underwhelming considering the new amd chips.

these make perfect sense, there the exact same die as the 7700k, so very little rd needed, why not release them?

 

14 minutes ago, gameboy3800 said:

the i7 7800x is, as far as i can see, a faster 6800k

and your complaining?

 

14 minutes ago, gameboy3800 said:

the first of the i9s, the 7900x, seems to mostly be a 6950x rebadge

can't be a rebadge, completly different die.

 

 

[19_blackie_73]

I personally see the lineup as a first step in the right direction. now they shaved nearly $700 off of the 10c cpu, and you can get an intel 8c for more reasonable $600.

It is very interesting to see what amd has achieved so far, because last week they didn't plan to have an 14c/16c/18c chip, but after the threadripper announcement Intel had to react and throwed in last minute the high core count variants. My theory is that they don't even exist with high clock speeds at the moment and they take their low clocked xeons and now work very hard on getting them to 3-4GHz. I'm very happy about that development and I'm hopping by the time I'll upgrade my system again, intel and amd are still battling each other and that amd can keep up for a longer period of time.

ATM I personally don't mind the slightly lower IPCs of amd as they are on haswell levels, so not terrible off, but I really would like to see in a year a refresh of the ryzen lineup with IPCs that exceed todays available cpus

[19_blackie_73]

1 minute ago, Electronics Wizardy said:

these make perfect sense, there the exact same die as the 7700k, so very little rd needed, why not release them?

but why would you want to buy a - compared to amd - ridiculous overpriced 4c chip for an even more expensive platform? the 6c derivate is not that much off to justify it as entry to the "better" plattform

[Electronics Wizardy]

1 minute ago, 19_blackie_73 said:

but why would you want to buy a - compared to amd - ridiculous overpriced 4c chip for an even more expensive platform? the 6c derivate is not that much off to justify it as entry to the "better" plattform

lets see how they get reviewed before making fun of them, they might oc like a beast.

 

 

Also that 4c is still the faster single threaded part out there, this will just let you get some more out of that.

[SSL]

Because clearly AMD single core performance is at no disadvantage whatsoever compared to Intel.

[gameboy3800]

19 minutes ago, SSL said:

Because clearly AMD single core performance is at no disadvantage whatsoever compared to Intel.

for such the huge leap in ipc and being able to compete with intel even at the highest of tiers is something thought unthinkable before the announcement of the zen core. its huge, and exactly what the market needs. but with this lineups pricing, i see no way amd can't gain serious ground.

[gameboy3800]

34 minutes ago, Electronics Wizardy said:

lets see how they get reviewed before making fun of them, they might oc like a beast.

 

 

Also that 4c is still the faster single threaded part out there, this will just let you get some more out of that.

we're headed towards a multi core future where a single super fast thread is becoming less needed. core scaling is becoming increasingly optimized, and will one day become the dominant way to use a computer. i fear that old dual - quad core systems will be very limited in the near future. forcing owners of say the pentium anniversary chip or the overclockable i3s to upgrade sooner than they would have hoped.

[gameboy3800]

54 minutes ago, Electronics Wizardy said:

these make perfect sense, there the exact same die as the 7700k, so very little rd needed, why not release them?

 

and your complaining?

 

can't be a rebadge, completly different die.

 

 

true that there's very little in rd on those chips, but at their price, and compared to amd, they are a solid $50 over what they should be each. the i5 especially looks poor because it lacks hyperthreading. there were rumors that it would, and i was hoping that this would be the best priced, best performing part for the money. but alas it was not to be.

 

did you even read that part? i very clearly said that it looks like a great chip offering great clock speed improvements and is actually lower in cost compared to last gen. but it still falls short in value because amd ryzen 7 exists at a better deal in both processor and motherboard price.

 

on paper, they seem very similar, and it follows the trend of the previous chips of having the same amount of cores as last gen, getting a little clock speed boost, and being overpriced.

[Electronics Wizardy]

4 minutes ago, gameboy3800 said:

because amd ryzen 7 exists at a better deal in both processor and motherboard price.

but with intel you get more pcie, better avx, much more ram, faster ram with quad channel, thunderbolt support. There are reasons to get a cpu beyond pure performance

 

[Electronics Wizardy]

14 minutes ago, gameboy3800 said:

we're headed towards a multi core future where a single super fast thread is becoming less needed. core scaling is becoming increasingly optimized, and will one day become the dominant way to use a computer. i fear that old dual - quad core systems will be very limited in the near future. forcing owners of say the pentium anniversary chip or the overclockable i3s to upgrade sooner than they would have hoped.

but not everything can be split into multiple threads, sometime you need to know the result of the last operation to do the next one. You still want a fast single threaded chips for those uses.

[gameboy3800]

9 minutes ago, Electronics Wizardy said:

but with intel you get more pcie, better avx, much more ram, faster ram with quad channel, thunderbolt support. There are reasons to get a cpu beyond pure performance

 

i'd expect thunderbold equipped am4/threadripper boards to start popping up very soon because of intel making the format open source.

 

unless you pay $1000 for the 7900x to get the 44 lanes, you're actually getting only 4 more pcie lanes than ryzen am4. enough for just one more m.2 slot. the bottom tiers look even worse because they have even less lanes. the value just isn't there.

 

quad channel is coming with threadripper...

[gameboy3800]

9 minutes ago, Electronics Wizardy said:

but not everything can be split into multiple threads, sometime you need to know the result of the last operation to do the next one. You still want a fast single threaded chips for those uses.

i didnt say it was a bad thing to have good ipc. everyone knows that amds previous series were horrible ipc. i'm saying that more cores is the way that computers are going, and intel is starting to hold us back by not having high thread chips at any decent price.

[SSL]

56 minutes ago, gameboy3800 said:

for such the huge leap in ipc and being able to compete with intel even at the highest of tiers is something thought unthinkable before the announcement of the zen core. its huge, and exactly what the market needs. but with this lineups pricing, i see no way amd can't gain serious ground.

 

Intel is pricing based on what the market will bear. They will continue to enjoy significant leeway in what they can charge as long as they maintain the performance advantage. AMD isn't competing "at the highest of tiers". They're competing at price to performance.

[Lt.Speirs]

Looks like the perfect time to upgrade my platform. People should also keep in mind - there are already games that are scaling beyond 6 cores today. Going 6+c for gaming (top-end gaming) now is good as long as you keep the clocks relatively high without sacrificing IPC.
 

[gameboy3800]

20 minutes ago, SSL said:

 

Intel is pricing based on what the market will bear. They will continue to enjoy significant leeway in what they can charge as long as they maintain the performance advantage. AMD isn't competing "at the highest of tiers". They're competing at price to performance.

am4 ryzen is price/perf focused. threadripper and epyc are for top tier and servers. they have everything covered. intel can claim the top spot as long as they want. that doesnt mean that people will blindly choose them and their monstrously overpriced chips.

[porina]

Some other areas of difference are of interest to me, particularly TDP and AVX512. Intel's TDP seems much higher for a given configuration on the surface, but this is mainly due to the highest power workloads being AVX2 heavy. This is a weak area for Zen, which was a design choice for AMD. They determined most uses didn't need it, so it was a significant saving in die space and max TDP. Good for costs and marketing spin. Outside of those applications, actual power consumption (performance per watt) is generally comparable between each other.

 

However, if you do need AVX2, you're looking at about factor for two lower IPC for AMD. And that's before AVX512 being introduced with Skylake-X, which promises even higher performance over AVX2 of today.

 

We're going to have to see where pricing eventually settles to determine the value points. Also don't forget that even if a CPU might seem more expensive, the value equation should include system costs and that will likely level the field significantly.

[gameboy3800]

12 minutes ago, Lt.Speirs said:

Looks like the perfect time to upgrade my platform. People should also keep in mind - there are already games that are scaling beyond 6 cores today. Going 6+c for gaming (top-end gaming) now is good as long as you keep the clocks relatively high without sacrificing IPC.
 

right. i believe cities skylines is one of the best scaling games out there.i would probably jump on the 7800k if i didnt already have my mitx 1800x system completed.

[gameboy3800]

23 minutes ago, porina said:

Some other areas of difference are of interest to me, particularly TDP and AVX512. Intel's TDP seems much higher for a given configuration on the surface, but this is mainly due to the highest power workloads being AVX2 heavy. This is a weak area for Zen, which was a design choice for AMD. They determined most uses didn't need it, so it was a significant saving in die space and max TDP. Good for costs and marketing spin. Outside of those applications, actual power consumption (performance per watt) is generally comparable between each other.

 

However, if you do need AVX2, you're looking at about factor for two lower IPC for AMD. And that's before AVX512 being introduced with Skylake-X, which promises even higher performance over AVX2 of today.

 

We're going to have to see where pricing eventually settles to determine the value points. Also don't forget that even if a CPU might seem more expensive, the value equation should include system costs and that will likely level the field significantly.

unless you have very specific workloads in server or worstation applications, very high avx perf doesn't matter as much to high paying consumers, who these processors are targeted to.

 

as i stated, it is very possible to get an 8 core ryzen cpu and board combo for only $400. total system cost can of course vary greatly depending on many components. but with the am4 platform almost always being cheaper than the z270 platform and certainly the x299 platform, it shows just how much better value amd can be at its price point. of course if amds hedt platform is priced similarly to x299, their cpus seem like they will still be cheaper anyways than what intel has haphazardly thrown/priced on the board.

[19_blackie_73]

2 hours ago, Electronics Wizardy said:

lets see how they get reviewed before making fun of them, they might oc like a beast.

 

 

Also that 4c is still the faster single threaded part out there, this will just let you get some more out of that.

And then intel puts a warning on it: dont run it out of cpu specs, not intended for ocing. And they probably have the same shitty tim as usual

[gameboy3800]

Just now, 19_blackie_73 said:

And then intel puts a warning on it: dont run it out of cpu specs, not intended for ocing. And they probably have the same shitty tim as usual

with only 16 pcie lanes on the trash tier chips, motherboard configurations will be a mess because almost all the boards ive seen have 3+ 16x slots. except for that one asrock itx one. that actually looks pretty sick for a main storage server if i could snag a second hand xeon for it.