Reasons to buy Intel

[PCGuy_5960]

4 words: It's not AMD

• Better single core performance
• Better gaming performance
• Better AVX performance
• Better multicore performance
• More fun to overclock

[i_build_nanosuits]

On 2017-06-07 at 1:54 AM, David89 said:

Just out of curiosity: Let's pretend there is no 7700K. Is there any reason, to buy Intel? I mean, not even for gaming, but for everything?

 

And even with the 7700K...with the recent Updates the 7700K and the 1800X are the same in many games (Most notable: RoTR) and many programs have also been updated to use the ZEN Architecture better...so, in all seriousness: Is there ANY reason to buy Intel? Because i actually can only think of one, and that would be AVX-512 if you really need it and maybe the limited availability of mITX Boards for AM4...

Gaming?

Here is a brand new video with newest games see for yourself

 

 

[Biggerboot]

2 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

4 words: It's not AMD

• More fun to overclock

Higher risk / higher reward overclock if that's what you mean by more fun.

[PCGuy_5960]

Just now, i_build_nanosuits said:

Gaming?

Here is a brand new video with newest games see for yourself

 

 

This is a Joke, right? You know that Joker's benchmarks are biased AF, right?

[PCGuy_5960]

Just now, Biggerboot said:

Higher risk / higher reward overclock if that's what you mean by more fun.

By more fun I mean that you are not stuck at 3.8-4GHz

[Biggerboot]

1 minute ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

Gaming?

Here is a brand new video with newest games see for yourself

 

 

tl;dw, older engines are still going to favor better IPC.  Newer engines will begin to take more advantage of multi-core.

[Biggerboot]

2 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

By more fun I mean that you are not stuck at 3.8-4GHz

Yeah, that's kinda why I used the stock car race metaphor earlier.  AMD FX9K cpu's were boasting about their 5ghz.  It sounded cool but didn't amount to much real world benefit.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

4 words: It's not AMD

• More fun to overclock

Yes I had so much fun ocing my i5 4460

22 minutes ago, done12many2 said:

 

 

No need to bring it back to AMD.  They're doing just fine on HWBOT without your help.  

 

There's a couple of Intel chips in there too.  

 

 

 

 

 

So are you saying there is a reason to get a 8370 in 2017? Having trouble sniping pics so I will leave it as is

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Biggerboot said:

AMD FX9K cpu's were boasting about their 5ghz.  It sounded cool but didn't amount to much real world benefit.

That's contradicting

[Biggerboot]

Just now, deXxterlab97 said:

That's contradicting

How exactly?  Sounding cool isn't the same as having actual significance.

[Lt.Speirs]

Quote

I have to admit that having more cores on a CPU has rarely been a reason for me to want to buy one or even to lust over leaked information or benchmarks in the past. I can still remember comparing dual-core CPUs such as the E8600 to the likes of the Q9650 in group tests and finding the massively overclockable E8600 was faster in games and many other applications, much to the surprise of my colleagues who were obsessed with core counts and were amazed that my main system ran an E8600. That was nearly 10 years ago, of course, and while I felt somewhat vindicated at the time, things do change. Quad-cores are now the mainstay of enthusiast PCs and for good reason, since many games still don't make use of more than four threads. As such, Intel's overclockable quad-cores, such as the Core i5-7600K, usually offer the best performance you'll see in games, and there are many other tasks that do benefit from having at least four physical cores.

It's important to remember too that a lot depends on the game code and how well it utilises more than one thread. A lot of the hype around Ryzen was people expecting AMD's new CPUs to offer big increases in frame rates, and they were to be disappointed. Ryzen has some very strong sweet spots, but in reality, games are rarely CPU-limited these days, so it's little wonder that for the mainstream, Intel has focussed on quad-cores for a long time.

However, games are quickly becoming more demanding, and we're also doing more with our PCs and at higher resolutions too. Most of us think nothing about having a dozen browser tabs open along with chat programs, anti-virus, email clients, word processors, and various streaming applications all while firing up games. This is something that the latest update for Windows 10, the Creators Update, tapped on with its Game Mode, which prioritises system resources for your game, and benchmarks show that it does have a tangible benefit. There are other tasks outside the world of pure gaming, too - streaming, video editing, rendering - and they're all potentially quite demanding of your CPU, and it's very clear to anyone that's tried that quad-cores suffer here, even Hyper-Threaded ones such as the Core i7-7700K. Sadly, you need to opt for an Intel X99 system to get more than four cores, and this demands a lot of cash, and until Ryzen's launch, while AMD did have six and eight-core parts, they suffered from poor efficiency and low IPC, so while they might have been faster in some multi-threaded tests, Intel would wipe the floor with them elsewhere.

Then along came Ryzen, and the massive increase in IPC and efficiency has helped things no end. Not only are the eight-core parts excellent value for multi-threaded tasks, but AMD has had the foresight to offer better multi-threaded performance in the mid-range too. The Ryzen 5 1600 and 1600X are cases in point. They offer six cores and 12 threads and in many cases can keep up with the Intel Core i7-6850K, which is much more expensive.

For the first time, there are CPUs that offer great multi-threaded performance and decent single-threaded grunt that don't cost a fortune. The Ryzen 5 hex-cores are very reasonably priced, as are AM4 motherboards. However, while the extra grunt will no doubt be useful, I realised I'm simply bored with quad-cores too, and when I tested the Ryzen 5 1600 and 1600X recently, the enthusiast in me started yearning for a six-core system. Eight cores is still excessive for most people's needs, and the Ryzen 7 series starts at around £300 as well. However, the £195 Ryzen 5 1600 is right in the middle of mid-range/high-end enthusiast territory price-wise, and if you do venture into multi-threaded work, it has the grunt to usually outperform the Core i7-7700K and give the Core i7-6850K a run for its money too. In many ways, it's the perfect mid-range all-rounder, which makes me wonder why Intel hasn't offered a hex-core CPU in the mainstream yet. It's been busy shrinking manufacturing processes, increasing efficiency, and cramming more and more transistors into its CPUs, but has it missed one key factor that would have made more people reach for their wallets and stop spouting the usual 'my Sandy Bridge 2500K is still okay' comments in review threads.

I can fully appreciate that the X99 platform is just too expensive for many, even if you're lusting after a hex-core CPU. The Core i7-6800K will set you back £400 on its own; you'll then need a quad-channel memory kit and a more expensive motherboard, plus there are very limited choices when it comes to micro-ATX and mini-ITX LGA2011-v3 motherboards. The point here is that not everyone that wants more CPU grunt necessarily wants two or more graphics cards in their system too. Admittedly, that's where the Core i7-6800K comes in, as it doesn't have enough PCI-E lanes to provide full bandwidth to more than one card.

 

I think what Ryzen has shown in general, though, and not just with the excellent Ryzen 5 1600 and 1600X, is that enthusiasts actually want more cores and threads now. This is part of what the Ryzen pre-launch frenzy was about - that enthusiasts would get competitive single-threaded performance along with more cores and threads for a lot less than Intel's X99 platform. We've already seen rumours of an Intel hex-core hitting its mainstream CPU socket, and I think the time is right for it to do so. We can only hope it's unlocked.

 

 

Source - https://www.bit-tech.net/blog/2017/05/16/why-intel-needs-a-six-core-mainstream-cpu/

 

 

I think everyone should read that before this thread gets out of hand.

[done12many2]

Just now, deXxterlab97 said:

Yes I had so much fun ocing my i5 4460

 

So are you saying there is a reason to get a 8370 in 2017? Having trouble sniping pics so I will leave it as is

 

God no.  I'd never recommend a 8370 in 2017 and I didn't then either.  If you look at why it's even listed, it's simply because of clock speed.  It doesn't mean that you could actually use it at that clock speed or run any performance benchmarks at that clock speed.  The record was for simply being able to run at that speed, not do anything else.  

[PCGuy_5960]

Just now, Biggerboot said:

How exactly?  Sounding cool isn't the same as having actual significance.

It was a joke, he meant that 5GHz should sound hot, not cool.

[Biggerboot]

Just now, PCGuy_5960 said:

It was a joke, he meant that 5GHz should sound hot, not cool.

[VagabondWraith]

37 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

Wait, you're an Intel/Nvidia fanboy? Noice! Me too

Yessir!

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Biggerboot said:

How exactly?  Sounding cool isn't the same as having actual significance.

1 minute ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

It was a joke, he meant that 5GHz should sound hot, not cool.

Why am I suddenly having a problem finding temps result of a 9590?

[PCGuy_5960]

Just now, done12many2 said:

God no.  I'd never recommend a 8370 in 2017 and I didn't then either.  If you look at why it's even listed, it's simply because of clock speed.  It doesn't mean that you could actually use it at that clock speed or run any performance benchmarks at that clock speed.  The record was for simply being able to run at that speed, not do anything else.  

How to use an FX CPU:

1. Install it in a motherboard
2. Buy Liquid Helium
3. Use the liquid Helium to cool the CPU
4. Push 'er till she blows

lol

[PCGuy_5960]

1 minute ago, deXxterlab97 said:

Why am I suddenly having a problem finding temps result of a 9590?

Because pretty much no one bought it?

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

This is a Joke, right?

I see...

[VagabondWraith]

49 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

@Jumper118 Try to type: "I can type properly."

He'll copy/paste.  

[Guest]

1 minute ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

Because pretty much no one bought it?

Linus didn't buy 1080 Ti to benchmark it for example, I was talking about professional results where people get samples for free. Guess it melted during the transportation due to its heat lol

[PCGuy_5960]

Just now, VagabondWraith said:

He'll copy/paste.  

He doesn't know how to do that.

[i_build_nanosuits]

17 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

This is a Joke, right? You know that Joker's benchmarks are biased AF, right?

yes i know he's been criticized a lot for heavily favoring AMD in his benchmarks, but even then intel is a clear winner when it comes to gaming.

[done12many2]

3 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

He doesn't know how to do that.

 

He does to.  He takes pictures of the screen with his phone and sends them.

[Guest]

57 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

Wait, you're an Intel/Nvidia fanboy? Noice! Me too

I wanted to be an Nvidia fanboy too cause ME Catalyst ran better on 1060 cards (was my only AAA titles at that moment)

and 1060 3gb costs cheaper too and

at the time this chewie dude shows a 1060 3gb is faster http://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/2649-gtx-1060-3gb-vs-rx-480-4gb-benchmark

 

not sure if higher fps for worse temps is better than being roasted for having a 1060 3GB

 

well amd ryzen wasn't available back then so i5 is way to go