Move over 7700, i3 8350 almost matches in performance

[pas008]

who cares if they didnt have 6 cores mainstream its a business choice because of lack of competition

 

if they released 6 and 8 core mainstream cpu's couple years ago ryzen/etc wouldnt exist which would make them the only option and that brings in monopoly rules on product production and pricing

[Funtoink63]

I just bought I7 7700K and then I see this... FML

[mynameisjuan]

6 minutes ago, Dylanc1500 said:

Good thing this isn't the 90s anymore they would be really angry when there $1000 cpu was knocked down in a year by something three times faster.

Thats the thing is years ago this was worse where the next year release was a huge jump in performance. Now when its only 10-15% its not like its a oh shit I got screwed. So after 2-3 years, about when people upgrade again, you buy another with 40-50% increase in performance. 

7 minutes ago, Sauron said:

They feel screwed over if there has been very little improvement over 6 years and now suddenly intel just halves the prices out of the blue. This should have happened more gradually. People can't wait forever and knowing intel has been holding back on purpose (not that we didn't know it already, but this confirms it) is annoying.

Ok so say you bought a 2600k and the next release was a 6 core. I guarantee you would be even more pissed than now because now you got 50%+ multi core performance in a year rather than making use of the processor for a few years and getting your moneys worth.

 

Yeah I am sorry there is a chance intel has been holding back but thats AMDs fault. If you were in charge of intel you would of held off until they actually had a competitor too. 

5 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

Intel has had 6 cores for several years, just not on mainstream.  It's not like it's something new.  And considering AMD has had 6+ cores on mainstream for many years, I doubt it's something Intel couldn't have done.  They just chose not to.

Yeah but the 6 cores years ago couldnt clock to 4.5ghz or even be manageable in heat and power consumption. Also years ago there was even less shit to give about multi cores. Even now since ryzen, all of a sudden "OMG I NEED ALL THESE CORE BUT I DONT KNWO WHY!!"

[Brainless906]

This feels about as real as the 4c/8t i3 rumor from a bit ago.

[pas008]

7 minutes ago, Funtoink63 said:

I just bought I7 7700K and then I see this... FML

why fml

you still have an i7 7700k

this is computer tech best stuff is only around for short amount of time

 

[The Benjamins]

4 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

Yeah but the 6 cores years ago couldnt clock to 4.5ghz or even be manageable in heat and power consumption. Also years ago there was even less shit to give about multi cores. Even now since ryzen, all of a sudden "OMG I NEED ALL THESE CORE BUT I DONT KNWO WHY!!"

I have been waiting for a more the 4 core CPU (that is good) that is affordable and not some big price bump.

 

I want more due to I multitask a lot on my PC and have many things open, it is annoying when my performance is impacted by that. these core counts are honestly 3-5 years late.

[Jito463]

4 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

Yeah but the 6 cores years ago couldnt clock to 4.5ghz

AMD and their 8 core disagrees.

https://www.engadget.com/2013/06/11/amd-5gz-fx-chips/

5 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

or even be manageable in heat and power consumption.

It took liquid cooling, but it was still manageable.

5 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

Also years ago there was even less **** to give about multi cores

Depends on your usage.  Also, if Intel weren't stagnating the technology by limiting mainstream to 4 cores, we'd see more software taking advantage of the extra processing power.

[Bananasplit_00]

2 hours ago, FloRolf said:

If I bought a new i7 within the last 2 years I'd be mad lol. 

Good thing my 2600k still lives. 

i aint mad about my I7 4790K in any way to be honest. mainly because if this is true we might see quite a fun scene on the used market when people drop their everything and get Covefefe lake systems

[MyName13]

*Intel does nothing new*

 

Reeeee fuk u shintel

 

*Intel releases a new CPU lineup which has the potential to completely disrupt the CPU market and push amd into Oblivion once again after 6 years*

 

Reeeee fuk u intel

[pas008]

1 minute ago, The Benjamins said:

I have been waiting for a more the 4 core CPU (that is good) that is affordable and not some big price bump.

 

I want more due to I multitask a lot on my PC and have many things open, it is annoying when my performance is impacted by that. these core counts are honestly 3-5 years late.

multithreaded scores doesnt always say it multitasks better

 

why does fx8350 kill 2500k in multithreaded but cant even win in multitasking here old but still proves the point

 

it all depends on the apps you are using

https://www.bit-tech.net/reviews/tech/amd-fx-8350-review/5/

http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed/9

[Sauron]

1 minute ago, mynameisjuan said:

Ok so say you bought a 2600k and the next release was a 6 core. I guarantee you would be even more pissed than now because now you got 50%+ multi core performance in a year rather than making use of the processor for a few years and getting your moneys worth.

Except the 2600k came out in 2011. That's not 2 years ago. I wouldn't have been mad if they had released a 6 core in 2014, it would have been a natural performance increase cycle. That's how it had been up until that point. In 2011, buying the top of the line gave you a significant improvement over the previous generation (and a massive improvement over what was available 3 years earlier) - nobody expected it to stay close to the top for another 6 years, we all accepted that, but it was the best you could buy at the time and it was a clear cut increase in performance. Cut ahead to 2015, and you still get pretty much the same as you could in 2011, but you can't wait any longer for intel to pull its head out of its butt. I have no problem with high end stuff becoming obsolete, but it annoys me when people are forced to buy stuff that ought to be already obsolete just because they're given no other option. Then intel just shows the middle finger and goes, "oh you know that thing you've been waiting for for 6 years but couldn't wait for any longer and just got a quad core? Well it's here now! And you just wasted 350$!".

[Sauron]

3 minutes ago, MyName13 said:

*Intel releases a new CPU lineup which has the potential to completely disrupt the CPU market and push amd into Oblivion once again after 6 years*

You're missing the part where the 6 core will be 400$ and the ryzen 7 1700 (at 320$) still performs better. This is intel trying to catch up, nothing more.

[NumLock21]

13 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

Intel has had 6 cores for several years, just not on mainstream.  It's not like it's something new.  And considering AMD has had 6+ cores on mainstream for many years, I doubt it's something Intel couldn't have done.  They just chose not to.

They had it for almost 8 years with the 980x, that was released back in 2010. The same year with amd on their 6 cores, phenom ii x6. Those that went with x99, got to have 6 cores like 5820k, for the past 3 years, when it was released back in 2014. 

They can't blame intel or amd for increase core counts, when they went on to buy a quad when a hexa core is just right next to it. 

 

[pas008]

Just now, Sauron said:

You're missing the part where the 6 core will be 400$ and the ryzen 7 1700 (at 320$) still performs better.

on multi threaded

majority of programs use single threaded

[The Benjamins]

1 minute ago, pas008 said:

multithreaded scores doesnt always say it multitasks better

 

why does fx8350 kill 2500k in multithreaded but cant even win in multitasking here old but still proves the point

 

it all depends on the apps you are using

https://www.bit-tech.net/reviews/tech/amd-fx-8350-review/5/

http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed/9

Well the 8350 is considered barely better then the 2500k and I want more mulitthreaded performance then that. and windows makes better multithreaded into better multitask. The point is we should of had this years ago.

[Cookybiscuit]

2 minutes ago, Sauron said:

You're missing the part where the 6 core will be 400$ and the ryzen 7 1700 (at 320$) still performs better. This is intel trying to catch up, nothing more.

8700K isn't going to be catch-up it's going to piss and shit all over Ryzen.

[pas008]

Just now, The Benjamins said:

Well the 8350 is considered barely better then the 2500k and I want more mulitthreaded performance then that. and windows makes better multithreaded into better multitask. The point is we should of had this years ago.

blame amd for not bringing their game simple as that

 

we finally have cpu competition and every bitches like little high school girls

[Sauron]

1 minute ago, pas008 said:

on multi threaded

majority of programs use single threaded

And you would buy a 6 core part for single threaded tasks? We're also far beyond the point where "the majority of programs" run just fine on a 1.4GHz laptop ULV cpu. You don't (or shouldn't) spend more than 250$ on a cpu if you only run ms office and a browser.

[MyName13]

5 minutes ago, Sauron said:

You're missing the part where the 6 core will be 400$ and the ryzen 7 1700 (at 320$) still performs better. This is intel trying to catch up, nothing more.

Insider info?Intel catching up to AMD who is already a generation or two or even 3 generations behind Intel (in certain workloads)?Ok...

 

2 minutes ago, Cookybiscuit said:

8700K isn't going to be catch-up it's going to piss and shit all over Ryzen.

If they don't release heaters and if prices remain the same, then yes.

 

[The Benjamins]

Just now, pas008 said:

blame amd for not bringing their game simple as that

 

we finally have cpu competition and every bitches like little high school girls

this still doesn't make it ok for Intel to be anti consumer. and everyone has been ragging on AMD for that for years.

 

5 minutes ago, pas008 said:

on multi threaded

majority of programs use single threaded

who only uses 1 Program at a time and windows has hundreds of threads. Chrome uses 1 thread per tab/plugin.

[dorin]

The good part is that Intel will not sell dual core CPUs in 2018. Or do they...

[NumLock21]

20 minutes ago, Funtoink63 said:

I just bought I7 7700K and then I see this... FML

Be satisfied with your god damn purchase.

Dagnabbit!

[pas008]

3 minutes ago, The Benjamins said:

this still doesn't make it ok for Intel to be anti consumer. and everyone has been ragging on AMD for that for years.

 

who only uses 1 Program at a time and windows has hundreds of threads. Chrome uses 1 thread per tab/plugin.

more cores doesnt always constitute better multitasking its up to the damn programs you are using along with windows itself

[Hayabusa1989]

Sorry this actually seem's somewhat plausible. It's a 4-core part remember. 

[The Benjamins]

Just now, pas008 said:

more cores doesnt always constitute better multitasking

how doesn't it? if I have 2 CPUs at the same IPC and clock a 8 core can run more programs in parallel then a 2 core.

 

Explain to me how that does not help.