Move over 7700, i3 8350 almost matches in performance

[Sauron]

1 minute ago, Cookybiscuit said:

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

Uhm I'd like to see your reasoning behind that. Intel THEMSELVES claim a 51% improvement in multithreaded tasks over the 7700k, meaning that that is the absolute best that it can do in an ideal scenario. The r7 1700x is already 60% faster than a 7700k in heavily multithreaded tasks while being cooler and more power efficient.

4 minutes ago, MyName13 said:

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

The pricing info has been rumored for a while, and in the end all we're discussing here are rumors. If you don't give those any credit this conversation makes no sense to begin with. As for being "generations behind", that only really applies to single threaded tasks where the difference is barely noticeable. Where it really matters, aka heavy workloads and workstation tasks, ryzen is leaps and bounds ahead of intel.

[pas008]

4 minutes ago, The Benjamins said:

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.

meant threads

and those links proved it

 

here they are again, multitasking

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

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

[Misanthrope]

7700 owners right now be like

 

Spoiler

 

[Ginger_]

9 minutes ago, NumLock21 said:

Be satisfied with your god damn purchase.

Dagnabbit!

Your talking in an enthustist (is that the right spelling?) forum. No one is ever satisfied with what they have when there's something just a bit better.

 

A bit sad really.

[pas008]

Just now, Misanthrope said:

7700 owners right now be like

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

should be everyone every year

nothing lasts forever at top

 

but simple fact is they have the best now so enjoy it

always negative nancys here

[The Benjamins]

Just now, pas008 said:

meant threads

and those links proved it

 

here they are again, multitasking

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

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

They prove the 8350 is not good, but they do not compare multitasking on the SAME CPU with core disabled, that test will show how multitasking preforms with more cores.

 

Show me how the same 8 core CPU run a multitasking test with 8 cores 4 core and 2 cores at the same clocks.

 

if you run 8 application that can load a single thread to its max on a 2 core vs a 8 core mathematically the 8 core is 4x faster. I don't see how it can be wores then 80% scaling with out it relying on other system attributes (ram speed as a example.)

[Misanthrope]

27 minutes ago, Cookybiscuit said:

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

Will it?

 

Core vs Core yes it probably be quite a bit faster than the Ryzen 5 1600. But it will probably be priced much higher aiming to compete with the 1800x instead.

 

At that price? Intel will continue to have an IPC lead (No I don't expect it to be 15% faster than Kaby. Maybe 1 to 5% real world) But 

 

1) The 8700k is not going to clock anywhere near the 7700k. There's 2 more cores to account for so that throws off the clock (and overclock) out of the table.

2) It will also still be 2 cores and 4 threads behind the 1700-1800x from AMD

 

So the recommendation for high refresh rate gamers is probably gonna be "Save money, get the 8600k" and you can push your demanding games to 144hz provided you can back up your CPU with a 1080 or 1080ti depending on which game and settings.

 

For everyone that is also concerned with other productivity things or budget constrains? 1600 and 1700 remain a cheaper recommendation that can do anything but high refresh rate gaming of AAA games just as good while doing other things better for the money.

 

If anything, it will be the 8600k that ends up shitting all over the 8700k with 6 cores there's no reason to pay more just for the hyperthreading, none at all.

[pas008]

4 minutes ago, The Benjamins said:

They prove the 8350 is not good, but they do not compare multitasking on the SAME CPU with core disabled, that test will show how multitasking preforms with more cores.

 

Show me how the same 8 core CPU run a multitasking test with 8 cores 4 core and 2 cores at the same clocks.

 

if you run 8 application that can load a single thread to its max on a 2 core vs a 8 core mathematically the 8 core is 4x faster. I don't see how it can be wores then 80% scaling with out it relying on other system attributes (ram speed as a example.)

no its not 4x depends on their single thread performance too

simply put they will finish the task faster and move on to the next faster

thats why single thread is big factor

 

[Misanthrope]

8 minutes ago, pas008 said:

should be everyone every year

nothing lasts forever at top

 

but simple fact is they have the best now so enjoy it

always negative nancys here

Not as common as the wet blankets getting depressing over a joke.

[The Benjamins]

1 minute ago, pas008 said:

no its 4x depends on their single thread performance too

simply put they will finish the task faster and move on to the next faster

thats why single thread is big factor

 

have you been reading my posts? I said same IPC and clock which would mean a 2 core CPU with the same single core as the 8 core. My whole point is we should of had 6 and 8 core CPUs at the IPC of its 4 core parts for years, NOT what 8350 did.

 

6 minutes ago, The Benjamins said:

They prove the 8350 is not good, but they do not compare multitasking on the SAME CPU with core disabled, that test will show how multitasking preforms with more cores.

 

Show me how the same 8 core CPU run a multitasking test with 8 cores 4 core and 2 cores at the same clocks.

 

if you run 8 application that can load a single thread to its max on a 2 core vs a 8 core mathematically the 8 core is 4x faster. I don't see how it can be wores then 80% scaling with out it relying on other system attributes (ram speed as a example.)

 

17 minutes ago, The Benjamins said:

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.

 

[pas008]

2 minutes ago, The Benjamins said:

have you been reading my posts? I said same IPC and clock which would mean a 2 core CPU with the same single core as the 8 core. My whole point is we should of had 6 and 8 core CPUs at the IPC of its 4 core parts for years, NOT what 8350 did.

 

 

 

in theory but we arent dealing with same shit

 

and I said long ago it was most likely intels business decision not to up mainstream cores

i'm sure if they did to 6 or 8, ryzen wouldnt exist, and intel would have all monopoly laws apply to them

 

its like the simple saying

keep your friends close but your enemies closer

 

[NumLock21]

11 minutes ago, Ginger137 said:

Your talking in an enthustist (is that the right spelling?) forum. No one is ever satisfied with what they have when there's something just a bit better.

 

A bit sad really.

I'm very satisfied with my purchase. I find this epeen contenst to be idiotic. So what if my cpu is a tad slower, it still gets the job done. Buy the cpu for yourself and yourself only. You don't buy a cpu to please others.

[Misanthrope]

2 minutes ago, pas008 said:

in theory but we arent dealing with same shit

 

and I said long ago it was most likely intels business decision not to up mainstream cores

i'm sure if they did to 6 or 8, ryzen wouldnt exist, and intel would have all monopoly laws apply to them

 

its like the simple saying

keep your friends close but your enemies closer

 

Um not really:

 

1) Ryzen still offers a better price point. Even if the offer wasn't as compelling when it comes to productivity performance it would have still been compelling as a lower price offer, specially the cheaper entry point for overclockers: I can tell you that I almost never overclock but getting a 1600 to clock higher than a 1600x at stock voltage with the stock cooler is effectively free performance.

 

2) The monopoly point, maybe: Under some interpretations it could be seen that way but even without AMD Intel could easily make the case that they aren't even the biggest chip maker out there: Samsung competes and I think even beats them in volume.

[Dylanc1500]

So moral of the story is,

if you buy something in the tech industry expect it to be replaced in the near future, buy what you need for your budget, having more cores isn't always better, and don't expect that because something newer is released your purchase is automatically unusable.

[pas008]

2 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Um not really:

 

1) Ryzen still offers a better price point. Even if the offer wasn't as compelling when it comes to productivity performance it would have still been compelling as a lower price offer, specially the cheaper entry point for overclockers: I can tell you that I almost never overclock but getting a 1600 to clock higher than a 1600x at stock voltage with the stock cooler is effectively free performance.

 

2) The monopoly point, maybe: Under some interpretations it could be seen that way but even without AMD Intel could easily make the case that they aren't even the biggest chip maker out there: Samsung competes and I think even beats them in volume.

ryzen would be a huge wash and amd wouldnt be getting the sales now if intel had released 6 or 8 cores awhile ago

people would already owm them and no need to sidegrade/downgrade

and couple years ago would also mean they intel has something already bigger and badder than those in the works

I could go on about it

even the pricing of intels would have came down too

you are talking about a multibillion dollar company that knows their market quite well

[GDRRiley]

43 minutes ago, 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

no the person to blame is intel who in the late 90s-2006 screwed over every average consume and in doing so nearly killed off AMD who made a better product. 

 

[Misanthrope]

Just now, pas008 said:

ryzen would be a huge wash and amd wouldnt be getting the sales now if intel had released 6 or 8 cores awhile ago

people would already owm them and no need to sidegrade/downgrade

and couple years ago would also mean they intel has something already bigger and badder than those in the works

I could go on about it

even the pricing of intels would have came down too

you are talking about a multibillion dollar company that knows their market quite well

That's where you lost me: Intel without any competition, would raise their prices and quite a bit. Otherwise I can see your point but it still ties back to competition: Intel hasn't lowered prices or improved their core count as a direct result of having no competition.

[pas008]

Just now, Misanthrope said:

That's where you lost me: Intel without any competition, would raise their prices and quite a bit. Otherwise I can see your point but it still ties back to competition: Intel hasn't lowered prices or improved their core count as a direct result of having no competition.

monopoly laws will apply with no competition

need me to link eu, us laws?

[pas008]

2 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

no the person to blame is intel who in the late 90s-2006 screwed over every average consume and in doing so nearly killed off AMD who made a better product. 

 

lol love when people link this

its like pc parts are a religion or pollitical view

hahaha

[Misanthrope]

Just now, pas008 said:

monopoly laws will apply with no competition

need me to link eu, us laws?

Just cause they could apply doesn't means they would apply: I just made an incredible easy case for Samsung producing enough processors for the mobile world to basically avoid monopoly laws. Yes is not comparable to put a mobile device against a desktop or server device but with billions in money to have Lawyers to argue about it for decades, it might as well be.

[pas008]

6 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Just cause they could apply doesn't means they would apply: I just made an incredible easy case for Samsung producing enough processors for the mobile world to basically avoid monopoly laws. Yes is not comparable to put a mobile device against a desktop or server device but with billions in money to have Lawyers to argue about it for decades, it might as well be.

they would eu is pretty strict

look at fb and googles fines from eu

and samsung isnt good example they fab for many companies

I think qualcomm be better example which looks like companies are rounding them atm

[Misanthrope]

5 minutes ago, pas008 said:

they would eu is pretty strict

look at fb and googles fines from eu

and samsung isnt good example they fab for many companies

I think qualcomm be better example which looks like companies are rounding them atm

Yes: I've looked at the fines. As insignificant as they are for an entity like Google or Apple they would be equally insignificant to Intel. And no it's not a guarantee even with the EU being more strict. Stop trying to predict the future or comment as a Lawyer you're just speculating to prove a point on a forum about tech.

[MageTank]

34 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Will it?

 

Core vs Core yes it probably be quite a bit faster than the Ryzen 5 1600. But it will probably be priced much higher aiming to compete with the 1800x instead.

 

At that price? Intel will continue to have an IPC lead (No I don't expect it to be 15% faster than Kaby. Maybe 1 to 5% real world) But 

 

1) The 8700k is not going to clock anywhere near the 7700k. There's 2 more cores to account for so that throws off the clock (and overclock) out of the table.

2) It will also still be 2 cores and 4 threads behind the 1700-1800x from AMD

 

So the recommendation for high refresh rate gamers is probably gonna be "Save money, get the 8600k" and you can push your demanding games to 144hz provided you can back up your CPU with a 1080 or 1080ti depending on which game and settings.

 

For everyone that is also concerned with other productivity things or budget constrains? 1600 and 1700 remain a cheaper recommendation that can do anything but high refresh rate gaming of AAA games just as good while doing other things better for the money.

 

If anything, it will be the 8600k that ends up shitting all over the 8700k with 6 cores there's no reason to pay more just for the hyperthreading, none at all.

I wouldn't say it won't clock "anywhere near" the 7700k, there is still a chance that it can. Larger die allows better heat transfer, so thermals won't be as bad a factor after delidding. They are also altering the pinout to "improve power efficiency" and facilitate the additional cores. I've also heard that yields on these are amazing, and leakage is at an all time low. Do I think the 8700k will clock higher? No, but it's not entirely out of the question for it to get close. I've been told by people that have actually tested the processor that 5ghz is not out of the question with good cooling and a delid (Yes, Intel engineers do delid in the lab, lol). Not the 5.2ghz I've come to see on the 7700k, but close enough to certainly be worth the loss for 2 additional cores if you needed the threads. 

 

I also find it funny that people in this thread seriously expect an IPC boost when the architecture itself has not changed at all. Any uplift in single thread performance is likely going to be a direct response to CFL's improved memory controller, and additional cache on the bigger chips (i5, i7). Intel has changed official support from 2400 to 2666 with CFL, so people are likely going to be testing CFL against Kaby with these official specs in mind.

 

If need be, I can underclock my 7700k to 4ghz and run CPU-Z's benchmark if anyone wants me to put the IPC improvements to rest (assuming this leak is even remotely true). Just don't want people to buy into this hype, only to be disappointed when per-core performance is identical to Kaby and Skylake.

[dizmo]

Haha, wow. We get increased cores and...loads of bitching from the community. What did you expect? How would it have happened any other way? Of course there would be a shift one year. Suck it up and accept it. 

 

The i3 7350k was almost on par with the 7500, if not the 7600k. It beat the 6500. The performance of this chip shouldn't be surprising. Does a 7600k not beat the 7700 when overclocked? 

 

Personally I'm thrilled that Intel is upping their game. I3 the new i5? Perfect. Now we can truly increase the number of people having great experiences on budget gaming rigs. What's wrong with that? 

 

3 hours ago, Ginger137 said:

True, but each hyperthreaded core adds like only 30% equivalent of a physical core doesn't it? 

 

Depends what it's doing. A 2c/4t can beat a 4c/4t in gaming, and other tasks if clocks are high enough. 

2 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

I guess I'll order my fucking TR motherboard and CPU some time soon.

 

Fucking Intel.

...i don't get how that affects your purchasing decision in a negative way? 

1 hour ago, The Benjamins said:

well the point is that it shows that Intel has been holding back, which people would get mad due to the feeling of broken trust.

Haha, what? That's ridiculous. No one should trust companies like that, and frankly of you already have the best performance in the market, why keep dumping huge money into R&D? You do gradual releases, keep R&D in check, and research other things. It's nothing new in the business world. Look at Canon. 

1 hour ago, Sauron said:

We must have blind faith that intel has always been doing its absolute best to cater to the customer, just barely making a profit all of these years for our benefit, but alas, their efforts were in vain and it simply wasn't possible to do this any sooner.

thank you!

You're delusional if you think they're not a business, first and foremost, watching their bottom line. What company operates with razer thin margins? That's not a smart business strategy at all. R&D isn't free either. "I want improvements! But I don't want to pay for them!" 

1 hour ago, Funtoink63 said:

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

Should have been following the news, or done  some research before you made your purchase

59 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

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. 

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 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!!"

So? So what if they're pissed. It had to happen sometime. You can't magically add half a core every year so that people don't feel butt hurt. 

 

Content creation has seem a massive increase over the past few years. So, there genuinely is a use for more cores. Most people don't need them, no, but it's much much higher than even 5 years ago. 

51 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

-snip-

 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.

I don't believe that for a second. They've had more than 2 cores for a really, really long time. They still didn't really take advantage of them until recently. 

42 minutes ago, Sauron said:

 You don't (or shouldn't) spend more than 250$ on a cpu if you only run ms office and a browser.

Unless you're doing extensive Excel work you should spend more than $80 on an office cpu...

39 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.

How is it anti consumer? They offered a product, it was best on the market. Doesn't sound very anti consumer to me. 

20 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Will it?

 

1) The 8700k is not going to clock anywhere near the 7700k. 

2) It will also still be 2 cores and 4 threads behind the 1700-1800x from AMD

If anything, it will be the 8600k that ends up shitting all over the 8700k with 6 cores there's no reason to pay more just for the hyperthreading, none at all.

Haven't leaks already shown that it'll have basically the same clock speed as the last chips? I know the 8700 had a very nice all core boost clock. 

 

I can buy the argument that AMD will still be better at content creation, since it does have more cores, but I think Intel will take back the gaming crown. Should be interesting to see the reviews. 

[pas008]

1 minute ago, Misanthrope said:

Yes: I've looked at the fines. As insignificant as they are for an entity like Google or Apple they would be equally insignificant to Intel. And no it's not a guarantee even with the EU being more strict. Stop trying to predict the future or comment as a Lawyer you're just speculating to prove a point on a forum about tech.

not predicting intel is still in a fine battle with the eu

would it be smart to fuck around and try to get another before this on hasnt even finished after almost a decade?