Move over 7700, i3 8350 almost matches in performance

[NvidiaIntelAMDLoveTriangle]

26 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. 

 

Yes, because a video from AMD's biggest fanboy is all the proof anyone would ever need.

[Sauron]

Just now, dizmo said:

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!" 

I never said they aren't, the fact is I don't care. They're free to do whatever they think will make them more money, and I'm free to blast them for it and recommend people buy something else. Intel is a loooong way from razor thin margins. They can be as greedy as they want, but expecting this to not make an impact on people's attidute towards them would be asking too much, don't you think? They won't make any money if they don't cater to the customer, and I'd be willing to wager a lot of people with sandy or ivy chips put off upgrading because they saw no reason to - which inevitably cuts into their bottom line to some extent. When you hear that people aren't buying new desktops, this is part of the reason; there just hasn't been a compelling argument to upgrade for years.

8 minutes ago, dizmo said:

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

Of course, "more than 250$" makes more of an impact though as these products are on that scale.

[bcredeur97]

so many people are going to buy i3's for gaming now...

[Sauron]

2 minutes ago, NvidiaIntelAMDLoveTriangle said:

Yes, because a video from AMD's biggest fanboy is all the proof anyone would ever need.

It is documented fact that Intel boosted their marketshare with illegal practices. There have been lawsuits:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Micro_Devices,_Inc._v._Intel_Corp.

This isn't too relevant with the topic at hand though.

[Misanthrope]

21 minutes ago, dizmo said:

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. 

Well if they have, that'd be very nice. But it might still not be indicative of the 5.0 to 5.2ghz overclocks there's a good chance, specially if looking at x299 and such (that's also a bigger die btw) that those overclocks are probably not gonna be achievable. Intel is usually conservative with their stock clocks and boosts and if anything, while the boost clocks are similar the stock clocks are going to be lower. I guess it should be a matter of wait and see but I'd still temper my expectations of 6 cores 12 threads @ 5.0ghz 

[mynameisjuan]

1 hour ago, Jito463 said:

AMD and their 8 core disagrees.

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

It took liquid cooling, but it was still manageable.

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.

Why are you comparing AMD to intel? Isnt this argument about what INTEL had years ago? Like congrats that AMD had a shit CPU that hit 5ghz on a DIFFERENT 8 core architecture but that doesnt apply to intel that focused more on single core performance which is still one of the biggest factors in most of our task. Still almost all desktops chips dont need these extra cores. If you render or do video work then fine but that is still not enough for intel to justify cores over single core performance. 

 

Intel had all the right to stagnate their processors. Even if they did have their own 6 core desktop chip they didnt need it to compete with AMD. 

[mynameisjuan]

Edit: duplicate post

[dizmo]

6 minutes ago, Sauron said:

I never said they aren't, the fact is I don't care. They're free to do whatever they think will make them more money, and I'm free to blast them for it and recommend people buy something else. Intel is a loooong way from razor thin margins. They can be as greedy as they want, but expecting this to not make an impact on people's attidute towards them would be asking too much, don't you think? They won't make any money if they don't cater to the customer, and I'd be willing to wager a lot of people with sandy or ivy chips put off upgrading because they saw no reason to - which inevitably cuts into their bottom line to some extent. When you hear that people aren't buying new desktops, this is part of the reason; there just hasn't been a compelling argument to upgrade for years.

 

Of course, "more than 250$" makes more of an impact though as these products are on that scale.

You think AMD wouldn't do something similar if it was in the same position?

It doesn't change my opinion at all, because I understand and accept how a business functions.

It takes years to develop new architecture. So, expecting astonishing improvements year after year is asinine.

There were other factors that cut into desktops; phones and tablets. There is a huge percentage of people that simply don't need a desktop computer, they can get by just fine with a phone or tablet.

 

 

[mynameisjuan]

26 minutes ago, dizmo said:

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. 

Dont tell me that. Tell the people complaining that they are only getting a 10-15% increase year to year.

 

Content creation has increased but since Ryzen, apparently everyone and their brother does it now and its a must and people could barley survive before Ryzen with only 4c/8t. Thats new mentality is what pisses me off the most. 

[Sauron]

8 minutes ago, dizmo said:

You think AMD wouldn't do something similar if it was in the same position?

It doesn't change my opinion at all, because I understand and accept how a business functions.

It takes years to develop new architecture. So, expecting astonishing improvements year after year is asinine.

There were other factors that cut into desktops; phones and tablets. There is a huge percentage of people that simply don't need a desktop computer, they can get by just fine with a phone or tablet.

I don't know or care if they would or wouldn't - they haven't. And AMD has paid for their past mistakes I would say... they rushed bulldozer out the door and tried to market it on the core count, we all know how well that turned out. As soon as intel stops acting like a douche I'll gladly recommend them again, in the meanwhile the competition has better offers.

 

I don't expect miracles, I expect them not to hold back improvements on purpose. This has nothing to do with R&D.

 

And as I said, it has been part of the reason for the decline of desktop sales, not the only one.

[Misanthrope]

1 minute ago, mynameisjuan said:

Dont tell me that. Tell the people complaining that they are only getting a 10-15% increase year to year.

 

Content creation has increased but since Ryzen, apparently everyone and their brother does it now and its a must and people could barley survive before Ryzen with only 4c/8t. Thats new mentality is what pisses me off the most. 

I have to respectfully disagree on this: This has been a subject for years when people used to discuss i5 vs i7 and 1151 vs 2011. Many people continue to ask not just about gaming but about game streaming to Twitch and Youtube, it's been trending steadily up for years before Ryzen even entered the picture.

[RotoCoreOne]

Im sure the IHS will not be soldered on again. I wish they would just let us buy a K skus with the IHS not yet installed on the chip so we can use our own paste.

[mynameisjuan]

5 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

I have to respectfully disagree on this: This has been a subject for years when people used to discuss i5 vs i7 and 1151 vs 2011. Many people continue to ask not just about gaming but about game streaming to Twitch and Youtube, it's been trending steadily up for years before Ryzen even entered the picture.

As in many people you mean from forums. I am sorry but not that many people need these cores for content creation or even streaming because still very few people do it even if the trend has been on the rise. What I am saying is on this forum people apparently need minimum of 8 cores or GTFO just because ryzen when a i7 has been just fine for them all along. All I am saying is cores are not a necessity as most people here are making it out to be. 

[dizmo]

12 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Well if they have, that'd be very nice. But it might still not be indicative of the 5.0 to 5.2ghz overclocks there's a good chance, specially if looking at x299 and such (that's also a bigger die btw) that those overclocks are probably not gonna be achievable. Intel is usually conservative with their stock clocks and boosts and if anything, while the boost clocks are similar the stock clocks are going to be lower. I guess it should be a matter of wait and see but I'd still temper my expectations of 6 cores 12 threads @ 5.0ghz 

How does overclock relate to boost clock? The 8700k is supposedly tied for boost clock, so maybe there's still some hope?

I've never been into overclocking, and since I'm going SFF with my next true build the 65w chips are more interesting to me.

Either way I can't wait to see what the performance is like. 2018 should be an excellent year for PC builds.

4 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

Dont tell me that. Tell the people complaining that they are only getting a 10-15% increase year to year.

 

Content creation has increased but since Ryzen, apparently everyone and their brother does it now and its a must and people could barley survive before Ryzen with only 4c/8t. Thats new mentality is what pisses me off the most. 

Haha, tbh I wouldn't be surprised if that were true. Everyone wants to be the next YouTube star.

I'm going to laugh so hard when the platform crashes.

1 minute ago, Sauron said:

I don't know or care if they would or wouldn't - they haven't. And AMD has paid for their past mistakes I would say... they rushed bulldozer out the door and tried to market it on the core count, we all know how well that turned out. As soon as intel stops acting like a douche I'll gladly recommend them again, in the meanwhile the competition has better offers.

I disagree, but hey, each to their own.

[MyName13]

38 minutes ago, bcredeur97 said:

so many people are going to buy i3's for gaming now...

Nope, i5 8400 is a much better deal, it's basically r5 1600 for a smaller price.

[Jito463]

1 hour ago, dizmo said:

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. 

Perhaps you should read my post again, I explicitly said mainstream.  HEDT is not mainstream.

39 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

Intel had all the right to stagnate their processors. Even if they did have their own 6 core desktop chip they didnt need it to compete with AMD. 

So, now we've gone from "Intel could only just now make a 6 core", to "Intel has a right to stagnate their processors".  And you're correct, they do have that right.  And we have the right to be ticked off at them about it.

[The Benjamins]

1 hour ago, dizmo said:

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. 

 

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

 

Their has to be some level of trust when buying a product, if people have 0 trust in something they wouldn't buy it.

 

purposefully making small improvements even though they have the technology to release better products is anti consumer. it is a unethical business practice of strategically releasing products to milk money from the consumer. a example is if it cost a company %20 percent more to make the product 10% better but charges 80% more for it. a reasonable price increase is 20-30%

[Dylanc1500]

25 minutes ago, The Benjamins said:

Their has to be some level of trust when buying a product, if people have 0 trust in something they wouldn't buy it.

 

purposefully making small improvements even though they have the technology to release better products is anti consumer. it is a unethical business practice of strategically releasing products to milk money from the consumer. a example is if it cost a company %20 percent more to make the product 10% better but charges 80% more for it. a reasonable price increase is 20-30%

To be a little fair Intel's prices, if inflation is taken into consideration, have continued to drop on the top "mainstream" cpu since nahalem. Top end skus like HEDT are a different story because that is set by how much people are willing to spend for the best of the best. (Which is how we ended up with the Skulltrail platform)

[bcredeur97]

46 minutes ago, MyName13 said:

Nope, i5 8400 is a much better deal, it's basically r5 1600 for a smaller price.

idk... 4 cores at a higher clockspeed might be a bit better.. plus overclock could further-boost per-core speeds. 

 

but idk maybe games are getting better with multi-core and we don't have to worry about this.

 

as for me i'd pay the extra for the overclockable i5. just because that's what I always do...

[FPSwithaWacomTablet]

5 hours ago, Taja said:

I highly doubt that. But still, what is kinda confirmed (the core counts + IPC improvement) is already great. But THIS, well, I doubt intel would go from 0,001% improvements per generaration to OVER 9000 in the blink of an eye.

Never underestimate Intel's engineers... Many companies have gone down by doing so.

[pas008]

49 minutes ago, The Benjamins said:

Their has to be some level of trust when buying a product, if people have 0 trust in something they wouldn't buy it.

 

purposefully making small improvements even though they have the technology to release better products is anti consumer. it is a unethical business practice of strategically releasing products to milk money from the consumer. a example is if it cost a company %20 percent more to make the product 10% better but charges 80% more for it. a reasonable price increase is 20-30%

isnt that a business risk and strategy?

many companies dont release better products on purpose, plus they have another platform that could argue that all day

 

18 minutes ago, Dylanc1500 said:

To be a little fair Intel's prices, if inflation is taken into consideration, have continued to drop on the top "mainstream" cpu since nahalem. Top end skus like HEDT are a different story because that is set by how much people are willing to spend for the best of the best. (Which is how we ended up with the Skulltrail platform)

lol many bitch about intels prices but havent they been pretty much the same since core2 days?

[The Benjamins]

2 minutes ago, pas008 said:

isnt that a business risk and strategy?

many companies dont release better products on purpose, plus they have another platform that could argue that all day

 

lol many bitch about intels prices but havent they been pretty much the same since core2 days?

The part you didn't bold explains it better. were I don't see a issue if it is to costly but to have huge margins on products that wouldn't need that to be fairly profitable is unethical.

 

"a example is if it cost a company %20 percent more to make the product 10% better but charges 80% more for it. a reasonable price increase is 20-30%"

 

it is like spending $10mil on R&D and manufacturing a 10c CPU, but selling the "batch" as 6c and making $20mil then next gen sell basically the same thing as a 8c and making another $20mil while each time giving the impression that each generation is new and the best we can make, when that is a lie.

[pas008]

1 minute ago, The Benjamins said:

The part you didn't bold explains it better. were I don't see a issue if it is to costly but to have huge margins on products that wouldn't need that to be fairly profitable is unethical.

 

"a example is if it cost a company %20 percent more to make the product 10% better but charges 80% more for it. a reasonable price increase is 20-30%"

 

it is like spending $10mil on R&D and manufacturing a 10c CPU, but selling the "batch" as 6c and making $20mil then next gen sell basically the same thing as a 8c and making another $20mil while each time giving the impression that each generation is new and the best we can make, when that is a lie.

A company's costs/overhead/profit margin/etc is their business not yours

 

if I sell a painting, keycap, or cable for 200 and only takes me 20 cents to make

its only worth as much as what people pay for it

 

 

[Taja]

19 minutes ago, FPSwithaWacomTablet said:

Never underestimate Intel's engineers... Many companies have gone down by doing so.

Im not. Im criticising their practices. I am sure the engineers could have made processors better than the 7700k 5 years ago, but intel does not want that. They know they can get a lot better, but they prefer to only get 10% better every year. Ia better for business, simple as that.

So ofc they will do what is better for business, not what is better for the consumer, like every big company EVER.

[DarkBlade2117]

6 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'm not, I'm happy with what I got at the time of purchase. I didn't care what was releasing in 3 months, I cared what I got at that moment. I'm happy for a push in the market finally and for what my next CPU upgrade will be which will likely be around the time I go to Uni in 2-3 years.