Move over 7700, i3 8350 almost matches in performance

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

The more subtle answer is that Sandy Bridge was about 2.5 generations of improvement in 1 shot. Intel has focused on inter-core communication since then. That's why actual IPC is only a fairly small uplift per core since.

 

Plus, well, Intel's Fab side of things got messed up beyond measure. Skylake was a year late, and Icelake is going to end up being 3ish years late by the time it launches, I believe. It's really been a whole confluence of events that make things look strange. The fact that Intel would drop their best uArch in two decades the same year AMD shot itself in the foot was unpredictable.

 

And I am sure there is a lot more going on behind the scenes that we plebs know nothing about. 

[Taf the Ghost]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

 

And I am sure there is a lot more going on behind the scenes that we plebs know nothing about. 

For certain. Intel has put a lot of Development & R&D other places, which have mostly failed. That's the weird thing about Intel CPUs: they've got a huge host of "creature features", but the cores themselves only ever improve slowly. The only team that's really always pushing the envelope is the Memory Systems group. That's actually Intel's only consistently good Design work. Their Cores have mostly been "bad" in nearly ever generation, relative to AMD, at least until the Dozer Disaster happened.

[JoostinOnline]

Last time I saw someone posting a Chinese CPU-Z screenshot as "evidence", it was about how the i3-8100 would be 4 cores and 8 threads.

[JoostinOnline]

9 hours 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.

If Z270 motherboards were compatible I think it would change things somewhat.  I recently built a PC for a friend (although before Ryzen was stable) and he got a locked i5 an a Z270 motherboard, with the intention of upgrading to an unlocked i7 in a couple years.  Unless this makes the prices of old CPU's drop (which it never has), it's going to be frustrating.

[dizmo]

7 hours 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%

True, and yet, look at Intel. Massive profits.

Sure that's an example, but it's irrelevant to this so I'm not sure why you mentioned it. Pricing has been the same.

Reasonable to you isn't necessarily reasonable to you. It's fair trade. Let the market decide. They pay it, then to the people that have paid that amount, it's worth it. Sure, might not be for you, but that's your problem, not Intels.

5 hours ago, DarkBlade2117 said:

I bought an i3-6100 for gaming. Plenty of people got Pentium G4560s for gaming. Ya, you won't get 120FPS maxed out but it'll do more than good enough. Granted I also BCLKd my 6100 to 4.6GHz

How do you like the 6100 for gaming? I've been looking at systems just for 60fps, and the 6100 was one of the chips I was interested in. That or a 7350k. I also played around with the idea of a 8350, but its performance just seems so terribly lacking.

Though with this i3 news...waiting might be the best bet. Locked i3 + H310 motherboard would be pretty compelling.

2 hours ago, Daring said:

Remember people, this isn't a charity. Reward the company with the better product. Don't be Intel/AMD fanboys.

To a degree. One has to look at the total package. For example, even though AMD might have the better processor, they don't offer quality motherboards in the form factor I want, so I'll go Intel for an overall better experience.

1 hour ago, Trik'Stari said:

Because my system is basically the best it can be now. No upgrade support for future CPU's kind of pisses me off.

Are you assuming AMD is different? I know they said they'll support that socket until 2020, but really, that's only an extra year over what Intel currently does. If they change it in late 2020, you're only a single year better off. It's been this way for many generations.

58 minutes ago, NumLock21 said:

In other intel news, intel is already working on tigerlake.

Should i go with coffeelake or wait for tigerlake?

Sarcasm? They're always working on something new

43 minutes ago, mr moose said:

If they could have they would have,  no company in the history of any industry has ever survived by being complacent or holding back.

-snip-

That's not entirely true. Look at Canon. They could easily out a very advanced camera, but they have little to no competition.

They do out new stuff. It's just small upgrades here and there, to keep people satisfied.

9 minutes ago, JoostinOnline said:

If Z270 motherboards were compatible I think it would change things somewhat.  I recently built a PC for a friend (although before Ryzen was stable) and he got a locked i5 an a Z270 motherboard, with the intention of upgrading to an unlocked i7 in a couple years.  Unless this makes the prices of old CPU's drop (which it never has), it's going to be frustrating.

I think it'll cause a drop, to a degree. Why wouldn't it? People won't pay as much for this gens i5 when the i3 new is cheaper. Simply wouldn't make sense. It has, unfortunately, put a stop to my build plans. Now I get to hurry up and wait.

Also, if he's not planning on upgrading for a couple of years, the price is going to be much lower regardless of what is currently out simply on the age of the processor alone.

 

Anyone who gets upset when their computer tech is outdated down the line is, quite frankly, a fool.

[Okjoek]

Looking forward to some more affordable quad core laptops.

[mr moose]

9 minutes ago, dizmo said:

That's not entirely true. Look at Canon. They could easily out a very advanced camera, but they have little to no competition.

They do out new stuff. It's just small upgrades here and there, to keep people satisfied.

 

Not too sure I agree with that,   Plenty of companies that are competition to cannon. And even if they weren't serious competition, what makes you sure what canon has released isn't bleeding edge?

[MageTank]

3 hours ago, porina said:

I did similar already. I OC'd a 6600k to match the reported aida64 settings. It suggests the CPU was running at 40x multiplier on 103 MHz bus, and ram was at 2400 setting (but again 3% higher from bus). This should be pretty close. Doh! The rumours suggest 8350k is 8MB cache, whereas the 6600k is 6MB... so maybe I should have used a 6700k with HT off after all, but not going to repeat it now.

I updated Aida64 to current version v5.92.4300 and ran CPU Queen and PhotoWorxx. I scored 38067 compared to the claimed 43328 for i3-8350k, which is 14% higher. Likewise for PhotoWorxx I got 21373 compared to 24996, this time a 17% increase. I don't know what version of Aida they're using, and it cautions not to compare across versions.

Back to CPU-Z, still with the 3% OC, I scored 480.2 and 1904 for single and multithread respectively. The leak showed 503.3 and 1982, for 4.8% and 4.1% increase respectively. I'm assuming here it did have the 3% overclock. If not, the advantage would be correspondingly higher. This is with the same version of CPU-Z bench.

 

 

The CPU-Z result can be ignored. You cannot know the speed of the CPU, because it only reports the DMI string. I can show you my CPU-Z screenshot at 4ghz, restart, and dial in 5ghz (it's a K SKU, meaning it's multiplier is easily adjustable even in XTU) and score higher. 

 

The AIDA 64 benches mean absolutely nothing to me. Photoworxx is NOT a CPU test. It's for ram. I can run a dual core CPU and put i7's to shame. In fact, I've done so in the past: 

(Can't believe it's been almost a year) but here is my result at 4.5ghz on my 6700k. 

 

I just ran the numbers on my 7700k with HyperThreading turned off. At a x40 multiplier and 103 BCLK, I am hitting 4120mhz. I am scoring around 480 points single, 1860 multi in CPU-Z. Cache is still 8mb. I am also using heavily tweaked ram at 2472mhz (C10-10-10-28-1 with 190 tRFC and 65535 tREFI, tRDWR at 10 as well). You cannot tell me their ram was as tweaked as mine during their test, and that they still outscored be my nearly 7-8% on IPC alone. The numbers just don't add up.

[JoostinOnline]

10 minutes ago, dizmo said:

I think it'll cause a drop, to a degree. Why wouldn't it? People won't pay as much for this gens i5 when the i3 new is cheaper. Simply wouldn't make sense. It has, unfortunately, put a stop to my build plans. Now I get to hurry up and wait.

Also, if he's not planning on upgrading for a couple of years, the price is going to be much lower regardless of what is currently out simply on the age of the processor alone.

CPU's and GPU's don't get cheaper for a REALLY long time.  A used 4790K is still almost full price.

10 minutes ago, dizmo said:

Anyone who gets upset when their computer tech is outdated down the line is, quite frankly, a fool.

Except it's getting outdated drastically by one release, instead of gradually.

[dizmo]

3 minutes ago, JoostinOnline said:

CPU's and GPU's don't get cheaper for a REALLY long time.  A used 4790K is still almost full price.

Except it's getting outdated drastically by one release, instead of gradually.

Not true at all. They only remain that way if you pay for the first one you see listed.

I've never paid retail for a CPU, and I've always gotten current year. I pay on average $280 for a brand new i7.

The deals are there if you're willing to look and bargain. If you're not, then yeah, you'll pay full price.

 

He said he was waiting years to buy...so not really relevant.

Also, who cares? It's progress. We should all be happy.

It's not like the current chips perform badly.

[JoostinOnline]

Just now, dizmo said:

Not true at all. They only remain that way if you pay for the first one you see listed.

I've never paid retail for a CPU, and I've always gotten current year. I pay on average $280 for a brand new i7.

The deals are there if you're willing to look and bargain. If you're not, then yeah, you'll pay full price.

I'm not talking about sales.  I'm talking about drops in retail price.  Check out eBay listings for a 4790K.

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, dizmo said:

Also, who cares? It's progress. We should all be happy.

It's not like the current chips perform badly.

 

And this here is the absolute reality of the situation.   Too many people are up in arms and down in legs, they think the world is ending becasue Intel have released a new run of CPU's that perform better than the last set.  Surprise surprise.  Tech has been like this for the last 50 years, nothing new to see. 

[Nowak]

32 minutes ago, dizmo said:

To a degree. One has to look at the total package. For example, even though AMD might have the better processor, they don't offer quality motherboards in the form factor I want, so I'll go Intel for an overall better experience.

That's my point. If a company offers the better product for your use case scenario, reward them instead.

[Taja]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

 

no company in the history of any industry has ever survived by being complacent or holding back.

 

err.. WHAT?? 

Ofc not, there are lots of factores here, such as:

1- Monopoly. intel is not a full monopoly because of AMD, but before ryzen they essentialy had a monopoly going on. 

2- Technology has limitations. Companies have roadmaps for a reason, they predict a coherent improvement based on lots of things, and lack of competition, shift for other technologies and pure profit are factors. Or you are really going to say that the skylake to kaby lake to kaby lake X is the best these guys can do? if it was, they would never get here, they would be pathetic.

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

 

 

[dizmo]

1 minute ago, JoostinOnline said:

I'm not talking about sales.  I'm talking about drops in retail price.  Check out eBay listings for a 4790K.

Neither am I, I'm talking about used prices. EBay is a horrible place to judge the value of used PC hardware, it almost always sells for higher than you can get it elsewhere. I've seen many items sell for more than it costs from an online retailer.

Just now, mr moose said:

And this here is the absolute reality of the situation.   Too many people are up in arms and down in legs, they think the world is ending becasue Intel have released a new run of CPU's that perform better than the last set.  Surprise surprise.  Tech has been like this for the last 50 years, nothing new to see. 

Yeah I don't really get it either. Why are people upset? I mean, I can kind of understand the people who just bought something. But it's your job as a buyer to research before you buy, and you would have waited if you'd done the proper research. The rest? Be happy that we're finally getting cores at affordable prices. They always complain year after year that it's only a 10% increase, so Intel releases processors with more cores, they complain about that. I seriously don't understand the bitching at all. It's not like the i7 they bought on release almost a year ago wasn't top dog, and it doesn't immediately perform worse.

 

...err..TL;DR - I give 0 fucks about people who are upset when something comes out that's better than what they have, and they feel the need to cry about it.

[JoostinOnline]

Just now, dizmo said:

Neither am I, I'm talking about used prices. EBay is a horrible place to judge the value of used PC hardware, it almost always sells for higher than you can get it elsewhere. I've seen many items sell for more than it costs from an online retailer.

Can you find me a reasonably priced 4790K?

[dizmo]

4 minutes ago, JoostinOnline said:

Can you find me a reasonably priced 4790K?

No, because I'm not your personal shopper, and I'm not wasting my time to prove it to you.

[GDRRiley]

9 hours ago, NvidiaIntelAMDLoveTriangle said:

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

if you look his does list all of his sources and is correct in the info he puts forth 

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, Taja said:

err.. WHAT?? 

Ofc not, there are lots of factores here, such as:

1- Monopoly. intel is not a full monopoly because of AMD, but before ryzen they essentialy had a monopoly going on. 

2- Technology has limitations. Companies have roadmaps for a reason, they predict a coherent improvement based on lots of things, and lack of competition, shift for other technologies and pure profit are factors. Or you are really going to say that the skylake to kaby lake to kaby lake X is the best these guys can do? if it was, they would never get here, they would be pathetic.

 

 

Not too sure what you are trying to say.   It sounds like you are insinuating that Intel are intentionally holding back on improving their technology while at the same time agreeing that that doesn't happen.

[Clyne]

FX 8320 to i7-7700K is fine enough for me with a huge jump, even Ryzen R5/R7 are a perfect replacement for FX owners. But if your one of those people who's got Haswell/Bridge then it doesn't seem like a big jump for most people with Coffee Lake. It still works fine for what it is right now...2600K still works fine with most people. 

[Lord Nicoll]

15 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 really happy with my 5.2GHz i7 7700K, I don't need more cores and I like the speed, Would I take the extra cores? Only if they didn't lower the clock speed, the more cores you have the higher the chance one of them will hold back the CPU, plus I got a few servers for many core workloads. 

[ARikozuM]

12 hours ago, Sauron said:

And you would buy a 6 core part for single threaded tasks?

Even games and editing suites, i.e. CAD or Adobe, still rely heavily on single-threaded performance. You can't read multi-core usage as multi-threaded behavior. 

[Taja]

55 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

Not too sure what you are trying to say.   It sounds like you are insinuating that Intel are intentionally holding back on improving their technology while at the same time agreeing that that doesn't happen.

Well, for me it was pretty clear what I meant: Intel OBVIOUSLY is "holding back", like every company with a monopoly or domination of market. I used skylake/kabylake/kabylake x as an example, because they launched three generations of the same thing. now that competition is back, they are starting to change this approach. Because they CAN make good tech, but they werent doing it because they didnt have to.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Taja said:

Well, for me it was pretty clear what I meant: Intel OBVIOUSLY is "holding back", like every company with a monopoly or domination of market. I used skylake/kabylake/kabylake x as an example, because they launched three generations of the same thing. now that competition is back, they are starting to change this approach. Because they CAN make good tech, but they werent doing it because they didnt have to.

obviously?  So you have in-depth experience and understanding of the R+D division of Intel?  

[laminutederire]

13 hours ago, pas008 said:

why fml

you still have an i7 7700k

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

 

If this is true, he just bought the most expensive cpu which would cost two to three times less just the generation around the corner.