Blogs Are Intel's CPU offerings weak despite Coffee Lake's success?

This does come across as a bit of an AMD cheerleading session. Since coffeelake arrived I don't think AMD has sold many chips either, so right now neither are winning. One could argue that Intel wasn't really ready to release when they did and stopping AMD selling was their main goal for the first few months of coffeelake.

Performance is not an issue - it's faster then the equivalent AMD for most users most of the time, the AMD has more cores argument doesn't really hold as Intel has enough cores and each one of them is faster - real people don't run cinebench all day. The main reason coffeelake hasn't sold is pricing (cpu/mb and memory/gpu all too expensive).

This I think is because they released it early to attempt to get competition with AMD. That means at first there were very few chips so the price went up. Then we only have the expensive Z270 mb's, perhaps because it was a rushed release and they didn't have time to prepare lower end boards.

In addition it just so happens that memory and gpu prices have been rising the whole time, so anyone trying to build a new pc might wait because they would have to spend more on memory and silly money to get a gpu. Oh and spectre/meltdown is yet another reason to hold off for now.

From Intel's point of view they need to fix availability which is finally happening, and release a budget m/b for the 8400 - the 8400 is probably the star coffeelake chip. They can't fix the stupid gpu prices however, and it's going to be a long time before they have chips that have fixes for meltdown in them.

 

The integrated graphics are a plus for Intel in my view, especially with increased GPU prices.
You can at least turn on an Intel based system and use it

 

If by "pretty much the same" you mean "stock 8100 consistently outperforms the overclocked 1200 in almost every measure, not just gaming" (and by extension the 1300X due to Ryzen's clock ceiling), to the point that - for gaming - it provides better perf/$ even with increased platform cost?
(and not just Toms, Techspot, Phoronix, etc find similar)

Are you really claiming that retailers no longer charging a premium over the ARK-rec price constitutes a price cut on the part of Intel? By that logic, 'AMD' have been price gouging their GPUs for the last year if we judge wholesale pricing to be retail pricing!

Slating the entire CPU range based on "the cheaper chipsets haven't launched yet" seems rather overkill.

 

I do believe you’ve just posted an opinion which is akin to a grenade in a hen house Antony

Pricing in the scheme of things be it blue, green or red is everything - add ever increasing RAM prices into the equation and what you have is a situation which in the here and now is FUBAR.

As regards Intel being caught with it’s shorts down, *shrugs* oh well sh*t happens - from my own point of view the last Intel CPU I was truly impressed with was my 2600K.

 

Ryzen 3 1200 may well be one of the best CPUs ever made from a consumer point of view, but that doesn't mean it is relevant any more, lets just put it where it belongs: a museum.
It did what it was supposed to do, it made an absolute laughingstock out of the locked down dualcore i3s and forced Intel to give us budget quadcores.

 

Whenever we talk about Intel are we talking about performance pre or post patches and meltdown bios updates?

 

IMO, so far so good.

Ryzen launched and gave Intel a bloody nose, and it's had to scramble (big time) to remain competitive - a period of more gentle to and fro between them over the next few years at least is exactly what we need. I bought Ryzen because I want a strong AMD, but I'll buy Intel if looks better value at my next upgrade window. Yin & Yang.

 

Yeah, we can do nothing but win from competition in the CPU market.

That's why I want both Intel and AMD to do well.

 

I have a second system in my lounge based on Ryzen 1200. As others have the same opinion i had a G4560 in before but i wanted to support AMD. Turns out for my £88 that its an utter fantastic little CPU , clocks to 3.8 @ 1.25 stays cool and plays all my games i like to play with my feet up on the sofa.

I also get the satisfaction i can OC the little budget CPU ( which we all like an OC right? ) and get some very decent performance for not a lot of coin.

Best of all i will upgrade to AM4+ when it releases and thats all i need to do .... take one out and slap another one in. AMD doing it right , not only for the consumer but also for themselves. Nothing wrong with Intel .... but its nice to see the playground bully get kicked in the balls. That makes me smile.

 

I would love continued competition. AMD is interesting because of the longevity of its platform. The disadvantage is that AMD doesn't update the platform with new features as often.
I'm hoping to see PCIe 4.0 soon, which AMD seems to be skipping. We don't need it for the GPU, but it will be good for M.2 drives. This is especially true given the number of lanes on mainstream Intel platforms. This would help to lessen AMD's advantage in terms of the number of lanes it offers.

 

Why? m.2 offers virtually zero real world performance benefit over SATA3 SSDs as it stands. My m.2 reads at 4x the read speed of my SATA SSDs and almost 3x the write speed, yet my PC feels no faster than when it is running on one of my 2.5" SSDs. Maybe it's a little quicker dedicating an m.2 as a scratch disk for PS, but even that doesn't make a huge difference.

 

Not really, m.2 nvme drives need to improve worst case scenario performance in order to compete with the Intel 900P, but I don't really see a need for even more sequential read performance (the only place where pci-e 3 x4 currently poses a limit), 3.2GB/s is plenty when put into perspective of how little data you can actually fit on an ssd.

 

It isn't necessary today, but with how things i see little reason for frequent upgrades.
When I upgrade from my i5-2500k I will need a new CPU, MB and RAM. I hope my next computer will be good for many years as well, with minor upgrades.
It would be ideal to upgrade with something like PCIe 4.0 and not 1 generation before.

 

Intels CPU clearly aren't weak, the way they have chosen to segment there products in is weak, they've been caught napping a bit, AMD gave them a reason to shift gears and hopefully we will see stronger platforms and CPUs from them going forward to keep AMD in their place, that's why strong competition is a good thing, pushes everything forward.

As a boot drive, game drive sure but when moving Gigabytes of video data or simulation datasets its bloody lovely, I have quite a few NVMe in Raid0 and the speed at which I can shift stuff around is impressive, I bought a load of cheaper ones with poorer write speed I notice this capping at a 4GB/s which is a shame as the read is double that.

there is not a lot that needs PCIe 3.0 bandwidth available, never mind 4.0, you are currently running PCIe 2.0 which has half the bandwidth of 3.0, so 3.0 would be an upgrade for you. Most PCIe limitations come from the number of lanes available rather than bandwidth, if you need more there are chips with more lanes.

That said Titan V SLI which doesn't have the NVLink cable of the AI variants uses a fair bit of PCIe 3.0 x16 slot bandwidth as shown by those who have tried it (of course Nvidia doesn't support SLI on Titan Vs officially) considering the cost of the NVLink cable and the bandwidth limitations of the SLI bridge, the next generation of NVidia Gaming GPUs may chose to use the PCIe bus, so 4.0 may be handy for GPU after all, particularly as screens go 8K and beyond.

 

I could be misinformed, but it is my understanding issue isn't specifically the badwidth of PCIe so much as the limited number of lanes. My i5-2500k has 16 PCIe 2.0 lanes.

• Coffee Lake PCIe 3.0 (16 lanes)
• Kaby Lake PCIe 3.0 (16 lanes)
• Broadwell-E PCIe 3.0 (40/28 lanes)
• Kaby Lake-X PCIe 3.0 (16 lanes)
• Skylake-X PCIe 3.0 (44/28 lanes)

With graphics cards, multiple M.2 cards and other high speed ports like usb 3.1 and thunderbolt,16 lanes can be a limiting factor.
16 PCIe at 4.0 would be similar to 32 on 3.0.

 

Who cares what CPU you go for thesedays when your going to get bent over & shafted silly over DDR4 & GPU purchases for your shiny new rig...

 

There is this.

If DDR4 was cheaper I'd be upgrading.

 

As the one part you probably won't upgrade for years DDR4 price can get a pass, its not that bad.

 

That's a fair point.

TBH i am waiting to see what Ryzen+ looks like - DDR4 price isn't stopping me totally (i missed 'now' at the end of my previous post) but perhaps it is doing me a favour in holding off for a little while.

Edit: what am i saying?!!? Thanks for the high ram prices?!? I can talk crap.