Blogs I'm optimistic about Intel's chances with Coffee Lake

While you can split some stuff into threads in a program, other things are much harder to thread. In most things the bottleneck is still generally one of the non-threadable tasks maxing out 1 core. It doesn't matter how many cores you have after that - you are bottle necked by that single threaded task. Games are an example of things that don't thread particularly well as it's running real time, and has to keep syncing to render a new frame 60 times a second or with the online server 30 times a second.

Anyway that means that for most of us 6 cores with very high single core performance is great. 6 cores gives us enough parallelisation for those things that can be multi-threaded, and single core performance minimises single-thread bottlenecks.

I don't see us needing more then 6 cores for a while - remember main stream quad cores arrived in 2007 (Q6600) yet even today most stuff runs fine with a dual core i3 (2017).

In addition Intel process upgrades suggest the next two are (first 2 10nm iterations) will benefit efficiency in lower power chips, not improve high end desktop chips. Hence there won't be any serious performance upgrades (from process at least) for a few years.

Hence coffee lake is probably a great cpu to go for - price/performance/longevity.

 

Indeed....the force needs balance , you need both companies to be doing well to give the best options for the consumer, anyway I have put my money where my mouth is, my dying z77 system is going to be retired this month, thought about waiting for the next Intel but it's more about the platform than the CPU for me, x399 winging its way to me right now, I probably should have waited for a non X TR chip to be even cheaper but thought feck it, board and CPU for TR was cheaper than CPU alone on i9 with all the lanes I could want.

It was a toss up though I was close to going i9 but didn't fancy delidding again, I like to tinker but lost my 3770k in a delidding episode, don't fancy loosing something more expensive.

 

As a for-profit company, they've got a duty to their shareholders to maximise profits. The market (i.e. lack of decent competition from anyone else) means that Intel have done what they have to achieve the best results for their shareholders. Don't think that AMD would have done any differently if the roles were reversed - it's not Intel's problem if they have no effective competition.

Not saying that I like it but it is how businesses work and operate.

The key point for me from the article is the price - the 6600K and 7600K are £204 and £206. If the 8600K comes in at £270 as suggested in the article (and the i3 8350K is priced at the £200) then I'll happily call foul.

 

Yeah, I completely agree with this. It always makes me chuckle a bit when people try to make out that AMD are some sort of saints and Intel are the devil incarnate (and feel free to replace those names with whichever alternatives you like). They are all as bad (or good) as each other.

The PC industry seems to be particularly bad for people being over-emotional and attributing all sorts of motives and characteristics to the companies involved. I don't want to say the f-word but I do think people get over-invested. I just buy whatever's the best product for my needs and budget, and I try to be as brand-agnostic as I can be.

 

I'm not trying to make out AMD as saints, nor am I a fanboy. Simply put, I want them to keep trading blows. Intel still has the upper hand, so hopefully with enough people going AMD, they'll be able to keep fighting back, hopefully finally moving the technology forward and the prices down.

 

Yeah it is quite funny. We've had years of Intel pummelling AMD into the ground, yet everyone still bought blue CPU's and refused to support the "plucky underdog" they all seem to love. Now AMD have given Intel some competition, everyone is very quick to jump ship... What if Ryzen was a dud though? Would another generation of incremental Intel upgrades been enough to convince people to "vote with their wallets"?

Consumers are just as fickle as the companies we buy from - we wan't the most performance for our money, they wan't the most profit for their time and investment.

Nvidia, as much as I love to take the piss out of Jen, have actually been pretty kind to us, given the lack of competition... At least compared to Intel.

 

Tbh I think it's more that Intel are just a bit incompetent - they've spent years chasing tablets, phones, iot and ignored the prime markets (pc's). They've got to give us a reason to upgrade, or we won't bother - I say this as I still own an i2500K and it still runs everything great. Anyway they backed out of all those other markets having blown a fortune, and now are back to pc's, only they did nothing for so long that this has allowed AMD back into the game. A sad state of affairs if you work for Intel - how did a company with so much money, so many people and it's own fabs fail so hard that a tiny company using someone elses fabs is now competitive again.

Nvidia on the other hand didn't ignore their core market while chasing phones/tablets/etc - they worked out that if you want to keep people upgrading you've got to produce something new that's faster - 25-30% faster to be exact. So they still invest a lot in pc gaming. But they do use the lack of competition to maximise profits. To pretty well guarantee that magic 25-30% upgrade speed if they look like they've got a 40% upgrade and the chip after is more like 20% they'll underclock the first one a bit so that way the second one still hits the magic 25-30%. If AMD were more competitive they couldn't do that and would have to release as fast a chip as they could manage.

 

What am I missing?

If the $390 price translates to £390 over here, it'll get laughed at - you can buy an Ryzen 7 1700X with a decent motherboard and still have change.

So AMD will still be offering more cores and better multithreaded performance for a LOT less money.

 

And you'll actually be able to upgrade the CPU without having to replace the MoBo, it seems like every new Intel CPU needs a new socket now days.

 

Yup they have two planned too. Z370 and Z390. For one range.

From what I have heard about this so far it's just Kaby with extra cores/threads. Price is £390, basically (as said before here in the thread) meaning they are charging £60 extra over the I7 7700k or more. Meaning that basically they have not dropped their prices at all. You are paying for those cores and threads at pre Ryzen prices. Did they not get the memo the fools? The 1600 can be had for £180 *with* a cooler. Now sure it's not the best stock cooler ever made (hmm actually it might be as it goes, wrong terminology maybe?) but it does an admirable job and doesn't cost you another £25. So that is less than half the price of CL, with a cooler.

I really thought Ryzen would at least make Intel release more cores at slightly less money, but more cores at more money? Error computing data... Stack overload....

 

They still have the best cores though so why would you drop price? People who prioritise per core performance won't look at AMD.

For sims at work there can be diminishing returns for adding more cores, and these are threaded work loads, pure core speed is king here.

 

I know there are cases where people want high per core performance and high core count but wouldn't most people who want high core performance not really be to bothered about more cores?

I guess what I'm saying is that don't most people either want high performing low'ish core count (2 maybe 4) or many (6+) slightly lower performing cores.

 

It also probably helps Intel when you hear of people having problems with memory and gaming performance not being good. Whilst it was mostly reactionary commentary from initial release, it did hit share price and so plenty of people heard this. So if you want something you can trust to perform after hearing all that stuff you are buying Intel. Reliable brand, AMD is the underperforming never quite as good brand. You pay more for a good brand in every market place, simple, the cheaper stuff is generally cheaper because it isn't as good.

Don't get me wrong, I've just bought Threadripper, the platform offers me what I want at a good price, if I could justify the dough I would have a top end i9.

 

Boring Intel is boring. Holding us back for a decade and suddenly releasing it so that they don't lose out to AMD. Meh. Not in the slightest bit bothered. Zen refresh will overclock better and will bring a 15% boost to performance as well. It's just a matter of time.

Sure, Intel is faster in IPC and that's largely due to the clock speeds now, but they will eventually get beaten at their own game, it's just a matter of time for AMD.

 

Apparently 390 is reserved for an 8 core. So every time you want two more cores you need a new board. FFS.

 

You would be amazed just how many people would sacrifice the core speed for value for money. Seriously, Ryzen isn't the fastest and never was but it's selling like wildfire. Maybe with a GPU you would want the bleeding edge performance but for many, me included, a certain amount is enough.

I went from a 5820k to a 14 core Broadwell E Xeon that runs 3.1ghz up to four cores and then 2.8ghz on all 14. Cost me £360, less than a 1800x. I figured that basically I had ran the 5820k stock for all of its life (over two years) and had no complaints about how my games ran. So the Xeon runs at around the same speed, plus the gen bump improvements etc so was the best value, considering I run lots of VMs (well, when I am not modding lol). Value. All about value. That's why I have an X79 rig with a 8 core Ivy @ 3.4ghz because the CPU was £90.

 

However Awful Intel might be, they still have the entire server and Retail through Dell Apple ect to themselves.

AMD need more than just a slight win here and there, even if every enthusiast brought one on every pc forum that exists how many sales do you think that is ?

AMD need a good APU that offers performance that can then be sold in Bulk to the likes of Dell lenova or Apple.

Get 1 of the big 3 giving you 5mil sales every quarter and your bottom line jumps a lot. Apple pays Intel more in a quarter than AMD has made in the last year if the financial break downs are accurate. ( varies between 3-4bil from Apple figures. Based on mac sales one assumes)

The apu is the one that will bring AMDs bottom line into gear if they can get it anywhere close to out performing the equivalent Intel for less.

 

I can't help but see covfefe when I see coffeelake.

 

Covfefe Lake would be an excellent name for pretty much anything.