CPU Intel and their outrageously funny claims...

The image i posted was taken from the manual so perhaps they've changed things since then, it was last updated at v1.2, the QRG however was updated to 1.4 and in that it states "Game Mode reduces cores by half and constrains memory access such that some legacy games may perform better. This profile is typically useful only to AMD Ryzen Threadripper processors."

In addition there's the typical disclaim that comes with most overclocking software that, paraphrasing, says something along the lines of OC may damage your CPU, cause problems, degrade performance, yada, yada.

Either way though it still doesn't change the basic premise that PT's testing was deeply flawed as even if we chalk the disabling of half the cores on the 2700x to misleading information from AMD it still leaves at least another half dozen other problems like why did they use 64GB of RAM.

They claim they were trying to replicate what a typical gamer would do, they even use the Steam hardware survey as proof that most gamers use 1080p and there's no arguing with that, however less than 4% use more than 16GB so why did they use 4x16GB sticks costing something like 4-500 quid.

 

The use of the steam hw survey to back up their claims regarding "typical" gamer is flawed as well.
Because the steam hw survey is basically a catch all, including casual gamers, laptops and poor countries, none of those three categories are going to care how a £600 CPU performs...

So they would have to filter those out and then look at the typical resolution again, except they can't since Valve doesn't provide such a filtering option.

 

Why does this remind me of the footoomch bit in Young Ones?

 

New PT results as expected.

 

Intel, your full of sh*t, thank you once again for clarifying this point

 

So what was a 50-60% advantage in some scenarios has dropped to 20-30% (if that) and that's still with sub-optimal cooling and RAM config, I'm looking forward to some proper testing as i suspect we'll see that gap close even more and that we'll be questioning the advantage of spending an extra £500 odd quid for such a small advantage.

The thing is we all know Intel are the fastest gaming CPUs so the only reason i can think of for why they did this was so the price differential doesn't seem so bad.

 

However in the here and now, Intel pricing versus AMD is comical.

Bang per buck Intel?

Nada

 

The interesting thing about pt’s latest results is that half the time the 8700k is faster than the 8086k... So the slower clocked version is faster.... eh??

TBH it’s crap like this why I will be doing my own testing.

 

Looks to be the only reason tbh.

A good headline to wave at the shareholders .

 

All Intels chips rely on good thermal performance, but they don't provide a good thermal solution due to paste, the lower clocked chip may thermal throttle less leading to higher average clockspeeds, plenty of 8086 reviews showed similar in that the 8086 is not really any better if you are not lopping the top off and do some extreme OCing with it.

Apart from single core, all other boost speeds on 8086 are same as 8700k hence why its no difference.

These are out of the box settings though, tuned systems would be even quicker, as they ran canned benchmarks I can see that my gen1 Ryzen can kick the arse of a lot of those without even overclocking it and only tuning memory, surprising how much extra memory gets you versus clockspeed on Ryzen, the new Ryzen 2 chips have >400Mhz on mine.

 

No matter how hard they try to spin it, even vs Intel from a couple weeks ago the price difference looks horrible:

You could easily get the 8 core HEDT (7820x) for around £450, now this "mainstream" 8 core is £600 to preorder....

 

Yeah the price is utterly hilarious..

Mind you people will still pre order because... well.... lol

 

The prices are due to supply: more people want to buy the CPUs than are available. Like with the previous GPU supply issue, Intel gets diddly-squat of the price increase; the markup is at the retailer level.

 

Intel know this to, hence the attempted PR spin to make them more desirable (even at a full fat bs premium), which in turn has taken a HUGE chunk of flesh from their very own derrière

 

And it is merely a taste of what is to come for the entire industry as too many are putting all their eggs in the TSMC basket (not like they have a choice, so can't even blame them):

TSMC will be the exclusive SoC manufacturer for Apple next year, TSMC is the only company on the planet capable of manufacturing a real GPU (although Intel is hoping to try in the future), TSMC is the only company on the planet capable of producing next years AMD CPUs, TSMC will presumably also be the only company on the planet capable of producing whatever AMD coughs up for the next gen consoles and so on...

Of course TSMC can only expand so fast, inevitably this will result in shortages and price increases all around and that is the best case scenario of everything going according to plan.