Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by bit-tech, 11 Oct 2017.
It's also good that the 8600K with 6 real cores but no HT has really closed the gap in gaming on the i7 8700K.
There was some justification in going for the 7700K over the 7600K, but I really don't see the merit in spending another £100 on the i7 this time, unless you really need HT for productivity purposes.
Nice read thank you Anthony ! yes this year has been very exciting indeed. In fact, it's taken away a lot of Nvidia's thunder IMO. Every one is now talking CPUs again which is nice to see
It's a consumer market once again (thank you AMD), we no longer have to pay through the nose for Intel products - competition is such a great thing
Great article Ant!!
The only thing missing are AMD APUs. Without them, AMD is no competitor in the mobile sector, nor the corporate sector. That's where the money is however.
Honestly, I think AMD delaying Raven Ridge as long as they have (with no sign of desktop parts until 2018, it seems) is an even bigger mistake then them delaying Vega... I have a suspicion they staggered the launch intentionally to get as many Ryzen 3/5 buyers as possible, as I predict a lot of overlap with Zen-based APU's in that range - unless they differentiate them by making the APU chips locked multiplier only?
But seriously, cheap A320/B350 boards with Zen cores and 1080p-capable Vega graphics will sell like HOT CAKES, so get a bloody move on lads!
It does seem a bit ridiculous that we're still waiting for APUs. Not sure why the delay, but AMD need to get a wriggle on!
The sort of person happy with an APU would probably be quite happy with the existing Bristol ridge, so it's not like they don't have something, it's just not on the new arch, it still drops into the AM4 platform.
Yeah but who want's to buy a new AM4 board, just to plug a god-awful Bulldozer chip into it? They might as well go for any recent i3 (heck, compared to Bristol Ridge, even Celery/Pentium) if they are having to get a new board/platform... which, as others have said in the past, is exactly what a lot of business will do for work rigs that need video output without dedicated GPU's.
I think the problem is that AMD have kinda priced themselves into a corner - APU range can't be more expensive than the productivity/gaming chips (Ryzen 3/5), but they also can't go lower than 4 cores and can't go much lower on price without ruining the very profit margin they need so badly. As I said above, the obvious answer is to lock them to clocks 200-300Mhz lower than their non-APU counterpart, as that gives them a very clear market (not users that know about/will use an unlocked multi) and puts the focus on those dirt cheap A320 boards... Why they haven't done this yet, who knows!
The iGPU is still better than Intels even though it's old, only Intel Iris products are better, so if you are buying new and cheap its not a terrible option.
But it's not better for the only purpose of running a monitor, which is where the money is.
The beauty of the intel CPUs is, that they're powerful CPUs with an "enough for office and multimedia" iGPU. AMD APUs might have a better iGPU, but the CPU-part is lightyears behind intel. Noone cares about better iGPUs than what intel offers tho, as it gets the job done just fine.
I myself bought my current i7-5775C because it has a nice beefy iGPU, but I rarely need it these days, if at all. I don't play games, nor do I do video-stuff. All I need is enough cores/threads with as much single-threaded CPU-power as possible for my workloads.
The new 4C/4T i3-8100 is the absolute best option for an office-PC, especially when we can expect it's retail-price to drop to the $100 mark after christmas.
Don't get me wrong, I'm happy that AMD has released a good CPU to give intel some competition, but the target-market for these parts is too small to really make a difference.
Recent rumors suggest Intel maybe working on a mobile CPU with Vega inside, it's incredulous to me but what do i know.
When you say office-PC, I take it you mean home office? There is no way that machine has anywhere near enough grunt to be used in a real office. Hell, the i7's (pro versions) in our desktops are not enough already with 4C/8T. Did you know that when calculating, Excel will use upto 20 cores to do the work if they are available? Some financial modelling spreadsheets still take nearly an hour to calculate on an i7.
Office pc is too generic a term, it's like saying it would be great for a home PC, yeah, in specific use cases.
I'm talking office-PCs for call-centers, front-desks, secretaries, etc. The i3-8100 is perfectly suited for these kind of workloads.
Basically any office-job that requires nothing else than word-processing, webbrowsing and stuff like this.
He likely means cheap, dell/hp/etc buy-them-by-the-fuckload identical boxes found in most schools, office complexes and phone drone hives.
EDIT: Looks like jrs77 beat me to the reply anyway...
I was in a brand new call centre last week - 600 NUCs
Even the relatively tiny company I work for has bought 6 i5 6500-based machines for general office use, they replaced 3 & 4 series Intel boxes. I would have loved to suggest to the boss to look at AMD machines instead, but there's no way he would have been interested (and rightly so) in rigs that required dedicated GPU's - double so as the work we do and the products we sell all goes to customers who also use generic Intel machines with integrated graphics.
AMD didn't need Vega, and it did very little for us consumers, but we'd all benefit from Zen based APU's getting into the market ASAP as that's what is going to get AMD the brand recognition and support from the big retailers.
Wait for the new NUCs with these higher core-count CPUs, they'll be awesome little machines. I'm especially interested to see what they'll come up with for the new SkullCanyon NUC.
Where you see this?
Separate names with a comma.