Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by bit-tech, 24 Aug 2017.
What do mainstream 6 core intel cpu's mean? Well everyone will buy them. There is a lot of people on 4 core intel machines (e.g. me still on an i2500k) that haven't seen any reason to upgrade. The newer intel cpu's still had 4 cores and only 25% better ipc, the AMD cpu's had more cores but barely any better ipc (see [H] review where a i2600k basically gave the same gaming performance as Ryzen).
Finally we have a mainstream cpu with both more cores and better ipc that's worth upgrading too. In addition it's unlikely Intel or AMD will produce anything significantly better for years. AMD is far behind on ipc so will be playing catch up. Intel are going to go down a node size but the first 2 iterations will focus on lower power and (according to Intel slides) won't bring higher performance for the big desktop chips.
Tbh the low end has an even bigger impact with the i3's going from 2 to 4 cores. That's a huge step forward.
Ryzen isn't very far behind in IPC at all, most sensible observers put it around Broadwell, which is within 5% of Sky/Kabylake. This shows in the few clock-for-clock tests I have seen, most of which are early tests back when the platform had memory issues. AMD's problem is maximum clocks vs Intel. The reason why even locked i5's look so good in single threaded benchmarks compared to Ryzen chips is because of high turbo frequencies. If AMD can fix that with Zen 2 (or Zen+, whatever they decide), then we'll have a proper fight on our hands.
As for what Coffelake will do for the market - depends on pricing mostly, though by launching X299 first they have kind of limited the ceiling somewhat. Also relies on software creators jumping on board and making use of the extra cores across the range, could well have all this extra processing potential on/under our desks, but if they continue to be lazy and not take advantage of it, Intel and AMD will find it hard to sell to masses.
A six core Intel chip isn't going to lead to a seismic shift in the CPU market IMO, they'll have to juggle with the same problems AMD had when raising core count, especially above four cores.
From what i can tell when core counts increase you're faced with problems cause by physics and eventually all the different solutions to those problems distil down to one "ideal" solution, by increasing CPU core counts you're increasing heat generation and when going over four cores you increase the distance between cores, caches, and other units within a CPU package from being a uniform distance to a system with unequal distances.
AMD aren't far behind on IPC at all, and Zen 2 is meant to bring a further 15% enhancement to the architecture. They will actually be ahead of Intel if that's true. So that statement above with regards to them being behind is untrue, to say the least. The only thing AMD needs to work on now is the overclocking abilities. Give it time, I say, and they'll get it right.
Intel might have a 6 core OC beast, but let's not forget the price that they might charge. Also, another thing... yet another socket/platform change? Seriously?
So bored of Intel. So bored, I am.
With the 7800X being a thing, they have capped their pricing already, especially as both would need a new motherboard. If they released an unlocked 6c/12t mainstream CPU that cost more than it's HEDT equivalent, they'd look like fools.
I'm bored of CPUs in general, tbh. That's probably because I don't do anything that actually needs more than 4C/8T or anything that requires 5GHz+ overclocking. I think CPUs are one area where, for most home users, what's already available is pretty sufficient. Would I like a 16C/32T 5GHz monster CPU? Probably. Do I have an actual use for it? Definitely not. Do I want to pay £1,000 or more for a CPU? Naw.
As I say, for most people an i5 8100 or equivalent is going to be all the CPU that they need, so if prices are dropping for this tier of CPU then that's a good thing. I don't give a flying one whether Intel is bad or good or AMD is bad or good, or any of that nonsense.
They already do look like fools. What's new?
Well, X299 was definitely a pretty shoddy launch, and i9 seems to be pretty much DOA for most enthusiasts. But they were pretty clever in the way they drip fed us incremental upgrades for the past 6-7 years (over multiple sockets) and covered the minimal performance gain by comparing to whatever AMD had at the time... We all bought into it and filled the Intel piggy bank, after all.
As I said, we can already guess the 8700K price by looking at the 7800K (good luck trying to make sense of this, newbies!). If Coffelake was a drop-in upgrade to the thousands and thousands of Z170/270 users out there, they could have actually charged MORE, but locking it to a new platform has put a roadblock on that - who would spend north of £350 on a 8700K when they could offset the price difference of a X299 board and get a cheaper (and on paper, more advanced) 7800K?
Isn't it using the same 1151 socket as well?
Yeah, see? Intel are fools. X299 was an absolute fail, even more so with Kaby-X ... even more so yet again with Kaby-X specific motherboards. It's a laugh a day with them.
6 cores would be nice for a lot of people. Myself and most of my friends all use our computers for some type of productivity (video/photo) as everything has moved to digital. Many photography hobbyist do some kind of photo editing and I seem to be doing a lot of video encoding for one reason or another. Most people also run a lot of programs at the same time. It would be nice to have a couple of extra course so that I don't need to close other programs to have 4 cores for gaming.
The main thing is that IPC improvements are so bad that many of us are still running i5-2500k/i7-2600k and that increasing the core count is the only way Intel can get us to upgrade.
I've started recommending AMD for anyone that will be needing a GPU.
Intel may still be the best choice for non gamers that can stick with an iGPU.
I suspect Raven Ridge will be more of a disruptive force in the CPU market than anything Intel does with increased core counts, having a pair of Zen CCX's talking to Vega graphics over IF and possibly sharing HBM could mean Intel getting squeezed from both sides, EPYC is already the better option (IMO) for data centers and other heavily threaded workloads and Raven Ridge could be the better option in the low to mid range due to its better performance per watt.
If true, this should make the low end far more interesting. If Intel does a 4 core unlocked core i3 coffee lake CPU to replace the 7350K then it's effectively a direct replacement for the i5 7600K - at a lower price. Since I suspect that 6 cores may not help me, it might save me quite a bit on the new gaming rig I want to build
Same pin-count, different socket. LGA2011 and LGA2011-3 are also not the same socket, despite having the same number of pins.
Having extra-long socket lifetimes makes drop-in upgrades more attractive, but it also means being locked into multiple years of legacy interfaces (e.g. having to wait until Ryzen for DDR3 support due to AM3+ dating from 2011). Same applies for any other interface going directly from the CPU socket e.g. video interfaces for iGPUs like HDMI and DisplayPort, the upcoming PCIe 4.0, etc. These you are stuck with even if you swap out the chipset without breaking either forward or backward compatibility.
I feel like they just moved the pins to be a PITA and require you to get a new motherboard. Intel are just money grabbing, no other way about it.
Yeah, there can't be any other reason for it. Bad, bad Intel! Guess we're just lucky as hell that we have companies like AMD about who only have our best interests at heart.
Usual salt dosing guidelines apply
Separate names with a comma.