Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Intel LGA 2066
Don't say I didn't tell you so...
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=19-117-794&utm_medium=Email&utm_source=GD061917&cm_mmc=EMC-GD061917-_-landing-_-Item-_-19-117-794
Anyone who spent $1500 on a LGA 2011-V3 wasted their money.
8 Cores - 16 Threads for $500?
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=19-117-794&utm_medium=Email&utm_source=GD061917&cm_mmc=EMC-GD061917-_-landing-_-Item-_-19-117-794
Anyone who spent $1500 on a LGA 2011-V3 wasted their money.
8 Cores - 16 Threads for $500?
Comments
https://www.amazon.com/AMD-Processor-Wraith-Cooler-YD1700BBAEBOX/dp/B06WP5YCX6
Ryzen for half the price....
Honestly, I rather have 4 really fast cores then 8 slow in any case, few games support more than 4 (I have 6 cores myself but whatever).
Your CPU is better if you have $300 to put into one, do you have twice that I go for Rens, it is all about budget.
This is information from one of the project leads, for one of the applications that I buy high end hardware for.
"The speed of the primary core will be the determining factor FPS assuming your settings have you CPU-bound. For raw FPS, less cores at a higher clock will yield better results. On the other hand, more cores will improve the speed at which new terrain textures, and autogen data load in. Maxing out the new draw distance and terrain resolutions setting will request several times more data than v3 was able to. When paging performance isn't fast enough to keep up with flying speed, you will get blurry textures, models popping in, and reduced autogen draw distances."
http://www.prepar3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6315&t=124932
I would really like to see AMD get competitive with clocks speeds.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
AMD usually have the better low end CPUs and Intel the better high end but the i7-7820X is mid range and it is there it gets harder to decide what to get. And yeah, usually, now and then AMD have released something really good high end.
http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i7-6700K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-5-Ryzen%E2%84%A2-5-1600X
Look at the difference between the CPU Instructions AMD vs Intel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSE4
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Vector_Extensions
In other words more instructions I believe makes it easier for the CPU to do heavy data calculations compared to AMD, certain older games actually do better than on AMD CPU'S.
As for the difference between the 7820X, its not just the specs although you can get the one like $500 or $600 its the PCIE Lines I believe that are the major difference this has 28 PCI Express Lanes, while the $1000 Intel CPU has 44 PCI Express Lanes, and more 20 Threads vs 16 Threads, as well as a slightly bigger cache.
Also if buying a newer system like this I recommend getting the "QUAD CHANNEL MEMORY" not dual channel memory that $800 is going to make a big difference between the memory and certain games...
I will likely be upgrading my PC once again within the next 1-2 years with a said system like this, and giving my old PC away lol.
AVX-512 is the exception, but it basically doesn't matter. If you're using AVX-512 a ton, you probably shouldn't be doing that work on a CPU at all. Games especially can offload embarrassingly parallel computations to the GPU, as games can often assume that you have a decently capable GPU sitting there.
If you want PCI Express lanes, the CPU you linked barely has more than Ryzen. Threadripper will have far more than the top end Sky Lake-X. And Epyc has 128 PCI Express lanes out of a single socket, which is more than you can get from Intel in any 2-socket system.
You can make a case for Sky Lake-X over Ryzen 7 on the basis of four memory channels. But Threadripper will also have four. You can't buy it quite yet, but then, you can't buy Sky Lake-X just yet, either.
Seriously, I'm curious. The current thinking is that, unless you are working with IGP, your RAM latency has a lot more impact on gaming performance than speed/channels/bandwidth. In fact, it's only a very select few applications that can benefit from faster RAM/more channels.
How does the CPUBoss link relate to getting what you pay for?
Also, more instructions aren't necessarily a better thing. The more complicated the instruction set, the more impact it has on maximum clock speed. RISC would like to speak with you; there's a very, very good chance that a lot of those instructions (both AMD and Intel) are really not entirely implemented in hardware, but are broken down into many steps of more basic instructions in microcode.
A lot of games will perform better on Intel than AMD, in fact, I'd go so far as to say most games, because for most games, and older games in particular, single core performance is still king - and Intel has held that crown for the better part of a decade now. That has very little to do with things like AVX instruction sets. The big question is: is it worth paying for performance beyond "good enough"? The answer to that varies, as does the definition of "good enough".
Off topic from Loke666's quote, regarding Threadripper: I'm excited just because I want to see a 32 core count in Task Manager - but realistically, nothing that I do can even push the 8 threads I have now on my i7 apart from Handbrake, which isn't a daily task for me. As much as I'd like to think the existence of affordable high core count chips will help, I still think it's years before we see a lot of software that really needs that many cores available, let alone a lot of software that could positively benefit from it -- at least in the traditional consumer space. I'm glad to see Threadripper is pushing some hardware boundaries and getting Intel to react, but until we see software make a similar push (which is arguably the more difficult task in the first place), it's for naught.
However when it comes to future games like "ARC" Survival Evolved, perhaps older games like Entropia Universe, Second Life, or Mine Craft, "Intel" IMO is the way to go because of the instruction sets it seems to go a lot faster.
Basically I looked at the costs for building a i7 computer the way I wanted to build it for $1000, and building a AMD PC with the latest Ryzen CPU, buying the COMBO intel kit I actually saved money, and over-all between the 32 gigs of RAM and Intel CPU / Motherboard it cost about $300-$400 more, but to me that price is acceptable because I know it will last longer than the AMD.
To be honest my last computer I built was with an AM2+ CPU, which is a AMD Phenom CPU, I used that thing since 2008 until the end of 2016, now with my current computer build unless I go into high end gaming, or just want to waste the money and don't care, except for Drives, and GPU I am changing shortly, I Could likely use this computer until 2020 or 2025, although over the years depending on games and the development its likely that to run games at high graphics / optimal that it will require faster Ram Speeds, which was the major bottle neck of my PC from 2008.
Also given that the new Intel i7 Skylakes came out which support Quad Channel memory, and faster speeds I am looking to maybe update at the end of this year again just so I can have a computer with "Quad Channel Memory", but putting off that update will just make it so I can get something faster and over-all based off the prices I was looking at to build a base upgrade your looking at no more than $1500 for an upgrade kit of maybe 64 GB ram with a new Intel CPU.
But if you look at it this way people buy Xbox, and Video Game consoles throw away $400 quite often which is basically just watered down computer.
However implicit in your "more bang for the buck" comment is that "regular gamers" "need" more bang.
And your follow on comment says it all "realistically, nothing that I do can even push the 8 threads I have now on my i7".
More bang will always give us a warm fuzzy feeling; for some people more cpu power will always be best but in terms of "bang for the buck" most people will be better with a cheaper "old gen cpu" e.g. an i5-7600K. (As you say even an i7 can be considered overkill.)
Money saved - if the person wished - would probably get them more bang from a better gpu or an ssd if they were only planning a hdd or maybe memory.
Anyone recommending a X99 chip should have their head examined! Either get the Ryzen or an I7 7700, it is still the best for gaming in general. If you can wait, I would wait for Intel's next generation which rumor has it will be announced in the fall. If you need 8 cores, go with Ryzen or wait until Intel's next generation is available.
Its the price performance ratio at a system level rather than the cpu level. Since the gpu - in most games today - is the bottleneck long before the cpu is the price performance ratio of:
e.g. an i5-7600K (say) + a higher end gpu
will probably be higher than
e.g. a Ryzen / i7 / i9 + a lower end gpu however
If you limit it cpus then absolutely what you say.
Sales figures suggest that "we" are upgrading our cpus less and less however so "we" are thinking system and overall performance not cpu only. Which leads to return on investment questions etc.
Also you can change graphic settings to get a game to work on a GPU that's a bit slow, but if your CPU is a bit slow there's not much you can do with settings you must upgrade.
This way they have unlimited space for transitors..
Everyone how is buying any cpu currently will be dissapointed, when the upwards cpu transitors are being made
Already, the process node improvements have been slowing down considerably. And it's only going to get worse from here on out.
They seem to be using a similar method as AMD for achieving more cores. Have what would have been 2 separate CPUs and pasting them together through interconnects. I think they call it the Mesh Fabric. However, I just glossed over the info so it's very poor on accuracy. This makes sense as the socket is larger like on the X399 mobos. Since all the PCI-e lanes and such are in the CPU, it will practically double available expandability except with the variants that are not pasted together. You will need to keep in mind that available PCI-e lanes and USB ports is determined by the CPU not the mobo. The bottleneck on such a design will be the memory bandwidth which Intel has matured better for DDR4.
They can probably introduce a similar CPU on existing mobos if they removed the IGP component like what AMD does. They do hold about an 8% clock speed advantage. I wouldn't say Intel would be superior clock for clock in this instance as both platforms will be hitting the same design limitation with the mesh fabric/infinity fabric.
I would 100% absolutely avoid buying this CPU right now. It's competitor will be thread-ripper which is around the corner. It would suck to be an early adopter only to learn you overpaid for a subpar product.
An i5-7600K is not a "low end" "cheap" cpu though - 4 cores that can be o/clocked to 4.2GHz etc.
For someone on a budget they could save $200+ dollars over e.g. an i7 and use it on a better gpu. More system bang for the buck.
What we are starting to see has happened in many industries and many products. The "high end" is becoming "run of the mill". There are lots of examples - clothing, glasses (on the face or on the table), cars. In computing graphics workstations and soundcards are two obvious examples. Tablets, mobile phones and so on.
Its somewhat sad imo that many people don't "see" the sophisticated design and manufacturing techniques that create so many products that most accept as mundane but which only used to be available - at high cost - to the few.
I suggest this is what we are starting to see with cpus however. They are becoming "mundane".