Quantcast

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Why did Intel feel the need to paper launch the Core i7-6700K?

13»

Comments

  • MalaboogaMalabooga Member UncommonPosts: 2,977
    Quizzical said:
    For a system with integrated graphics, what you really want is a die with Zen CPU cores together with that integrated GPU, and with HBM on package to relieve the memory bottleneck.  That's not announced yet, but it's got to be coming eventually.  And when it does, $100 discrete video cards become pointless.
    Thats still 2017 were talking about. Even if you upgrade now it could be 2 years until you see zen APU
  • HrimnirHrimnir Member RarePosts: 2,413
    Malabooga said:
    Hrimnir said:
    *snip*
    http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=9494387

    It costs 110$. And it sells VERY well. In my coutry its 50% cheaper than cheapest i5 and 130% cheaper than i5-k. Not to mention it has chaper boards also.

    http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=4904560&CatId=11857

    Both of these are "8350"

    i3 becoming obsolete due to 4 core requirements of new games. So pretty much only option is FX-63xx

    Which is cheaper and performs better/same and can actually run games without hacking the game.

    Now count in whole new platform Intel pushes all the time, while you can use AMD CPUs on 5 years old boards.

    Again.

    http://wccftech.com/witcher-3-cpu-benchmarks-fx-63008350-i7-4790ki5-4690ki3-4130g3258-oc/

    future is here.

    What IS true is that software needed quite a while to catch up with hardware. But nonetheless its happening. And beside i7 (300+$ CPU) AMD has better deal for new games. And its NEW games that will drive sales.

    What do you think people will look, can they pay half the price for same-ish peformance in new games or will their old game run in 120 FPS instead of 140 FPS?

    In the end what would YOU choose?
    "The Core i5-4590 is a clear performance-per-dollar winner, demonstrating no weaknesses in any of the games we've tested."

    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106-6.html

    Please link to something other than wccftech which has a long standing history of posting cherry picked data.

    I can link you several other articles from reputable hardware website which show that overall an FX8350 does NOT outperform an i5.  Its *about* 60% of the cost, and performs at baout 70% of the speed of an i5. Objectively it is a better value for money, but its nowhere even in the realm of 50% as much for the same speed.  Not even close.  If you wanted to argue that point against an i7 then yes you would be correct.

    "The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."

    - Friedrich Nietzsche

  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 22,095
    Let's take away the labels and pick some round numbers for simplicity.  Processor A costs $100 and processor B costs $200.  Processor A offers 2/3 of the performance of processor B.  Which is a better value in performance per dollar?

    You might say, A offers 2/3 of the performance of B at 1/2 of the price, so A is the better value.  The problem is that you don't buy a processor all by itself.  If you have to spend $300 on other parts for the computer, then a system with CPU A offers 2/3 of the performance of one with B, but at 4/5 of the price.  Measured that way, B offers better performance per dollar.

    But neither of those are really the way people buy parts.  It's more a case of, you've got a budget and you get the best you can fit into that budget.  Today, it would be ridiculous to get an AMD CPU in a $1500 gaming rig, and it would also be ridiculous to get an Intel CPU in a $500 gaming rig.  If you've got $500 for the entire computer, a $200 CPU just doesn't fit.  And if you've got $1500, then I don't care if the AMD CPU is completely free; you don't want to unnecessarily give up a lot of CPU performance on that budget.
  • HrimnirHrimnir Member RarePosts: 2,413
    Agreed 100% quiz.  However he is wanting to argue things in a vacuum about strictly speaking price/perf in games.  And he keeps linking the same 1 game in the same 1 wwcftech article as his claim that an AMD proc is 50% the cost for the same performance... and its frankly horsecrap.  The point is also like you said, if you're going with SLI'd 980ti's, you can't throw an FX6300 behind it unless you like kneecapping yourself from the start.

    "The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."

    - Friedrich Nietzsche

  • RidelynnRidelynn Member EpicPosts: 7,060
    Troll's gotta troll
  • MalaboogaMalabooga Member UncommonPosts: 2,977
    edited October 2015
    Hrimnir said:
    Agreed 100% quiz.  However he is wanting to argue things in a vacuum about strictly speaking price/perf in games.  And he keeps linking the same 1 game in the same 1 wwcftech article as his claim that an AMD proc is 50% the cost for the same performance... and its frankly horsecrap.  The point is also like you said, if you're going with SLI'd 980ti's, you can't throw an FX6300 behind it unless you like kneecapping yourself from the start.
    ROFL dude

    Starcraft, Skyrim and FC 3 are THE games youre going to base your future purchase. Maybe we should throw in Baldurs Gate 1 and Total Aninhilation in the mix rofl

    No wonder youre FULL of it.

    SLI 980ti, THATS your argument? Well, since you base it on 0,00000000000000000000001 %(dont really wan to spam more 0) of rigs out there then in MUST be true.

    Unfortunately, because people like you others throw away money and you screw them up for performance ACROSS the board since they buy 500$ worth of CPU and 100$ worth of GPU.

    As i said, hierarchy is:

    i7
    FX-83xx
    FX-63xx

    You may foam around your mouth all you want.
  • MalaboogaMalabooga Member UncommonPosts: 2,977
    Ridelynn said:
    Troll's gotta troll
    Ye, that "hriw/e" is really pushing it.
  • MalaboogaMalabooga Member UncommonPosts: 2,977
    edited October 2015
    Quizzical said:
    Let's take away the labels and pick some round numbers for simplicity.  Processor A costs $100 and processor B costs $200.  Processor A offers 2/3 of the performance of processor B.  Which is a better value in performance per dollar?

    You might say, A offers 2/3 of the performance of B at 1/2 of the price, so A is the better value.  The problem is that you don't buy a processor all by itself.  If you have to spend $300 on other parts for the computer, then a system with CPU A offers 2/3 of the performance of one with B, but at 4/5 of the price.  Measured that way, B offers better performance per dollar.

    But neither of those are really the way people buy parts.  It's more a case of, you've got a budget and you get the best you can fit into that budget.  Today, it would be ridiculous to get an AMD CPU in a $1500 gaming rig, and it would also be ridiculous to get an Intel CPU in a $500 gaming rig.  If you've got $500 for the entire computer, a $200 CPU just doesn't fit.  And if you've got $1500, then I don't care if the AMD CPU is completely free; you don't want to unnecessarily give up a lot of CPU performance on that budget.
    For vast majority of people THAT difference in MOST important because of people like certain poster they buy 500$ worth of CPU and 100$ worth of GPU and have crap performance ACROSS the board.

    The cutoff point for CPU is R9390/GTX980. Unless youre not buying those (or above) you dont even have to worry about CPU. And even with those, any performance that might have been there will be obsolete with pretty much any new game.

    http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Systems/Quad-Core-Gaming-Roundup-How-Much-CPU-Do-You-Really-Need

    And a nice preview of DX12 (mantle)

    And its not even as smple as "1500$ rig". If you go 4k (hell, even 1440p) its better to go much cheaper 83xx than i5.

    Unfortunately sloppy and shallow "analysis" is whats plaguing the net (nothing new really).

    Basing anything on "SLI 980ti on low setting in 800x600". Yeah. It REALLY matters lol

    Also, matters that you can plug FX in 5 year old board, and change just CPU opposed to ever changing Intel platform which usually means buying WHOLE new package+windows.
    Post edited by Malabooga on
  • HrimnirHrimnir Member RarePosts: 2,413
    edited October 2015

    I really wish there was an ignore user function on this forum, so that their posts literally just wouldn't show up on your screen.  This guy is absolutely off his rocker.


    Edit:  Holy crap, there is an ignore button, and it does exactly what I hoped it would do.  Best day ever!

    "The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."

    - Friedrich Nietzsche

  • MalaboogaMalabooga Member UncommonPosts: 2,977
    Hrimnir said:

    I really wish there was an ignore user function on this forum, so that their posts literally just wouldn't show up on your screen.  This guy is absolutely off his rocker.


    Edit:  Holy crap, there is an ignore button, and it does exactly what I hoped it would do.  Best day ever!

    Finally no more trolololo from you ( one can only hope)
Sign In or Register to comment.