It also means that new software that rocks our socks off, is not being produced, as there is obviously a strong correlation between wonderful new features or ways of doing things in software and the CPU power that is needed to run it.
Having something more powerful than mine, is pretty much the norm these days.
Is this your main PC? Because this is my only home PC that has been a daily gaming/media/work machine for almost 10 years. I have had computers since the early 1980's and never had one serve me this long.
I see lots of people complain about the slow pace of CPU improvements, but I love it, as it means you can go MUCH longer before you need to upgrade.
This was the wish of the majority attending the Intel threads. Surprise surprise, it means direct favorable comparisons are also excluded. It's not a problem for those who are actually interested in products and technology, since we can still clearly see the results and discuss the maximum potential of the platform.This thread is full of win, except the part which pretends to talk about coffeelake in a vacuum. I mean, virtually all the reviews do the inter-platform comparison, as they should.
A thread like the builders thread is where the exclusivity should be clearly enforced. This is a "benchmarks, reviews.......everything" thread, so if anything, leave those alone and do the comparisons here. My two cents.This was the wish of the majority attending the Intel threads. Surprise surprise, it means direct favorable comparisons are also excluded. It's not a problem for those who are actually interested in products and technology, since we can still clearly see the results and discuss the maximum potential of the platform.
If you feel like basking in the glory could be worth breaking the rule, @DrMrLordX provided you with a clear snapshot of how things will play out once you open the flood gates: it won't be glory you'll be basking in.
Definitely not Intel's bidding. It goes without saying. Also, if you're not going to discuss the competition in a review thread, where is the appropriate place to do it? Just look at all the reviews. How many featured coffeelake alongside the competing chips?Oh please no.
Edit:
I wasn't aware that we were meant to be doing Intel's bidding. Or AMD's for that matter.
Snip
That's the question. Maybe it isn't strict unlike the core frequency.
It also means that new software that rocks our socks off, is not being produced, as there is obviously a strong correlation between wonderful new features or ways of doing things in software and the CPU power that is needed to run it.
Well yes, but turn it round slightly - what interesting software could have made it? It isn't at all obvious. Even VR is more 'naturally' a mobile headset based experience.
Oh please no.
I wasn't aware that we were meant to be doing Intel's bidding. Or AMD's for that matter.
That aside, do you really want more thread derailment? If people come in here and snarkily remark over and over that "well Coffeelake might be great but you can't actually buy it!" to which some dunce retorts "you mean like AM4 boards up until May?" after which hilarity ensues. Some ingrate will then bring up 12nm LP and how Intel can't launch anything on 10nm, and how Intel keeps delaying products, and apparently has nothing on tap for the desktop except 8c/16t Coffeelake until sometime in 2019 if they're lucky . . .
and so forth, and so on.
Meanwhile, people who wanted to come in here and figure out where they can buy the chip, what boards to get, what RAM to get, how to configure the platform, etc. get swamped in page after page of dross. And you know it's true, just look at the gargantuan Skylake/Kabylake/Skylake-X thread. Hell the whole reason why this thread was created was to avoid such nonsense.
So what you really want is a victory lap? Cheers to you then, The 8700k is the best gaming CPU on the market, and probably the preferred desktop CPU for anyone with a budget in the upper mainstream range. And really, who wants Skylake-X either, for that matter? A few power users will want it, but for the most part, the 8700k is it. There, are you happy? That should settle the entire thing, because it's true.
Meanwhile, the "ball" is not in AMD's court. AMD is small potatoes no matter what the CPU sales on one particular German retailer might tell you. Intel sees foundries out foudry-ing them (TSMC, Samsung, and hell let's throw in GF for good measure). Intel sees Apple out-designing them (A11x). The ball is in Apple's court and in TSMC's court, really. How badly do they want to cut into Intel's exposed underbelly? AMD is just picking off whatever marketshare they can as they transition to an AI/GPU compute company.
So enjoy Coffeelake while you can. Hell enjoy Wintel while you can. Intel and MS are both exposed. If they fall, none of us may much enjoy the consequences. Either that, or we'll learn to love Linux on ARM.
Home software, for the most part, has gone backwards in requirements. It seems like the main hardware requirements to send 140 characters, scroll through photos, have a dog's nose overlaid on a photo, or tossing birds at blocks is not that great.Outside of games, what interesting consumer software had made it to the PC in the last decade?
Sadly, I can't think of much.
Bravo. Very well said. 2017 has brought renewed competition and interest in PC desktop CPUs. Hopefully 2018 and 2019 bring more of the same. imo 8700k will go down in history as one of the great desktop CPUs ever like the Core 2 Duo E6600, Sandy Bridge 2600k. Well done Intel.
Bravo. Very well said. 2017 has brought renewed competition and interest in PC desktop CPUs. Hopefully 2018 and 2019 bring more of the same. imo 8700k will go down in history as one of the great desktop CPUs ever like the Core 2 Duo E6600, Sandy Bridge 2600k. Well done Intel.
The paper launch was a bad move on Intel's part. But, you can't honestly come in here and say up to 50% more processing capability (6 cores vs 4) with just 4.4% more power used on average (95 W vs 91 W) is not a spectacular engineering achievement. Especially, considering that it was based on a fairly power efficient mobile-based core to begin with.Agreed. In addition to the paper launch though, Coffelake isn't anything spectacular really. Same IPC as prior gen, it's just S/Kabylake with 2 cores added on. The difference is in the process, high performance vs low power.
AMD clearly is investing more in CPU. And it makes sense. Server CPUs have higher margins than GPUs. Especially with how they make EPYC, yields must be great. Given the lack of availability of Vega, yields either suck or AMD prefers to keep their fabs loaded with producing zeppelin dies.
A thread like the builders thread is where the exclusivity should be clearly enforced. This is a "benchmarks, reviews.......everything" thread, so if anything, leave those alone and do the comparisons here. My two cents.
'Someone' posed a question about a year back asking what could a mainstream consumer do with a 16 core chip, or so. I remember thinking long and hard and couldn't provide a good answer. The moar cores argument is approaching a hard wall at lightning speed.
well 7800X is there with just a little less freq. I own a 7800X (great cpu btw) for some months now. And if you ask me, I prefer the 7800X option: quad channel, full avx capabilities, and platform upgradability in the future with faster cpus. So no, I'm not impressed at all with 8700k.The paper launch was a bad move on Intel's part. But, you can't honestly come in here and say up to 50% more processing capability (6 cores vs 4) with just 4.4% more power used on average (95 W vs 91 W) is not a spectacular engineering achievement. Especially, considering that it was based on a fairly power efficient mobile-based core to begin with.
The 7800X vs 8700K is not even a close comparison. The 8700K has 5.7% to 17.5% faster frequencies depending on the task. And it has a 32% lower TDP (which is quite impressive given the higher clocks).well 7800X is there with just a little less freq. I own a 7800X (great cpu btw) for some months now. And if you ask me, I prefer the 7800X option: quad channel, full avx capabilities, and platform upgradability in the future with faster cpus. So no, I'm not impressed at all with 8700k.
My Plex server will take every core I can throw at it.
Dont confuse tdp with power consumption. Correct comparisson is 7700k with 8700k. 50% more cores for 8700k but also 32% more power is needed. Its a bit more efficient and performant but not quite there.The paper launch was a bad move on Intel's part. But, you can't honestly come in here and say up to 50% more processing capability (6 cores vs 4) with just 4.4% more power used on average (95 W vs 91 W) is not a spectacular engineering achievement. Especially, considering that it was based on a fairly power efficient mobile-based core to begin with.
Agreed. In addition to the 1 paper launch though, Coffelake isn't anything spectacular really. Same IPC as prior gen, it's just S/Kabylake with 2 cores added on. The difference is in the process, high performance vs low power. 2 If 14 LPP clocked to the same as Coffeelake, Ryzen would be well ahead in most performance metrics. 3 As it is, Ryzen still offers nice competition in performance and well ahead in performance per dollar, and comparable perf/watt. But yes, 4 competition forced intel to rush their schedule forward, albeit at the cost of a paper launch and the ecosystem not being ready.
This still isn't an AMD thread.
The 7800X vs 8700K is not even a close comparison. The 8700K has 5.7% to 17.5% faster frequencies depending on the task. And it has a 32% lower TDP (which is quite impressive given the higher clocks).
Sure, if you need the HEDT capabilities (quad channel memory, more PCI lanes, etc) then go ahead and get that chip. But for the vast majority of us, the 8700K is a far better chip.
not really. 8700k clocks stock (all core turbo) at 4.3, 7800X at 4.0. Thats just 7.5% more clock. And OC is just the same difference at best. But as I said with 7800X you have options you havent with 8700k, in fact if I'm not wrong, no faster cpus will can be installed with z370. If its so, its basically a dead platform from the beginning.The 7800X vs 8700K is not even a close comparison. The 8700K has 5.7% to 17.5% faster frequencies depending on the task. And it has a 32% lower TDP (which is quite impressive given the higher clocks).
Sure, if you need the HEDT capabilities (quad channel memory, more PCI lanes, etc) then go ahead and get that chip. But for the vast majority of us, the 8700K is a far better chip.
I didn't confuse TDP with power (which is why I used the word "average"). CPUs can vastly exceed TDP for a short period of time. But on average, they cannot exceed TDP with the appropriate cooling and voltages.Dont confuse tdp with power consumption. Correct comparisson is 7700k with 8700k. 50% more cores for 8700k but also 32% more power is needed. Its a bit more efficient and performant but not quite there.
https://www.techspot.com/amp/review/1497-intel-core-i7-8700k/page4.html
Are you sure that you want to publicly post that 7.5% is not within 5.7% to 17.5%?not really. 8700k clocks stock (all core turbo) at 4.3, 7800X at 4.0. Thats just 7.5% more clock.
Agreed. In addition to the paper launch though, Coffelake isn't anything spectacular really. Same IPC as prior gen, it's just S/Kabylake with 2 cores added on. The difference is in the process, high performance vs low power. If 14 LPP clocked to the same as Coffeelake, Ryzen would be well ahead in most performance metrics. As it is, Ryzen still offers nice competition in performance and well ahead in performance per dollar, and comparable perf/watt. But yes, competition forced intel to rush their schedule forward, albeit at the cost of a paper launch and the ecosystem not being ready.