He is right when it comes to small dies. But what about the LCC dies which are about 3X the size of the Kaby Lake-X die?
He is right when it comes to small dies. But what about the LCC dies which are about 3X the size of the Kaby Lake-X die?Why soldering is a bad idea..
http://overclocking.guide/the-truth-about-cpu-soldering/
It's from der8auer, not some random Intel fanboi.
I've read that piece. And if you are doing LN2, there are some valid points in it. But for us mere mortals, his concerns don't apply.Why soldering is a bad idea..
http://overclocking.guide/the-truth-about-cpu-soldering/
It's from der8auer, not some random Intel fanboi.
Um, these are HEDT chips. None of them are mainstream.If anything, it's your claim of bias that is hurting your credibility. Sure, in some applications the SKL-X 8C might outperform the R7 1700, but it won't outperform it by 2x (price difference). I've never claimed that Intel was "dead," except in the mainstream segment where they stubbornly refuse to lower prices. The 18C SKU at $2000 is still decent value, or rather, it would be if Intel didn't gimp features like 6-channel and AVX-512 from it. LGA-3647 and Purley are still undisputed champions in performance and value. However, where it counts most, in mainstream, Intel is simply refusing to give the performance the market wants at the price it's willing to pay.
$300 for CPU and $80 for motherboard are very mainstream price points. AMD has redefined what mainstream and HEDT mean with their Zen offering.Um, these are HEDT chips. None of them are mainstream.
And it performs worse than these chips. You are comparing apples to oranges.$300 for CPU and $80 for motherboard are very mainstream price points. AMD has redefined what mainstream and HEDT mean with their Zen offering.
You went from a 6950X to a 7700K. What use do you suddenly have now for a 7900X?The 7980XE is just insane. I WANT one of them, but I know that the 10 core model will probably be the better all-rounder...
2X worse?And it performs worse than these chips. You are comparing apples to oranges.
It doesn't perform 2x worse. At these lower price points, every $100 margin is a potential dealbreaker. Look, there's nothing stopping Intel from coming out with a lower-clocked (?) 8-core at a competitive price point. Maybe they can add AVX and quad-channel and some other features and charge a premium, say $350. However, $300 vs $600 just doesn't add up.And it performs worse than these chips. You are comparing apples to oranges.
I've read that piece. And if you are doing LN2, there are some valid points in it. But for us mere mortals, his concerns don't apply.
The LGA2066 socket is compatible with LGA2011 cooling solutions, which is a plus. However, Intel now recommends water cooling as the minimum cooling option, which will add more cost to the overall solution.
And it performs worse than these chips.
Intel has really felt the AMD competition, who would have thought!
Looking at the line up, the i7-7820X looks to be where intel has really pushed to be as competitive as possible with AMD. 100$ more than the 1800x, but better clocks, better IPC, more PCI lanes etc. Not that bad of a deal.
Only problem is the X299 platform should be quite a bit more expensive..
https://www.overclock3d.net/news/cp...x_and_kaby_lake-x_cpus_will_not_be_soldered/1
And they have to use toothpaste instead of soldering to the IHS with the price reduction.... oh dear...
In due time, you know.
Dude, Ryzen 5 1600(X) is now entry-level for gaming rigs. 6C/12T minimum for a gaming rig.
Sad. Hopefully they used high-end TIM though.
This doesn't bode well at all. TIM and Intel themselves suggest water cooling. 4.5 Ghz all core pipe-dreams can already pretty much be thrown out with this info.
This doesn't bode well at all. TIM and Intel themselves suggest water cooling. 4.5 Ghz all core pipe-dreams can already pretty much be thrown out with this info.
So, according to you, AMD is a terrible value by providing a 1800X Ryzen that isn't 51% faster than the 1700 Ryzen?It doesn't perform 2x worse. At these lower price points, every $100 margin is a potential dealbreaker. Look, there's nothing stopping Intel from coming out with a lower-clocked (?) 8-core at a competitive price point. Maybe they can add AVX and quad-channel and some other features and charge a premium, say $350. However, $300 vs $600 just doesn't add up.
Where is this recommendation? Is it just because Intel is selling a rebranded CLC? They've been doing that since the introduction of the 6700K.I don't recall Intel ever recommending water cooling as a minimum for chips like these in the past. The new chips must be toasty.
Yes? Even at stock it sucks.So, according to you, AMD is a terrible value by providing a 1800X Ryzen that isn't 51% faster than the 1700 Ryzen?
$300 for CPU and $80 for motherboard are very mainstream price points. AMD has redefined what mainstream and HEDT mean with their Zen offering.
2X worse?
If anything, it's your claim of bias that is hurting your credibility.
The 18C SKU at $2000 is still decent value, or rather, it would be if Intel didn't gimp features like 6-channel and AVX-512 from it. LGA-3647 and Purley are still undisputed champions in performance and value.
That's no excuse for the 6900K being worse value than the 1700X at present, for example.Price and Performance have not historically had a linear relationship (in computers or otherwise), so I'm not sure I see any reason to expect them do so now.
However, where it counts most, in mainstream
What do YOU want the 7820X for?Maybe for you that is where is counts. Not for all of us. And if thats all you are concerned with, then why are you focusing on X299 topics?
I already know about lower AVX frequencies. However, just as Bronze/Silver/Gold 5000 Xeon-SPs have only one FMAC per core, Skylake-X which is based on the non-XCC dies could have the same single FMAC. Until we see clock speed information, there is no way to know if the quoted "teraflop" performance comes from AVX at higher clocks or AVX-512 at lower clocks.They did not gimp AVX-512 from it. Again, this is simply you stating something that is not true to help your case. Sure, they reduced the close speed on those tasks, but they have been doing that in the server market now for years. And you can bet they will continue to do that on the Purley LGA-3647 CPUs as well. Hell, they do it on Phi today.
Not having 6 channels will be crippling past 12C if AVX-512 is full speed. If AVX-512 is half-speed, then indeed it will be no big deal.Yes, they did gimp the 6 channel memory on LGA2066, but they are sure to charge a lot more money for those LGA3647 CPUs. So I will agree with you in saying that Purley will be the champion in performance, but clearly not value.
This only states that they are selling a CLC, which was around since i7-6700K. The claim that liquid cooling is now an official recommendation doesn't appear to be backed up by any slide or such.From Tom's Hardware at this link.
That's no excuse for the 6900K being worse value than the 1700X at present, for example.