LTC8K6
Lifer
- Mar 10, 2004
- 28,520
- 1,575
- 126
Could we stop talking about Ryzen in an Intel thread please?
Ryzen/Threadriper/Epyc SoC design is "very smart and innovative".
Here we go again.What, here we go again or "Speed Comedy Club for beginers=you failed absurdly".
How do you even compare, just one example i5 7600/4/4 220$ CPU vs R5 1600/6/12 CPU 215$?
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113435
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117729
Ryzen/Threadriper/Epyc SoC design is "very smart and innovative". But that is classic AMD, when they have smart leadership+Jim Keller, well the results are very obvious.
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-threadripper-epyc-mcm-cost,35306.html
Isn't the 7920X based on a different die? I'd rather see it taken through the usual paces, would be a nice opportunity to check the current state of the platform together with performance and thermals for the new chip.I don't think there will be any reviews. Just read any review of the 7900X and add 10% or so.
Its cost effective. Definitelly not innovative. Multi chip design was abandoned long ago for the reason, repeatedly proven by Ryzen's multi-CCX heavy performance hit in some applications. Thats why Intel is working with monolithic designs as far as possible.
Multi Chip was never abandoned, just only delayed for the future
That's not MCM. It's EMIB. Also, (someone else could correct me if I'm wrong) it seems that intel will still put the cores/processor block still on a single, monolithic die. Only the non-processor blocks will be on separate dies.Multi Chip was never abandoned, just only delayed for the future, or when you have much superior manufacturing proces. In the future Intel is heading/is forced in that direction, or "glued CPU desing".
AMD was first with "superglue", and "very expensive R5 1600" is just one example of that failed glued non-inovative CPU design.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/3185...e-cobbled-together-using-different-parts.html
Copying between storage devices still takes buffers for the data payload located in system memory, i.e. in RAM behind the CPU's memory controller. This is true for NVMe, AHCI, UASP, classic USB storage, and other storage interfaces.
Always.Do you mean that between-storage transfers are always buffered or just in some cases?Copying between storage devices still takes buffers for the data payload located in system memory, i.e. in RAM behind the CPU's memory controller. This is true for NVMe, AHCI, UASP, classic USB storage, and other storage interfaces.
In order to implement it as direct device-to-device copy, and get such a direct communication to perform at least as well as the present copying with system RAM in between, would probably turn out rather costly and wasteful. Performance metrics include throughput, latency, error handling...If I, for example, copy a 10 GB file from storage A to B, would the entire file go through the DMI and RAM? That would be extremely inefficient.
Intel Xeon W, in similar vein to the former E5-1600 series: http://www.anandtech.com/show/11775/intel-launches-xeon-w-cpus-for-workstations
Depending on how you look at it, Xeon W is Skylake-SP to socket R, or Skylake-X with ECC and other professional features.
48 PCIe lanes supported, up from 44.
New chipset required: C422, which may be cross-compatible with X299.
so its the same 1-core turbo than 7700k, isn it?Intel BX80684I58600K Core i5-8600K 3.7GHz 6-Core
65W TDP, Turbo 4.2GHz, 9MB L3 Cache, GT2 Graphics, Socket-1151-V2
$314.00
Intel BX80684I78700 Core i7-8700 3.7GHz 6-Core
65W TDP, Turbo 4.2GHz, 12MB L3 Cache, GT2 Graphics, Socket-1151-V2
$368.00
Intel BX80684I78700K Core i7-8700K 3.8GHz 6-Core
95W TDP, Turbo 4.3GHz, 12MB L3 Cache, GT2 Graphics, Socket-1151-V2
$428.00
source -> http://gamepc.com/shop/productscategory?list=CPU
so its the same 1-core turbo than 7700k, isn it?
Not much reason to think those are accurate. The 8600K should be 95W tdp, for example.so its the same 1-core turbo than 7700k, isn it?
I know 4.3 is all core turbo. But it states 1-core turbo = 4.5. Thats what I'm asking for1. These prices, Canadian, have already been posted many pages back;
2. No 4.3 is the all-core turbo...this is not news...this has been known for a while.
I actually think the 4.5 figure is correct for the 8700K single core turbo.I know 4.3 is all core turbo. But it states 1-core turbo = 4.5. Thats what I'm asking for
EDIT: as far as I know GamePC is an US comp
So much for the HCC solder hopes. Oh well.
I know 4.3 is all core turbo. But it states 1-core turbo = 4.5. Thats what I'm asking for
EDIT: as far as I know GamePC is an US comp
Yes, they are. Whois -> 265 California Avenue, Palo Alto CA 94306 US
Apparently not in this forum.Could we stop talking about Ryzen in an Intel thread please?