Intel Coffee Lake Vs. Ryzen: A Side-By-Side Comparison

[stormbeardgaming]

You're using the wrong link for the amd 1700 X. You're linking to the cpu with the Corsair liquid cooler included. The processor by itself is currently $359. So your price comparison is completely off. Fix this please.

 

[jimmysmitty]

You should include the NUMBER of PCIe lanes in your comparison. Ryzen 7: 24 (32 with some motherboards); i7-8700: 16. Also, Ryzen supports ECC RAM with better motherboards, while i7 does not.

What are you talking about? Ryzen 7 has a maximum of 20 PCIe lanes, 16 3.0 and 4 2.0. The X370 chipset will provide up to 8 additional Gen 2 lanes so the maximum PCIe lanes possible for Ryzen 7 is 28 however only 16 are PCIe 3.0.

Core i7 has 16 PCIe 3.0 on the CPU and an additional 24 on the Z270 chipset for 40 total PCIe 3.0 lanes. The 16 from the CPU are normally dedicated to the GPU PCIe x16 slots while the 24 on the board are put towards additional x4/x1 slots, NVMe slots, SATA, USB 3 etc.

Not sure where you got 24 let alone 28 for Ryzen 7.

As for ECC RAM, the majority of people who will buy in this class are not looking to buy a workstation or need ECC RAM.

 

[aceamio20]

why i3 8gen with k. doesn't have boost frequency.?? and how i guess when my oc is max?? please respect.

 

[AgentLozen]

why i3 8gen with k. doesn't have boost frequency.?? and how i guess when my oc is max?? please respect.

That is some CRAZY english but I'll try and answer your question.

I think the reason why the Core i3 K processor doesn't have a boost frequency is because it comes from a family of i3 processors where none of them have boost frequencies. I guess that it takes extra work to add boost logic to the CPU, so they just left it out. That way any i3-8350K CPUs that don't turn out well can be converted into i3-8100 CPUs without any hassle.

Your over clock is maxed out when your computer loses stability after it's been overclocked. You can usually combat stability loss by increasing the voltage, but there's a point where the CPU produces too much heat to be practical anymore. It's kind of complicated and other people could better explain overclocking to you.

 

[aceamio20]

im sorry, im not good in english. anyway about overclocking in i3 8gen K how should i guess when its max. idk what should i buy ryzen 5 1400 or i3 8gen k for gaming purpose. and what do you think for gaming, is it ryzen 5 1400 or i3 8gen K.?

 

[AgentLozen]

how should i guess when its max

The easiest way to get going to to research what other people have overclocked to. If someone reports running at 5.0GHz @ 1.4 volts, maybe you could make that your goal as long as your cooling is good enough. There is no "ceiling" or "maximum" overclock. You can always go higher with the right hardware. What you need to decide is if your current settings are safe for your computer. You have to make sure your temperatures aren't getting too high and your CPU is still stable (Prime 95 is good for testing stability).

should i buy ryzen 5 1400 or i3 8gen k for gaming purpose

Ryzen 5 1400 and Core i3 8350K are priced very closely. They're both quad core CPUs too. What the comparison really comes down to is instructions per clock cycle (IPC) and ease of overclocking. Historically, Intel is better in both of those areas. Gaming benchmarks show that Intel CPUs usually do better although AMD is more competitive than ever.

The bottom line is that you would be happy with either Ryzen or Core i3. I think Core i3 might be a little better, but if you can get the Ryzen 5 1400 at a discount, that's a good choice too.

I hope this post helps you.

 

[mitch074]

Ryzen 5 1400 and Core i3 8350K are priced very closely. They're both quad core CPUs too. What the comparison really comes down to is instructions per clock cycle (IPC) and ease of overclocking. Historically, Intel is better in both of those areas. Gaming benchmarks show that Intel CPUs usually do better although AMD is more competitive than ever.

The bottom line is that you would be happy with either Ryzen or Core i3. I think Core i3 might be a little better, but if you can get the Ryzen 5 1400 at a discount, that's a good choice too.

I hope this post helps you.

A (very small) point in favor for Ryzen is that you can get a motherboard that allows overclocking for it quite cheap; on top of that it cooler is good for overclocking too. If you're ready to tinker with it, Ryzen may be a better deal. The fact that you can also switch the CPU alone later on (the AM4 platform will be supported until 2020) is also interesting.
Also, while Intel CPU usually score higher max FPS, Ryzen regularly maintains higher low FPS - but that's for the higher models. I'd recommend getting a 1600 over any R3 anyway - much better performance/price ratio.

 

[YoAndy]

Ryzen 5 1400 and Core i3 8350K are priced very closely. They're both quad core CPUs too. What the comparison really comes down to is instructions per clock cycle (IPC) and ease of overclocking. Historically, Intel is better in both of those areas. Gaming benchmarks show that Intel CPUs usually do better although AMD is more competitive than ever.

The bottom line is that you would be happy with either Ryzen or Core i3. I think Core i3 might be a little better, but if you can get the Ryzen 5 1400 at a discount, that's a good choice too.

I hope this post helps you.

A (very small) point in favor for Ryzen is that you can get a motherboard that allows overclocking for it quite cheap; on top of that it cooler is good for overclocking too. If you're ready to tinker with it, Ryzen may be a better deal. The fact that you can also switch the CPU alone later on (the AM4 platform will be supported until 2020) is also interesting.
Also, while Intel CPU usually score higher max FPS, Ryzen regularly maintains higher low FPS - but that's for the higher models. I'd recommend getting a 1600 over any R3 anyway - much better performance/price ratio.

The i3 8350K is barely new, It can be overclocked around 5GHz (thats a whole 1GHz faster than any Ryzen) and without overclocking clock per clock is faster than any Ryzen CPU due to Intel's better IPC. the i3 for gaming is a no brainer over the 1400. Now if you are planning on overclocking you will spend a bit more money with the i3 because you need a decent CPU cooler.
http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i3-8350K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-5-1400/3935vs3922

 

[mitch074]

The i3 8350K is barely new, It can be overclocked close to 5GHz (thats a whole 1GHz faster than any Ryzen) and without overclocking clock per clock is faster than any Ryzen CPU due to Intel's better IPC. the i3 for gaming is a no brainer over the 1400. Now if you are planning on overclocking you will spend a bit more money with the i3 because you need a decent CPU cooler.
http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i3-8350K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-5-1400/3935vs3922

The R3 isn't very interesting on a performance/price point of view. Still, it is currently the cheapest modern AM4 based CPU one can get, and B350-based motherboards aren't exactly expensive either.
Now, the 8350K's price is almost DOUBLE the R3 1200's, so they don't run in that category: the i3 8350K compares to the 1500X (same retail price, but comes with a Wraith Spire) or the 1600 (30 bucks more expensive, but comes with a Wraith Spire too), and both are dual threaded, both have unlocked ratio, and the 1600 is an hexacore.

Personally, I'd never get the i3 8350K: while it will have higher peak FPS, its low FPS point will be lower than the R5. If, today, you want to build a cheap yet efficient 4-core system, you need either the i3 8100 or one of the R3 chips. The latter can overclock, and will allow an in-place upgrade until 2020. If you can scrap up an extra $100 (i.e. the extra you'll pay to get a 8350K), the R5 1600 is a better deal; it may not overclock to 5 GHz, but chances are you can get it up to 3.8 with the stock cooler, it has dual threading and 50% more core.

 

[YoAndy]

i7-8700 vs Ryzen 7 1700 - Which CPU Should You Buy? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXqfaQU7UzE

 

[mitch074]

i7-8700 vs Ryzen 7 1700 - Which CPU Should You Buy? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXqfaQU7UzE

Yeah - he said it at the end of the video, "get a R5 1600". That proves my point

 

[YoAndy]

i7-8700 vs Ryzen 7 1700 - Which CPU Should You Buy? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXqfaQU7UzE

Yeah - he said it at the end of the video, "get a R5 1600". That proves my point

If you don't want good performance yeah I guess you could settle for a mid CPU.

 

[logainofhades]

The fanboyism is getting old. The 1600 is a very capable CPU, and plenty for most people. Given that many are on a strict budget, it is a great price/performance option, especially when paired with a B350 board. Leaves room for better GPU's, that an Intel build would right now. Not to mention CPU supply issues, for those wanting coffee lake right now. Once we start seeing cheaper Intel boards, and sufficient stock, an i5 8400 will be a very attractive Intel option for budget gamers, that are not interested in overclocking. Buying today, on a $1k budget, or less, Ryzen is the way to go.

 

[acosta.87]

The fanboyism is getting old. The 1600 is a very capable CPU, and plenty for most people. Given that many are on a strict budget, it is a great price/performance option, especially when paired with a B350 board. Leaves room for better GPU's, that an Intel build would right now. Not to mention CPU supply issues, for those wanting coffee lake right now. Once we start seeing cheaper Intel boards, and sufficient stock, an i5 8400 will be a very attractive Intel option for budget gamers, that are not interested in overclocking. Buying today, on a $1k budget, or less, Ryzen is the way to go.

Ryzen is good and all but if you play below 1440p the difference in IPC between it and any Intel 8th gen cpu will be noticeable. If playing at 1080p then an i5 8400 is the way to go no doubt, prices are starting to normalize and more affordable Z370 motherboards are becoming available.

 

[YoAndy]

The fanboyism is getting old. The 1600 is a very capable CPU, and plenty for most people. Given that many are on a strict budget, it is a great price/performance option, especially when paired with a B350 board. Leaves room for better GPU's, that an Intel build would right now. Not to mention CPU supply issues, for those wanting coffee lake right now. Once we start seeing cheaper Intel boards, and sufficient stock, an i5 8400 will be a very attractive Intel option for budget gamers, that are not interested in overclocking. Buying today, on a $1k budget, or less, Ryzen is the way to go.

Is not about fanboyism, Yeah I did call it a mid CPU because that's what it is LOL... Why some people always have to call it fanboyism when facts says otherwise? well idk.. Ryzen is not as good as Intel on CPU's demanding games, and is not good for 1080p gaming, we all know that AMD knows that,, that's why they recommend resolutions above 1080p. .. it is a real fact... If it was the other way around and AMD was ahead ill be saying the exact same thing..

 

[logainofhades]

You can still get good performance, from a mid CPU. Saying you cannot get good performance, from a mid range CPU, like the 1600, is a lie. You can still get a great gaming experience, even at 1080p, with Ryzen. Recent bios patches and memory compatibility improvements have made it even better since launch.


Yes Intel does better, but at current pricing and availability, for the budget gamer, Ryzen is the way to go. As I said before, that will likely change once things settle out, on the Intel side. Coffee Lake was, for all intents and purposes, a paper launch. Spending more on Intel, for the budget minded, means a weaker GPU, which means less gaming performance. It doesn't matter how good the CPU is, if your GPU is the bottleneck. I still recommend Sandy and Ivy Bridge K series cpu owners, that I run across, to just get a new GPU, to improve their gaming experience. They typically don't have the cash for a full blown build. Those CPU's are not any better, or worse, than Ryzen 5.


If money is no issue, and you have the ability to spend for the absolute best, then yea Intel is something that I would expect someone to go with. The vast majority of gamers, though, don't have that kind of luxury. I make recommendations based solely on price/performance at the time of build, for a given budget, and the usage of the system. Other than a brief stint with a Phenom II, I have been using nothing but Intel since Core 2, because AMD lacked a competitive product, at a competitive price. Now they are truly a great alternative for the budget crowd.

 

[AgentLozen]

I was playing Half Life on my Ryzen build the other day. In 800x600 I was only getting 600fps. It was simply atrocious! I think I'll stick with Coffee Lake so I can get 700+ fps.

I was trying to sound like a crazy person in that last paragraph. Even though Intel probably renders more frames in 800x600 than AMD does, the difference isn't perceivable. Neither CPU is "bad" in that resolution.

That's the situation with modern games in 1080p. It's true, AMD can't hit the same frame rates that Intel does but for all intents and purposes, neither are "bad" CPUs. Then, when you move to 1440p or higher, the difference vanishes completely.

When purchasing a CPU, you should really consider your budget before anything. If you have $4000 to spend, you might as well get a Skylake X cpu and an elaborate liquid cooler. If you have less than $1000, the Ryzen 5 is VERY tempting.

 

[mitch074]

I was playing Half Life on my Ryzen build the other day. In 800x600 I was only getting 600fps. It was simply atrocious! I think I'll stick with Coffee Lake so I can get 700+ fps.

I was trying to sound like a crazy person in that last paragraph. Even though Intel probably renders more frames in 800x600 than AMD does, the difference isn't perceivable. Neither CPU is "bad" in that resolution.

That's the situation with modern games in 1080p. It's true, AMD can't hit the same frame rates that Intel does but for all intents and purposes, neither are "bad" CPUs. Then, when you move to 1440p or higher, the difference vanishes completely.

When purchasing a CPU, you should really consider your budget before anything. If you have $4000 to spend, you might as well get a Skylake X cpu and an elaborate liquid cooler. If you have less than $1000, the Ryzen 5 is VERY tempting.

That's the main point; also, due to the complete absence of Coffee Lake from shelves, budget gamers must either get a Kaby lake i5 (4-core, 4-thread) or a Ryzen R5 (4-core, 8-thread or 6-core, 12-thread) ; the latter may not reach the same peak max FPS as the former, but its floor min FPS should be higher and its use in other apps is just without comparison (rendering, video compression, or simple multitab browsing is much better on a very threaded machine - yes, I tried).

 

[YoAndy]

I was playing Half Life on my Ryzen build the other day. In 800x600 I was only getting 600fps. It was simply atrocious! I think I'll stick with Coffee Lake so I can get 700+ fps.

I was trying to sound like a crazy person in that last paragraph. Even though Intel probably renders more frames in 800x600 than AMD does, the difference isn't perceivable. Neither CPU is "bad" in that resolution.

That's the situation with modern games in 1080p. It's true, AMD can't hit the same frame rates that Intel does but for all intents and purposes, neither are "bad" CPUs. Then, when you move to 1440p or higher, the difference vanishes completely.

When purchasing a CPU, you should really consider your budget before anything. If you have $4000 to spend, you might as well get a Skylake X cpu and an elaborate liquid cooler. If you have less than $1000, the Ryzen 5 is VERY tempting.

The difference banishes completely because the GPU is the bottleneck, Once new generation of more powerful GPU's start rolling out, we will see Ryzen chips fall behind in 1440p just like they do in 1080p. Is not rocket since if they are behind intel in 1080p they will be behind at 1440p and 4k once we get the newer generation of more powerful GPU's. Meaning new Ryzen CPU's will not last you as long as Intel's CPU's. For the money now they are a great buy, I personally have a Ryzen 7 1700 on my wife's PC, it is a good CPU but when it comes to gaming my first generation 6 core i7 990X @4,5 GHz is a bit ahead(note it was released in 2011) but at the end you get what you pay for. I'm not hating on AMD because they are doing a lot of things right and they have come a long way, they are close, but they are not quite there yet. They are great budget CPU's..

 

[mitch074]

The difference banishes completely because the GPU is the bottleneck, Once new generation of more powerful GPU's start rolling out, we will see Ryzen chips fall behind in 1440p just like they do in 1080p. Is not rocket since if they are behind intel in 1080p they will be behind at 1440p and 4k once we get the newer generation of more powerful GPU's. Meaning new Ryzen CPU's will not last you as long as Intel's CPU's. For the money now they are a great buy, I personally have a Ryzen 7 1700 on my wife's PC, it is a good CPU but when it comes to gaming my first generation 6 core i7 990X @4,5 GHz is a bit ahead(note it was released in 2011) but at the end you get what you pay for. I'm not hating on AMD because they are doing a lot of things right and they have come a long way, they are close, but they are not quite there yet. They are great budget CPU's..

Said new generation of GPU isn't quite there yet - and by the time it is, maybe Coffee Lake will actually be available - and Zen+ will be there too.

A while ago, I did a small test on Bioshock Infinite where I voluntarily limited CPU performance (Athlon X4 620, no L3 cache, 1333 MHz DDR3, 2GHz EMC) and compared 2 different modes that theoretically have the same amount of instructions processed per second:

• 
  ■ 2-cores, fixed 3.2 GHz
  ■ 4-core, fixed 1.6 GHz

This was under Linux with details at minimum and OpenGL threading enabled then disabled in each mode. I used a semi-scripted scene at the end of the game for ease of reproducing the scene (Elizabeth opening the door to the lighthouse) and I made use of the display driver's embedded HUD to capture CPU use, frame rate etc. graphics.
Without surprise, the 2-core 3.2 GHz, OpenGL threading disabled mode had higher max FPS . However, gameplay in 4-core, low clock, OpenGL threading enabled mode was much smoother - max FPS was much lower (half as much, in fact - 80 fps instead of 150) but min FPS was quite higher with much less spiking (4-core mode would never go under 25 fps, while 2-core mode would regularly dip under 15 fps).

Of course, it's an old game on (very) old hardware. I do think it's still representative of today's gaming environment (more limited tests on my 4.2 GHz Haswell i5 show a similar tendency).

My point is, while a Ryzen R5 1600 can be considered a "budget" gaming CPU, the fact is that it may provide a better gaming experience than any Kaby Lake (and older) i5 Intel CPU on reasonably-threaded titles, and actually compete with i7 processors on general gaming smoothness. Of course Intel leads the race in max FPS - but how much more do you need to spend on an Intel system before you get a frame rate with less variation, that you get with a $250 CPU at AMD's?

 

[acosta.87]

The difference banishes completely because the GPU is the bottleneck, Once new generation of more powerful GPU's start rolling out, we will see Ryzen chips fall behind in 1440p just like they do in 1080p. Is not rocket since if they are behind intel in 1080p they will be behind at 1440p and 4k once we get the newer generation of more powerful GPU's. Meaning new Ryzen CPU's will not last you as long as Intel's CPU's. For the money now they are a great buy, I personally have a Ryzen 7 1700 on my wife's PC, it is a good CPU but when it comes to gaming my first generation 6 core i7 990X @4,5 GHz is a bit ahead(note it was released in 2011) but at the end you get what you pay for. I'm not hating on AMD because they are doing a lot of things right and they have come a long way, they are close, but they are not quite there yet. They are great budget CPU's..

Said new generation of GPU isn't quite there yet - and by the time it is, maybe Coffee Lake will actually be available - and Zen+ will be there too.

A while ago, I did a small test on Bioshock Infinite where I voluntarily limited CPU performance (Athlon X4 620, no L3 cache, 1333 MHz DDR3, 2GHz EMC) and compared 2 different modes that theoretically have the same amount of instructions processed per second:

• 
  ■ 2-cores, fixed 3.2 GHz
  ■ 4-core, fixed 1.6 GHz

This was under Linux with details at minimum and OpenGL threading enabled then disabled in each mode. I used a semi-scripted scene at the end of the game for ease of reproducing the scene (Elizabeth opening the door to the lighthouse) and I made use of the display driver's embedded HUD to capture CPU use, frame rate etc. graphics.
Without surprise, the 2-core 3.2 GHz, OpenGL threading disabled mode had higher max FPS . However, gameplay in 4-core, low clock, OpenGL threading enabled mode was much smoother - max FPS was much lower (half as much, in fact - 80 fps instead of 150) but min FPS was quite higher with much less spiking (4-core mode would never go under 25 fps, while 2-core mode would regularly dip under 15 fps).

Of course, it's an old game on (very) old hardware. I do think it's still representative of today's gaming environment (more limited tests on my 4.2 GHz Haswell i5 show a similar tendency).

My point is, while a Ryzen R5 1600 can be considered a "budget" gaming CPU, the fact is that it may provide a better gaming experience than any Kaby Lake (and older) i5 Intel CPU on reasonably-threaded titles, and actually compete with i7 processors on general gaming smoothness. Of course Intel leads the race in max FPS - but how much more do you need to spend on an Intel system before you get a frame rate with less variation, that you get with a $250 CPU at AMD's?

Next generation GPU's are almost within reach and given Samsung has already announced their GDDR6 16gbps chips you can expect a significant boot in performance on the high end so they'll indeed lag in a not too distant future.

Frame pacing, min and max FPS are very good on an i7 7700K and tom's hardware has already tested this exact scenario (though it might have been Anandtech, can't quite remember) while doing their VR articles using both Intel/AMD cpu's and AMD/NVIDIA gpu's so the amount of cores won't always translate into better performance, thus Ryzen is no magic bullet.

AMD's advantage in performance per dollar and gameplay smoothness has pretty much vanished with the advent of the i5 8400 even if we add the price of a Z370 board. I won't enter a discussion regarding price fluctuation and availability as it will eventually be available at it's suggested MSRP. Ryzen is good and all but it still trails Intel in gaming performance and Zen+ won't change that, after all its still Summit Ridge architecture with most likely improved thermals and higher frequencies due to the node maturity but that's my take on it, we'll have to wait and see.

 

[mitch074]

Next generation GPU's are almost within reach and given Samsung has already announced their GDDR6 16gbps chips you can expect a significant boot in performance on the high end so they'll indeed lag in a not too distant future.

Frame pacing, min and max FPS are very good on an i7 7700K and tom's hardware has already tested this exact scenario (though it might have been Anandtech, can't quite remember) while doing their VR articles using both Intel/AMD cpu's and AMD/NVIDIA gpu's so the amount of cores won't always translate into better performance, thus Ryzen is no magic bullet.

AMD's advantage in performance per dollar and gameplay smoothness has pretty much vanished with the advent of the i5 8400 even if we add the price of a Z370 board. I won't enter a discussion regarding price fluctuation and availability as it will eventually be available at it's suggested MSRP. Ryzen is good and all but it still trails Intel in gaming performance and Zen+ won't change that, after all its still Summit Ridge architecture with most likely improved thermals and higher frequencies due to the node maturity but that's my take on it, we'll have to wait and see.

You dismiss availability as irrelevant; currently, the best mid-range gaming CPU is the Intel i5 8400... And it's impossible to find at its recommended retail price. The R5-1600 can be found for $200, comes with a capable cooler, can be overclocked on a sub-$100 motherboard... Thus why Anandtech is recommending it as well as the i5 8400 (which isn't hyperthreaded and can't be overclocked).

 

[YoAndy]

The difference banishes completely because the GPU is the bottleneck, Once new generation of more powerful GPU's start rolling out, we will see Ryzen chips fall behind in 1440p just like they do in 1080p. Is not rocket since if they are behind intel in 1080p they will be behind at 1440p and 4k once we get the newer generation of more powerful GPU's. Meaning new Ryzen CPU's will not last you as long as Intel's CPU's. For the money now they are a great buy, I personally have a Ryzen 7 1700 on my wife's PC, it is a good CPU but when it comes to gaming my first generation 6 core i7 990X @4,5 GHz is a bit ahead(note it was released in 2011) but at the end you get what you pay for. I'm not hating on AMD because they are doing a lot of things right and they have come a long way, they are close, but they are not quite there yet. They are great budget CPU's..

Said new generation of GPU isn't quite there yet - and by the time it is, maybe Coffee Lake will actually be available - and Zen+ will be there too.

A while ago, I did a small test on Bioshock Infinite where I voluntarily limited CPU performance (Athlon X4 620, no L3 cache, 1333 MHz DDR3, 2GHz EMC) and compared 2 different modes that theoretically have the same amount of instructions processed per second:

• 
  ■ 2-cores, fixed 3.2 GHz
  ■ 4-core, fixed 1.6 GHz

This was under Linux with details at minimum and OpenGL threading enabled then disabled in each mode. I used a semi-scripted scene at the end of the game for ease of reproducing the scene (Elizabeth opening the door to the lighthouse) and I made use of the display driver's embedded HUD to capture CPU use, frame rate etc. graphics.
Without surprise, the 2-core 3.2 GHz, OpenGL threading disabled mode had higher max FPS . However, gameplay in 4-core, low clock, OpenGL threading enabled mode was much smoother - max FPS was much lower (half as much, in fact - 80 fps instead of 150) but min FPS was quite higher with much less spiking (4-core mode would never go under 25 fps, while 2-core mode would regularly dip under 15 fps).

Of course, it's an old game on (very) old hardware. I do think it's still representative of today's gaming environment (more limited tests on my 4.2 GHz Haswell i5 show a similar tendency).

My point is, while a Ryzen R5 1600 can be considered a "budget" gaming CPU, the fact is that it may provide a better gaming experience than any Kaby Lake (and older) i5 Intel CPU on reasonably-threaded titles, and actually compete with i7 processors on general gaming smoothness. Of course Intel leads the race in max FPS - but how much more do you need to spend on an Intel system before you get a frame rate with less variation, that you get with a $250 CPU at AMD's?

They are not quite here yet? Nvidia just released the new VOLTA GPU's for servers and you are saying that they are not quite here yet? ???????


Like I have previously said- in a different thread-, If Nvidia's Volta GPU is 132% faster than Pascal, imagine what that can change for CPUS GAMES and GAMERS in general... Current Ryzen line wont be future proof and it will be far behind intel (in 1440p and 4k just like they are now in 1080p) when this new cards start hitting the market maybe sometime next year.
Furthermore, the primary reason that Nvidia is not ready to offer Volta gaming cards this year is that they are currently too expensive to manufacture. Volta GPUs cost close to $1000 to produce.PLUS Nvidia is not in a big rush to replace cards with the Pascal architecture. The GeForce GTX line is selling strong, and the 1080 Ti is still considered a monster for graphical performance and it has no competitor. Prematurely releasing Volta cards would cut into profits and diminish the life cycle of current generation cards. There is a balance that has to be maintained between offering the customers what they want and can afford while maximizing the profits from current products.

 

[shrapnel_indie]

They are not quite here yet? Nvidia just released the new VOLTA GPU's and you are saying that they are not quite there yet? ???????


Like I have previously said- in a different thread-, If Nvidia's Volta GPU is 132% faster than Pascal, imagine what that can change for games and gamers in general...

You say Volta has been released? Please show me more on this bit of news I haven't seen.

As to the claims Volta is 132% faster than Pascal ( Volta = Pascal * 2.32), that is something everyone will be talking about and headlining a lot of tech websites. I'm not so sure that this 132% increase figure is even remotely accurate... maybe 32% faster, but 132%? Sounds more like numbers to appease shareholders, but even more like numbers to attempt to discourage further AMD sales.

 

[YoAndy]

They are not quite here yet? Nvidia just released the new VOLTA GPU's for savers and you are saying that they are not quite here yet? ???????


Like I have previously said- in a different thread-, If Nvidia's Volta GPU is 132% faster than Pascal, imagine what that can change for games and gamers in general...

You say Volta has been released? Please show me more on this bit of news I haven't seen.

As to the claims Volta is 132% faster than Pascal ( Volta = Pascal * 2.32), that is something everyone will be talking about and headlining a lot of tech websites. I'm not so sure that this 132% increase figure is even remotely accurate... maybe 32% faster, but 132%? Sounds more like numbers to appease shareholders, but even more like numbers to attempt to discourage further AMD sales.

Where have you been?
DENVER, Nov. 13, 2017 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- NVIDIA today announced the world’s most advanced data center GPU — the NVIDIA Tesla V100 GPU based on NVIDIA’s VOLTA ARCHITECTURE — is available through every major computer maker and chosen by every major cloud to deliver artificial intelligence and high performance computing.

Dell EMC, Hewlett Packard Enterprise, Huawei, IBM and Lenovo have all announced Volta-based offerings for their customers. Providers such as Alibaba Cloud, Amazon Web Services, Baidu Cloud, Microsoft Azure, Oracle Cloud and Tencent Cloud have also announced Volta-based cloud services.

Building on this breadth of offerings, NVIDIA has introduced new software and tools on the NVIDIA GPU Cloud (NGC) container registry that make it easy for scientists to deploy NVIDIA’s accelerated computing platform for compute-intensive research.

NVIDIA shared the news at the SC17 supercomputing conference, where dozens of computer makers and cloud service providers launched a wide range of Volta-based products and services.

“Volta is the world’s most powerful platform for AI and HPC, and will allow the world’s top minds in scientific research to push the limit on what’s possible in areas like drug discovery, alternative fuel sources and predicting natural disasters,” said Jensen Huang, founder and chief executive officer of NVIDIA. “With Volta now in data centers and clouds around the world, a new wave of innovation is underway that will have an incredible impact across society.”

https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/data-center/volta-gpu-architecture/
https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/11/13/will-the-volta-gpu-help-nvidia-conquer-the-cloud.aspx
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nvidia-results-research/nvidia-shares-set-record-as-volta-chips-ensure-future-growth-idUSKBN1DA1TC
https://www.lowyat.net/2017/147871/nvidia-unveils-volta-based-saturnv-ai-supercomputer/
https://www.extremetech.com/computing/259046-nvidia-announces-major-volta-upgrade-saturnv-supercomputer
https://globenewswire.com/news-release/2017/11/13/1185513/0/en/NVIDIA-Chosen-by-Every-Major-Computer-Maker-Every-Major-Cloud.html