Intel's Future Chips: News, Rumours & Reviews

[juanrga]

Spoiler

We know that the 1700 will overclock to 3.8-4.1GHz depending on the chip. 4.15GHz is the highest I've seen.

The average OC of the 1700 is only 3873MHz, which means many chips cannot even hit 3.8GHz

Here is a reference to show you the differences in FPS just from game to game.

Click here for Link

Montreal-based tech YouTuber Karl Morin gave us the Coffee Lake scores when he ran across an HP Omen PC sporting an Intel Core-i7 8700K at the HWBot event. It didn’t have an attached monitor, so Morin grabbed one and ran Cinebench. He also ran some CPU-Z multi- and single-threaded tests.
Intel’s six core/12 thread CPU scored 1230 points in the Cinebench R15 multi-threaded test and 196 points for single-core performance. In our own Cinebench benchmarks, that places the 8700K above the four core/eight thread Core-i7 7700K (941) but just below AMD’s six core/12 thread Ryzen 5 1600X (1260) for multi-threaded performance. That single-thread score, meanwhile, is also an improvement over Kaby Lake.

Click here for link

Great single thread score compared to the 7700k, but even the newest mainstream Intel 6 core i7 8700K doesn't beat the 1600 in multi-threading although it is vey close. My guess is depending on your needs the 8600K 6 core 6 thread will be the gaming GPU people go too.

And here we go again. Let us review that silly 'review' again:

(1) They tested with frame-limiting and GPU-bound settings. That is the reason why OC the 7800X by a huge 34% did only bring 3% higher framerates. The performance of Intel chips was crippled.

(2) The guy finally admitted he didn't even test a retail 7800X chip, but he used an engineering sample or a qualification sample (he doesn't seem to grasp the difference).

(3) If this wasn't enough, he used a motherboard is incompatible with the 7800X and he managed to burn the 7800X thanks to that.

http://www.asrock.com/MB/Intel/X299%20Taichi/index.asp#BIOS

This review is useless. Please stop from mentioning it again.

(1) You didn't complain about crippled benchmarks on Ryzen opening day.
(2) Doesn't matter results are in line with the majority of other reviews.
(3) There is nothing wrong with the motherboard.

(1) No one crippled RyZen.
(2) Not true.
(3) Fabricant says it was incompatible with the chip tested in the review that you mentioned...

That 'review' from Techspot gives the next performance for Hitman

The 7820X is only 7% faster than the 1700 when both chips are @4GHz. The Intel chip was overclocked by 11%. The AMD chip was overclocked by 33%. Correcting for clocks the 7820X wold be only 28% faster than the 1700 when both chips are on stock settings. It happens the 7820X on stock is 51% faster than the 1800X on stock.

Virtually any review loved the 7820X. This is one that explicitly mentions how it is better than a RyZen 7 build

the new 8-core Intel is definitely better than the 8-core Ryzen 7 in pretty much every test we threw at it. As we say though, we know that those who will buy AMD or Intel will do so almost regardless of reviews, and you certainly wont be upset if you own a Ryzen or even one of the earlier Intel i7s. Just so long as you understand that right now the best possible choice is a i7-7820X an a X299 motherboard.

 

[juanrga]

"Let's just say it's not worth it"

Maybe it isn't to you, but a 20% performance improvement isn't nothing.

Otherwise, why buy an i7 over an i5? The i7 is only around 20% faster at MC and in SC when both overclocked the i5 will beat the i7 by a few points clock for clock, and on thermals it does significantly worse.

Yet the i7 costs 40-50% more.

Same thing with ryzen- 25% performance improvement for 50% more cost when going from 6-8 core models- and losing a few points on SC.

When you're buying high end sometimes people don't want what is the best value, they want what performs the best.

If you're using an Intel Core i7-7820K, then your argument is pointless.

Only elitists want to pay 75% for some dinky little 20% performance increase.

What 75%? The 7800X is cheaper than the 1700X, still offers more performance in many cases. The 7820X is similarly priced to the 1800X, still run circles about it.

 

[aldaia]

Speaking about process density. According to Intel propaganda, Intel is a generation ahead and claims a 3-year lead over foundries.

It is true that on PAPER (or should we say on slide) intel is more dense. For instance according to Intel slides Intel 14 nm achieves on PAPER 37.5 million Trs/mm2 while foundries 14nm get only 30.5 million and TSMC 16 nm 29 million Tr/mm2. But that is far from a generation ahead. If Intel 14 nm was a generation ahead over foundries 14 nm density advantage should be 2x instead of 1.2x. So on PAPER and according to Intel`s own estimations 14 nm is only 1/5th of a generation ahead.

But what is the REAL density on REAL products?
The density on Intel products is actually way less than half what they claim on PAPER.
Broadwell Low Core Count is only 13.8 million Tr/mm2 (0.37x the PAPER density)
Broadwell High Core Count is only 15.8 million Tr/mm2 (0.42x the PAPER density)
Skylake i7 is only 14.3 million Tr/mm2 (0.38x the PAPER density)

The REAL density of foundry products is actually much better
Apple A10 (built on TSMC 16 nm) is 26.4 million Tr/mm2 (0.91x the PAPER density)

Yeah I already know the excuse here, SOCs are much denser and cannot be compared with CPUs. So lets include a CPU too.
AMD Ryzen die (built on Gf/Samsung 14 nm) is 22.5 Tr/mm2 (0.74x the PAPER density)

The thing is why Intel REAL density is so bad compared to PAPER density? (lets talk about hype?)

At 10 nm Intel claims a PAPER density of 100 million Tr/mm2 but if they keep the same ratio (some people claim the ratio will be worse), that will translate to ~40 million Tr/mm2. Meanwhile the Kirin 970 SoC built on TSMC 10 nm delivers a REAL density of ~55 million Tr/mm2 and SD 835 built on Samsung 10 nm has a REAL density of 41.4 million Tr/mm2. TSMC 10 nm has slightly better specs on PAPER that apparently translate to real products.

Not all transistors are the same, which makes transistor counts irrelevant, and your point moot. Density is measured in other ways. For instance

TSMC "16nm": 0.07µm² HD SRAM

GloFo/Samsung "14nm": 0.064μm² HD SRAM

Intel "14nm": 0.0499μm² HD SRAM

Well, that is even worse, if Intel SRAM cells are denser but REAL systems density is much worse than anybody else means their logic transistor density is very very bad.
We are not talking a small percentage here, we are talking that an Intel CPU is about 2,5 times less denser that the density they claim on PAPER, that is a big difference.
On the other hand AMD Ryzen is only 1.35 times less denser than the theoretical density.

Not only that, but the 14 nm Ryzen is much denser than Intel's 14nm CPUs by a significant factor (about 1.5X denser) despite all Intel PAPER superiority claims. But one thing I agree with you, not all transistors are the same, Intel transistors are HUGE 😀😀

 

[okcnaline]

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel - Core i7-7820X 3.6GHz 8-Core Processor ($579.99 @ Amazon)
Motherboard: MSI - X299 GAMING PRO CARBON AC ATX LGA2066 Motherboard ($331.50 @ Amazon)
Memory: G.Skill - Trident Z 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR4-3200 Memory ($143.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $1055.48
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-09-11 19:55 EDT-0400

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD - Ryzen 7 1700X 3.4GHz 8-Core Processor ($309.99 @ Amazon)
Motherboard: MSI - X370 GAMING PRO CARBON ATX AM4 Motherboard ($141.98 @ Newegg)
Memory: G.Skill - Trident Z 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR4-3200 Memory ($143.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $595.96
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-09-11 19:58 EDT-0400

What 75%? The 7800X is cheaper than the 1700X, still offers more performance in many cases. The 7820X is similarly priced to the 1800X, still run circles about it.[/quotemsg]

The price needed to run the CPU is higher though.

 

[aldaia]

What 75%? The 7800X is cheaper than the 1700X, still offers more performance in many cases. The 7820X is similarly priced to the 1800X, still run circles about it.

Bolded part is FALSE in the US and in your country check for instance https://www.pccomponentes.com

7800x 379€
1700X 349€
No not cheaper, actually more expensive.

7820X 609€
1800X 489€
No, not similarly priced, actually way more expensive.

Not to mention the motherboard:
X299 ranges from 249 to 535€
X370 range from 125 to 359€ and B350 is even cheaper 75-129€

 

[KirbysHammer]

"Let's just say it's not worth it"

Maybe it isn't to you, but a 20% performance improvement isn't nothing.

Otherwise, why buy an i7 over an i5? The i7 is only around 20% faster at MC and in SC when both overclocked the i5 will beat the i7 by a few points clock for clock, and on thermals it does significantly worse.

Yet the i7 costs 40-50% more.

Same thing with ryzen- 25% performance improvement for 50% more cost when going from 6-8 core models- and losing a few points on SC.

When you're buying high end sometimes people don't want what is the best value, they want what performs the best.

If you're using an Intel Core i7-7820K, then your argument is pointless.

Only elitists want to pay 75% for some dinky little 20% performance increase. You can do so much more with that $400 dollars than to obtain what can be obtained for free. You can always overclock the CPU to make up for that 20% performance, even if it means pulling the 75% cost to 10% difference. After you overclock it to match the i7-7820K stock speed, you'll find that you're still paying some 12.5% difference for 0% performance increase. This is what the meaning of a bad value is. Sure, some fanboys would still buy the i7 because of their loyalty, but they know they're wasting money.

As for your i7 to i5 comparison, that's irrelevant. You can't make up difference in multithreaded performance because you don't have the cores. That justifies the ~50% cost difference. But if you can overclock the i5-7400 to match the i5-7600K performance, then it's not worth the ~30% cost difference because you'll end up paying ~30% more for 0% performance gains.

Also, you are not a professional *insert job here*. You aren't buying Intel CPUs for their reliability and support. You don't need to pay extra for that when AMD's CPUs can catch up to Intel's when overclocked.

And I find it hilarious that "AMD boards look worse than Intel's boards". They're literally the same designs. The LEDs are located in the same place; the paint jobs are the same.

Last but not least, CPU Userbenchmark tells nothing about a CPU. There are no set conditions for how the CPU is tested. Frankly, it's for elitists who think they don't have time to read up on reviews. You use review websites to tell where a CPU is having trouble. For example, CPU Userbenchmark cannot tell whether a CPU will struggle in game due to single-threaded or multi-threaded performance.

To all of you, though, stay on topic. This isn't for you to compare Ryzen to the Intel lineup.

1. I'm not using a 7820k. But if I was, it wouldn't reduce the validity of my argument, but rather increase it.
2. 20% is not small, and you can also overclock the 7820k to about 4.5GHz with ease. It still pulls ahead by 20% in these cases. It sounds like you're pulling the fact that the 1800x can match a 7820k with both overclocked out of your behind.
3 Intel still offers far superior performance in games, often up to 35-40% in rare cases. Intel is offering more performance for the money with their 7820k. Same for the 7700k over the 7600k. Hence why people buy the more expensive CPUs.
4. I'm not a professional, correct. But the premium might be worth it for the faster processor and increased PCIE lanes if I were in the market for a chip that can reliably do 144hz gaming and I also streamed/content created.
5. I don't care what the boards look like.
6. Userbenchmark does tell quite a bit about a CPU. It's not great for benchmarking high end desktop CPUs but if you need to find performance values for say, mobile CPUs with little variance in performance and not a whole lot of benchmarks it's great. Obviously, that's not relevant here in the slightest, as I never even mentioned userbenchmark nor did I use it.
By the way, you can scroll down to see MC performance and SC performance values.

 

[juanrga]

Speaking about process density. According to Intel propaganda, Intel is a generation ahead and claims a 3-year lead over foundries.

It is true that on PAPER (or should we say on slide) intel is more dense. For instance according to Intel slides Intel 14 nm achieves on PAPER 37.5 million Trs/mm2 while foundries 14nm get only 30.5 million and TSMC 16 nm 29 million Tr/mm2. But that is far from a generation ahead. If Intel 14 nm was a generation ahead over foundries 14 nm density advantage should be 2x instead of 1.2x. So on PAPER and according to Intel`s own estimations 14 nm is only 1/5th of a generation ahead.

But what is the REAL density on REAL products?
The density on Intel products is actually way less than half what they claim on PAPER.
Broadwell Low Core Count is only 13.8 million Tr/mm2 (0.37x the PAPER density)
Broadwell High Core Count is only 15.8 million Tr/mm2 (0.42x the PAPER density)
Skylake i7 is only 14.3 million Tr/mm2 (0.38x the PAPER density)

The REAL density of foundry products is actually much better
Apple A10 (built on TSMC 16 nm) is 26.4 million Tr/mm2 (0.91x the PAPER density)

Yeah I already know the excuse here, SOCs are much denser and cannot be compared with CPUs. So lets include a CPU too.
AMD Ryzen die (built on Gf/Samsung 14 nm) is 22.5 Tr/mm2 (0.74x the PAPER density)

The thing is why Intel REAL density is so bad compared to PAPER density? (lets talk about hype?)

At 10 nm Intel claims a PAPER density of 100 million Tr/mm2 but if they keep the same ratio (some people claim the ratio will be worse), that will translate to ~40 million Tr/mm2. Meanwhile the Kirin 970 SoC built on TSMC 10 nm delivers a REAL density of ~55 million Tr/mm2 and SD 835 built on Samsung 10 nm has a REAL density of 41.4 million Tr/mm2. TSMC 10 nm has slightly better specs on PAPER that apparently translate to real products.

Not all transistors are the same, which makes transistor counts irrelevant, and your point moot. Density is measured in other ways. For instance

TSMC "16nm": 0.07µm² HD SRAM

GloFo/Samsung "14nm": 0.064μm² HD SRAM

Intel "14nm": 0.0499μm² HD SRAM

Well, that is even worse, if Intel SRAM cells are denser but REAL systems density is much worse than anybody else means their logic transistor density is very very bad.
We are not talking a small percentage here, we are talking that an Intel CPU is about 2,5 times less denser that the density they claim on PAPER, that is a big difference.
On the other hand AMD Ryzen is only 1.35 times less denser than the theoretical density.

Not only that, but the 14 nm Ryzen is much denser than Intel's 14nm CPUs by a significant factor (about 1.5X denser) despite all Intel PAPER superiority claims. But one thing I agree with you, not all transistors are the same, Intel transistors are HUGE 😀😀

Tr/mm2 is not measure of real density, because not all transistors are equal (comparing Transistors/mm2 has the same zero sense than comparing cars/m2) and because transistor counts are marketing lies

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5176/amd-revises-bulldozer-transistor-count-12b-not-2b

Intel 14nm is better than Glofo 14nm in any technical metric.

 

[goldstone77]

Spoiler

Spoiler

We know that the 1700 will overclock to 3.8-4.1GHz depending on the chip. 4.15GHz is the highest I've seen.

The average OC of the 1700 is only 3873MHz, which means many chips cannot even hit 3.8GHz

Here is a reference to show you the differences in FPS just from game to game.

Click here for Link

Montreal-based tech YouTuber Karl Morin gave us the Coffee Lake scores when he ran across an HP Omen PC sporting an Intel Core-i7 8700K at the HWBot event. It didn’t have an attached monitor, so Morin grabbed one and ran Cinebench. He also ran some CPU-Z multi- and single-threaded tests.
Intel’s six core/12 thread CPU scored 1230 points in the Cinebench R15 multi-threaded test and 196 points for single-core performance. In our own Cinebench benchmarks, that places the 8700K above the four core/eight thread Core-i7 7700K (941) but just below AMD’s six core/12 thread Ryzen 5 1600X (1260) for multi-threaded performance. That single-thread score, meanwhile, is also an improvement over Kaby Lake.

Click here for link

Great single thread score compared to the 7700k, but even the newest mainstream Intel 6 core i7 8700K doesn't beat the 1600 in multi-threading although it is vey close. My guess is depending on your needs the 8600K 6 core 6 thread will be the gaming GPU people go too.

And here we go again. Let us review that silly 'review' again:

(1) They tested with frame-limiting and GPU-bound settings. That is the reason why OC the 7800X by a huge 34% did only bring 3% higher framerates. The performance of Intel chips was crippled.

(2) The guy finally admitted he didn't even test a retail 7800X chip, but he used an engineering sample or a qualification sample (he doesn't seem to grasp the difference).

(3) If this wasn't enough, he used a motherboard is incompatible with the 7800X and he managed to burn the 7800X thanks to that.

http://www.asrock.com/MB/Intel/X299%20Taichi/index.asp#BIOS

This review is useless. Please stop from mentioning it again.

(1) You didn't complain about crippled benchmarks on Ryzen opening day.
(2) Doesn't matter results are in line with the majority of other reviews.
(3) There is nothing wrong with the motherboard.

(1) No one crippled RyZen.
(2) Not true.
(3) Fabricant says it was incompatible with the chip tested in the review that you mentioned...

That 'review' from Techspot gives the next performance for Hitman

The 7820X is only 7% faster than the 1700 when both chips are @4GHz. The Intel chip was overclocked by 11%. The AMD chip was overclocked by 33%. Correcting for clocks the 7820X wold be only 28% faster than the 1700 when both chips are on stock settings. It happens the 7820X on stock is 51% faster than the 1800X on stock.

Virtually any review loved the 7820X. This is one that explicitly mentions how it is better than a RyZen 7 build

the new 8-core Intel is definitely better than the 8-core Ryzen 7 in pretty much every test we threw at it. As we say though, we know that those who will buy AMD or Intel will do so almost regardless of reviews, and you certainly wont be upset if you own a Ryzen or even one of the earlier Intel i7s. Just so long as you understand that right now the best possible choice is a i7-7820X an a X299 motherboard.

I like how you never link the source, so it can be proof read. Hitman is an obvious outlier in that review! Looking at the whole review instead of the worst performing game for Ryzen out of the entire list. The 1800X is only ~10% FPS slower overall for average frame rates at 1080P when compared to the 7820X.
THE BEST PC GAMING PROCESSOR
By Jarred Walton 22 days ago

Performance Results

You can read the details of the individual tests in our latest CPU reviews, the most recent of which is AMD's Threadripper 1950X and 1920X. To keep things manageable for our buying guides, we've focused on the two summary charts, showing aggregate gaming performance and aggregate CPU performance. All of the results are for CPUs running at stock speeds, though we've also taken overclocked performance into account where applicable.

All of the results are for CPUs running at stock speeds, though we've also taken overclocked performance into account where applicable.

We've also taken overclocked performance into account where applicable? That tells you some results overclocked and some aren't! But we are not going to tell you which ones just put them in there! There is definitely some Tom Foolery going on with these results!

We measured performance in a variety of games using the GTX 1080 Ti. The current gaming suite consists of 16 games running at 1080p Ultra settings, with 4xMSAA where applicable and FXAA/SMAA otherwise. While 1080p isn't the most demanding resolution, we wanted to give the CPUs a bit of room to show their stuff—running at 1440p and 4K typically ends up testing GPU performance more than anything, and 1080p Ultra is a good compromise.

Besides gaming tests—because really, no PC is going to be purely for gaming—we also ran general system and processor performance. Our test suite includes Cinebench R15, x264 HD 5.0.1 (both passes), HwBot's x265 test, y-cruncher, PCMark 10, VeraCrypt, and 7-zip. Along with these benchmarks, we also use each processor as a 'normal' user, surfing the web, installing some applications, writing, etc. to see if there's anything else we notice that doesn't specifically show up in the benchmarks.

I add a new game to show the gap has diminished depending on the title. And Tomb Raider which was optimized recently.

Now let's look at another review for the same game with directX 11 and 12 up to 2160P. I arranged the benchmarks by resolution and DirectX 11 to 12 support for easy comparison.Click here for a link to the total review I posted in ThreadRipper Mega Thread.

Moving up in resolution drastically reduces the gap even in Hitman, which is one of the most drastic FPS example between Intel and Ryzen. Skylake-X as said before many times, and overall it's not worth the cost of the CPU and Platform cost compared to Ryzen the 1700.

 

[juanrga]

What 75%? The 7800X is cheaper than the 1700X, still offers more performance in many cases. The 7820X is similarly priced to the 1800X, still run circles about it.

Bolded part is FALSE in the US and in your country check for instance https://www.pccomponentes.com

7800x 379€
1700X 349€
No not cheaper, actually more expensive.

7820X 609€
1800X 489€
No, not similarly priced, actually way more expensive.

Sorry, when I wrote "cheaper" I was mentioning launch prices as

$399 1700X vs $389 7800X

Yes the RyZen chips were discounted since launch. Current price listings

$360 1700X vs $396 7800X

$450 1800X vs $600 7820X

Note: I can get the 7820X in my country by much less than you quote above.

Not to mention the motherboard:
X299 ranges from 249 to 535€
X370 range from 125 to 359€ and B350 is even cheaper 75-129€

We were here before.

 

[juanrga]

I like how you never link the source, so it can be proof read. Hitman is an obvious outlier in that review! Looking at the whole review instead of the worst performing game for Ryzen out of the entire list. The 1800X is only ~10% FPS slower overall for average frame rates at 1080P when compared to the 7820X.
THE BEST PC GAMING PROCESSOR
By Jarred Walton 22 days ago

Note it is a geometric mean, not an ordinary arithmetic mean. A geometric mean will reduce the gap between processors, but still they notice how far is RyZen

But games ... games still like Intel's architectures more, and the best AMD can do with Ryzen is a modest sixth place out of the CPUs we've tested, placing behind every modern Core i7 as well as the i5-7600K.

Note as well that the i9-7900X has been selected as the best high-end gaming CPU. There is some love for that CPU!

Now let's look at another review for the same game with directX 11 and 12 up to 2160P. I arranged the benchmarks by resolution and DirectX 11 to 12 support for easy comparison.Click here for a link to the total review I posted in ThreadRipper Mega Thread.

I enjoy this continuous change of the review used when flaws or issues in the former review are mentioned.

Moving up in resolution drastically reduces the gap even in Hitman, which is one of the most drastic FPS example between Intel and Ryzen. Skylake-X as said before many times, and overall it's not worth the cost of the CPU and Platform cost compared to Ryzen the 1700.

Increasing resolution generates a GPU bottleneck and the fastest CPUs are idle, awaiting to the GPU to do its work

This GPU bottleneck makes slower chips to appear faster than they are really. This GPU bottleneck is the reason why AMD wanted reviewers to test RyZen at higher resoliutions. And it is also the reason why AMD public demos, before launch, used higher resolutions.

 

[juanrga]

Remember that EU antitrust deal that Intel didn't pay? Top EU court gives the reason to Intel's appeal

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/09/06/victory-intel-eu-court-orders-11bn-fine-re-examined/

I guess AdoredTV will not make a video about this.

 

[juanrga]

Be careful about alleged leaks for CoffeLake

https://www.eteknix.com/intel-i7-8700k-worse-ryzen-r5-1600x-cinebench/
http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/intel-core-i7-8700k-benchmarks.html

because are fake

https://twitter.com/ryanshrout/status/907280680207503361

 

[goldstone77]

Now let's look at another review for the same game with directX 11 and 12 up to 2160P. I arranged the benchmarks by resolution and DirectX 11 to 12 support for easy comparison.Click here for a link to the total review I posted in ThreadRipper Mega Thread.

I enjoy this continuous change of the review used when flaws or issues in the former review are mentioned.

At least I make the attempt to quantify issues over a given range of reviews. You are mostly just argumentative, and if you find 1 flaw you throw out the entire review as invalid. You pick and choose values to suit your own agenda. You know the 1700 is a sub $300 CPU, and is the same CPU as the 1700X and 1800X, but you always try to use the later when it suits your agenda. In an attempt to skew the view instead of looking at it holistically.

Moving up in resolution drastically reduces the gap even in Hitman, which is one of the most drastic FPS example between Intel and Ryzen. Skylake-X as said before many times, and overall it's not worth the cost of the CPU and Platform cost compared to Ryzen the 1700.

Increasing resolution generates a GPU bottleneck and the fastest CPUs are idle, awaiting to the GPU to do its work

We all know this, I use this to emphasize the point that unless you are gaming at low resolution with a 144HZ monitor the differences in FPS are mostly academic. For newer games or optimized games the average FPS differences almost disappear at 1080P. What are you getting for the extra $300 in CPU cost? Don't forget the extra $150-400 in motherboard costs? ~$50-100 cooling solution? 23% faster blender render?

Ryzen was 8% slower than the 7820X in this test when compared clock-for-clock and 23% slower once the 7820X was overclocked to 4.5GHz

This GPU bottleneck makes slower chips to appear faster than they are really. This GPU bottleneck is the reason why AMD wanted reviewers to test RyZen at higher resoliutions. And it is also the reason why AMD public demos, before launch, used higher resolutions.

They can't appear faster if they aren't doing any work. The massive amount of broken unoptimized games is why they wanted reviewers to use higher resolutions, and preferably ones they already knew would show good performance vs. Intel. I'm done talking about the subject those with eyes can obvious see the advantages and disadvantages.

 

[goldstone77]

Be careful about alleged leaks for CoffeLake

https://www.eteknix.com/intel-i7-8700k-worse-ryzen-r5-1600x-cinebench/
http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/intel-core-i7-8700k-benchmarks.html

because are fake

https://twitter.com/ryanshrout/status/907280680207503361

If you read all the twitter commentary, he wasn't paying attention to see if that the speed was fixed at 4.3GHz.

 

[goldstone77]

Remember that EU antitrust deal that Intel didn't pay? Top EU court gives the reason to Intel's appeal

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/09/06/victory-intel-eu-court-orders-11bn-fine-re-examined/

I guess AdoredTV will not make a video about this.

Intel was fined in 2009 when the Commission found that between 2002 and 2007, the company had offered incentives to computer makers Dell, Lenovo, HP and NEC if they bought all of their x86 microprocessors from Intel instead of a rival, AMD.

“The Court refers the case back to the General Court so that it may examine, in the light of the arguments put forward by Intel, whether the [allegedly anti-competitive] rebates at issue are capable of restricting competition,” it said.

This means they have managed to draw out litigation longer in court. Not that they are innocent. We all know they have already been found guilty here in American, Japan, and South Korea.

 

[8350rocks]

The R7 series has a better price/performance than a 6900k. With the same budget, you are always going to get a better overall rig for your money with AM4 vs x99 or X299. From that perspective, it is the best for the vast majority of streamers. Only those with crazy high budgets can get better, and even then I would consider threadripper over x99, or x299, just for more PCI-E lanes. The price is just crazy for Intel's 6 core+ i7 offerings.

SKL-X has better price/performance than 6900k (Broadwell-E). The newest chips have to be cheaper and/or faster; otherwise people will not update.

About comparing AM4 and X299, I don't see that performance/price advantage of the AM4. SKL-X is cheaper and usually faster

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1852?vs=1903

Please break down pricing per core and discuss price/performance terms via per core pricing.

Last I checked you get 12 cores with Intel for the price of 16 with TR. I would call that a price/performance advantage.

Nope. Pricing per core is irrelevant because not all cores are the same. AMD cores are simpler and weaker, and that is why AMD has to add moar cores to get similar performance.

It doesn't matter if AMD gives moar cores for the same price when those cores are slower and less efficient.

In the end Intel’s i9-7900X appears to offer the best combination of singlethreaded performance, multithreaded performance, and efficiency at the $1000 price point. It’s not as fast as AMD’s Ryzen Threadripper in well threaded tasks, but it offers significantly stronger performance in single and lightly threaded workloads while remaining more efficient than the competition. More to the point its performance in multithreaded workloads is really quite good. Given the massive disadvantage it has in core count, the gap in performance is smaller than one would expect.

Your points hold no water considering the 6900K struggles to beat the 1800X per core per clock.

 

[goldstone77]

Coffee Lake Coming With 1151 Socket, But Still Requires 300-Series Chipset
by Paul Alcorn September 8, 2017 at 1:05 PM

AMD plans to support its Socket AM4 for all of its processors until 2020, so Intel’s lack of backward compatibility with existing 200-series chipsets will likely dominate the conversation.

How about that for an upgrade path!

 

[adamsleath]

some very informative posts here...with pictures!!!! 😀 i suppose it is inevitable to see comparisons between intel and other manufacturers...how else can we gauge intels relative merits?
it appears intel have the performance edge clock for clock, core for core. (and higher transistor density) but at a higher cost than amd. currently at 14nm. until/unless amd modifies its ipc and tweaks its chip design, intel will have the advantage also at the 10nm node. but in my opinion. with a few tweaks and clever mods to the chip design amd could close the performance gap...which isnt very large right now. as of right now i dont think intel will lose the lead, but it wouldnt take much. intel believes its chip design is 3 years ahead of the competition. zen 2 would really need to improve to overtake intels tweaks. theres no way to know as yet.

 

[Gon Freecss]

This GPU bottleneck makes slower chips to appear faster than they are really. This GPU bottleneck is the reason why AMD wanted reviewers to test RyZen at higher resoliutions. And it is also the reason why AMD public demos, before launch, used higher resolutions.

You're comparing minimum FPS there. lol

 

[juanrga]

Be careful about alleged leaks for CoffeLake

https://www.eteknix.com/intel-i7-8700k-worse-ryzen-r5-1600x-cinebench/
http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/intel-core-i7-8700k-benchmarks.html

because are fake

https://twitter.com/ryanshrout/status/907280680207503361

If you read all the twitter commentary, he wasn't paying attention to see if that the speed was fixed at 4.3GHz.

Irrelevant to his point that is not the performance of the chip.

 

[juanrga]

Now let's look at another review for the same game with directX 11 and 12 up to 2160P. I arranged the benchmarks by resolution and DirectX 11 to 12 support for easy comparison.Click here for a link to the total review I posted in ThreadRipper Mega Thread.

I enjoy this continuous change of the review used when flaws or issues in the former review are mentioned.

At least I make the attempt to quantify issues over a given range of reviews. You are mostly just argumentative, and if you find 1 flaw you throw out the entire review as invalid. You pick and choose values to suit your own agenda. You know the 1700 is a sub $300 CPU, and is the same CPU as the 1700X and 1800X, but you always try to use the later when it suits your agenda. In an attempt to skew the view instead of looking at it holistically.

Moving up in resolution drastically reduces the gap even in Hitman, which is one of the most drastic FPS example between Intel and Ryzen. Skylake-X as said before many times, and overall it's not worth the cost of the CPU and Platform cost compared to Ryzen the 1700.

Increasing resolution generates a GPU bottleneck and the fastest CPUs are idle, awaiting to the GPU to do its work

We all know this, I use this to emphasize the point that unless you are gaming at low resolution with a 144HZ monitor the differences in FPS are mostly academic. For newer games or optimized games the average FPS differences almost disappear at 1080P. What are you getting for the extra $300 in CPU cost? Don't forget the extra $150-400 in motherboard costs? ~$50-100 cooling solution? 23% faster blender render?

Ryzen was 8% slower than the 7820X in this test when compared clock-for-clock and 23% slower once the 7820X was overclocked to 4.5GHz

This GPU bottleneck makes slower chips to appear faster than they are really. This GPU bottleneck is the reason why AMD wanted reviewers to test RyZen at higher resoliutions. And it is also the reason why AMD public demos, before launch, used higher resolutions.

They can't appear faster if they aren't doing any work. The massive amount of broken unoptimized games is why they wanted reviewers to use higher resolutions, and preferably ones they already knew would show good performance vs. Intel. I'm done talking about the subject those with eyes can obvious see the advantages and disadvantages.

(i)
That Hardware Unboxed review doesn't have "1 flaw". It has half-dozen of serious flaws, which invalidates completely the review doing it useless.

For the other reviews I have demonstrated the dirty tricks and flaws in the part is being discussed. For instance you did bring us IPC measurements from ArsTechnica and I demonstrated how they inflate the IPC for AMD chips. I didn't comment in the rest of the ArsTechnica review, maybe the rest is good maybe it is not. I didn't check.

The 1700 is not the same chip than the 1700X or the 1800X. That is why AMD prices them differently. I have compared the three chips when discussing performance/price. However, you only want to compare the 1700, because it maximizes performance/price and fits your narrative.

Same happens with mobos. As I have noted and how one moderator has noted you cherry picked the cheapest possible AM4 board (B350 based) to compare with the more expensive X299 board, as if both boards were comparable in quality and/or performance.

But your narrative is invalidated when one considers a broad selection of hardware.

(ii)
Reviews don't make 1080p and 720p game tests because some people play games at that resolution. Those low-resolution test (so-named CPU tests) give an idea of the true gaming potential of the CPUs at higher resolutions.

This true gaming potential at higher resolutions reveals in the future, when one updates the GPU to one much more potent and reduces or eliminates the GPU-bottleneck.

(iii) There is no "The massive amount of broken unoptimized games". This is the same weird excuse read during Bulldozer epoch. The reason why RyZen play games worse is because its microarchitecture sucks on latency-sensitive workloads. The Zen microarchitecture has been designed for throughput workloads such as rendering and encoding.

The reason why AMD wanted reviews to test only at high resolutions is because that generates GPU bottlenecks and reduces or hidden the deficit of the Zen microarchitecture. Reviews have reported AMD dirty tactics and attempts to mislead customers:

Spoiler

At this point, you might be left feeling disillusioned when considering AMD’s tech demos. Keep in mind that most of the charts leaked and created by AMD revolved around Cinebench, which is not a gaming workload. When there were gaming workloads, AMD inflated their numbers by doing a few things:

In the Sniper Elite demo, AMD frequently looked at the skybox when reloading, and often kept more of the skybox in the frustum than on the side-by-side Intel processor. A skybox has no geometry, which is what loads a CPU with draw calls, and so it’ll inflate the framerate by nature of testing with chaotically conducted methodology. As for the Battlefield 1 benchmarks, AMD also conducted using chaotic methods wherein the AMD CPU would zoom / look at different intervals than the Intel CPU, making it effectively impossible to compare the two head-to-head.

And, most importantly, all of these demos were run at 4K resolution. That creates a GPU bottleneck, meaning we are no longer observing true CPU performance. The analog would be to benchmark all GPUs at 720p, then declare they are equal (by way of tester-created CPU bottlenecks). There’s an argument to be made that low-end performance doesn’t matter if you’re stuck on the GPU, but that’s a bad argument: You don’t buy a worse-performing product for more money, especially when GPU upgrades will eventually out those limitations as bottlenecks external to the CPU vanish.

 

[juanrga]

Remember that EU antitrust deal that Intel didn't pay? Top EU court gives the reason to Intel's appeal

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/09/06/victory-intel-eu-court-orders-11bn-fine-re-examined/

I guess AdoredTV will not make a video about this.

Intel was fined in 2009 when the Commission found that between 2002 and 2007, the company had offered incentives to computer makers Dell, Lenovo, HP and NEC if they bought all of their x86 microprocessors from Intel instead of a rival, AMD.

“The Court refers the case back to the General Court so that it may examine, in the light of the arguments put forward by Intel, whether the [allegedly anti-competitive] rebates at issue are capable of restricting competition,” it said.

This means they have managed to draw out litigation longer in court. Not that they are innocent. We all know they have already been found guilty here in American, Japan, and South Korea.

It means that the supreme court has found valid the allegations given by Intel, and considered that the initial accusation wasn't valid, because ignored information crucial to the process.

Moreover, the arguments given by Intel are very similar to arguments given by former AMD boses. AMD boses agreed that Intel practices didn't really hurt AMD. The only player that did really hurt AMD was the own AMD with the dozen of economic, engineering, and management mistakes made during a decade.

Spoiler

Even if Intel had not acted the way it did, AMD faced an uphill battle—and that slope has simply gotten steeper as Intel has grown larger and as AMD’s smaller competitors (read: ARM licensees) have grown more numerous.

“They’ve put themselves in this corner of the marketplace, and it’s an odd one, they admit it," Craig Stice, an analyst with IHS Global Insight, told Ars. “But at the same time, you never get the sense that they are making strides for attempting to get themselves out of that corner. You never get the intention that they want to be bigger than Intel. They seem happy in their little corner to an extent and that piece of the market has been dwindling from them.”

Spoiler

From suit to settlement, this entire saga showed how AMD’s technical slip-ups impacted everything else the company was doing. AMD's inability to execute made it more difficult to argue that Intel was holding it back from market success. The execution problems also made it necessary to sell off the fabs, weakening AMD's bargaining position with Intel.

Spoiler

Former CFO Barton is not convinced that the company has much a future. “[Even without the lawsuit against Intel,] it wouldn’t have mattered,” he said. “[Sanders] took his shot, and the game’s been played.”

 

[juanrga]

The R7 series has a better price/performance than a 6900k. With the same budget, you are always going to get a better overall rig for your money with AM4 vs x99 or X299. From that perspective, it is the best for the vast majority of streamers. Only those with crazy high budgets can get better, and even then I would consider threadripper over x99, or x299, just for more PCI-E lanes. The price is just crazy for Intel's 6 core+ i7 offerings.

SKL-X has better price/performance than 6900k (Broadwell-E). The newest chips have to be cheaper and/or faster; otherwise people will not update.

About comparing AM4 and X299, I don't see that performance/price advantage of the AM4. SKL-X is cheaper and usually faster

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1852?vs=1903

Please break down pricing per core and discuss price/performance terms via per core pricing.

Last I checked you get 12 cores with Intel for the price of 16 with TR. I would call that a price/performance advantage.

Nope. Pricing per core is irrelevant because not all cores are the same. AMD cores are simpler and weaker, and that is why AMD has to add moar cores to get similar performance.

It doesn't matter if AMD gives moar cores for the same price when those cores are slower and less efficient.

In the end Intel’s i9-7900X appears to offer the best combination of singlethreaded performance, multithreaded performance, and efficiency at the $1000 price point. It’s not as fast as AMD’s Ryzen Threadripper in well threaded tasks, but it offers significantly stronger performance in single and lightly threaded workloads while remaining more efficient than the competition. More to the point its performance in multithreaded workloads is really quite good. Given the massive disadvantage it has in core count, the gap in performance is smaller than one would expect.

Your points hold no water considering the 6900K struggles to beat the 1800X per core per clock.

6900K is Broadwell-E and this is 10--20% faster than 1800X per core per clock

 

[juanrga]

Coffee Lake Coming With 1151 Socket, But Still Requires 300-Series Chipset
by Paul Alcorn September 8, 2017 at 1:05 PM

AMD plans to support its Socket AM4 for all of its processors until 2020, so Intel’s lack of backward compatibility with existing 200-series chipsets will likely dominate the conversation.

How about that for an upgrade path!

That AM4 upgrade path is not confirmed. The only confirmed AM4 socket processor is Pinnacle Ridge. And even if it is finally confirmed that AM4 will last until 2020, AM4 customers will miss updates as DDR5 and Pcie5.

 

[KirbysHammer]

This GPU bottleneck makes slower chips to appear faster than they are really. This GPU bottleneck is the reason why AMD wanted reviewers to test RyZen at higher resoliutions. And it is also the reason why AMD public demos, before launch, used higher resolutions.

You're comparing minimum FPS there. lol

Fairly sure the point still stands even comparing minimums.