Looks like Intel's 8700k 6 core Coffee Lake might be quite a beast.

[Frag_Maniac]

Struggle ?

On performance, yes, with both CPUs and GPUs. I didn't stutter, and the low price they charge for the CPUs only makes it all the more obvious they can't really compete on performance. Now I suppose you're going to tell me that's because people are still brainwashed by Intel. That's the kind of thinking fanboys do. I happen to be on an AMD GPU, if you noticed. It's just that I don't relish the idea of fiddling with finicky OCs and expensive RAM and MBs only to hit a 4GHz ceiling. That's Ryzen in a nutshell. I can't believe you're talking like you're a CPU expert when you bit on an FX-6300.

 

[Vya Domus]

The key word here is "might". Intel's new offer is around the corner.
But it's not just about being 12 months behind in performance, like @Frag Maniac pointed out. Think about the technologies.
Zen is a pinnacle of AMD technology at the moment, a huge investment that took them years to develop. They might update it a bit next year and move to a smaller node afterwards, but it'll still be Zen with all it's pluses and minuses.
Intel's 2017 offer, seen as "an answer" to Zen, is just an update of old stuff, built from pieces they had. Their new architecture is coming and it could be a real revolution, not just matching the competition with lower price tags. And even if it's nothing special - just a huge boost in performance - it'll be 2013 all over again for AMD.

Have you already e-mailed AMD asking why are they releasing 4-core Zen "crap"?
And I really doubt you're still using your FX6300 because of anything performance-related. It's 2017 and best of Intel's 2C/4T (i3-7300) have matched your 6-core FX in multicore performance (consuming half as much power). And I'm not talking about some esoteric real-world tests, because that could result in a bloodbath. They're performing similarly in Cinebench R15.

Crap quad core Zen ? Not as crap as a dual core at same price.

Yeah , FX. Shocker , I still use it , hard to believe right ? Everyone was convinced FX was crap , while you all believe that I game at 60hz no problem , if I want more that then yes I would need to upgrade , but I don't. I don't care about power consumption either. I do want to upgrade but for other reasons.

I bought it like 5 years ago , what if Intel has a CPU now that matches it in cinebench and that consumes less power ? Why would I care ? AMD has one too. You want me to go out and buy one ? Oh boi , call the Intel squad , sign me the f**k up.

On performance, yes, with both CPUs and GPUs. I didn't stutter, and the low price they charge for the CPUs only makes it all the more obvious they can't really compete on performance. Now I suppose you're going to tell me that's because people are still brainwashed by Intel. That's the kind of thinking fanboys do. I happen to be on an AMD GPU, if you noticed. It's just that I don't relish the idea of fiddling with finicky OCs and expensive RAM and MBs only to hit a 4GHz ceiling. That's Ryzen in a nutshell. I can't believe you're talking like you're a CPU expert when you bit on an FX-6300.

You misunderstand me greatly , you like Intel instead of AMD because you believe clock speed is king. I have nothing to say against that , Intel has the edge on manufacturing process have I argued with that ? No. I have argued that core count is also king and AMD gives that , and you think that's inferiority. I don't think that. Clock speed vs core count is preference , has always been.

We all have preferences but you along side many want to turn that preference into fact , now that's what a fanboy would do.

I don't know if am an expert or not or that you are one but I do know a thing or two. I bought that FX 6300 at launch and despite your belief that I was some kind of idiot that had no idea what I was buying , you are again mistaken. I did , and I couldn't stand to upgrade from a dual core to another dual core and have it crap on me every time I multitask in exchange for a higher fps in some games that were running at 60 fps anyway. Kind of similar to this whole gaming thing now with Ryzen. It was probably the best investment I did , among cheapest too. Glad I "bit" on it.

 

[Melvis]

That only verifies AMD is behind 12 months, and even struggling to match at that, just like Vega.

Well you can say the same thing about intel I guess? till there "beast" 6 core is out they will be behind by 12month? its a leap frog thing, nothing has changed.

 

[qubit]

Yeah , FX. Shocker , I still use it , hard to believe right ? Everyone was convinced FX was crap , while you all believe that I game at 60hz no problem , if I want more that then yes I would need to upgrade , but I don't. I don't care about power consumption either. I do want to upgrade but for other reasons.

I bought it like 5 years ago , what if Intel has a CPU now that matches it in cinebench and that consumes less power ? Why would I care ? AMD has one too. You want me to go out and buy one ? Oh boi , call the Intel squad , sign me the f**k up.

You're happy with your FX CPU and there's nothing wrong with that. If it does what you want and you're happy with 60fps gaming that's fine and no one should tell you to upgrade. However, it's still a crap processor compared to its competition at the time (even worse now, obviously) and that's not a matter for debate as the reviews proved it. You do need to realise this.

 

[Vya Domus]

You're happy with your FX CPU and there's nothing wrong with that. If it does what you want and you're happy with 60fps gaming that's fine and no one should tell you to upgrade. However, it's still a crap processor compared to its competition at the time (even worse now, obviously) and that's not a matter for debate as the reviews proved it. You do need to realise this.

It is certainly not good enough now with high refresh rate panels and highly threaded game and all that. But how could it have been crap then If I still use it now for the same things ? By that claim my PC should be unusable now after 5 years.

Was Bulldozer/Piledriver inferior in IPC and single thread performance ? Yes. Did it perform worse than what Intel had ? Yes. Was is day and night difference ? No , then why I would I consider it crap. Not to mention it was way cheaper.

You know , these comments really do remind me of exactly of the same discussions that made no sense back then and they still don't today. It's hilarious if you ask me.

 

[Vayra86]

It is certainly not good enough now with high refresh rate panels and highly threaded game and all that. But how could it have been crap then If I still use it now for the same things ? By that claim my PC should be unusable now after 5 years.

Was Bulldozer/Piledriver inferior in IPC and single thread performance ? Yes. Did it perform worse than what Intel had ? Yes. Was is day and night difference ? No , then why I would I consider it crap. Not to mention it was way cheaper.

You know , these comments really do remind me of exactly of the same discussions that made no sense back then and they still don't today. It's hilarious if you ask me.

People seem to also have forgotten that while FX *1xx was horrible (like, really bad as in worse than what preceded it), FX *3xx was a competitive product in terms of raw performance. Not in terms of perf/watt, but perf/dollar and absolute performance was very, very decent. A lot could be done with high clocks, evidenced by all those weak VRM boards that blew up around these CPUs. FX x3xx with OC could match the fastest intel quads at stock and at much lower cost, no Z chipset required.

 

[Vya Domus]

People seem to also have forgotten that while FX *1xx was horrible (like, really bad as in worse than what preceded it), FX *3xx was a competitive product in terms of raw performance. Not in terms of perf/watt, but perf/dollar and absolute performance was very, very decent. A lot could be done with high clocks, evidenced by all those weak VRM boards that blew up around these CPUs. FX x3xx with OC could match the fastest intel quads at stock and at much lower cost, no Z chipset required.

Exactly but people hated FX with a passion regardless, most of them with no foundation. They just heard they suck from some place and stuck with the idea. I knew I shouldn't have brought this up here. Oh well.

 

[qubit]

It is certainly not good enough now with high refresh rate panels and highly threaded game and all that. But how could it have been crap then If I still use it now for the same things ? By that claim my PC should be unusable now after 5 years.

Was Bulldozer/Piledriver inferior in IPC and single thread performance ? Yes. Did it perform worse than what Intel had ? Yes. Was is day and night difference ? No , then why I would I consider it crap. Not to mention it was way cheaper.

You know , these comments really do remind me of exactly of the same discussions that made no sense back then and they still don't today. It's hilarious if you ask me.

@Vayra86 reminded me that I was actually thinking of the first gen FX CPUs, which really were bad, but yours is a later revision. This one wasn't too great, but sorta reasonable as this AnandTech review concludes.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-amd-fx8350-fx8320-fx6300-and-fx4300-tested/9

So nah, I'm no hater, lol.

 

[notb]

Crap quad core Zen ? Not as crap as a dual core at same price.

Why do you care about all this? Number of cores, IPC... it's all pointless. What matters is performance and features. Simple fact is: Kaby Lake i3 and Ryzen 3 are pretty much equal when it comes to that, with the very important exception of having an IGP.

This is, generally speaking, the main problem with evaluating Intel vs AMD. If you look at the specs, Ryzen seems better - that's because it's built to have great specs. But if you look at what a CPU actually offers in the tasks it'll be used most of the time, the pricing makes a lot of sense (with AMD, as usual, being a bit - like 10% - cheaper).
(And it's the same story with GPUs, by the way.)

So yeah, we used to talk for months how how R7 beats i7 in encoding movies and compressing files, but the simple fact is that a huge majority (lets say: 90%) of people buying these CPUs are gamers and Intel has an advantage there. So for 90% the pricing is OK and they'll choose Intel.
The rest, that think they really need 8-cores, will choose a Ryzen. This is not a reason for Intel to revolutionize their whole lineup, in which they have very decent margins. 90% market share is fine as well.

And it's the same story with Ryzen 3. It beats a similarly priced i3 in specs and it could beat it in some tasks, but won't have an advantage in a typical usage: low cost gaming, business desktops etc. High power consumption, no IGP - that's a recipe for sales disaster in the business segment.

Yeah , FX. Shocker , I still use it , hard to believe right ? Everyone was convinced FX was crap , while you all believe that I game at 60hz no problem , if I want more that then yes I would need to upgrade , but I don't. I don't care about power consumption either. I do want to upgrade but for other reasons.

I've still used an Intel E5400 not so long ago. I'm not mocking you for having an old CPU. But if you're willing to upgrade and you would consider switching to Intel, there were more than enough reasons to do that.
And if you don't care about power consumption, why didn't you buy an 8-core FX?

You misunderstand me greatly , you like Intel instead of AMD because you believe clock speed is king.

Not at all. I don't care about clocks, cores, brands, TIMs and all that sh.t. The sole point of looking at such technicalities is to estimate how a CPU and its successors could perform in the future.
When a CPU is already here, it's just test results that matter to me. And I only buy CPUs that exist and are well analyzed already (no early adopting or pre-ordering).
I only care about characteristics: performance, power consumption, temperatures and features.

And when that's equal, I buy from the company that I identify with more. And that is Intel now (but it used to be AMD 15 years ago).
Why? Because I don't like the gamer/geek-targeting campaign that AMD built around Ryzen (I might have liked it 15 years ago). Because I like the overall strategy of Intel as a company as well.

 

[infrared]

It's very irritating reading some people claiming how poor the performance is with Ryzen. Here's a few observations I've made about my 1800x's (one paired with a 1080Ti, the other just a 24/7 cruncher running stock)

They both absolutely monster their way through WCG work units, performance in this workload matches the top end consumer intel chips, only the crazy high core count Xeons really outperform them.

Gaming performance at 4.0-4.1ghz with ram at 3200-3466mhz is outstanding, it has no problem keeping the 1080Ti at 99-100% utilization. And on a core utilization note.. most games I play actively use all the threads, I don't play a single game that only uses "4 cores". That's a long outdated idea.

I have a 165hz 1440p monitor and the cpu has no issues with matching that refresh rate. It's pretty much always gpu bound even with a 1080Ti.

I also have a 4.7ghz capable 6700K and tbh I'd pick the 1800X over that every time, for any workload. There is no situation where my 1800x doesn't perform equally or better than my 6700k. And in crunching workloads the stock 1800x is getting 3X!! the throughput of the 6700k @ 4.6ghz. (based on core count and clocks you'd expect slightly less than 2X).

As @Vya Domus said, if you value frequency over cores that's fine, that's 1 way of getting the job done, but there are disadvantages with that approach just like there are with the more cores approach. They both excel in slightly different areas and we need to respect and appreciate the two different approaches instead of slinging mud at the other camp.

Edit: Anyway, this thread is meant to be about the 8700K, which does look pretty interesting. Hopefully it overclocks and performs well

 

[RejZoR]

8700K only looks interesting if you're still stuck on either Bulldozer or Nehalem. For everyone else, not interesting to be quite frank. I'm still on rather old 5820K and it doesn't interests me AT ALL. R7 1800X on the other hand... I mean, I'd have to change whole platform either way. I could save up on RAM since I already have DDR4, but I'd still have to change mobo and CPU. In which case I'd quite frankly rather take a 16 threads R7 1800X than 8700K. Dreaming that 8700K will be just 350 bucks is delusional thinking. It's Intel, they charge 320€ for 7700k. A freaking quad core. There is no way in hell a 6 core from Intel will be this cheap. It's just not possible.

 

[Frick]

8700K only looks interesting if you're still stuck on either Bulldozer or Nehalem. For everyone else, not interesting to be quite frank. I'm still on rather old 5820K and it doesn't interests me AT ALL. R7 1800X on the other hand... I mean, I'd have to change whole platform either way. I could save up on RAM since I already have DDR4, but I'd still have to change mobo and CPU. In which case I'd quite frankly rather take a 16 threads R7 1800X than 8700K. Dreaming that 8700K will be just 350 bucks is delusional thinking. It's Intel, they charge 320€ for 7700k. A freaking quad core. There is no way in hell a 6 core from Intel will be this cheap. It's just not possible.

The 7800x is thereabouts, so it could happen.

 

[RejZoR]

It's 370€. I kinda forgot how "bad" Ryzen was with all the drama around it. Last time I was checking, all of this stuff was around 450€... I guess good competition does drive prices down...

 

[notb]

People seem to also have forgotten that while FX *1xx was horrible (like, really bad as in worse than what preceded it), FX *3xx was a competitive product in terms of raw performance. Not in terms of perf/watt, but perf/dollar and absolute performance was very, very decent. A lot could be done with high clocks, evidenced by all those weak VRM boards that blew up around these CPUs. FX x3xx with OC could match the fastest intel quads at stock and at much lower cost, no Z chipset required.

I don't think people have forgotten. You know who did? AMD and reviewers.
I've been pointing this out around the Ryzen launch. Neither the presentations from AMD nor most of reviews included the better FX CPUs (even though some of them included Sandy Bridge!). No one cared about performance/price ratio back then.

The truth is: you could have bought an FX-8350 at the end of 2016 for more or less the MSRP of Ryzen 3 (I think the FX prices went up lately!). And judging by Ryzen 5 benchmarks, it's very likely that the FX may be significantly faster than Ryzen 3 in multi-thread load.
So while the top products in Zen lineup actually offer performance that wasn't available in AMD camp before, the low end is not special at all. It just lets AMD increase the prices in the actual money making segment.

Can you see the inconsistency in argumentation? Few months ago AMD supporters suddenly forgot about FX because it was using more power. Now, when AMD is giving us power-hungry products (Threadripper and, of course, Vega), it's suddenly "who cares about power consumption?".
It's the same with opinion on core count, which evolved from "no one should buy 4 cores anymore" in April to "Ryzen 3 is awesome" in July.

It's very irritating reading some people claiming how poor the performance is with Ryzen.

But it is not irritating to read posts how 4 cores are obsolete? I haven't seen you pointing out (let alone moderating) anything of this sort.

Gaming performance at 4.0-4.1ghz with ram at 3200-3466mhz is outstanding, it has no problem keeping the 1080Ti at 99-100% utilization. And on a core utilization note.. most games I play actively use all the threads, I don't play a single game that only uses "4 cores". That's a long outdated idea.

Again, there are people running around this forum claiming that software designers cripple core utilization deliberately, out of pure laziness or because they're sponsored by Intel.

General note is that we're not saying that Ryzen is inferior or bad, so your (very long) post praising its greatness is totally unnecessary.

But there is much aggression on this forum from hardcore AMD supporters, who not just criticize Intel (including things like "die Intel", "I want to see Intel bleed") but also attack users who prefer Intel's stuff. Even if I was deep in AMD gear and loved it, it would make me want to support the blue camp in these discussions.
And maybe I'm expecting too much, but I'd think this would trigger some reaction from TPU moderators. It doesn't... I wonder why.

 

[infrared]

But it is not irritating to read posts how 4 cores are obsolete? I haven't seen you pointing out (let alone moderating) anything of this sort.
We often don't need to, it gets shot down hard usually so might as well leave the conversation intact instead of coming in heavy handed and deleting posts/closing threads.

Again, there are people running around this forum claiming that software designers cripple core utilization deliberately, out of pure laziness or because they're sponsored by Intel.

General note is that we're not saying that Ryzen is inferior or bad, so your (very long) post praising its greatness is totally unnecessary.

But there is much aggression on this forum from hardcore AMD supporters, who not just criticize Intel (including things like "die Intel", "I want to see Intel bleed") but also attack users who prefer Intel's stuff. Even if I was deep in AMD gear and loved it, it would make me want to support the blue camp in these discussions.
And maybe I'm expecting too much, but I'd think this would trigger some reaction from TPU moderators. It doesn't... I wonder why.

There is equally as much hate from the intel crowd so don't start claiming it's all from the AMD side. This is exactly why I finished my "very long" post with:
"They both excel in slightly different areas and we need to respect and appreciate the two different approaches instead of slinging mud at the other camp."

We have noticed the incredible amount of fanboy posts and are trying to keep on top of it, but we can't just go around editing and deleting posts we don't personally agree with, if someone is sharing their opinion and it's conveyed in a respectful manner then it stays. Even if it is saying they think 4 cores is getting long in the tooth and you don't like it. Overly aggressive posts and extremist fanboy posts are often cleaned up or edited. I don't think you appreciate the sheer number of posts the mod team cleans up daily (on both sides of the amd/intel squabble, so don't start implying we're biased!). We don't have time to read every single new post, we read what we can but we don't sit on the forum all day long, so how about helping us out by reporting posts instead of just whining that the mods aren't doing their jobs?

 

[Frick]

And judging by Ryzen 5 benchmarks, it's very likely that the FX may be significantly faster than Ryzen 3 in multi-thread load.
So while the top products in Zen lineup actually offer performance that wasn't available in AMD camp before, the low end is not special at all. It just lets AMD increase the prices in the actual money making segment.

Aye, I'd love to see Ryzen vs FX under various loads. The FX83xx models have aged very well afaict (in general I mean, depending on workload obviously).

EDIT: Sweclockers have FX and even Phenom II x6 in their charts.

http://m.sweclockers.com/test/24152-amd-ryzen-3-1300x-och-3-1200/4

 

[Vya Domus]

Why do you care about all this?

But if you're willing to upgrade and you would consider switching to Intel, there were more than enough reasons to do that.

You know what , you're right , I shouldn't care. I am speaking with a person that is 100% biased towards a brand , none of your arguments (if you can even call them that ) make sense or are simply wrong.

And don't bother denying it. I am going to drop this , you should too.

 

[vega22]

if it needs a new socket and doesnt drop into 170/270 mobo then anybody buying it would need to give ryzen and am4 serious consideration.

if it drops in socket 1151 then one of these might be my next cpu, if not ryzen is in with a shout as i could do with more cores and a longer lifespan for the platform i use.

 

[notb]

Aye, I'd love to see Ryzen vs FX under various loads. The FX83xx models have aged very well afaict (in general I mean, depending on workload obviously).

EDIT: Sweclockers have FX and even Phenom II x6 in their charts.

http://m.sweclockers.com/test/24152-amd-ryzen-3-1300x-och-3-1200/4

Even worse than I expected. Great stuff! Thanks!
And Swedes show how things should be done - as usual.
Anyone who thinks that Intel is treating customers worse than AMD should check this review.
@W1zzard why not include FX-8350 in Ryzen reviews? Cadaveca reviewed it back in 2012 - maybe you still have access to that system?

if it needs a new socket and doesnt drop into 170/270 mobo then anybody buying it would need to give ryzen and am4 serious consideration.

if it drops in socket 1151 then one of these might be my next cpu, if not ryzen is in with a shout as i could do with more cores and a longer lifespan for the platform i use.

It'll need a 300-series chipset to work, but LGA1151 socket remains unchanged (although some here tried to convince me this socket can't support 6 cores - I'll find that discussion sooner or later ).
So it isn't ideal, but still allowing an upgrade path other than replacing half of PC.
New 4-core CPUs will be compatible with 200-series chipsets.

 

[yotano211]

Even worse than I expected. Great stuff! Thanks!
And Swedes show how things should be done - as usual.
Anyone who thinks that Intel is treating customers worse than AMD should check this review.
@W1zzard why not include FX-8350 in Ryzen reviews? Cadaveca reviewed it back in 2012 - maybe you still have access to that system?


It'll need a 300-series chipset to work, but LGA1151 socket remains unchanged (although some here tried to convince me this socket can't support 6 cores - I'll find that discussion sooner or later ).
So it isn't ideal, but still allowing an upgrade path other than replacing half of PC.
New 4-core CPUs will be compatible with 200-series chipsets.

Maybe just maybe it only needs a bios update to get it work on 100 and 200 series boards. I so hope so, I want a laptop with 6 cores, that would cut down so many work loads.

 

[notb]

Maybe just maybe it only needs a bios update to get it work on 100 and 200 series boards. I so hope so, I want a laptop with 6 cores, that would cut down so many work loads.

You have a laptop with replaceable desktop CPUs?

I really doubt a 200-series will handle 6 cores. This would mean that Intel planned to release 6-core CPUs on LGA1151 and I don't think that is the case. AFAIK originally they didn't plan to make another generation on this socket at all, which would make it the only thing actually forced by Ryzen's competition - unlike few other things that people tend to believe.

AFAIK 6- and 8-core CPUs were meant to become a standard one generation later - in Icelake (new architecture, expected in 2018).

 

[yotano211]

You have a laptop with replaceable desktop CPUs?

I really doubt a 200-series will handle 6 cores. This would mean that Intel planned to release 6-core CPUs on LGA1151 and I don't think that is the case. AFAIK originally they didn't plan to make another generation on this socket at all, which would make it the only thing actually forced by Ryzen's competition - unlike few other things that people tend to believe.

AFAIK 6- and 8-core CPUs were meant to become a standard one generation later - in Icelake (new architecture, expected in 2018).

Yea I do have a laptop model like that. Its more of a niche market but some companies make these types of laptops.

 

[Frag_Maniac]

You misunderstand me greatly , you like Intel instead of AMD because you believe clock speed is king. I have nothing to say against that , Intel has the edge on manufacturing process have I argued with that ? No. I have argued that core count is also king and AMD gives that , and you think that's inferiority. I don't think that. Clock speed vs core count is preference , has always been.

We all have preferences but you along side many want to turn that preference into fact , now that's what a fanboy would do.

I don't know if am an expert or not or that you are one but I do know a thing or two. I bought that FX 6300 at launch and despite your belief that I was some kind of idiot that had no idea what I was buying , you are again mistaken. I did , and I couldn't stand to upgrade from a dual core to another dual core and have it crap on me every time I multitask in exchange for a higher fps in some games that were running at 60 fps anyway. Kind of similar to this whole gaming thing now with Ryzen. It was probably the best investment I did , among cheapest too. Glad I "bit" on it.

Several wrong assumptions there. First off, let me clarify I'm calling you an AMD fanboy because all you say here is pro AMD, along with slamming Intel as the bad guys. Second, I'm not at all discounting the pros of more cores. I was hoping AMD's 8 core Ryzen would be to my liking, but all I see is having to buy expensive high speed RAM and compatible MBs, only to still end up with a 4GHz ceiling. And that's not because I value clock speed only as you assume. That's because it's the only way you can get a Ryzen to come acceptably close in performance to an Intel chip.

As far as counting on more cores alone to get performance, I think you're basing too much of your decision on that. It will likely be some time before 8 cores is really needed and better performing than 4 or 6 core, so right now, a well clocked 6 core is a great stepping stone. But it's mainly that the reality is, Ryzen and Intel 8 cores come with too many tradeoffs, that are unacceptable IMO. It's not that I wouldn't rather have an 8 core, it's just that I feel given those tradeoffs and the unlikeliness that 8 is a must have now, vs years down the road, the Coffee Lake 6 is a better option for now.

As for your FX-6300, I'm not surprised you bought it over a decent quad core, because they marketed it as a 8 core chip, and that's probably all you cared about. If you can't acknowledge by now that the Bulldozer series was an epic fail, like many whom have suffered through years of poor performance with it, then clearly you are an AMD fanboy in denial. Truth is you bought into 8 core long before it was necessary for gaming, and got one of the worst chips ever made for gaming. Even AMD has admitted by adding WAY more IPC, that Bulldozer was a failure.

There's two ways to look at this. You seem to view Intel as the bad guys based on their prices. Most of the people doing that are wasting money on cheaper product, and either suffering for years with lesser results, or swapping them out sooner than expected. I'm of the pay a bit more and get it right the first time mindset, and that has a lot more to do with than just clock speeds.

Well you can say the same thing about intel I guess? till there "beast" 6 core is out they will be behind by 12month? its a leap frog thing, nothing has changed.

You'd have to have evidence of a better performing AMD CPU to say that, and no such evidence exists. Intel certainly wouldn't let it happen, especially for an entire 12 months or more.

 

[RealNeil]

I get the feeling that Intel is tossing a bunch of new parts up against the wall, just to see what sticks. They haven't really had to respond to AMD in the market for a very long time, and they aren't used to it.

If you ask me the only annoyance price wise lately is what the damn miners are causing on mid range GPU pricing.

That is starting to relax a bit now. For a couple of months, I couldn't find a second 8GB ASUS RX580 Strix Gaming to go with my other one. (one that didn't cost $500 bucks anyways)
I just found a brand new card with the same model number for $300 on Flea-Bay and bought it today. (the first one was a whopping $175)

As for your FX-6300, I'm not surprised you bought it over a decent quad core, because they marketed it as a 8 core chip, and that's probably all you cared about.

Isn't the FX-6300 a six-Core part?

 

[Vya Domus]

As far as counting on more cores alone to get performance, I think you're basing too much of your decision on that. It will likely be some time before 8 cores is really needed and better performing than 4 or 6 core, so right now, a well clocked 6 core is a great stepping stone. But it's mainly that the reality is, Ryzen and Intel 8 cores have too many tradeoffs, that are unacceptable IMO. It's not that I wouldn't rather have an 8 core, it's just that I feel given those tradeoffs and the unlikeliness that 8 is a must have now, vs years down the road, the Coffee Lake 6 is a better option for now.

Oh man , you still insist Ryzen with it's 8 cores is not needed and bad but somehow 6 cores are a great stepping stone coming from Intel. Care to explain the logic behind that ? Wait , don't , I already know what you are going to say : "Ryzen has broken RAM support , can only do 4 Ghz" . You already said that like 3 times already , did you see me disagree with any of it ? You seem to be in a unusual state of denial where you somehow doubt Ryzen's usefulness with it's many cores yet you look forward to a Intel chip that had it's first meaningful bump in core count since the last few couple of generations.

You have a really hard time figuring out that your reasoning for your preference is perfectly legit but it isn't a stone written fact that anyone should adhere to. You want Coffee Lake for your use case , stop making it look like that is the only viable thing for everyone. This is why I call you a fanboy , that's what fanboys do they turn preference into scientific fact and stand by it while ignoring everything else and refusing to accept that others may not value what they value.

Funny thing you have an AMD card and I have an Nvidia one , we must be like the worst fanboys ever.

As for your FX-6300, I'm not surprised you bought it over a decent quad core, because they marketed it as a 8 core chip, and that's probably all you cared about. If you can't acknowledge by now that the Bulldozer series was an epic fail, like many whom have suffered through years of poor performance with it, then clearly you are an AMD fanboy in denial. Truth is you bought into 8 core long before it was necessary for gaming, and got one of the worst chips ever made. Even AMD has admitted by adding WAY more IPC, that Bulldozer was a failure.

So you do think I'm an idiot that bought into something because of marketing. OK , I am an idiot that knows nothing. Stop wasting your time with me knowing you have the superior computer architecture knowledge. 6300 has 6 cores by the way not that it would matter Bulldozer is Faildozer , got it. Thank god I have been illuminated. ( x3xx is Piledriver not Bulldozer fun fact , that would make it Faildriver , sounds better than Faildozer I got to say)


I think we are done on this subject.