Intel LGA1851 to Succeed LGA1700, Probably Retain Cooler Compatibility

[fevgatos]

For now, let me disagree, but you piqued my interest, so I'll test it later.

You can disagree, but that just makes you wrong! I have a 3090 so I can test it without any gpu bottlenecks and im telling you, RT puts a major strain on CPUs.

That's not how it works. Games are nearly always GPU bottlenecked. They're only not when you have an extremely weak CPU or you use extremely low graphics settings. In other scenarios, the CPU is mostly responsible for your FPS dips, which you may or may not notice (or care about) depending on several factors.

30% is irrelevant, because it isn't perceptible beyond acceptable performance levels (60 or 78 FPS), but it isn't enough to make an unplayable experience more enjoyable (20 or 26 FPS). I usually say that if an upgrade doesn't give you at least 2x performance, then it's not worth it (unless you make money on it).

I still don't understand why you think that the 7700 is 30% faster than the 3100. The review that I linked shows a 7% difference between the 3100 and the 7700K in gaming with 40% more power consumed.

Games are not nearly always GPU bottlenecked. Frankly, im not even sure what that means. They are gpu bottlenecked when your GPU is the bottleneck. There WILL come a point, that unless you upgrade your CPU, it WILL become the bottleneck cause you upgraded your GPU. That point will come sooner with a slower CPU, meaning that you can keep a faster CPU for 1 generation more. I don't understand why this is even contestable, it's just purely based on logic and match.

Im not sure which review you are talking about, gnexus has a review of the 3100 and it shows - in non gpu bound games, a 30% difference in performance between the two cpus

I'll just drop it here

Upgrading to Ryzen 5 5600 from Ryzen 5 1600: How Much Faster?

This is a benchmark session, as usual, where we'll be taking an old Ryzen 5 1600 system and upgrade it with the Ryzen 5 5600 to see what's what on gaming.

www.techspot.com

THANK YOU. That exactly proves my point. It took them 3 years and a 50% price increase to give us 100% increase in gaming performance and a 30% increase in multithreaded performance. That's worse than the the worst years of Intel. An apt comparison is between an i5 4670k and an i7 8700k. 3 years apart and a 50% price difference, they have way bigger differences than the amd parts have with each other. AMD is worse than the worst years of Intel, LOL

 

[john_]

THANK YOU. That exactly proves my point. It took them 3 years and a 50% price increase to give us 100% increase in gaming performance and a 30% increase in multithreaded performance. That's worse than the the worst years of Intel. An apt comparison is between an i5 4670k and an i7 8700k. 3 years apart and a 50% price difference, they have way bigger differences than the amd parts have with each other. AMD is worse than the worst years of Intel, LOL

THANK YOU.
Your reply proves why you are here.
Are you here to exchange opinions, or are here to just push a specific narrative?
You just answered that. THANK YOU.

No no no.... no reason to explain further. You already done that.
Have a nice day.

 

[fevgatos]

THANK YOU.
Your reply proves why you are here.
Are you here to exchange opinions, or are here to just push a specific narrative?
You just answered that. THANK YOU.

No no no.... no reason to explain further. You already done that.
Have a nice day.

Im not the one linking amd reviews to an intel thread so...

 

[Gica]

Just go and buy that 12600K that crushes everything from AMD and stick it in your Z490 motherboard.

You first. Put a 5800X3D in A320 mobo. I know it can and is a dream combination.

The reason I'm saying that the 3100 is better than the 7700 is because it performs similarly in games, slightly better in synthetics, but consumes way less power and is easier to cool. There is more than peak performance to what makes a CPU a good CPU.

7700K launched in 2017, 3100 launched in 2020. Also in 2020 the 10th series was launched, 10500 is 33% better than 7700K in multitasking, costs less and consumes less. Everything with POR in BIOS, 81.3W PL2.
The advantages of competition.

 

[john_]

You first. Put a 5800X3D in A320 mobo. I know it can and is a dream combination.

You compare an expensive Z490 to the absolute cheap A320?
I see you don't have any arguments to add.
Booooooooooooooring..................

7700K launched in 2017, 3100 launched in 2020. Also in 2020 the 10th series was launched, 10500 is 33% better than 7700K in multitasking, costs less and consumes less. Everything with POR in BIOS, 81.3W PL2.
The advantages of competition.

So, 10500 from 2020 has 50% more cores/threads compared to 7700K from 2017, but still offers only 33% better performance in multi? Interesting.
Also compared to 3100 10500 is what? 2 - 2,5 times more expensive? So you again compare a much more expensive Intel part with a much cheaper AMD part and come to what conclusion? That the more expensive part is better?
WOW! ???

 

[AusWolf]

7700K launched in 2017, 3100 launched in 2020. Also in 2020 the 10th series was launched, 10500 is 33% better than 7700K in multitasking, costs less and consumes less. Everything with POR in BIOS, 81.3W PL2.
The advantages of competition.

Exactly. That's why I don't get where @fevgatos 's argument that "the 7700 is better" came from.

Games are not nearly always GPU bottlenecked. Frankly, im not even sure what that means. They are gpu bottlenecked when your GPU is the bottleneck. There WILL come a point, that unless you upgrade your CPU, it WILL become the bottleneck cause you upgraded your GPU. That point will come sooner with a slower CPU, meaning that you can keep a faster CPU for 1 generation more. I don't understand why this is even contestable, it's just purely based on logic and match.

Let me clarify what I meant: In my opinion, any fairly recent game should stress your GPU to 100% without Vsync. That's what I call a GPU bottleneck. If it doesn't, that's either because your GPU could work with better graphical settings, or your CPU is too slow to keep it fed with data. That's what I call a CPU bottleneck. You always have one of the two.

Im not sure which review you are talking about, gnexus has a review of the 3100 and it shows - in non gpu bound games, a 30% difference in performance between the two cpus

The images I linked from Tom's Hardware a couple of posts back.

The term "non-GPU bound game" is bullshit. Whether a game is GPU-bound or not hugely depends on your hardware configuration. Take a GeForce GT 710 and suddenly everything becomes GPU-bound. If you mean eliminating a GPU bottleneck with an RTX 3090 and playing at 720p minimum, that's bullshit too. Nobody ever does that. If you mean a game that generally doesn't need a powerful GPU to run, then again, a comparison is irrelevant, because we're talking about hundreds of FPS with any kind of hardware. Honestly, do you care if you have 200 or 250 FPS?

You can disagree, but that just makes you wrong! I have a 3090 so I can test it without any gpu bottlenecks and im telling you, RT puts a major strain on CPUs.

If you don't believe my experiences, then why should I believe yours?

Im not the one linking amd reviews to an intel thread so...

So it's OK to make an argument, but it's wrong to react to it. Riiight...

 

[Gica]

You compare an expensive Z490 to the absolute cheap A320?
I see you don't have any arguments to add.
Booooooooooooooring..................


So, 10500 from 2020 has 50% more cores/threads compared to 7700K from 2017, but still offers only 33% better performance in multi? Interesting.
Also compared to 3100 10500 is what? 2 - 2,5 times more expensive? So you again compare a much more expensive Intel part with a much cheaper AMD part and come to what conclusion? That the more expensive part is better?
WOW! ???

You are sick !
If you are poor and refuse celeron or athlon, processor 5000 in motherboards 300 5 years ago is a solution. Success!
However, I have a dilemma: if the 300 motherboards are all you need, why did they launch the 400 and 500 series? Hmmmm ...

 

[Cutechri]

All I have to say about this is, keep praising AM4, while forgetting that AMD would have not given a single shit about giving people Ryzen 5000 on B350/X370 unless Intel had kicked them in the nuts with ADL-S.

Socket may be the same, chipsets are a different story. They're not your friend. AMD is rather busy adding more vulnerabilities in their crappy software than care about you.

Before the mental people of the tech community (around 99% of them) start calling me an Intel shill, I have a 5900X and have previously owned a 3900X.

 

[AusWolf]

All I have to say about this is, keep praising AM4, while forgetting that AMD would have not given a single shit about giving people Ryzen 5000 on B350/X370 unless Intel had kicked them in the nuts with ADL-S.

Socket may be the same, chipsets are a different story. They're not your friend. AMD is rather busy adding more vulnerabilities in their crappy software than care about you.

Before the mental people of the tech community (around 99% of them) start calling me an Intel shill, I have a 5900X and have previously owned a 3900X.

I concur. Why does AMD get the praise for adding Ryzen 5000 support to 300-series motherboards when everybody had already coughed up the cash for a 500-series one?

 

[Why_Me]

Intel broke the ice with DDR5 along with PCIe 5.0 but you won't ever hear the AMD fanbois admitting that.

 

[Gica]

The new AMD processors and support for ALL motherboards is commendable if it didn't come too late. All of this was supposed to be available at least a year ago.

 

[watzupken]

Their strategy contributes to e-waste so if you care about the planet as your snark about wars and slaves suggest, then perhaps you should care about the mountain of e-waste we humans pump out every year. And then perhaps you should care about Intel’s strategy which contributes to e-waste.

Any purchaser of Rocket lake and z590 that wanted to upgrade to alder lake has e-waste as z590 (lga1200) was abandoned in 6 months. The same will be true for z790 buyers. Someone may be interested in z790 because z690 doesn’t have as standard a pcie5.0 m.2 slot. So someone who wants to use an intel platform with a pcie5.0 drive without an adapter card might consider z790. But z790 and lga1700/1800 apparently have no longevity and will be abandoned within 12 months for lga1851.

Arrow lake-s appears to be a compelling upgrade with double the e-core count and a new architecture for both p and e-cores. So someone on z790 wanting to upgrade to arrow lake will have e-waste. Which could have been avoided if intel had longer platform longevity. When intel decided it needed more pins above lga1200 with a new rectangular socket shape compared to the older square one, why not move to lga1851 from the start, why stop at 1700/1800 and then break socket compatibility with 1851? Make it make sense. It’s a money making scheme in my book. Every time socket compatibility is broken, motherboard manufacturers are much more likely to have sales of new motherboards from those who are stuck on an older platform with no upgrade path.

For me, this is the annoying part. When you release a chipset, at least have the decency to allow 2 generations of CPU to run on it. Just like you mentioned, people who bought Z/H/B 500 and 700 series chipset boards are stuck with just a miserable generation of CPU support. While I agree that not everyone will want to upgrade, but at least the option is open, especially if the preceding CPU is going to be quite a bit faster. This is the key problem with supporting a socket for 2 CPU cycles, instead of the chipset.
On e-waste, I think the problem may not be as serious since people who changed their motherboard will not throw them away, but sell them off. So someone will soak up these less desirable boards when they need one, be it for replacement, or to setup a new computer.

 

[AlwaysHope]

Intel broke the ice with DDR5 along with PCIe 5.0 but you won't ever hear the AMD fanbois admitting that.

Just like with DDR4,3 & 2, leaders lead, followers follow.

 

[watzupken]

All I have to say about this is, keep praising AM4, while forgetting that AMD would have not given a single shit about giving people Ryzen 5000 on B350/X370 unless Intel had kicked them in the nuts with ADL-S.

Socket may be the same, chipsets are a different story. They're not your friend. AMD is rather busy adding more vulnerabilities in their crappy software than care about you.

Before the mental people of the tech community (around 99% of them) start calling me an Intel shill, I have a 5900X and have previously owned a 3900X.

While this is true, but at least AMD relented and enabled backward compatibility. It is late, but better than never, and it will certainly benefit people who have not upgraded to the latest chipset and looking to upgrade their processor to something faster. Did Intel relent despite declining sales from competition? No. The Intel B460 chipset motherboard I used to own still only supports 1 miserable generation of Intel CPU (Comet Lake). The 500 series chipset only supports Rocket Lake (despite the fact the performance uplift is not great), so again 1 miserable generation. So this is not coming from some AMD fanboy as well, so you know.

 

[AusWolf]

While this is true, but at least AMD relented and enabled backward compatibility. It is late, but better than never, and it will certainly benefit people who have not upgraded to the latest chipset and looking to upgrade their processor to something faster. Did Intel relent despite declining sales from competition? No. The Intel B460 chipset motherboard I used to own still only supports 1 miserable generation of Intel CPU (Comet Lake). The 500 series chipset only supports Rocket Lake (despite the fact the performance uplift is not great), so again 1 miserable generation. So this is not coming from some AMD fanboy as well, so you know.

I'm on Rocket Lake, but I feel no need to upgrade.

In my opinion, the problem isn't the fact that chipsets don't support more generations that come out every year. The problem is that we have so-called "generations" that offer 10-15% increase in performance that people want to upgrade to. Let's be honest, folks: what is 10% to you? Even if that 10% faster CPU was supported by your motherboard, is it really worth hundreds of bucks? No. We need a generation every 3-4 years with at least 50% performance increase with the same, or lower power consumption. We don't need an extra 10% at a lot more power at a consumer level every year. Whoever says we do is lying to themselves.

 

[AleXXX666]

A! Great. A new socket. So people buying Raptor Lake CPUs wouldn't be able to upgrade to the next gen of Intel CPUs.

umm, yeah, i feel sorry too, i can't upgrade from my socket 775 either. what bad engineers at intel, aren't they?

 

[chaoshusky]

Their strategy contributes to e-waste so if you care about the planet as your snark about wars and slaves suggest, then perhaps you should care about the mountain of e-waste we humans pump out every year. And then perhaps you should care about Intel’s strategy which contributes to e-waste.

Any purchaser of Rocket lake and z590 that wanted to upgrade to alder lake has e-waste as z590 (lga1200) was abandoned in 6 months. The same will be true for z790 buyers. Someone may be interested in z790 because z690 doesn’t have as standard a pcie5.0 m.2 slot. So someone who wants to use an intel platform with a pcie5.0 drive without an adapter card might consider z790. But z790 and lga1700/1800 apparently have no longevity and will be abandoned within 12 months for lga1851.

Arrow lake-s appears to be a compelling upgrade with double the e-core count and a new architecture for both p and e-cores. So someone on z790 wanting to upgrade to arrow lake will have e-waste. Which could have been avoided if intel had longer platform longevity. When Intel decided it needed more pins above lga1200 with a new rectangular socket shape compared to the older square one, why not move to lga1851 from the start, why stop at 1700/1800 and then break socket compatibility with 1851? Make it make sense. It’s a money making scheme in my book. Every time socket compatibility is broken, motherboard manufacturers are much more likely to have sales of new motherboards from those who are stuck on an older platform with no upgrade path.

E-waste? Considering how many people will still have older machines and can't really afford new, quite often people do this thing called selling second hand.. Lets call it up-cycling! Enabling people who still rock a 3rd Gen or 4th, or an early Ryzen, maybe even older...can upgrade for a more budget friendly price! Compared to what they had, it will feel fast as heck!

And sticking with the same sockets and older chip-sets, most AMD fanboy-ism people overlook how many problems, bugs and issues AMD's crap has had over the years.. Not to mention that plenty of AMD fans and enthusiasts will feel compelled to upgrade their motherboard too if they have the budget, so they're on the newest chip-set and get the most out of the new CPU!

If you really want to rant about e-waste, maybe target mobile phones? And the many different devices people throw away carelessly without finding another use or home for them, even if they're *not* broken?

Doofus!

 

[AusWolf]

E-waste? Considering how many people will still have older machines and can't really afford new, quite often people do this thing called selling second hand.. Lets call it up-cycling! Enabling people who still rock a 3rd Gen or 4th, or an early Ryzen, maybe even older...can upgrade for a more budget friendly price! Compared to what they had, it will feel fast as heck!

Not to mention they make good HTPCs and general purpose / office machines. One of my HTPCs has a 35 Watt 4th gen Core i7 that has enough juice to power through any video format that the GT 1030 can't decode (which isn't many).

Most people don't upgrade every, or even every second generation. People tend to keep their systems for 5-10 years these days, so the argument for motherboard upgradability is pointless. It's only a handful of enthusiasts that care about the latest and greatest PC tech.

 

[Mussels]

umm, yeah, i feel sorry too, i can't upgrade from my socket 775 either. what bad engineers at intel, aren't they?

Socket 775 supported 11 different CPU families over 7 years

From 1.4GHz to 3.8Ghz, single core to quad core.

Until AM4, no socket has come remotely close to longevity and varied CPU support as socket 775

 

[chaoshusky]

Socket 775 supported 11 different CPU families over 7 years

From 1.4GHz to 3.8Ghz, single core to quad core.
View attachment 261014

Until AM4, no socket has come remotely close to longevity and varied CPU support as socket 775

True, kind of.. But this was back when i "hated" Intel's ethics (price), was poor and still being an AMD fanatic from the Athlon days.. So i will say that an earlier 775 board with older chipset might not have been able to take a Core2 Duo or Quad! So you'd still have to change your board.. But many could! I still have quite a few of those boards kicking around, some weird and wonderful.. One board i have can take either DDR or DDR2, can handle everything up to a Core2 Quad at a slightly reduced clock...and has both an AGP 8X slot and a PCIe 16X slot, which strangely if you have single slot cards you can use at the same time! Lol! I don't think its a VIA chip-set, some fairly later on ALi (now nVidia) chip-set. And the only thing it wouldn't boot with is the modded Xeon i made, which does boot in quite a few boards, including an old Shuttle XPC system i have that's socket 775 and i think has an nForce chip-set!

 

[Mussels]

True, kind of.. But this was back when i "hated" Intel's ethics (price), was poor and still being an AMD fanatic from the Athlon days.. So i will say that an earlier 775 board with older chipset might not have been able to take a Core2 Duo or Quad! So you'd still have to change your board.. But many could! I still have quite a few of those boards kicking around, some weird and wonderful.. One board i have can take either DDR or DDR2, can handle everything up to a Core2 Quad at a slightly reduced clock...and has both an AGP 8X slot and a PCIe 16X slot, which strangely if you have single slot cards you can use at the same time! Lol! I don't think its a VIA chip-set, some fairly later on ALi (now nVidia) chip-set. And the only thing it wouldn't boot with is the modded Xeon i made, which does boot in quite a few boards, including an old Shuttle XPC system i have that's socket 775 and i think has an nForce chip-set!

A newer board could use older CPU's, but an old board couldn't use new ones

AM4 was like that until BIOS updates added the global support, Intel couldn't have done it back then - BIOS flashes were more risky

 

[chaoshusky]

A newer board could use older CPU's, but an old board couldn't use new ones

AM4 was like that until BIOS updates added the global support, Intel couldn't have done it back then - BIOS flashes were more risky

Did you forget about AM2/3? Some of the newer CPUs could run in old boards and use DDR2 up until the trash FX chips were released! But that downgraded the HT Bus of course and meant you were using DDR2 instead of DDR3.. I think even the Phenom II X6 can run in a DDR2 board but yeah, good old AM2.. Glad i switched to an i7 when i did! The classic Nehalem..fast for its time.

 

[AleXXX666]

Socket 775 supported 11 different CPU families over 7 years

From 1.4GHz to 3.8Ghz, single core to quad core.
View attachment 261014

Until AM4, no socket has come remotely close to longevity and varied CPU support as socket 775

yeah, but you couldn't put a core2duo on very old chipsets, or core2quad at some.