Intel pulling all the stops? 18-core X-series CPU coming?

[RejZoR]

And why they are not needed? Because game studios were coding everything for stupid ancient quad cores. You can't just magically increase frequency to infinity and IPC also doesn't just magically fall from nowhere. But we can stack shitload of cores together. What do you think a natural course of CPU evolution should be then? This is the exact reason why you don't see any real benefits from Ryzen, because game devs were sitting on pile of Intel's quad cores for basically a decade. But AMD releasing Ryzen, forcing Intel to trickle down high end octa core CPU's beyond silly quad cores to more manageable prices means game studios will now have a reason to make things work on more than 4 cores.

Also, can we REALLY break the "Ryzen isn't all that great for gaming" bullshit already? I've set my 5820K back to stock (3.3GHz base, 3.6GHz turbo, basically what Ryzen has) because of some issues I've been having with my system and had to rule things out and do you want to know what kind of difference I notice between a stock 5820K and same CPU at 4.5 GHz in Prey 2017? Literally NONE. It runs hyper smooth in both cases. At 1080p where it should be even more CPU limiting factor. It's all BS and people should seriously stop spreading this garbage about Ryzen. 3.8 to 4GHz is sufficient even for hardcore gamers because you literally won't see a god damn difference other than on fancy graphs where everyone is awe'd with percentages and stupid framerates. Which are all ridiculously high either way (be it with AMD or Intel). And because of the above, being gimped for those 10fps (at over 100fps anyway) for older games made for quad cores, but you'll benefit greatly in anything new that comes out which will be designed for more cores. And that's where 7700K will start to suck more and more because it's just a quad core.

I mean, is this really such difficult concept for people to grasp or will they continue to whine how much Ryzen sucks for gaming? Because it's making me sick how people cluelessly piss on AMD all the time because they heard some shit somewhere on the internetz and then they just keep on spreading that same fud all over the place like parrots. It's really infuriating how much damage such clueless spreading of WRONG info does to an actually excellent product from company that has been taking shit for years because of bad decisions in the past. But when they make the right decisions, people keep on pissing on them based on outdated facts from ages ago. It's idiotic.

 

[EarthDog]

Lol, one game..

Look at some reviews. There are differences, even at the same clockspeeds.

To add to that, these crap out at 4ghz. While you are well i to 4ghz on hex or less parts..5ghz on 7700k... there are differences..

 

[Vya Domus]

Whoever says it's "so much worse for gaming" can pretty much fall into 2 categories :

1) They already own a quite expensive Intel based system and to them paying the same or much more for 10% more performance in just one task while everywhere else it falls short significantly seems like a good deal. No blaming them though.
2) Straight forward fanboy.

The thing is none of them truly matter for AMD's reputation or sales because Ryzen is so affordable while been very competitive which is a fact. Same thing happened with the FX line although things were even worse for AMD back then because they were truly behind Intel at the time. Yet they still sold plenty of them.

Spreading FUD is a waste of time as of now . The wallet will decide for most if it's "so much worse for gaming".

 

[RejZoR]

Lol, one game..

Look at some reviews. There are differences, even at the same clockspeeds.

150 or 140 fps, who really give sa damn at that point? But people make such god damn drama it's not even funny anymore. As time goes by, That 7700K will still only have just 4 cores where 1800X will scale beyond that easily. So, which one do you think is going to fare better long term for gaming? 7700K which already runs at its limit or 1800X which is not even brekaing a sweat, but has a tiny bit smaller clock?

I'm a gamer and I'd take 1800X in a heartbeat. Only reason I haven't done so is because my 5820K was a longer term investment and I plan on keeping it for several years. Guess why I opted 5820K over 6700K ? MOAR CORES!!!!1111

 

[Bill_Bright]

And why they are not needed? Because game studios were coding everything for stupid ancient quad cores.

But it is not just about games. As noted the new 18-core i9 7980XE is for those who do VR video editing, 3D modelling, special-effects creation, and serious multi-taskers, as well as live-streaming gamers with deep pockets.

I say, since they are only about 4 square inches, and less than 1/2 inch thick, they are small so get two!

 

[EarthDog]

150 or 140 fps, who really give sa damn at that point? But people make such god damn drama it's not even funny anymore. As time goes by, That 7700K will still only have just 4 cores where 1800X will scale beyond that easily. So, which one do you think is going to fare better long term for gaming? 7700K which already runs at its limit or 1800X which is not even brekaing a sweat, but has a tiny bit smaller clock?

I'm a gamer and I'd take 1800X in a heartbeat. Only reason I haven't done so is because my 5820K was a longer term investment and I plan on keeping it for several years. Guess why I opted 5820K over 6700K ? MOAR CORES!!!!1111

it wont take games and make them unplayable...you are correct. However, it can put a glass ceiling on fps... my whole point.

Does it suck for gaming...hells to the no. Is it slightly inferior for gaming in some cases...hells to the yes. If gaming is a consumer's priority, they dont need more cores, amd have the budget to support a 7700k, i would get it every time.

Im a gamer too.. amlnd when there is a 1800x or 7700k in front of me, id take the 7700k any day of the week (for the next couple years). I dont need that many cores, and i dont need to spend an additional ~$180 for something i wont use in my lifetime with it.

Id rather have 8 threads at 5ghz than 16 slightly slower IPC and at a MAX of 4ghz in three years.. beyond that, nobody knows. I could save that $180 amd in 3 years have $200 to put towards another cpu if, and thats a big IF, its needed.

 

[rtwjunkie]

it wont take games and make them unplayable...you are correct. However, it can put a glass ceiling on fps... my whole point.

Does it suck for gaming...hells to the no. Is it slightly inferior for gaming in some cases...hells to the yes. If gaming is a consumer's priority, they dont need more cores, amd have the budget to support a 7700k, i would get it every time.

Im a gamer too.. amlnd when there is a 1800x or 7700k in front of me, id take the 7700k any day of the week (for the next couple years). I dont need that many cores, and i dont need to spend an additional ~$180 for something i wont use in my lifetime with it.

Id rather have 8 threads at 5ghz than 16 slightly slower IPC and at a MAX of 4ghz in three years.. beyond that, nobody knows. I could save that $180 amd in 3 years have $200 to put towards another cpu if, and thats a big IF, its needed.

On your phone, huh? Lots of "amd" in there. It's all good, just teasing.

 

[EarthDog]

Oh dear... yes. Upgrade the os on my s6 amd my autocorrect is borked!!!!!

 

[Flogger23m]

And why they are not needed? Because game studios were coding everything for stupid ancient quad cores. You can't just magically increase frequency to infinity and IPC also doesn't just magically fall from nowhere. But we can stack shitload of cores together. What do you think a natural course of CPU evolution should be then? This is the exact reason why you don't see any real benefits from Ryzen, because game devs were sitting on pile of Intel's quad cores for basically a decade. But AMD releasing Ryzen, forcing Intel to trickle down high end octa core CPU's beyond silly quad cores to more manageable prices means game studios will now have a reason to make things work on more than 4 cores.

Also, can we REALLY break the "Ryzen isn't all that great for gaming" bullshit already? I've set my 5820K back to stock (3.3GHz base, 3.6GHz turbo, basically what Ryzen has) because of some issues I've been having with my system and had to rule things out and do you want to know what kind of difference I notice between a stock 5820K and same CPU at 4.5 GHz in Prey 2017? Literally NONE. It runs hyper smooth in both cases. At 1080p where it should be even more CPU limiting factor. It's all BS and people should seriously stop spreading this garbage about Ryzen. 3.8 to 4GHz is sufficient even for hardcore gamers because you literally won't see a god damn difference other than on fancy graphs where everyone is awe'd with percentages and stupid framerates. Which are all ridiculously high either way (be it with AMD or Intel). And because of the above, being gimped for those 10fps (at over 100fps anyway) for older games made for quad cores, but you'll benefit greatly in anything new that comes out which will be designed for more cores. And that's where 7700K will start to suck more and more because it's just a quad core.

I mean, is this really such difficult concept for people to grasp or will they continue to whine how much Ryzen sucks for gaming? Because it's making me sick how people cluelessly piss on AMD all the time because they heard some shit somewhere on the internetz and then they just keep on spreading that same fud all over the place like parrots. It's really infuriating how much damage such clueless spreading of WRONG info does to an actually excellent product from company that has been taking shit for years because of bad decisions in the past. But when they make the right decisions, people keep on pissing on them based on outdated facts from ages ago. It's idiotic.

You assume that games can magically "take advantage of cores". They won't due to the nature of the software. Most games are very well adapted to quad cores these days, but we're not seeing a 100% increase for each core. Throw four more cores at it and optimize for it and you'll get another 10% or so performance jump. There is a reason why certain applications run so well on 6-8 cores. Plenty of programs out there can see a 100% performance jump going from 4 to 8 cores. PC games aren't one. It has nothing to do with "evil consoles" or "evil video game publishers" or "lazy computer devs, lets steal their crap but spend $600 on a GPU". Just the reality of the kind of software. The right tool for the job. And more cores isn't going to magically make computer games run that much better.

You can jump up and down all you want, but Ryzen isn't that great. It is inferior for gaming (vast majority of games at least) and if you're doing professional encoding you're going with Intel because AMD does not have a competitor yet. If you're in the business, you're going to spend $400-600 on a better tool. It is essentially insignificant due to the benefits you'll gain.

My Ryzen 1600 (when OCed to 3.8GHZ) runs about on par with my 4670K at 4GHZ in games. Essentially the same frame rates. Seriously, I'm getting the same frames (average, min and max) in a number of game benchmarks. So I'm happy with it. Handbreak, at least the build I have, had shorter render times on the i5 4670K. Only by a few seconds. All in all, I won some, lost some, and am exactly on par in some things. It isn't horrible but it isn't great.

Sure, Ryzen gaming performance will get better. But don't expect miracles. The best thing about Ryzen is that it is forcing Intel to bring newer CPU tech to lower price brackets.

 

[R-T-B]

You assume that games can magically "take advantage of cores". They won't due to the nature of the software. Most games are very well adapted to quad cores these days, but we're not seeing a 100% increase for each core. Throw four more cores at it and optimize for it and you'll get another 10% or so performance jump. There is a reason why certain applications run so well on 6-8 cores. Plenty of programs out there can see a 100% performance jump going from 4 to 8 cores. PC games aren't one. It has nothing to do with "evil consoles" or "evil video game publishers" or "lazy computer devs, lets steal their crap but spend $600 on a GPU". Just the reality of the kind of software. The right tool for the job. And more cores isn't going to magically make computer games run that much better.

Sadly, speaking as a programmer, he's 100% right. Multi-threading is not only a bitch, it has exponentially diminishing returns in something like video games.

 

[NdMk2o1o]

Before Ryzen: All you need is a quad core 4c/4t chip for high end gaming, 4c/8t is overkill and shows no improvement
Since Ryzen: All you need is a high clocked 4c/8t chip for high end gaming, 6/12t - 8c/16t is overkill and shows no improvement

Reality of it is, Ryzen has shifted the landscape, people couldn't afford 6c/12t, 8c/12t before Ryzen and all in sundry was screaming that i5 was enough and i7 was overkill for gaming..... now that Ryzen has been released with affordable true multicore performance, the goal posts have shifted. Intel is supposedly releasing a HEDT 18c chip!!!!! this is frickin massive when all they had before was a 10c chip that cost a kidney.... but yes, this has nothing to do with AMD producing the same kind of multicore/HEDT performance with higher cores at a much better price point, heck going off the latest intel leaks, they are planning on releasing 8c/16t under $400........ :O yet it's nothing to do with Ryzen, cause they've done that how many times in the past????

 

[Vario]

I want the L4 crystalwell cache to come back on the next couple intel releases more than I want more cores than 8.

 

[JunkBear]

Can it play Diablo 2 at full specs?

 

[R-T-B]

Before Ryzen: All you need is a quad core 4c/4t chip for high end gaming, 4c/8t is overkill and shows no improvement
Since Ryzen: All you need is a high clocked 4c/8t chip for high end gaming, 6/12t - 8c/16t is overkill and shows no improvement

Reality of it is, Ryzen has shifted the landscape, people couldn't afford 6c/12t, 8c/12t before Ryzen and all in sundry was screaming that i5 was enough and i7 was overkill for gaming..... now that Ryzen has been released with affordable true multicore performance, the goal posts have shifted. Intel is supposedly releasing a HEDT 18c chip!!!!! this is frickin massive when all they had before was a 10c chip that cost a kidney.... but yes, this has nothing to do with AMD producing the same kind of multicore/HEDT performance with higher cores at a much better price point, heck going off the latest Intel leaks, they are planning on releasing 8c/16t under $400........ :O yet it's nothing to do with Ryzen, cause they've done that how many times in the past????

I agree Ryzen has shifted the market signifigantly, and will motivate even us "lazy" programmers to try to utilize more threads.

My main point with my post was that we aren't really "lazy" for avoiding this for so long, it just wasn't worth the trouble when more cores weren't mainstream. My secondary point is you should not expect the same gains in games going 4>8 core as you got going 2>4 core, even in properly multithreaded titles. It will be far less.

 

[FR@NK]

heck going off the latest intel leaks, they are planning on releasing 8c/16t under $400

Its $599 for the 8 core skylake-x which makes it a much better deal compared to the 1800x. And its not a leak...Intel released the pricing.

My main point with my post was that we aren't really "lazy" for avoiding this for so long, it just wasn't worth the trouble when more cores weren't mainstream. My secondary point is you should not expect the same gains in games going 4>8 core as you got going 2>4 core, even in properly multithreaded titles. It will be far less.

Gaming is all about latency. The processor needs to quickly get the data to the video card so it can start drawing the frame. Adding more cores has diminishing returns since once you hit the point where the game's demanding threads are getting 100% CPU time adding more cores wont help decrease the latency even if the game will use them for non-demanding workloads. As of right now, the 7740k or the 7900x will be the best gaming CPU because of the high 4.5GHz speeds for workloads with just one demanding thread. Hopefully the 7980XE has a turbo boost 3.0 of atleast 4GHz or else it will be an inferior gaming CPU.

 

[R-T-B]

Gaming is all about latency. The processor needs to quickly get the data to the video card so it can start drawing the frame. Adding more cores has diminishing returns since once you hit the point where the game's demanding threads are getting 100% CPU time adding more cores wont help decrease the latency even if the game will use them for non-demanding workloads. As of right now, the 7740k or the 7900x will be the best gaming CPU because of the high 4.5GHz speeds for workloads with just one demanding thread. Hopefully the 7980XE has a turbo boost 3.0 of atleast 4GHz or else it will be an inferior gaming CPU.

It's more the overly complex thread synchronization logic you have to do when multithreading many threads, if we were concerned purely with the thread handling drawing everything would have no returns past one core as there can only really be one thread handling information posting to the GPU.

That's looking at it from a fairly low level perspective, but yeah, I'm talking about the gains from multiple threads, not the "glass ceiling" that the draw thread brings with it. Most modern processors are good enough the GPU becomes the bottleneck way before that.

 

[dorsetknob]

Monty Says Release the HoundsPricelist

 

[Vya Domus]

It's more the overly complex thread synchronization logic you have to do when multithreading many threads, if we were concerned purely with the thread handling drawing everything would have no returns past one core as there can only really be one thread handling information posting to the GPU.

That's looking at it from a fairly low level perspective, but yeah, I'm talking about the gains from multiple threads, not the "glass ceiling" that the draw thread brings with it. Most modern processors are good enough the GPU becomes the bottleneck way before that.

That dose not mean adding more cores can't give you a big boost in performance , even in games. Multi-threading is a pain for the game's logic but this is typically not the bottleneck. The process of drawing frames is , and this can benefit from more threads. I really do not want to say OpenGL/DirectX developers were lazy but they could have started working on this from a long time ago. Even Vulkan and DX12 still follow ancient paradigms at their core and they still suffer from the "software boom" of the early 2000s when quantity over quality became the norm.

Scorpio features draw call functions implemented at the hardware level and they claim it reduces CPU usage by a massive 50%. This gives you an idea how much of a cluster fuck current APIs really are if they decided to resort to such a thing.

 

[R-T-B]

That dose not mean adding more cores can't give you a big boost in performance , even in games. Multi-threading is a pain for the game's logic but this is typically not the bottleneck. The process of drawing frames is , and this can benefit from more threads. I really do not want to say OpenGL/DirectX developers were lazy but they could have started working on this from a long time ago. Even Vulkan and DX12 still follow ancient paradigms at their core and they still suffer from the "software boom" of the early 2000s when quantity over quality became the norm.

Scorpio features draw call functions implemented at the hardware level and they claim it reduces CPU usage by a massive 50%. This gives you an idea how much of a cluster fuck current APIs really are if they decided to to resort to such a thing.

Multithreaded draw calls are also an immense pain to implement... but you know what? This thread might just remind me why I gave up on programming for the most part. I might just BE lazy.

 

[CAPSLOCKSTUCK]

 

[Vya Domus]

Multithreaded draw calls are also an immense pain to implement... but you know what? This thread might just remind me why I gave up on programming for the most part. I might just BE lazy.

I never said that it wasn't a pain but it was an issue that was obviously ignored up until very recently on the premise that hardware will just keep doubling in power every year. Well that didn't happen and now the software is really behind and making developers change the way they used to work is a nightmare.

 

[R-T-B]

I never said that it wasn't a pain but it was an issue that was obviously ignored up until very recently on the premise that hardware will just keep doubling in power every year. Well that didn't happen and now the software is really behind and making developers change the way they used to work is a nightmare.

Oh I know. I was just adding side-commentary.