Intel Releasing 10 core 20 thread i9-10900KF for $499 very soon... 5.2 Ghz boost

[juiseman]

I don't think it works like that; I think it comes down to the game engine and how its written. But I'm no software expert.
I would say that the most games are optimized for 1-6 threads...it may require a rewrite; or a more likely scenario is ported over from another platform.

 

[ratirt]

@ratirt you really like these straw men, don't you?

Right. Let's just say I'm glad you're not designing our CPUs. This is clearly way over your head. Read carefully, again, what's being said. Nobody is against progress.

You guys are like that. Why don't you agree? You want to tell the world how things should have been done because that is what you want and think.
Why don't you build one and prove your point? Whatever that is.
You are against progress and you are not in a place to tell if 16c is an overkill for desktops. There's more than games in this world with desktops computing and 16c are very much welcomed. Go console and stop saying it is an overkill. Just because you don't know how to utilize 16c doesn't mean it is an overkill because you say so.

 

[londiste]

16 cores may be overkill as of today; but you have to remember, if the mainstream core count increases the trend will continue to optimize software to use the
extra resources. Can you run windows now on a 2 core/ 2 thread cpu? not very well; its starting to choke. The mainstream CPU now has 4-6 cores w/ 8-16 threads.
with at least 8GB-16GB RAM. That seems to make windows 10 happy. 2-3 years ago that was not the case. Some early Versions of Win 10 were running just as good as Win 7.
Now that is not the case. Windows has become bloated.

Yes, you can run Windows on 2core/2thread CPU. 2c/4t is much more common right now though and I am doing that daily on both work as well as my own laptop with CPU resources to spare. Storage and RAM are much more critical in terms of running Windows. I have used Windows (10) on a 4-core Atom (Celeron J1900) for a long while and it works fine with the exception of video playback including web pages with videos and other active content

Windows 10 and Windows 7 are pretty much in the same spot in terms of performance, Windows 10 tends to use a bit more RAM but doesn't necessarily require it. Operating systems in general are fairly lean at this point anyway, it's the applications and especially browsers that take a toll on CPU and RAM.

You are against progress and you are not in a place to tell if 16c is an overkill for desktops. There's more than games in this world with desktops computing and 16c are very much welcomed. Go console and stop saying it is an overkill. Just because you don't know how to utilize 16c doesn't mean it is an overkill because you say so.

If you noticed, I was talking about practicality and cost with cost for the performance received being not very kind for the higher-end desktop CPUs today.
What are you doing with your computer that benefits from 16 cores and 32 threads?

 

[ratirt]

What are you doing with your computer that benefits from 16 cores and 32 threads?

Why do you care? You wont use it anyway because it is an overkill right? You guys have no idea what you are talking about and what in fact 16c for the price and performance it has, has brought to the desktop segment. And, since it is such an unneeded overkill, that is why Intel is releasing 10c20t 10900KF for desktop for $500 to join AMD in the desktop segment core count overkill club.

 

[londiste]

Curiosity. You are strongly arguing that 16 cores is very useful, I am curious about what exactly do you use that benefits from it.

Edit:
Of course I would use a more powerful CPU if it provided a benefit that at least to some degree outweighed the cost. At this point, 3900X could provide a single-digit percentage performance increase in my use cases over much cheaper CPUs.

 

[Vya Domus]

Curiosity. You are strongly arguing that 16 cores is very useful, I am curious about what exactly do you use that benefits from it.

Just out of curiosity as well, why do you insist on trying to convince people that it's not useful ?

 

[londiste]

Just out of curiosity as well, why do you insist on trying to convince people that it's not useful ?

Because most people who buy it do not seem to use the potential. I do know people who have use cases that benefit directly - rendering, video encoding, science compute stuff. Most of that is not common or not really desktop use case though.

 

[ratirt]

Curiosity. You are strongly arguing that 16 cores is very useful, I am curious about what exactly do you use that benefits from it.

Video editing, Surveillance system and security designing/monitoring, algorithm and data crunching, and many more.
Here's a tip for all of you, who don't know how to utilize 16c32t today, whatever segment of processor it may be, DON'T buy it and zip your lip with saying it is not needed because you think so because it is pathetic.

 

[londiste]

I do not really get it why are you reading and arguing this selectively though. From the get-go I was talking about consumer use cases and gaming more specifically and also said there are productivity workloads that do benefit from many cores. Everything you listed is anything but consumer stuff. Yes, your use cases along with others do benefit from more cores and nobody has been arguing against that.

 

[EarthDog]

I do not really get it why are you reading and arguing this selectively though. From the get-go I was talking about consumer use cases and gaming more specifically and also said there are productivity workloads that do benefit from many cores. Everything you listed is anything but consumer stuff. Yes, your use cases along with others do benefit from more cores and nobody has been arguing against that.

W00t! This. Me too...

More than 10c/20t on the mainstream platform, either side, is just too much. AMD blurred the lines, and speaking strictly from a core count perspective, brought out products we don't need. The good about this the cheap pricing... otherwise, yes, today, for someone buying a PC, unless you are a content creator etc, 6c/12 is the sweetspot while 8c/16t is enthusiast level, 10c/20t is just nuts for most... I just don't like seeing that many cores/threads in mainstream when the reality is very few can use it.

Tough to have a decent conversation when the goal posts move and the dude drops insults (such as juvenile and pathetic). I'm out.

 

[ratirt]

I do not really get it why are you reading and arguing this selectively though. From the get-go I was talking about consumer use cases and gaming more specifically and also said there are productivity workloads that do benefit from many cores. Everything you listed is anything but consumer stuff. Yes, your use cases along with others do benefit from more cores and nobody has been arguing against that.

Since when the consumer use became a gaming use? Is desktop market only gaming for you too? You are now justifying your previous statements and arguments and EarthDog is joining in, clapping his "paws" in admiration you've found a justification. I'm telling you guys. You'd be better off in the console segment, giving ideas and thoughts there than desktop PC.
It is very common that a living organism, even if wrong, will defend itself and try to explain and look for a way out. That is exactly what you are doing now. You are wrong and now you twist the meaning of desktop to consumer to gaming altogether.

Tough to have a decent conversation when the goal posts move and the dude drops insults (such as juvenile and pathetic). I'm out.

Insults? Apparently you don't know what an insult is considering you assumed that so many brainless desktop users will not know how to use the 16c. If you don't know what you are talking about don't say it. Nobody will call you juvenile or pathetic. Cause what you said was definitely childish and narrow and somebody must have taken you down a peg.
Although if you'd like to continue the conversation, I'd really like to see your point of view because I seriously don't understand crap of what you are talking about. It's like some people are such big-headed they forget which way is up.

 

[londiste]

Since when the consumer use became a gaming use? Is desktop market only gaming for you too?

I do think gaming is the one of the main drivers (if not the main driver) for CPU performance in desktop market.

 

[ratirt]

I do think gaming is the one of the main drivers (if not the main driver) for CPU performance in desktop market.

Desktops market is big and gaming is a fraction of it. So no, desktop computers' main purpose is not gaming but you can game on them. You have gaming rigs right? Does this mean you can only game on them or do other stuff?
Just like phones' purpose is not gaming but you can game on them.
I think we are going off topic here slightly.
For instance. 10900KF is a desktop processor and it doesn't mean you have to game on it. You confuse desktops as only gaming computers but the fact is , that gaming computers are a low % of desktop market in general. Besides, originally computers were not for gaming, but it didn't hurt to have an option to game on them? It is a matter of choice that I've mentioned before.
Same as phones are not for gaming but you can game on them.
hope you get it.

 

[londiste]

Desktops market is big and gaming is a fraction of it. So no, desktop computers' main purpose is not gaming but you can game on them. You have gaming rigs right? Does this mean you can only game on them or do other stuff?
Just like phones' purpose is not gaming but you can game on them.

True. But the majority of desktop market needs even less CPU performance than gaming does.

 

[cucker tarlson]

Right. Let's just say I'm glad you're not designing our CPUs. This is clearly way over your head. Read carefully, again, what's being said. Nobody is against progress.

I mean why go with 6 cores when you have 16 available.this is so easy.

 

[londiste]

I mean why go with 6 cores when you have 16 available.this is so easy.

There is a consideration of price here - 6 cores cost 200€, 16 cores cost 750€.

 

[cucker tarlson]

There is a consideration of price here - 6 cores cost 200€, 16 cores cost 750€.

Shut up, you're anti progress.

 

[ratirt]

True. But the majority of desktop market needs even less CPU performance than gaming does.

Where did you get that conclusion from? This is why I think you have no idea what you are talking about. You keep thinking that what pushes cpu performance forward is gaming and since you claim, games don't need 16 cores, desktop market should not use that many. This alone should tell you that you are wrong and desktop market doesn't care about gaming otherwise the 16c desktops would not come. That is your problem with your narrow thinking and perceiving the facts and putting gaming above everything else.
It is like you would consider phones as gaming devices. These are for communication purposes not gaming. Although gaming for phones gives chances to developers and new opportunities and bigger range of usefulness for the device.

 

[londiste]

Where did you get that conclusion from?

Considerable amount of people, companies and hardware I have met or worked with/on. There are very specific use cases that actually need high-end hardware. These use cases are not very common. Vast majority of machines are netboxes or office PCs.

This is why I think you have no idea what you are talking about. You keep thinking that what pushes cpu performance forward is gaming and since you claim, games don't need 16 cores, desktop market should not use that many. This alone should tell you that you are wrong and desktop market doesn't care about gaming otherwise the 16c desktops would not come.

I never said desktop market should not use 16 cores or that 16 core CPUs would not or should not come. Sure 16 cores have their uses. Just implying that people should think and consider their use cases a little before buying the latest and greatest at very high cost simply because it has most cores.

 

[ratirt]

There is a consideration of price here - 6 cores cost 200€, 16 cores cost 750€.

This is what I've said in this thread for 100 times. Go Console and play games. Don't concern yourself with how many cores is needed for gaming. Or tell people that you want to game on 6c not 16c cause nobody cares. Or that you prefer high frequency CPUs for gaming than more cores, cause nobody cares.
What's important is, gaming is not the main reason for desktop computing and thinking it is is juvenile and narrow.
Different products are not because it is for gaming or not. It is a different segment with a certain price range for variety of customers. Gaming has nothing to do with this but you need certain CPU with performance to play games. That depends on the game but still. Again, your problem is you narrow your thinking to gaming only, considering desktop market or segment as gaming only and that's why the dispute we have here.

Shut up, you're anti progress.

If that's not juvenile then I don't know what is and yet I'm being offensive What a ruse.
Bravo to the two (so-called grown ups) sharing thoughts but instead tuck tail and run when no arguments and make childish remarks . Expected more but if that is what I get. Oh well

 

[londiste]

What's important is, gaming is not the main reason for desktop computing and thinking it is is juvenile and narrow.

What do you consider the main reason for desktop computing?

 

[Ahhzz]

Guys, it's really simple. A differing opinion stated politely is encouraged. Poking at each other, especially just because you don't agree with someone is going to get you a vacation from this thread. Continued such behavior will escalate the staff responses.

The Guidelines are here, refresh your knowledge, and remember the unwritten one: Don't be a Dick.

 

[Vya Domus]

Because most people who buy it do not seem to use the potential.

Really ? Most ? How did you conclude that, did you ask everyone ? Did you do an extensive survey on what software do these people use ?

These conclusions always fascinate me because we obviously know you didn't do any of that, you're just assuming that's the case based on some anecdotal evidence or gut feeling. I know it's impossible to know what people do with certainty but the least you can do is use common sense to draw your conclusions.

For instance, these high core count CPUs are still relatively expensive, out of reach for most people. That already reduces drastically the chances that someone who is willing to spend the cash is unaware of the potential of the product that they buy. Moreover, even if you're completely out of touch with any technical aspect of computing, if say you're for example a video editor, you're still more likely to end up buying a machine that has a lot of cores.

It's strange, it's almost as if people gravitate towards products that they have a use for. Crazy right ?

Most of that is not common or not really desktop use case though.

Not really, buying expensive CPUs is already very uncommon. It's not strange that uses cases for them are also uncommon.

 

[londiste]

Really ? Most ? How did you conclude that, did you ask everyone ? Did you do an extensive survey on what software do these people use ?

You are probably right about that and I am wrong. Most people who buy these just use them and never talk about it

 

[ratirt]

What do you consider the main reason for desktop computing?

What I consider? Are you still trying to get me for pointing you are wrong or you want to catch me off guard with what I will say? You know what I use desktop for, would that justify desktop computer purpose? I think you are limited only by your imagination what you can use it for. If gaming is what you use it for great. If you think that desktop computing has no use for 16 or more cores because games don't use that many (now they don't and 2-3 years back people said 4c is max you would need. Look at this now) than join EarthDog and Cucker Tarlson club.