Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 17 to 20 of 20

Thread: Intel fully reveals specifications of its Core-X Series processors

  1. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    448
    Thanks
    21
    Thanked
    32 times in 22 posts

    Re: Intel fully reveals specifications of its Core-X Series processors

    Quote Originally Posted by QuorTek View Post
    ...Am not a fan of either brand, but where I get the most bang for th bucks then I can live with X item being 5-10% slower or whichever... if you get a 110 fps or 103 fps.. you wont really notice the difference anyway.
    And that's the best place for AMD to be disruptive. The area that makes you go "30% more cost for a ~10% performance increase?"

  2. #18
    Not a good person scaryjim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    14,185
    Thanks
    1,120
    Thanked
    2,036 times in 1,702 posts
    • scaryjim's system
      • Motherboard:
      • HP Pavilion
      • CPU:
      • A10 4600M
      • Memory:
      • 2x 4GB DDR3-1600 SODIMM
      • Storage:
      • 1TB HDD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Radeon HD7660G (IGP)
      • PSU:
      • Battery/HP 19v brick
      • Case:
      • HP Pavilion G6
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10
      • Monitor(s):
      • 15" 1366x768 laptop panel

    Re: Intel fully reveals specifications of its Core-X Series processors

    Quote Originally Posted by Tabbykatze View Post
    And that's the best place for AMD to be disruptive. The area that makes you go "30% more cost for a ~10% performance increase?"
    It's going to be worse than that though - in the high-thread-count heavy load scenarios these processors are targeted at they're going to be slower than AMD, while costing 50% - 70% more....

  3. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    448
    Thanks
    21
    Thanked
    32 times in 22 posts

    Re: Intel fully reveals specifications of its Core-X Series processors

    Quote Originally Posted by scaryjim View Post
    It's going to be worse than that though - in the high-thread-count heavy load scenarios these processors are targeted at they're going to be slower than AMD, while costing 50% - 70% more....
    Then it really does become a cost benefit analysis because i can't see some of the Intel unique features like avx512 really swaying the decision. The other areas are when software has been specifically written for Intel processors. Like the stuff i install is intel hardware only

  4. #20
    Senior Member watercooled's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    10,262
    Thanks
    1,445
    Thanked
    850 times in 738 posts

    Re: Intel fully reveals specifications of its Core-X Series processors

    When it comes to power consumption, we'll also have to wait and see what platform power and actual workload power is like - Ryzen ended up doing a lot better at the wall than its TDP would imply, with e.g. the '95W' 1700X/1800X (not even the most efficient bins) generally using less than the '91W' 7700k, even with all cores loaded up with Prime95:
    http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/amd-ry...w-33843-8.html
    https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/..._1800X/14.html

    And it looks wore again for Intel when you look at workloads like gaming. I still think this is one of the more impressive aspects of Ryzen's performance, especially since it's one of the things they've been so heavily criticised for in the past, even when the difference was a few watts!

    It looks like X299 has its own teething problems e.g. with not clocking correctly and causing BSODs at stock when trying to use AVX512, and bizarre throttling causing performance to drop with additional threads: http://www.numberworld.org/y-cruncher/

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •