Read more.Quote:
Delivers MP score between those achieved by the AMD Ryzen 5 1600 and 1600X.
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
Delivers MP score between those achieved by the AMD Ryzen 5 1600 and 1600X.
So ... hang on ... Intel's shiny new 6C/12T chip can't beat AMD's extant 6C/12T chip in a heavily threaded workload...? :o
Soon the 8700K will beat any Ryzen 6 core in multi-threaded workloads when windows sends an update plus a series of firmware updates.
I hope they are selling that poor thing at a decent price at least...(doubt it).
I'll believe it when I see it. You're pretty optimistic about it ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by lumireleon
Mmmm gonna disagree with you there. Microsoft knows in and out what the current Intel Core architecture does in their systems and this one only has 50% more threads, nothing else. There's nowhere to optimize, and thus, no gains to be made. At least nothing revolutionary.Quote:
Originally Posted by lumireleon
This is surely worst case scenario? It probably has memory running at 2133Mhz, rubbish timings etc.
Still though, interesting that it's level with the equivalent (in core count) Ryzen.
To be honest thats round about where I expected the new 6c/12t 'consumer' intel cpu's to be based on the scores on 4c/8t stuff.
Intel might be going on about how 'bolted together' amd is but they've always managed to get really good multi-threaded performance, losing less to overheads etc than intel usually too.
Interesting? It's downright laughable that their 6C12T top line offering is only equivalent in MT workloads to AMDs mid line. And considering the R5 was clocked quite a bit lower. However I also agree on the missing memory information, would be nice to have all the info.Quote:
Originally Posted by [DW
More power, more heat and less performance! GO Intel!
That post sounds rather familiar (P4 Prescott).Quote:
Originally Posted by HalloweenJack
Haha! That's exactly what I was thinking!Quote:
Originally Posted by scaryjim
You sir have won the Internet today. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by HalloweenJack
To me, a real person who's actually going to buy a PC in the next few months this all looks like good news. AMD have done great things, Intel are now responding. AMD lead the way in value and heavy multi-threading, Intel will almost certainly lead the way in single core speeds whilst now also providing more cores for not much more than they previously charged. So Win / Win.
The thing is, with increasing support for heavily threaded environments, single threaded performance is going to lose importance fast. Right now, as a gamer I need a kickass GFX card and just about any 6+ core CPU, and as a developer, I couldn't care less about single thread performance since most of what I do is threaded and what isn't is too fast to be noticeable by anything human.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy14
I'm really happy AMD is putting up a real fight and already bought a Ryzen to show my support (and drool, mostly drool).
I'm not convinced. Multicore CPU's have been around for a long, long time. During that time many applications (especially games) have made no real drive to embrace them. The i5 has had 4 cores for a long time, the i7 8 (HT) but they are seldom fully utilised.
I hope the move to more cores helps nudge things along, but I don't think that gaming requirements will change too fast.