Intel x299 cpu-s will not be soldered , crappy TIM again?

Do we need 64 lanes? If your not using multi gpu's and not going crazy with pcie slots expansions even a 28 lanes would be enough.

 

It wasn't a celeron, I wrote the name wrong....it was a long time ago. It was a duron, the series prior to the athlon cpu. That was my first cpu, second was the athlon.

And AMD has held no crown since then. The AMD offerings when the core 2 quad was out was slower in most cases and all their offerings since have been budget options only on par with an i5 in gaming.

And what the hell are you talking about? You are saying the same thing as me. I built my first 2 pcs using AMD BECAUSE they were faster. But SINCE then they have not been faster than intel, hence why I don't use AMD anymore.

Phenom processors vs c2q, bulldozer vs i5/i7, ryzen vs skylake/kabylake. AMD had been slower for a full decade. I never said AMD were never faster.

 

We understand your dilemma. Its an interesting time in cpu tech where the king acts like a cheap refurbish with a kingsize-pricetag and the underdog acts like king with a mediocre pricetag. :wanker:

 

Intel, Intel, Intel...

 

Are you still playing at 1080p?

At 1440p and above, the difference between them is almost non-existant. Scroll down to the 1440p results about half way down the page.

 

Sigh still with the 7700k argument..The 7700k is only good if you game @ 1080 /144/240 , the 1800x for example is better @ gaming than the 7700k is @ production

 

Not at all. It probably using 2-3 cores and due higher ipc Intel leads.

Also, who in the right mind gets 1080ti to play in 1080p?

 

Nope not really. Newest patch in tomb raider also increased ryzen perf by up to 40% at 1080p. It simply lacks optimization as it should compete rather equally with 6900k.

 

It takes a lot of power to run games at 144hz, so that might make some amount of sense. Certainly there are people who want their single player games to run as fast as possible.

I'm quite happy with my 1440p 60hz panel, so even the 1500x would suit me just fine for gaming.

 

The review only measures average frame. They have said that about i5s vs i7s for the longest time too, but the average frame differencd is sometimes 50% hight with the cpu that has higher average frames. The bottleneck of high res average frames does not account for that but in all previous amd generations where a review would state they have similar average frames wheb gpu bottlenecked...I have always been able to find another one that states that the minimum frame difference is so expreme so as to rule out the amd offering for gaming on that alone. I assume it is the same here. I will try to find examples.

 

Check hardware unboxed videos. Some good ryzen testing. Minimums should be equal or even better on the R7 ryzens

 

Okay, but that's running games at 1080p on a 144hz monitor, where the CPU is the bottleneck. If you're playing at a higher resolution (1440p or 4K), or if you're using a 60hz monitor, then you will be GPU bottlenecked before you hit the CPU bottleneck. When you're GPU bottlenecked, the difference between the Ryzen chips and an i7 is 5-10%. A $180 1500x runs games nearly at the level of a $350 7700k.

Also, look at the link I provided - the graphics there have arrows so you can flip between slides showing the average frame rate, and the 97th percentile frame rate.

 

A lot of these cpu's seem like downgrades to my i7 6850k and they cost more in some cases. I think intel may get trampled by AMD this year if they don't get their prices under control

 

Could this possibly only be on KLx and not SLx?

 

It seems all of them even the Extreme I9... there is YT video of him explaining it

 

This is why we can't have anything nice. LOL

Well that definitely sucks.

 

there is always x399... we did get a great thing this time around

 

Both of these could be true but I'm not sure it automatically means "buy x399".

For starters, I'm pretty sure, like 80% sure, that Intel separates it's PCI-E lanes from CPU/Chipset. The X299 chipset gets 24 PCI-E lanes via DMI 3.0. So the 10 core technically has a combined 68 lanes and the 8 core has a combined 52 lanes. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Regardless, I'll personally never use that many lanes. I will never go SLI/Xfire again unless there is some major advancement. So at most I'll have a GPU and a few PCI-E SSDs. If you're doing some massive workstation/compute system - then yeah, AMD's platform might be better.

But then we get to performance. Intel's 8 core 6900K already does a fairly good job competing with AMD's 1800x (price aside) - at 3.7Ghz max boost. The 7900K does 4.3. So right there is already 15% faster than the 6900K - but on top of that Broadwell -> Skylake comes with a 5% IPC gain, not including the cache hierarchy changes they made specifically for this chip. So on average it should be about ~20% faster in multithreaded workloads over the 6900K.

For dual/Single threaded it's even faster - clocking to 4.5 for an additional 5%, a total of 25% increase in speed over the 6900K. At least it should be - ignoring any possible Intel regressions for whatever reason.

Also what you see as a negative, the solder, I see as a positive. If Intel can get this chip reliably to 4.3 with a shoddy IHS, I should be able to delid it and hopefully get 4.5+ with all 8 cores.

Obviously either way I'm waiting for benchmarks in both cases. I just don't see it as black and white as you do.

 

Tbh who in their right mind would de-lid a 2000 dollars cpu , and no it is not a positive not in a slightest when a company does not ensure quality on a 2k cpu..