Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Hilbert Hagedoorn, Sep 12, 2018.
1 other thing. Bizgram prices are rather competitive i.e. it may cost plenty more to buy elsewhere
Well considering that all 1st world countries are suffering from inflation in the last 20 years, yes... it is normal. also the leap in CPU core counts/performance has been realllllyyyyyyyyyy good in the last 2 years thanks to ryzen/amd.
well, from 14nm to 12nm was a big leap in stability and from 3.9ghz boost speeds to 4.35ghz boost speed? we are talking about 200 to 300mhz boost...
Ok lets take taht into account the diff was 2nm in die architecture ... next will be 6nm diff they will pack more transistors for sure dont think they will just go for more core count... even TR went up in core clocks.
And gamers are still a little portion of the CPU segment. Not to speak of high refresh gamers within gamers. Most of the players take a balanced setup, meaning maybe <1% of the gamers use a 1080 or 1080Ti on FHD.
Well, i'll just share my exp with ryzen owing two diff setups, with the 1700x i could hit 4ghz max on all cores, where on the 2700x i can hit 4.25ghz stable rreally havent bothered that much with 4.3ghz tried once booted ran Cine15 thats 2nd time crash thats it 4.25 then just started using PE4 or PE3 on my CH hero 7, were i can easily hit 4.375 all cores and 4.45 on single core apps no problem some times even more. the diff from Zen to Zen+ 14nm/12nm in many ways are just better... the leap from 12nm to 7nm it is alot, lets just see what happens. But i can ensure you that you will get higher clocks and not by 100mhz or 200mhz. There is no point in having a CPU with 12 or 16 cores for main stream just now.
If I could get that i5-9600K @ 5.5GHz for less than $300 in Sweden (not going to happen with +25% vat) that would be a good deal and well suited for 144hz gaming.
It's not, but better than initial 700 or what was it.
Thread is full of Intel fanboys.
We will need reviews to see how it compares to Ryzen+.
I'm sure Intel will have an edge on gaming, but how about price/performance?
R7 2700X can be bought here for around 320€, how much difference will it be compared to the more expensive i7 9700K? Not even considering the +100 USD for the i9 9900K, that's absurd just for enabled HP when you have it on the Ryzen.
uh wat ?
most HEDT user i believe picked 7820x or better cpu
price-wise compared to 9900k it $100 difference, but as it already released 2years ago
dont think there strong reasonfor x299 owner to upgrade to z390 ... for gaming the new i9 9900k probably perform slight better, but if me, no reason to upgrade, so skip z390 and wait for x399
first and foremost, that I-9 9900k @ $666 (Bang Your Heads! LOL) is the cpu that should be $489.
the I-9 nomenclature is a bad gimmick, as they've stripped HT from the I-7 and raised the price for the effort.
There Is No Reason Other Than Arbitrary Greed and me-too-ism for the entire 9th gen Intel line up.
with that said, the I-9 is sexy...just like the high-end call girls in the movies, excepting it's the john who gets raped with Intel. and do not get me started on chipsets...especially now Intel is farming them out to increase supply of the cpus (fact).
for an enthusiast, the I-9 just replaces the low end of the (old x99) HEDT range, at the same price point.
really this screws with X299 more than AMD as only professional e-sports "needs" the throughput of the I-9/ I-7.
regular consumers will just be over paying for gimped cpus.
more importantly, content creators have a slam-dunk with the Threadripper 2950x or 2920x at the same range with forward compatible TR4's...and regular folks can spend less than an I-5 for overclocking, HT, and "moar" cores.
Looks like intel is going to pull an nvidia one... Like instead of selling the 2080Ti at/near previous 1080Ti launch price levels they were like: "No, we will offer the 2080 at 1080Ti launch price since it performs(if leaks/rumors true) and we will market the 2080Ti as the new Titan instead to skyrocket the price!" How stupid they think we are? Well, easy to guess how much they think going by the RTX prices.
Now intel follows similar suit. Well, if every new release that possibly brings a performance increase over a previous product had been priced accordingly to previous product launch/retail/current price, we would have mainstream cpu/gpu's in the 4-5 digits. Obviously it an exaggeration and doesn't work like that but you guys get the point.
A 2700X goes for ~€320. No matter how good the 9900K is, a €150-170(again if leaks/rumors true) mark up over the 2700X is unacceptable imo. But hey, what do I know. I'm just a consumer.
I guess that's what happens when you sell(too expensively) the 7820X for ~€500-550 and are "forced" to release a mainstream 8-core alongside it. You get yourself caught in that situation.
Check your eyes. Check your dates. Check your conditions...
Then think about Zen vs Zen+ and HPET ON/OFF benchmarking.
I can already tell you that: You are spreading BS. There is no business model which would make AMD release 16C/32T for desktops. Users have no use for it. Doubles expense.
What Zen2 has is simple. 8~15% improved IPC, 5~10% increased clock. That's 13,4~26,5% higher performance than Zen+. Those numbers are what AMD promised and they stated that Zen2 overachieved its target.
It still remains to be seen, but 7nm EPYC will speak.
And there is simple reason why intel wants to be quickly 1st to market. I am sure even you can think that reason yourself.
He said the same for 8086 i7 praising it to sky and beyond, now he started with 9700 and what not.
//don't feed the troll xD
I'm pretty sure AMD will kick Intel in the teeth when these puppies release. AMD are gonna rub salt in that wound and lower their 2600 and 2700 prices even more.
I have it on good authority that this will 100% happen and etailers have already been prepped on this.
True 479$ is good for 9900k now only 2080ti for 800$ and 4K 144hz display for 600$ and its time to get new desktop
Indeed. It's like "Intel is only marginally screwing us over on price. This is very good!" XD
Can't tell if you're joking or just plain dumb.
Hyperthreading does the complete opposite of what you said lol. It makes games run faster and smoother, not by a huge amount but it does.
To anyone passing through these comments, please don't listen to this guy. Hyperthreading has been around for years, and never once have I seen someone complain about it.
Just search the internet for if hyperthreading reduces performance and you'll get your answer.
This is the first time I've made an account for the sole purpose of replying to crap like that. What an idiot..
Hah, I'm part of a 1%. Take that 99%'ers!!!
You must not have a lot of computer experience.
HT did hurt some applications/games somewhat when said application did not know how to deal with SMT.
This was commonplace years ago.
Today, yes, it usually does not hurt performance or help, but some games do like SMT like battlefield series
Well when you consider GPU's are going for € 1400 a piece now... Kinda :x
Anyways I'm eyeballing this CPU, better IPC then what I have, ability to finetune AVX workloads in the BIOS (similar to Skylake I presume, this is actually holding my OC back on my 5820K, I can get it stable over 4.5 Ghz, but the second I hit an AVX workload the temps sky rocket) and the promise of solder instead of garbage TIM.
It's not like I'm going to upgrade my GPU any time soon, I have a decent amount of money, but € 1400 for having a half decent upgrade, NVIDIA can go screw itself.
It used to hurt, similar to some power saving features of Windows. But nowadays it seems most developers managed to alleviate most of these issues and sometimes even harness the extra performance of SMT.