Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Hilbert Hagedoorn, Sep 26, 2017.
8900k with 8/16 would really shake things up.
If only they would slap quad channel ram on the z390 chipset for it...sweet gaming christmas.
Looool^ that would make some 7900x owners say....wth!
Sylake x was so disappointing that I wouldn't take one for free over my 6700k...it would be a slap in the face to skylake x owners if they did that but it would make me happy
That SKU will be reserved for the KLX/SLX replacement. the 8/16 on the z390 platform will likely be something like 8740k or 8770k.
That is manufacturer issue, not amds.
No one prevents them from doing gaming/ocing matx boards, especially asus and asrock.
Little wrong on the upgrade part.
If i spend 2-300$ less, i can buy the next or 2nd next amd cpu and im done.
Intels we-dont-give-a-crap-if-you-have-to-buy-a-new-board policy will almost all the time require a new board to be able to run a newer cpu.
Sure, you're running it longer, but at the end you still spend more, as even a midrange board will add more cost then keeping it for another cycle or two (and just getting a new cpu).
Main reason for me to upgrade is that my rig is +4y old, i want 6-8 cores and nvme.
Ryzen will do this cheaper and offer mire cores than intel, and since pcx bandwidth even at 8/16x is still enough for any single gpu, so i dont care if intel gets pcx 4.0 before my new build is"old".
1. What AMD CPU are you expecting that is going to be better at gaming than a 8700K that is going to cost you a couple hundred dollars? I think your argument fails in the first few words. That almost surely isn't going to happen based on the performance of Ryzen versus even the last gen 7700K in gaming. Absent a completely new architecture, Ryzen isn't going to beat the top Intel gaming CPU in most game engines for the foreseeable future (the number of game engines that make efficient use of more than even two cores are in a huge minority, this will take many years to change.. many game engines are just starting to even be able to (poorly) use 4 cores) and you a think lower-mid range Ryzen will beat it? Um, very doubtful.
2. I don't know anyone who has ever just upgraded a several year old CPU. I'm sure they exist, but they are a rare-breed. Even IF AMD actually DOES end up supporting this, and I don't believe they will over that kind of time-span, how many people are actually also not going to upgrade the mobo? For example, if I hadn't needed to upgrade between my i7 920 and my 4770K I would not have the ability to use remotely modern RAM, SATA3, USB3, m.2, etc. Who would choose to just swap a CPU? Please come back here 4 years from now and show us how you kept your several year old mobo and swapped in a new CPU. I seriously doubt that is going to happen.
I also want to add, the upgrade path is only one of several reasons I gave for why someone would pay a little bit more for the 8700K now versus getting a "good enough" Ryzen. We can agree to disagree on that point, but it isn't the only point I stated that shows it is reasonable for someone to want to buy the 8700K over a Ryzen for gaming. You have the right to argue what makes sense for your situation, I just want to present somewhat rational arguments against all of the absurd, trollish pro-AMD (or Intel/Nvidia) posts that claim their opinion and use-case is the only one that matters.
Whenever I want to talk sense to other people, this guy S V S shows up and do it perfectly.
Thank you man.
Although agree with many of his points, his condescending manner kind of spoils it. I did not see "absurd, trollish" motives behind others opinions and no one insisted their "opinions or use-case is the only one that matters".
I admit my posts may be coming off condescending but it is quite hard to respond to posts you feel have absurd claims/arguments without imparting that feeling to at least some of the audience. I am trying to be respectful and will try to do a better job of that going forward, when I choose to comment.
I have been a lurker on this site for years and I am just truly annoyed by the hyperbole, trolling, and bias that is becoming more and more common in posts here. I frequent this site because the community has been better in this regard than every other site I have frequented... but the quality of the community is degrading to the point that I thought I should start contributing. For example: statements advocating bias in what is an *obvious* bench-marking procedure (my personal pet-peeve, and fans of all persuasions are doing it!), or implying Intel or Nvidia are only in business to rip you off compared to the white knight AMD that is sacrificing corporate profits to provide you excess value should be obvious hyperbole, yet it is a frequent argument/attack/what have you on this board. Both posts I've replied to in this thread were claiming something similar to the above, and I do consider such posts trollish. Neither broad categories of claims impart anything of value and in some regards are nothing more than stark propaganda. I did not mean to imply these posts were the worst offenders on this board (there are undoubtedly worse, even in this thread), it was just the point I decided to contribute my thoughts.
PS - I like what AMD did with Ryzen and I am building a PC with a threadripper CPU (not for gaming), I just don't believe it is "obvious" that someone buying an Intel CPU is a doofus.
1. every amd rig i had got at least one cpu upgrade, and and most amd based rigs i worked on for friends/family was similar.
2. ryzen isnt slower at 1440p and higher, which is usually the res ppl that spend 4-500$ on cpu/mb.
3. nothing that runs over usb really needs more than 3.0, same for pcx which wont make a difference for years (bandwidth wise), same as ddr4, so i dont see how staying with the same board for 3-5y is an issue.
so yes, i do speak for my experience, never stated any different.
Or you could sell your uncle the CPU and motherboard together. And you buy a new cpu and a new motherboard and keep everything else.
Intel has been requiring a new MB along with the CPU upgrade for over ten years now (used to include the tick and tock, so max 2 years). You haven't been able use the same mobo on a 5 year newer CPU from Intel in at least a decade. Just consider the CPU and the mobo as one component...the whining is getting old
Just finished reading the thread..haha S V S I'm right with you man. I've been lurking on several tech sites for years and the signal to noise ratio is getting out of hand. There's so much hyperbole and 1st world problem complaining going on...it's gotta stop.
No one is forcing anyone to buy Intel, Nvidia or any other "greedy" company just "milking" their competitive advantage. If you don't like their business practices fine, don't buy it, but we don't need every single comment thread littered with the same comments over and over.
Especially those coming from i5-7600k who bought it for gaming with GTX 1080 Ti. Quad cores are still good, but they are holding many things back.
For some months Windows 10 (creator's) feels kinda sluggish on my old i5. I think MS now expects every chip to be SMT based and scheduling is not so good without it.
And I did reinstall windows twice since then. I think it is new feature now.
Wrong. There are already instances of Ryzen holding back QHD performance with powerful GPU's.
Now this is only one case but it was with a reference 1080. A 1080ti would uncover more QHD performance issues. But it's not about this gen of GPU's it's about the next. Most people get 2-3 GPU cycles out of a CPU. My 2600k is on it's 5th (6970cf, 670 sli, 780, 1070 and now 1080ti).
Once we get 1180Ti or even 1280Ti, that small difference will become much larger.
@Loophole35: What fps in that graph do you consider bottlenecking and what is no longer bottlenecking GPU for you?
And then take prices of those CPUs and say that to gain those 4 additional % of performance between bottlenecking and not is worth $xx~$xxx.
And honestly. GPU may not be bottlenecked at all in many cases shown. fps is not about GPU and CPU bottlenecking it. Actual GPU rendering time may be exactly same. CPU/memory subsystems may bottleneck some other stuff which is result of software design in the game.
Truth to be told, I do not think you consider those cheap CPUs at bottom to be used as driving force for GTX 1080. That would be insane. Almost as insane as thinking that pairing that top i7-6950x with GTX 1050 will be good for gaming. Things make sense when they are in harmony. Who would buy twice as expensive CPU for gaming if it gave 10% more fps. Or twice as expensive GPU to gain 20% more fps?
4-5% is out of the margin of error.
You missed the entire point of my post by not being able to see past your nose on this. Here I will post it for you again.
My point being the 1080 poor performance already ceeped into QHD with current hardware. What will happen with the next generation of GPU's?
That same test at 1080 for clarity. Would you sit here and tell me this is not a CPU bottleneck?
What is now GTX1080 performance will likely be mainstream performance with next gen.
I'd imagine that by then 4K would be mainstream, and enthusiasts would be pushing 8K as the new high-end. I'd also imagine that we'd have games which have a lot more eye candy than today and will push GPUs much harder (perhaps a new Crysis, which can bring a 1280 Ti down to its knees). Graphics standards are not going to stand still while GPUs become more powerful.
Yes but game engines are not going to become less demanding on CPU's. 1920x1080 will not be going anywhere fro the next 2-3 years.
8K the high end in a few years?
Not going to happen.
4k definitely isn't going to be mainstream(this means the majority has this resolution) in just a few years.
1080P is still by far the most used resolution.
1440P is a small percentage of that, 4k even less now.
Doesn't matter if games increase standards; the above CPU bottleneck will be even worse if games are still not using a lot of threads.