Dreamer_of_the_past wrote:

Not sure what are you talking about, go to any technology websites, everyone screams about the Ryzen and gives these processors 5 out of 5 stars.

That's not the point, is it?
I clearly stated:

I think a lot of people just get carried away every time AMD releases a competitive product.

I guess you really don't understand what I'm talking about. You are doing exactly what I'm talking about though... getting carried away.

AMD will glue us together to make sure we don't get carried away too far.

Luckily I got my 32GB DDR4-3200 for cheap at the start of the year so I could spring for a 1700 non-X in the case my current 4790K build goes bust.

But TBH I'll just get a replacement H81/B85 ITX board or downgrade to a $120 i5-3470 refurb. I just don't really need so many threads at the moment, AMD's DDR4-3200 compatibility is rather flaky and Intel's current lineup just sucks outside of the G4560 whose only saving grace is the iGPU which the Ryzen 3 doesn't have.

Dreamer_of_the_past wrote:

Not sure what are you talking about, go to any technology websites, everyone screams about the Ryzen and gives these processors 5 out of 5 stars. Are you one of those immature folks who say "look the i7 7700K gives +5 more FPS in games!", but who in his right mind needs those 5 more FPS in a few games when Ryzen processors wipe out the CPU in other stuff by 40%-50%? Who in his right mind would go and buy right now an Intel CPU when there are such monsters like the Ryzen 5 1600 for just $200 and the Ryzen 7 1700 for $270?

In highly threaded apps (which are mostly scientific, certain professional apps, encoding tasks), Ryzen 1700 handily beats the 7700K (I'm using these two because they're about the same price at around $300 USD). But in apps that don't scale well to threading (e.g. web browsing, most gaming, certain professional apps), the 7700K handily beats the R1700. Also in some REALLY poorly threaded games (like legacy games or GTA-V), 7700K has > 25% fps lead (depending on GPU).

I think the i5 series certainly lost any reason to exist. i7 series is still competitive in many situations (let's not forget that the 7700K can usually do near 5 GHz overclock on air), whereas even the Ryzen 1700X does not have much overclocking headroom.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/11170/the-amd-z … 00x-and-1700/17
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen … iew,5009-7.html

dexvx wrote:

I think the i5 series certainly lost any reason to exist.

At the current price-point I assume?
Because performance-wise I would think that the i5 series can cater to the lower end for a few more years. Cheap laptops/all-in-ones etc.
I'd sooner see the dual-core CPUs disappear, and the quadcores taking their place at the lower end of the spectrum.

At least AMD isn't a complete joke at the moment. It's nice to see Intel's finely tuned total dominance market segmentation being messed up a bit.

One of AMD's current problems is the lack of an IGP. That's keeping them out of a lot of machines. Hopefully they can pull together a product that can compete when a power budget is very much a concern.

Coffee Lake info leaks - a six core i5?

Things are getting interesting. 😎

Firtasik wrote:

Coffee Lake info leaks - a six core i5?

Things are getting interesting. 😎

Skylake was supposed to get six cores. Overall it's a disappointment. Same Quad core as my earliest i5-2500K and going back further Quad core consumer CPUs were around although I skipped the entire socket 775 at the time. Also the integrated GPU lacks XP/Vista Drivers and Blu-ray playback on it doesn't work. You're better getting a pure Intel CPU with no iGPU and cut the cost down. Using that money saved to get a discrete graphics card is better. Ryzen 7 1700 is really a nice welcome. It is 8 cores at 65 Watts. Imagine if it was 35 Watts Intel would be shaking in their silicon boots.

95DosBox wrote:

Skylake was supposed to get six cores. Overall it's a disappointment. Same Quad core as my earliest i5-2500K and going back further Quad core consumer CPUs were around although I skipped the entire socket 775 at the time. Also the integrated GPU lacks XP/Vista Drivers and Blu-ray playback on it doesn't work. You're better getting a pure Intel CPU with no iGPU and cut the cost down. Using that money saved to get a discrete graphics card is better. Ryzen 7 1700 is really a nice welcome. It is 8 cores at 65 Watts. Imagine if it was 35 Watts Intel would be shaking in their silicon boots.

No public roadmap had Skylake desktop getting 6 cores. You can argue that it should've been 6 cores, but that's a different argument.

Also, you seem to portray all quad core CPU's as being the same. A stock 7600K would crush a 4.5GHz O/C 2500K at 1080p gaming, not even going to mention the S775 quads.

http://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/2773-intel- … -2017?showall=1

dexvx wrote:

No public roadmap had Skylake desktop getting 6 cores. You can argue that it should've been 6 cores, but that's a different argu […]
Show full quote

95DosBox wrote:

Skylake was supposed to get six cores. Overall it's a disappointment. Same Quad core as my earliest i5-2500K and going back further Quad core consumer CPUs were around although I skipped the entire socket 775 at the time. Also the integrated GPU lacks XP/Vista Drivers and Blu-ray playback on it doesn't work. You're better getting a pure Intel CPU with no iGPU and cut the cost down. Using that money saved to get a discrete graphics card is better. Ryzen 7 1700 is really a nice welcome. It is 8 cores at 65 Watts. Imagine if it was 35 Watts Intel would be shaking in their silicon boots.

No public roadmap had Skylake desktop getting 6 cores. You can argue that it should've been 6 cores, but that's a different argument.

Also, you seem to portray all quad core CPU's as being the same. A stock 7600K would crush a 4.5GHz O/C 2500K at 1080p gaming, not even going to mention the S775 quads.

http://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/2773-intel- … -2017?showall=1

Maybe no official roadmaps stated Skylake would get 6 but it was due for a long time and certain sites speculated some Intel employee's LinkedIn profile had hints of the Skylake possibly getting six cores or at least by Cannonlake.

No not all Quad cores will be the same and that's a given but if you were to gauge how much improvement 4 generations back from Z68 to a single core Pentium 4 3.06GHz it's more a gain than the 4 generations since Z68 to Z170. Each generation does improve performance but upon each generation and I have an i7-6700K that I tested and there were a lot of hurdles getting it to run in XP. But if you look at the time from when dual cores -> quad cores vs how long it is taking consumer quads cores to finally hit six cores yet the power consumption drop hasn't changed much since Sandy and Ivy Bridge for how low it can go. The low end still hasn't dropped below 35 Watts and we should be looking at some 15 to 25 Watt Low end Desktop CPUs by now.

If you were to do a CPU comparison you would probably try to match the tick tock cycle so a i7-3770K would be a better CPU to compare to a i7-7700K. An i5-2500K would be fairer to compare to an i5-6600K.

And not everyone is focused on overclocking performance. I go the other way and underclock and undervolt it so everything runs entire passively without any fans. An 8 core from Intel about now for the Skylake Z170 would have been a perfect upgrade. But AMD's noncompetitiveness and delays allowed Intel to just string us along on quad cores for so many generations.

How about soft synth? Doesn't software synthesizer like Fluidsynth benefit greatly from multicore? If that's the case, then Ryzen would be a very interesting choice to build a sound font appliance.

I've tried to use FluidSynth's multicore option and it doesn't seem to do much other than become unstable as a result of even trying to use the option in the first place.

DracoNihil wrote:

I've tried to use FluidSynth's multicore option and it doesn't seem to do much other than become unstable as a result of even trying to use the option in the first place.

Sorry for the very late reply, I've been very busy. It's a pity, though. I thought wavetable software synthesizer should benefit greatly from multicore, since each MIDI track runs independently from each other.

So much for improved multicore support...

Well necro post...but.. I find it quite interesting how fast many of these talking points have changed since the release of Zen+ and Zen2.

Interesting in my opinion anyway.

Closed