Eh, this sort of stuff has gone on here forever. And we often complain about it, including myself. The problem is that Intel vs AMD threads don't seem to have any longevity, so the cycle repeats.Missing the good old Intel-only times, eh?
Yeah... competition can do that to you.
I'm not disputing the numbers,I'm not even disputing the result,for most people that only run mainstream games the differences will be minimal even with the biggest GPU.if you got a issue with the benchmarks, you might wanna hit up Tech Jesus about that but honestly your the first one i prob ever seen dispute posted numbers from him. He is prob one of the top if not the best hardware reviewer i seen on youtube YET.
Eh,in bulldozer times it was just as bad if not even worse.Missing the good old Intel-only times, eh?
Yeah... competition can do that to you.
Information from the video can be found in the link bellow.
Intel Core i5-10400 6 Core, $180 CPU Benchmarks Leak Out, Faster Than Its Predecessor With Slightly Higher Power Consumption & Temps
The first review of the Intel Core i5-10400 6 Core Desktop CPU has leaked out, showcasing a good performance jump over 9th Gen CPUs.wccftech.com
I know that it's a character flaw of mine to sound smug even if I don't necessarily intend to, but in this case it was intentional, I really don't know what his problem is. Almost every AMD topic was half full with the conversation about Intel's gaming performance and that too is a valid comparison, not out of place or off-topic.Eh, this sort of stuff has gone on here forever. And we often complain about it, including myself. The problem is that Intel vs AMD threads don't seem to have any longevity, so the cycle repeats.
FWIW: Bulldozer, however, was a special case, as we had a paid AMD pelting us with overly optimistic bogus claims (JFAMD). That caused a firestorm on ATF.
I would be moderately excited if I could drop in replace my sons i3 8100 with the 10400 at the new pricing. It's on par with what, the i7 8xxxx Intel chip?
Unfortunately I cannot and I am not optimistic this will really put downward pressure on the i5/i7 9xxxx series at all as we won't see any chips being flipped on the second hand market to make room for them like we would if it was a drop in situation.
I would be moderately excited if I could drop in replace my sons i3 8100 with the 10400 at the new pricing. It's on par with what, the i7 8xxxx Intel chip?
Unfortunately I cannot and I am not optimistic this will really put downward pressure on the i5/i7 9xxxx series at all as we won't see any chips being flipped on the second hand market to make room for them like we would if it was a drop in situation.
Also only focusing on games that won't show a lot of difference in the first place is confirmation bias,you are not measuring anything that could potentially show a big difference so that you won't have any big difference.
I would sell the 8100 + mobo and get a new B460 mobo + the Core i5 10400F.
It will be cheaper than to upgrade to Core i7 8700K, unless you can find a good deal on used CPUs.
Intel made twice the profits of previous years ever since AMD released ZEN,if multithreaded had any impact on the market and on intel prices it would have happened already back in bulldozer times, since in multithreaded applications they were pretty competitive.I do got a feeling there is a reason why the 10 core is priced as such, Intel knows it has stiff competition and pricing your 10 core like that better reflect its performance in stuff multi threaded. The dedicated gamers would prob grab Comet Lake 16 thread stuff if it holds up to 9900k performance. Can only hope their temps and stuff are much more manageable this time about with all the little tweaks they did to Comet.
But now, going to 12, 16, 64 cores etc - a lot of people won't see a significant improvement.
That's the problem right there on these two phrases on your post, one the 8Ghz cpu does not exist and doesn't reassemble any current market product situation, because if it did many would certainly go for that option, but the situation is with all cpus performing about the same the one with more cores win.Maybe heterogenous processors are the answer. If I could choose between a 3950X and a "3700X with extra 2 cores hitting 8 GHz", I'd certainly take the latter. Even for the same cash.
"A fool and his money are soon parted" applies to most of the people buying Intel CPUs as of late (not all). Who care how high it can boost ? It barely beats Ryzen even at a ghz advantage, and gets destroyed at multicore and takes twice the power and heat, for the same or more money.Intel made twice the profits of previous years ever since AMD released ZEN,if multithreaded had any impact on the market and on intel prices it would have happened already back in bulldozer times, since in multithreaded applications they were pretty competitive.
Intel should come up with things to stop people from buying more of their CPUs since they are over capacity, they sell everything they can produce and still can't fulfill every need.
Comet can boost higher and will do so with less effort and that's all the reason a lot of people will need to buy them.
Still see all intel sockets releases since the 1155 has one, they all kept the same features set, pcie3, sata3, usb3, ... even with the socket 1151 they supported both ddr3 and ddr4 it's not even some 'special technology advances' outside of the cpu that can force a new socket release.Intel had to go with LGA1200 if they wanted to support Comet and Rocket. I guess? That would be my thinking.
8GHz CPUs don't exist because we went the multi-core path for the time being - I said that earlier, didn't I?That's the problem right there on these two phrases on your post, one the 8Ghz cpu does not exist and doesn't reassemble any current market product situation, because if it did many would certainly go for that option, but the situation is with all cpus performing about the same the one with more cores win.
I think there's a misunderstanding.The second is even on the occurrence of you don't need more cpu cores, someone needs, and if you don't need or end up buying the wrong product like the 3900X when the 3600 would suffice, for sure in the future those extra oomph will be right there to be used, the other way around wont happen.
8 ghz cpus would not even exist in a single core. Second there are those of us that do NEED more cores (assuming that they run at a decent speed compared to the current lowered core CPU's). Servers and the DC world can use all the cores they can get.8GHz CPUs don't exist because we went the multi-core path for the time being - I said that earlier, didn't I?
But the gains from adding cores will diminish.
Going from 1 to 2 cores realistically doubled the CPU performance for almost everyone. Going from 2 to 4 was great as well. 4 to 8 - not that obvious. 8 to 16 - almost unnoticeable for most. That's what I'm taking about.
So we'll have a very large group of consumers that doesn't benefit from 16, 32, ... cores.
But staying at 8 cores doesn't mean they want to stay at 2020-ish performance. They have money, they want faster CPUs. And that will hopefully convince CPU makers to work on faster cores.
I think there's a misunderstanding.
No one needs more cores. We only need more performance.
Adding cores is an easy way to add performance, but it only benefits loads that can use more cores.
Increasing per-core performance is harder, but it benefits all loads.
AFAIK all Skylake-based platforms support both DDR3 and DDR4. It's just that DIMMs aren't compatible, so you won't see many DIY motherboards supporting both (they were more common during the transition period).Still see all intel sockets releases since the 1155 has one, they all kept the same features set, pcie3, sata3, usb3, ... even with the socket 1151 they supported both ddr3 and ddr4 it's not even some 'special technology advances' outside of the cpu that can force a new socket release.
But they are related today. You don't buy a one core 5Ghz 9900K, you buy eight of them. That's how you get more performance out of it.I think there's a misunderstanding.
No one needs more cores. We only need more performance.
Comparing an old days multitasking OS with the new ones, there's so much going on in the background that even on new or old application that don't take advantage of more cpu cores a proper multitasking OS will use them, like a proper OS memory management system will use the RAM for caching if you bought more ram than the applications running need.Adding cores is an easy way to add performance, but it only benefits loads that can use more cores.
Increasing per-core performance is harder, but it benefits all loads.
And none of those listed are reasons to require a new socket. Wifi really?But you probably forgot about integrated WiFi, Thunderbolt 3 (almost USB 4.0), AVX-512, Optane, improved IGP, 2.5Gbps LAN and going from DDR4-2133 to DDR4-2933.
I already said it twice: because silicon makes it difficult to achieve high clocks in complex CPUs.8 ghz cpus would not even exist in a single core.
Any 2 cores can be replaced by a single core with twice the performance. In any load.Second there are those of us that do NEED more cores (assuming that they run at a decent speed compared to the current lowered core CPU's). Servers and the DC world can use all the cores they can get.
Just so wrong...But you probably forgot about integrated WiFi, Thunderbolt 3 (almost USB 4.0), AVX-512, Optane, improved IGP, 2.5Gbps LAN and going from DDR4-2133 to DDR4-2933. And I'm sure I forgot about something as well.
AM4 socket has been around since 2016 - just 1 year shorter than the sequence of Skylake sockets. The leap in performance is indisputable. Feature-wise we got PCIe4.0 last year - and still the only way to utilize it is going for enthusiast-priced SSDs.
Oh absolutely. Changing sockets all the time is just a way to help partners sell new motherboards.And none of those listed are reasons to require a new socket. Wifi really?
Yes. Because the money needed to develop an 8 core CPU from existing cores is tiny compared to improving the architecture or the manufacturing process.But they are related today. You don't buy a one core 5Ghz 9900K, you buy eight of them. That's how you get more performance out of it.
Correct. I never said I miss the times of single-core CPUs.Comparing an old days multitasking OS with the new ones, there's so much going on in the background that even on new or old application that don't take advantage of more cpu cores a proper multitasking OS will use them, like a proper OS memory management system will use the RAM for caching if you bought more ram than the applications running need.
Intel made twice the profits of previous years ever since AMD released ZEN,if multithreaded had any impact on the market and on intel prices it would have happened already back in bulldozer times, since in multithreaded applications they were pretty competitive.
Comet can boost higher and will do so with less effort and that's all the reason a lot of people will need to buy them.
Still not sure on the 10 core stuff, its a hard sell for me.
Still see all intel sockets releases since the 1155 has one, they all kept the same features set, pcie3, sata3, usb3, ... even with the socket 1151 they supported both ddr3 and ddr4 it's not even some 'special technology advances' outside of the cpu that can force a new socket release.
Having ten cores is not the problem. Trying to do it on an old process is the problem. Trying to do it this late in the game is also a problem.
Nothing. You were just listing motherboard features, not socket features, that's how this all started, why so many sockets when during all this time only 2 or 3 would cover all the already 10 gens released.And what's wrong with WiFi?
I prefer all of the cores to be fast, big little makes no sense on desktop, mobile ok for running OS background stuff, and the OS must be aware of those slow cores otherwise application performance will plump with apps that try to use the slow cores instead of the fast ones.This is something heterogenous architectures are addressing (bigLITTLE and now Lakefield). But of course it only makes sense when a "faster core" exists.
Lets keep them all fast. I think nobody wants slow.And currently we don't have a "faster core" for high-end desktop CPUs.
Many potato amd A320 pci3.0 motherboards can run at pcie4.0 speed, don't tell me you prefer the intel way, pcie4.0 motherboard that only runs at pcie 3.0 speed? Just pay for it, but please don't use it.LGA1200 has to support PCIe 4.0 with Rocket Lake.