This is so wrong on so many levels. I don't have a 2600k, so I'm not being hurt personally by your comment. But please explain to me, does a guy with a 2600k + SLI 1080ti's with a 4k monitor count as an enthusiast? Well, ofc he does. Do you think he needs to replace his CPU at this point playing at that resolution? I don't. He would be better off buying a 3rd 1080ti than "upgrading" his CPU. Being an enthusiast is one thing, spending money for no reason is another.
2nd-Gen Core i7 vs. 8th-Gen Core i7: RIP Sandy Bridge?
- Thread starter Steve
- Start date
This is so wrong on so many levels. I don't have a 2600k, so I'm not being hurt personally by your comment. But please explain to me, does a guy with a 2600k + SLI 1080ti's with a 4k monitor count as an enthusiast? Well, ofc he does. Do you think he needs to replace his CPU at this point playing at that resolution? I don't. He would be better off buying a 3rd 1080ti than "upgrading" his CPU. Being an enthusiast is one thing, spending money for no reason is another.
dirtyferret
Posts: 899 +1,274
You have issues...
delrey
Posts: 173 +49
An enthusiast doesn't have to have the latest and greatest to be an enthusiast. An enthusiast is by definition: "a person who is highly interested in a particular activity or subject". So that is all of us, no matter our budgets and what we own. If someone has a computer that is 4 to 5 years old that they took care of and performs to their needs, there is nothing wrong with it. And quite honestly, I find it rather impressive that someone with older hardware can play modern AAA games on higher settings. If I could afford to buy/build a high end computer every 2 to 3 years, I would. Since I can't, I take care of my current machine to make sure it does what I want it to and use my money elsewhere that is more important. For those of you that can get a new PC often, like you, that's awesome. But for those of us that can't, this article can be helpful.
FreeBetaTester
Posts: 66 +24
And AMD with Ryzen has only barely got to par with OC-ed Sandybridge or Haswell. What has AMD been doing all these years to have permitted Intel to get away for bloody murder? And then they have the gall to overprice Ryzen. $500 for the 1800x back in march just to get sandybridge level gaming, who would pay that kind of money, except those who want to make donations to AMD? And now coffelake has finally moved past paper launch, and you can actually get the 8600k for $230:
http://www.microcenter.com/product/486089/Core_i5-8600K_Coffee_Lake_36_GHz_LGA_1151_Boxed_Processor
What is AMD's excuse for still keeping the ryzen priced so high?
Reehahs
Posts: 1,297 +970
Ryzen's Sandybridge/Haswell performance is only in gaming, everything else is on par if not lot better then Intel 7th/8th gen processors. Coffeelake was nothing but knee-jerk reaction by Intel to Ryzen, I assure you that without AMD's Ryzen Coffeelake would have been another lacklustre barely 5% improvement over 7th gen.
If you compare Ryzen with improvement over bulldozer or what AMD had 7/8 years ago, it will be lot higher then the progress Intel has made in the same time.
That is spot on. I would rather spend the money on new GPU which definitely guarantees a huge jump with almost every generation let alone market segment than on unnecessary purchase of new MB and RAM. It makes sense to upgrade if you are doing video editing for more cores but that is about it since gaming will always be GPU limited; higher resolution and fast frame-rate monitors definitely making it so.
wiyosaya
Posts: 9,760 +9,644
This! And I'll add this - http://www.dictionary.com/browse/enthusiast
wiyosaya
Posts: 9,760 +9,644
With 40-pci-e 3.0 lanes, I have enough for 2, 16-lane cards in SLI. With this machine, I mainly run BOINC projects. I have compared my PC to others running the same project with better GPUs, but with CPUs that have narrower pci-e bandwidth, my system tends to spend about 1/4 the CPU time than those systems that have narrower physical pci-e bandwidth - this comparing a GTX 1060 to a system with fewer native CPU pci-e lanes and a GTX 1080 Ti. That comparison holds even against another GTX 1060 in a system with narrower native pci-e lanes.
Part of what is going on as I see it, whether it be on purpose by sIntel or because it is the state of the semiconductor industry at this point, is that the the performance gains between CPU generations have basically plateaued at this point, making jumps to the latest not all that cost-effective, or necessary. Personally, especially in GPUs, I am finding it more cost effective to buy used.
Not to mention that I have a life, and rebuilding an entire system that is currently working well just to eek out a few extra FPS takes a fair amount of time even if selling off the old parts can make up part of the cost. I will build another system, some day, but not yet.
wiyosaya
Posts: 9,760 +9,644
Well, I put the "blame" on the technically clueless business wonk that was running AMD before AMD rediscovered that they are a tech company and hired tech genius Lisa Su to take over the helm. IMO, firing the wonk and hiring her was a brilliant move by the AMD BoD.
cliffordcooley
Posts: 13,141 +6,441
CheekyP
Posts: 75 +55
Hmmm, seems to me the 2600K is still more than enough for gaming at this point, especially at 1440P which is more GPU bound. At 1080P it does starts bottlenecking a 1080 Ti pretty badly but thats the single most powerful GPU available right now. Steve thinks the 2600K @ 4.8GHz is good for up to a 1070 level card - I would say that even a 1080 would be OK, based on these results. Basically the 2600K would struggle with 144Hz gaming @ 1080P when paired with a 1080 Ti, but any other GPU/resolution combo seems fine to me.
It will be interesting to see some Ryzen numbers in there as well, as not everyone is looking to upgrade to a 8700K. I suspect it won't be so much 'RIP 2600K' and more 'sidegrade' if we are strictly talking gaming performance. Of course Ryzen would demolish it in productivity / content creation apps that can take advantage of the extra cores and threads, but gaming is a different ball game.
It will be interesting to see some Ryzen numbers in there as well, as not everyone is looking to upgrade to a 8700K. I suspect it won't be so much 'RIP 2600K' and more 'sidegrade' if we are strictly talking gaming performance. Of course Ryzen would demolish it in productivity / content creation apps that can take advantage of the extra cores and threads, but gaming is a different ball game.
This post is just...wrong. I would have used another word, but it would probably get deleted. The entire Ryzen 7 series is not gaming CPUs. If you want to game, you buy an R5. That's the Ryzen sweet spot for gaming. Now I agree with you, the 1800x is overpriced, but it's overpriced compared to AMD products (namely, the R7 1700) and not compared to Intel like you are implying.
A CPU's prices isn't analogous to how many fps it produces in gaming, that's completely dumb. You are basically suggesting that a 8k $ 64c xeon should cost 150$ cause it's gaming performance is on par with an i3! Also, the 16c TR 1950x should cost 190$ cause it's gaming performance is on par with the R5 1600. That's beyond ridiculous.
Now to answer your question, who would pay that kind of money, EVERYONE who wants 8c / 16t at half the price that Intel is offering!
TheBigFatClown
Posts: 1,110 +495
You say an enthusiast doesn't have to have the latest and greatest to be an enthusiast. But that's only because this article is comparing one thing. FPS in 11 different video games. That's it. This article is making you feel good by saying in so many words that you basically DO have or pretty much "already have" the latest and greatest CPU as long as your GPU is version XXX or less.
I'm sure you could find the money to upgrade to newer technology if you really wanted to. But without "feeling the need" which this article is clearly allowing you not to feel, why bother, right?
The reason I can upgrade my system every 2 to 3 years is because I sell my CPU+motherboard combos and put that money towards the newer parts. And I generally only buy the really cheap Intel Dual-Core parts with iGPU. That's why upgrading every 2 years is more attractive to me I guess. I get faster iGPU graphics and other chipset features.
So, the article wasn't written to make me feel good. That's okay though. I'm still happy with my choices. I'm not a hardcore gamer like you guys appear to be. It's about more than just fps for me.
And now, is the best time of any in the past 7 years to upgrade if you are thinking about it at all thanks to AMD. They have forced Intel CPU prices downward across the board. That's why I stated in my last post this article was fine as an FYI for a niche group.
FreeBetaTester
Posts: 66 +24
Everything that does NOT support your worship of AMD is wrong. LOL.
Want to know what is wrong, Back in May when Ryzen 5, e.g. when the 1600 became actually available it was priced at $220. See:
http://www.legitreviews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/AMD-Ryzen-5-3.jpg
And today a little over 8 months later it is at $140 see: ($30 off of $170 gets you $140)
http://www.microcenter.com/product/..._AM4_Boxed_Processor_with_Wraith_Spire_Cooler
That is roughly a 40% drop. That means people have been price gouged hard by AMD in the past 8 months, and that is absolutely wrong.
BTW any rational, sane, and reasonable consumer looking out for their own best interests should be demanding the following:
That is actually the only right thing you said. Extra cores, threads should be sold like co-processors were sold on a separate package. Forcing people to pay more for stuff they do NOT need or want to pay for, and expect them to be happy about paying full price for all that is what is really ridiculous. BTW if you recall the Athlon64, back then AMD did NOT force people to pay more for 64-bit logic (all those extra transistors/die space etc.) just to compete with intel, and it is WRONG for AMD to be price gouging in 2017.
BTW, read https://www.techspot.com/bestof/cpu/
Looks like the Ryzen 5 failed to make the cut. Any sane person should expect to see more price drops incoming.
Obvious AMD marketing drone is obvious. The marketing PR folks from these companies, Intel, AMD, nVidia, etc. needs to be banned from the forums.
BTW the R7 was released at $350 compared to current street price of $190, that was massively way too high.
wiyosaya
Posts: 9,760 +9,644
Yes, you are an enthusiast within your price range just like I am within mine; Two-core iGPU CPUs are considerably less expensive than E series parts and discrete GPUs.
With E series parts mainly for their wide memory bus and the types of workloads that bus supports, it is also not about FPS for me, either. The IB-E series part I have in the types of workloads that I run can easily feed all of the most current generation GPUs. You and I are dealing with hardware of a different class. Just as you are comfortable with your purchases, I am with mine.
At some point, I will upgrade, but hardware wise, at least for now, what I have is quite capable. I visit this site, in part, to keep up with the latest in the field, but decline to buy the latest and greatest in the class of hardware that best runs my workloads since performance improvements between most recent generations of CPUs has been negligible. When those performance improvements are to me, anyway, significant, I will assess what is available and make a decision on upgrading then. However, I refuse to buy sIntel's latest $1,800 E series CPU and all the associated hardware because it simply does not offer what is to me, anyway, a significant performance boost over what I already have, and because, at least as I see it, sIntel is milking their customers on a bragging rights part. I will not support that kind of business practice.
Last edited:
delrey
Posts: 173 +49
My point on the enthusiast is more than just what this article is saying. This article doesn't make me 'feel good' about my computer. I'm actually in the market to buy/build one. My computer is more than just FPS. It gets used for many different tasks with different users as well. However, gaming is one of the toughest tasks it takes on so it's rather important to me. You see the keyword, 'me'. Our uses are different and cause of that, our upgrade cycles (and what we upgrade with) is very different. The one major difference between you and I is what we buy on our upgrade cycle. Instead of getting the cheapest processor and having to upgrade every 2 years (probably including MB and possibly memory), I get an i7 that will last me longer than the 2 year cycle you are on. I get the highest end so the computer can last the longest performance wise. Good luck with your future upgrades.
And BTW, since you do get the 'cheapest' processors, I believe you don't understand on why us i7 users hang on to our processors so long, even though you think you do.
TheBigFatClown
Posts: 1,110 +495
Good discussion. Two different perspectives. I'm excited for my next purchase of Coffee Lake though specifically because I'll be getting a quad-core CPU at Dual-Core prices. My first Quad-Core CPU purchase was a Haswell 4590 and I did like that chips performance but I didn't like shelling out all that extra money. LoL. Thank You AMD. Merry Christmas.
Isn't it ironic. I'm thanking AMD but I'm still probably going to buy Intel because I'm a coffee addict...err...I mean drinker. Shows you how intelligent my decision making purchases are. All things being approximately equal I decide on a silly code name.
I'm not worshipping anything, try harder.
My point is simple, do you still think that you were right, and that CPU's should be priced according to the number of FPS they provide? If yes, then do you think a 64c / 128t xeon that costs upwards of 8k$ should be cheaper than a 4c/4t i3 8350k? If not, then you were actually wrong and I was actually right.
Back in May the competition to the R5 1600 was the i5 7600k, which was even pricier. Now don't even get me started about how much better the R5 1600 is, I think we agree on it. Now, let's flip the switch. How much money did an unlocked 4c / 4t Intel cost back in May and how does it cost today? Once again, you are proven wrong.
Actually, nevermind Intel. If you think that the R5 1600 was ovepriced back in May at 220$ then we don't have much to say about the issue. I feel it's so dumb I don't even want to waste time debating this. It's like arguing a guy who believes the Earth is flat. There is no point frankly.
Of course that's without even considering the fact that your figures are wrong. And they aren't wrong because of an honest mistake, they are deliberately wrong. The 140$ figure only applies with a rebate. Let me guess, no rebates back in May? June maybe? Your attempt is pathetic frankly.
But the Ryzen 1700 got the value award. That AMD price gouging, it's despicable, right? And yes, as consumers we DEMAND price drops. I ain't buying a 6c / 12t CPU's until it drops to 50$. 140$ is insane!
Actually, just answer this question otherwise we are done. Do you think the R5 1600 at 220$ was overpriced? Compared to what? What was it's competition that actually was cheaper? And since you brought reviews into this, as far as I remember the R5 lineup grabbed almost every single value award from techsites.
Obvious Intel marketing drone is obvious. The marketing PR folks from these companies, Intel, AMD, nVidia, etc. needs to be banned from the forums
See what I did there? Calling me names isn't productive, and doesn't really make you right. Arguments do. Which I'm going to completely demolish in the next paragraph
Actually, hold on. Freebetatester came in a thread about the i7 2600 and the i7 8700k to make a post about how overpriced the 1800x is because it delivers the same fps as sandybridge. And you had nothing to say about it. And you call me a drone? The irony is freaking hilarious.
What would your reply be to me if I came in this very same thread an said the xxx Xeon is overpriced because for 8k$ you get the same gaming performance as a sandybridge i3? I really wanna know.
Btw the R7 was released back in March. As far as I remember, there was no 8700k back then. 350$ back in March was actually dirt cheap, since the competing CPU for productivity was close to DOUBLE the freaking price. So, it was massively overpriced compared to WHAT? This is the same question I made to that other intel drone and I'm not expecting an answer from either of you. And no, an fps metric when we are talking about 16 threaded CPU's doesn't cut it. Of course it was overpriced for GAMING, but as I've already said, CPU's aren't priced in relation to the FPS they can deliver. And you know, Intel agrees with me, judging by the price of it's xeon lineup.
Last edited:
cliffordcooley
Posts: 13,141 +6,441
I don't think I'm the Intel Drone you were referring to, but I will admit I am an Intel Drone. And one more thing, I will remain an Intel Drone until AMD can compete core for core. I had hopes for Ryzen but that didn't pan out. That alone makes Intel the better option no matter how you look at it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-core_processor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl's_law
Reehahs
Posts: 1,297 +970
Your reference implies that the work load will remain the same which is unlikely. As with almost all things, if the capability increases the workload increases to fill it up. As GPU capability increases, the visual effects and resolutions are cranked up. As CPU capability and core count increases, the number of demanding programs and programs being ran simultaneously also increase. Life was simple in DOS days where you ran and use one program at a time. Now you probably have music player, game, torrent, antivirus, browser, Skype/Discord, twitch streaming, Steam, and aimbot running simultaneously on a bloated OS.
Latest posts
-
Gigabyte confirms "Ryzen 9000" branding for AMD's upcoming Zen 5 CPUs- antiproduct replied
-
Worry your friends with this $9,420 flamethrower robot dog- themastergoose replied
