Ryzen 5 3600 annihilates the 2600 in leaked benchmarks

[DukeJukem]

Performance parity at half the price and more threads is nothing important to you but seeing 200 FPS is the most important thing in the world, no wonder why Intel has been laughing at us for over a decade.

IT WAS MY FAULT!! I'm that important!! HAHA!!
Dude...the only Intel processors I ever bought were an C2D 7300 and then an C2Q 9400 to replace it which I had for A DECADE, yeah, that decade you're talking about. And now I have...guess what...GUESS WHAT?! Yeaaah an R5 1600, because I got it dirty cheap, I was actually looking for an i5 but got this one.
Then: you are happy for performance parity...4 years too late (!!) and when Intel is about to release a new arquitecture that is even better!!

Simply brillant...
Your boogeyman Intel did what it did because it didn't have competition dude. Tell me how happy you were with your FX toaster, I assume you had that if you werent buying Intel...
And by the way, most important of all actually because it's the reason you write that terribly fallacious comment, completely misrepresenting my words: learn to read when someone is joking, did you really thought that "the most important thing in the world: games" was serious, even after I put "haha" after it...?...Damn...Must be a blast being near you...
(Hope the smileys helped you to not misunderstand my comment again. I only use them in extreme cases like this one. Oh, and sorry for english not my language...)

and that's not even the top dog processor from them and considering there's no gaming advantages with the i9s over the 8 series besides a couple of frames.....pretty sure intel is screwed for a while. good. get their non vulnerability fixing, finger pointing childlike asses the hell out of here. yesterday.

So why didnt AND shown gaming graphs vs Intel and only vs 2700x? I know why, they wont still beat Intel in games due to ccx, otherwise they would have shown it. And before yoy say pubg, that game is bottlenecked itself, thats why it was the only game they shown.

go download "project mercury" from majorgeeks and play with it if you still have your first ryzen system up and running. amd involves a little tweaking to work as intented. as for your question, probably to simply show current ryzen users they're actually getting improvements over last gen. theyve already benchmarked one of their chips vs a 9900k in an amd favored game but they were still neck and neck. personally I'm in your boat. my money goes to the fastest/best performing when it comes to gaming. anything extra "higher cores" etc doesn't mean anything to me. I want framerates and programs to open fast. I dont need 8 cores for that. at least I shouldn't. I guess all of these new kids out there who are coding software aren't very optimal.

 

[DukeJukem]

Ryzen users need to download project mercury and play with it. honestly

 

[rub900]

Intel's new 9900ks will be the gamers choice, guaranteed. AMD will only be chosen over intel by individuals who make purchasing choices largely/primarily based on price.

How can the best gaming CPU right now on the market be "outdated"? Just because it has 8 threads? I seriously don´t understand some things people say, specially lately.

Alot of CPU's are great gamers, it don't take much.
And as far as all out performance its not the best, the 9900k is better, albeit by not much, and lets exclude pricing here, the obvious detractor.

The i7 9700k clocks easily at 5ghz .

I'd hope so, its only an 8 core chip without HT....or in other words, it's an i5.
Not saying its not impressive, but 8/16's will become the new high end norm.

No 9900k is not better. Super high price. Not better. Security flaws. Not better. Bad really bad support. Nope not better.
Thanks for playing.

 

[rub900]

Performance parity at half the price and more threads is nothing important to you but seeing 200 FPS is the most important thing in the world, no wonder why Intel has been laughing at us for over a decade.

IT WAS MY FAULT!! I'm that important!! HAHA!!
Dude...the only Intel processors I ever bought were an C2D 7300 and then an C2Q 9400 to replace it which I had for A DECADE, yeah, that decade you're talking about. And now I have...guess what...GUESS WHAT?! Yeaaah an R5 1600, because I got it dirty cheap, I was actually looking for an i5 but got this one.
Then: you are happy for performance parity...4 years too late (!!) and when Intel is about to release a new arquitecture that is even better!!

Simply brillant...
Your boogeyman Intel did what it did because it didn't have competition dude. Tell me how happy you were with your FX toaster, I assume you had that if you werent buying Intel...
And by the way, most important of all actually because it's the reason you write that terribly fallacious comment, completely misrepresenting my words: learn to read when someone is joking, did you really thought that "the most important thing in the world: games" was serious, even after I put "haha" after it...?...Damn...Must be a blast being near you...
(Hope the smileys helped you to not misunderstand my comment again. I only use them in extreme cases like this one. Oh, and sorry for english not my language...)

and that's not even the top dog processor from them and considering there's no gaming advantages with the i9s over the 8 series besides a couple of frames.....pretty sure intel is screwed for a while. good. get their non vulnerability fixing, finger pointing childlike asses the hell out of here. yesterday.

So why didnt AND shown gaming graphs vs Intel and only vs 2700x? I know why, they wont still beat Intel in games due to ccx, otherwise they would have shown it. And before yoy say pubg, that game is bottlenecked itself, thats why it was the only game they shown.

go download "project mercury" from majorgeeks and play with it if you still have your first ryzen system up and running. amd involves a little tweaking to work as intented. as for your question, probably to simply show current ryzen users they're actually getting improvements over last gen. theyve already benchmarked one of their chips vs a 9900k in an amd favored game but they were still neck and neck. personally I'm in your boat. my money goes to the fastest/best performing when it comes to gaming. anything extra "higher cores" etc doesn't mean anything to me. I want framerates and programs to open fast. I dont need 8 cores for that. at least I shouldn't. I guess all of these new kids out there who are coding software aren't very optimal.

I need several programs open at the same time. So yes cores and threads matter. If they don't for you go buy a 4790k. Super fast and small core / thread count.

 

[rub900]

Intel's new 9900ks will be the gamers choice, guaranteed. AMD will only be chosen over intel by individuals who make purchasing choices largely/primarily based on price.

Nuff said... And if we are still on the "AMD offers better price vs performance" nothing changed then, it was already like that. While Intel still delivers more raw performance. The "are you rich?" is not an argument. Some people have a job and wants to spend on hardware and have the best, instead of spending on cigarettes or alcohol, for example. Saving extra 150€-200€ to have the best doesnt seem that hard. Like I said thats not an argument.

Plus, AMD confirmed the 8 core CPUs will have 2 CCX of 4 cores, so good luck with latencies in games. And this is why AMD only shown gaming graphs compared to 2700x

Every thing you are saying is BS. Great go buy Intel. Get married have little intel chips but for God sake quit saying they are the best. They have more security holes than Russian software. They cheated and should be sued out existence. Google and Microsoft has been saving their *** with software updates. Intel sucks. Period.

 

[treetops]

I wonder if games will start really using 8 cores anytime soon.

 

[treetops]

So why didnt AND shown gaming graphs vs Intel and only vs 2700x? I know why, they wont still beat Intel in games due to ccx, otherwise they would have shown it. And before yoy say pubg, that game is bottlenecked itself, thats why it was the only game they shown.

Where are intels graphs showing performance vs AMD? Anyways maybe you should watch the computex video and it will show you performance vs intel....And then you can avoid buying the wrong cpu again.

How about a video of your battlefield v gaming so everyone can see the bottlenecks? Or a screen shot.

p.s. if that 2600x was 10% slower then a 9900k you still wouldn't have 144 fps

 

[UAAGE]

I have to say, I'm extremely happy I went with the 9700k, complete slayer when it comes to games and easy overclock to.5,2 ghz. I get that people are are excited about amd, I'am too, but Im not touching it for 144hz gaming.

 

[treetops]

I have to say, I'm extremely happy I went with the 9700k, complete slayer when it comes to games and easy overclock to.5,2 ghz. I get that people are are excited about amd, I'am too, but Im not touching it for 144hz gaming.

Wow 5.2 ghz can you shoot us a CPU-Z screen shot with temp? I thought you bought a 2600x?

 

[OptimumSlinky]

Maybe next time you also read that steady locked fps are a must for good aim. I dont wanr my fps to be all over the place as that changes mouse sens. Also even with freesync I easily notice drops from 138 to 90. And it isnt gpu bottleneck, it is cpu.

The only game that I'm aware of that has a proven connection between FPS and aiming performance is CS:GO, mostly because the Source Engine is ancient now. In any Frostbite game after BF4, it shouldn't be an issue unless something else is going wrong.

 

[slamscaper]

The 9700K is already outdated.
An 8/8 in 2019? I don't care how good it games, thats an i5 with an i7 nameplate.

I guess my actual i5 4690k 4c/4t is looking pretty weak about now

Not as weak as you'd think... Haswell is the absolute lowest I would recommend anyone going with Intel if they were building a system with used parts on the cheap, but that doesn't mean it still doesn't compete. It does. I have an i7 4790K 4c/8t CPU that definitely isn't "blown away" by my newer 8700K at the same clocks. I find the biggest advantage comes from the extra cores. You have to realize you're on a website here with people that are hadcoded to believe that the latest and greatest are the only parts that really matter.

In the world of CPU's that hasn't been true in quite a long time. It's been incremental upgrades for a long time on both sides, but Ryzen at least brought AMD up to Intel's performance level when it was released. Intel's trouble with Meltdown and Spectre has been an issue I admit, but not one that's really effecting end-users so much. It's more the servers being effected and even at that, it's disk I/0 that's the only real performance issue, which they can keep tweaking and tweaking to get it better.

If more people switch to AMD (Intel still massively dominates the market), you will see more security issues with AMD. I'm sure there are some holes in their architecture too, but the researchers are focusing on Intel since they are in so many machines.

Lastly, quad cores are by far still the most popular CPU's being used by gamers using Steam, per the April 2019 Steam hardware survey. Check it out and you'll be quite surprised to see that most PC gamers are not spending loads of cash on the newest hardware. Most of them are getting by with what they can and are being practical.

 

[amstech]

No 9900k is not better. Super high price. .

You might as well just said what your were going to say without quoting my comment, as you didn't acknowledge any of it.

I have an i7 4790K 4c/8t CPU that definitely isn't "blown away" by my newer 8700K at the same clocks. I find the biggest advantage comes from the extra cores. You have to realize you're on a website here with people that are hadcoded to believe that the latest and greatest are the only parts that really matter. .

I agree 100%.

 

[Ravalo]

This actually means they are slower than non HT Intel with cripled cache in single core whlist having higher clock /AMD/ and having significant perfomance hit due to the new design introducing higher I/O latencies when running multicore tasks. Ryzen 1xxx,2xxx were doing better in multicore, this one is actually worse and underperfoming.

Hype is over. Amd is still bad.

Hey intel fanboy, 199$ price tag here, did you know the ryzen 5 3600 is almost the same as an intel core i7 8700 but it has a nice stock cooler and you can moderately overclock with it?

 

[captaincranky]

Aaah, well, thank you!
But I already not liking this at all with the terrible and sensless fanboysm (to be fair, is everywhere since 2017...), douchebary with all the fallacies, and as if it wasn't enough, Techspot take their side: somebody here said that "what I think doesn't matter", and then he proceeded to vomit what he thinks while making assumptions, connect unrelated events, expose his own bias, ignore reports...and Techspot deleted my response to him for "ad-hominem", that it didn't even had!!! Apparently sarcasm-parody is now "ad-hominem"...clown world indeed...
Oh and his arrogant, conteptuous, bullshit ridden comment is still there...

Well, in spite of the old adage about "never give advice, fools won't heed it, and wise men don't need it", I'm still going to "attempt to assist you".

First, your stream of consciousness, somewhat disjointed writing style isn't as effective at getting a point across as a more prosaic technique would be. You're discussing issues with some very intelligent people, who haven't dialed back their responses to text message abbr. "You" is still "you", not "U".

Second, you obviously have a "fanboy" streak in you, it's just that it's for Intel. Otherwise the null outcome of your efforts wouldn't upset you so much.

Third, be aware that this site is anti Apple, anti Intel, and largely politically liberal.

Forth, and most importantly, don't call names. That's the quickest way to get a post yanked.

I've had dozens, if not hundreds of post pulled throughout my tenure here. I punt, analyze my mistake or transgression, then find a more appropriate, by the rules way, to get my point across.

Fifth, why get butt hurt when you get an answer you should already be anticipating? You either have a literate response, or you don't. Even very intelligent minds have topics about which they cannot be reasoned with or changed. Walk away, or don't get involved with the topic in the first place.

Some opinions can't be changed, and you might look inward to find a little bit of that tendency exists in you.

If you'll take note, I didn't join this thread to debate Intel vs. AMD, nor am I doing it now.

 

[Adi6293]

Yes the 3900x. it was a typo! I read Robert saying it will be 8 core CCX + 4 core CCX (with 4 defective cores disabled). If it is 6 ccx + 6 ccx I lose interest immediatly lol. CCX latencies are impossible to completly avoid. As certain as we never being able to travel at the speed of light. Is basically science and maths.

Well we just need to wait for reviews and see if its improved or not, AMD says that the whole io die its customized for desktop and the infinity fabric was improved plus that massive 70MB of cache will help, I wouldn't loose interest just yet

 

[Cooe14]

Intel's new 9900ks will be the gamers choice, guaranteed. AMD will only be chosen over intel by individuals who make purchasing choices largely/primarily based on price.

Nuff said... And if we are still on the "AMD offers better price vs performance" nothing changed then, it was already like that. While Intel still delivers more raw performance. The "are you rich?" is not an argument. Some people have a job and wants to spend on hardware and have the best, instead of spending on cigarettes or alcohol, for example. Saving extra 150€-200€ to have the best doesnt seem that hard. Like I said thats not an argument.

Plus, AMD confirmed the 8 core CPUs will have 2 CCX of 4 cores, so good luck with latencies in games. And this is why AMD only shown gaming graphs compared to 2700x

This is absolutely nonsense. AMD has literally doubled the Infinity Fabric's bandwidth per MHz for IF 2nd Gen, AND the IMC has been completely redone for Zen 2 allowing memory speeds in excess of 4400MHz+ (important bc the IF runs at the same clock-speed as ones memory [the actual clock-speed before DDR doubling, so 1/2 of what's listed. Aka, 4000MHz RAM = 2000MHz IMC/IF]). Just between those two things alone, the Infinity Fabric connecting the CCX's (and CCD's [compute dies] in Ryzen 9's) should be running well over 4x faster than on 1st/2nd Gen Ryzen. And that's before even CONSIDERING the doubled L3 cache size.

And the reason they compared it to the 2700X is to show the Gen over Gen gaming improvements as that was prior Ryzen Gen's biggest weakness, but it isn't hard to use that info for an Intel comparison. Simply take the 2700X's fps #'s for those games at 1080p w/ a RTX 2080 (the setup AMD used) and then increase them by the given %'s & then compare those #'s to Intel's. Wanna guess what you'll find out? That exactly as was shown in AMD's head-to-head PUBG demo, the $400 R7 3800X (and thus $330 R7 3700X w/ a slight OC) matches the $500 i9-9900K in game performance. You can expect each chip to have their own fair-share of gaming victories, but considering the i9's up to $170 higher price point (>$200 if you include cooler cost) vs an R7, Intel's options just don't make much, if any sense. Even for exclusively gaming focused builds.

The $200 Ryzen 5 3600 in particular instantly invalidates Intel's entire lineup from the $350-400 i7-8700K on down. The only way to get equal or better gaming performance from team blue instantly becomes a $400ish i7-9700K (aka, double what the 3600 costs & w/o an inc. cooler) or higher (aka, $500 i9-9900K or the likely $600ish i9-9900KS). And this is before even mentioning the fact that the $200 R5 3600's multi-threaded performance is right in the R7 2700X's/i7-9700K's wheelhouse (aka, chips costing around 2x as much).

 

[144hzGamer]

This is absolutely nonsense. AMD has literally doubled the Infinity Fabric's bandwidth per MHz for IF 2nd Gen, AND the IMC has been completely redone for Zen 2 allowing memory speeds in excess of 4400MHz+ (important bc the IF runs at the same clock-speed as ones memory [the actual clock-speed before DDR doubling, so 1/2 of what's listed. Aka, 4000MHz RAM = 2000MHz IMC/IF]). Just between those two things alone, the Infinity Fabric connecting the CCX's (and CCD's [compute dies] in Ryzen 9's) should be running well over 4x faster than on 1st/2nd Gen Ryzen. And that's before even CONSIDERING the doubled L3 cache size.

And the reason they compared it to the 2700X is to show the Gen over Gen gaming improvements as that was prior Ryzen Gen's biggest weakness, but it isn't hard to use that info for an Intel comparison. Simply take the 2700X's fps #'s for those games at 1080p w/ a RTX 2080 (the setup AMD used) and then increase them by the given %'s & then compare those #'s to Intel's. Wanna guess what you'll find out? That exactly as was shown in AMD's head-to-head PUBG demo, the $400 R7 3800X (and thus $330 R7 3700X w/ a slight OC) matches the $500 i9-9900K in game performance. You can expect each chip to have their own fair-share of gaming victories, but considering the i9's up to $170 higher price point (>$200 if you include cooler cost) vs an R7, Intel's options just don't make much, if any sense. Even for exclusively gaming focused builds.

The $200 Ryzen 5 3600 in particular instantly invalidates Intel's entire lineup from the $350-400 i7-8700K on down. The only way to get equal or better gaming performance from team blue instantly becomes a $400ish i7-9700K (aka, double what the 3600 costs & w/o an inc. cooler) or higher (aka, $500 i9-9900K or the likely $600ish i9-9900KS). And this is before even mentioning the fact that the $200 R5 3600's multi-threaded performance is right in the R7 2700X's/i7-9700K's wheelhouse (aka, chips costing around 2x as much).

CCX = latencies = lower 1% lows. Nothing to do about it, is like having 2 different CPUs communicating. Lets see on the 7th July. And calm down with the exageration, i9 9900kf was released today in my country for 480€ and it does 5ghz all cores with overclock, doesnt need to cost 600. i7 9700k costs 380€.

You have no warranties that 3600 will overclock as high as the others, you have no benchs or reviews. Lets wait for 7th July.

Plus, pubg is a bottlenecked test like steve from GN said. They cherry picked for a reason. See you in 7th July

 

[LogiGaming]

This is absolutely nonsense. AMD has literally doubled the Infinity Fabric's bandwidth per MHz for IF 2nd Gen, AND the IMC has been completely redone for Zen 2 allowing memory speeds in excess of 4400MHz+ (important bc the IF runs at the same clock-speed as ones memory [the actual clock-speed before DDR doubling, so 1/2 of what's listed. Aka, 4000MHz RAM = 2000MHz IMC/IF]). Just between those two things alone, the Infinity Fabric connecting the CCX's (and CCD's [compute dies] in Ryzen 9's) should be running well over 4x faster than on 1st/2nd Gen Ryzen. And that's before even CONSIDERING the doubled L3 cache size.

And the reason they compared it to the 2700X is to show the Gen over Gen gaming improvements as that was prior Ryzen Gen's biggest weakness, but it isn't hard to use that info for an Intel comparison. Simply take the 2700X's fps #'s for those games at 1080p w/ a RTX 2080 (the setup AMD used) and then increase them by the given %'s & then compare those #'s to Intel's. Wanna guess what you'll find out? That exactly as was shown in AMD's head-to-head PUBG demo, the $400 R7 3800X (and thus $330 R7 3700X w/ a slight OC) matches the $500 i9-9900K in game performance. You can expect each chip to have their own fair-share of gaming victories, but considering the i9's up to $170 higher price point (>$200 if you include cooler cost) vs an R7, Intel's options just don't make much, if any sense. Even for exclusively gaming focused builds.

The $200 Ryzen 5 3600 in particular instantly invalidates Intel's entire lineup from the $350-400 i7-8700K on down. The only way to get equal or better gaming performance from team blue instantly becomes a $400ish i7-9700K (aka, double what the 3600 costs & w/o an inc. cooler) or higher (aka, $500 i9-9900K or the likely $600ish i9-9900KS). And this is before even mentioning the fact that the $200 R5 3600's multi-threaded performance is right in the R7 2700X's/i7-9700K's wheelhouse (aka, chips costing around 2x as much).

No, what you said is the absolute non sense here. I should reccomend you to read about CPU design and to learn what CCX is. You are talking about bandwidths and hypotetical mem speeds (no one assured RAMs will work at 4400mhz fully stable with Zen2, that makes no sense), without understanding that as much bandwidth and speed as you have, you will NEVER get ried of CCX latencies, on some applications, mostly games and Handbrake.

Plus, unless a game is coded with Ryzen in mind, simple fact of having CCX lowers performance. When you run a game on a 8 core /16 thread 2x CCX 4 core CPU, game will first try to use the 8 threads on one CCX, and only when needed it will try to attempt the second CCX. What happens here is that by using the first CCX it will use both physical and logical cores, instead of using all physical cores avaibale on the CPU ( on this case, 8 physical cores). Because games prioritize the threads on one CCX first. This alone hinders performance and coupled with bad latencies on Zen+. is the main reason why AMD was so much behind Intel on a lot of games when a GPU bottleneck was not occuring.

Zen2 doesn´t change anything design wise, it just increased speed and reduced latencies but you will suffer from the drawbacks of a CCX design. This is science and maths, and no amount of bandwidth you can throw at it will make it any better. The only way to fully avoid this, is to code games taking into account 2 CCX so the game can jump from one to the other and use physical cores only, instead of going to logical ones first, and then to the second CCX. And you will still lag behind a unified chip like 9700k or 9900k with 8 cores. Another option is AMD beating Intel IPC by a big margin (20% at least) and then yes, the CCX latency will be hidden by the largely superior IPC, wich is not the case with Zen2, wich supossely has same IPC as Intel.

So if Zen2 can´t reach 5ghz like Intel, I can bet my money right now that on non GPU bottleneck scenarios, 9700k and 9900k @5ghz will still have the edge in games compared to Ryzen 3000 series. That comparasion you talked about (Pubg) is a "garbo" benchmark, because it is bottlenecked by nature. There´s a reason AMD shown that one, instead of showing the others on League of Legends, Dota, Apex, etc versus Intel. They know they still can´t do it, altho they will close the gap massively.

 

[trparky]

Unfortunately, all processors will be designed in a CCX-like manner from now on simply because it's just too expensive to add more cores past a certain amount due to manufacturing complexities that come up when manufacturing complex devices.

There's a reason why binning happens, not all cores are made the same even on the same slab of silicon. For each processor core you add to the die you increase complexities. And not only that but add you go past ten cores the ring bus architecture that Intel uses starts falling apart hence the reason why the X-series of chips use a mesh architecture to connect cores together which oh yes, the X-series experience the same similar latencies that Ryzen experiences.

Of course, you can get around these issues with the OS kernel acting as the processor core assignment cop in which any threads that a particular process has is assigned to the same CCX or (as in the case of the X-series of Intel chips) are assigned to cores that are closer together inside the die to eliminate the latencies of going across the mesh interconnect.

 

[144hzGamer]

Unfortunately, all processors will be designed in a CCX-like manner from now on simply because it's just too expensive to add more cores past a certain amount due to manufacturing complexities that come up when manufacturing complex devices.

There's a reason why binning happens, not all cores are made the same even on the same slab of silicon. For each processor core you add to the die you increase complexities. And not only that but add you go past ten cores the ring bus architecture that Intel uses starts falling apart hence the reason why the X-series of chips use a mesh architecture to connect cores together which oh yes, the X-series experience the same similar latencies that Ryzen experiences.

Of course, you can get around these issues with the OS kernel acting as the processor core assignment cop in which any threads that a particular process has is assigned to the same CCX or (as in the case of the X-series of Intel chips) are assigned to cores that are closer together inside the die to eliminate the latencies of going across the mesh interconnect.

CCX is the future yes, but not on 8 core chipas, no need for that, intel simply uses defective chips for their lower end 6 core and 4 core parts. For 12 core or 16 core chips and above defo, 8 core CCX are the way to go. But that wont affect performance as much as you have 8 cores in one CCX to deal with first.

 

[trparky]

But how long is Intel going to be able to sell the defective core chips as low-end chips? I don't think they have very long since with the way things are going (soon) six-core processors are going to be the bare minimum. In other words, a Core i3 is going to be a six-core processor.

 

[Markoni35]

I would only buy a 7-core intel CPU, or a 9-core AMD.
Don't want to be the same as everyone else.

 

[Fergutor]

Well, in spite of the old adage about "never give advice, fools won't heed it, and wise men don't need it", I'm still going to "attempt to assist you".

First, your stream of consciousness, somewhat disjointed writing style isn't as effective at getting a point across as a more prosaic technique would be. You're discussing issues with some very intelligent people, who haven't dialed back their responses to text message abbr. "You" is still "you", not "U".

Second, you obviously have a "fanboy" streak in you, it's just that it's for Intel. Otherwise the null outcome of your efforts wouldn't upset you so much.

Third, be aware that this site is anti Apple, anti Intel, and largely politically liberal.

Forth, and most importantly, don't call names. That's the quickest way to get a post yanked.

I've had dozens, if not hundreds of post pulled throughout my tenure here. I punt, analyze my mistake or transgression, then find a more appropriate, by the rules way, to get my point across.

Fifth, why get butt hurt when you get an answer you should already be anticipating? You either have a literate response, or you don't. Even very intelligent minds have topics about which they cannot be reasoned with or changed. Walk away, or don't get involved with the topic in the first place.

Some opinions can't be changed, and you might look inward to find a little bit of that tendency exists in you.

If you'll take note, I didn't join this thread to debate Intel vs. AMD, nor am I doing it now.

Eehh, no I don't have bias on this, really: I only care about products, not brands (and I already said I have a R5 1600 when I actually wanted an old i5, and I'm quite hapy with it). And I don't really see how you could come up with bias on my part, less when you say "...null outcome of your efforts wouldn't upset you so much..." as an evidence of bias (!!!!) when what obvioulsy "upsets" me is, precisely, this bias on part of the moderator to let some people attack with a great number of fallacies and not tolerate any sarcasm or parody in response...and furthermore, calling it "ad-hominem remarks"...and censor it. It's laughable, and of course unjust. Nor how you could in any way think as evidence or indication of bias or response to an argument, as there wasn't any...just censorship because an alleged "ad-hominem"...if I could re-read my censored responses then I could check to be totally sure there wasn't any...probably I say that x thing is "stupid"...wonder if this will cause another censorship haha, wouldn't surprise me...in fact the comment you are responding to has been deleted too, also for "ad-homiem remarks"!! Haha!!
I hope you are not implying that for you "censorship is an argument" (or even a response), and applying is somehow a "win"...but you said here people is "largely politically liberal"...so then if true, that is more than probable...I still hope is not the case. (Even if that's the less liberal thing one can think of but, that's how things are nowadays, sadly...)

But thanks for the advices anyway...even if there's a lot to read between the lines...

 

[LogiGaming]

But how long is Intel going to be able to sell the defective core chips as low-end chips? I don't think they have very long since with the way things are going (soon) six-core processors are going to be the bare minimum. In other words, a Core i3 is going to be a six-core processor.

I don´t agree. Law of diminishing returns here. Dual cores are used for 15 years now and still on a lot of systems. Plenty for basic tasks. We recently made the jump to quad cores as the basic mainstream option (most mainstream laptops) and I think it will be a long time before we need 6 core as a bare minimum. Even upcoming Intel laptop offers (10nm) are 4c/8t chips, because that´s plenty, not 6 cores.

Core counts will only go up to certain value. On HEDT for really serious productivity work/servers, yes, the more the better, but it was always the case, 16 core CPUs are not new. For mainstream I doubt we will need more than 8 cores, max 12, for at least a decade. We will not see 32 core CPUs coming to mainstream as bare minimum anytime soon, and the future CPU releases (2021, 2022, 2023) will not focus on having more and more cores. It will be about IPC improvements, DDR 5, Pcie gen4, lower power consumption.

If you try to use a "simple" i5 8400 you will see that it struggles to reach 25%/30% usage on anything that isn´t game related or intensive productivity task. Even with 5 twitch streams open at 1080p 60fps, 5 youtube tabs, instagram, facebook, microsoft word, etc. Is just overkill. We use it because we are enthusiasts or gamers or content creators. Quad Core and 6 core CPUs will stay for a long long time. The next big evolutions will be litology + power consumption wich will make everything smaller. Thinner laptops with still great performance. Smaller laptops that can fit on your pocket and you can open them to a regular size. Mini Itx PCs more and more popular with small GPUs, small motherboards. Tbh in 10 years I suspect most PC users will have a PC on the go that they connect to their monitor or Home TV at home, and bring it with them outside where they want.

 

[Adi6293]

I don´t agree. Law of diminishing returns here. Dual cores are used for 15 years now and still on a lot of systems. Plenty for basic tasks. We recently made the jump to quad cores as the basic mainstream option (most mainstream laptops) and I think it will be a long time before we need 6 core as a bare minimum. Even upcoming Intel laptop offers (10nm) are 4c/8t chips, because that´s plenty, not 6 cores.

Core counts will only go up to certain value. On HEDT for really serious productivity work/servers, yes, the more the better, but it was always the case, 16 core CPUs are not new. For mainstream I doubt we will need more than 8 cores, max 12, for at least a decade. We will not see 32 core CPUs coming to mainstream as bare minimum anytime soon, and the future CPU releases (2021, 2022, 2023) will not focus on having more and more cores. It will be about IPC improvements, DDR 5, Pcie gen4, lower power consumption.

If you try to use a "simple" i5 8400 you will see that it struggles to reach 25%/30% usage on anything that isn´t game related or intensive productivity task. Even with 5 twitch streams open at 1080p 60fps, 5 youtube tabs, instagram, facebook, microsoft word, etc. Is just overkill. We use it because we are enthusiasts or gamers or content creators. Quad Core and 6 core CPUs will stay for a long long time. The next big evolutions will be litology + power consumption wich will make everything smaller. Thinner laptops with still great performance. Smaller laptops that can fit on your pocket and you can open them to a regular size. Mini Itx PCs more and more popular with small GPUs, small motherboards. Tbh in 10 years I suspect most PC users will have a PC on the go that they connect to their monitor or Home TV at home, and bring it with them outside where they want.

You can't compare what we have right now to what what happening the last 10 years, AMD now competes so if Intel doesn't make its i3 6 Core AMD will make its R3 6 cores plus if you look at that 8400 it does get 100% utilization in good few games already and after Next Gen drops that CPU will start to struggle