Ok, it is a week later. Daily fluctuations seem to vanish and the graph continues showing a lost of marketshare for AMD
Q3 2017 22.30%
Q4 2017 21.90% (Today)
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/market_share.html
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Intel's 8th Generation Core Family - Coffee Lake (LGA 1151, 6C/12T)
- Thread starter -Sweeper_
- Start date
-
- Tags
- coffee lake intel skylake-x
Ok, it is a week later. Daily fluctuations seem to vanish and the graph continues showing a lost of marketshare for AMD
Q3 2017 22.30%
Q4 2017 21.90% (Today)
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/market_share.html
OrangeKhrush
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2016
- Messages
- 1,673
First off I don't believe actual market gain is near 10% or even 5%, the findings however are quite laughable to base as fact.
First off they tell you that the graph is based on in use rather than actual sales, therein lies the problem, to ascertain AMD's market gain you need AMD and Intel sold units to compare and that information is only available on quarterly updates.
Secondly it states that the states are comprised of daily run performance tests in the application, now every new release will have a boom in testing, many will run the benchmark suites resulting in increase in numbers, again this is not sales but tests run. Ryzen in 6-7 months old, intel just released skylake x and coffee lake resulting in more performance test runs.
Whomever believes stocks are indicative of corporate value, or believes in graphs based on statistics run by an in house bench are really just silly.
AMD's real market share gain may be more like 2%
First off they tell you that the graph is based on in use rather than actual sales, therein lies the problem, to ascertain AMD's market gain you need AMD and Intel sold units to compare and that information is only available on quarterly updates.
Secondly it states that the states are comprised of daily run performance tests in the application, now every new release will have a boom in testing, many will run the benchmark suites resulting in increase in numbers, again this is not sales but tests run. Ryzen in 6-7 months old, intel just released skylake x and coffee lake resulting in more performance test runs.
Whomever believes stocks are indicative of corporate value, or believes in graphs based on statistics run by an in house bench are really just silly.
AMD's real market share gain may be more like 2%
It is pretty accurate as far as direction goes, because is shows sentiment, and sentiment leads... So the decline in amd marketshare should not be dismissed out of hand. However, given that Intel had a paper launch, we might not see those numbers reflected in actual market share until Intel starts shipping larger quantities.
OrangeKhrush
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2016
- Messages
- 1,673
They have already stated in the subsection that it reflects use not sales, since the catch hype now is Intel new CPU's the usage has escalated, the only way you will know actual sales is off quarterly sheets. This is like steam hardware, it doesn't reflect the total user base as I have blocked the census survey on my steam account, this is a very common trend from many higher end steam users that I know since it involves steam looking into sensitive information that is on a need to know basis.
When I used sysmark I also prevented them from publishing my details.
This is just a graph by submission report, almost no relevance on any fiscal report.
Like I said above, it indicates sentiment. Sentiment leads... Where it is headed is important...
Hagrid
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2006
- Messages
- 9,163
Would be nice to have some top end CPU's to put in them?
Naming scheme is pretty close to AMD's.
Intel had B250 and natural progression of their naming originally had B350, then AMD stole that name, nice that Intel did this to A. One up AMD B. Cause less confusion on the market.
Though I don't understand why'd you put top end chips like the 8600K/8700k I recommend locked only SKUs for these boards as you cannot overclock on them
Hagrid
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2006
- Messages
- 9,163
I was just having some at Intel's expense.
Naming doesn't matter since they have the socket type on it.
I was just having some at Intel's expense.
Naming doesn't matter since they have the socket type on it.
You give Consumers too much credit.
OrangeKhrush
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2016
- Messages
- 1,673
The bigger issue is artificial Results with MCE, it just is corporate touting which is a statutory offense in every country with anti competitive legislation and consumer protection. Basically overclock and call it stock.
MCE is used by intel to artificially show performance gains per gen and control them, pretty sleezy on all ethical grounds
MCE is used by intel to artificially show performance gains per gen and control them, pretty sleezy on all ethical grounds
IdiotInCharge
NVIDIA SHILL
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2003
- Messages
- 14,675
If it's stock, it ain't overclocked, and if it's stable, who's complaining?
- Joined
- May 18, 1997
- Messages
- 55,601
Overclocking the Intel 8600K - Delidded on Air and Water
We've gotten to spend some quality time with our Intel Core i5-8600K Coffee Lake CPU, and of course we have spent our time finding out just how far we could push the processor's clock under both Air Cooling and Water Cooling. We relid and delid as well. The results look to be very promising for the overclocking enthusiast and gamer.
We've gotten to spend some quality time with our Intel Core i5-8600K Coffee Lake CPU, and of course we have spent our time finding out just how far we could push the processor's clock under both Air Cooling and Water Cooling. We relid and delid as well. The results look to be very promising for the overclocking enthusiast and gamer.
So, it is all fine when AMD reviews used XFR and 140W coolers in the reviews, despite this is a kind of automatic overclock. It is all fine when AMD reviews use overclocked RAM (which automatically overclocks the chip via Infinity Fabric). It is also fine when reviews test AMD chips overclocked but label them as stock in graphs.
But if Intel reviews use MCE then it is all unfair and unethical. LOL
I got pretty obsessed with building this PC last night after all the remaining parts came in. Whew! First time for me, it was a learning curve! I got everything working though, after hours on end of trial and error, and managed to even get my Intel 8th Gen i3-8350k overclocked to ~5ghz (actually 4.96ghz showing in task manager.)
I have a very good air cooler but I didn't do any stress tests yet, only some music making to see what the sonic results were. At one point the CPU hit 85~90C, but other than that when it was overclocked just running my music software I was hovering around 55C! That's pretty cool, but I will still need to delid I think if I want to run it at a 5ghz overclock and game on it.
I also don't really know what I'm doing yet... I just used Asus' EZ OC to try a 5ghz OC and it was stable for my music making session.
I was also able to get my G.Skill RAM to overclock to 3200mhz. I just used XMP in the BIOS and it automatically overclocked the RAM to its rated max.
The final result is that my goal for this build has been acheived even with this "low-end" 8th Gen Intel chip: My music software now runs at the lowest possible latency of 64 samples i/o buffer and I have smooth sound with no crackling or popping! I am so excited about this, I've been loathing using my 2010 Mac for production work.
Now on to the fun part. Game time!
Can't wait for 8700k to be *actually* released now, lol. Need the increased core count and multithreading...
I have a very good air cooler but I didn't do any stress tests yet, only some music making to see what the sonic results were. At one point the CPU hit 85~90C, but other than that when it was overclocked just running my music software I was hovering around 55C! That's pretty cool, but I will still need to delid I think if I want to run it at a 5ghz overclock and game on it.
I also don't really know what I'm doing yet... I just used Asus' EZ OC to try a 5ghz OC and it was stable for my music making session.
I was also able to get my G.Skill RAM to overclock to 3200mhz. I just used XMP in the BIOS and it automatically overclocked the RAM to its rated max.
The final result is that my goal for this build has been acheived even with this "low-end" 8th Gen Intel chip: My music software now runs at the lowest possible latency of 64 samples i/o buffer and I have smooth sound with no crackling or popping! I am so excited about this, I've been loathing using my 2010 Mac for production work.
Now on to the fun part. Game time!
Can't wait for 8700k to be *actually* released now, lol. Need the increased core count and multithreading...
Attachments
Smart of Intel if they push these up. I believe the original timeline was 2 quarters after z370. That would have been BS considering the non k chips were launched with z370.
The 8400/8700 will be amazing values with the b360.
OrangeKhrush
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2016
- Messages
- 1,673
Wrong XFR is extended boost available to 3-4 SKUs and AMD made it well clear how it operates.
MCE is a permanent 4.7ghz oc across all cores, the 8700k all core is 4.3 circumstantial depending on xyz factors it is best case. The extreme splits between no MCE and MCE was like 1300-1550, massive boosted scores. Also XFR doesn't operate on CB15 MT tests the 1700-1800X all run 3.5-3.6ghz all cores lastly all XFR runs were marked XFR enabled. So yes MCE is a overclock and it runs outside intels spec listed turbo states, it is motherboard vendor controlled and intel tried to cover its boost policy in a shady way
Then guru3D posted about intel refusing to disclose turbos, then backtracking to say they will only disclose baseclock and single core in the future.
All reviews as steve burke stated need to be re tested with MCE off as this feature is only given to higher end Z370 boards not all Z370's have it and further chipsets to come do not feature this option B and H boards are usually locked and OC limits are extremely low. I am clearly not the only one that called this a spade, a gimmick to artificially push the 8700k above the 7700k.
legcramp
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2004
- Messages
- 12,401
IdiotInCharge
NVIDIA SHILL
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2003
- Messages
- 14,675
So you're complaining because the AMD pair has the special boost on the nicer CPUs, and the Intel pair has the special boost on the nicer motherboards, so the Intel boost is 'unfair'?
OrangeKhrush
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2016
- Messages
- 1,673
As
All core listed at 4.3, tests show mce running all core at 4.7, that is not stock spec this accounts for the massive gaps between the lowest score reviewed and the highest of like 30% splits.
The fact there are such splits and each board is not equal means that MCE is really a overclock.
Most reviewers caught wind of it and rebenched with mce off as consumer interest is the issue here, some people are going to get nowhere near the purported scores especially the budget boards that don't get the feature.
The long and short is that it is misleading with the intention of doing such
Below it isn't stock,. Its Motherboard vendor controlled as to whether mce is on or off, some don't even have mce so no it is not stock
All core listed at 4.3, tests show mce running all core at 4.7, that is not stock spec this accounts for the massive gaps between the lowest score reviewed and the highest of like 30% splits.
The fact there are such splits and each board is not equal means that MCE is really a overclock.
Most reviewers caught wind of it and rebenched with mce off as consumer interest is the issue here, some people are going to get nowhere near the purported scores especially the budget boards that don't get the feature.
The long and short is that it is misleading with the intention of doing such
IdiotInCharge
NVIDIA SHILL
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2003
- Messages
- 14,675
More performance is misleading?
It'd only be misleading if the reviewers review specific boards with it on, and do not disclose. Intel disclosed the speeds.
[and it'd still be stock for the boards themselves]
The reviews came out with wildly different scores. I don't think you're going to be able to run an i7 8700K with an Intel stock cooler from a previous 1151 build you have lying around. MCE is an overclock, obviously, and an number of reviews came out showing off the performance of the 8700K with it enabled. So people looking to buy one expecting that performance with boards that don't support it aren't going to get it. Some people who have boards that support it aren't going to have a beefy enough cooler to use it. And it's not stable on 100% of the CPUs on boards that do support it that don't run into thermal constraints.
Where I think OrangeKrush is mistaken is placing the blame at Intel's feet. I guess they could force motherboard manufacturers to have MCE disabled by default (and probably should; XMP is disabled by default pretty much across the board), but the motherboard manufacturer that uses the term "MCE" has a history going back to the Pentium III and Athlon era of the 100 Mhz bus clock consistently running a few percent faster than it should making their motherboards perform slightly better in motherboard roundups if I'm not mistaken. And don't get me wrong, I like their stuff, but it's not clear from the warning when you hit "Yes" to enable MCE (after having turned it off) what exactly it's doing. You see "Auto" and no details as to what it's doing.
TahoeDust
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2011
- Messages
- 502
Intel does not have anything to do with MCE. Actually, I'm pretty sure "MCE" is an Asus term. Other board manufacturers offer a simular option but with a different name. Some manufacturers enable it automatically. Some manufacturers don't write it into some of their bios at all. It is not some evil plot by intel. It is just inconsistencies of a common feature between board manufacturers and bios.
IdiotInCharge
NVIDIA SHILL
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2003
- Messages
- 14,675
Just going to stop you right there- why would you ever run a new enthusiast CPU with an old stock cooler? If you have a stock cooler, it means that you're coming from a non-enthusiast part, and now you're upgrading.
Ignore cooling at your own peril.
MCE or its equivalent being enabled by default is definitely not a good thing. Heck it's even unstable on some ASUS boards. However Intel is NOT giving any detailed specs (as explained by hardware.fr, it's worth google translating this if you don't speak French) so the blame is partly theirs too. I mean just look at this : https://ark.intel.com/products/126684/Intel-Core-i7-8700K-Processor-12M-Cache-up-to-4_70-GHz
No details at all regarding cache clock speed, turbo clocks, voltage etc (they only mention the max turbo frequency for a single core).
OrangeKhrush
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2016
- Messages
- 1,673
I have someone I know well who works inside X motherboard vendor and their sister company, Intel and AMD have regular input with Motherboard vendors to get the best out of both. The shady part is where Intel stated they will from hence forth not disclose turbos, back tracked then said they will only state what base frequency and max single turbo will be going forward, why do that are they starting to hide boosted clocks in benches, because we already knew the 8700K had a max all core of 4.3Ghz.
OrangeKhrush
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2016
- Messages
- 1,673
There is a reason the 8700K isn't spec'd with a reference cooler, it simply cannot operate with it, I know my 4790K on a stock fan hits thermal lock up half way through a cinebench run. conversely they did to Ryzen 7 1700 reviews with the stock fan because they needed to see the performance of it, and it hits 3.9ghz comfortable on the stock fan, the issue here is not thermal performance, it is misleading the consumers with boosted results.
IdiotInCharge
NVIDIA SHILL
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2003
- Messages
- 14,675
Why is it 'shady'? You do realize that moving away from hard boost clock brackets is a product of more fine-grained CPU response to load and operating temperature, correct?
Like how RX Vega runs at whatever clocks in a range based on load and temp? Phones do the same? Intel's mobile CPUs do the same?
Intel appears to just be avoiding the marketing BS that goes along with stating actual frequencies given the variance that they're building in, which makes a lot of sense.
IdiotInCharge
NVIDIA SHILL
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2003
- Messages
- 14,675
\
K CPUs haven't come with an HSF for quite some time. Intel expects them to be run above base speeds, that's why you bought the one with the K!
OrangeKhrush
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2016
- Messages
- 1,673
https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/3077-explaining-coffee-lake-turbo-8700k-8600k
Steve Burkes day after review on MCE effect and the conclusion is the relevent part here:
Conclusion
Speaking with vendors, the question for the audience is this: Knowing the above, do you think multi-core enhancement should be enabled or disabled by default?
We think it should be disabled, as anything else becomes a motherboard test, not a CPU test. It is no longer the Intel or AMD spec, and so isn’t a proper benchmark. This stance is further reinforced by the fact that stability becomes suspect with multi-core enhancement enabled (see: crashing on ASUS Z370 board in Blender). Defaulting an unstable setting to “on” is only going to cause issues for the less savvy audience. Not many people are going to suspect an option entitled “auto multi-core enhancement: Auto” is going to be causing their instability issues. Ultimately, a 9% improvement for a 40% power consumption increase is plainly not worth it for a “stock” configuration. It’d look better in scoring, if targeting users who don’t test power, but that’s about it.
And, of course, it’s better to be off from a benchmarking and reviews standpoint, but board vendors don’t make their boards for reviewers.
That is where it comes to the fall, when you cease to bench spec results you are posting an overclocked state. XFR is accepted because XFR is a CPU feature not a motherboard feature, AMD doesn't have MCE options either so I think this is a lot of BS going on, all of it was very avoidable.
Steve Burkes day after review on MCE effect and the conclusion is the relevent part here:
Conclusion
Speaking with vendors, the question for the audience is this: Knowing the above, do you think multi-core enhancement should be enabled or disabled by default?
We think it should be disabled, as anything else becomes a motherboard test, not a CPU test. It is no longer the Intel or AMD spec, and so isn’t a proper benchmark. This stance is further reinforced by the fact that stability becomes suspect with multi-core enhancement enabled (see: crashing on ASUS Z370 board in Blender). Defaulting an unstable setting to “on” is only going to cause issues for the less savvy audience. Not many people are going to suspect an option entitled “auto multi-core enhancement: Auto” is going to be causing their instability issues. Ultimately, a 9% improvement for a 40% power consumption increase is plainly not worth it for a “stock” configuration. It’d look better in scoring, if targeting users who don’t test power, but that’s about it.
And, of course, it’s better to be off from a benchmarking and reviews standpoint, but board vendors don’t make their boards for reviewers.
That is where it comes to the fall, when you cease to bench spec results you are posting an overclocked state. XFR is accepted because XFR is a CPU feature not a motherboard feature, AMD doesn't have MCE options either so I think this is a lot of BS going on, all of it was very avoidable.
OrangeKhrush
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2016
- Messages
- 1,673
thermal dissipation is not the issue here, so talking about coolers is moot.
IdiotInCharge
NVIDIA SHILL
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2003
- Messages
- 14,675
It absolutely is. We're talking enthusiast parts.
OrangeKhrush
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2016
- Messages
- 1,673
The fact that you vociferously defend this makes me wonder if it is just because you are a blue boy or whether you actually think about the effect this has for people that happen to not have MCE boards ie: H and B spec boards later, also there is a great big world beyond the 8700K or even the K series, what if the 8400 actually doesn't hit 3.8ghz because intel stated in their ARK turbo boost 2.0 pagest that 3.8ghz is best case but not guaranteed, what if no MCE sees these parts run all cores around 3.3ghz to fit the 65w TPD it's touted at, we know Intel uses best silicon for the 8700K and as you move down the quality gets worse. So posting 8400 results with MCE on and on a 7K motherboard (my country) is just misleading the consumer.
cribbing results is not a society accepted moral practice, it is contra bona mores akin to touting which is an anti competitive practice. I don't give a crap about red or blue, I care for the person that buys expecting X and gets Y because they are none the wiser.
IdiotInCharge
NVIDIA SHILL
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2003
- Messages
- 14,675
Who am I defending? I'm countering your points, sure. But really: this is a motherboard option for enthusiast parts. Context is key.
OrangeKhrush
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2016
- Messages
- 1,673
Again maybe Steve Burke can talk this into you:
Speaking with vendors, the question for the audience is this: Knowing the above, do you think multi-core enhancement should be enabled or disabled by default?
We think it should be disabled, as anything else becomes a motherboard test, not a CPU test. It is no longer the Intel or AMD spec, and so isn’t a proper benchmark. This stance is further reinforced by the fact that stability becomes suspect with multi-core enhancement enabled (see: crashing on ASUS Z370 board in Blender).
The very words of Steve Burke Editoral Chief GamersNexus
IdiotInCharge
NVIDIA SHILL
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2003
- Messages
- 14,675
You going to fly a reviewer to your house to play with BIOS settings, or are you going to figure it out yourself?
Do you leave all of the defaults on when you assemble an enthusiast build?
Do you leave all of the defaults on when you assemble an enthusiast build?
OrangeKhrush
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2016
- Messages
- 1,673
so BMW must hot up a M3 to track spec, flaunt performance sell stock spec to public with 100HP differential and claim it is out the box? would that not be touting, misrepresentation of fact.
IdiotInCharge
NVIDIA SHILL
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2003
- Messages
- 14,675
I have no idea what you're talking about here. Your complaint is for some boards being shipped with MCE (or equivalent) defaulting to enabled with enthusiast parts, and your best support so far has been a reviewer that got caught not checking that option for his review.
OrangeKhrush
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2016
- Messages
- 1,673
Dear lord,
Okay certain reviewers produce results that are 20-40% higher than the mean because of the MCE active, they then claim it as stock performance, the rest of the reviewers have it disabled or no feature at all and give a representation of the product out the box ie: like it should be. The consumer buys the product with the intention of getting the formers results but gets the laters, this is already a misrepresentation, one that gives rise to a cause of action where party a puffs or touts x performance but it doesn't happen. The loser is the person that shelled out x dollars or currency to buy it, now stop being dense, you owe nothing to intel and they certainly don't give a crap about you