First AMD Ryzen 7 1700X Benchmarks Are Here

[zerogg]

I am hopeful that the 1800x overclocks and benches well. A couple of things I don't like though is lack of a x299 class chipset and cpu option like the hedt intel chips with more lanes and more ram. But 64gig with x370 will probably be fine, maybe something like that will be available for zen+.

 

[Tsumi]

amd haven't been competetive since bulldozer, phenom II X6 was marvelous budget chips, nothing intel had at the time could match performance\price on the market, sure intel could sell for less but they've never been required to.
But things have kinda taken off since skylake, reduction in die size and no change in price other than adjusting it for inflation so the dollar sign is higher.
Usually we'd see a lower price on new nodes for same specs after a few months..

This is why I soooo want competition, I want nvidia AMD and intel, cause back in the days life was good - development was fast and price was fair for what you got.
Now you have an overpriced gtx1080, overpriced intel 4 core chips and people spend 33% more than what prices would be with competition

AMD has not been competitive with Intel's enthusiast offerings since the original Phenom. Having bargain chips is not being competitive, especially when the top chip is only equivalent to the competition's bottom HEDT chip. The Phenom II x6 1090t was launched with an MSRP of $300, putting it squarely in x58 territory as far as CPU pricing is concerned. The only advantage it had was that it had cheaper motherboards and worked in older motherboards... which have a tendency to burn up the moment any overclock is attempted. Awesome budget chip was highly debatable until the MSRP dropped to $200 and new motherboards came out that didn't burn up when overclocked. At that point Sandy Bridge was just around the corner.

Okay apparently you are my mentioned stereotypical anti-enthusiast.
For starters a 4 core anything is hardly any higher level of "system responsiveness" then any modern higher core. What are you running when a modern 4 core is "more responsive" then a 6-8-10 core? Your having a fucking laugh are you?
As far as your "Unless you are encoding, rendering, or doing....." comment goes, that is what defines an "enthusiast chip". If you want to say a gaming chip, then say so. That is a limited audience who usually buy consoles because they know the game > greater then the system.
Ryzen will be very competitive in gaming. Don't get any fantasies it will not. But it will also be very competitive with Intel's workstation class many cores.
At a enthusiast price!

Rendering and encoding is not what makes an enthusiast. An enthusiast is someone that enjoys the subject matter. In this case, it's computer hardware. "Enthusiast hardware" is something that has been warped by companies to try and convince people to spend more money to be "true enthusiasts," which isn't true in the slightest. Anyone can be an enthusiast with any hardware, all that is required is a love of learning learning about hardware and willingness to tinker with that hardware.

The true divisions in the market are budget, mainstream, HEDT, workstation, and server.

Saying Ryzen would be competitive would be extremely speculative and immature at this point in time. Competitive for me would mean Ryzen is able to achieve at least 90% per core performance when comparing max overclocks to max overclocks. There are a number of highly popular games that are still single core performance bound (Starcraft 2 I'm looking at you).

 

[funkydmunky]

"Saying Ryzen would be competitive would be extremely speculative and immature at this point in time."
And then you go extremely speculative and immature at this point in time. Wow dude! WHF! Hehe....LOL!

"Competitive for me would mean Ryzen is able to achieve at least 90% per core performance when comparing max overclocks to max overclocks. There are a number of highly popular games that are still single core performance bound (Starcraft 2 I'm looking at you).

Thanks for

I don't have a quad core. I'll happily take more cores, as long as it doesn't mean sacrificing max single core performance at max overclock on water.

Yee, WIN! Thanx bro! Welcome to the 0.001 %.
If you want to join the prestigious Enthusiast club, you need an invite a friend with an i7 who will admit a 4 core is "more responsive" then an i7. Or shudder, hehe, an 8 core!
Wow! LMAO!!!!!!!
Glad to have met you.\

 

[Tsumi]

Thanks for


Yee, WIN! Thanx bro! Welcome to the 0.001 %.
If you want to join the prestigious Enthusiast club, you need an invite a friend with an i7 who will admit a 4 core is "more responsive" then an i7. Or shudder, hehe, an 8 core!
Wow! LMAO!!!!!!!
Glad to have met you.\

Blocked for blatant immaturity and reading comprehension issues.

 

[os2wiz]

Well NDA isn't uncommon for this kind of stuff. What i question is why we still don't have firm release dates yet, just "early march" isn't exactly what i call informing...

It is almost definitely March 2nd. Is that not early enough in March for you?

 

[evilpaul]

I realize it's like turning off Hyper-Threading on an i7, so nobody would actually do it, but how do X99 setups perform with only two memory channels populated (assuming they boot)? Ryzen only has dual channel DDR4 right?

 

[IdiotInCharge]

I realize it's like turning off Hyper-Threading on an i7, so nobody would actually do it, but how do X99 setups perform with only two memory channels populated (assuming they boot)? Ryzen only has dual channel DDR4 right?

Don't think of it in terms of 'memory channels', think in terms of total bandwidth and latency, and how those directly relate to various workloads. For games, for example, there basically isn't a difference between two and four channels, assuming you keep latency and bandwidth constant for the sake of the comparison; given that you can likely improve on latency in dual channel setup, with the same processor, you might improve gaming performance with dual-channel over quad-channel (though only likely by measurable amounts, not likely at a level you'd notice in gameplay).

Switch to an HPC workload, one that actually pushes the bandwidth limits of an X99 setup, and then yeah, you might very well notice a difference (or be able to measure one).

The reality is, for most of what we (enthusiasts) do, it's not going to make a difference, and it's certainly not one we can control for (don't have a quad-channel AMD part to compare, etc.).

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

I realize it's like turning off Hyper-Threading on an i7, so nobody would actually do it, but how do X99 setups perform with only two memory channels populated (assuming they boot)? Ryzen only has dual channel DDR4 right?

For typical applications there is very little performance impact.

 

[Frank Burns]

There was a rumor that the motherboard manufacturers wanted more time to perfect the XFR function. Who knows?

What about the rumors about problems with the integrated usb 3.1 controller?

 

[Maxiom]

Here are some other benchmarks (the Ryzen CPU has the same scores as the Videocardz benchmarks):
https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/summit-ridge-zen-benchmarks.2482739/page-200

Apparently, the AnandTech benchmark screenshots don't display the actual speeds of the Intel CPUs.

6900k is at 4.2GHz
5820k is at 4.8GHz
5960X is at 4.7GHz
7700K is at 5.0Ghz
Ryzen is at 3.4GHz (no turbo)

The Ryzen system is also using DDR4 2400 RAM.

Now, this is ridiculous. Especially if "no turbo" frequency is true (which I doubt)...

 

[Shintai]

Remember its very tiny code and the benchmarks runs in seconds. The INT and FP numbers are highly inflated on Ryzen due to 512KB L2 cache instead of 256KB. And most benchmarks dont use L3.

Example:

This is due to code being able to sit in L2 only.

 

[Saki630]

I'm still on an i7930 lets get this shit to market so I can jump to AMD 8core, then go to the new LGA2066 in the fall! come on!

 

[BitMaster]

I really wish AMD can deliver this time but I highly doubt it.

From my pov IPC is most important, I dont care if 4, 6, 8 or 24 cores, I play games that dont support multiple cores apart from their DX11 leg using 2 cores for the GPU feeding. So yes, an 8-core chip that
outperforms and 6900k is nice but how much can it push in IPC ( i run a 7700k up to 5.1 GHz, scoring above 3000 points in Passmark v9 IPC test.

USB..ASMedia....what about that USB problem ? No new words on this ?

PCI Express lanes ?? Heck, cant be true what I read above about PCIe lanes. LoL


I highly doubt it but wish so hard AMD will succeed. We all need it, if we love AMD and would buy one or not.

 

[ManofGod]

Well, looks like what I buy will depend largely on the cost itself then. Not really sure I can afford a $500+ processor but, I would keep it for a long time so, we will see. Although we have not received a confirmed release date, I am hoping that March 2nd rumor will be correct.

 

[Semantics]

It is almost definitely March 2nd. Is that not early enough in March for you?

I just wonder why they just don't tell the exact date instead of just saying "early march" that kind of date would be fine if it was a couple months away but not next month.

 

[dethklokworkorange]

As far as your "Unless you are encoding, rendering, or doing....." comment goes, that is what defines an "enthusiast chip"....
But it will also be very competitive with Intel's workstation class many cores.

If you want to call it a workstation chip, go ahead. That sounds like what you're describing, if you want to split hairs, gaming enthusiast and workstation enthusiast. Everyone remembers when the two inevitable questions about a new cpu were, "how well does it overclock?" and "does it run crysis?" I realize single threaded performance isn't the only thing worth considering anymore, but neither is "moar coars!!"

 

[Jim Kim]

Honestly, I couldn't give a rats ass about Intel and their many core chips any more than I do AMD's, and I don't even game that much anymore. For overall system responsiveness I'd take 4 fast cores over 6, 8, 10 or even 16 slower ones.

There are tasks that excel on many core chips, but these are in the minority.

Personally I'll be measuring AMD's Ryzen by the max single core performance I can get out of it, with blatant disregard for it's many core performance statistics compared to Intels many core solutions.

When you strap a water cooler to it, and hit the max overclock, it better keep up with or beat my 5+ year old i7-3930k at its max watercooled clock of 4.8Ghz, or there will be no sale.

Unless you are encoding, rendering or doing certain scientific calculations, many slower cores will NEVER make up for fewer faster ones, once you pass a certain threshold core count, which is usually approximately 4.

QFT

 

[Deathroned]

Kyle has been blackballed. Guess you'll have to wait for retail (unless that has changed over the past few years...)

to be fair Kyle dug his own grave.

 

[thesmokingman]

I realize it's like turning off Hyper-Threading on an i7, so nobody would actually do it, but how do X99 setups perform with only two memory channels populated (assuming they boot)? Ryzen only has dual channel DDR4 right?

I've only tested in x79 and in benching it didn't make a difference except that it sometimes allowed for a higher overclock because of the lower load on the IMC. That higher overclock translated to higher bench scores.

 

[Jim Kim]

to be fair Kyle dug his own grave.

To be fair we await your sources with the utmost of anticipation.

Please do tell us what Kyle did to dig his own grave.

Because in the real world when you use honest benchmarks with factual statements it's considered reporting, not grave digging.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

Kyle has been blackballed. Guess you'll have to wait for retail (unless that has changed over the past few years...)

Honestly, Kyle - when he has been cut off - has often been able to acquire his review samples before retail launch. Not sure how he does it, but he does.

Ohhhhh. Now I see why he's such an Intel fanboi. Answers everything.

to be fair Kyle dug his own grave.

For the record, Kyle has been cut off from Intel as well. They weren't exactly thrilled about his review of the i7-3960x 5 years ago.

These companies expect the PC Hardware press to just take their "media kit" and copy and paste their bullshit marketing statements on to their site. They expect hardware review sites to just be a free extension of their marketing departments. If you play free press, and try to honestly report your impressions to your readers, it's only a matter of time until you get cut off. It might work for a while when things are going well for the company, and they agree with your findings, but its only a matter of time.

Most hardware review sites and youtubers out there are scared shitless of not being sampled, so they cave, they tell their readers what their hardware manufacturer overlords tell them to, whether they agree with it or not, turning this all into a sham.

This is the reason I have been a loyal reader of this site for 20 years. Say what you will about Kyle's presentation, but he sugarcoats nothing, he takes his responsibility to his readers seriously, and refuses to be a corrupt lackey of the hardware manufacturers like so many others.

There used to be a number of good sites that acted like this, but over the decades they have been dropping like flies, either shutting down, or selling themselves to corporate overlords (or being hired by one of the companies they report on. No conflict of interest there at all, right?)

Now, I know, I know. I'm now posting news on the HardOCP front page so I'm biased. Sure, that's probably inevitable. That's how bias works. For what it's worth though, I've posted this very post, in many different versions over the years (not copied and pasted, but independently typed) way before Kyle approached me to assist with the news.

But yeah, full disclosure. I couldn't be happier about assisting and supporting a respected site and a community I've been a part of for 20 years.

I can't think of any other sites reviews that I trust more than the H.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

Remember its very tiny code and the benchmarks runs in seconds. The INT and FP numbers are highly inflated on Ryzen due to 512KB L2 cache instead of 256KB. And most benchmarks dont use L3.

Example:
View attachment 16791

This is due to code being able to sit in L2 only.

Yeah, the one benchmark that I will overwhelmingly be looking for is single threaded Cinebench. I have found this to be the best predictor of overall CPU performance over the years.

Hopefully this data will be available at max overclock on water. If not, I'll look around for max clocks on water, and interpolate the figures up from stock clocks. This will be more difficult than in the past though, as with XFR it will be much more difficult to know exactly what clock the core is running at in any given benchmark.

Hopefully reviewers will monitor and post this, or my good old linear interpolation of data method will quickly become useless.

 

[hardboner]

but what's the single thread performance?

these cpumark composites don't mean much

 

[5icko]

Honestly, Kyle - when he has been cut off - has often been able to acquire his review samples before retail launch. Not sure how he does it, but he does.






For the record, Kyle has been cut off from Intel as well. They weren't exactly thrilled about his review of the i7-3960x 5 years ago.

These companies expect the PC Hardware press to just take their "media kit" and copy and paste their bullshit marketing statements on to their site. They expect hardware review sites to just be a free extension of their marketing departments. If you play free press, and try to honestly report your impressions to your readers, it's only a matter of time until you get cut off. It might work for a while when things are going well for the company, and they agree with your findings, but its only a matter of time.

Most hardware review sites and youtubers out there are scared shitless of not being sampled, so they cave, they tell their readers what their hardware manufacturer overlords tell them to, whether they agree with it or not, turning this all into a sham.

This is the reason I have been a loyal reader of this site for 20 years. Say what you will about Kyle's presentation, but he sugarcoats nothing, he takes his responsibility to his readers seriously, and refuses to be a corrupt lackey of the hardware manufacturers like so many others.

There used to be a number of good sites that acted like this, but over the decades they have been dropping like flies, either shutting down, or selling themselves to corporate overlords (or being hired by one of the companies they report on. No conflict of interest there at all, right?)

Now, I know, I know. I'm now posting news on the HardOCP front page so I'm biased. Sure, that's probably inevitable. That's how bias works. For what it's worth though, I've posted this very post, in many different versions over the years (not copied and pasted, but independently typed) way before Kyle approached me to assist with the news.

But yeah, full disclosure. I couldn't be happier about assisting and supporting a respected site and a community I've been a part of for 20 years.

I can't think of any other sites reviews that I trust more than the H.

Everything you wrote may be true... but has nothing to do with the price of tea in China. It's Kyle's irrational Intel bias (with no attempt to even hide) that's annoying.

I'm hopeful AMD succeeds, else we're going to continue to see miniscule improvements and lofty prices.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

Everything you wrote may be true... but has nothing to do with the price of tea in China. It's Kyle's irrational Intel bias (with no attempt to even hide) that's annoying.

I'm hopeful AMD succeeds, else we're going to continue to see miniscule improvements and lofty prices.

What bias? AMD hasn't had an even remotely competitive CPU since Core 2 launched in 2006. That's not bias. That's pure unadulterated objective verifiable fact.

Their CPU's haven't been worth shit in over a decade, and the last decent GPU they launched was the 290x 3+ years ago.

They have been in decline for some time, and since Kyle doesn't sugarcoat things, he says it like it is.

I would suggest that if you see this as bias, you should look inward instead of railing against Kyle, because you might be dealing with some "alternative facts"

I - too - hope that Ryzen comes out and is a home run. I hope Vega is a massive hit as well. It would be fantastic. If they do, I'm sure Kyle will give them a positive review, and awards. If - however - they don't measure up, he's not going to sugarcoat that either.

It really just sounds to me like you might be an AMD fanboy calling anyone who doesn't gush over AMD despite their miserable state for the last decade "biased". That's not how we do shit around here.

 

[5icko]

What bias? AMD hasn't had an even remotely competitive CPU since Core 2 launched in 2006. That's not bias. That's pure unadulterated objective verifiable fact.

Their CPU's haven't been worth shit in over a decade, and the last decent GPU they launched was the 290x 3+ years ago.

They have been in decline for some time, and since Kyle doesn't sugarcoat things, he says it like it is.

I would suggest that if you see this as bias, you should look inward instead of railing against Kyle, because you might be dealing with some "alternative facts"

I - too - hope that Ryzen comes out and is a home run. I hope Vega is a massive hit as well. It would be fantastic. If they do, I'm sure Kyle will give them a positive review, and awards. If - however - they don't measure up, he's not going to sugarcoat that either.

It really just sounds to me like you might be an AMD fanboy calling anyone who doesn't gush over AMD despite their miserable state for the last decade "biased". That's not how we do shit around here.

Based on your many walls of text, it's you who's railing. Stop projecting and look inward.

For the benefit of readers (not you, because you won't be convinced), here's a thread from just last week where Kyle poo pood AMD repeatedly, 'liked' nasty post, only to then broadly caution users about 'playing nice'. Then he ultimately locked it. He even went so far as to say low prices from AMD was "throwing in the towel." Wat??

I enjoy HardOCP, but there's a demonstrated funk from Kyle towards AMD. Of course no one is perfect... readers can make up their own minds.

https://hardforum.com/threads/intel-core-i7-7700k-309-99-monoprice-on-ebay.1923947/

Many are skeptical of AMD and rightfully so. But essentially saying "buy Intel now because AMD is going to suck" is silly. Unless one is talking about general contractors or ex wives, past performance, good or bad, does not predict future performance.

Now que the next wall of text...

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

Based on your many walls of text, it's you who's railing. Stop projecting and look inward.

For the benefit of readers (not you, because you won't be convinced), here's a thread from just last week where Kyle poo pood AMD repeatedly, 'liked' nasty post, only to then broadly caution users about 'playing nice'. Then he ultimately locked it. He even went so far as to say low prices from AMD was "throwing in the towel." Wat??

I enjoy HardOCP, but there's a demonstrated funk from Kyle towards AMD. Of course no one is perfect... readers can make up their own minds.

https://hardforum.com/threads/intel-core-i7-7700k-309-99-monoprice-on-ebay.1923947/

Many are skeptical of AMD and rightfully so. But essentially saying "buy Intel now because AMD is going to suck" is silly. Unless one is talking about general contractors or ex wives, past performance, good or bad, does not predict future performance.

Now que the next wall of text...

Que? Ole!

He's right you know.

AMD wouldn't price things low out of the kindness of their hearts. I mean, they might go slightly lower than Intel for equivalent parts to offset Intel's greater brand recognition and try to drive market share, but if they are pricing their chips significantly lower than Intel, it means one thing and one thing only. They don't expect them to be able to be competitive.

Let's remember how corporations work for a moment. They have a so called "fiduciary responsibility" under the law to their shareholders. AMD is thus required by law to do everything they legally can to make their shareholders as much money as possible. If they think they can sell their CPU's at a higher price, they are thus required to do so.

This means that low prices for AMD chips mean they are questioning their ability to compete.

I don't see anything in that linked thread that suggests an inherent bias against AMD. Overall that seems like a pretty tame thread. I don't even see what you mean about him liking something nasty. I didnt even see any nasty posts in that thread. I feel like you are reading more into things than possibly is there. Kyle is certainly doubtful of AMD's ability to deliver. (Hey, I do that to) but not bias. I hope they deliver. I'm just not convinced they can/will.

But hey, after the shit AMD has been shoveling us from their marketing department, over promising and under delivering for years, how can anyone NOT be a skeptic at this point? It's going to take a lot for AMD to rebuild trust after that garbage.

 

[kac77]

Based on your many walls of text, it's you who's railing. Stop projecting and look inward.

For the benefit of readers (not you, because you won't be convinced), here's a thread from just last week where Kyle poo pood AMD repeatedly, 'liked' nasty post, only to then broadly caution users about 'playing nice'. Then he ultimately locked it. He even went so far as to say low prices from AMD was "throwing in the towel." Wat??

I enjoy HardOCP, but there's a demonstrated funk from Kyle towards AMD. Of course no one is perfect... readers can make up their own minds.

https://hardforum.com/threads/intel-core-i7-7700k-309-99-monoprice-on-ebay.1923947/

Many are skeptical of AMD and rightfully so. But essentially saying "buy Intel now because AMD is going to suck" is silly. Unless one is talking about general contractors or ex wives, past performance, good or bad, does not predict future performance.

Now que the next wall of text...

While you may have a point, I think you are way too invested in this. It's a processor. Nothing more. Bias has a way of taking care of itself. All AMD has to do is come close to Haswell/Broadwell level if that happens no one will really be able to say anything to thwart them. Right now I'm running Ivy Bridge as my main. If AMD gives me Haswell/Broadwell with two extra cores then I'm down especially at $500. It really doesn't matter what anyone says. There will always be people who follow the herd. Making a post opposing that here isn't going to change many minds.

We only have two weeks. I can wait. I'm sure there are many people who can wait as well. No worries.

 

[IdiotInCharge]

It's Kyle's irrational Intel bias (with no attempt to even hide) that's annoying.

There was a time Kyle straight up said, and I'm paraphrasing, "I see no reason to buy an Intel product."

That happened, and it was because Intel was simply uncompetitive.

It really just sounds to me like you might be an AMD fanboy calling anyone who doesn't gush over AMD despite their miserable state for the last decade "biased". That's not how we do shit around here.

I see a lot of this. And while I understand it to a degree, I call it when it goes beyond 'this new thing might be awesome!' and plows straight into irrational fanboism. Intel/AMD/Nvidia/who-the-eff-ever, none of them get a free pass; they either prove themselves under scrutiny, or they get the boot.

 

[Jim Kim]

Based on your many walls of text, it's you who's railing. Stop projecting and look inward.

Now que the next wall of text...

Take a deep breath and exhale slowly for ten seconds, if that does not work get some sleep.

 

[funkydmunky]

If you want to call it a workstation chip, go ahead. That sounds like what you're describing, if you want to split hairs, gaming enthusiast and workstation enthusiast. Everyone remembers when the two inevitable questions about a new cpu were, "how well does it overclock?" and "does it run crysis?" I realize single threaded performance isn't the only thing worth considering anymore, but neither is "moar coars!!"

Nice selective quoting. Are you a pro?

 

[SixFootDuo]

I think my plan right now is to wait, enjoy my new 7700K @ 5ghz and see how Intel prices out the new CPU's they having coming soon. Hopefully we get an 8 core 16 tread from Intel that tops AMD performance and price wise. Doubtful but it could happen. I would still rather be on team Intel.

 

[thesmokingman]

I think my plan right now is to wait, enjoy my new 7700K @ 5ghz and see how Intel prices out the new CPU's they having coming soon. Hopefully we get an 8 core 16 tread from Intel that tops AMD performance and price wise. Doubtful but it could happen. I would still rather be on team Intel.

That's the day pigs fly.

 

[Tsumi]

I think my plan right now is to wait, enjoy my new 7700K @ 5ghz and see how Intel prices out the new CPU's they having coming soon. Hopefully we get an 8 core 16 tread from Intel that tops AMD performance and price wise. Doubtful but it could happen. I would still rather be on team Intel.

Intel has never had a reason to undercut AMD. They set the prices, and AMD attempts to undercut Intel in a bid to gain marketshare. Even when AMD was winning, Intel didn't cut prices (they did resort to underhanded tactics but that's a different story). That's the privilege that comes with 90+% marketshare.

As for me, I'm sticking with my 4930k until DDR4 prices drop way down. DDR4 is stupid expensive still.

 

[Mav451]

DDR4 was pretty cheap last year - just had to be buying.
I bought my 2x8GB kit in December, so I was pretty late to the game. Still got it at a decent price, as the kit I was looking at is now 48% higher rofl ($79 vs $119).

Still - pricing is not *that* big of a deal, unless you need to buy multiple kits. In that case, you definitely shoulda stockpiled last year haha.

 

[Tsumi]

4930k to 5820k wasn't a big enough jump to warrant me upgrading. If anything, I should be upgrading from this GTX 690 first.

 

[Flogger23m]

Okay apparently you are my mentioned stereotypical anti-enthusiast.
For starters a 4 core anything is hardly any higher level of "system responsiveness" then any modern higher core. What are you running when a modern 4 core is "more responsive" then a 6-8-10 core? Your having a fucking laugh are you?
As far as your "Unless you are encoding, rendering, or doing....." comment goes, that is what defines an "enthusiast chip". If you want to say a gaming chip, then say so. That is a limited audience who usually buy consoles because they know the game > greater then the system.
Ryzen will be very competitive in gaming. Don't get any fantasies it will not. But it will also be very competitive with Intel's workstation class many cores.
At a enthusiast price!

He makes a good point. Unless you do those tasks, if core per core performance is lower the it will be slower for what most people do. For the majority of us, we want something to be as efficient as possible for what we use it for. If we're going to do a lot of encoding, video rendering and the like an 8 or 10 core CPU is a must have.

But for most of us, a faster 6 and possibly even 4 core will be of more use. I myself don't care about synthetic benchmarks, nor do I care to collect CPUs for no reason. So it will come down to a combination of price, IPC and cores. I am an eyeing a 6 core 12 thread CPU to replace my i5 though. Depending on IPC, clocks and price I may spring for the 8 core 16 thread.

 

[FLECOM]

Honestly, I couldn't give a rats ass about Intel and their many core chips any more than I do AMD's, and I don't even game that much anymore. For overall system responsiveness I'd take 4 fast cores over 6, 8, 10 or even 16 slower ones.

single core performance is more of a gaming thing no? since most devs can't seem to write a game that utilized more than a couple cores... as someone that does a lot of virtualization (I often have 6~8 VMs running on my desktop) I could not be happier at the increasing core count of available CPUs

 

[Shintai]

single core performance is more of a gaming thing no? since most devs can't seem to write a game that utilized more than a couple cores... as someone that does a lot of virtualization (I often have 6~8 VMs running on my desktop) I could not be happier at the increasing core count of available CPUs

Its more than just for gaming. Specially if you pay something like 6K to 14K per core for licensing with SQL.

 

[chx]

Intel is already arming for battle for the bottom by releasing a K series i3 and enabling HT on the G4560, G4600, G4620 Pentiums.