2017-2019 INTEL CORE X-SERIES SKYLAKE X CANONLAKE X ICELAKE X TIGERLAKE X
![]()
Source - http://tieba.baidu.com/p/5353174380
WOWZER! thanks
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
2017-2019 INTEL CORE X-SERIES SKYLAKE X CANONLAKE X ICELAKE X TIGERLAKE X
![]()
Source - http://tieba.baidu.com/p/5353174380
Here's the issue there as I see it.
If AMD has a core and thread count advantage at the consumer level with Ryzen, and Intel has the IPC and frequency advantage at the consumer level with Kaby Lake..
What advantage AMD may be able claim in games that benefit from the higher core/thread count slips with Intel releasing 6C/12T Coffee Lake, and where will it be if rumored 8C/16T next year is true? I'm a little worried what will happen if through IPC and frequencies lesser core count i7 8700s are nipping at the heals of Ryzen R7s in more heavily threaded tasks... enjoy AMD starting a fire under Intel, and would like to see it keep going. But when it comes down to it, can AMD improve their IPC and frequencies going forward as easily as Intel can (finally) throw more cores and threads into their product stack?
I almost hope that chart is wrong because it makes it hard to justify going for 8700K when Ice Lake is not that far away and with a plausible (well in that document anyway) upgrade path into Tigerlake.
2017-2019 INTEL CORE X-SERIES SKYLAKE X CANONLAKE X ICELAKE X TIGERLAKE X
![]()
Source - http://tieba.baidu.com/p/5353174380
2017-2019 INTEL CORE X-SERIES SKYLAKE X CANONLAKE X ICELAKE X TIGERLAKE X
![]()
Source - http://tieba.baidu.com/p/5353174380
Pisses me off!
Here I am, getting a little stiffy with the release of the 8700k in a couple of days, and now I feel like I should wait.
AGAIN!
That looks incredible fake for several reasons. The DDR4 speeds, those speeds requires validation and a lot isn't what chip makers produce as chips or able to produce for the validation time. The Cannon Lake parts are also 100% fake. The successor to SKL-X/SP is called Cascade Lake. And Cannon Lake is only a 2+2 part. Other errors as well. but in short, forget that chart.
Pisses me off!
Here I am, getting a little stiffy with the release of the 8700k in a couple of days, and now I feel like I should wait.
AGAIN!
well, time will tell but i do get you. kinda weird how intel would have this leaked while planning so much ahead of course take it grain of salt.
Time already told its fake.
im not too familiar with ram validation and imc speed etc pls share some more how it works.
Cascade Lake alone invalidates the chart.
For CPUs to be validated against memory speeds. The chips needs to exist. Same reason both Ryzen and CFL got a max memory support of 2666Mhz. You are not getting 3200Mhz a year from now, its hard enough to even reach 2933Mhz. The 2800Mhz speed is completely bogus from a validation standpoint, since such chips doesn't exist as stock performance and wont ever do so.
so cascade is a refresh of CFL? if so then that 8750k seems like thats what it is.
as for memory, even though IMC is say set for 2666 how come we are capable of using overclocked memory? or is that unrelated
Cascade Lake is a refresh of SKL-X/SKL-SP. And Cannon Lake is a ultra mobile dualcore with GT2 graphics.
Overclocked memory is completely unrelated.
A lot of effort may have gone into that chart. Just not a lot of brains.
Also SKU speeds of something that isn't taped out like Tiger Lake for example is completely fictional.
i do find the 10nm+ and 10nm++ unbelieveable because its just way too far out. for cascade lake it could be any of the LGA 2066 10nm non+, the chart doesnt have any name, tdp or date.
The SMT and the lack of H and B370 chipsets, /slightly/ validate your argument. None the less, the GPU, IPC and lack of buying a potential segfault special, tells me the 8400 is the wiser choice.Well first off, CFL is limited to Z370 until Q1, which makes the 8400 an odd proposition and also inflates the price quite a bit. R5 also has SMT and can be OC'd enough out of the box to compete.
At $200 the 1600 is priced well enough for now.
That looks incredible fake for several reasons. The DDR4 speeds, those speeds requires validation and a lot isn't what chip makers produce as chips or able to produce for the validation time. The Cannon Lake parts are also 100% fake. The successor to SKL-X/SP is called Cascade Lake. And Cannon Lake is only a 2+2 part. Other errors as well. but in short, forget that chart.
Cascade Lake is a 14nm++ part. SKL-X/SP is 14nm+.
Icelake on 10nm+ is already taped out. But I doubt even SKUs there are close to finalized.
in this case what are the chances of that 10nm 8750k being real? since its likely it'll stay on 2666mhz normally it'll make sense because its intel, giving 2 more cores yet again will need new socket, so a high chance that z370 will stuck on 6c max?
LMAO didnt noticeLOL @that chart, "tread" instead of thread... Jesus
A core is two threads with AMD, saying AMD has slow cores when their SMT is better than Intel is not the case, it is very competitive.
however suddenly due to AMD, intel had no choice but to give 6 and 8 cores mainstream all within 1.5 yrs, it is now worth the wait and skip 6 cores and wait for 8 cores 10nm+.
A whole 6 games, yeah Tomb raider like nobody even plays that anymore and yet Player Unknown Battlegrounds, the world record setting soon to be full release title, genuinely the best and most alpha game on the market has ryzen and strangely enough Vega doing exceptionally well, Battlefield 1 has Ryzen doing well (not sure about vega but irrelevant here).
so yeah if you cherry pick the whole 6 games and base it off that you distort your argument with a warped sense of mental gymnastics.
Intel games better but the aggregate is more like 10%
When six-core CoffeeLake is giving 5--10% less performance than eight-core Zen even in workloads with high SMT yields as CineBench, the conclusion is that Zen cores are slower:
6 CFL ~ 8 Zen ===> 1 CFL core ~ 1.33 Zen core
It was demonstrated before that Intel roadmaps were planned before Zen tapeout. It was also mentioned that future AMD Raven Ridge and successors are still four-core.
So, not only what you say is false, but facts point just in the opposite direction, with AMD stuck on four-core 'forever', and Intel providing the first six-core and eight-core 'APU' for mainstream users.
Your first excuse, months ago, was that first retail RyZen chips were "relabeled engineering samples" and that true RyZen would launch latter. Not only your claim was pure nonsense, but you even were accusing AMD of lying to customers by selling engineering samples as if were retail chips. LOL
Your second excuse was mobos and AGESA. You promised us a magic BIOS patch/fix that would freeze Zen real potential. It never happened, because it was all nonsense again.
Your excuse now is cherry picking benchmarks and that aggregate gap is 10%. But you mention Battlefield 1, which is an AMD sponsorized game and ignore that the aggregate gap is more in the 30% level.
4C/4T Zen ~ i5 Sandy Bridge
i5 Kabylake ~ 1.33 * (4C/4T Zen)
The AGESA fixed RAM issues people had on initial release where boards would not post with anything higher that IMC rated speeds, that worked so it was not really an excuse.
You have been the one cherry picking benches and no DICE are not sponsored by AMD, whereas PUBG have been sponsored by Intel and Nvidia, again the event hosted for DICE was covered by AMD but there is no bias towards AMD hardware in BF1 nor is there disadvantage to Intel parts, and I don't see the 30% unless you are taking the 5ghz 7700K vs the Stock 1700 running its 3ghz base, on whole the 1700X was around 140FPS with the 5.1Ghz 7700K around 147FPS factoring in variable clocks it looks more like 10% ~ type range of performance.
I haven't seen a single Sandy bridge CPU score 162 in a Single Thread Cinebench R15 Run @ 4ghz or 140+ at 3Ghz so the performs like depends on the title, over a greater spectrum of games AMD's performance relative to Intel is acceptable.
Who was the genius that put a Cannonlake-S part in there? Lol.2017-2019 INTEL CORE X-SERIES SKYLAKE X CANONLAKE X ICELAKE X TIGERLAKE X
Source - http://tieba.baidu.com/p/5353174380
So CFL is faster, more efficient, overclocks better, comes with a iGPU, and is a lot cheaper. What is the problem?
Anyone see the Reddit post claiming shortages until the end of the year?
Zen has worse IPC than IvyB and struggles to break 4 GHz. I don't think anyone is arguing that Zen cores are superior/faster, they're a joke. They survive on low price and high core count only.
Anyone see the Reddit post claiming shortages until the end of the year?
Intel could be amputating your legs with a skillsaw and ramming red hot nails through your feet while beating your mother with a tire iron and you guys would still defend Intel to the death. I have no idea where and what drives your loyalty to this extent. Oh I kind of do but that would be getting political and cause triggering and I would get banned. Its like the same 10 dudes on this website that are 1000% Intel no matter what reality is. Just non stop AMD bashing while holding more reverence for Intel than entire religions do for their gods.
It makes you so apparently biased in the eyes of EVERYONE on the site that everything you guys say is just chocked up to irrelevant biased psychobabble.
that is patently false. There are 10,000s of games and the vast majority are single thread. I would be shocked to see 1,000 properly threaded games. So your aggregate 10% is total bullshit. If you play a diverse amount of games you buy an intel rig plan and simple. If you only plat BF, COD, and shit like that sure...you can get away with it. Also GTA5 was in that list and those 6 games are AAA games and AMD has shit FPS in most of them. 10%...okay.A whole 6 games, yeah Tomb raider like nobody even plays that anymore and yet Player Unknown Battlegrounds, the world record setting soon to be full release title, genuinely the best and most alpha game on the market has ryzen and strangely enough Vega doing exceptionally well, Battlefield 1 has Ryzen doing well (not sure about vega but irrelevant here).
so yeah if you cherry pick the whole 6 games and base it off that you distort your argument with a warped sense of mental gymnastics.
Intel games better but the aggregate is more like 10%
My system struggles to sustain 100FPS in NewZ, a DX9 game so whats the issue, given that there is lots of rendering in open world games to sustain high FPS at low resolution is going to be problematic, which is probably why more are moving up to 1440 middle ground resolutions. I have seen prices on 1440 monitors drop very close to 1080 as it looks like it is slowly being phased out.
Some of us expect CPUs released in 2017 to be better than the competition's 5 year old CPUs. And pointing that out doesn't make us biased. Ryzen is not some flawless chip and AMD doesn't get a pass because they're the underdog, as much as many people act that way.Intel could be amputating your legs with a skillsaw and ramming red hot nails through your feet while beating your mother with a tire iron and you guys would still defend Intel to the death. I have no idea where and what drives your loyalty to this extent. Oh I kind of do but that would be getting political and cause triggering and I would get banned. Its like the same 10 dudes on this website that are 1000% Intel no matter what reality is. Just non stop AMD bashing while holding more reverence for Intel than entire religions do for their gods.
It makes you so apparently biased in the eyes of EVERYONE on the site that everything you guys say is just chocked up to irrelevant biased psychobabble.
The AGESA fixed RAM issues people had on initial release where boards would not post with anything higher that IMC rated speeds, that worked so it was not really an excuse.
You have been the one cherry picking benches and no DICE are not sponsored by AMD, whereas PUBG have been sponsored by Intel and Nvidia, again the event hosted for DICE was covered by AMD but there is no bias towards AMD hardware in BF1 nor is there disadvantage to Intel parts, and I don't see the 30% unless you are taking the 5ghz 7700K vs the Stock 1700 running its 3ghz base, on whole the 1700X was around 140FPS with the 5.1Ghz 7700K around 147FPS factoring in variable clocks it looks more like 10% ~ type range of performance.
I haven't seen a single Sandy bridge CPU score 162 in a Single Thread Cinebench R15 Run @ 4ghz or 140+ at 3Ghz so the performs like depends on the title, over a greater spectrum of games AMD's performance relative to Intel is acceptable.