Intel's 9th Generation Core Family - Coffee Lake (Refresh)

Denpepe said:
They don't need to close the gap they have to create their own gap, what intel did with all their lakes and bridges the last decade was according to everyone meh, not worth upgrading too, 5% here, 7% there that's peanuts, now AMD is going up in single digits and it's like the best thing ever.

The only thing they got going is the tons of cores which for the gamers among us is pretty meh as they are unused or clock down the CPU so far it's a wash.
Click to expand...

Except AMD has actually gone up double digits generation over generation, maintained a single socket and compatibility, added more cores, and maintained a similar power envelope...only one of which (adding more cores) Intel can say...

You might not like AMD, but hopefully it encourages less complacency at Intel just like in the Athlon64 days.
 
kirbyrj said:
Except AMD has actually gone up double digits generation over generation, maintained a single socket and compatibility, added more cores, and maintained a similar power envelope...only one of which (adding more cores) Intel can say...

You might not like AMD, but hopefully it encourages less complacency at Intel just like in the Athlon64 days.
Click to expand...

I don't hate AMD btw, the move to Ryzen was a huge gain in IPC but Ryzen 2 is not that much better but we will see what Ryzen 3 brings. Also props to them for longtime support of the same socket, but they did alreay mention that they had lots of issues keeping the new hardware supported on it so it remains to be seen if they will keep doing that.
 
What happens with 9000 series, I could consider picking up a 9700K if price drops.
 
kirbyrj said:
Except AMD has actually gone up double digits generation over generation, maintained a single socket and compatibility
Click to expand...
They went up in single-core performance because their first arrangement of the Zen core stifled it, and the second was only a minor refresh that increased clocks and eventually memory compatibility.

Zen 2 is Zen 'unshackled', but not at its core architecturally a departure from Zen and Zen+.

As for socket compatibility... that's been a shit-show. You'd have to have gotten lucky with X370 to have a board that fully supports a Zen 2 CPU, especially one with more than eight cores.

Intel can rightly be claimed to be 'greedy', but at the same time, CPU support on their platforms is much better sorted.
 
I found the socket support on AM4 to be pretty good.

Upgraded a 1600X to a 3600X with no problem, even on a cheaper B350 mobo.

Also went from a 1800X to 3700X, also no issue. Just a quick BIOS update (obviously before I switched chips). This was on an X370.

I realize not everything will work on any motherboard, but I read all the specs and QVL sheets before buying.
 
cybereality said:
I realize not everything will work on any motherboard, but I read all the specs and QVL sheets before buying.
Click to expand...
You're technically proficient and know what a QVL is, as would be expected here at the [H] :)

The challenge for Intel is that in the position they've been in, with volume and performance and so on right up until Zen 2, anyone less proficient would have run into trouble and having significant issues with partial compatibility would have caused significant support issues. For Intel, the biggest issue has been their fab setbacks; they never planned for Skylake to be branded anything but 6000.

I do see value in both approaches and neither seems particularly out of place for each company. AMD making hard socket delineations perhaps would be the wrong choice for AMD.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
They went up in single-core performance because their first arrangement of the Zen core stifled it, and the second was only a minor refresh that increased clocks and eventually memory compatibility.

Zen 2 is Zen 'unshackled', but not at its core architecturally a departure from Zen and Zen+.

As for socket compatibility... that's been a shit-show. You'd have to have gotten lucky with X370 to have a board that fully supports a Zen 2 CPU, especially one with more than eight cores.

Intel can rightly be claimed to be 'greedy', but at the same time, CPU support on their platforms is much better sorted.
Click to expand...

It's funny because I could take the same statements and input Skylake, Kabylake, and Coffee Lake where appropriate and say almost exactly the same thing about the minor refresh, increased single core performance, and not at its core architecturally different ;).

I haven't had any problems with compatibility on AM4. Granted, I haven't tried to stuff a 3900x into an old X370 yet either. I would argue that compatibility is more about how manufacturers limited themselves to a 16MB ROM on low end boards instead of a 32MB one and now have to figure out what processors to support. I've used multiple 3rd gen chips on 2nd gen boards and haven't had an issue even at higher memory speeds. Including multiple memory manufacturers, etc. A lot of the 3600Mhz Cas 16 memory you buy now is all Hynix. I haven't felt the need to spec out B-die stuff in a while. I haven't looked at a QVL since the first Zen launch.
 
kirbyrj said:
It's funny because I could take the same statements and input Skylake, Kabylake, and Coffee Lake where appropriate and say almost exactly the same thing about the minor refresh, increased single core performance, and not at its core architecturally different ;).
Click to expand...
Agreed -- AMD just started quite a bit behind Coffee Lake with the first Zen release, and still haven't definitively passed it in single-core performance with Zen+ and now Zen 2. Not in the way that Core 2 did, and there were definitely some large jumps afterward.

kirbyrj said:
I haven't had any problems with compatibility on AM4. Granted, I haven't tried to stuff a 3900x into an old X370 yet either. I would argue that compatibility is more about how manufacturers limited themselves to a 16MB ROM on low end boards instead of a 32MB one and now have to figure out what processors to support. I've used multiple 3rd gen chips on 2nd gen boards and haven't had an issue even at higher memory speeds. Including multiple memory manufacturers, etc. A lot of the 3600Mhz Cas 16 memory you buy now is all Hynix. I haven't felt the need to spec out B-die stuff in a while. I haven't looked at a QVL since the first Zen launch.
Click to expand...
I knew many that tried initially and passed, others that tried and settled for lower speeds just to have a working system, across Zen and Zen+.

Zen 2 has been pretty forgiving; not Intel forgiving, but for enthusiasts, not a real problem to get the system working close to ideal.

Some boards have been problematic due to BIOS limitations or power limitations, something AMD wasn't able to clamp down on to make the best out of having generation to generation compatibility.


The biggest challenge is that if you were comfortable with what Intel was doing prior to Zen, you either got lucky and bought stuff that was well designed, or you ran into issues, not all of which could be addressed.

While AMD is ultimately responsible, the 'blame' does also fall on their partners, many of whom seem to have put in far less effort than they do with Intel boards for the first Zen releases.

Clearly that's not as much of a problem and as Intel's woes have reverberated, AMD seems to have gained more leverage over the ecosystem surrounding their products.
 
AMD is being rather aggressive in their prices leading up to the launch of CML. Prices of the 3900, 3700x, 3600x, and 3600 will be $420, $290, $200, and $175 respectively.

Based on the leaks, Intel would be launching the comparable 10900KF, 10700KF, 10600KF, and 10400F at $570, $430, $285, and $195.

The 10900KF still has its place as the no compromise gaming/productivity cpu. The 10700KF is much tougher to swallow over 3700x prices plus Intel won't canibalize 9900k sales. The 10600KF looks to be a good contender as 6/12 seems to be the new sweet spot for gaming. It is a surprising value compared to the 9700k/8700k and still makes a strong case over the 6/12 AMD parts. The 10400F could be a mainstream champ as well if it runs 6/12 at 4.0 ghz, though hopefully not exclusively on higher end motherboards.

All in all, prices look good from both camps. AMD always seems to drag their feet on their APUs which hurts them I think.
Intel may be targeting the mainstream more aggressively for CFL as many will want to hold off on dropping the big bucks for Rocket Lake on the same motherboard or are hesitant in what the Ryzen 4000 holds.
 
Overall I agree --

Nightfire said:
as many will want to hold off on dropping the big bucks for Rocket Lake on the same motherboard or are hesitant in what the Ryzen 4000 holds.
Click to expand...
We're solidly into the 'wait and see if you don't need' period between launches.

Ryzen 4000 will be a real test: can AMD offer something substantial performance-wise over Intel in the mainstream? Not just priced lower, but honest-to-god faster?

There were times when four cores over two or six cores over four made sense almost across the board; but at eight cores, the returns start to get limited to much smaller subsets of the market. I realize that this is part of a different discussion, but it is relevant for putting pricing into context.

Nightfire said:
AMD always seems to drag their feet on their APUs which hurts them I think.
Click to expand...

Definitely; but I think they're being pragmatic about it.

While they're going to lose in terms of CPU performance, for most the systems that APUs go in, it just doesn't matter; same for Intel really. AMD has to have something rather significant in terms of CPU performance or efficiency (across the board, not just under load) for them to make a case for their APUs in the market.

They also need updated graphics IP. Yes, they're faster than what Intel is shipping today, but, they lag in terms of stuff like video encoding (both performance and quality), and that hurts a larger part of their target market.

As it stands, I also find it a bit frustrating: if AMD were to put their best into their APUs, and perhaps add some eDRAM or other cache for the GPU locally, they'd be putting out stomping good performance out of a single socket, across the board. Intel is developing graphics tech that will likely make low-end dGPUs obsolete; AMD already has the tech on the table.

I have to assume that they simply have other production priorities to take care of first. I'd personally love an ultrabook or near-so laptop with at least four cores and great graphics (and VRR) in a 15w envelope, so long as I can still get great battery life too.
 
I'm a bit a an APU fanboy, I suppose. I wanted a little more CPU performance than my 2400g could offer while still being able to do light gaming. I really wanted the 4600g or whatever it will be called, but the 1600 AF was too good of a value to pass up so Nvidia got most of my money. Much agreed on the video encoding part.

All things considered, Rocket Lake most likely be my next cpu. High clocks, high IPC, and sufficient iGPU with sufficient software support. I could care less about a few extra watts of power.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top