Some just die much faster than others
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Ryzen vs Coffee Lake
- Thread starter adobian
- Start date
kirbyrj
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2005
- Messages
- 30,693
That's true but only when Intel was on their tick tock. Now with 3 gens on the same node and on the same architecture, it doesn't make sense for Intel to lock out older chipsets except as a money grab. Asus basically said as much.
If CFL was available on z270 I'd have that right now instead of a 7820x. But when this platform becomes irrelevant, I can drop in a high core/thread Xeon for my Plex server.
If CFL was available on z270 I'd have that right now instead of a 7820x. But when this platform becomes irrelevant, I can drop in a high core/thread Xeon for my Plex server.
IdiotInCharge
NVIDIA SHILL
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2003
- Messages
- 14,675
Intel's decision, while annoying for enthusiasts that might upgrade, made sense for the product line as a whole. On total, exceedingly few shipped boards would be able to support CFL due to the increase in power requirements.
And ASUS said that some Z270 boards could be made to support CFL. Very thin reasoning there. It is clear that there would have been issues with getting confirmation of support for particular SKUs for specific CFL processors and with varying overclock limitations, which is not at all different than the absolute mess that AMD had with AM3 and turning out high-powered CPUs. There is no solution here where everyone wins, and Intel played it safe.
And ASUS said that some Z270 boards could be made to support CFL. Very thin reasoning there. It is clear that there would have been issues with getting confirmation of support for particular SKUs for specific CFL processors and with varying overclock limitations, which is not at all different than the absolute mess that AMD had with AM3 and turning out high-powered CPUs. There is no solution here where everyone wins, and Intel played it safe.
Still if one is building a top end gaming machine for today and several years down the road - I would have to recommend Intel. Now if one is using multiple cards/monitors niche of a niche then HEDT platforms would be the better choice - either Intel or AMD.
On my Intel rig, 6700K at 4.4ghz (mITX), it is the Vega 64 LC that is limiting gaming at 4K. That processor does not have to work to hard. Even the 1080 Ti would not be limited by that cpu at 4K. Just too many variables to really just state one is the best choice - best choice for what factors?
I don't buy the power BS from Intel - both processors, 7700K and 8700K are rated the same in power. The higher end Z270 motherboards can supply 200w + easily to the processor, some have gone above 300w without issue. Now if Intel has an eight core coming out that will work with the Z370 platform not needing the upcoming Z390, then maybe those extra power pins might be needed.
IdiotInCharge
NVIDIA SHILL
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2003
- Messages
- 14,675
But in saying that the 'higher end motherboards can supply 200w + easily to the processor, some have gone above 300w without issue', you validate Intel's position: there are only a few boards that can support the new CPU properly. Yes, some could have been upgraded to support CFL, but not all enthusiast boards, let alone the non-overclocking S1151 boards and the OEM boards that make up much greater volume.
With Z370, compatibility is guaranteed.
Except - you still have to buy the upper boards for Coffee Lake to push the power over 200w to the cpu - there really is no difference. Really a mute point in the end - basically if there was an upgrade cpu option for me that is significant without starting from scratch - I would have probably gone with it, Coffee Lake is a significant improvement, one of the best Intel has ever done frankly for the sub $400 crowd. Looks like Ice Lake will most likely be when I upgrade the Intel platform unless AMD just plain out walks away from Intel.
IdiotInCharge
NVIDIA SHILL
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2003
- Messages
- 14,675
Sure there is. Think about it: you have Skylake or Kaby Lake, you know any of them will work in any 100-series or 200-series board. Some boards won't overclock, but the CPUs will work.
You cannot say that about Coffee Lake. So now, you would have to worry about which board has support. Like AM3 with the high-end 'dozers.
Intel decided to avoid that, and I don't blame them. Change the chipset, upgrade the power standard, and roll on.
ZiggyDeath
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2017
- Messages
- 222
Let's be real here, Intel just played musical chairs with the pinout on the 1151-2, and made some of the dummy pins actually do something.
The boards that theoretically wouldn't support CL cpus are because they're built far below spec.
Intel could have easily specified that if a CL CPU was dropped into a 1x0/2x0 series that certain features to prevent it from "going beyond SL/KL" spec disabled, like reduced turbos or OC disabled.
Oh wait, did they implement that feature, except it simply disables the system. They couldn't even be bothered to make the socket physically different.
The boards that theoretically wouldn't support CL cpus are because they're built far below spec.
Intel could have easily specified that if a CL CPU was dropped into a 1x0/2x0 series that certain features to prevent it from "going beyond SL/KL" spec disabled, like reduced turbos or OC disabled.
Oh wait, did they implement that feature, except it simply disables the system. They couldn't even be bothered to make the socket physically different.
IdiotInCharge
NVIDIA SHILL
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2003
- Messages
- 14,675
Let's be real here: they're built to SKL/KBL spec, which is below CFL six-core spec.
kirbyrj
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2005
- Messages
- 30,693
That's bullshit. Asus basically said as much in an interview on bit-tech. The supposed extra power is just a gimmick and the only reason CFL isn't on z170/z270 is due to Intel not updating the bios and ME and they could have if they wanted to. If you want to rehash the marketing nonsense, go for it.
https://www.bit-tech.net/features/tech/motherboards/asus-interview-andrew-wu-rog-motherboard-pm/1/
IdiotInCharge
NVIDIA SHILL
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2003
- Messages
- 14,675
At this point, Asus 'basically said' whatever you want them to have said. Asus also isn't Intel, and we know that CFL parts would not be fully compatible with all existing 100- and 200-series boards, even with the necessary updates.
I don't know why you're harping on this. I'm not defending Intel, I'm just saying that I understand why they may have made the decision they made, and that it makes sense in the context of clarity product line and product compatibility. I even gave an example of where AMD used the same sockets and chipsets for incompatible CPUs as an example, and you're still here whining.
I don't know why you're harping on this. I'm not defending Intel, I'm just saying that I understand why they may have made the decision they made, and that it makes sense in the context of clarity product line and product compatibility. I even gave an example of where AMD used the same sockets and chipsets for incompatible CPUs as an example, and you're still here whining.
kirbyrj
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2005
- Messages
- 30,693
Yeah, ok...Asus product manager or some random guy on the internet claiming he knows better. You clearly drank the Intel koolaid. Others can read for themselves and make their own decision.
Last edited:
IdiotInCharge
NVIDIA SHILL
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2003
- Messages
- 14,675
Recognizing that Intel took the route of product line clarity rather than confusion means I drank the koolaid?
A difference of perspective means that I'm what, exactly?
A difference of perspective means that I'm what, exactly?
kirbyrj
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2005
- Messages
- 30,693
The product clarity argument is questionable at best. Explain to me how the new 8th Gen Intel Core processors is more clear than before when now they mix in KBL Refresh and CFL and later 10nm chips are supposed to be "8th Gen" also. Is that more or less clear when a new node or architecture was used to denote a new generation (e.g. Generations 1-6)? CFL is neither. It's just two more KBL cores on an improved 14nm process (disable two cores, clock it at 7700k speeds and you have a 7700k). The 8350k is a 7600k with 14++ process and higher out of the box clocks.
But you're telling me that somehow all this "product line clarity" and "product compatibility" is easier than just updating the bios to use new processors? Especially when it sure doesn't seem (and Asus agrees with me) that there was any need for the new socket other than cashing in on a new chipset (at a recommended customer cost of $47).
IdiotInCharge
NVIDIA SHILL
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2003
- Messages
- 14,675
Fun stuff. There's nothing about code names or nodes in 'i7 8700k', and I'm talking about product lines. If you want to make sense of the rest, I'll leave you to you existential crisis.
8700k is awesome outside gaming as well
Before CoffeLake, the typical choice was quad-core Kabylake for gaming and eight-core RyZen for productivity.
CoffeeLake is awesome at both: gaming and productivity. RyZen lost its advantage.
Last edited:
JustReason
razor1 is my Lover
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2015
- Messages
- 2,483
You know there is an Intel subforum for some of you to sing Intels praises in. This isn't the place.
Fact is, this is the time to just get what you want, AMD or Intel, both will give top line performance. In general, AMD solutions will be cheaper, sometimes far cheaper, allowing for total lower cost or better or additional components if a spending limit is garnered. This qualifier : Gaming is just smoke and mirrors in regards to 95% of the market and maybe even more so with us in this site. Being the majority of the consuming public is playing at 60hz on varying resolutions, and here mostly above 1080p, then the choice becomes a " whatever happens to be to your liking or cheapest". And as it has been stated earlier, when looking at comparable prices the one with more cores is never a bad idea and for most a good one.
And seriously it sure seems that the lion's share of you pushing the Gaming only angle spend all your time on here defending Intel's every move rather than using your choice in CPU for the very bullshit point you have been making all along : GAMING. How do you have the time when it is all spent being the keyboard warrior for Intels cause?
Fact is, this is the time to just get what you want, AMD or Intel, both will give top line performance. In general, AMD solutions will be cheaper, sometimes far cheaper, allowing for total lower cost or better or additional components if a spending limit is garnered. This qualifier : Gaming is just smoke and mirrors in regards to 95% of the market and maybe even more so with us in this site. Being the majority of the consuming public is playing at 60hz on varying resolutions, and here mostly above 1080p, then the choice becomes a " whatever happens to be to your liking or cheapest". And as it has been stated earlier, when looking at comparable prices the one with more cores is never a bad idea and for most a good one.
And seriously it sure seems that the lion's share of you pushing the Gaming only angle spend all your time on here defending Intel's every move rather than using your choice in CPU for the very bullshit point you have been making all along : GAMING. How do you have the time when it is all spent being the keyboard warrior for Intels cause?
IdiotInCharge
NVIDIA SHILL
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2003
- Messages
- 14,675
Why use this tired argument...
Who actually goes to the subforums first? And have you actually read the title of the thread?
IdiotInCharge
NVIDIA SHILL
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2003
- Messages
- 14,675
I'd even accept that argument; I've presented at least three different perspectives here myself.
But the important counterargument for 'Ryzen is fast enough for 60FPS' is that it's only valid for today. And that doesn't just apply to performance, but also expectations: VR needs more, for example, and with 4k120 around the corner, more and more gamers are going to be moving to higher-refresh displays too. Buying Ryzen today, for gaming, is a limitation that a small bump in overall budget can fix now.
ManofGod
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2007
- Messages
- 12,864
That and AMD does really well in gaming also.
Heck, you could buy a 1700X for $229 at Microcenter, a Cooler Master 212 LED for $17 ($7 after mail in rebate) and a good B350 motherboard for about $90. All this for less than the cost of the 8700K alone, which is on sale at about $380 at Microcenter. I took a trip there yesterday and looked around, if I were looking to build a new computer, that is the direction I would have gone in. (Plenty of good ITX boards as well.) You do not need a high end board to get a good overclock either.JustReason
razor1 is my Lover
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2015
- Messages
- 2,483
Yes but you seem to be going to irrational lengths to make an argument. With the construction cores there was a good one, but like now it requires context. The construction cores could deliver great gaming up to 60hz, over that you would want to go Intel. Of course there is the power heat and such but keeping it simple here for arguments sake. Same applies here for Ryzen. Context is king. Intel only delivers at small ranges above Ryzen now and only reasonably different in a few games, and generally because of its higher clock ability. It isn't he same game as before as AMD can game at higher frequencies than before. But again context is king. If one is gaming on a 144hz 1080p monitor then they are likely leaning on an Intel purchase. However if that resolution is 1440p or higher then the playing field is nearly identical. And add that AMDs line has far more choices within the price ranges of Intels current line with high core counts (including threads). 4C8T is beginning to show some weakness in current games, like hitting the wall not falling behind. We are at a point where 6C12T can easily be considered the minimum recommendation for gaming and AMD has a multitude of choices against Intels one or is it 2.
No need to condemn either side as either will get the masses where they want. But one has to reasonably acknowledge the facts in a REAL world perspective as well as what it means in the grand picture. Mobo longevity is one and not conclusive yet as neither AMD nor Intel have the next gen ready. Syncing monitor techs are gaining traction and have to be considered as it helps with those using higher frequency setups.
Last time I checked this is a RyZen vs CoffeLake thread. and some people is making incorrect claims about CoffeLake. It seems reasonable to post here some corrections to those claims.
Just a pair of posts above yours, you can find non-gaming benchmarks, with 6C CoffeLake beating 8C RyZen on web, rendering, and compression workloads. I can provide more if needed...
JustReason
razor1 is my Lover
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2015
- Messages
- 2,483
WHERE THE Fk do you get JUST 60fps? Try 100 or 120. I have a 100Hz monitor and have absolutely no issue maintaining 100fps as a MINIMUM.
JustReason
razor1 is my Lover
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2015
- Messages
- 2,483
Remember credibility makes some post worthy of mention... yours don't.
IdiotInCharge
NVIDIA SHILL
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2003
- Messages
- 14,675
It's back and forth- but you label mine 'irrational' because you've picked a side.
I don't pick sides, I pick the right tool for the job, and you just ignored the heart of the argument: for gaming, Ryzen is starting from behind, regardless of core count. It's still a good buy, but going forward, that lower IPC and clock ceiling will start to bite.
IdiotInCharge
NVIDIA SHILL
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2003
- Messages
- 14,675
And I see 80FPS on a far faster system. Going to depend on what you're playing and the settings you're playing at, which should be obvious, but it only gets worse with time.
kirbyrj
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2005
- Messages
- 30,693
Funny, I missed that because you're on my ignore list. And after reading it, I was reminded why.
You're putting words in Asus' mouth to defend a new chipset...big surprise. The plain reading of his interview is clear. Intel locked out CFL when it didn't have to. It was not a technical reason as the power delivery doesn't make a big difference.
Last edited:
kirbyrj
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2005
- Messages
- 30,693
FWIW, there's a guy selling BNIB 7800x's for $259 in FS/FT. Seems to be a much better deal than CFL.
The cost difference in platforms isn't as much as IdiotinCharge would have you believe if you shop around.
The cost difference in platforms isn't as much as IdiotinCharge would have you believe if you shop around.
JustReason
razor1 is my Lover
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2015
- Messages
- 2,483
So much wrong here. First lets start with connotation. You intentionally state Ryzen as coming from behind like it is some huge discrepancy in results. Whereas the results with context differ. At 1080p Intel CPUs, and this is limited to the top end not every chip, have the advantage but only so far as in extreme frame rate monitors and as stated earlier a limited number of consumers shop this result. Move up to the next tier of resolution, 1440p, and the results become almost indistinguishable. Now granted in push-come-to-shove games Intel will still fair better but again, indistinguishable to non-existent. Now move up to 4k and the results are generally equal, although early on AMD won out at times, but unsure if those results remain.
Now I realize that you hinge most of this on the latter part of your point: going forward. BS! I am sure the same was said on Piledriver and yet it took me 5 years to see it become an issue for my setup. And in fact as time went on it closed the gap in games which is what allowed it to hang on, mostly the higher core count as the IPC was far behind. That is kind of how it works, time goes on and software becomes better optimized for the architectures. Now it is no guarantee of greater performance but it must be considered.
But lets get to the real point which you have tried never-ending to obfuscate. If one were in the market for a new rig then the simplest answer is PICK WHAT YOU WANT. However if there are decided uses then with CRITERIA one can make an informed decision. However I feel that making the "gaming only claim" is rather limited. I mostly game, say 90% of the time, but a huge time of even that 90% is with other things running, mostly Netflix but sometimes ripping my movies and converting as well. But lets say it is a viable point, then what about adding price to the mix and considering greater core counts.
These blanket statements do a great dis-service to the community. They are always without context or clarification because they are meant to mislead in favor of the writers ideal, whether bought for or misguided loyalty.
Simple answer is:
If you are in the market for a new rig, then
Get what you want!!
Get what ever is cheapest!!
Because no matter which you get, you WILL enjoy it.
IdiotInCharge
NVIDIA SHILL
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2003
- Messages
- 14,675
I'll paraphrase: "BS, since I'm okay with slow performance, everyone should be!"
Sorry, not sorry.
ManofGod
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2007
- Messages
- 12,864
Out of these two, the one you want to spend the money on is the best choice. That said, I think the Ryzen is the best, especially for the money. AMD is kicking butt and taking names, something they had not been doing for a long time. Trolls and InBoys do not change the facts, thankfully. I do not need another computer but, I sure would love to build one, especially with the prices what they are at this time. (Except memory, of course.)
My post contains information from a mainstream review that shows how CoffeeLake beats your 1800X even on well threaded benches such as Blender. So I understand you have to justify your purchase by pretending that CoffeLake is only awesome for gaming. And part of your strategy seems to consist on ignoring reviews that prove you are plain wrong.
Precisely the main reason for the new chipset is power delivery, you would know if you had read the posts in the other thread and the links given therein. But since it seems you have on your ignore list to everyone that doesn't say what you want to hear, you missed all the technical explanations given to you, by at least three different people, on why a new chipset was mandatory; and you also missed the sites that refuted the interview to the Asus manager.
Q3 numbers for both companies show that the impact of RyZen on Intel finances is nearly zero. So your "AMD is kicking butt and taking names" is more a belief than a reality.
thesmokingman
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2008
- Messages
- 6,617
A 1700 and board costs less, sometimes a lot less than just the 8700K cpu alone. Not sure where the regret is in that?
kirbyrj
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2005
- Messages
- 30,693
Actually, I don't mind the differing opinion...I ignore people due to douchebaggery. There are only 5 people or so on my ignore list as the general population isn't as militantly committed to one brand or the other, and I generally stay out of the video card section
.