Intel Thread

[ComradeYellow]

 

Good News:  Heat does surprising well, about the same as 9th Gen so that's significant considering the clock/thread boosts.  i5, i7, and i9 all have Hyperthreading, can manually disable Hyperthreading on any individual Core.  New Motherboard promises significant upgrades for future Gens, but that leads us to....

Bad News:  Need a new motherboard , still doesn't beat AMD on heavy multi-threaded apps (but how many people need all that crap anyway?).  Probably not worth upgrading if you're already sporting a solid 9th Gen chip, save your money, especially if all you do is game and browse.  Still uses 14nm process, which, in a nutshell, basically means you better have an extremely high watt power supply if you plan on doing massive overclocking.

Will wait for 11th Gen before I upgrade, should be some real solid improvements by that time.  It's unlikely AMD will produce something that can top Intel's gaming dominance.

Edited May 21, 2020 by ComradeMaster

[AwesomeOcelot]

I don't understand the claim of "Intel's gaming dominance" since Zen 2. In the real world if you're pairing a CPU with a high end GPU going for 1440p or 4K then Intel or AMD doesn't really matter. The gaming benchmark charts, that use 1080p, have the most difference in games like DOTA 2 and CS:GO, only relevant to competitive gamers. If you're thinking about building a pc for gaming, you care about perf/$, you're thinking about a target resolution and frame rate, the choice is almost always AMD now as well, just buy a better GPU. There's very little circumstances where Intel makes sense for PC gaming. The amount of games that aren't well multi-threaded going into the future is shrinking.

Intel's engineering on thermals is great and price segmentation on cores is way better, it's also so very very late. If they had done this 2 generations ago, they'd have been competitive. It's disappointing how little they care about desktop CPUs.

Edited May 21, 2020 by AwesomeOcelot

[ComradeYellow]

2 hours ago, AwesomeOcelot said:

I don't understand the claim of "Intel's gaming dominance" since Zen 2.

Every single benchmark shows that Intel leads in gaming, but Ryzen leads in everything else.  Sure, if you're a 60fps 4k gamer I suppose it doesn't mean too much but for people who like high refresh rates and smoothness -competitive or not-, it's significant, especially how next Gen Gpu's appear to be powerful enough to severely bottleneck CPU's.

Amateurs talk about graphics settings whilst experts talk about resolution "sweet spots" and refresh rates (monitor specifications).  I play in 165hz 1440p on a 27" monitor with 109 pixels per inch (which is near perfect for 1440p and basically meaningless on 4k) so Intel + Nvidia are my best options for wanting to clear 165 fps on decent graphics settings.

[AwesomeOcelot]

If you ignore price performance Intel leads in gaming, if you don't then most segments Ryzen leads, that was my point. I would welcome that to change with next gen GPUs, but I don't believe the recent rumours or their source.

165hz and above is still an extremely rare segment, espectially at 1440p and above. I agree that if you target 165hz or above on 1440p or above, then Intel is the only option. I just think the competitive gamer market that games at 1080p 300fps, and the enthusiast 1440p 165hz, are not "gaming", so saying Intel leads in gaming when they're behind for most of the "sweet spots" is misleading.

Which CPU do you recommend for 4K 60-90hz? Ryzen 3

Which CPU do you recommend for 1440p 90-120hz? Ryzen 3

Which CPU do you recommend for casual gaming 1080p  90-144hz? Ryzen 3

[Keyrock]

Intel's gaming dominance is mostly just a statistic. The biggest difference comes in very niche use cases (e.g. you are a MLG CS:GO player so you play on medium settings at 1080p on a 240 Hz monitor because the difference between running at 180 FPS snd running at 192 FPS will make the difference between you nailing that headshot with the AWP [no scope, naturally] or missing it). In more common gaming scenarios (i.e. gaming at high resolution, bells and whistles turned on at modest to moderately high framerate) the CPU makes very little difference since the GPU is the bottleneck. Intel is still ahead in those scenarios, but the difference is essentially negligible.

The "10th gen" Intel chips are a decent value if you are building a system right now. They hold the gaming lead and have closed the gap somewhat in many other applications. AMD still holds the price/performance lead in most areas, but these Intel chips for the most part hold their own against Ryzen 3xxx. If the supposed 15% IPC increase in Zen 3 Ryzen 4xxx chips turns out to be true

then AMD will widen that gap Intel just closed significantly, but that obviously remains to be seen, plus that's 3-5 months away, so it does nothing for someone building right now.

Anyway, pretty good chips ftom Intel overall. Nothing revolutionary, but they're hanging in there better than I expected with the ancient Core architecture.

Edited May 21, 2020 by Keyrock

[ComradeYellow]

Edited May 21, 2020 by ComradeMaster

[Zoraptor]

The number of people who spend 2000+USD on a rig to play Tomb Raider at 1080p low quality is not overly large.

46 minutes ago, Keyrock said:

Anyway, pretty good chips ftom Intel overall. Nothing revolutionary, but they're hanging in there better than I expected with the ancient Core architecture.

Way more realistic offerings from Intel, certainly, and they seem to have finally acknowledged that Zen changed the game in desktop semi permanently. A lot of the senseless segmentation like gating HT has gone, not before time. End of the day though it's basically the same thing Intel has offered since 2016 (well 2017, for the 10 core 7900k) with a price drop, marginally better clocks and a lot more juice required. They will probably also have the same supply issues they currently have outside the US.

Should also be noted, Linus got unusually low temps/ wattage for his 10900k, others got considerably higher wattage.

[AwesomeOcelot]

Quote

The number of people who spend 2000+USD on a rig to play Tomb Raider at 1080p low quality is not overly large.

I don't get the point in posting that chart, whoever would do that is insane. These CPU benchmarks don't make any real world sense.

For the other chart, sure, for the people who have a 2080 Ti and want to play DOTA at ultra 1440p choose a 10700K over a 3700X. It's just funny that someone would take the time to cherry pick the one benchmark with a large difference from a page. Older games that aren't as multi-threaded aren't going to run as well on Ryzen. For most people though, buying a 3600X and a better GPU is going to make a lot more sense.

[ComradeYellow]

Bah!  And they say we Yankees have no sense of humor. ...

This one's a little more in depth

[Zoraptor]

Thing is even if you're an egamer who wants max fps in csgo or whatever- which is a realistic usage scenario- unless you're also in the money no object bracket your best purchase option is probably the 10300k (?, the rebadged 7700k anyway) because its single core performance will be about the same, it will cost so much less, and can work effectively with a cheap cooler which takes a further $100 off.

[AwesomeOcelot]

Listen to Steve's conclusion. If you want the absolute highest FPS in games get this CPU. Also he struggled to see scaling in many gaming benchmarks. You can force scaling, by lowering the resolution and settings. You're never going to be using those settings. Ask yourself if a 10600K makes more real world sense, and check out that review and how well that stacks up against AMD. In certain circumstances yes, but in most others a 3600 for ~$90 less and spending more money on a GPU makes more sense.

Edited May 21, 2020 by AwesomeOcelot

[Keyrock]

Quote

I hope AVX512 dies a painful death, and that Intel starts fixing real problems instead of trying to create magic instructions to then create benchmarks that they can look good on.

I hope Intel gets back to basics: gets their process working again, and concentrate more on regular code that isn't HPC or some other pointless special case.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again: in the heyday of x86, when Intel was laughing all the way to the bank and killing all their competition, absolutely everybody else did better than Intel on FP loads. Intel's FP performance sucked (relatively speaking), and it matter not one iota.

Because absolutely nobody cares outside of benchmarks.

The same is largely true of AVX512 now - and in the future. Yes, you can find things that care. No, those things don't sell machines in the big picture.

And AVX512 has real downsides. I'd much rather see that transistor budget used on other things that are much more relevant. Even if it's still FP math (in the GPU, rather than AVX512). Or just give me more cores (with good single-thread performance, but without the garbage like AVX512) like AMD did.

I want my power limits to be reached with regular integer code, not with some AVX512 power virus that takes away top frequency (because people ended up using it for memcpy!) and takes away cores (because those useless garbage units take up space).

Yes, yes, I'm biased. I absolutely destest FP benchmarks, and I realize other people care deeply. I just think AVX512 is exactly the wrong thing to do. It's a pet peeve of mine. It's a prime example of something Intel has done wrong, partly by just increasing the fragmentation of the market.

Stop with the special-case garbage, and make all the core common stuff that everybody cares about run as well as you humanly can. Then do a FPU that is barely good enough on the side, and people will be happy. AVX2 is much more than enough.

Yeah, I'm grumpy. - Linus Tolvalds

 

Quote

 

This is much ado about nothing, but I get a kick out of Linus' outbursts. He's gone off on pretty much all the manufacturers at one point or another, but his meltdowns concerning Nvidia are the stuff of legend. 

Edited July 14, 2020 by Keyrock
Because the forum software is super garbage

[Keyrock]

^ The post above didn't come out even remotely how I planned to post it, but the forum software is so garbage that I can't even edit it to have it make much sense. Just disregard it.

[Bartimaeus]

PSA to the clowns who make this forum software (who I know will never read this, but nevertheless): your lack of a plaintext/bbcode mode is bad and you should feel bad for removing it.

[kirottu]

2 hours ago, Keyrock said:

^ The post above didn't come out even remotely how I planned to post it, but the forum software is so garbage that I can't even edit it to have it make much sense. Just disregard it.

You're not the boss of me. I even went and liked it. What are you going to do about it? Huh?!

[Malcador]

Just have to do it above, I think

Anyway, I would like to point out (again) that I'm very very biased. I seriously have an irrational hatred of vector units and FP benchmarks. I'll be very open about it. I think they are largely a complete waste of transistors and effort, and I think the amount of time spent on them - both by hardware people and by software people trying to use them - has been largely been time wasted.

So I'm exaggerating and overstating things to the point of half kidding. But only half. I'm taking a fairly extreme standpoint, and I know my hatred isn't really rational, but just a personal quirk and just pure unadulterated opinionated ranting.

So take it as such - with a huge pinch of salt

 

 

[kirottu]

Intel removed memory overclocking support from all their new budget/mid grade processors and motherboards.

[Bartimaeus]

lmao, man, screw Intel

[Keyrock]

Linus lookin' good with that luscious beard, tho.

[Zoraptor]

Intel 7nm process delayed until at least 2022, perhaps 2023. Since they haven't yet got more than 4 cores out of 10nm that may mean 14nm desktop for 3 more years.

Though they do still seem to be saying that they will have 10nm server chips this year, which implies higher core counts. Maybe higher core counts via a chiplet design, which could get at least some desktop onto 10nm too?

[looks like 10nm server (and desktop) is delayed to at least 2H 2021 now as well actually, from the earning reports comments. Guess they could still be getting higher core counts via a chiplet approach though]

[and using an (unnamed, but it can surely only be Samsung or way more likely TSMC) external foundry for their 7nm discrete GPUs is also in there too]

Edited July 24, 2020 by Zoraptor

[Bartimaeus]

lmao

there may come a day where I feel bad for intel, but that is not this day, and probably not any time soon

Edited July 24, 2020 by Bartimaeus

[Humanoid]

I'll feel bad for them the day VIA overtake them on market share.

[Malcador]

Xe is outsourced to TMSC, I believe.  Disappointing news, at least they apparently have a grasp on the issue so it's not a total disaster.  Guess it does go to show how difficult the engineering is.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/15926/intel-7nm-delayed-by-6-months-company-to-take-pragmatic-approach-in-using-3rd-party-fabs

On the bright side, have a lot of entertaining uninformed opinions on this to read.

 

Edited July 24, 2020 by Malcador

[Keyrock]

Whatever Lisa Su paid those shinobi to infiltrate and sabotage Intel's foundries, they earned all their money and then some. 

Seriously, though, Intel is still raking in money hand over fist, so I'm not going to break out a violin and play a sad tune for them (also, I can't play the violin). I do hope Intel gets its **** together with their fab. There are limits to what you can squeeze out of 14nm and the last thing I want is for AMD to get as far ahead of Intel as Intel was ahead of them 5 or 6 years ago. In an ideal world, team blue and team red are fighting tooth and nail with extremely competitive products, that's the best scenario for consumers.

Edited July 24, 2020 by Keyrock

[Zoraptor]

Intel stuffing up triggers a lot of schadenfreude after their deliberate policy of chip stagnation when dominant and obvious hubris about 'always' having the best fabs and best engineers but it isn't great long term. Everyone except TMSC either dropping out of the top tier or main tier (GloFo/ IBM) or having problems (Samsung/ Intel) is not a great situation long term as it gives TMSC far too much influence. Much as I will laugh if nVidia's next GPUs are space heaters again because Jensen played chicken with the wrong people it does illustrate that TMSC has a lot of influence on 3rd party products and that is inherently a bad situation.

Then again, Intel influencing that really depends on them also opening their foundries to 3rd parties, and the shift is the other way with them going 3rd party themselves.