Slashdot Mirror


Intel's 9th Gen Processors Rumored To Launch In October With 8 Cores (theverge.com)

According to a new report from Wccftech, Intel will introduce new Core i9, i7, and i5 chips on October 1st that will be branded as 9th generation processors. The Verge reports: The mainstream flagship processor, Intel's Core i9-9900K, is expected to ship with 8 cores and 16 threads. Leaked documents show that this will be the first mainstream Core i9 desktop processor, and will include 16 MB of L3 cache and Intel's UHD 620 graphics chip. Even Intel's 9th gen Core i7 processor is expected to ship with 8 cores and 8 threads (up from the current 6 cores), with the Core i5 shipping with 6 cores and 6 threads. Intel is reportedly launching its unlocked overclockable processors first, followed by more 9th generation processors early next year.

233 comments

  1. What is the reasoning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    For having an i7 that has 8 cores but not 16 threads? Is the i9 the new i7?

    1. Re:What is the reasoning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For having an i7 that has 8 cores but not 16 threads? Is the i9 the new i7?

      Another anti consumer move from Intel. i7 is crippled on purpose to give the high end market an incentive to get the i9. Go get a Ryzen if you want to avoid this sort of thing.

    2. Re:What is the reasoning by bobstreo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      For having an i7 that has 8 cores but not 16 threads? Is the i9 the new i7?

      How many cores do you need for facebook, yahoo mail and netflix? /s

    3. Re:What is the reasoning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least you can just buy an i9 and youre not screwed over.

      microsoft one upped intel on this. Windows 7 professional and ultimate - the best versions of windows 7 and fit for use in corporate offices, became another version of windows 10 home - a crap edition designed for low-computer-use home users. The real Windows Professional meant for corporate users, got renamed to windows 10 enterprise.

    4. Re:What is the reasoning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For having an i7 that has 8 cores but not 16 threads? Is the i9 the new i7?

      How many cores do you need for facebook, yahoo mail and netflix? /s

      For that sort of thing I'd be using zero cores on my PC. Facebook and mail are on the phone, and using a TV app for Netflix.

      When I'm gaming in the foreground, with Chrome running and also have my download tools running in the background, more cores are welcome.

      I don't stream my games but that would also take up CPU time if I were a streamer.

      I do also code and run VMs (at least one of those VMs will be Windows + Visual Studio) so having more cores to dedicate to the VMs would help.

      Someone with your severely limited abilities should rather go get an iPad. As a bonus you'll be less likely to screw it up.

    5. Re:What is the reasoning by bobstreo · · Score: 0

      For having an i7 that has 8 cores but not 16 threads? Is the i9 the new i7?

      How many cores do you need for facebook, yahoo mail and netflix? /s

      For that sort of thing I'd be using zero cores on my PC. Facebook and mail are on the phone, and using a TV app for Netflix.

      When I'm gaming in the foreground, with Chrome running and also have my download tools running in the background, more cores are welcome.

      I don't stream my games but that would also take up CPU time if I were a streamer.

      I do also code and run VMs (at least one of those VMs will be Windows + Visual Studio) so having more cores to dedicate to the VMs would help.

      Someone with your severely limited abilities should rather go get an iPad. As a bonus you'll be less likely to screw it up.

      Nah, I don't allow any Apple or Microsoft products in my house, unless a temporary guest is using them.

    6. Re:What is the reasoning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you'd like to believe the Intel haters on /. you'd need a Threadripper 2 with 32 cores and 64 threads.
      I mean sure, Intel has behaved like asshats for quite a while. But all that AMD fanboism starts to get out of hand.

    7. Re:What is the reasoning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably because that i7 with "8 cores" is really a 4 core chip with some sort of obfuscation to make the hyper threaded cores look like real cores.

      Even if it ain't true, one has to wonder how long till this kind of BS enters the market? Who would know after all unless you delid your CPU and examine the die under a microscope? If a core race starts you can bet someone will turn to this kind of slimy BS.

      A core race will probably be the next step since actual Mhz hasn't increased much over the years, I have 3ghz core 2 quad core chips in a small home esxi lab that are probably nearly a decade old today and common desktop chips are still hovering around the 3ghz point these days

    8. Re:What is the reasoning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      i9 is just a marketing gimmick, replace the current naming convention with the following and you'll know what you're really getting

      i9 = i7
      i7 = i5
      i5 = i3
      i3 = Celeron

    9. Re:What is the reasoning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only 4. Four thermobaric bombs would solve all of them.

    10. Re:What is the reasoning by jszpilewski · · Score: 1

      It happened to i5 before. It went from 2 hyper threaded cores to 4 single threaded. The standard for i7 is having 8 threads. It still stays but now with 8 full cores it will perform better, avoid HT security risks and with simpler cache the CPU will be more energy efficient as well.

    11. Re:What is the reasoning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you forgotten about Spectre and Meltdown already? That's why they're not hyper-threaded.

    12. Re:What is the reasoning by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Is the i9 the new i7?

      I just came here to post "i9 is the new i7". And i7 is the new i5. I really, really don't appreciate that, it's insulting to my intelligence.

      And now I'm the new AMD fan. Oh wait, I'm the old AMD fan returning to the fold after a couple generations in the wilderness. What fun to see Intel playing catch-up with AMD. Though AMD is not Intel's biggest problem, far from it, ARM is.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    13. Re:What is the reasoning by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      The standard for i7 is having 8 threads.

      Sorry, don't buy that spin. More like, the standard for Intel is to insult my intelligence.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    14. Re:What is the reasoning by Tough+Love · · Score: 2

      Have you forgotten about Spectre and Meltdown already? That's why they're not hyper-threaded.

      Brilliant, so that's why i9 is not hyper-threaded? Oh wait.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    15. Re:What is the reasoning by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      I'm on a 13" Mac Bok Air, 2014.
      Threads: 2541 (but all the time new spawn and vanish again, top at the moment was 2900)
      Processes: 276

      Luckily the system is 85% idle ...

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    16. Re:What is the reasoning by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      It happened to i5 before. It went from 2 hyper threaded cores to 4 single threaded.

      Didn't it do the exact opposite when Westmere replaced Nehalem?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    17. Re:What is the reasoning by PixetaledPikachu · · Score: 0

      At least you can just buy an i9 and youre not screwed over.

      microsoft one upped intel on this. Windows 7 professional and ultimate - the best versions of windows 7 and fit for use in corporate offices, became another version of windows 10 home - a crap edition designed for low-computer-use home users. The real Windows Professional meant for corporate users, got renamed to windows 10 enterprise.

      Enterprise version of Windows has always been there since XP to 10, available only through volume licensing or enterprise agreement.Win10 Pro is still available through retailer, and it can join a domain just fine, and even come with bitlocker, while Win7 Pro doesn't. What kind function that are you looking for and is missing from 10Pro?

    18. Re:What is the reasoning by OwP_Fabricated · · Score: 1

      The the better to charge you more in the name of short-term profits!

    19. Re:What is the reasoning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As many as I can get for the money I wish to spend.

    20. Re:What is the reasoning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that AMD crippled the memory channels on Threadripper 2 to protect their EPYC sales.

      This is just product segmentation, everyone does it. Take the fanboy blinkers off.

    21. Re:What is the reasoning by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "What kind function that are you looking for and is missing from 10Pro?"

      The ability to disable Microsoft spyware

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    22. Re:What is the reasoning by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      How many cores do you need for facebook, yahoo mail and netflix? /s

      Sssssssh! Don't tell them a Pentium 3 is adequate, I need cheap 32 core CPUs for my workstation!

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    23. Re:What is the reasoning by PixetaledPikachu · · Score: 1

      "What kind function that are you looking for and is missing from 10Pro?"

      The ability to disable Microsoft spyware

      Ah yeah, kinda forget about that as I haven't used Windows in quite some time. Isn't Microsoft "ported" those spyware to Win7 and 8.x?

    24. Re: What is the reasoning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ability to check all possible hash values in under a second.

    25. Re:What is the reasoning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah ok, I didnt realize there was a windows 7 enterprise but still, windows 7 professional was a good edition fit for office use and one that microsoft didnt treat you as the product. In windows 10 professional microsoft blocked off many group policy options which cannot be changed except with the enterprise version. Some of it is the telemetry stuff and disabling all store apps.

    26. Re:What is the reasoning by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Ah yeah, kinda forget about that as I haven't used Windows in quite some time. Isn't Microsoft "ported" those spyware to Win7 and 8.x?

      Yes, but you can remove it, let alone deactivate it.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    27. Re:What is the reasoning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, until Microsoft allows us to disable their spyware, Windows 10 simply doesn't exist to me. Will never appear inside my home. Dead on arrival.

    28. Re:What is the reasoning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention no subscription fees for "permission" to use your computer.

    29. Re:What is the reasoning by jszpilewski · · Score: 1

      It happened to i5 before. It went from 2 hyper threaded cores to 4 single threaded.

      Didn't it do the exact opposite when Westmere replaced Nehalem?

      In the early evolutions they might have aimed for adding the graphics core while staying in the budget of reasonable chip size (and prize) . They went back to full 4 cores once the process improvements made it possible.

    30. Re:What is the reasoning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "What kind function that are you looking for and is missing from 10Pro?"

      The ability to disable Microsoft spyware

      You mean the ability to disable Microsoft.

    31. Re:What is the reasoning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pointless when Microsoft gimped Win7's graphics subsystem with whatever most recent update they did. Framerate has literally halved on everything from simple things like DOOM and Nation Red up to things like Contagion, Crysis, and more. Pulled a fresh reinstall and update, same thing. Whatever they've done after SP1 has been purposefully crippling the OS.

    32. Re:What is the reasoning by samwichse · · Score: 1

      We didn't buy a threadripper, but we did buy dual 16-core Epycs (2.4ghz base clock 7351's).

      64 threads? Yes please. But we're not a typical use case.

      For the work-a-day machines where people are running excel/word/browser, we usually get core i3's with 16gb of ram and an SSD. No one ever complains as long as we peel the sticker off that says "i3" on it. Then they occasionally ask why they got a "crappy computer."

      Heck, I picked up an Intel NUC 6CAYH to play with, it would be more than enough to do office desktop work. Machines today are so ridiculously overpowered.

      Sam

    33. Re:What is the reasoning by Dragonslicer · · Score: 2

      How many cores do you need for facebook, yahoo mail and netflix? /s

      With current web browsers, at least 8. </obligatory>

    34. Re:What is the reasoning by samwichse · · Score: 1

      I'm just waiting for them to go all the way to i11.

    35. Re:What is the reasoning by Gr8Apes · · Score: 2

      "What kind function that are you looking for and is missing from 10Pro?"

      The ability to disable Microsoft spyware

      You mean the ability to disable Microsoft.

      That I already have: Linux works fine for most things.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    36. Re:What is the reasoning by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      Probably because that i7 with "8 cores" is really a 4 core chip with some sort of obfuscation to make the hyper threaded cores look like real cores.

      Even if it ain't true, one has to wonder how long till this kind of BS enters the market? Who would know after all unless you delid your CPU and examine the die under a microscope?

      Simple enough - run a multi-threaded test. A hyper threaded core will be at best something like 30% faster than a comparative single threads, while true single threaded cores will run nearly 100% faster.

      If a core race starts you can bet someone will turn to this kind of slimy BS.

      A core race will probably be the next step since actual Mhz hasn't increased much over the years, I have 3ghz core 2 quad core chips in a small home esxi lab that are probably nearly a decade old today and common desktop chips are still hovering around the 3ghz point these days

      core races have already started.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    37. Re:What is the reasoning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ability to copy files to and from USB attached devices, without Windows transfer rate falling to sub 1kb, often stalling at 0b/S.
      This is a wide-spread, widely criticized failing of Windows 10. With all kinds of unhelpful suggestions from Microsoft.
      Re-install Windows 7 with the same hardware and back to 100MB/S to 300MB/S as was the norm.

      Search for it yourself. Windows 10 copying process blows chunks.

    38. Re:What is the reasoning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've got a workstation with a 1920X that is mostly used for LabView. I've got to say that I like it for parallel workloads. It makes a very good CPU for those cases.
      But at home an i7-4790k is serving me pretty well. The few games that I like are running well enough (except the one I'll be talking about later). But I start noticing that is is getting old and has reached its limits when it comes to overclocking with sustainable cooling solutions. I'm not sure how much I would need in the future. And I don't really want to go for another Intel given what they've done in the recent past. They already pissed me off by making me pay for that IGP that I'll probably never use. Seriously, who buys a high end CPU and then would not use a discrete GPU? So will be waiting for Zen2 benchmarks. But if an Intel will come out on top according to my own criteria, I'm not going to buy an AMD for ideological reasons.

      And then I know other cases like one particular video game - Star Citizen. There the developers keep promising that the game will utilize all cores and threads that people are throwing at it, making it scale better with more threads than high single core performance.
      Therefore some very smart people thought that investing in Skylake-X would be a smart idea. So they did. And when they realized that those CPU performed even worse than their previous i7's post purchase post-purchase rationalization kicked and suddenly a lot of people were working with AutoCAD, Blender, video editing or wanted to stream their games anyway. Some returned their hardware. A bit of time went on until Threadripper came around. Certainly now it would be a good idea to invest in such a CPU for gaming, right? History repeated itself.
      Well, it's their money in the end. But having to deal with those rationalizations can be pretty annoying.

    39. Re:What is the reasoning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol fag

    40. Re: What is the reasoning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Citation needed. Was that really the reason?

    41. Re: What is the reasoning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Windows 7 SP1 was released in Feb 2011.

      Wtf are you talking about.

    42. Re:What is the reasoning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Don't tell them a Pentium 3 is adequate

      No it isn't. I had to use one a while back and it was slow as molasses. Anything equivalent to a Core 2 Duo should probably work, though.

    43. Re: What is the reasoning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No citation needed, it's an inherent limitation of the TR4 platform. It is either product segmentation or incompetence.

    44. Re:What is the reasoning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For the work-a-day machines where people are running excel/word/browser, we usually get core i3's with 16gb of ram and an SSD. No one ever complains as long as we peel the sticker off that says "i3" on it. Then they occasionally ask why they got a "crappy computer."

      It's awesome how people are .. misinformed.
      You didn't say if these were laptops or desktop though.
      Car analogy, a car with 300 HP and one with 400 HP. It doesn't make any difference esp. if the task is to drive at 30 mph without running over pedestrians. And in this case the 300 HP car can carry 7 people, their luggage, has a ball mount for a trailer and does 60 mpg.

    45. Re:What is the reasoning by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      For having an i7 that has 8 cores but not 16 threads? Is the i9 the new i7?

      How many cores do you need for facebook, yahoo mail and netflix? /s

      If you are buying an i9 or i7 just to browse the net you are doing it wrong.

    46. Re:What is the reasoning by Tyger-ZA · · Score: 1

      core races have already started.

      Begun the core war has

    47. Re: What is the reasoning by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      Sounds about right.

    48. Re:What is the reasoning by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      I thought I just had shitty flash drives. I know exactly what you mean. 15 mins to transfer 100mb over usb3.0 wtf. with 7 of those minutes while it shows 100% written 0s remsining. 0s my ass.

    49. Re:What is the reasoning by Agripa · · Score: 1

      For having an i7 that has 8 cores but not 16 threads? Is the i9 the new i7?

      How many cores do you need for facebook, yahoo mail and netflix? /s

      An extra core is needed for each application to support the spying software required by the court.

  2. Noobs will be thrilled! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And the power builders will grab up those 32 core 64 thread STR-4's with all those lanes, never looking back at the blue man fools.

  3. Biggest Intel perf bump in years? by JoeyRox · · Score: 2

    By just fixing Meltdown and Spectre :)

    1. Re:Biggest Intel perf bump in years? by Anubis+IV · · Score: 4, Informative

      The hardware fixes for those flaws apparently won’t be included until Ice Lake. Intel is saying Ice Lake won’t be available in volume until 2H 2019, but it was originally scheduled for 2016, so I’ll believe that when I see it. Realistically, don’t expect those fixes in Intel chips until 2020 or later.

    2. Re:Biggest Intel perf bump in years? by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Meltdown and Spectre don't depend on hyperthreading, they just run faster with it.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    3. Re:Biggest Intel perf bump in years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It will be fixed when a better hidden Five Eyes backdoor is baked into the chips.

  4. This is why competition is good... by barc0001 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    AMD seems to have really shaken up Intel's complacent little world over the last 18 months with the Ryzen.

    1. Re:This is why competition is good... by Tough+Love · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A blow to the ego, certainly, but real damage? I doubt it. ARM bites Intel a whole lot harder.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    2. Re:This is why competition is good... by GuB-42 · · Score: 2

      I don't think GP was thinking about AMD damaging Intel.
      Rather that AMD is now a serious, and much needed competitor, just like in the Athlon days.

      As for ARM biting Intel, I don't think that's really the case. Compared to Intel/AMD, ARM plays in the cutthroat market of mobile devices, with low power, low performance, low price chips. In fact, Intel has an ARM license, and they used it to make the XScale line. It is not the only halfassed attempt from Intel at the mobile market, but I guess the margins are too low for them. Luckily for Intel (and AMD now), all these mobile devices connect to big, fat servers, where there is a lot of money to be made.
      ARM for servers don't seem too take off, which is unsurprising considering that most ARM manufacturers don't have much experience in high performance computing.

    3. Re:This is why competition is good... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "AMD seems to have really shaken up Intel's complacent little world over the last 18 months with the Ryzen."

      Only to a point. AMD owes much of it's current position due to Intel manufacturing being unable to deliver 10nm in 2016 like the product roadmap expected. The equivalent of Ice Lake should have already been out at this point. Given that even Zen+ doesn't match the IPC of the 3 year old Skylake, this would have been another case of AMD releasing a cheaper but less capable architecture.

      The surprising thing is how Intel have been able to fight back as well as they have with their hands effectively tied.

      This illustrates both the disadvantages and advantages of having your own fabs. Intel set some really ambitious goals for 10nm, and it bit them hard. Someone else might use another fab as a contingency. On the other hand, they've been able to tune their 14nm process well beyond what a fab house would likely do. AMD is allegedly using a more advanced process yet they can't get anywhere near the frequency of Intel. This is largely down to Intel's manufacturing ability, rather then any significant design differences. If anything, the smaller CCXs that AMD use should theoretically scale better, but they're limited by manufacturing.

    4. Re:This is why competition is good... by Tough+Love · · Score: 4, Insightful

      For Intel, ARM is the invisible bite that doesn't show up directly because it is related to the PC market decline, which is entirely explained by people doing without PCs in favor of mobile ARM devices. If it wasn't for ARM, Intel would be sellilng a billion more processors a year than it now does, think about it. Intel badly wanted that mobile market and were utterly defeated. They could easily start peddling ARMs themselves, but not for the margin they got used to and are now dependent on.

      Meanwhile. AMD is nice enough to not undercut too much. Not because they don't want to, but because they can't afford it. The last thing Intel should do now is go kill AMD with antitrust thuggery again, that would be extremely unwise, it would just push AMD into the arms of somebody much richer, and much more of a threat. A curious kind of detent we have going on now, with AMD enthusiasts the big winners.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    5. Re:This is why competition is good... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      even Zen+ doesn't match the IPC of the 3 year old Skylake, this would have been another case of AMD releasing a cheaper but less capable architecture.

      If you put in perspective that Intel's IPC improvement YoY has been less than 5%, this so called "3 year" difference can be put in the "it really doesn't matter much" dept. Couple that with Intel's always horrendous IPCD (instructions per cycle per dollar) and AMD got a winner.

    6. Re:This is why competition is good... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      4.5 years ago, Intel announced it was cutting $350 million from it's R&D budget and putting $350 million into diversity programs. Just a coincidence of course.

      Also a coincidence that 4+ years later, Intel has stumbled badly and been overtaken by the likes of Samsung.

      Lesson: when that idiot from HR comes to you with a proposal for super-duper diversity that will absolutely improve your decision making and lead to higher profits as it's latest fad among all the useful fucking college intake born of Gender Studies and Marxism courses... shitcan them.

      Right there.

      You'll save yourself billions in the long run.

    7. Re:This is why competition is good... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      AMD is making real inroads in the server market now.

      AMD parts can do a lot of stuff that Intel can't, such an encrypted RAM and offering a huge number of PCIe lanes. And of course, they offer more threads at a better price.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    8. Re:This is why competition is good... by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      actually.... no.

      onboard gfx is lagging seriously behind, along with power savings.

      I bought only intel for many of the last few generations of chips; I have a fanless heatpipe cooled i7 on my desk. can't do that with ryzen; for one, there is no good cpu with onboard apu (yet) and those with onboard gfx are not power efficient yet.

      I want to buy ryzen. been wanting a 1700 for the 16 thread perf, but I refuse to buy a gfx CARD (I'm not a gamer) and a waste of a slot is a big deal today. I need that pcie slot for nvme; and no, I'm not mounting it behind the board where it will cook! ;(

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    9. Re:This is why competition is good... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where are mod points if you need them... for an upvote, of course.

    10. Re:This is why competition is good... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      In fact, Intel has an ARM license, and they used it to make the XScale line.

      They gave up because, ironically, they couldn't get the power consumption down as low as other ARM devices while at lower clock rates. This is ironic because intel is known for lower power consumption x86 processors these days, which is also ironic because they were previously known for the pentium melting its socket during testing.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    11. Re:This is why competition is good... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      For Intel, ARM is the invisible bite that doesn't show up directly because it is related to the PC market decline, which is entirely explained by people doing without PCs in favor of mobile ARM devices.

      The processing power is in the cloud instead of in people's hands. The market for high-end processors may well have shrunk as virtualization means higher resource utilization, but it hasn't shrunk so much as the increasing dependence on handhelds translating into a reduced dependence on desktops might imply.

      Meanwhile. AMD is nice enough to not undercut too much. Not because they don't want to, but because they can't afford it.

      That's not nice, though. That's just being responsive to market forces.

      A curious kind of detent we have going on now, with AMD enthusiasts the big winners.

      As if we weren't already the big winners :D

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    12. Re:This is why competition is good... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The thing is that it takes years to develop a new architecture. AMD is not hurting Intel significantly now, but the writing is on the wall. Their EPYC processors are going to eat Intel's lunch in the server market. They have much lower TDP to performance ratio, which is huge in datacenters, and Intel has nothing in the pipeline to address that, not to mention that AMD is much less vulnerable to Spectre and Meltdown. The fact that a data center can now get a 32-core chip that supports 2 TB RAM and supports SME, and Intel has big problems.

      This is good for everybody. Look how crappy the CPU market was while AMD sucked. Intel's performance gap forced AMD to innovate, and now the opposite. Competition is awesome.

    13. Re:This is why competition is good... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Intel has been slipping on the innovation front for at least 7 years now (when Sandybridge debuted, from there it went downhill). Now, if you take into account the time to market new products, we could consider it nearly 10 years.

      See? Intel has problems and the diversity program obviously will be a favorite to serve as escapegoat, but in fact it doesn't have anything to do with it.

    14. Re:This is why competition is good... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everything you just said tells me you don't bother shopping around for mobos and probably haven't looked inside a computer case in years. Plenty have NVMe slots away from the GPU.

    15. Re:This is why competition is good... by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      Why it just get one of those USB to display adapters. No gpu needed plus it's almost as good as the Intel igpu just without 3D

    16. Re:This is why competition is good... by barc0001 · · Score: 4, Informative

      > 4.5 years ago, Intel announced it was cutting $350 million from it's R&D budget and putting $350 million into diversity programs. Just a coincidence of course.

      You know, if you're gonna lie about things, you should pick something that a quick Google search or two won't show to be a porker:

      First of all, it's $300 M for diversity programs, to be spent from 2015 to 2020, so they have not spent $350M on it, and the 300 M hasn't had more than 70% spent.

      Secondly on the R&D, they've been ADDING to the R&D budget year over year:

      https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/04/17/heres-how-intel-corp-cut-its-marketing-spending-by.aspx

      "During the year, Intel's research and development (R&D) spending grew by just $358 million, a slowdown from the $612 million increase that it saw there during 2016."

      I get it, you think diversity programs are a waste of time because Western society is 100% perfect and we totally didn't have racists and Nazis parading this weekend, but don't blame a company going into the toilet on them spending $60m a year on a program when their income for that same year was almost 70 Billion with a B. That's like saying you weren't able to make your $1000 rent this month because you spent a buck on coffee.

    17. Re:This is why competition is good... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fucking racist little shit

    18. Re: This is why competition is good... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He didn't lie. His numbers were off by a bit.

      Also, you prove his point with this tidbit:

      "During the year, Intel's research and development (R&D) spending grew by just $358 million, a slowdown from the $612 million increase that it saw there during 2016."

      So in 2017 they spent around 350m less on R&D. Pretty much what the OP was saying. They are spending less and less on R&D and more and more on bullshit that DOESNT make them money.

    19. Re: This is why competition is good... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This. The dudes like 65 years old. He hasn't opened a computer case in 15 years.

    20. Re:This is why competition is good... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > which is entirely explained by people doing without PCs in favor of mobile ARM devices

      This isn't necessarily true. Sales of PCs have declined, but not necessarily use. People are taking statistics and possibly misinterpreting them.

      Sales of PCs have declined because their old PCs are still working and still usable. A first-gen i3 or even Core series still function well for most tasks. There was a big spike in performance with Sandy Bridge, but only incremental improvements until Ryzen and Coffee Lake came along.

      Some people point to web browsing statistics as proving mobile is replacing PC, but that could just mean people are browsing on buses/trains or in-between classes. The decline of print media is probably a factor in this (cell phones replacing newspapers, not PCs).

      So, I'd argue the PC market has slowed down, but not the use of PCs. Just like the auto market has declined, yet people still use cars.

    21. Re:This is why competition is good... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > we totally didn't have racists and Nazis parading this weekend

      Nazis on the street isn't an issue. They've been doing demonstrations since the 90s and even earlier. What's different is there's a group of lunatics deliberate causing violence in order to fight them, claiming to be be on "the right side of history". They aren't. They only making the situation worse.

    22. Re:This is why competition is good... by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      AMD parts can do a lot of stuff that Intel can't, such an encrypted RAM and offering a huge number of PCIe lanes. And of course, they offer more threads at a better price.

      On the other side, ECC in consumer parts really ups the ante.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    23. Re:This is why competition is good... by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      AMD is not hurting Intel significantly now, but the writing is on the wall.

      AMD has something like a one year window of great looking margins and income, because of Intel's laziness/greed/blunders and because of AMDs great engineering and product sense. Also, the decision to go fabless is looking like pure genius as of today, whereas for a number of years it was widely regarded as a harbinger of doom. It's that fabless thing that has the best chance of carrying AMD's current advantage beyond the current product cycle.

      As I see it, Intel has only two realistic paths to getting back out in front: 1) stop competing with TSMC and friends and join them instead 2) engage in massive illegal trustmaking activity again. Obviously, there are issues with the second one.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    24. Re: This is why competition is good... by barc0001 · · Score: 1

      > So in 2017 they spent around 350m less on R&D. Pretty much what the OP was saying.

      Again you're cherry picking. OP said "4.5 years ago, Intel announced it was cutting $350 million from it's R&D budget and putting $350 million into diversity programs."

      4.5 years ago is 2013/2014, not 2017.

      > They are spending less and less on R&D and more and more on bullshit that DOESNT make them money.

      Like the nearly 1 billion they spent on marketing?

      And you're also wrong there, because if you would again accurately report what was written in that quote, you'd see it says "a slowdown from the $612 million INCREASE... during 2016". So instead of they are spending less and less, you mean to say "they are spending less, then more, then less". Companies adjust their spending all the time. Intel can spend its money the way it feels is most productive, and there are people counting beans over there that know way more about the internal workings than either of us. If they think the money on diversity is a good spend, that's why they've done it.

    25. Re:This is why competition is good... by barc0001 · · Score: 1

      > What's different is there's a group of lunatics deliberate causing violence in order to fight them, claiming to be be on "the right side of history". They aren't. They only making the situation worse.

      Totally right, the Chamberlain approach to appeasement works wonders. That Churchill bastard fucked it all up.

    26. Re:This is why competition is good... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL. He worked his way around to Nazis by the end. Remember kiddies, if you don't support flushing money down the crapper, you are literally Hitler

      The upshot of your post... it was 'only' $300 million. And it WAS cut from R&D...

      Smooth move there.

      Look. You can directly link R&D to profits. There's not one single shred of proof that diversity funding makes the slightest difference - except it costs a fortune. It's smoke and mirrors to direct money to bullshitters and far left groups.

      I'll repeat: if the HR idiot comes to you to suggest a massive diversity program... fire them immediately. It will very likely save your business. Or at the very least, scale up the diversity spending slowly and demand actual proof of benefit - not just far left academics either... actual facts and figures (that's where it all falls apart).

    27. Re:This is why competition is good... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't work afaik. I think you need a GPU (which also has a VGA BIOS and the UEFI equivalent, which is always useful for basic graphics, boot menus and systems that halt and beep if there's no graphics card). Then you have some kind of driver taking GPU output, compressing it and sending it over USB.

      There's geforce GT 710 PCIe 1x (if you don't mind max 2560x1600)
      Or filing the end of a 1x slot, but well.

    28. Re: This is why competition is good... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not quite the full story. The xScale chips were relatively high performance compared to othe arm implementations. However to get the lower power consumption at low load required a specific low power process, and there wasn't enough demand to justify the costs at the time.

    29. Re: This is why competition is good... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Re: fabless = genius.

      Intel is extracting higher speeds from their designs.

    30. Re:This is why competition is good... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The final stage of diversity/Marxist entryism.

      Once the organism you've infected and fed off begins to fail... frantically divert attention away from your sponging and ruinous ways. Blame the managers who introduced your stupid fucking programs... it's their fault. They are incompetent.

      It's not diversity and quotas that filled up the important positions with mediocrities who, in turn, filled more roles with fellow travellers and useless shits.

      It can't be. It just can't... if you think it is you are a fucking racist Hitler worshipper.

      Well... game's up asshole.

      More and more people can see this happening right in front of them.

    31. Re: This is why competition is good... by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Intel is extracting higher speeds from their designs.

      Marginally, and not for all single core loads. And never forget that standard operating practice for Intel is to place their thumb on the benchmark scales. For example, check this out. No shortage of reports like that.

      Whatever slim lead Intel still has in single-core performance is widely expected to evaporate because of Intel's 10nm node fiasco, whereas AMD is already starting the 7nm production ramp for Instinct GPGPU parts. Don't just take my word for it.

      In short, Intel is about to lose whatever single-core IPC lead they still have, entirely because they built their own fabs and messed up. Going fabless for the 10nm node would have been brilliant but too late for that now. Maybe next node.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    32. Re:This is why competition is good... by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      Looks like this would work without taking an additional gpu.
      https://www.amazon.com/Diamond...

      Also I haven't seen a motherboard in years that wouldn't boot without gpu/keyboard. Thats 90's shit. The only time they halt now is with an error, and you can make them not even do that.

  5. As Fonzi Said by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    AyyyyyMD! And you can't get cooler than the Fonz!

  6. Thank you AMD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Thank the old gods and the new that we have a competitive AMD again. How long has intel sat on quad core cpus for for the consumer market? And now suddenly when AMD has competitive 8 core chips on the market, Intel thinks thats what the market is ready for... only now?? 8 cores should have came out a long long time ago so screw you intel holding back the computer industry.

    These 8 core chips coming soon from intel better be very very competitive priced too because they still have the problems with spectre and meltdown which wont be fixed until intel makes a major redesign to their chips.

    1. Re:Thank you AMD by Tough+Love · · Score: 2

      These 8 core chips coming soon from intel better be very very competitive priced too

      Let's speculate... I can't see the 8 core i9 selling for $329, which is where AMD has the 2700X right now. Mind you, the i9 does have a (lame but functional) graphics core, while you must install a GPU for the 8-core Ryzen, so that's a slight point on Intel's side. Very slight. It would be great to see AMD will respond with some minimal GPU on their 8 core Zen 2 parts next year, but AMD called it right anyway: everybody who plugs in that 16 thread beast also happily plugs in a GPU. On the lighter side, I do recall my moment of shock horror when my shiny new 1700 bench build came up with no video. Thought it was dead until I noticed the fan speed changing. Then duh.

      There is no way that the 8 threaded i7 competes with the 16 threaded 2700X unless it is half the price, which isn't going to happen. Even the 2400G looks better than the new I7, at least it has a credible GPU. Is Intel banking purely on brand loyalty this cycle?

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    2. Re:Thank you AMD by voss · · Score: 1

      If you want a built in graphics you are probably gonna go with the ryzen 5 with graphics
      4 cores, 8 threads and graphics for $150 is not a bad deal.

    3. Re:Thank you AMD by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's a no brainer for a budget build, even if you plan to stick in a GPU at some point. Give your wife or PC a highly respectable sit-down PC that costs maybe $500 to build, or $600 for the deluxe version. For myself it is equally a no brainer that I want 8 Zen cores, and now being thoroughly addicted I will go on to 16 (above that the core clock starts to drop) which is not something I need, it is something I want.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    4. Re: Thank you AMD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Itâ(TM)s easier than that. Shift the i monicker up two, raise the price 10%, and expect a 20% performance gain.

    5. Re:Thank you AMD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      4 Cores should be enough for anyone.

    6. Re:Thank you AMD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Realistically Intel couldn't have brought this to the market in a year and a half since Ryzen's release. It is highly likely that Intel planned to offer these ryzen-competitive products at closer to $500 than $300 originally though.

    7. Re:Thank you AMD by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      I love my 1700.. Now that I've tasted blood... I want the new 32 core TR.. This hobby is expensive..

    8. Re:Thank you AMD by samwichse · · Score: 1

      The only downside for a later upgrade with the 2200G/2400G are that it only has an 8x PCIe link. All the other non-integrated graphics can support the full PCIe 16x.

      But the performance hit is fairly small even for a beefy graphics card. Even so, it's giving me a bit of pause.

    9. Re:Thank you AMD by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Haha, same with me. My 1700 build is a budget workstation, about $1k of parts. Now I intend to drop more than twice that on a 16 core TR2 and I don't bother justifying. The build itself is the point.

      Well, I do max out all my cores on a regular basis, so it's not just for fun. But dammit, it is fun. I'm going for 16 cores instead of 32 because it's clocked higher, so on balance, better for my mix of serial and parallel loads. But I can certainly see the value of the 32 core part, it will be the go to part for video editing, for example.

      If budget was still the main thing, I would go for the 16 core Ryzen. But the TR has twice the memory channels and TR motherboards have twice the dimm slots, so that is enough justification to go up the food chain. Still trying to figure out what I'm going to do with all those PCI lanes. Obviously, the crytocurrency miners already figured that one out.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    10. Re:Thank you AMD by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      There is no way that the 8 threaded i7 competes with the 16 threaded 2700X unless it is half the price, which isn't going to happen.

      It will continue to compete, because enough people want the fastest, and that is simply the i7, period.
      My 8700K kills a 2700X in every game I've ever seen benchmarked.
      I fully understand that aggregate core performance of the 2700X per dollar is superior- but you need to accept that that metric just doesn't fucking matter to a whole lot of people.

    11. Re:Thank you AMD by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      I see your point. Maybe this part? solves the problem. Not sure about the socket or number of PCI lanes. Anyway, it's hard to complain about the 2400G at $150 as a throwaway placeholder, maybe even a keeper.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    12. Re:Thank you AMD by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      There is no way that the 8 threaded i7 competes with the 16 threaded 2700X unless it is half the price, which isn't going to happen.

      It will continue to compete, because enough people want the fastest, and that is simply the i7, period.

      That's a fool's game. There is always a faster one next quarter. But I agree, there is a great supply of fools. And inertia is a thing too, it is sometimes wise. But I still see Intel coming out on the wrong side of the decision tree here.

      My 8700K kills a 2700X in every game I've ever seen benchmarked.

      You mean crap games, not yet using Vulkan/D12. And "kills" is a wild exaggeration. 2700X is widely recognized as a perfectly good gaming part, built for the future instead of the past, and also the best workstation in class. Cores to spare, aggregate throughput without peer.

      I fully understand that aggregate core performance of the 2700X per dollar is superior- but you need to accept that that metric just doesn't fucking matter to a whole lot of people.

      I recognize that a lot of people are fucking stupid, I will give you that. Nutrition may not matter to them either.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    13. Re:Thank you AMD by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      That's a fool's game.

      That's like, your opinion, man.

      There is always a faster one next quarter.

      So? There's always a faster car next year too. Liking fast cars doesn't make me stupid. It means I have disposable income.

      You mean crap games, not yet using Vulkan/D12.

      No. That's not what I meant at all. And that's a pretty bone-headed correlation for you to make. Do I need to point out how stupid it is, or can we forget you said it?

      Beyond that- you *are* correct that the margin is very much reduced or inverted with the 2 DX12/Vulkan games out there.

      And "kills" is a wild exaggeration.

      No, it's not. Usually between a 10-30% lead in performance. That's killing, sorry.

      2700X is widely recognized as a perfectly good gaming part,

      By you, sure.
      Why speculate?
      Steam CPU Statistics Look at all that recognition!

      built for the future instead of the past

      Vomit. Please. It's just another processor. It's built to make money, that's it.

      and also the best workstation in class.

      You've got a real argument here.

      Cores to spare, aggregate throughput without peer.

      If only that mattered to people.

      I recognize that a lot of people are fucking stupid, I will give you that. Nutrition may not matter to them either.

      Wait, who's the idiot here? The person picking up the processors with better performance for their average workload, or the person picking up 32-core machines desperately looking for a use for them?

    14. Re:Thank you AMD by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      I have a number of builds here of various kinds that I justified with "because I need it for activities!" but when Ryzen came out I restrained myself because I already had enough powerful PC's I could have just done a few things on each, however my wife said that I should go ahead and build one(so i would quit talking to her about it I assume, lol) and out the door to frys I was. I did the bad customer thing and used their return policy, and the Segfault issue to bin myself a very nice performer. although out of the 7 or 8 CPU's I went through, 3 R5-1600x's, then had some extra money so I upgraded to the R7-1700(see frys benefited from it). With the experience I've had with frys and their staff, they deserve what I do. They will shelf a known bad part and try to sell it again. Ive actually bought a few and had to return them.

    15. Re:Thank you AMD by samwichse · · Score: 1

      Yea, the $20 price drop has made it almost irresistible... if RAM weren't so !#$^ expensive right now I'd have probably pulled the trigger in spite of the PCIe thing.

    16. Re:Thank you AMD by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      If memory price is too painful just at the moment then you could pick up 2x4GB for $90 to get started and add another 2x8GB later when the price comes down.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    17. Re:Thank you AMD by samwichse · · Score: 1

      That's true, although stepping down in RAM size for an upgrade is a bitter pill to swallow :)

    18. Re:Thank you AMD by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      you *are* correct that the margin is very much reduced or inverted with the 2 DX12/Vulkan games out there.

      Thanks for that, now try to connect the dots. I really don't care if an obsolete game engine runs 10% slower, I care about what happens with the new architecture that everybody is moving to. And you can hardly call any of those old crap engines unplayable on Ryzen, at least not without losing whatever cred you have, which is looking a bit thin at the moment to be honest.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    19. Re:Thank you AMD by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      2700X is widely recognized as a perfectly good gaming part,

      Steam CPU Statistics
      Look at all that recognition!

      What, AMD Steam share up from 11% in March to 15% in July? Undone by your own link.

      By the way, you have a crap posting style, you come across as a pimply teen taking revenge on the internet for being bullied.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    20. Re:Thank you AMD by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      So start with 2x8GB and add 2x8GB later, that's what I did. Now the remaining issue is, if I want to go higher my slots are already fully populated. Waste! Can't stand it. My solution is to fantasy-build a TR, partially populated with 64GB, and hand this rather nice machine down.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    21. Re:Thank you AMD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What you link to is APU for laptops no longer crippled with a 15W power budget - presumably they're 35W or 45W.

      APU are limited to 8x lanes (plus the 4x storage lines on the side and the 4x to chipset) instead of 16x because they reuse high performance data pins for the video outputs.

    22. Re:Thank you AMD by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      Not undone at all. There was a 5% bump in share- which is awesome for AMD.
      15% against 85%.
      And all recent gains have been for high end Intel procs, while AMD has declined in every segment except Linux users.
      You need to learn to read.

    23. Re:Thank you AMD by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      You don't care about a damn thing other than not feeling stupid. Unfortunately, reality is dealing you some soul-crushing cognitive dissonance in that department.
      I'm happy that you're happy with your AMD. It's still not going to come close to knocking the crown off of Intel's head. I'm sorry you're too dim witted to see that numbers for what they are.

      Being that you seem to think that engines that don't use Vulkan are obsolete, I'm not really sure there's any point in going back and forth with you anymore. You clearly don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Vulkan is an optimized pipeline for engines that want more raw access. In some cases, it provides performance increases. In some, it's slower. It speaks absolutely *nothing* to the obsolescence of an engine. Shame on you. At least learn to recognize when your ignorance is fouling up the air around you.

    24. Re:Thank you AMD by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      you seem to think that engines that don't use Vulkan are obsolete

      Yah, I do, for sound technical reasons that everybody seems to understand except you.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    25. Re:Thank you AMD by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      AMD has declined in every segment except Linux users

      You need to lay off that crack pipe.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    26. Re:Thank you AMD by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      The numbers are there, and they don't lie, imbecile.

    27. Re:Thank you AMD by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      None of those technical reasons being English, and the definition of the word obsolete, I suppose.
      Stop it dude, you're making a fool of yourself.

    28. Re:Thank you AMD by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Do you understand what is meant by the phrase "dogs watching television?" No? Down boy.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    29. Re:Thank you AMD by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Your numbers say that AMD share on Steam increased from 11% in March to 15% in July, the most recent numbers. Look, disability with math does not mean you are a complete imbecile. But other signs do point in that direction.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    30. Re:Thank you AMD by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      Nice deflection. It's ok, I didn't always know what the word obsolete meant, either. There's still hope for you.

    31. Re:Thank you AMD by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      11.15% 15.96% 16.33% 16.22% 15.17%
      +4.81% +0.37% -0.11% -1.05%

      Intel's:
      88.86% 84.04% 83.63% 83.74% 84.79%
      -4.82% -0.41% +0.11% +1.05%

      You literally cherry picked AMD's initial bump, which saturated in literally a month, and has been declining since, while Intel has been increasing.
      You are literally a fucking moron.

    32. Re:Thank you AMD by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Here, watch this: 10 EPIC games with VULKAN support (PC 2018). There is a good reason why it is easier to name the game engines that do not support Vulkan than those that do. What reason? Better performance. Those engines that currently do not support Vulkan, do support DX12 or Metal, basically the same thing. So 100% of major engines are already moved to Vulkan or similar. For most of those, their Vulkan render path gives the best performance.

      Now, somebody desperate to justify their pet theory that Vulkan is not the way forward for 3D rendering might point to some cases where Vulkan (or DX12) actually slows the game down. This is because the initial implementation of Vulkan is sometimes just a translation layer for OpenGL, which is single-threaded, so the translation is single-threaded too. On top of that you have the translation overhead. Result: no improvement, or actually a regression. However, that was then, this is now. (...we continue to see much lower CPU utilization when using Vulkan rather than OpenGL.)

      Vulkan improves performance in several ways: 1) distributes rendering across multiple cores 2) lifts state out of the inner render loops 3) shortens the path for submitting render data 4) supports fine grained control over caching of render assets. (Not an exhaustive list.) None of this is a secret; all of it is known to anybody who could call themselves a game developer. You are very obviously not one of those. But do us all a favor and please stop shitting on the internet with your ignorance. If you are confused then do a little research.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    33. Re:Thank you AMD by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      Games that actually use Vulkan, regardless of support implemented in the engine Nobody said Vulkan isn't the way forward. Some day, everything will be some running on some graphics API derivative of DX12 or Vulkan, or at least designed upon the ideals they were. But we're nowhere even fucking close to there.
      3 games on the 25 top selling games list in Steam support Vulkan/DX12.
      That's less market share than AMD processors have, though unlike AMD processors in the gaming segment, at least Vulkan adoption is increasing.

    34. Re:Thank you AMD by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      You cherry picked the most recent sequential month to month data. Words do not describe the depth of your intellectual dishonesty.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    35. Re:Thank you AMD by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Nobody said Vulkan isn't the way forward. Some day, everything will be some running on some graphics API derivative of DX12 or Vulkan, or at least designed upon the ideals they were.

      Good, good. Now if it weren't for your cringy posting style...

      I stand by my statement that any game engine that does not support Vulkan (or its moral equivalent) is obsolete. Sure, there are minor loopholes in that, some engines might not have performance as an issue at all for their specific niche. Or by adding Vulkan support, the engine is no longer obsolete. However, all wanking aside, the simple truth is this: ignore Vulkan only if your goal is to become a fossil on the internet.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    36. Re:Thank you AMD by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      Sure I take hand me downs. O.o but honestly ram is expensive as hell. It should be getting cheaper soon with micron doubling their production line this year.

    37. Re:Thank you AMD by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      Negative. I demonstrated the downward trend with solid numbers, and a hypothesis to explain it.
      The people who have been waiting for a competitive AMD part grabbed one. After that, the market for AMD parts amongst the gamers was saturated. After that, a clear trend toward higher clock speed Intels, even at the cost of AMD market share, is clearly observable by the breakdown by clock speed and manufacturer, also available at that link.

      You argued that AMD parts were "widely recognized as a perfectly good gaming part," and I countered with evidence showing otherwise.
      Is it a decent gaming part? Ya. Is it "widely recognized as a perfectly good gaming part?" No. Sorry. There's no evidence to back that up, and plenty of evidence to the contrary, unless we want to quibble on whether or not the definition of "perfectly good" includes "unacceptable" or "undesired."

      The gamers want the higher single and quad core thread performance of Intel parts, because the majority of games being played perform better with that part, period. It's not magical thinking or stupidity, it's picking the best part for the application.

    38. Re:Thank you AMD by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      The people who have been waiting for a competitive AMD part grabbed one. After that, the market for AMD parts amongst the gamers was saturated.

      You do live in your own fantasy land. One month of retrace and you flip out about it. Earth to you: see the big fat 45% share from this German retailer? That's several times what it was 2 years go. (US figures are near impossible to find, but if similar then Intel is shitting bricks).

      The Ryzen refresh just landed and guess what? Higher performance for less money. Tell me who wouldn't want a kickass 2700X for cheap, come on, don't lie. Now AMD has turned around its fortunes in servers too, the first gen Epyc was a hit, they couldn't make enough of them. Second gen is here, it's a huge success, multiple brand name vendors will ship it. New Laptops designs are coming out now on the strength AMD's APUs. Even Intel will ship AMD GPUs now. Talk about endorsement.

      AMD's 7nm parts are ramping up, we will see 7nm Ryzens and Threadrippers in 1H19 while Intel is still stuck rebuilding its failed 10nm fabs. Many folks who went Ryzen this year got addicted to the creamy smooth 8 core performance and will drop serious bucks on Threadripper next year, me among them. This is reality, you can fool yourself, but who the fuck cares?

      Yah, Intel screwed up, AMD didn't. It happens.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    39. Re:Thank you AMD by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      One month of retrace and you flip out about it

      Na, more like a 4 month pattern involving a surge of AMD following a good product release, and it losing ground steadily to faster Intel parts. But go ahead and characterize it however helps you feel less stupid.

      Earth to you: see the big fat 45% [wccftech.com] share from this German retailer?

      You just keep moving goalposts, don't you.
      We were discussing gamers. Use numbers that matter to the argument. If you can't, then give up the argument.

      The Ryzen refresh just landed and guess what? Higher performance for less money.

      Yep. Higher performance in a specific fashion that matters to an incredibly small amount of CPU purchasers. Again, leave the goalposts where they were, thanks. You don't win by changing the argument.

      Tell me who wouldn't want a kickass 2700X for cheap, come on, don't lie.

      Me. That's why I have an 8700K that performs better in the ways I use it. The ways that the fucking vast majory of the world uses their machine, in fact.

      Now AMD has turned around its fortunes in servers too, the first gen Epyc was a hit, they couldn't make enough of them. Second gen is here, it's a huge success, multiple brand name vendors will ship it. New Laptops designs are coming out now on the strength AMD's APUs.

      This huge pile of garbage... You just don't fucking get it. Nobody is arguing that. You're like a fucking walking AMD advertisement trying to sell me shit I don't need.
      None of that matters to me. None of that matters to fucking anyone.
      If you want a machine that performs normal every day tasks better than anything else, you get an Intel. The benchmarks back that up. I really don't give a flying fuck what AMD does well. Good for AMD. Good for the people who own AMDs, even if they can't really figure out a real-world application for their part.

      Even Intel will ship AMD GPUs now. Talk about endorsement.

      I'm typing this post to you on an i7 8705G right now, in fact. One of those very processors. Intel doesn't have an integrated GPU that can match AMDs offering, and AMD doesn't have a mobile CPU that can match Intel's offering. It's a match made in heaven, and I *love it*. But what was your point again?

      AMD's 7nm parts are ramping up, we will see 7nm Ryzens and Threadrippers in 1H19 while Intel is still stuck rebuilding its failed 10nm fabs.

      Cool! Will it let them build a Ryzen that outperforms contemporary i7 chips in a way that people care about?

      while Intel is still stuck rebuilding its failed 10nm fabs.

      I don't care if they're building them out of gingerbread, as long as they continue to be the best desktop processors on the market.

      Many folks who went Ryzen this year got addicted to the creamy smooth 8 core performance

      Well, according to Steam, more people decided to upgrade to an i7-8700K or i7-8086K. Can't say I blame them.
      I guess they probably liked the fact that the 6 core Intel performance still felt faster than the 8 core Ryzens.

      and will drop serious bucks on Threadripper next year, me among them.

      Right on. And I sincerely hope you are all happy with your purchase!

      This is reality, you can fool yourself, but who the fuck cares?

      Ah, reality. Yes. The reality is that Intel is still managing to crush AMD in the market because their bet that higher core clocks matters more than core counts was simply correct. The Threadripper is an awesome chip. But nobody gives a fuck about it.

      Yah, Intel screwed up, AMD didn't. It happens.

      LOL, yes, that's what the numbers indicate. You are so desperate to justify your purchase. Come on man, go have a beer and quit trying to seek affirmation from the rest of the world for your choices.

    40. Re:Thank you AMD by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Here, let's try to save you from further embarrassing yourself.

      Specification wise (cores and clocks) the two processors are pretty closely matched. So, for 13% less money, you can get a processor that delivers more than 200% the performance, this seems like the mother of a no-brainer.

      It's that more processor for less money thing. Everybody gets it but you (well you are just a troll, we both know that)

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    41. Re:Thank you AMD by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      That's about an i5 and a 2400G. More moving of the goalposts. AMD has owned the value-hunter market for a while.
      Nobody contested this. You're building strawmen, because you lost 20 posts ago.

      We were talking the top end desktop processors. We were talking about the performance crowd- gamers.
      You just keep throwing spaghetti at that wall.

      From your own link:
      Of AMD's 45%, and Intel's 55%, the 8700K sells somewhere between 2x and 3x as many parts as the R7 2700X, and the 8700K even costs more.
      From Amazon's best selling CPU list- #1 i7 8700K. Not only the best selling part, period, but the best selling Intel part. Remember, the Intel guys are the performance crowd. AMD? Best selling part? R5 1600. Value part.

      If I were hunting for value, I'd go AMD, hands down. If my desktop PC weren't a headless box sitting behind my couch that streams games, and were instead a workstation where I did lots of intensive parallel tasks, I'd go AMD.

      You're still losing this argument. Next straw man.

    42. Re:Thank you AMD by Tough+Love · · Score: 1
      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    43. Re:Thank you AMD by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      Also from your own link- of AMD's 45%, and Intel's 55%- 47% of Intel part sales were newest generation chips, compared to 18% for AMD, and 16% for the generation before that.
      Intel's 8700K and 8600K revenue is more than all of AMDs revenue, combined.
      Those are the top-end i7 and i5 chips.

      AMD has value. They really do. Value-hunters have a whole host of great options in the generations of AMD parts out there.
      But the performance seekers, they're going Intel. Your own fucking numbers back that up resoundingly.

      That was actually my initial argument, if you can remember that far back.
      I appreciate you pounding in that final nail for me.

    44. Re:Thank you AMD by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      No. That's a tapped out GPU benchmark. But you knew that, didn't you?
      You want to cut that 8700K lead even more, go find some 4K benchmarks ;)

      Do 1080P tests on games that perform extraordinarily well on a Ryzen, and 1440P tests on games that don't. Super clever. I'm not even close to surprised you bought it.
      Pro-tip: If you see a 2700X vs. 8700K benchmark that appears neck and neck- the GPU is the limiting factor, except in the very very tiny amount of cases where the game is massively multithreaded. You should know better.

    45. Re:Thank you AMD by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Wow, you are a prize. I admit it, you were right on every point, your logic is flawless. You are a genius. Nobody buys AMD, nobody has AMD and it will be even more so next month. You can die now.

      Now planning my Threadripper 2 build like many others, but don't worry your pretty head about that.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    46. Re:Thank you AMD by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1
      I think in the future, you should just limit yourself to arguing topics within your comprehension envelope.
      Nobody buys AMD? More strawmen! You sad little person, lol.
      I'll quote myself-

      AMD has owned the value-hunter market for a while.

      AMD has value. They really do. Value-hunters have a whole host of great options in the generations of AMD parts out there.

      If I were hunting for value, I'd go AMD, hands down. If my desktop PC weren't a headless box sitting behind my couch that streams games, and were instead a workstation where I did lots of intensive parallel tasks, I'd go AMD.

      And finally,

      I appreciate you pounding in that final nail for me.

      I actually began to pity you at the end. You're one of those guys who I suspect knows they're really fucking wrong but has a pathological need not to be, throwing up as many logical fallacies as they can conjure for as long as it keeps the shame of being wrong at bay.

      Now planning my Threadripper 2 build like many others, but don't worry your pretty head about that.

      I'm glad about this- that really is a cool chip. I hope the market for it expands. It will never conquer the desktop market, because 32 cores is... well, not applicable to that market- but I'm glad for its existence.

    47. Re:Thank you AMD by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      No. That's a tapped out GPU benchmark. But you knew that, didn't you?

      Your fevered imagination tells you that people run high end games on the CPU. I get it. The fevered part that is.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    48. Re:Thank you AMD by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      Huh?
      You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
      If you're playing a game with settings that binds its performance to the GPU performance, you're not testing the CPU.
      For example, if the fill rate and shader performance of a GTX1080 Ti can only pump out ~85fps in Middle Earth: Shadow of War @ 1440P, then *any* processor that can feed that particular GPU enough to maximize its performance will come up with equal performance.
      Me, I've got 2 GTX1080 Ti GPUs, so my benchmarks are considerably better than those.
      The goal is to have enough GPU performance that the game test is CPU bound instead of GPU bound. In benchmarks where the benchmarker failed that, they were either too stupid to understand what they were doing, or they were trying to sell to people who were too stupid to understand what they were doing. In this case, I suspect you got caught up in the latter.

    49. Re:Thank you AMD by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      AMD has owned the value-hunter market for a while.

      You're wrong about that too, this is a recent phenomenon. Two years ago i5 was kicking AMD's tail in the value market too.

      Today AMD unquestionably offers better value in both low end and high end. You want the best low end desktop build? Go AMD. You want the best high end desktop build? Go AMD. You want the best low end server build? Go AMD. You want the best high end server build? Go AMD. It's simple.

      Only inertia and AMD's production capacity keeps the market from flipping completely on its head.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    50. Re:Thank you AMD by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      You're wrong about that too, this is a recent phenomenon.

      2 years is a fucking while you goddamn moron.

      Today AMD unquestionably offers better value in both low end and high end.

      Pretty sure I said that. But hey, everyone needs a parrot.

      You want the best low end desktop build? Go AMD.

      Yup.

      You want the best high end desktop build? Go AMD.

      Nope. That's where you keep fucking up. You keep using your previous argument to prove this argument. You really are a dim-witted fucking human.

      Only inertia and AMD's production capacity keeps the market from flipping completely on its head.

      What a reeking pile of horse shit.
      You having trouble sourcing AMD parts? Me neither. Dude, go to bed. You're too fucking stupid to communicate with. You have demonstrated a clear lack of even basic reasoning skills, willful disregard for intellectually honest debate, and a pathological desire to use strawmen to prove arguments that were never made because you fucking lost this one. You've made it abundantly clear that you don't even understand the basics behind the initial premise of the argument, indicating that you were literally arguing just because a couple of barely functional neurons in your brain perceived the Intel > AMD in any context as a threat to their very existence. Sorry dude. Really, I am. If you feel so rotten about that AMD you've got, just go turn it in. Hell, send me your paypal, and I'll pay for your new 8086K.

    51. Re:Thank you AMD by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Should an additional 30% of the market decide to go AMD, Glofo would be physically unable to meet the demand, dunce. They don't have that problem at the moment, only because of inertia, as I said. Dunce.

      AMD did have this problem with 32 core Epycs, sending the price above $3K. Why am I not surprised that you don't know this.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    52. Re:Thank you AMD by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      You want the best high end desktop build? Go AMD.

      Nope. Blah blah blah blah swear swear fume spit dribble blah blah blah.

      AMD’s 2000-series Ryzen chips came on strong in 2018, with the Ryzen 7 2700X knocking Intel’s similarly priced Core i7s to alternate pick territory

      Now swear some more :)

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    53. Re:Thank you AMD by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      If you're playing a game with settings that binds its performance to the GPU performance, you're not testing the CPU.

      So, exactly what any serious gamer does, I get it. That's exactly why gamers now value extra cores over per-core performance. So they can stream. You seem a bit out of touch.

      /me sits back with popcorn and waits for the swearing

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    54. Re:Thank you AMD by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Honest question, do you always reply point by point to every post on the internet? Little secret here: I didn't read your post. I got bored. Hope you enjoyed writing it.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    55. Re:Thank you AMD by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1
      Why would I swear at that? That dude is entitled to his opinion. The market doesn't reflect it- at all, but he's entitled to it.
      He seems to be placing "cores per dollar" as a metric for a gaming CPU, which is fascinating. He also seems to be using some very specific benchmarks to support his conclusion that the 2 processors are tied generally speaking for games, an assertion he is wrong about. But ignorant benchmarking is hardly unusual as you so kindly demonstrated for us earlier. To quote the reviewer,

      But those advantages don’t tip the scale in favor of Intel for most users.

      That is quite literally a falsehood, since the i7-8700K is outselling the 2700X, at a higher price, without a cooler, by a factor of 2 to 3.
      Try to cherry pick your reviews better. This is representative of the market, and you seemed to like this site. The fact that an 8700K beats a 2700X in any workload utilizing less than 7 threads, by rather significant margins, and the fact that most games use 1-2 is all you need to know. Basic logic should tell you that any benchmark showing such a workload as performing evenly is flawed by a non-CPU bottleneck. You're searching for other peoples' opinions now to match your own and give it validity. That's just silly.

      The market has spoken, and you're still an idiot.

    56. Re:Thank you AMD by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      The market doesn't reflect it- at all

      Says you, the self appointed arbiter of all that is true and comforting on the internet regardless of evidence to the contrary.

      But in spite of your blather, the market does reflect it.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    57. Re:Thank you AMD by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      That link doesn't say that at all, fuckwit. How fucking stupid are you?
      If a player with 1% of the market increases their market share 100%!!!!!1111, that doesn't in any way make the rest of the market sweat. The rest of the market sweats when they increase their share by 2000%. AMD increased from 8% to 12%. As to their stock market value, in case you were mistaking that as their market share, I'm pretty sure *that* is not an argument you want to get into.

      Again, you're a fucking idiot who can't stop proving he doesn't know how to read or even see a logical thought in his head through to its conclusion.

    58. Re:Thank you AMD by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      Because that is how adults conduct a discussion.
      You can't be bothered to read? So you're just trolling. Got it. I think I've made my point, dotard.
      It was pleasant running circles around you.

    59. Re:Thank you AMD by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      The fact that an 8700K beats a 2700X in any workload utilizing less than 7 threads [not true], by rather significant margins [not true], and the fact that most games use 1-2 is all you need to know

      But you just told me that CPU doesn't matter for games now, because they are GPU-bound. Make up your mind.

      /me waits for the swearing

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    60. Re:Thank you AMD by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      SMH at how you declaring victory for yourself (repeatedly) is supposed to mean something. But I will grant you this, you would win a stupid contest.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    61. Re:Thank you AMD by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Is your neck smoking? I can feel the heat from here.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  7. Not a good sign - marketing getting desperate by lordlod · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The Intel core i9 line has the same architecture and features as the i7 processors.

    This is a move to show the market than Intel has something new and innovative to offer. Unfortunately the emperor isn't wearing any clothes.

    1. Re:Not a good sign - marketing getting desperate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Intel have a further problem. They need to match the price as well as the core count, which means $330 - significantly less than their existing top of the line chips. If they do this then people won't be buying anything but the i9-9900K, but if they don't match the price then the Ryzen are a better bet with the 12-16 core 7nm Zen2 chips coming out to slip into the same motherboards next year.

      Intel are screwed.

    2. Re:Not a good sign - marketing getting desperate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They need to chuck a bit of truth into their marketing BS.... 8 cores, 16 threads, X amount Ln cache, Y amount Lm cache, and ... how many backdoors and baked-in vulnerabilities. We need that last number. Should be required disclosure, given the history.

    3. Re:Not a good sign - marketing getting desperate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately the emperor isn't wearing any clothes.

      There may not be physical clothes, but logical ones. At least with the new i7 Windows doesn't disable RSS so we get to utilize our network cards to their fullest!

    4. Re:Not a good sign - marketing getting desperate by radarskiy · · Score: 2

      The Intel core i9 line has the same architecture and features as the i7 processors.

      This has always been true. Intel does not design different cores for i3 vs i5 vs i7 vs i9. If there is any difference in features it is because those features failed testing, whether for speed or functionality, and were fused off. If there is any difference in last level cache size it is a chop.

    5. Re:Not a good sign - marketing getting desperate by Agripa · · Score: 1

      This is a move to show the market than Intel has something new and innovative to offer.

      Is that new and innovative market segmentation?

  8. The i3-8100H has four cores. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Intel announced it in July. It seems like it will cost the same as the dual-core i3.

    It could be trouble for AMD since they have the dual-core 2200U to compete with the i3.

    1. Re:The i3-8100H has four cores. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2001 called and wants their processor back. Handhelds have 8 cores these days. Why would you ever want a dual core?

    2. Re:The i3-8100H has four cores. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's wrong they don't compete together. i3-8100H is a low/midrange 45W laptop CPU!, 2200U is a low end 15W CPU, quad core with two cores disabled.

      The Core-M series is a dual core, quad thread for tablets and the smallest laptops (including Apple Macbook). You want this one because it is the fastest x86 at 4 to 6 watts.

    3. Re:The i3-8100H has four cores. by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Handhelds have 8 cores because those ARM cores are slow as shit. For most workloads, you're actually better much better off with fewer, faster cores, than a more slower cores. I'd much rather have a dual 4 GHz than a quad 2 GHz, all other things equal.

  9. Up from the current... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Even Intel’s 9th gen Core i7 processor is expected to ship with 8 cores and 8 threads (up from the current 6 cores)

    Current i7s are hyperthreaded 6 cores. Be interesting to see if non-hyperthreaded 8 cores outperforms hyperthreaded 6 cores.

    1. Re:Up from the current... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      should do, best case tests tend to show HT giving about 25% increase.
      Adding 33% cores should more than compensate for the loss of HT.

      I'd be more concerned about the loss of relative L3. The i7 gains none with the extra cores.

  10. But will they have Spectre/Meltdown/etc fixes? by Fencepost · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Are these new chips going to have all the same predictive execution and related issues? Did they have enough time to do any revamping? Or is this going to be the final generation that gets a big chunk of performance improvements crippled?

    --
    fencepost
    just a little off
    1. Re:But will they have Spectre/Meltdown/etc fixes? by Grog6 · · Score: 2

      1. Yes.

      2. Yes, but No, they Didn't.

      3. Possibly, but this is Intel, they can release as many bad versions as they want, and call it 'Fake News".

      Writing this on a 2011 intel processor, soon to be an AMD processor.

      --
      Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
    2. Re:But will they have Spectre/Meltdown/etc fixes? by Anubis+IV · · Score: 5, Informative

      Word is that these ones don’t have the fixes. The fixes aren’t coming until Ice Lake, sometime in 2H 2019 according to Intel (or, more realistically, 2020, given that it was originally scheduled to launch two years ago).

  11. My E5-1680 V2 has 8 cores, and HT... by Grog6 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It was launched in 2011; it overclocks to 5GHz, if I put a refrigerator on it, lol.

    I've ran it at 4.7GHz on all cores since 2016.

    Before that, the 3930k I had ran the same OC; they're the same chip, just without cores disabled.

    They even show the same multiplier range on my board's bios, although I only run 34x. :)

    WTF intel; did you blow ALL the money on hookers and blow?

    --
    Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
    1. Re:My E5-1680 V2 has 8 cores, and HT... by Mad+Merlin · · Score: 1

      Do you mean this E5-1680 v2, that launched Q3 2013?

  12. Shirley you jest... by Grog6 · · Score: 1

    It's not like these have ANY hardware changes; Intel has chips to sell, don't harsh their buzz when they're dancing as fast as they can.

    That won't be fixed for a few more Mark Leaching cycles.

    --
    Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
  13. Security, by thesupraman · · Score: 1

    Because of the discovery of HT based cross-domain security issues perhaps?

    1. Re:Security, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's interesting, but on laptop and server the vast majority of CPUs have HT on.
      It's to segment desktop models, perhaps keep power use in check on slightly lower bins.

      These are also CPUs for video games and video games are said to work better without HT although this depends and the effect is overrated. It's a bit of a luxury to have 6 or 8 cores without HT (you could do this on the former high end desktop platform and disabling HT in the BIOS)
      The 8 cores 8 threads (i7 9700K) will assuredly do for video games and a bit of crap on the side. Some 10%+ faster than AMDs in game not counting overclocking of either. Such speed is completely wasted if you play in 4K or even 60Hz, so it fits better with the niche of gaming on 144Hz monitor.

      For real work (photoshop, video editing, audio etc.) the "older" 6 core 12 thread probably works as well as the 8 core 8 thread.

    2. Re:Security, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually it has 10 cores, but one is dedicated to NSA and the other to MSS (Chinese)

    3. Re:Security, by PixetaledPikachu · · Score: 1

      The new i9 which is actually the topic of this article has HT. Unless perhaps the new i7 is a rebadged older generation CPU?

  14. Only in Quake 2, lol. by Grog6 · · Score: 1

    Q2 only uses one core, pretty much, so it will run faster on a 4.7G single thread core than a 2.7G 8 core.

    But who plays games on those? Or a single threaded game?

    --
    Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
    1. Re:Only in Quake 2, lol. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most gamers play those games.
      The vast majority of games out there may not be single threaded per se but they are still bottlenecked by single threaded performance.
      If you look at the distribution of the workload among your logical CPU cores, in most game you will notice that one or two logical cores do most of the lifting while the rest is picking their noses.
      And when frame times spike, it usually correlates with CPU load spikes where one of those high load threads is maxed out. This is apparently due to the simple fact that it's not easy to split time critical tasks in games into different threads that can run concurrently.
      For the same reason in most games you can still see top shelf Intels outperform top shelf Ryzens unless you defeat the purpose of your benchmarks and test the GPU bottleneck, bury frame times under mean values, or cherry pick your results otherwise.
      Even in Ashes of the Singularity, the game that is famous for having the best multi-threading out there, an i7-8700k does better than an R7 2700X.
      An i9-9900k with to additional cores will likely do a couple of % better than that. So we'll have to see how that i9-9900k will live up to those 12 or 16 core Ryzen 3.

    2. Re:Only in Quake 2, lol. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even in Ashes of the Singularity, the game that is famous for having the best multi-threading out there, an i7-8700k does better than an R7 2700X.

      Yeah, yeah. It runs at 200fps on Intel instead of the 160fps on AMD. Yay, big win for gamers right there. It's a pity 99.9% of monitors in the market won't be capable of showing all the additional frames produced. Sometimes the e-pennis remains in the pants and no one can see it's bigger.

    3. Re:Only in Quake 2, lol. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you're thinking of games like Overwatch, DOTA 2, or CSGO. Yeah, if you only like to play those games the CPU doesn't really matter that much.
      For CSGO you could even go for an R3 2200G and be mostly fine with integrated graphics. For the others you'd be fine with an R5 2600 and some low middle class discrete graphics card (doesn't matter if AMD of nVidia).
      In Ashes of the Singularity however you're lucky to get even 50 FPS in a heavy game using an overclocked i7-8700k.
      Or ArmA 3 is another example, which is notoriously bottlenecked by single threaded performance, while it is capable of using like 8 threads. If you get into situations with a lot of players around you like in the popular "King of the Hill" map/mod, you'll experience FPS as low as 20 even with your overclocked i7-8700k.
      Kingdom Come: Deliverance is a single player candidate where you're lucky to stay at 60 FPS even with an i7-8700k.
      Or some of those Battle Royale games like Hunt: Showdown appear to be a lot more stable on Intel.

      Those are scenarios where you'll very well notice differences between those products. And while ArmA 3 is certainly an abomination as far as its engines goes, as you can throw as many cores at it as you want and it won't work any better. Other games do seem to scale better with Intel's higher single core performance over AMD's higher core count.
      Of course we have to wait and see how Intel's two more cores or four more threads will scale in those games. While single threaded performance is not likely to suffer. And then compare it to how well those 4 or 8 more cores or 8 or 16 more threads will scale on the new AMD's. It also remains to be seen whether they can put that rumoured 15% IPC increase into practice.

    4. Re:Only in Quake 2, lol. by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      Being all the game benchmarks show 8th gen i7s eating the 2700X's lunch in just about every game that's popular, I'd say... Most people.

    5. Re:Only in Quake 2, lol. by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      Steam CPU Statistics
      I'll just leave this here.

    6. Re:Only in Quake 2, lol. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's about as pointless to argue with those post purchase rationalizing Ryzen people about gaming performance as with Skylake-X adopters.
      They only care about cherry picked benchmarks, and anecdotal evidence like "it runs everything just fine for me" while implying that the same must apply to everyone else.
      But guess what Ryzen-owners, whose CPUs run everything just fine: Good for you! People don't want to take your CPU away from you. You can keep it and be happy with it. But other people may not have the same criteria as you do.

  15. To little, to late and to expensive! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    They need to lower the prices significantly and stop being so greedy!

    1. Re:To little, to late and to expensive! by mikael · · Score: 1

      Supply and Demand and as marketeers say, "the sweet spot" - maximum price with supply matching demand. They do this with their CPU's. The old stock is set at bargain ban prices, while the new stock is sold at premium prices (higher clock speed, larger cache, more cores, multi-core systems).

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
  16. Will it have Meltdown and Spectre, and NSA holes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    because otherwise it's not worth spending twice the amount of money compared to the comparable AMD offering. Intel 4ever.

  17. More cores by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    They're slapping much needed cores in it, unfortunately they price it accordingly, which is a mistake. They should keep the price to the floor at this point, and keep hitting on performance.

    I do some serious number crunching on a dipole model, its done on a cluster of Android TV boxes, each 8 core 64 bit, 30 of them to give 240 cores. Each has its own storage and networking, and RAM making it totally scalable. It's the performance of a supercomputer from 15 years ago. And in total it costs around $2000. Sure each box is half the performance per core that Intel delivers, but so what. Each box costs $55.

    Having processors twice as fast as ARM cores isn't any good if they're more than twice the price.

    1. Re:More cores by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This cluster sounds neat. Did you ever do a writeup on it?

    2. Re:More cores by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's trivial to do.

      Go on Aliexpress and buy a bunch of TV boxes. Plug them into routers.... that's it done. You'll need a Linux or Windows box with Android studio on it on the same subnet to program them. A95X TV boxes, the real price is around $50-$60, use the Amlogic S912s based ones (not rhe s905s), they're a lot faster.

      If you've done Android programming, these just behave like Android boxes. 2GB ram /16GB flash is fine (largeheap is only 512MB anyway, more ram isn't useful unless you're going multi-process), RECEIVE_BOOT_COMPLETED to start software on powerup, WAKE_LOCK to stop them sleeping in the manifest, maybe use a system timer to ensure the software runs again if it crashes, and that's really it. You don't need to plug any display into them, they don't need it. Just a network connection and you're ready to go.

      https://www.aliexpress.com/wholesale?catId=5092303&initiative_id=AS_20180812230946&SearchText=android+tv+box

      There's really nothing to it, if you've ever programmed Android devices, and can plug boxes into a router, you can slap as many of these together as you need. If you package your job into workloads and each box pulls a workload, does it, and passes the results back (with a timeout) they're trivial to cluster. Multitasking on Android is trivial (Google AsyncTask and Executors.newFixedThreadPool(8)).

      Heat is not a problem, don't stack them too close together, they only need to be on the same network not the same rack or even room.

      I'm pushed to know what else to tell you, its super trivia to make clusters like this.

    3. Re:More cores by gTsiros · · Score: 2

      what's the perf/price compared to an amd64 or gpgpu solution?

      --
      Looking for people to chat about multicopters, coding, music. skype: gtsiros
    4. Re:More cores by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm another guy. I'm thinking that a Threadripper 2 with 32 cores/64 threads would be pretty similar on power use, cost and performance.
      It is not available yet so the cluster wins on this point. You also only have my word not hard figures. I would say within an order of magnitude with an order of magnitude being 2.718.

      gpgpu? There's the cost of rewriting the software and gpgpu is bad at some things. Maybe the code does one billion simulations but each of those would have to run well on GPU (data locality, super wide SIMD)

    5. Re:More cores by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Having processors twice as fast as ARM cores isn't any good if they're more than twice the price.

      It's time for a car analogy. In a world of fARM tractors that can't go over 40 mph, a car that can go 80 mph is worth far more than twice as much.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    6. Re:More cores by samwichse · · Score: 1

      A dual epyc box (32 cores/64 threads) today with redundant power supplies, 128gb ram, and an 18TB RAID array will run you about $8500.

      You can get a 64 thread single processor but the sky is the limit on the price of those things... $4600 each vs ~850 each for the 16 core models (with a higher base clock!).

      Supermicro makes some pretty sweet dual epyc motherboards for around $500

    7. Re: More cores by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or you could stick with the 65watt ryzen 1700/2700 series.
      TR is great if you are constrained by software license or memory transfer constraints, but two ryzen rigs can outperform one TR at the same price point in any other situation.
      Odroid or android tv boxes, which are essentially subsidized versions of same (with lower QC), is great if you have niche use cases, but everyone else should be running multithreaded instances or VMs on a ryzen box for perf/$
      Better perf/watt too.

  18. Price vs performance by jaredm1 · · Score: 1

    Well they needed to do something to prevent a holiday quarter disaster... I imagine the i7s have had their thread count halved because steep discounting will be Intel’s only play against AMD at this moment.

  19. Ah yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    May the fart be with you.

  20. Are they free? If not FUCK Intel. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Intel owes ME money. They claimed speeds and capabilities in multiple processors which were LIES built on LIES.

    THEY OWE US MONEY.
    FUCK THOSE ASSHOLES.

  21. Re: Will it have Meltdown and Spectre, and NSA hol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Afaik, Meltdown inside (they would surely have made a fanfare of it, if this wasn't the case)

  22. For only twice the price of AMD Ryzen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can have half as much intel inside!

    Buy now!

  23. If you get Ryzen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .,,make sure you buy an industrial capacity air conditioner for your room, lest you want to die of heat prostration.

    1. Re:If you get Ryzen... by Zuriel · · Score: 1

      You're thinking of that 28 core 5GHz Intel demo, with the 1kW industrial chiller under the table. If Ryzen used that much power, the packages with multiple Ryzen chips would catch fire.

    2. Re:If you get Ryzen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know. TDPs between Intels i9s and AMDs aren't that much different.

      Anyway, given the AMD solution will be a lot cheaper, I guess some of the spare money could be used for air conditioning.

    3. Re:If you get Ryzen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, just throw any regular AIO liquid cooler on there and you'll be fine. I have a 1700X OC'd about 10-15% over stock values and the cooling fan / stand for my son's gaming laptop behind me makes more noise than my desktop. I'm sure an i7-8700K and compatible motherboard would have been faster in the same setup, but not enough to justify the $200 premium when I built this back in December 2017.

    4. Re:If you get Ryzen... by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      I got my R7-1700 clocked at 3.9ghz at 1.3v solid. Under extreme 16 thread load I hit 65c with a cheap aio. He has never even seen a ryzen benchmark. Obviously.

    5. Re: If you get Ryzen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot to point out that the Ryzen 1700 is 8 core, 16 threads, 4ghz capable at a mere 65 watts.
      With AM4 motherboards, AMD lets you pick three of cheaper, faster, better.

    6. Re:If you get Ryzen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, because your 8-core ryzen running at 3.9GHz is exactly comparable to a 28-core machine running at 5GHz.

  24. Rumors, always "rumors" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not just say, "we're thinking about launching in october with 8 cores" ?

    Call a spade a spade.

    1. Re: Rumors, always "rumors" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Their thinking of releasing it in the Octember 31rd during the 5th quarter which will have 32 dreads and 8 kores. It will still have engine managements, and all delicious flavors of meltdown, and a full gamut of spectre's. The hyperdrive will be inabled and will run a 5.21 gugabywatts. Assets will be monitized for the holiday's season to provide synergy in the marketplace do too rival compony AMD.

  25. is it weak to spectre and meltdown ? by aepervius · · Score: 1

    i mean normally those chip takes years to engineer, so if they were already pre-producing when spectre/metldown came up... There was probably no chance to change them ?

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
    1. Re:is it weak to spectre and meltdown ? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Major changes require years. Spectre/Meltdown fixes (if my understanding is correct) require detecting and enforcing permissions for all memory accesses, which should be relatively simple. A couple of months to change the design and have a bunch of people check that the change fixes the problems and doesn't introduce new problems. A month to go from schematic or Verilog description or whatever to mask, a month to go from mask to packaged silicon. A couple of months to check that the hardware does what it's supposed to do and doesn't break something else, first internally and then at select customers and reviewers. Then volume production starts. Total time about six months, but only if Intel regards the problem as an emergency priority.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  26. Ryzen by rl117 · · Score: 1

    Why would you buy this over a Ryzen chip? I just built up a new system, Ryzen 2700X with 32GiB RAM. The CPU is reasonably priced and pretty power efficient for the number of cores/threads.

    1. Re: Ryzen by JohnNemesh · · Score: 2

      I just built a similar system. Ryzen 2700x, 32GB 3200mhz ram, 1tb Samsung pro 970 nvme drive, vega64...all water cooled. The system SCREAMS! Intel might have a few points of single threaded performance up on my system, but I doubt anyone sitting down at my system could even tell the difference!

    2. Re:Ryzen by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      Because it performs better?
      My i7-8700K outperforms a 2700X in every game I play, why would I want a 2700X?
      The 2700X is better bang for buck in terms of aggregate core performance, but I'm really not sure that matters to enough people to matter.

  27. In essence by Artem+S.+Tashkinov · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Intel launches SkyLake for the fourth time. Wow.

    1. Re:In essence by sinij · · Score: 2

      Insofar as marketing goes, these are all different CPUs. Insofar as performance goes, all these are about the same since Haswell.

    2. Re:In essence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's incremental performance gains, but nothing significant.

  28. Until all spectre/meltdown issues are fixed... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Until all spectre/meltdown issues are fixed? What's the point in buying a new CPU??

    * It'd be buying blatantly DEFECTIVE & VULNERABLE products - period...

    (... & I'm FAR from the "only one" pointing that out on this page...)

    APK

    P.S.=> No questions asked - THAT's what needs fixing from BOTH AMD (less of course) & INTEL (way more vulnerable)... apk

  29. 9 times as many spectre/meltdown flaws! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah!

  30. Most software sucks a parallel processing. by jellomizer · · Score: 2

    The big problem is most applications suck at parallel processing. 4 Cores
    1 for the OS
    3 for the applications

    Is what seems to suit home usage rather well. Having an 8th gen i7 with 6 cores with a total of 12 threads is underutilized by most applications, and will in general not run at its full potential. So you have an application that you want to work faster moving from 1 core to in essence 12 threads or 16 threads will not have mores law speed improvements, because the program is often stuck on a single core, which hasn't been increasing in speed.

    The problem is multi-fold
    1. Little Education in Parallel processing programming. Still this is mostly regulated to 300-400 CS classes for undergrad, and mostly designed to aid CS students as an area of study in their Masters Degree.

    2. Most programming language have poor implementation of parallel processing. Threading is one way to do parallel processing their are other methods as well. I have seen languages such as MPL (for an early parallel processing system) that actually had an elegant structure of plural variables where you can code parallel processing without threads but using standard lanagues
    This is psuto-code as I hadn't used MPL in over 20 years.

    plural int x;
    plural int holder;
    int didchange = 1;
    x = randint(maxcpu);
    while (didchange) {
          didchange = 0;
          if (cpu % 2 = 0) {
                if (x > x[cpu+1]) {
                        holder = x;
                        x = x[cpu+1];
                        x[cpu+1] = holder;
                        didchange = 1;
          }
          if (cpu % 2 = 1) {
                if (x[cpu-1] > x) {
                        holder = x[cpu-1];
                        x[cpu-1] = x;
                        x= holder;
                        didchange = 1;
          }
    }

    Locking conditions and timing all handled easily without a lot of thought of the details. Yet using all the processors.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    1. Re:Most software sucks a parallel processing. by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      The big problem is most applications suck at parallel processing.

      Literally the only applications which require a lot of CPU time which the average user is likely to encounter which fit this description are games. While games are now usually multithreaded, they are typically not sufficiently multithreaded to highly utilize many cores. One exception might be ports from modern consoles, which seem to have six or so cores available to the application. Console games which fully utilize the hardware ought to benefit from having multiple cores available on the PC as well.

      The only other thing that the average user might actually do on their PC is work with graphics, and most graphics applications people actually use for processing large graphics files are aggressively multithreaded. They scale to many cores very well. Another possible example, though probably used by many less people nowadays, is data compression. File compressors are also highly multithreaded now. But most people don't deal with compressing large data unless it's image or video data, and most people don't use raw images or video so the compression is built into the file format, and its CODEC.

      As nerds, we may also be compiling software, which is a highly parallelizable process.

      So, what is it that you imagine that users are doing that doesn't scale highly linearly as you add cores, unless it is I/O limited?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Most software sucks a parallel processing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't an "average user" buy an average chip? or a low end chip?

      "Average" when your talking about users in the billions seems kinda useless to mention.

      The fast chips matter for a large number of people. I can't speculate what "most" people use there computers for, but many people use them for 3D CAD, Programming, and other intensive tasks. I can fully utilize my "fast computer" and I don't play any games at all.

    3. Re:Most software sucks a parallel processing. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't an "average user" buy an average chip? or a low end chip?

      Not if they're a gamer. Then they tend to buy at least a mid-range chip, which is much more CPU than a non-gamer will buy. The average chip is low-end, if you count by number of units deployed.

      I can fully utilize my "fast computer" and I don't play any games at all.

      Sounds like the applications you're running are highly multithreaded, then.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Most software sucks a parallel processing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except most people aren't looking to do parallel processing. They're looking to run multiple concurrent applications, or essentially serve user requests, for which threading is a huge benefit.

      As someone with a 4-core/8-thread machine at home, the interactive desktop is where you see the most benefit ... you can have a bunch of things open and they are all responsive because a thread is available. Ripping a CD, playing music, running a couple of browsers, and copying files ... all of these happen without bogging down like have fewer cores/threads would.

      My servers at work are essentially serving web requests. Threads provide more concurrency, and therefore more throughput. My databases will happily scale to use as many CPU cores and threads we can throw at them.

      Most people aren't buying these things thinking "I'm gonna do me some parallel programming", they're thinking "sweet, I can have a bunch of things open and the system won't grind to a halt".

      If you want to do real parallel programming, you're probably on a GPU anyway. But for most applications, more threads means more concurrency, which is going to give you a better overall experience than fewer threads.

      So, yeah, for my desktop and for my servers, I don't give a crap about true parallelism, because it's not part of my workload. But concurrency of multiple programs to make a more responsive system is a huge big deal.

      I don't think it's as much of a limitation for most people as you think it is. I don't need Excel to use all CPU threads, but I want to still be able to use something else while Excel is chewing away calculating my graph with 60000+ data points.

    5. Re:Most software sucks a parallel processing. by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      The problem is multi-fold 1. Little Education in Parallel processing programming.

      2. Most programming language have poor implementation of parallel processing. ... I have seen languages such as MPL (for an early parallel processing system) that actually had an elegant structure of plural variables where you can code parallel processing without threads but using standard lanagues.

      I learned Fortran 90 around the turn of the millennium. Its native vector/matrix/complex math meant that decent compilers could automatically parallelize things like matrix multiplication. After all, the math construct is parallel to begin with. Using math this way helps solve both 1 and 2.

      In contrast, most languages started out with loop constructs, and later added hints to parallelize them. To a physics/math person this looks completely backwards. When two vectors are added together in real life, nature doesn't loop over the x/y/z components.

      Of course, this means more demands for the compiler. Back around 2000, I used some commercial compilers for F90, partly because GCC at the time was not capable enough for Fortran. Multiple threads or processes are necessary if you want to parallelize beyond SIMD. But for the programmer, things should be made easier by using native parallel constructs rather than loops with hints.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    6. Re:Most software sucks a parallel processing. by m00sh · · Score: 1

      The big problem is most applications suck at parallel processing. 4 Cores 1 for the OS 3 for the applications

      Is what seems to suit home usage rather well. Having an 8th gen i7 with 6 cores with a total of 12 threads is underutilized by most applications, and will in general not run at its full potential. So you have an application that you want to work faster moving from 1 core to in essence 12 threads or 16 threads will not have mores law speed improvements, because the program is often stuck on a single core, which hasn't been increasing in speed.

      The problem is multi-fold 1. Little Education in Parallel processing programming. Still this is mostly regulated to 300-400 CS classes for undergrad, and mostly designed to aid CS students as an area of study in their Masters Degree.

      2. Most programming language have poor implementation of parallel processing. Threading is one way to do parallel processing their are other methods as well. I have seen languages such as MPL (for an early parallel processing system) that actually had an elegant structure of plural variables where you can code parallel processing without threads but using standard lanagues This is psuto-code as I hadn't used MPL in over 20 years. plural int x; plural int holder; int didchange = 1; x = randint(maxcpu); while (didchange) { didchange = 0; if (cpu % 2 = 0) { if (x > x[cpu+1]) { holder = x; x = x[cpu+1]; x[cpu+1] = holder; didchange = 1; } if (cpu % 2 = 1) { if (x[cpu-1] > x) { holder = x[cpu-1]; x[cpu-1] = x; x= holder; didchange = 1; } } Locking conditions and timing all handled easily without a lot of thought of the details. Yet using all the processors.

      For application developers, threading will utilize multiple cores.

      For library developers, it's not just multiple cores. It's SIMD and specialized instruction sets for different architectures and even GPU acceleration. Most library developers go in very deep into these and most very popular libraries already do a lot of work on this.

      The only problem where I had something hit one core while the others are doing nothing is the c++ linker. But, LLVM and gold are working on those problems.

    7. Re:Most software sucks a parallel processing. by yes-but-no · · Score: 1

      I believe having multiple hardware cores/threads to make a system UI responsive on user input (keyboard /mouse) is an overkill; it's like using an elephant gun to kill a mouse. The system grinds to a crawl due to poor OS system/scheduler which doesn't give real-time apps a quick response and letting some CPU hogging process to hold on to the CPU.

      A human keyboard or mouse input is such a small task to do and still the so called modern OSes can't handle it right. The sluggishness is surely due to poor software implementation (say some task unnecessarily holding on to a lock on which another is waiting) and not about hardware limits (surely CPU is not at 100% .. even if it is ..again due to poor software like someone doing a spin-wait etc... we know a normal user is not running CPU intensive math calculations)

    8. Re:Most software sucks a parallel processing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe having multiple hardware cores/threads to make a system UI responsive on user input (keyboard /mouse) is an overkill; it's like using an elephant gun to kill a mouse.

      And yet millions of people use this on desktops and servers and get an improved experience. It's almost as if you don't know what you're talking about.

      The system grinds to a crawl due to poor OS system/scheduler which doesn't give real-time apps a quick response and letting some CPU hogging process to hold on to the CPU.

      You know, to the best of my knowledge, I've never used anything which is a truly real-time app. It doesn't come up. If you want that, I presume you have an RTOS which isn't also running a user desktop interface. So the extent to which real-time apps are affected has zero meaning for me and the vast majority of other users.

      Sorry, you're describing a highly specialised type of application, which most of us will never run, and which simply isn't relevant to the discussion. For desktops, and the servers I manage, CPU threads gives more throughput and responsiveness .. period.

      Can you construct scenarios in which they don't? Absolutely. Will what most people do most of the time benefit from them? Absolutely.

      I'll take more CPU threads myself, because in the real world, for the systems I actually give a damn about, more CPU threads means a faster and more responsive system.

      If the people who need real-time software on a real-time-operating-system need something else, they're welcome it.

  31. Liquid cooling means nothing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...if your ambient room temp is 125 Fahrenheit. Is it worth the brain heat death to use Ryzen?

    1. Re:Liquid cooling means nothing... by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      Jesus Intel shill much? If you actually ever used a ryzen you would t be spreading your fud.

    2. Re: Liquid cooling means nothing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If that's the case I'll buy one Ryzen processor for each room in my house. Then I can heat my whole house and have a server farm at the same time.

      Win win.

  32. Buying on a needed bases.. by Xnet+Project · · Score: 1

    Typically when I purchase equipment, it is on a need basis hardware wise. Whether you're entrusted to Intel or AMD as your "Go-to" it shouldn't really matter. As far as heat is concerned, if you are "air-cooling" either brand whether it's i7,i9,Ryzen 7,Threadripper 1/2, the ambient temperatures will always be through the roof even with water cooling. With that being said if someone is having that kind of issue then it would be time to open up ventilation in a "inadequately cooled" room.

    On the note of decisions for buying a CPU, you have to ask yourself, do I need a work horse, a middle of the road computer, or a browsing machine. This is where "cost-per-core" will matter if you need a work horse. No matter how you slice it with IPC's, cores will always remain key for handling heavier workloads.

    The reality is now with AMD being more competitive in the CPU space both AMD and Intel "enthusiasts" tend to feud over which one is best. In all honesty the "more intelligent" decision at least for me is choosing which one I can get more for less for higher-end work horses.

    In essence, the real question regardless of anything else is, what do want, and how much do you want to spend. That is keeping it "real".

  33. I am APK the LORD of HOSTS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am APK the great "LORD of HOSTS", a.k.a. AlecStaar or Alexander Peter Kowalski.

    See subject & APK Hosts File Engine 2.0++ 64-bit for Linux h t t p : / / I . a m . a . f u c k i n g / a s s h o l e . r e t a r d . z i p (remove spaces between characters & download).

    I am the godlike creator of various GUI front-ends for other people's configuration files.

    Watch as I claim I win every argument when in reality I know I lost but that won't stop me from proclaiming my victory.

    When presented with facts I rebut them with wild speculations, false support, and out of context quotes

    All of my accomplishments revolve around me being proven to be an annoying spamming asshole

    See me be proud of my inability to be a functional adult

    Bask in my debilitating mental illness

    Hear me tell stories about me living large drinking miller lite in my ramshackle duplex with a roommate at age 54.

    Watch me spew some word salad because I can't string 2 words together in a coherent manner.

    I just don't understand why every site I post on everyone makes fun of me, it can't be because I am a shit stick but instead because they are all Ne'er-do-well SOYboy Jealous JOWIEs.

    Witness my descent into madness

    APK

  34. 9th Generation Processors by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

    with 5th generation bugs.