Its not a minor price difference where im at. Brand new 10600 cpu costs 240 bucks. Ryzen 5600 costs 400. A 10700 costs 340 and a 5800 costs 535 bucks. Ryzens are 60-70% more expensive and games run pretty much the same between them and intel equivalents.
Confused why they threw this AVX-512 test in though?
That last line is a bit misleading lol
I knew you'd be here with your strange defence force of Intel. Because this series looks a right stinker, your strategy is now to try and promote the previous gen. And no, Intel 10-series are not as performant as Ryzen 5000, those CPUs are slower and less efficient across the board.
Yep intel made it easy this time around sticking with my 10900kf tooWanted to upgrade from my 10900k. Not happening anytime soon.
Same boat here.Christ on a bike, Rocket Lake is actually slower than Intel's previous gen Comet Lake in some cases, despite the fact Comet Lake was already slower than Ryzen 5000 series like for like which launched 6 months ago..Intel you have excelled yourself.
Every time someone says Intel are the Value Gaming King, an Intel marketing executive dies.My defence force of intel ?? What are you talking about ? The 10 series is comparably just as fast in real life gaming scenarios. One game a 10900 comes on top, another the ryzen 5900. Its not a decisive and clear victory for AMD like it was for intel all these years. For other tasks, productivity and such, ryzens are better. But gaming, you cant go wrong with either of them. And if intel becomes so much more cheaper than amd, intel remains a solid option.
You never miss a beat to throw a jab at NVIDIA. Come on llien Su. This isn't even about Nvidia. No need to shill for mommy Su right now.There might be a trend that we missed.
Consuming more power = good, perhaps?
1000W edition of 3090: (actually achieves 630W)
GALAX GeForce RTX 3090 Hall Of Fame (HOF) Edition GPU Benched with Custom 1000 W vBIOS
GALAX, the maker of the popular premium Hall Of Fame (HOF) edition of graphics cards, has recently announced its GeForce RTX 3090 HOF Edition GPU. Designed for extreme overclocking purposes, the card is made with a 12 layer PCB, 26 phase VRM power delivery configuration, and three 8-pin power...www.techpowerup.com
Not normal usage, that is just Intels official listing for the base clock TDP. What it consumes is still fairly high. I can only imagine what the i9 will do in terms of heat/actual TDP usage.Normal usage. Not balls-to-the-wall-hyper-crazy-AVX usage.
Not sure why they're even supporting AVX-512. It just makes them look really bad in benchmarks with this absurd level of power draw lol
To help people figure the right power supply perhaps.Confused why they threw this AVX-512 test in though?
Both things can be true. I am happy with my 10600k purchase at $194 and it is a better deal than the AMD alternatives at MSRP. AND the 11xxx series is kind of looking like a turd. Oh well.I knew you'd be here with your strange defence force of Intel. Because this series looks a right stinker, your strategy is now to try and promote the previous gen. And no, Intel 10-series are not as performant as Ryzen 5000, those CPUs are slower and less efficient across the board.
To help people figure the right power supply perhaps.
I'd agree with you had they skipped AVX2 test for the exact same CPU in exact same chart.Not questioning the test itself; it just sticks our like a sore thumb in that chart as it's apples to oranges.
Emulators? As in console emulation?Ok that's it. I'm not going to wait for intel to release a decent CPU anymore. I'm switching to AMD, emulators and IPC be damned.
Ok that's it. I'm not going to wait for intel to release a decent CPU anymore. I'm switching to AMD, emulators and IPC be damned.
Emulation is fine on AMD these days. The emulator devs didn't take that long to figure out how to optimize for the chiplets and CCX core arrangements.Ok that's it. I'm not going to wait for intel to release a decent CPU anymore. I'm switching to AMD, emulators and IPC be damned.
Emulators run very well on modern AMD Cpu's, you needn't worry.
Emulation is fine on AMD these days. The emulator devs didn't take that long to figure out how to optimize for the chiplets and CCX core arrangements.
It wont be funny anymore when AMD goes to 5nm and 3nm........Even 2nm.....Things are going to get downright silly...
AMD is so ahead of the curve, glad to see what innovation and a customer focused product brings.......And remember before AMD's dominance with Ryzen, all we heard was that beating Intel was a pipe dream....Same will happen to Nvidia who are hiding and making lots of noise behind the proprietary RTX cloud...
Interestingly; amongst the PC tech media, power consumption of GPU's and CPU's is not such a hot topic anymore....
Does it make sense to wait until they release a DDR5 chipset?
optimize for the chiplets and CCX core arrangements.
Why?Im not comfortable getting a 6 core CPU now. Whatever i get now will have to last me at least 5 years
Because i can't afford building a new PC more often that that.Why?
Curious, that you said that.
Core to Core latency:
Things changed quite a bit over time.
i7 11700k is basically where Zen2 was.
Zen3 halved that time on top of introducing 8 core chiplets.
Why would you need to? 6 core isn't going anywhere.Because i can't afford building a new PC more often that that.
At what?10700 and 10850 stay winning.
At their prices they are the best bet.
At what?
At 1080p 5600x beats 10700.
10700 is about 7% ahead of 5600x in multi-core scenarios, despite having 2 more cores.
5600x is 12% ahead of 10700 in single core scenarios.
Both cost roughly the same, mainboards are more expensive on blue side,
10700 consumes 63% more (!!!) at full load than 5600 (10800 101% more)
computerbase
YMMV, but in DE, it's like 15 Euro difference.The 10700 is cheaper than the 5600X where am at by more than cost of the sizeable cooler i would need.
Strange. Here are the relevant benchmarks:P.S Cant get passed the paywall/adwall on your link.
Intel can straight up fuck off with this one. You just don't go backwards in core count...
Think about console exclusives that will be 30fps and work those 8 zen 2 cores hard.Why would you need to? 6 core isn't going anywhere.
And gaming performance.And core latency
Games above 1080p are more GPU dependent. The PS4 and XB1 also had 8 cores. Console exclusives will be 30 fps because they're going for 4k, RT, and other superficial things that make the game look slightly better. None of that really has anything to do with the CPU.Think about console exclusives that will be 30fps and work those 8 zen 2 cores hard.
I can’t imagine the 5600x lasting the whole generation. Though it’s the best bang for buck atm, and almost as good as 5950x in games today, it won’t always be that way.
8 shitty mobile cores, not the same scenario. Once games really tax the CPUs on pc it’ll be harder to get really high frame rates. It’s absolutely possible a 30fps game on consoles will max out the CPUs, with physics or whatever else.Games above 1080p are more GPU dependent. The PS4 and XB1 also had 8 cores. Console exclusives will be 30 fps because they're going for 4k, RT, and other superficial things that make the game look slightly better. None of that really has anything to do with the CPU.
5600x is also much higher performance than whats in the new consoles. I think you'll be fine with a $300 cpu competing against $500 consoles.
I guess you'd have to find a cpu limited game to test that out on. That hasn't been a thing since Crysis though.8 shitty mobile cores, not the same scenario. Once games really tax the CPUs on pc it’ll be harder to get really high frame rates. It’s absolutely possible a 30fps game on consoles will max out the CPUs, with physics or whatever else.
Also, I really don’t think the 5600x is any better than 16 fully saturated zen 2 threads, at least zen 2 on pc. worse in some loads probably.
Either way, 5600x won’t get 60fps on a 30fps cpu limited console game.
No need to upgrade my 4670k then.
Oh you definitely need to upgrade and both 10 gen Intel and Zen 3 are v. good options.
Look for 4690k results....