-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
What will come of this "Core war" HEDT processor manufacturers are in?
- Thread starter Vishera
- Start date
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2012
However.... when I've had this same back and forth through the years....
Every one said... and I quote "We won't need dual cores for like 5 years." Next year everyone had em'
Same thing with quad cores..... "We don't need quad cores, dual core is all you "need" for this or that (gaming?)" and then every one bought them.....
ANd Octo Cores..... not to mention hex..... "OH we won't need 4/8 threads..."
BUT L@@K.... Every one seems to have 8 threads......
Nothing further to add.
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2008
If I turn my head slightly to my left, I can see my two Ryzen systems, one I just did a cooling upgrade to, one I'm about to do a cooling upgrade to. Dunno what you're calling pro Intel, I'm pro performance. Ryzen has its place. Intel has its place.
And what would you consider Ryzen's place?
OP
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2013
- Thread Starter
- #25
Not the one being asked, but I'd say Ryzen has a place in the sub $2k market. That's money enough for an 1800X, a fancy X370 board, custom liquid loop, a 1080ti, 16GB of RAM, a full tower case, a high end 1080p or decent 1440p monitor, and a good mouse and keyboard to finish it off. Above 2k is where I would say the 6950X comes into play as the CPU, and seeing as how AMD doesn't have a more than 8 core CPU yet, if you need ten cores+ it's pretty much your only option.
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2012
some people seem to forget that these game rigs are toys.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and figure that if you have a 6700k, a 1080 and a high end monitor, you don't have a pacer in your driveway rolling on 4 space saver spares.
I think this just might mean you can afford the cpu you want and you should have just that.
If you do own a high end game rig and your pacer needs tires, we need to have a little chat before you even talk to my daughter.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and figure that if you have a 6700k, a 1080 and a high end monitor, you don't have a pacer in your driveway rolling on 4 space saver spares.
I think this just might mean you can afford the cpu you want and you should have just that.
If you do own a high end game rig and your pacer needs tires, we need to have a little chat before you even talk to my daughter.
The only reason your 'above 2K' choice is above 2K is because a 6950X is 1500 bucks. AMD will change that......very soon. Then where will the Intel choice be?, other than more expensive?
Besides the fact that nobody needs a 10+ core game rig, so you're comparing apples to oranges.
OP
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2013
- Thread Starter
- #28
Well, true, not for gaming solely. But what about gaming and streaming? Or gaming, streaming, listening to music, running your internet browser to pay attention to twitch chat, and having a voice chat program open if you're playing with multiple people? The more cores you have, the more things you can do comfortably.
yes, its been years since the q6600 fame out.. and finally now, we are suggesting a quad core MINIMUM for gaming... so yeah, you keep holding your breath that most need more than 4c/8t...or are you agreeing, lol, cant tell with this post....
Have you seen a 4c/8t processor not be able to handle that???
Last edited:
OP
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2013
- Thread Starter
- #30
As a matter of fact, I HAVE seen a difference between a 6700k and even a 6800k when gaming and streaming at the same time. 15FPS improvement on average with the 6800k, 25 with a 6900k, varying slightly depending on the game.
OP
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2013
- Thread Starter
- #32
Definitely not incapable in the sense that the game flat out wouldn't run, but in Witcher 3 at 1440p, the game ran under 60FPS on the 6700k. On the topic of those who will buy the best just because, not maintaining that "master race standard" on a 4c/8t would definitely serve as an incentive to buy a higher core count CPU, or not being able to match their monitor's refresh rate.
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2012
Well Both actually. No you don't really need more than 5 or 6 cores to game. But people buy into the Octocore parts just the same. They just don't need them.
However it looks like Octo is the norm, so lets add octo more threads to it and see how it sells at X price.
But as mentioned, Gaming isn't the tell all for compute. Your forums here has a F@H and Seti team? Rosetta @ Home? Is a quad core good enough now?
So that's 4 cores gaming and 12 cores running F@H or Rosetta. Or maybe 6 cores for F@H and 6 for Rosetta and 4 for gaming. Possibilities grow.
Last edited:
Niche....
Im not (is anybody?) denying there are uses for more cores, but, 99% of people do not participate in a distributed program. How many gamers actually stream 10%? How many do it enough to warrant the use of more than 8 threads or will be bothered by the fps difference?
Its coming. Its just not here, and wont really be soon (id give it 2-3 years). AMD has a great case for those who can use more than 8 threads...or a case for a cheaper alternative with the same amount of threads (theres literally a $100 difference between a 7700k and 1500x based sytems - only difference is the processors). If people need to save a bit of money or need more cores/threads, its a competetive cpu.
Im not (is anybody?) denying there are uses for more cores, but, 99% of people do not participate in a distributed program. How many gamers actually stream 10%? How many do it enough to warrant the use of more than 8 threads or will be bothered by the fps difference?
Its coming. Its just not here, and wont really be soon (id give it 2-3 years). AMD has a great case for those who can use more than 8 threads...or a case for a cheaper alternative with the same amount of threads (theres literally a $100 difference between a 7700k and 1500x based sytems - only difference is the processors). If people need to save a bit of money or need more cores/threads, its a competetive cpu.
if they are streaming, chances are many dont care about refresh rate. I suppose there are twitch users that may care? I dont know.. see above... niche. See above, there are use models for more than 8 threads, its just not as common as many seem to think (imo).
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2012
Niche is a good way to put it. But glad to be part of it.
I purchased base line 1400 and running GTX 770. 1080P 55" of big screen. 60FPS cap. 60hz. Nice and smooth, looks great didn't cost much. 8 threads. I very well understand we don't need more than 4 cores....But in that 2 or 3 year mark, the A320 chipset I'm using now supports the 1700 so long I ever need an upgrade.
I purchased base line 1400 and running GTX 770. 1080P 55" of big screen. 60FPS cap. 60hz. Nice and smooth, looks great didn't cost much. 8 threads. I very well understand we don't need more than 4 cores....But in that 2 or 3 year mark, the A320 chipset I'm using now supports the 1700 so long I ever need an upgrade.
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2012
plenty of room for more than 4/8 thread processors, there are just a lot of people that simply will not research their software to find out what it will use.
I've gamed on my 6800K rig but, my faster 4790K rigs game better.
If I only had the 6800K rig I simply wouldn't know.
I've gamed on my 6800K rig but, my faster 4790K rigs game better.
If I only had the 6800K rig I simply wouldn't know.
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2012
My 4690K clocks 4.2ghz easily all day on stock air. I'm in no need of Ryzen R7 or 9. But F@H for team 11314 I haven't done in a long time. I'd be interested in R9 for these types of things. Back when I had gotten into it, Dual cores where new
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2008
This could be considered in multiple areas, general consumer, personal main systems, and my CPU farm. Its place will differ depending on that.
For people looking to upgrade, particularly those on a tight budget, or perhaps doing a 1st build, Ryzen certainly offers value and I have even suggested it as a possible solution to others. If budget allows, I've always got more than I think I need as it may help in future if not right now, so I think the best value points are 1600 and 1700 which are the ones I got myself.
On my current systems... While I only have a placeholder GPU in my 1700 system at the moment, my intention is to at some point extract the 980Ti from another custom loop system so the 1700 will be a competent gaming system. If I take too long, Vega/Volta might be here and I'll drop one of those in. I've been long considering splitting my "main system to do everything" into two systems, and the 1700 would be the additional new system. I like to have active spares available for any platform hence having the 1600 system as backup.
The rest of my buying decisions are how much FP compute potential does it give me? Suffice to say this isn't a Ryzen strong area and I'm keeping an eye open on AVX512 instruction availability.
Alaric
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2011
- Location
- Satan's Colon, US
The alternative, which I mentioned, will be losing market share. And they very likely will. Intel isn't going out of business and I doubt AMD will become the "big guy" in my lifetime, but AMD's efforts at making HEDT more affordable should be interesting to see. Hardware isn't the performance bottleneck it was at one time, but if people aren't buying lots of 8/10/12 core chips, then we won't get a lot of software development to take advantage of the extra horsepower. The average buyer just doesn't have a need or use for all those cores yet. I'm betting Dell and HP sell a lot more desktops than enthusiasts build in a year. The (shrinking) market for pre built units will have a bigger impact than we do. Then again, I can envision the "moar cores is better!" marketing scheme happening there, too.
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2008
Agreed. Ryzen is more than good enough to give a fight, so there will be a shift. The only question is how much. Even at my basic level of economic understanding, it may be worth Intel not chasing to maintain market share as it will be less loss for them in short or medium term. I can imagine small or gradual changes, but I don't expect sudden or large shifts any time soon. We're probably looking at generational timescales for things to happen. The only risk for Intel is that Ryzen could gain sufficient momentum quickly to become significant volume wise, then they might have to get more aggressive in response. I don't think we'll see that potential until R3, APUs and mobile arrive.
