why is the i7-6900k still listed on logical increments it clearly

For the rare use case where 4 memory channels and more DIMMs are needed.

>>59797155

i would also argue that for them to keep using the $1700 6950x isnt logical either

since its ST speed is 5% slower and its MT speed is barely 10%

>>59797128

They are intel fangoys.

>>59797180
Speed is irrelevant when features are missing.

No matter how good Zen is, it doesn't have 4 channel memory, as much I/O, the same amount of DIMM slots nor does it have as good AVX256 performance.

These are niche of the most niche use cases, but they exist.

>>59797191
this, but also it gets the kike more in commissions if it is more expensive.

>>59797199
Then again 6900/6950 don't have ECC but Zen does, which I can argue is a pretty important feature for no small number of precision and long running workloads.

>>59797199
yea but zen is 100000000000000000000000000000x faster for openSSL :^)

>>59797263
Assuming they mostly cater to gamers they won't include xeons in upper tiers "just because".

>>59797292

exactly, that entire list is for gaming, not workshop

so theres zero logical need for anything AMD's $500 but its almost like richfags need something to justify themselves to feel more superior

>>59797292
Gamers don't need AVX256 or quad channel memory

Either it's for gamers and it's wrong because 7700K > 1800X > 6900K based on gaming speed

Or it's for workstations and it's wrong because Ryzen supports ECC memory

There is literally no case where recommending a 6900K is logical and not shilling

>>59797554
Not to hate on ryzen, but isn't more logical to grab some e5 2670 (or w/e now is the "deal" on that front) and build 2 socket workstation for less money. quad channel memory and more pci-e lanes (if that features you need for your tasks)? And yes, I know that is quite hard to find cheap c602 motherboard, but still.

>>59797554

forget just the $1000 6900k, the 6950x which is $1700 is even more ridiculous to be on there

i mean sure, keep it listed since its technically the fastest MT cpu, but i still think it should be just a foot-note in the 1800x's popup box

>>59797128
They're still reccomending i5's and compare literally everything to the i7-6950X. In short, they're shills.

>>59797640

they base their list on MSRP

>>59797128
PCIe lanes maybe. AMD dropped the ball hard in that case, quite disappointing. I will probably never buy this iteration of Ryzen because of that, maybe if a mobo with a PCIe switch comes out.

Nothing over excellent tier makes much sense, falcon seems to have Lost the Plot(tm). Enthusiast and above will litterally give you less fps in games.

Everything bellow is strictly, 100% gaming, not taking other things into consideration at all. This guide needs to be called "best build for just gaming" or "max fps gaming" and preferably moved to be optional.

There needs to be a general purpose build guide, that is preferably the default that takes more than gaming into consideration.

>>59797645

You can build an entire fucking machine with a 1800x for the price of a single 6950x alone. Hell, you can go for a 1700 to save some dosh, OC that son 'abitch and you could get two systems for the price of the 6950x system, if you just need the pure CPU computing power. How can Intel even compete?

AMD is coming out with their 12/16c workstation CPUs in a couple months, which sure as hell won't be priced near $1700 if AMD wants to twist the knife. What the fuck has Intel been doing? They are going to get BTFO in servers and workstation for at least until next year.

>>59797713

How many do you need? Workstation CPUs with more PCIe are coming out soon(TM). Will be interesting to see the pricing on those.

>>59797640
>e5 2670
Shit single thread, and this is a guide for new parts only.

>I know that is quite hard to find cheap c602 motherboard, but still.
Exactly, in my area of the world it's literally impossible.

>>59797902
>How many do you need?
At least 2 x16 PCIe slots, everything else is a bonus. PCIe switch (from PLX or whatever) would be fine too, but apparently nobody makes a Ryzen mobo like that. A bit surprising to me, since every gen of mainstream Intel mobos seem to have several models like that available.

>Workstation CPUs with more PCIe are coming out soon(TM). Will be interesting to see the pricing on those.
I know, but if those end up being 12/16 core models they may very well end up being more expensive and lower clocked than a 1800X, that's totally not what I'm looking for. 8C would be nice but I have absolutely 0 use cases for anything more than that.

>>59798064
What do you need the lanes for? I never understood that.

>>59797903
> Shit single thread
Sure, but it doesn't matter much if your workload in heavily multi-threaded, and it is fast enough for most common cases.
> this is a guide for new parts only.
Fully understand that, it is just more reasonable to get used parts if you after price/perf ratio.

Also, there is possibility to force some xeons to work on permanent turbo on all cores, getting even more price/perf, more info here - https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/what-controls-turbo-core-in-xeons.2496647/

>>59798082

fringe scenarios

>>59798082
High resolution SLI for the upcoming 4K 144Hz monitors.

>>59798155
last time i checked it was still like pic related. But with titan Xp I dont know.

But that's definitely a fringe use, most of the time you'll have a 1200$ gpu just sitting there. (Titan Xp is the only card that makes any sense to run in sli (now))

File: pcie-lanes-mordor-4k[1].png (14KB, 707x371px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 707x371px

>>59798277

>>59798277
>last time i checked it was still like pic related. But with titan Xp I dont know
Most SLI reviews are full-on retarded and the reviewers have very little idea about what they're doing. PCIe lanes matter but only in certain scenarios, I have literally never seen a review looking out for those (because they don't know, I assume).
>But that's definitely a fringe use
Sure, I'm not saying it's not. They're probably not losing a lot of money because of it.
>most of the time you'll have a 1200$ gpu just sitting there
I wonder if you're speaking out of any recent experience or parroting what you read online. I bough 1080 SLI last June/July, the single game that I played that didn't work well was DOOM. Poor scaling there and it's actually one of the games picky about lanes (but scaling is quite poor anyway even on x16/x16).

>>59798583
>parroting what you read online.
this desu

>>59798583
because from the people who bench gpus, they do the test every now and then, cut the gpu down to 4x pcie landes and barely have any impact, because you cant go lower then that and have a gpu work, they they test the gpu in a pcie2 board at 8 and 4x, and always find, when gpus are concerned, the bandwidth is overkill nearly all the time.

>>59799218
That's because PCIe lanes actually are irrelevant when using 1 card. That is not the case when using 2.

>>59797424
for gaming, the intel 6 and 8 cores load balanced better, they may not reach the peaks of the 7700k 5ghz, but they play at an acceptable speed and even if lets say you take half the cpu and just render video with it while playing the game, its still impacting less then just having chrome open with a 7700k.

The issue with recommending them for gaming is they cost so fucking much that it was not a viable option for almost anyone.

>>59797640
many applications a prosumer would want more cores for shit out on dual cpus and just wont work. at that point a mass core es would be better, but if you need single core performance every now and then, your only option was the i7 6800+ till ryzen came along.

its also still up in the air if its an overall recommended over a 6 core intel for gaming as of right now.

As far as I'm concerned the dust still hasn't settled with Ryzen. I would wait until the next gen before even considering it. The next gen will definitely be an improvement. Same thing happened with Bulldozer.

>>59797128
falcon is an intel cuck and nvidia shill

>>59799750
> many applications
> just wont work
Can you give example of a few that won't scale/work with past 1 socket?

>>59800277
Anything that's not NUMA aware.

So practically 90% of applications.

>>59800364
> Anything that's not NUMA aware.
Just use smp if you application isn't NUMA aware, also you didn't bring any actual examples.

>>59799687

you could also argue that the i5 6500 would be an even better logical CPU since it comes with a HSF and runs at a lower TPD and has marginally the same ST speed

otheriwise you have to spend another $50 on a good cooler

>>59797199
>AVX256 performance
I lol'd.