Friendly reminder to not buy the new Intel CPU if you care about

>>381097018
You realize this is a higher-end part than any other part represented on the graph and as such it is totally normal/typical for it to have a much higher TDP, right?

the point of the i9 is literally "more transistors" for special purpose power...this isnt some laptop gaming processor

oh you have no idea about what this would be used for? right

File: 23132213213123.png (159KB, 731x869px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 731x869px

>>381097209
ye

>>381097301
that's pretty bad, but, first-gen design. oh well

nobody here is buying this anyway. I'll repeat: do you understand this is a special purpose processor not for normal use and nobody would logically buy this for gaming, normal pc use etc?

File: 56565435.png (758KB, 739x1221px) Image search: [Google]

758KB, 739x1221px

This shit is literally a tragedy waiting to happen

>>381097529
>first-gen design
heh. Sorry. No.

File: 1497878415726.png (165KB, 436x916px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 436x916px

>>381097209
It's about 2-3% faster than the 6950X pictured, and is actually slower in some cases. Intel fucked up bad.

>>381097750
>no liquid nitrogen setup
fucking casuals

>>381097750
I'm curious, why would you need to overclock a top end mega CPU anyway? Just for shits and giggles?

>AMD finally catches up.
>Intel is so thrown off they go into a spasm and start fucking up trying to do something against it.

It's fun to see the tables turning once again. Hopefully, AMD manages the upset given their supremacy has historically been the better (for normal people like yours truly) of the two when it came to CPUs.

>>381098056
Read the image, it hit its limit under good AIO's as well on STOCK

>>381098056
A standard CPU with stock cooling is perfectly fine for gaming purposes, overclocking is a hobby in itself for some reason.

>>381097018
Best for gaming? Shit that's almost as bad as buying anything amd for PC gaming.

>>381098056
Its on stock.

>>381097018
Friendlier reminder not to listen to the autistic rage of assravaged AMDrones now that Skylake-X is bring down the pain
>i9-7820K beating the 1800X in everything
>can overclock higher
>has 28 PCIe lanes from the CPU rather than 16 on Ryzen
>has quad channel memory rather than dual channel
>has higher memory bandwidth and latency
>has Kaby Lake-S single-threaded performance and better than 10% gains in multi-threaded performance over Broadwell-E and Ryzen
>only costs $100 more

Temperature issues are only a problem if you're overclocking, for normal use an air cooler will work just fine with a stock Skylake-X.

File: 241841212812551253255.png (507KB, 856x441px) Image search: [Google]

507KB, 856x441px

L
O
L

>>381098056
Thats like asking why one would try to push a sports car to its absolute limit

To see what it can do, obviously

File: 1495719938147.jpg (682KB, 1075x1583px) Image search: [Google]

682KB, 1075x1583px

>>381098546
>only costs $100 more


did i miss something

>i9 $999
>ryzen 1800 $439

>>381098557
>implying a Ryzen 7 1800X at 4.3GHz uses any less power than that
>implying that a Ryzen 7 at similar clock speeds won't exponentially use more power
Ryzen is only efficient at below 4.0GHz and lower voltages. In order to push past 4.1GHz, Ryzen eats more power than a Trump supporter at a McDonald's run by non-whites

>>381098546
Why would anybody buy this for gaming if they already have an unlocked mainstream Intel i7 that's at least Sandy Bridge?

>>381098742
That's for the 10-core Core i9-7900X, idiot
The 8-core Core i9-7820K is only $599
>>381098776
More PCIe lanes and higher IPC and MT

>>381098546
You guys must be really desperate if you're comparing a cheap mainstream CPU to an HEDT CPU. Don't worry, you'll be able to do that direct comparison against Threadripper. And then again, maybe you won't want to.

You gotta be clinically retarded to want to buy anything other than Ryzen right now.

>>381098857
Where are the benchmarks for the 8-core? I can it will be comparable to Ryzen.

Also

>only $599

maybe for you its only but for your parents thats probably quite a hit you underage faggot

>>381097018
The new intels are complete fucking overkill for gaming, anyone buying them specifically for gaming is a complete retard.

There is no reason to have anything more powerful right now than a 6700/7700k or 1800X.

>>381098413
kek, Ryzen is absolutely murdering Intel's mid range. I guess it takes a while for reputation to change. AMD did put out nothing but shit 2011-2015 CPU wise.

>>381098773
You can tell Ryzen was primarily designed.fot servers. Super efficient at 2-3GHz, but reaches a face melting inferno going past 4GHz.

>>381098972
>You gotta be clinically retarded to want to buy anything other than Intel right now.
Fixed
AM4 still has memory compatibility problems, still has booting issues, still has performance-destroying CCX latency issues, and still isn't anywhere near as optimized as Intel's CPUs.
To top it off, not all CPU coolers make brackets for the AM4 motherboard, and AMD themselves fucked over users by not providing a CPU cooler on the products that really needs one out of the box.

>>381099134
Fuck off Brian nobody is going to buy your housefire lake.

All those issues have been fixed.

>>381098857
>More PCIe lanes and higher IPC and MT

You don't need more pcie lanes for gaming. Multi GPU is fucking retarded, and single GPU is all a gamer needs. As far as IPC even unlocked SB i7 can oc high enough to literally play every game without issue.

>>381098972
>You gotta be clinically retarded to want to buy anything other than Ryzen right now.

Ryzens can't even play every pc game, so ryzens, and Intel hedts are fucking retarded for gaming.

File: stalin gulag.png (317KB, 642x792px) Image search: [Google]

317KB, 642x792px

>>381099134
>not a single issue that hasn't already been fixed
>reccing more expensive CPUs that offer less performance because he can't find a fucking AM4 cooler as if it's something rare

File: bait card gal o sengen.gif (2MB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 480x360px

>>381099453
>Ryzens can't even play every pc game
wat

>>381097750
This is hilarious, it's worse than Netburst

>>381099130
>kek, Ryzen is absolutely murdering Intel's mid range. I guess it takes a while for reputation to change. AMD did put out nothing but shit 2011-2015 CPU wise.

Ryzens can't even beat an overclocked i7 from 2012 in pc gaming. There's no reason to buy and, or Intel hedts for gaming you dumbfuck. People are better off buying used Intel mainstream i7, and overclocking them.

File: 1497884687040.png (817KB, 1440x2560px) Image search: [Google]

817KB, 1440x2560px

Another buggy as fuck launch like X99
Considering this is based on a 6 year old core, it's stupid it keeps happening.

>>381099819
Rice(n) is more futureproof

>>381097018
I'm confused.

Isn't the i9 a server CPU?

>>381099874
It's not even now proof faggot.

>>381099565
Try playing PC games outside of tomb raider, doom, or CS:GO.

>>381099973
How so? Even in games that use 4 cores it can easily obtain 60fps+ with a decent GPU not some 1080 tier shit and with games that will actually start to use more cores it will be even better

>>381099863
kek, how much did AMD pay these guys?
>complaining about P-states doing their fucking job
>complaining about beta BIOSes being buggy and unstable
>complaining about range availability and diversity as if more options were a bad thing

>>381100159
Adorable.

>>381098065
Why are you surprised by this?
This is not the first time that AMD dark horse'd their way into first place and Intel responded by having conniptions.

see: Super socket 7 tri-level cache (k6-2/K6-III processors dominating every Pentium 2 and even early P3s, this led to them putting in monster 512k caches on newer P3s that most motherboards couldn't even use), Slot A athlon 1ghz barrier (destroyed every slot A P3 for the price of a celeron, Intel responded by designing the fuckup CPU that was early P4s)

Then there was the AMD64 fiasco.

>>381099973
Considering some of the games that benched poorly are being patched for it and are giving performance boosts explain why.

>>381100127
Shit ryzens can't even play Arma, pubg, or any simulators for shit. It can't 60fps in unoptimized games (90% of PC gaming) at all unless you turn down to unplayable settings.

>>381099348
having more than 16 PCIe lanes is overkill.
Dual GPU uses that, anymore more is hyper-enthusiast territory where you try to use 3+ GPUs.

>>381098742
It's $160 more.

>>381097937
this isn't special purpose software..once again you missed the point even after i explicitly made it twice

you don't buy core i9 to run consumer software. you buy it to run your own software that you write, etc

File: 7234543.png (24KB, 711x533px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 711x533px

>>381097018
Cool cherry picking bro, I can do that too. Let's also ignore the fact that it topped a lot of the benchmarks.
Though spending a thousand dollary doos on a CPU for gaming fucking retarded to begin with.

>>381100745
You're retarded.

>>381100304
>k6-2/K6-III processors dominating every Pentium 2

k6-3 was not pentium 2's contemporary it came out later. k6-2 did not "dominate" every p2, but for the price they sure did for FPU performance in gaming, i had one. All I cared about was quake back then though

>>381100127
And you can do the same with an old-er i7, sometimes for even less or the same money, your point being? People claimed that due to the fact that consoles use AMDs octacores we would see better AMD optimization back in 2012, yet benchmarks don't show so. Not defending i9 shitstains here, but goddamn, I look at gaming benchmarks which clearly show ryzens losing in (almost) every single game, mostly by small margin, but sometimes up to 30 fps and people glamor about how amazing Ryzen is and how AMD is back baby.

All I'm seeing here are excuses
>The fast memory will save it!
Saves both i7s and Ryzens.
>The SMT will save it!
Even with SMT the results are worse. Sometimes hyperthreading produces worse results.
>The multicore/ryzen-speicific optimization will save it!
Maybe, but how long are we going to wait for it?
>The easy OC will save it!
Although it may improve the perfomance, it still lacks in single threaded application, which are STILL most of the games today. You can goat me with "LMAO STOP PLAYING GAMES FROM 2007" all you like, but it doesn't change the fact that majority of releases prefer better single threaded perfomance than amount of cores. Even W_D2, which can be considered the most optimized game for multicore systems Ryzen shows poor perfomance.
Devs already don't bother optimizing games for PC, and you expect them to optimize for Ryzens that share smaller consumer base? Don't laugh at me.

File: 1312314185916.jpg (7KB, 252x240px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 252x240px

>it's prescott all over again

File: 1397052696492.jpg (9KB, 233x175px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 233x175px

>>381100745
>you don't buy core i9 to run consumer software. you buy it to run your own software that you write, etc
Confirmed for not knowing what the fuck you're talking about

>>381101048
This.

>>381101342
wow, really? confirmed? by you saying so and posting an image?

why don't you give an example of what market segment you think the core i9 is for? come on "btfo"me, since you know so much about computing. Why, I bet you have a single productivity based application on your PC other than office, right? Just one?

>>381100334
>Considering some of the games that benched poorly are being patched for it and are giving performance boosts explain why.

Companies aren't going to change their underlying code just to benefit ryzens. There's only so much they can do anon without rewriting the whole game.

>>381101048
>sometimes up to 30 fps
You got any examples for this? I recall reading recently that Tomb Raider, which had much lower performance on AMD chips, was brought up to par with Intel with software updates.

>>381101598
You don't "change the underlying code", the optimizations are done at compile time and you just run the Ryzen-centered ones instead.

>>381100781
What is the point you're trying to make here?

File: riseoftombraider_ryzen_perf_patch_pcper.jpg (34KB, 482x458px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 482x458px

>>381101598
>There's only so much they can do anon without rewriting the whole game.
This is kinda true but it doesn't stop some going out and improving things with Ryzen in mind. Pic related being the recent patch for Tomb Raider.

>>381101597
Fuck yes by me saying so, and also by you throwing out one possible use of a CPU and then going "etc"

You absolutely do not buy i9 "to run your own software that you write" unless you are writing heavily multithreaded software such as software for video editing, modeling or vidya, something that dozens of people work on

>>381101908
Arma 3, DCS, Falcon, and weeb shit. Fucking games like these won't be patched for shit, and companies like Bethesda don't give a fuck about optimizing for Intel, or AMD. This is just the tip of the iceberg since smaller companies don't even have the resources to optimize for anything.

go away ryzen street shitters

>>>/g/

>>381102195
That's great news for folks who spend thousands of hours in tomb raider.

>>381101986
That OP is cherry picking his images.
A torture loop is no indication of average power consumption.

File: ryzen.png (1MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1280x720px

>>381100104
k

>>381103442
People buying these chips won't be gaming and will be doing things like video encoding. This will 100% all cores unless you limit it yourself bringing it closer to the image in the OP.

>>381097018
>being worried about 230w tdp

>>381103671
That's not TDP you twatface.
It's officially 140W TDP

>>381103595
That's true, but since this is the fucking video game board I'd figure people would be more interested in power consumption during gayming than encoding.
Sometimes I honestly don't know whether I'm shitposting on /g/ or /v/.

>>381103920
>intel present bulldozer reinvented

>>381097529
Its a rebrand lol!

Do these new cpus require win 10?

>>381104015
People are just using it as another excuse to shitpost. No gamer, beyond some streamer/youtuber who has more money than sense, will be buying this or threadripper making these threads pointless.

>>381104216
they're not listed as compatible like the rysen cpu aren't but they still work so maybe