Eh, this sort of stuff has gone on here forever. And we often complain about it, including myself. The problem is that Intel vs AMD threads don't seem to have any longevity, so the cycle repeats.
I'm not disputing the numbers,I'm not even disputing the result,for most people that only run mainstream games the differences will be minimal even with the biggest GPU.
Eh,in bulldozer times it was just as bad if not even worse.
Information from the video can be found in the link bellow.
Intel Core i5-10400 6 Core, $180 CPU Benchmarks Leak Out, Faster Than Its Predecessor With Slightly Higher Power Consumption & Temps
The first review of the Intel Core i5-10400 6 Core Desktop CPU has leaked out, showcasing a good performance jump over 9th Gen CPUs.wccftech.com
I know that it's a character flaw of mine to sound smug even if I don't necessarily intend to, but in this case it was intentional, I really don't know what his problem is. Almost every AMD topic was half full with the conversation about Intel's gaming performance and that too is a valid comparison, not out of place or off-topic.
Intel made twice the profits of previous years ever since AMD released ZEN,if multithreaded had any impact on the market and on intel prices it would have happened already back in bulldozer times, since in multithreaded applications they were pretty competitive.
That's the problem right there on these two phrases on your post, one the 8Ghz cpu does not exist and doesn't reassemble any current market product situation, because if it did many would certainly go for that option, but the situation is with all cpus performing about the same the one with more cores win.
"A fool and his money are soon parted" applies to most of the people buying Intel CPUs as of late (not all). Who care how high it can boost ? It barely beats Ryzen even at a ghz advantage, and gets destroyed at multicore and takes twice the power and heat, for the same or more money.
Still see all intel sockets releases since the 1155 has one, they all kept the same features set, pcie3, sata3, usb3, ... even with the socket 1151 they supported both ddr3 and ddr4 it's not even some 'special technology advances' outside of the cpu that can force a new socket release.
8GHz CPUs don't exist because we went the multi-core path for the time being - I said that earlier, didn't I?
I think there's a misunderstanding.
8 ghz cpus would not even exist in a single core. Second there are those of us that do NEED more cores (assuming that they run at a decent speed compared to the current lowered core CPU's). Servers and the DC world can use all the cores they can get.8GHz CPUs don't exist because we went the multi-core path for the time being - I said that earlier, didn't I?
But the gains from adding cores will diminish.
Going from 1 to 2 cores realistically doubled the CPU performance for almost everyone. Going from 2 to 4 was great as well. 4 to 8 - not that obvious. 8 to 16 - almost unnoticeable for most. That's what I'm taking about.
So we'll have a very large group of consumers that doesn't benefit from 16, 32, ... cores.
But staying at 8 cores doesn't mean they want to stay at 2020-ish performance. They have money, they want faster CPUs. And that will hopefully convince CPU makers to work on faster cores.
I think there's a misunderstanding.
No one needs more cores. We only need more performance.
Adding cores is an easy way to add performance, but it only benefits loads that can use more cores.
Increasing per-core performance is harder, but it benefits all loads.
AFAIK all Skylake-based platforms support both DDR3 and DDR4. It's just that DIMMs aren't compatible, so you won't see many DIY motherboards supporting both (they were more common during the transition period).
But they are related today. You don't buy a one core 5Ghz 9900K, you buy eight of them. That's how you get more performance out of it.
Comparing an old days multitasking OS with the new ones, there's so much going on in the background that even on new or old application that don't take advantage of more cpu cores a proper multitasking OS will use them, like a proper OS memory management system will use the RAM for caching if you bought more ram than the applications running need.
I already said it twice: because silicon makes it difficult to achieve high clocks in complex CPUs.
Any 2 cores can be replaced by a single core with twice the performance. In any load.
Just so wrong...
Oh absolutely. Changing sockets all the time is just a way to help partners sell new motherboards.
Yes. Because the money needed to develop an 8 core CPU from existing cores is tiny compared to improving the architecture or the manufacturing process.
Correct. I never said I miss the times of single-core CPUs.
Nothing. You were just listing motherboard features, not socket features, that's how this all started, why so many sockets when during all this time only 2 or 3 would cover all the already 10 gens released.
I prefer all of the cores to be fast, big little makes no sense on desktop, mobile ok for running OS background stuff, and the OS must be aware of those slow cores otherwise application performance will plump with apps that try to use the slow cores instead of the fast ones.
Lets keep them all fast. I think nobody wants slow.
Many potato amd A320 pci3.0 motherboards can run at pcie4.0 speed, don't tell me you prefer the intel way, pcie4.0 motherboard that only runs at pcie 3.0 speed? Just pay for it, but please don't use it.
Facebook
Twitter