Who's buying Skylake-X? (You may now change your vote)

[LTC8K6]

No way, I'm looking at upgrading to a Ryzen 1600, if I had the money I'd go for a R7 1700, but unfortunately a new mobo + new 16GB ram, I'm also looking at getting an SSD, I can't afford more than R5 1600, but Ryzen is just so much better value than anything Intel is offering right now.\

Even for gaming the Ryzen processors are better as we are seeing all of the new games having the ryzen processors equal or faster than their Intel equivalents. We can only assume that in the future as games utilize more cores/threads Ryzen cpu's will only get better.

4 cores are already limited, they are already used up almost completely in new games, while with 6 or 8 cores you have a lot of room left and can use that to live stream your gaming, record your gaming, do some other light work in the background.

The RyZen cheerleading was not necessary, or on topic.

 

[krumme]

Ryzen is 100% on topic. The reason people will mostly not buy skl x is because you can get a 16c threadripper. Its that simple.
Only a few percent have a majority of avx2 loads to prefer the skl x.
Bd was slow and too expensive because the alternative was better. I will eat my hat if skl x is any different. And that is just because of ryzen. The idea to discuss a processor without its competition is meaningless.

 

[dullard]

Ryzen is 100% on topic. The reason people will mostly not buy skl x is because you can get a 16c threadripper. Its that simple.
Only a few percent have a majority of avx2 loads to prefer the skl x.
Bd was slow and too expensive because the alternative was better. I will eat my hat if skl x is any different. And that is just because of ryzen. The idea to discuss a processor without its competition is meaningless.

Competition is helpful in threads, but only if you are discussing ACUTAL competition for the target audience. Discussing a middle-of-the-line desktop processor and gaming applications in a HEDT thread is just as silly as saying that no one should buy Threadripper when you can buy the 72-core Xeon Phi (they are not even remotely the same set of buyers).

 

[krumme]

Competition is helpful in threads, but only if you are discussing ACUTAL competition for the target audience. Discussing a middle-of-the-line desktop processor and gaming applications in a HEDT thread is just as silly as saying that no one should buy Threadripper when you can buy the 72-core Xeon Phi (they are not even remotely the same set of buyers).

Agree. Its different segments and discussions.
But ryzen just moved the entire hedt market. A 1600x is more or less performing in productivity like a 6800. Thats regardless of its price and intended segment.
Skl x is surely a fine processor but it is just rendered more or less irrelevant imo for the productivity market.
And we can safely asume gaming and overclocking is here to stay especially for those that go the skl x way. As that will, outside of avx2 and a few other loads, be the only places where it hold an advantage. Hedt segment or not.

 

[krumme]

Intel 6c cl is comming too. For most gaming this will probably be the fastest cpu. And threadripper 16c will be faster for productivity. Neither of those cpu will be weak at anything. Skl x is really stuck a bad place vs prior hedt generations.

 

[Michael Diamond]

Ya i don't be.

 

[lolfail9001]

And threadripper 16c will be faster for productivity.

Would not be so quick to claim it considering that well, there's plenty of productivity stuff that favors few cores in the first place.

But really, it will be basically r7 1700 vs 7700k. Except that if 1700 had 2x the cores for the cost at the cost of some ST performance lost, TR is going to have a meager 60% advantage over the 10C SKU with rest. Yes, i do presume that 10C SKU and TR will both be $1k and that TR won't have it's CCX issues multiplied by the virtue of being an MCM.

 

[LTC8K6]

Ryzen is 100% on topic. The reason people will mostly not buy skl x is because you can get a 16c threadripper. Its that simple.
Only a few percent have a majority of avx2 loads to prefer the skl x.
Bd was slow and too expensive because the alternative was better. I will eat my hat if skl x is any different. And that is just because of ryzen. The idea to discuss a processor without its competition is meaningless.

Where can I get a 16C threadripper?

Mentioning it in context, sure.

Cheer-leading for it when the topic is SL-X? Not so much.

Then again, I'm not cadre, so carry on.

 

[krumme]

Would not be so quick to claim it considering that well, there's plenty of productivity stuff that favors few cores in the first place.

But really, it will be basically r7 1700 vs 7700k. Except that if 1700 had 2x the cores for the cost at the cost of some ST performance lost, TR is going to have a meager 60% advantage over the 10C SKU with rest. Yes, i do presume that 10C SKU and TR will both be $1k and that TR won't have it's CCX issues multiplied by the virtue of being an MCM.

I think this is a bit wrong.
The reason for those high core hedt machines besides of ram capacity and ram bandwith and pci lanes is total throughput.
You can get a 6c cl or 8c ryzen if thats not the use case.

Most of the mt codes scales like cb eg nearly perfect across ccx, mcm and probably even sockets. Unlike games.

Intel could be waiting to see where fmax ends up for 16c and then decide for price and final 100MHz tdp/tdp for their 12c. If threadripper is 2x1700 i think they will go for the top perf to stay at front and at 180w but i am not so sure they will do so. And the main reason is amd will probably go like 2x1800x eg a base at 3.5/3.6 or so. They will use the 180w limit for the socket. And why not just use the same bin as 1800x? Its cost effective.

If base end up at that level Intel dont stand a chance here for total perf at stock so instead of clocking to the max they will sell it using other means like for wide vector fpu in very branched code, Technical support whatever.

 

[krumme]

Where can I get a 16C threadripper?

Mentioning it in context, sure.

Cheer-leading for it when the topic is SL-X? Not so much.

Then again, I'm not cadre, so carry on.

In the old bd threads people was often butthurt when we mentioned the intel alternative and tried to talk them out of buying a melting nuclear reactor. You can even find a recent example in this forum.

We treat threads and brands the same. The Intel hedt line is effectively rendered useless outside of a few cornercases.
When arma 3, wide vectors in a convoluted filter, and overclocking to 250w is used as reasons to buy a 1000 usd cpu - its just nostalgia.

 

[coercitiv]

Intel 6c cl is comming too. For most gaming this will probably be the fastest cpu.

Are you sure about that though? CFL may clock higher, but from my limited experience cache performance and memory performance matter a lot in gaming. AFAIK cache is a big unknown change in SKL-X, I wouldn't dismiss it lightly.

 

[krumme]

Are you sure about that though? CFL may clock higher, but from my limited experience cache performance and memory performance matter a lot in gaming. AFAIK cache is a big unknown change in SKL-X, I wouldn't dismiss it lightly.

I am certainly not sure thats why a wrote "probably"
Games is as you said very sensitive to the entire mem subsystem.
Bf1 issues 10 threads on dx11 so for mins and 1% frametimes the 8c and higher will also get an advantage for future game so it also depends on your game portfolio and where you want more perf here.

There is also a total cost issue here. If you buy a 6c cl vs a 6 or 8c skl x you can for the same budget get faster ram. So what you get in l2 size for skl x you can gain on freq and latency on main memory for the cl system. Its interesting where the benefits is but for games i would think l3 and main memory latency plays a bigger part but it will be interesting to see for sure.
And if cl is a plug and play its just plus to add. The feeling of just pluggin in a new cpu in the same system is great.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Are you sure about that though? CFL may clock higher, but from my limited experience cache performance and memory performance matter a lot in gaming. AFAIK cache is a big unknown change in SKL-X, I wouldn't dismiss it lightly.

Coffee Lake and Skylake X will most likely *both* be better gaming cpus than Ryzen. You will get plenty of cores, and both higher clockspeed and ipc. I would hardly call either of them "irrelevent". In fact, the sixteen core threadripper which is being so highly touted in a skylake thread will be the poster boy for "corner case" use.

 

[LTC8K6]

In the old bd threads people was often butthurt when we mentioned the intel alternative and tried to talk them out of buying a melting nuclear reactor. You can even find a recent example in this forum.

We treat threads and brands the same. The Intel hedt line is effectively rendered useless outside of a few cornercases.
When arma 3, wide vectors in a convoluted filter, and overclocking to 250w is used as reasons to buy a 1000 usd cpu - its just nostalgia.

Useless? In what world? That's ridiculous, and I even agree that the prices are too high. They were too high before RyZen.

If your friend jumped off a cliff, would you jump too?
Poor behavior from others does not justify poor behavior in general.
AFAIK, we were supposed to be keeping threads generally on topic these days, and at times that seems to be fairly rigidly enforced.
I think it's a moot point at this time, anyway.
(Talk about off-topic.)

We will soon see Intel's responses on both price and performance. I think it's wise to wait for that before calling something useless.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

I'm kind of surprised we haven't seen any pricing leaks yet - isn't the official announcement next week? We had BW-E pricing a couple months before launch IIRC.

 

[krumme]

If skl x 12c is faster and cheaper than threadripper 16 then certainly tr is rendered irrelevant (more precise word than useless but its the same point).
And yes. As well as bringing 1600 into this thread is OT if people come here with arma 3 and 144hz screen to argue for a 1000 usd hedt cpu its just just not going to work in the real world. So we agree. Its doesnt make sense to bring that into the discussion.

 

[LTC8K6]

If skl x 12c is faster and cheaper than threadripper 16 then certainly tr is rendered irrelevant (more precise word than useless but its the same point).
And yes. As well as bringing 1600 into this thread is OT if people come here with arma 3 and 144hz screen to argue for a 1000 usd hedt cpu its just just not going to work in the real world. So we agree. Its doesnt make sense to bring that into the discussion.

If SL-X is faster and cheaper than threadripper, I'll be quite surprised by the cheaper part. I think some people would faint.
I think there is 0% chance of SL-X being cheaper than threadripper.
And threadripper would never be rendered irrelevant, in any case.

 

[Edrick]

The Intel hedt line is effectively rendered useless outside of a few cornercases.

Your credibility has been rendered useless with that statement. Just because in your little world AMD fits your budget, does not mean that is the case for the entire planet. So many people in these forums are just so narrow sighted.

 

[coercitiv]

Coffee Lake and Skylake X will most likely *both* be better gaming cpus than Ryzen. You will get plenty of cores, and both higher clockspeed and ipc. I would hardly call either of them "irrelevent". In fact, the sixteen core threadripper which is being so highly touted in a skylake thread will be the poster boy for "corner case" use.

I was discussing the winner of best gaming CPU between CFL and SKL-X. If you want to throw Ryzen into the mix be my guest.

 

[blue11]

6C Coffee Lake (if unlocked) eats into the value proposition for the low-end Skylake-X for sure. Based on current leaks, the only SKUs worth considering are the 10C or 12C versions. Compared to AMD, the SKL-X 10C should meet or exceed Zen 12C, and SKL-X 12C may exceed Zen 16C when overclocked.

16C is only 33% more cores than 12C, so the difference can easily be accounted for in other factors. The multi-threaded difference between the SKUs will probably be 5-10%, and the Intel SKU will encounter less Amdahl's Law limitations in real usage.

4.5 / 4.1 = 10% clock advantage
5% Skylake vs Zen IPC advantage
10% scalability advantage from non-MCM
=
27%

At the end of the day, it all comes down to pricing. My intuition is that Zen 12C/16C is going to be half the price of the 7900X/7920X, so the "volume," if anything HEDT can be described as such, will certainly be going with Zen. However, claims such as "you can buy two AMDs for the price of one Intel" are just as fallacious as the statement "two Hondas drive faster than one Ferrari." Such claims are also incorrect, since the CPU is not the only, or even the majority, cost of a complete system.

P.S. If anything is off-topic in this thread, it is not AMD, but rather gaming discussion.

 

[Edrick]

At the end of the day, it all comes down to pricing. My intuition is that Zen 12C/16C is going to be half the price of the 7900X/7920X, so the "volume," if anything HEDT can be described as such, will certainly be going with Zen. However, claims such as "you can buy two AMDs for the price of one Intel" are just as fallacious as the statement "two Hondas drive faster than one Ferrari." Such claims are also incorrect, since the CPU is not the only, or even the majority, cost of a complete system.

Generally, people who want or need the best performance do not care about pricing as much as the gaming crowd does. With that said, I have no problem with Zen driving down Intel prices from the stratosphere. Competition is healthy for the market.

 

[LTC8K6]

We still haven't seen any sign of a 6C12T CL chip...

 

[coercitiv]

We still haven't seen any sign of a 6C12T CL chip...

That would the joke of 2017, only releasing 6C6T for the mainstream.

 

[wildhorse2k]

6C Coffee Lake (if unlocked) eats into the value proposition for the low-end Skylake-X for sure. Based on current leaks, the only SKUs worth considering are the 10C or 12C versions. Compared to AMD, the SKL-X 10C should meet or exceed Zen 12C, and SKL-X 12C may exceed Zen 16C when overclocked.

P.S. If anything is off-topic in this thread, it is not AMD, but rather gaming discussion.

I think the Skylake-X 8C will also be worth getting if not priced too much above 6850K as it will demolish Ryzen 1800X in everything. Ryzen 1800X will be poor man's 8C. Skylake-X will likely have no clock advantage over Threadripper at 12C. Ryzens can run very cool at low frequencies, they should not be underestimated.

I do not think gaming is off-topic. You may want to play games on Threadripper 16C occasionally too. On Skylake-X 10C it's nothing unusual since it's only 2 cores more than 1700-1800X, now a standard gaming machine.

 

[blue11]

I think the Skylake-X 8C will also be worth getting if not priced too much above 6850K as it will demolish Ryzen 1800X in everything. Ryzen 1800X will be poor man's 8C. Skylake-X will likely have no clock advantage over Threadripper at 12C. Ryzens can run very cool at low frequencies, they should not be underestimated.

I do not think gaming is off-topic. You may want to play games on Threadripper 16C occasionally too. On Skylake-X 10C it's nothing unusual since it's only 2 cores more than 1700-1800X, now a standard gaming machine.

Skylake-X will likely ship at 3-3.5 GHz stock frequency, just like Zen, but we already know the OC limits for both chips. The thing about the 8-core SKU, assuming it replaces the 6850K at $500-600, and assuming a 6C Coffee Lake at $350-400, is that it will cost a lot more for only 33% maximum performance gain. On top of the actual chip costing ~50% more, the rest of the system becomes more expensive due to a platform change (more expensive boards, twice the DRAM, and likely idle power draw increase).

Hypothetical cost analysis (non-GPU desktop):

HEDT 8C

i9-7820X: $550 (est.)
X299 board: $250 (est.)
32 (4x8) GB DDR4-3200: $267
GeForce GT 1030: $70
500 W PSU: $50
===
Total: $1187

Desktop 6C

CFL 6C: $350 (est.)
Z370 board: $150 (est.)
16 (2x8) GB DDR4-3200: $120
iGPU: $0
500 W PSU: $50
===
Total: $670

The platform change causes the system cost to increase by 77% despite performance only increasing by up to 33% (marginal cost-to-performance ratio of 2.3). On the other hand, if the i9-7900X ($1000 est.) were used in place of the i9-7820X, the cost for the HEDT system would rise to $1637, or 144% cost for 67% performance (marginal cost-to-performance ratio of 2.1), which is actually more cost effective. Going to i9-7920X ($1700 est.) is a different story of course.