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

[moonbogg]

Assuming performance is similar per core to regular skylake and prices won't exceed the usual Intel HEDT prices, are you getting one?

 

[cbn]

Deleted.

I was thinking of Kabylake X.

 

[DaveSimmons]

My main use for a faster CPU is gaming, so I'd be much more likely to go for the Coffee Lake 6c/12t part if it's at the rumored sane price and uses a "cheap" chipset.

Or Ryzen, if gaming performance improves and the rough edges get smoothed over a bit.

 

[ddogg]

All depends how Intel prices their CPUs. I already have a ryzen 1700 for my HTPC but am a little hesitant to replace my 6700k on my gaming rig with another ryzen unless AMD fixes all the minor issues. Would really like an 8 core CPU on my main rig.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

[dnavas]

It depends on pricing and tradeoffs. Presumably the choice is between the 16-core Ryzen or the 10/12-core Intel chips. The 8 core might be interesting if all you're looking for is pcie lanes, but otherwise it might be smarter to get a 1700 now and upgrade to what we hope are higher clocked Zens next year, and then again the year after.... That's the nice thing about keeping your sockets stable. Of course, the bad thing is that you have to bet on AMD's execution....
For me, the questions on the table are how high Intel and Ryzen parts clock, how they're priced, and how well they perform compared to each other for the apps that I use. Without that data, it's hard to make a choice. I'm paying attention to both (though I expect AMD to be silent until it's clear that Intel is done hurrying itself to market and leaking details along the way).
Given I can only make assumptions, I assume that the 12-core Intel will clock significantly higher than the Ryzen part, both stock and OC, and that it will enjoy a possibly significant IPC advantage. Maybe enough to make up for the 25% fewer cores. At which point, Intel looks good in comparison. At least until they share the price of the thing. I don't expect Ryzen to OC past 4G (and maybe not even up to that point). All in all, I expect Ryzen to disappoint in clocks, and Intel to disappoint in price, and that I'll skip both, but I am paying attention and hoping that AMD can bump clocks a bit, and that Intel will bring its pricing out of the thermosphere.

 

[IEC]

Having been an early adopter of Skylake... all the minor issues with Ryzen (and soon to be Skylake X and Coffee Lake) WILL get ironed out eventually. Like being able to run 4x DIMMs at rated speeds (been there, done that).

I voted yeah, because chances are I will pick up either a Skylake X and/or a Coffee Lake system in the near future. Performance and price are of course considerations. Just because I have a large budget for PC expenditures doesn't mean I will blow 100% more for 10% more performance unless I absolutely need want it.

 

[formulav8]

Why would someone buy anything Intel currently when AMD currently has the best price/performance edge? From CPU to motherboard costs/performance, AMD is better. Even if running 2400mhz 14c ram.Its my own experience but I doubt I'm alone.

 

[dnavas]

Why would you buy anything Intel in this current area when AMD currently has the best price/performance edge? From CPU to motherboard costs/performance, AMD is better..

Because even in very highly multithreaded apps, single-thread performance is important.
Because there are strange problems with memory support and VM support as you would expect in any new platform.
etc.
Setting all that aside, I don't know what the cost or performance of either the Intel or the new AMD HEDT chips will be.

 

[formulav8]

Because even in very highly multithreaded apps, single-thread performance is important.

I have a Ryzen cpu and have not witnessed any problems with anything that I "personally" do. If some things go beyond the typical, then I have no direct experience. I'm only going by my experience, I do know Intel has been the worst higher end cpu offering company just with their price gouging. If Intel truly follows AMD, my baby girl just might get a cpu upgrade herself from Intel. So hopefully its true. But still Intel has shown to be the worst to expect a good deal from these days.

 

[harobikes333]

Nope. I'll have built an AMD rig by then. I don't upgrade often so probably won't jump when they release a new CPU

 

[DrMrLordX]

I haven't bought an Intel system since 1995, and that was actually my parents that did that so ha ha! I don't suppose I've ever actually bought one.

No, I'm not biased at all.

Um anyway I have an 1800x so I won't be in for x399 or Skylake-X or anything really. This system will just have to last for awhile.

 

[dnavas]

I have a Ryzen cpu and have not witnessed any problems with anything that I "personally" do.

I'd really like about 10% higher clocks than my 1800x is giving me. I'm just on the edge of being able to edit uhd60p two-slice h.264 content in real-time. So ... close.... I'm not paying to go down in clockspeed, though, that's for sure!

I don't know what Intel is going to do, but I haven't been impressed for the past half decade or so, so I understand the skepticism. Still, they seem to have had a fire lit under them, so maybe they'll deliver something in June. I don't expect them to, but I'm not beyond hoping.

Good hardware is always fun. I want more pcie lanes for a decent 10g connection, and I can always use faster encoding hardware. I would like to lack an excuse to not buy it. With AMD it's going to be a matter of clockspeeds. With Intel, pricing. Neither of those pieces of information is public yet, so, I wait.... :shrug:

 

[beginner99]

I said no due to given constraints. But might still buy depending how they perform and are priced.

A lot more L2 cache might help a lot in games and maybe Intel for once offers some sane pricing. Else it's either 6c coffelake or Ryzen7.

 

[mikk]

Why would someone buy anything Intel currently when AMD currently has the best price/performance edge? From CPU to motherboard costs/performance, AMD is better. Even if running 2400mhz 14c ram.Its my own experience but I doubt I'm alone.

For people who are looking for the best performance, Intel is their choice.

Skylake-X looks interesting, it should have a better IPC than Intels mainstream for the first time. I'm most likely waiting for Coffeelake nevertheless because I don't want to lose Quicksync.

 

[hackdrag0n]

Meh. Just built a Ryzen 7 system. I won't be changing cpus for at least a couple of years. Will probably just get the best am4 cpu that's available at that point as the next upgrade will involve ddr5 and a new motherboard.

 

[CHADBOGA]

Assuming performance is similar per core to regular skylake and prices won't exceed the usual Intel HEDT prices, are you getting one?

That would be a fail.

Skylake-X with the reworked cache is meant to have meaningful IPC increases.

 

[NTMBK]

That would be a fail.

Skylake-X with the reworked cache is meant to have meaningful IPC increases.

Meaningful increases in performance in what, though? This redesigned cache may be designed to maximise AVX-512 performance- the bigger L2 could lead to increased memory latency.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

It really depends on overclocking capability and most importantly, pricing - if they keep the same pricing structure as Broadwell E, no way. If I can get the 8 core part for maybe a $100-$200 premium (at most) over Ryzen, I'll probably get it assuming they can reliably hit 4.5 Ghz or so.

Why would someone buy anything Intel currently when AMD currently has the best price/performance edge? From CPU to motherboard costs/performance, AMD is better. Even if running 2400mhz 14c ram.Its my own experience but I doubt I'm alone.

I'm impressed with Ryzen, but Intel is still faster and has better chipsets/platforms. I'm willing to pay a slight premium for that but there's no way I'd pay Broadwell E prices for it.

 

[fleshconsumed]

Meh. Already got Ryzen parts, just waiting for free time to assemble and reinstall OS. I'm tired and a bit resentful of intel holding back the cores, lack of ECC ram support even on HEDT platform, high pricing, and having to buy new chipset/motherboard every two years.

So I'm giving AMD CPU a chance for the first time in more than 10 years, in fact I don't even remember what my last AMD CPU was, some sort of low power underclocked and undervolted Athlon XP running in my NAS box. Now I have AMD RX480 videocard (tired of nVidia tax), I have AMD AM1 5350 powering my pfSense box, and soon my main rig and my NAS box will also be running AMD Ryzen. Funny how that happens. Intel/nVidia may be somewhat faster, but as long as AMD is offering a competetive product with pretty much the same performance at a discount over Intel/nVidia, I'd rather get the AMD. I don't need to have the fastest and the greatest, I'd rather get 90% performance for 60% of the price, and if I support the underdog in doing so - all the better.

 

[moonbogg]

According to the poll, so far it looks like most people are about ready to tell Intel to go shove it with their hilarious prices.

 

[ddogg]

Anything more than 500 and it's a no-go for me. Why would I get an Intel part when I can get a 1700 for $330 (plus discounts at microcenter) that is a beast at multi-threaded applications? Gaming at 1440p and beyond the reliance on the CPU is close to non-existent. I think the only thing holding back a lot of people (for gaming rigs) including myself right now are all the early adopter bugs.

 

[LTC8K6]

According to the poll, so far it looks like most people are about ready to tell Intel to go shove it with their hilarious prices.

That might only last until the benches start leaking out...

 

[ozzy702]

I have a 7700k now. If Intel releases a six core Coffee Lake that pops into my mobo, that's what I'll be picking up. If not, it comes down to pricing and a few other factors. One thing I'd like to be able to do is run M.2 drive(s) while still supporting my current crop of hard drives. Short of a PCIE Sata card (which I don't want to do), no current MOBO on any platform will allow me to run M.2 plus a ton of drives, so that's potentially a selling point for me upgrading to Skylake-X but I don't know enough about the platform to make that decision at the moment.

 

[fleshconsumed]

I have a 7700k now. If Intel releases a six core Coffee Lake that pops into my mobo, that's what I'll be picking up. If not, it comes down to pricing and a few other factors. One thing I'd like to be able to do is run M.2 drive(s) while still supporting my current crop of hard drives. Short of a PCIE Sata card (which I don't want to do), no current MOBO on any platform will allow me to run M.2 plus a ton of drives, so that's potentially a selling point for me upgrading to Skylake-X but I don't know enough about the platform to make that decision at the moment.

Go Ryzen. ASRock X370 Taichi and Professional Gaming has two M2 slots (although 2nd M2 slot disables one of the PCIe slots), and ten SATA ports.

 

[DaveSimmons]

According to the poll, so far it looks like most people are about ready to tell Intel to go shove it with their hilarious prices.

Except many of us might still give the money to intel for a socket 1151 CPU instead. My A64 X2s were great CPUs last decade but I'm still waiting to see if Ryzen will be my next CPU.