By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - PC Discussion - Intel i9 officially announced

It is nice to see that the chips seem to have a pretty high clockspeed, hopefully Zen 2 can fix that on the AMD side.



Around the Network

AMD : Look at our new processor lineup.
Intel  : Hold.
AMD : Look at all the performance gains.
Intel  : Hold.
AMD : Look at how cost efficient they are.
Intel  : Steady.
AMD : Look at how well they are all selling.
Intel  : Steady.
AMD : Look at how many more cores we offer.
Intel  : ATTACK!



I actually called this a while ago where I said intel would be either lowering their current gen cpu prices or their next gen cpu prices to match Ryzen + $100 or so due to increased performance and features and bam. There it is!

1600X $250 - i9 7800X $390
1800X $500 - i9 7820X $600 (-$400 from 6900k price)

Now this doesn't mean it's the end for Ryzen and RIP Amd. This just means this shit is just getting started. All of the i9 cpus are on intel's HEDT platform which are generally more expensive than their mainstream lineup but granted with good reason. The cpu's are of course also more expensive. Depending on what you are doing and what your budget is, buying a Ryzen 7 1700 for $330 + OC to 3.8-4ghz should net you very similar performance to the $600 i9 7820X assuming you don't need the extra features and it also goes for their Ryzen 1600.

So Ryzen will still continue to offer a competitive price point and fairly competitive performance but something like this does continue to lower a justification for AMD's Ryzen 1800X due to how much of a better value the 1700 is and how close of a price point the i9 7820X is.

All in all, we are back to the core wars gentz and it is gonna be fap worthy. When AMD announces their APUs, I suggest the ps5/x2 people pay attention.



                  

PC Specs: CPU: 7800X3D || GPU: Strix 4090 || RAM: 32GB DDR5 6000 || Main SSD: WD 2TB SN850

if you guys aren't streaming, and don't care about 4k. Getting a GTX 1080 is your best bet for performance. If you do 4k, or 1080p at +60FPS, you should get a 1080 ti.

As far as the CPU is concerned, if all you do is play PC games, and don't do any sort of multi-tasking, these new CPUs don't mean much for you. Most of these newer CPUs aren't going to do anything good for gaming. Some of them, will even hurt gaming performance. Just because it's new doesn't mean it's going to be the greatest.. Even if you spend 2000 dollars on one.

Know what games you want to play. Know when you plan to upgrade. Know your budget. Let's start there.

I'm planning on getting rid of my ryzen 7 1800x and GTX 1080Ti FTW3 in about 2 years. There will be something that will thrash the both of them in two years.. .Or, I may just build a second computer, IDK. But now that I think about it, I'd rather just have two graphics cards, and use one for video editing.



Burning Typhoon said:
As far as the CPU is concerned, if all you do is play PC games, and don't do any sort of multi-tasking, these new CPUs don't mean much for you. Most of these newer CPUs aren't going to do anything good for gaming. Some of them, will even hurt gaming performance. Just because it's new doesn't mean it's going to be the greatest.. Even if you spend 2000 dollars on one.

That is the same argument people used during the Core 2 Duo era. Those who bought Core 2 Quads got the last laugh.
People said that there is no point getting 6 cores when the Nahelem based 990X dropped... Yet those CPU's can still handle every game you throw at it.

Captain_Yuri said:

I actually called this a while ago where I said intel would be either lowering their current gen cpu prices or their next gen cpu prices to match Ryzen + $100 or so due to increased performance and features and bam. There it is!

Zen's die size is actually smaller than Skylake as well at 44mm2 vs 49mm2 for the quads.
And AMD has 12 metal layers verses Skylakes 13.

The 1800X is 195mm2 with 4.8 billion transistors... While the Intel i7 6950X is 246.3mm2 with 3.2 Billion transistors.
AMD was not only able to have more cache than Intel, it was able to pack it more densely.

And because AMD is using an older, cheaper and more mature fabrication process based on a 20nm BEOL... Combined with smaller die sizes, less metal layers...  AMD should be able to have an advantage in terms of pricing/costs. So once Intel drops it's high-end LGA2066 chips, I fully expect to see a pricing war, which is bad for AMD but good for us... But at-least AMD should have the profit margins to handle it.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Around the Network

Until there is a game that requires an i9 to play, then I'll consider buying one to replace my i7 6700k.



CPU: Ryzen 7950X
GPU: MSI 4090 SUPRIM X 24G
Motherboard: MSI MEG X670E GODLIKE
RAM: CORSAIR DOMINATOR PLATINUM 32GB DDR5
SSD: Kingston FURY Renegade 4TB
Gaming Console: PLAYSTATION 5
malistix1985 said:

Some games make use of it but most only use less cores (up to 4) I am sure the PS5 and next Xbox will use more cores since more cheap cores is cheaper then less faster cores.

PC gaming is usually held back by the mainstream market, which isn't bad but when you buy a PC these days its very good to keep in mind which parts will be more "future proof"

Look at the sandy lake 2xxx series when people said you could buy a 2500k over a 2600k because NO game used the HT (8 logical cores vs 4) option but in the past period of gaming the difference between these 2 processors is NIGHT and DAY.

Same goes for benchmarks right now the cores in Ryzen or i9 won't gain much short-term performance gain but 3-4 years from now you will be very happy you spend that extra money especially since processors can go a long time with no upgrades unlike graphics cards.

Thankfully the modding community really helps push the limits of your hardware in many games. It's fun to see how well you can get a game running.

I haven't updated my processor in quite some time, so I think I might take them up on this when it becomes available. That price seems quite reasonable.



Burning Typhoon said:
if you guys aren't streaming, and don't care about 4k. Getting a GTX 1080 is your best bet for performance. If you do 4k, or 1080p at +60FPS, you should get a 1080 ti.

As far as the CPU is concerned, if all you do is play PC games, and don't do any sort of multi-tasking, these new CPUs don't mean much for you. Most of these newer CPUs aren't going to do anything good for gaming. Some of them, will even hurt gaming performance. Just because it's new doesn't mean it's going to be the greatest.. Even if you spend 2000 dollars on one.

Know what games you want to play. Know when you plan to upgrade. Know your budget. Let's start there.

I'm planning on getting rid of my ryzen 7 1800x and GTX 1080Ti FTW3 in about 2 years. There will be something that will thrash the both of them in two years.. .Or, I may just build a second computer, IDK. But now that I think about it, I'd rather just have two graphics cards, and use one for video editing.

Ha, and I'm here, running my games on a Athlon 860K and an R7 265.



I like the name.



Pemalite said:

That is the same argument people used during the Core 2 Duo era. Those who bought Core 2 Quads got the last laugh.
People said that there is no point getting 6 cores when the Nahelem based 990X dropped... Yet those CPU's can still handle every game you throw at it.


If you're going to spend 2000 dollars to upgrade your games, you should just get a better graphics card, though.  That'll give you the biggest benefit.  Instead of upgrading a CPU which gives you an extra 20 FPS on your minimums, and that's being generous.  At that price, you could get two 1080 ti's.