New Intel Chips (i9-11900K)

Simi

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

AM4 was launched 4 years ago and AMD said they would use it until 2020. It has been used since the first Zen processors came out so it has supported 4 series of processors not 1 or 2.

I was referring to the X570 and B550 chipset/motherboards. I know AM4 is long in the tooth.

They made such a big deal over (eventually) supporting Ryzen 5000 series processors on B450 chipsets and emphasizing how it was the last processor release that B450 would support, it seems a little odd that they wouldn't at least hint that X570 and B550 support would end there too.

Squidgy Black

Simi wrote: »

I was referring to the X570 and B550 chipset/motherboards. I know AM4 is long in the tooth.

They made such a big deal over (eventually) supporting Ryzen 5000 series processors on B450 chipsets and emphasizing how it was the last processor release that B450 would support, it seems a little odd that they wouldn't at least hint that X570 and B550 support would end there too.

X570 and B550 was pretty much just to introduce PCIE Gen4, the issue with 450/470 for AMD was they didn't want to have to support them, and that plays a part in why you can't (supposedly) flashback a b450/x470 that's been upgraded to a Zen 3 BIOS to an old Zen 2 BIOS.

Edit: there was also something about "serious constraints in SPI ROM capacities in most of the AMD 400 Series motherboards"

ZeitgeistGlee

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

I wouldn't bet on 6000 series working on existing motherboards. Rumours are they are using DDR5 and will be a whole new socket.

Latest rumours I've seen relating to Warhol have it as Zen 3 refinement using AM4/DDR4. Seems odd to use a refined version of the 7nm process with an entirely new socket and memory gen over the supposed new 5nm process coming the following gen. Then again I'm not very familiar with these things.

smacl

SeanW wrote: »

Well, Steve over at GamersNexus delivered an absolutely brutal takedown of this particular processor, I have it on my YouTube favourites because the takedown is just so epic.

Scathing review but seems well justified. Pleased enough that my budget 10900k pre-built is actually looking like a reasonably good choice for my needs. Dropping from 10C/20T to 8C/16T seems like an utterly bizarre step forward.

TheValeyard

smacl wrote: »

Scathing review but seems well justified. Pleased enough that my budget 10900k pre-built is actually looking like a reasonably good choice for my needs. Dropping from 10C/20T to 8C/16T seems like an utterly bizarre step forward.

Im actually really tempted to click and buy an i9-10900k. Cannot find a 5900x anywhere with a real price.

K.O.Kiki

smacl wrote: »

Scathing review but seems well justified. Pleased enough that my budget 10900k pre-built is actually looking like a reasonably good choice for my needs. Dropping from 10C/20T to 8C/16T seems like an utterly bizarre step forward.

Maybe they were banking on IPC to mitigate the drop in cores, similar to how Core i5-8000 (6c/6t) ended up as fast as Core i7-7000 (4c/8t).

BloodBath

ZeitgeistGlee wrote: »

Latest rumours I've seen relating to Warhol have it as Zen 3 refinement using AM4/DDR4. Seems odd to use a refined version of the 7nm process with an entirely new socket and memory gen over the supposed new 5nm process coming the following gen. Then again I'm not very familiar with these things.

Will probably be a year or more before they get decent 5nm volume. Makes sense to make another refined gen of 7nm before making the jump.

Will still only make it 3 gen's at 7nm compared to how many intel gens at 14nm?

Coyler

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

The 3600 is £150 on Amazon at the moment. I think that's a good price for it. £180+ is just too much. Pity there are no GPUs about at decent prices so no point in me building a new PC.

In my defence, at the time of my post the price was £180 but now at £150 that makes the discussion a lot different. £130 for a 10400F isn't nearly as attractive at that price.

Point well taken.

Cuddlesworth

BloodBath wrote: »

Will still only make it 3 gen's at 7nm compared to how many intel gens at 14nm?

Need to stop focusing on the nm number and look at the performance, its been pointed out many times that it means very little. Eg, Intels current 14nm++* process, is clearly worlds beyond Global Foundrys 14nm or dare I say TSMC's. Or Intels own 10nm process. If you looked at it from a functional perspective, a chiplet design similar to AMD's on 14nm would probably leave Zen3 in the dirt.

BloodBath

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Need to stop focusing on the nm number and look at the performance, its been pointed out many times that it means very little. Eg, Intels current 14nm++* process, is clearly worlds beyond Global Foundrys 14nm or dare I say TSMC's. Or Intels own 10nm process. If you looked at it from a functional perspective, a chiplet design similar to AMD's on 14nm would probably leave Zen3 in the dirt.

They will all be using TSMC processes so yes you can compare them and smaller will be better.

A chiplet design using 14nm would still be a power hog compared to 7nm.

We've already seen Apple get around 40-50% performance/watt gains going from 7nm to 5nm.

SeanW

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Need to stop focusing on the nm number and look at the performance, its been pointed out many times that it means very little. Eg, Intels current 14nm++* process, is clearly worlds beyond Global Foundrys 14nm or dare I say TSMC's. Or Intels own 10nm process. If you looked at it from a functional perspective, a chiplet design similar to AMD's on 14nm would probably leave Zen3 in the dirt.

Yes, a process can be refined, but there are limits. Intel has been able to make products that are competitive with AMD, but largely by trading power consumption and heat generation for performance. So they need to make a value proposition and with some processors, they are doing a good job of that. But others, like the 11900K, are just ... to put it gently ... confusing.

Cuddlesworth

SeanW wrote: »

Yes, a process can be refined, but there are limits. Intel has been able to make products that are competitive with AMD, but largely by trading power consumption and heat generation for performance. So they need to make a value proposition and with some processors, they are doing a good job of that. But others, like the 11900K, are just ... to put it gently ... confusing.

Original zen 1 was GF 14nm and competed on price and core count, not power or performance. I'm not saying Intel is better then AMD right now, but its not simply process that is creating that lead and its probable that process alone isn't going to get either company ahead in future.

Chips that went to 7nm did better on power then bumping performance, its likely to see similar behavior with future process shrinks.

K.O.Kiki

TechPowerUp reviews Core i5-11400F

Mad to see Intel & AMD switch places in the span of only 4 years.

ZeitgeistGlee

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

TechPowerUp reviews Core i5-11400F

Mad to see Intel & AMD switch places in the span of only 4 years.

Really want to see some in-depth 10400F vs 11400F tests on B560/H570 now for the true budget king. €40/28% more for native PCIE4.0 and a single digit performance improvement is questionable IMO.

BloodBath

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Original zen 1 was GF 14nm and competed on price and core count, not power or performance. I'm not saying Intel is better then AMD right now, but its not simply process that is creating that lead and its probable that process alone isn't going to get either company ahead in future.

Chips that went to 7nm did better on power then bumping performance, its likely to see similar behavior with future process shrinks.

Maybe not single core performance but you can stick more cores on there. With 7nm they doubled the core counts across the whole lineup, from desktop Ryzen, Threadripper and Epyc.

Along with IPC improvements that more than doubles the performance in software that can take advantage of it.

Did see some clock speed boosts with the shrink as well.

K.O.Kiki

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Original zen 1 was GF 14nm and competed on price and core count, not power or performance. I'm not saying Intel is better then AMD right now, but its not simply process that is creating that lead and its probable that process alone isn't going to get either company ahead in future.

I had a look back at an old review (LTT reviewing the GTX 1080 Ti) and the 1800X was neck-and-neck with the i7-7700K in their tests at 4K. It also used the exact same amount of power.

Cuddlesworth

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

I had a look back at an old review (LTT reviewing the GTX 1080 Ti) and the 1800X was neck-and-neck with the i7-7700K in their tests at 4K. It also used the exact same amount of power.

At 4k......

Calibos

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

At 4k......

ie. GPU limited not CPU limited ??

Cuddlesworth

Calibos wrote: »

ie. GPU limited not CPU limited ??

Yes, you could pick games from the same period, slap a 1300x or i3 of that gen in there and in most cases would get the same fps. Its why CPU reviews don't do 4k games.

BuCkoTroN

I wound up ordering one and a Gigabyte Z590 Gaming X!

It's on the way the way and will get it next week.

Frankly I would have loved to get a 5900x, but I have been burned by AMD on their hardware reliability so they are a no go for me in general.

I am hoping with the recent and future microcode updates, it will be better.

H3llR4iser

Inquitus wrote: »

The only way these sell well is if AMD supply is constrained and these are plentiful, if you could actually buy either AMD would be the pick 99 times out of 100!

You'd be surprised by the amount of people who don't even know what AMD is, let alone these who think it's a "budget" knock-off manufacturer of Intel CPUs.

Not only that, the laptop and prebuilt market still somewhat favours Intel and the cherry on top is business, which is still completely oblivious to AMD bar notable exceptions (usually bigger, very tech-savvy companies).

I've laid out specifications for R9 and Threadripper workstations and one Epyc server for some requirements at work, only to find out the IT department "overhauled" them with Intel architectures because "they're better".

It's pretty much the same as with Audi or BMW in the automotive market: whatever crap they pump out, they'll sell like hotcakes 'cause people know the brand by reputation, while a competitor can make a car that's way better for the same price and still struggle to sell it.

Calibos wrote: »

ie. GPU limited not CPU limited ??

Thing is - for all the great work the various Youtube channels and reviewers are doing and for all the enjoyment we get from it, I feel that when testing CPUs they focus way, way, way too much on gaming performance.

The PC platform strength is that it's not an exclusive games machine - the same hardware can frag arse in BFV, render a building floorplan or encode footage for a movie or TV show; In this context, a 10fps advantage in a game is absolutely irrelevant when compared to render or encoding times that save minutes (if not chunks of hours) from daily tasks.

Yet most reviewers spend 30 seconds talking about some blender test, then go over and over about games.

Homelander

That's probably because those specific reviewers know most of their viewers are regular gamers. It's catering to the market. There are tons of YouTubers and sites that do huge deep dives on all sorts of metrics if you look for them.

It's ultimately on people to properly research what they're buying. For example, I'm a pure high-refresh gamer. I couldn't give a damn about blender, winrar, encoding, streaming. All I can about is raw game FPS, so it's what I seek out from reviews I know have a heavy focus on them, and a much deeper look at that as well.

There was a guy here before that went out and bought a high-end FX-9590 years ago for a gaming setup with streaming. He couldn't understand why it was under-performing and refused to believe people when it was pointed out that he bought a total lemon of a CPU that was useless for games, let alone gaming and streaming. All well documented if he did research.

It also works both ways. There was a lot of people here automatically recommending the 3600 as the go-to processor - and even the 2600 in some cases - and basically saying "Intel is bad" when incredibly good value CPU's like the 10400F were in play and a better option for some builds. But people got it into their heads that "Intel = bad, AMD = good" and it ended up with some really skewed advice being repeatedly given out.

Intel is still relevant. Obviously not every CPU will be viable but there are still plenty of decent Intel options floating around depending on your needs and budget.

Cuddlesworth

H3llR4iser wrote: »

You'd be surprised by the amount of people who don't even know what AMD is, let alone these who think it's a "budget" knock-off manufacturer of Intel CPUs.

Not only that, the laptop and prebuilt market still somewhat favours Intel and the cherry on top is business, which is still completely oblivious to AMD bar notable exceptions (usually bigger, very tech-savvy companies).

I've laid out specifications for R9 and Threadripper workstations and one Epyc server for some requirements at work, only to find out the IT department "overhauled" them with Intel architectures because "they're better".

Thats changing, AMD's stuff is starting to become mainstream. And its pretty much the result of a overwhelming lead in compute density. To have any department respec a machine to Intel now will get the simple question of why do I have half the power at the same cost?

smacl

H3llR4iser wrote: »

Thing is - for all the great work the various Youtube channels and reviewers are doing and for all the enjoyment we get from it, I feel that when testing CPUs they focus way, way, way too much on gaming performance.

Not a gamer at all myself and I reckon the i9-10900K with modest integrated graphics is a very good price / performance CPU at present for a wide range of business tasks demanding both good IPC and decent multi-threading. You can keep an bunch of busy VMs going on it with good throughput and it is pretty solid for software development. While I like the AMD stuff, the i9-10900k is currently €323 ex VAT on amazon.de where the 5900x is €777 and needs a GPU.

AlmightyCushion

smacl wrote: »

Not a gamer at all myself and I reckon the i9-10900K with modest integrated graphics is a very good price / performance CPU at present for a wide range of business tasks demanding both good IPC and decent multi-threading. You can keep an bunch of busy VMs going on it with good throughput and it is pretty solid for software development. While I like the AMD stuff, the i9-10900k is currently €323 ex VAT on amazon.de where the 5900x is €777 and needs a GPU.

Are you sure about that? 10900K is €507 which works out about €426 without VAT. The 3900x is cheaper at €443. Surely the 3900x is the better CPU, although you are right about needing a GPU for it.

https://www.amazon.de/Intel-BX8070110900K-Core-i9-10900K-Basistakt/dp/B0883NZC43/

https://www.amazon.de/AMD-Ryzen-3900x-Cache-Wraith/dp/B07SXMZLP9

K.O.Kiki

B560 motherboards running worse than expected out-the-box.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3AEj3x39vQ

smacl

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

Are you sure about that? 10900K is €507 which works out about €426 without VAT. The 3900x is cheaper at €443. Surely the 3900x is the better CPU, although you are right about needing a GPU for it.

https://www.amazon.de/Intel-BX8070110900K-Core-i9-10900K-Basistakt/dp/B0883NZC43/

https://www.amazon.de/AMD-Ryzen-3900x-Cache-Wraith/dp/B07SXMZLP9

Looks like my error, was sure it was an 10900k at the time but current listing shows 10850k at that price. Amazon.de currently have 3900x at €343 ex VAT which is certainly the better option if you have a GPU to hand. (A big if for some.) I ended up with a i9-10900k pre-built as I didn't need a GPU and the system price was very good for what I needed (64gb RAM and decent multi-threaded with good single threaded speed).