I agree that competition is better for consumer, that's why I'm applauding AMD. Their Ryzen lineup has really lit a fire under Intel's ass, as can be seen by their weird kaby lake x lineup, and now their move on coffelake to bring out higher core counts. I'm not a fanboy of either group (my gaming laptop has a 7700hq, and my desktop back at home has a 6600k.) But in this case, it's AMDs huge consumer-friendly advance that's forcing Intel to do the same, so fanboyism aside you have to thank AMD for bringing competition back. Maybe Intel will finally have something really special with Cannonlake, which is what I'm looking forward to in the next year or so.
Normal Person, I definitely understand where you're coming from. I don't mind it in that the more vocal support each side has the stronger the community/consumer pressure for competition is under both AMD's and Intel's (and even Nvidia's) asses. But it can definitely get out of hand. Nothing like console fanboy wars, though, so it could be worse:P
@@eddie...2005 Yep. I have the laptop version of the same silicon, the 8750H, and it's served me very well for the last 5.5 years. Finally building a desktop PC now and getting an ultrabook for travel, but this thing is going to live on as my little storage server at home
*Agree! if i can see the bottom of the glass(cup) It's NOT a coffee! Here in Europe we drink very dark black coffee. Perfect 60-90ml with very strong flavor!*
Just finished my Intel i7 8700K build, and also made a video about it, you know where to find it ;). I must say that I really like the performance of this processor. I combined it with the Asus Maximus X and overclocked it to 5.2 GHZ.
If you're gonna hit Vega for power consumption, then skip over mentioning that Ryzen's power consumption is like HALF of the 8700k's people are going to keep thinking you're in bed with Intel. Just count on it.
Is he not long time ago? That's why he have to make explanatory video everytime he Is bashing Intel, 8700k 90watts more under load than last gen, and he didn't bat an eye!!
Because its not the equivalent of a 1600x when its multi-thread performance is comparable, if not better than even an 1800x, at a much lower price point, and its single-core performance is incredibly better? Hurr durr same amount of cores so must be equivalent.
They rigged results to make Intel look better, had OC'd CPUs vs non-OC'd Ryzen CPUs Link explains it across multiple tech reviewers: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-O98qP-FsIWo.html
Here is the reason: m.ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-O98qP-FsIWo.html They call it deception - that is when somebody is bought or does a poor job as a reviewer...
Sic Semper Beats I don’t have all the time in the world to explain watch this video and skip to the cpu part ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Ij95GtRg07g.html
Back in June, weren't you dramatically walking through the rain, folding your arms, and chastising Intel for "knee-jerk reactions," and "half desperate attempts to appeal to enthusiasts," and their anti-consumer socket abandoning? You directly called out Kaby Lake X for just taking existing Kaby Lake processors and stapling them on to socket 2066, which was already a retooling of Skylake. So they did the exact same thing with slightly better results 6 months later with Coffee Lake and all of a sudden you are back on Intel's jock? We aren't witnessing technology advancing, we are witnessing corporate posturing and strategic releases of products to no one's benefit other than Intel. This i7-8700K sat below average if not middle of the road in almost all the benchmarks you tossed up, which were unsurprisingly missing the 1800X. Even when the 1950X had the best ratings in some of the benchmarks, you still visually ranked it lower than the i9-7900X. Then you brush over the thing being 30-40° hotter and its higher power consumption. Come on man, people count on you for these reviews... You gave a more unbiased plug to Five Dollar Shave Club. It's almost as if when Intel called you in, they reminded you that your channel exists because of all that sponsored hardware they provide and heavily suggested that if you kept talking shit you'd be blackballed into oblivion. Surprised they let you wear your own shirt and not one of theirs.
Jason, You nailed it with your commentary. You took us back in time and pointed out everything that we are thinking about from watching Linus's previous videos. Kudos for the facts, I agree the videos are getting a little more cheesy biased based to suit a narrative for another video.
Kaby Lake X didn't perform, and was out of the release cycle for Intel, clearly a knee-jerk reaction to Ryzen. Coffee Lake does perform since it's new silicon, we actually got a bump in cores, and was a regular release from Intel, with no X299 BS. Coffee Lake has been in development for probably two years, it is't just a rehash of a precedent architecture like Kaby Lake X was.
Cioby, I actually ran games fully on Ryzen using GPU just for video output - CPU did all the 3D job. Ryzen 1700 3D performance was on par or just below GT210, so World of Warcraft was actually playable. That's what happens when you brootforce graphics on CPU.
Well... for gamers, stick with your 4th gens for now. I still own the 4790k, 32GB RAM, gtx 970 gpu. I can't even imagine why I'd change that CPU now. I render in Premier pro cc, while I do something else. My Nvidia experience: GAME OPTIMIZATION: READY. GAMESTREAM: READY IN-GAME OVERLAY: READY VIRTUAL REALITY: READY Intel, see you 2019.
Why do you spend so much money on gpu though? Do u think that i3 4170 is enough for gaming?i want to buy 4790k new but it is more expensive here than last gen models...
I'm just happy to see real competition from both sides again, it's been too long. Intel stepped up their game thanks to AMD being taken seriously again. This is great for all of us.
It's also good for businesses as it gives them a better direction for where they're going. "What do we do next? One-up the other guys." Businesses that have no direct (or serious) competition often assume what people want, and make horrible mistakes in doing so.
Funny how people forget that the first i7s ran as high 130 TDP. My i7 940 is one of those, and I'm still running it now after 7 years in my upgraded Dell system. I can only imagine how much power it must draw from the wall when running at full load. Doesn't seem to put a dent in it's performance, or cost me so much I can't use it. ;)
Only intel can manage to make a 6 core CPU run as hot and consume as much power as a 16 core threadripper... If we really want to stop global warming the paris climate agreement is useless, what we need to do is destroy all the intel CPUs.
Were you not listening and/or watching? The overclocked TDP and temps were lower than stock, Linus pointed out that it may be a firmware bug since that's completely stupid. See (or hear) 7:12
Uh, 99% of PCs aren't even pulling 1kW from the wall... guess how much power an electric kettle pulls? More than 1kW. Unless your PC is pegged at full output most of the day, it's not worth worrying about. Seriously, taking better care of turning the lights in rooms you aren't in will save you more money than buying a CPU based on TDP.
Good to see that there is finally some decent competition in the CPU market for gamers. ARM is also slowly entering the game, with their most powerful designs to be as good as laptop CPUs.
I have a feeling it's going to be a while until arm breaks into the desktop market. For one, Windows and the majority of the programs for windows are only compiled for x86 processors. There's a reason why arm can't get into the desktop market when it dominates in the smartphone market.
ARM will never enter the desktop market, it's a RISC based design, meaning it has lower IPC for lower power consumption. This makes it pretty bad for, as you're sacrificing performance for power, and power isn't much of an issue when your desktop is always plugged in.
just get a 6700k and call it a day, clock it to the same speed as any current intel CPU, nothing has really changed but the core count and clock speeds.
That won't happen when game developers start using more cores efficiently in their games. And as these core wars between cpu makers keep going, they will take advantage of them. Only time stands in the way. :)
For the majority of games right now single core performance is more important than core count. The 7700k has a higher stock clock speed than the 8700k, so assuming it has a similar IPC the 7700k will still be better in most games that don't take full advantage of multithreading, which is the majority of games still today. 4c/8t looks like it's still the cpu sweet spot.
She changed shirts in the time between pouring and delivering the coffee to linus. No way its still warm after driving home from the break room and then back to the office, c'mon guys. LinusTechTips has been lying to us!
I like how she took the time to change her clothes before bringing him the coffee. Somewhere out there is the untold story of that mug's amazing BTS journey.
That's not Intel's fault. With the competition of AMD it was obvious they had to release something new and they announced it. You never upgrade or get a CPU/GPU that's not new and beats the previous hardware by a huge margin. Ever. You always wait for the best possible, like the 1080ti non reference cards instead of Titan X or 1080ti reference card.
I upgraded to an i7 8700K / 16GB DDR4 3200 and I'm loving the performance increase from my previous 1st gen i7 920 / DDR3 1600, I ran the 920 config for 8 years and it served me very well also kudos to Gigabyte for the rock solid motherboard which ran this 1st gen CPU overclocked @ 3.3Ghz literally from day 1 without any issues the whole time, Currently using an Asus PRIME Z370-A with the 8700k, so far all good and Asus has updated the BIOS several times already since I bought it almost a year ago.
8:19 How is the 8400 taking the back seat? its score per dollar is higher than all the rest. Total system performance difference is about the same as the 7900X and 7700K. Am I missing something?
Yeah I was pretty surprised he was reviewing a i5 8400 (as I've a i5 6400 which is similar older brother.) The performance per dollar on that line is just amazing. (specially when paired with a relatively powerfull and budget friendly GTX1060.)
My Ryzen 7 1700 gets at stock almost the same score as the 1700X in your cinebench r15 benchmarks (1400 something). Are you comparing an overclocked 8700k to an underclocked 1700X or something?
When Linus is vouching for Intel, he's like "Oh, its' OK. Salt can taste good, I'm glad you're upset. Technology is evolving blah blah". But when it comes to AMD, he's like "Oh now THAT IS A DEALBREAKER TO ME, AMD dropped the balls here, I hope you can live with it, but I can't recommend blah blah". Linus, the next time you want to tell everyone your review is unbiased, watch your own videos. They'll prove you wrong.
This review is completely an ad to sell Intel. People should stop watching this guy otherwise RU-vid will be paying him for pushing INTEL down peoples throats.
Why is the 1800X not included in these benchmarks? It feels premature to say Coffee Lake kills Ryzen when you're comparing the third best of AMD consumer with the top end brand new of Intel in the same space...
Muhammad Abo Hashem I totally agree on value, but for raw performance why not include the best Ryzen has to offer if you're gonna showcase what Intel has best to offer
Michael Morgan uhhh not exactly, because then intel wouldn’t have even needed to release surpassing CPUs since they would have no competition from amd.
Exactly, AMD stopped making decent CPU's so Intel stop releasing them. If AMD didnt make shit CPU's we would have had better CPU's from Intel years ago.
Hahaha, you reckon? We wil see. So far Ryzen has been good but not that good. Id still pick Intel but then im not a budget buyer. Would love some seriously fast stuff from AMD rather than decent price to performance. Who knows what the future will bring? But if I was going to bet on it id pick Intel maintaining their dominance...
*insert the same comments as in every AMD fangay video about AMD stuff* "yea but with drivers and shit and more shit and stuff it will run 5 times better than the AMD in 1 year!!!! hurr durr" Obviously pre-release Intel stuff is at the peak of it's life but AMD stuff always gets 10 times better after patches. Yet on every game release every AMD fangay complains about the game not working properly. And blames Intel/Nvidia/the gaming company/the publisher and never AMD (even when the game is developed and supported by AMD).
That isn't how PC gaming works. Very few games support more than quad core CPUs, so a 7700k's high clock speed will almost always beat a slower clock speed 8700k. Until 6 and 8 core CPUs become the norm, faster cores will always out perform more cores (in terms of gaming).
Based on other peoples results in cinebench the 1700X was running at 3,2Ghz in this test. Its score is abnormally low. Assuming other scores are skewed the same amount the whole conclusion of this video is significantly skewed.
Stock speed was compared with stock speed. As always. That said, it is interesting to hear these skews. Fortunately, I only use these to compare intel CPUs, so I don't care if the AMD stuff is wrong.
When factoring the cost/performance ratio of the processor, wouldn't it make sense to also factor in the cost of the cheapest motherboard to support the required features since you'll have to buy a new motherboard anyway? Like, B350 for AMD overclocking, and z370 for the i5 8400 intel because that's all that's available.
I think i3s are more interesting in the line-up, 2core CPUs are simply not enough for the upcoming days. Intel should really take advantage of their faster clock speed, 4 cores high clock speed works perfect with games. But I m still getting ryzen:)
Yeah. Make the pentium 2 core. Drop the celeron. I3 budget 4 core. Then maybe i5 higher clock speed 4c w/hyperthreading. Then the i7 with 6+ cores etc. Using the g4560 rn and its amazing, even with only 2 cores
In terms of intel’s line-up, pentium is unbeatable with its price tag, but if you are just going for a pure budget gaming box, I believe core i3 coffelake will outperform some ryzen 3 even 5. With that said generally like my use of computer, will be half games half content creating plus media, a ryzen 1600 or above plus a 1060/70 will be more than enough.
Your benchmarks aren't factual comparisons. Running the Asus board with MCE on is essentially running the cpu at a 4.7Ghz all core OC. Go ahead and check the clocks and power consumption. Also, why were you and others so quick to point out Vega's power consumption and heat yet these cpus from Intel use substantially more power per core compared to AMD and almost require an AIO or water to hit higher clocks? Yet again Intel gets a pass from you for their absolute crap TIM under the heat spreader too.
+T51B1 AdoredTv has provide good insight into these questions you are asking Linus... link: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-O98qP-FsIWo.html
The thermals are better than a few years ago. None of this is perfection. The cores need the power per core because they are more powerful cores than AMD. Choose what you want out of the options available.
That is be because Intel had no one to compete with They were free relaxing And enjoy But AMD took that Opportunity And Launched Ryzen Processor Which was a huge access for that I think AMD from the start is always Price$/Performance Always giving their products Cheaper Then Intel Whereas Intel is 💰 Hunger 😑 Now Ryzen Is In the way they will make more Good Processors like this In the Future So this is a non stop ending Competition :v
@Alief Patra I have a strong suspicion Intel had these chips for well over a year, just sitting on the shelf. Just waiting for the milkman to finish his last delivery.
We have to thank AMD for this, tho. You can feel Intel being salty, as they release 6, not 8 core chips. You'd start arguing that it's same or better performance, but this is exactly my point. They only did what was required and no more.
That i3 8100 looks pretty compelling for the budget side of things. 4 true cores means it can directly compete with ryzen 3 1200/1200x, and since intels lineup is already known to be better in ipc, I guess this means it might be stronger than 1200(assuming it stays within that sub $120 bracket).
Yet consumers have to keep in mind that these motherboards will likely not even last a generation (arguable but it seems likely), and no overclocking ability. It's still some nice competition, but I wouldn't buy it myself
The i3 8100 can't be purchased until budget boards are released. No one in their right mind would pair a locked CPU on a Z series chipset. If I was a gamer on a budget and was building a PC, I'd still go the r3 1200 path. You're not getting left behind in CPU socket support and you get to overclock! That's the biggest factor! Not to mention the fact it comes with a decent stock cooler. So it doesn't need aftermarket cooling! Coffee Lake makes no sense because the hardware being offered is unacceptable for the price point. AMD is giving you 8 core variants as mainstream. To get the same from Intel you have to buy enthusiast hardware. Coffee Lake is not a good architecture. It's not even a die shrink. It's the same 14nm process which is incredibly annoying.
cooman gaming oh wow, while I respect your opinion on AdoredTV, I cannot see how this opinion makes it less relevant that Intel made a launch only on paper? Or that Intel wouldnt give us coffee lake if they didnt have to?
Oh, and one more thing to say - I am sad, sad because I've grown to expect that Linus would ignore AMD in this review. It feels like you'd say everything that's good without daring to say what do you really think. That's the reason I don't watch Austin Evans for example.
While I agree you also cannot get your hands on Vega, there is a major difference. Intel just wouldn't give coffee lake chips to anyone, while AMD gave Vega to customers, but a vast majority of those customers were miners and they were that quick in buying out the stocks. Even though according to one of the major retailers that Gamer Nexus talked to the stock at launch was like 40% bigger then during other graphics card launches. So this is clearly not AMDs fault that miners would buy out every single GPU they produce. Please do not generalize.
I have a first gen i7-975 (2009) from the 1366 socket, and it still handles everything I throw at it just fine. And it was only $35, to boot. Gonna upgrade my graphics card soon, though. The 960 is starting to struggle with the latest titles at 1200p.
I imagine 200W is when all cores / threads are running at 100% though. That's not going to happen often, unless you run Prime95 every day so you can use the CPU as a stove.
Yeah, gaming typically doesn't consume that many CPU cycles, really. When I glance at my CPU usage during gaming, it seems to hover at around 20-30%. Of course it depends on the game, and the rest of your system - you might see 50% load in a CPU intensive game (with a recent i7).
Spektrik: Yeah it's absolutely better, but the thing is that a first gen i7 is still viable for serious gaming. My brother still rocks my watercooled i7 930. No problems with performance.
Nah stop perpetuating that shit. It's all about performance/$. If you got the $ to blow on unhinged overclocks, good4u. If you buy AMD you're smart about getting your value.
well i made a comment on the video and i will just copy a part of the comment here: "Lastly the value proposition, claiming that they offer a great price/performance ratio on par and partially even better than the ryzen offers. In the ryzen systems for example, what motherboards were used. Intel is known for high priced motherboards while the ryzen motherboards can be bought rather cheaply, cause the b350 boards already include overclocking and enough pcie lanes. Secondly on the ryzen systems where aftermarket coolers used because normally when a stock ryzen cooler is included it is more than enough to cool the cpu and on some chips even suffice for overclocking. These infos should definetly be included in the video, cause they make a huge difference in the price/performance ratio."
Hehe xd beat it because it costs more lol. A 1600x is fantastic for the price, you really don't need more than that for gaming and if you spend more than that then you're doing it for the breaking rights. So the fact it 'beats'' the 1700x isn't really important.
sometimes I think if posts were written in native language so we can translate it ourselves..that we might actually understand the reply and have a conversation
I'm not mad about investing in a Z270 board. I literally bought it less than 6 months ago with a 7700k. I upgraded from an i7 920 that was 7 and a half years old that still ran absolutely everything thrown at it for gaming. Chances are my 7700k will last just as long. Small incremental CPU upgrades are incredibly silly for gaming.
Very bad one. I have to put 👎 as the graph are very difficult to keep with. Changing AMD graphs color might help alot , and the value charts are so stupied even for me (i had statistics for 2 years in college)
M. de k. Anyway i don't care what he thinks... I gave my opinion and it is for Linus as a fan so he continue to do the great things he do in a better way ...
Good to know my 5GHz 7700k is better for gaming. Also stop Tunnelbear is useless, they don't support torrenting, and don't even have a proxy. I had them for a week and ditched them for PIA, which is actually cheaper with more features.
Normally i dont comment on tech videos, but i found some things rather dubious in these shown benchmark results. First of all the inclusion of the y-cruncher benchmark at 6:38 . To me it seems pretty obvious that that benchmark is flawed. Threadripper 1950x behind the i9, ryzen 7 1700x behind i5 8400 ? The enormous differences in single core performance between the amd and intel chips, something doesnt seem to be right there. Secondly not including the ryzen 1800 lineup but claiming the 8700 would "easily surpass" ryzen even though 1700x and 8700 are not that far apart. That to me is not really acceptable, atleast mention that you didnt check the top end desktop ryzen chip. Lastly the value proposition, claiming that they offer a great price/performance ratio on par and partially even better than the ryzen offers. In the ryzen systems for example, what motherboards were used. Intel is known for high priced motherboards while the ryzen motherboards can be bought rather cheaply, cause the b350 boards already include overclocking and enough pcie lanes. Secondly on the ryzen systems where aftermarket coolers used because normally when a stock ryzen cooler is included it is more than enough to cool the cpu and on some chips even suffice for overclocking. These infos should definetly be included in the video, cause they make a huge difference in the price/performance ratio. Now my really last question is how on earth did u achieve 55°C on a i9 7900x in a synth load while every other tech reporter says it is reaching 100°C at stock speeds?
The y-cruncher results were due to avx. AVX can speed some applications a lot and is easily added with a compiler flag and allows a higher IPC with some workloads. Amd currently has avx, but there implemtation on rzyen is a good amount slower than what is found on intels current gen.
Still didn't address the issue with price to performance with exactly what was stated beforehand, i.e cooler provided by amd vs intels more than likely aftermarket cooler which is a significant added cost.
That does not suffice for an explanation to me. In a rather limited scenario there is an advantage for intel, could be mentioned but should not be integrated into the benchmarks imo. Also, Theres float and integer avx instructions, y crunsher uses float avx instructions while integer avx instructions can be a completly diffrent matter entirely. So i find it rather weird that this benchmark was included. But thank you for bringing up that point, i was not awware of that
