What I found funny is I had exactly the same thought as their top comment while reading the article…
which was
“In order to compete with the now competitive market we will be increasing our prices.”
Nice to know I wasnt the only person with that impression.
Not that I care, I am in camp AMD for now and as long as this 1700 continues to deliver on the goods I will be staying AMD.
Hmm… Interesting. If the 8th gen i3 is the same as the 7th gen i5 at $40 cheaper and a bit faster, that’s compelling for gamers and other fast/few core workloads.
They seem to be placing the i7 right between the 4 and 6 core HEDT parts. Seems legit
EDIT: all there really is to say is that old adage: big if true
Yeah, I don’t see Intel competing with AMD on the high-end though. Unless the 7920x can overclock like a boss, they’re in hot water, with threadripper hitting 4.1, especially at those prices.
Are there any chipset advantages to going X299 vs X399 (damn, these are going to be confusing as)?
I think they’re also underestimating the value of SMT. They’ve got a lot more skus without SMT than I’d like to see.
That’s not competing. That’s just pushing people to AMD.
I think this is a long overdue bridging-of-the-gap between the consumer and enthusiast platforms. The feature set, core, and price differences between the Z and X have been nasty and with ryzen, there’s no excuse
Can you elaborate on this? I thought Ryzen was at a good price point. (I definitely won’t be going out and impulse buying a 1950x, but it’s still a good value IMO)
With ryzen, there’s no excuse for intel’s higher core/more feature rich platform to be so far removed from its desktop consumer platform
I’m not sure what you thought i meant
If the elitism seen, oh everywhere, is to be believed it will never fly even if it is a reasonable option. People now buy i7s when all they need is an i5. i3 is seen as so beneath them that it is not even considered as gaming capable, this forum is a but of an exception in that respect as we take in the specs not the name.
Intel have made their own branding problem with the i3. You are not wrong in your thoughts but this is a sign of something else in my eyes. i3 is the cheap low end option, it having 4/4 now says that 4/4 is low end now. With AMD pushing cores and intel now scrambling to catch up on that front they have been saying that software will follow to utilise them, that may actually be happening or starting to happen and this is the proof.
So it will be seen as low end anyway, and hopefully soon will be right back in that class if the software catches up like it should.
Well, the i5 8600K isn’t so bad when you consider that it edges out against an i7 7700K theoretically. The i7 8700K is $400 which is surprising because my i7 5820K was that much when it came out and my i7 5820K I got for $320.
And the i3 8100 don’t look too bad neither, in fact, they actually made the i3s more appealing for once. Except the i3 8350K not so much.
Yeah people need to stop overshooting so far. Like you don’t need Threadripper for gaming, it’s really not much of a gaming CPU so much as a workstation CPU cause an R7 1700 will do almost as good and even then the weaker Ryzen CPUs can do most games well too.
Ah, I misunderstood what you meant in your previous post. I read that as calling Ryzen out on the whole feature set separation thing. (I’m a bit salty about the amount of PCIe lanes on non-threadripper systems)
I’ve just proved to myself that I really don’t need a whole lot of compute power for games. I’m passing an RX 580 to a VM and I’ve allocated 6GiB of ram and 2 cores. I can play all my games that have been released up to 2016 with no problems. When I increase allocation to 8GiB and 4 cores, I pretty much eliminate any problems with newer games.
I completely agree that an i3 is good for most gaming, and the new i3 (4/4) is a very compelling value.
EDIT: I’m couch-gaming at 1080p, so the performance requirements aren’t crazy, but the 580 is plenty and doesn’t have any passthrough hiccups.
To be honest, Pentiums are flying off the shelf for budget gaming builds. I don’t think budget gamers will balk rebranded i5s
Eh, I’m not saying there aren’t cheaper options. Just saying that that 4/4 sku is not a bad price. for what you’re getting. $130 for 4 physical cores at 3.6GHz is good. Especially considering that’s where Intel’s beat Ryzen with more out of the box performance (at the same price) and likely very good overclocking capability.
yeah I wouldn’t be surprised to see the new i3s beating Ryzen 3’s on the value proposition.
I think that’s what we’ve always been seeing though. As soon as you get into 6+ cores though, AMD appears to have better value depending, again, on how well the Intel chips overclock.
Gonna wait and see until we have official US prices. Doing a straight conversion isn’t always accurate as prices can vary widely across regions. Rumors were about $20 more… So we shall see but I could see Intel doing it
However, $400 seems like quite a lot and makes this much less compelling especially since you need a new motherboard as well.
If Intel made these drop into 100/200 series motherboards it would have been a homerun even at these higher prices
I agree. AMD had a great value proposition with their older systems because you could throw just about any CPU into a motherboard and it would work. Intel keeps making you match a CPU with a motherboard. Makes it difficult to justify.
Idk, if I can get an i3 8100 or Ryzen 3 1200 I would choose those options quite easily over a Pentium even if the Pentium is cheaper.
I think it really depends on the price of the pentium. Another $50 for the i3 at that price range, while it doesn’t seem like a lot for me, could be make or break for some budgets.
The i5-8400 looks pretty good. dont know how many PCIe lanes it has but im gonna guess 16.
would not be a bad mid range cpu. the 8600k sku might also be a good option depending on how high it overclocks
