Intel kills off 8th-gen desktop CPUs

They were caught napping. It will take Intel at least another 5 years to catch up to where AMD is now. And AMD is not idle....
 
Barbarian Conan said:
I went from an i7 2600K 24GB & SATA SSD to a 3700X 32GB & NVMe SSD, and general usage isn't noticeably faster. Gaming, photoshop, lightroom and other processor intensive stuff yes. Just browsing and using word, no.
Click to expand...
Went from a 2600 to a 8700 (no K in my budget) and there was a general improvement, still run most things on HDD with a SSD for the very few games that actually seem to need it and so far I have had no complaints.

The improvement is noticeable but nothing massive..... though that can also only be because of the two extra cores and faster RAM..... I was expecting much more improvement than I actually got (especially with VM's) so I guess never trust benchmarks.

At this point it seems that as long as you have any i7 in from gen 4 and up you are future proof and the only real bottleneck becomes GPU and SSD..... 1TB NVME models are just too expensive atm for me (especially after my last upgrade knocked my savings so bad) but I really don't need one atm.

I have noticed that games that seem to actually could benefit from better hardware rarely gets properly coded from it, the games that actually punish machines are the ones that are meant for consoles and terribly optimized for PC's or don't have the dev expertise needed to really take advantage of multi-threading.

Stellaris which itself should be a perfect benchmark for CPU's has become a running joke when it comes to performance.
 
rambo919 said:
Went from a 2600 to a 8700 (no K in my budget) and there was a general improvement, still run most things on HDD with a SSD for the very few games that actually seem to need it and so far I have had no complaints.

The improvement is noticeable but nothing massive..... though that can also only be because of the two extra cores and faster RAM..... I was expecting much more improvement than I actually got (especially with VM's) so I guess never trust benchmarks.

At this point it seems that as long as you have any i7 in from gen 4 and up you are future proof and the only real bottleneck becomes GPU and SSD..... 1TB NVME models are just too expensive atm for me (especially after my last upgrade knocked my savings so bad) but I really don't need one atm.

I have noticed that games that seem to actually could benefit from better hardware rarely gets properly coded from it, the games that actually punish machines are the ones that are meant for consoles and terribly optimized for PC's or don't have the dev expertise needed to really take advantage of multi-threading.

Stellaris which itself should be a perfect benchmark for CPU's has become a running joke when it comes to performance.
Click to expand...

Hold up, are you running your OS on the HDD, and have games on your SSD?
 
rambo919 said:
1TB NVME models are just too expensive atm for me (especially after my last upgrade knocked my savings so bad) but I really don't need one atm.
Click to expand...

In normal desktop usage & gaming you're not gonna notice the difference between sata & nvme speeds either, it's a few sec loading a game.
Rather go for a cheaper & bigger sata ssd than a smaller faster nvme one if budget is a concern.

 
rambo919 said:
Went from a 2600 to a 8700 (no K in my budget) and there was a general improvement, still run most things on HDD with a SSD for the very few games that actually seem to need it and so far I have had no complaints.

The improvement is noticeable but nothing massive..... though that can also only be because of the two extra cores and faster RAM..... I was expecting much more improvement than I actually got (especially with VM's) so I guess never trust benchmarks.

At this point it seems that as long as you have any i7 in from gen 4 and up you are future proof and the only real bottleneck becomes GPU and SSD..... 1TB NVME models are just too expensive atm for me (especially after my last upgrade knocked my savings so bad) but I really don't need one atm.

I have noticed that games that seem to actually could benefit from better hardware rarely gets properly coded from it, the games that actually punish machines are the ones that are meant for consoles and terribly optimized for PC's or don't have the dev expertise needed to really take advantage of multi-threading.

Stellaris which itself should be a perfect benchmark for CPU's has become a running joke when it comes to performance.
Click to expand...


I was running a core 2 duo with a SSD, 6GB RAM.
The SSD was a major improvement but the SSD also caused the CPU to worked a lot harder.

Upgraded December to a 3700x 8 core AMD, NVME SSD.
There is a major difference in performance. Everything is faster and snappier.

Get a SSD. A sata SSD will have a major impact. You are not seeing a difference because the HDD is a MASSIVE bottleneck.
 
ponder said:
In normal desktop usage & gaming you're not gonna notice the difference between sata & nvme speeds either, it's a few sec loading a game.
Rather go for a cheaper & bigger sata ssd than a smaller faster nvme one if budget is a concern.

Click to expand...
I have noticed that NVME tends to be rated as longer lasting when it comes to writes, also I am curious about actual difference once the SATA bottleneck is not there..... but in my case I also dont have room left in my tower for an additional drive so even a SATA m2 would be a good option.

But really there is also the fact that larger SSD's last longer than smaller one's so 1TB NVME really seems like the best investment for a system drive even though I will probably never go above 70% usage within the next decade.
 
Ares1000101 said:
Hold up, are you running your OS on the HDD, and have games on your SSD?
Click to expand...
Yep, having a good CPU and enough RAM means the OS never really becomes slow enough to be a bother. I wont grow grey hair just because the OS does not boot in 20 seconds.

Most games I also run on HDD, it's just the largest or resource intensive games that actually benefit from being on a SSD, Think of it as a performance drive. I first noticed the difference in Fallout 4 when I hit the infinite loading screens bug, got a SSD with just that on it and the problem was mostly resolved.
 
Insint said:
I was running a core 2 duo with a SSD, 6GB RAM.
The SSD was a major improvement but the SSD also caused the CPU to worked a lot harder.

Upgraded December to a 3700x 8 core AMD, NVME SSD.
There is a major difference in performance. Everything is faster and snappier.

Get a SSD. A sata SSD will have a major impact. You are not seeing a difference because the HDD is a MASSIVE bottleneck.
Click to expand...
You are comparing a 2 core non hyperthread CPU with a 8 core one..... I went from 4 core hyperthread to 6 core hyperthread. In the first case there is no way there wont be a major increase.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X