It's nice to have competition again. I am going to be building a new computer as well (still using a 3570K from 2012). I am interested in AMD's Zen 4. I originally thought the entire generation would come with the new 3D V-Cache, but it looks like they are only going to be releasing that with certain gaming chips. Hopefully they don't take too long to release those since I want to see how they perform. Extra cache can give a big performance boost in some games, but I don't know if the clock speeds will get dropped on those chips like the last one, so I am going to have to wait and see how they compare.
Comment has been collapsed.
I have personally lost a bit of faith in Intel, especially with their ARC graphics card already being a disaster, being beaten by even the RX 6400 and GTX 1050TI. Both AMD and Intel have big shoes to fill in for upcoming graphics cards though, like the RTX 4000 series and the RX 7000 series, as the current highest spec graphics cards (the AMD side not really, mainly the RTX 3090TI) are being bottlenecked by the CPU, especially on the AMD side of CPUs. AMD might have a higher advantage in the server world, especially with this leak showing its potential in terms of cores and threads. Still gonna stick with my laptop which has a AMD Ryzen 5 5600H and a GTX 1650 though.
Comment has been collapsed.
Not that what you say is incorrect or anything like that, but I believe that the OP is talking about desktop, with a dedicated GPU that they already have as they stated, so what you said might not be 100% relevant (it's relevant only to a certain point) as mobile CPUs are not a good benchmark for desktop CPUs imo.
I built my system 2 years ago, and that was the last time I deeply researched both desktops and laptops, and the above statement is mostly from my experience from that build.
Comment has been collapsed.
Ah, well at least I don't feel like I wrote all of that for nothing if it's still somewhat relevant.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'll keep it short.
Seeing the how things have been last couple of years, I'd recommend going for AMD.
Most DLCs are boring or add little to the game. Just focus on the base game. Get the DLCs only if there's some specific DLC you really want, or end up a little extra cash after purchasing the base game.
Comment has been collapsed.
Why does it need DDR5 to take advantage of more cores? There are CPUs with 64 cores using DDR4, and you never hear anyone saying that the ram is a serious bottleneck, so I don't get why Intels new CPUs would be any different. Also yes NVMe SSDs are faster in terms of specs, but outside of some very specific use cases (like video scrubbing) there's no real benefit to them over SATA SSD's for games atm (I switched from a SATA SSD to a top of the line NVMe SSD, the SN850 2TB, not that long ago and notice no difference whatsoever for games).
Comment has been collapsed.
True, I'd forgotten about them using so many channels for a moment. The statement before just seemed weird to me since I'm running 16 cores (5950X) and don't feel my memory is holding back performance (64GB 3600 CL14). But I guess once you start going past 16 cores having quad channel ram or a newer standard (DDR5) for improved bandwidth would start to become important for tasks that could utilize all those cores.
Comment has been collapsed.
5.8 GHz boost? Jesus, power consumption is going to be brutal.
Comment has been collapsed.
Add one of those rumored 600W Geforce 4090's and you can probably trip a circuit breaker just from turning on your PC. :p
Comment has been collapsed.
If you could play games on them and they didn't involve slave labour I may have considered them. Shame no one else is really doing the ARM thing.
Comment has been collapsed.
well, I believe soon x86 era will end and answer to that is RISC either RISC-V and/or ARM <3
If I remember right then few years ago there was post-x86 era marked at Intel roadmap (at about 2023/24 but in mean time there has been many delays >_< )
Comment has been collapsed.
Had a friend at school who owned an Acorn cause they were convinced RISC was the future. This was thirty years ago. It's somewhere up there with the Year of Linux and Half Life 3 as things I won't risk holding my breath for.
Comment has been collapsed.
63 Comments - Last post 22 seconds ago by Zepy
17 Comments - Last post 9 minutes ago by adam1224
448 Comments - Last post 14 minutes ago by Marius11
887 Comments - Last post 50 minutes ago by MeguminShiro
530 Comments - Last post 51 minutes ago by MeguminShiro
47,105 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by Pish4
39 Comments - Last post 6 hours ago by shivam13
101 Comments - Last post 4 minutes ago by xandyvan
38 Comments - Last post 9 minutes ago by fernandopa
121 Comments - Last post 55 minutes ago by CBlade
1,196 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by CBlade
145 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by rimvydasm
65 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by cg
90 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by cicangkeling
This week more details about Intel's 13th gen CPUs have become available. Info about it, as far as it is known, can be found e.g. here.
In short, the number of cores and threads for the top CPUs increases (for which DDR5 RAM needed to make full use of), the CPUs should fit in Intel's chipset 600 series motherboards (the current ones used for the 12th Alder Lake CPUs), and Intel's 700 series motherboards should still have versions for DDR4 RAM.
Personally, planning to get a pretty much new rig (aside from the GPU at this point) by the end of year, I take a keen interest in the new mainboards. Intel's chipset 600 series already has PCIe 5.0 for the GPU (with up to 16 lanes), but it is the only 5.0 on there. Whereas the top next-gen AMD mainboards will reportedly have more than that, and so will likely the 700 series with Intel's chipset.
And what does that mean for the user? The option to make use especially of PCIe 5.0 SSDs.
In case someone hasn't read up on it yet, a short explainer. The 2.5 SATA SSDs are significantly faster than the 3.5 SATA HDDs, and have become a standard for being at least the system drive. The SATA SSDs are quite slow though in comparison with what NVMe-M.2-SSDs can do (the ones that get plugged straight into the mainboard). And each new gen of PCIe means double the speed than the previous gen. Which means that PCIe 5.0 has a bandwidth of 4 GB/s per lane (which is relevant in regard to there being only so many lanes possible).
And the speed for 5th-gen PCIe SSDs is e.g. for among the first presented a read speed of 13 GB/s and a write speed of 12 GB/s. Which is A LOT faster than what SATA SSDs can do.
Of course the price can be an issue. And as casual gamer one wouldn't miss out when going e.g. for Intel's 11th gen mainboard (with PCIe 4.0) and CPU. But if the next-gen mainboards will be perhaps just $50 extra, it will be a noticeable step up, even if it means missing out on some cosmetic DLCs, loot boxes, etc. to be able to afford it. So I am looking forward to the next-gen stuff hitting the shelves.
Comment has been collapsed.