AMD Trolls Intel: Offers 16-Core Chip to Winners of Six-Core 8086K
AMD's feud with Intel took an interesting turn today as the company announced that it would swap 40 Core i7-8086K's won from Intel's sweepstakes with a much beefier Threadripper 1950X CPU.
At Computex 2018, Intel officially announced it was releasing the Core i7-8086K, a special edition processor that commemorates the 40th anniversary of the 8086, which debuted as the first x86 processor on June 8, 1978. As part of the special-edition release, Intel opened up a sweepstakes to give away 8,086 of the six-core 12-thread processors. Intel also made the processors available at retail, and though the company doesn't have an official MSRP, you can find the chips at several retailers for ~$425.
Now AMD is offering to replace 40 of the winners' chips with its own 16-core 32-thread $799 Threadripper processors, thus throwing a marketing wrench into Intel's 40th-anniversary celebration.
See also: The Intel Core i7-8086K Review
(Score: 2) by bobthecimmerian on Tuesday June 19 2018, @12:05PM (1 child)
Single threaded performance still matters in a lot of applications. Not every program has been rewritten to scale seamlessly to three or more cores. So if, for example, you do PC gaming then depending upon the games you prefer an Intel i5 or i7 may be a better choice than any AMD processor.
Don't get me wrong, I have three desktops in the house and all three run AMD CPUs. I'm not much of a gamer, so my computers all have their game performance bottlenecked by cheap GPUs long before the differences between CPU matter. I would bet that for most well-informed CPU shoppers, AMD is the better value for their dollar and Intel's single-threaded advantage isn't important. But I think it's a little misleading to say "why would I spend $2000 for a cpu that's 10% faster than my $320 CPU?" when - again, depending upon the application - Intel has $200 options that can outperform that $320 AMD part.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by exaeta on Tuesday June 19 2018, @10:57PM
I'm sorry. But I think you missed something. Let's compare the Ryzen 2700X to the Intel i7-8700k. The i7-8700k is only 20% faster in single-core performance and the Ryzen 2700X is 20% faster in multicore performance.
An intel i5-8600 is a whimpy 5% faster in single core performance, and the Ryzen 2700X is 80% faster than it in multi-core performance. Ryzen 5 performance is about the same.
So which matters more? Getting more total CPU power? Then pick AMD. More single threaded performance? You could pick Intel, but I think it's dumb. AMD processors will still run single threaded applications faster in practice unless you dedicate your PC to a single purpose and only ever have 1 window open. Firefox eating your CPU? Performance drops. Running multiple single core applications at the same time? Guess what, that can take advantage of multi-core performance!
Why would you cripple your entire computer so it can run some badly programmed games faster, when it only gets that small benefit while you don't have any other apps open at the same time? (Forget screen recording/streaming, as soon as you start recording/streaming the AMD chips yield better FPS)
Serious gamers use AMD if for no other reason than the fact it allows their game to not lag nearly as much when they boot up recording software.
The Government is a Bird