91–100 of 290 posts
Slight meta, and part of a larger 'rant,' but when are we going to get away from reviews that might as well have been printed on glossy pages in PC Magazine in 1986? Anandtech has been at it since the 90s and hasn't changed their format at all. This is a serious decades-long stagnation of the web. The graphs should be dynamic (able to choose what scenarios and components to compare, and able to search within them), a…
https://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/2538?vs=2558
I find it interesting how desktop CPUs are essentially coming down to two enthusiast markets, developers/content creators/workstations and gaming. While the gaming market is (usually) seeking the highest top single core clock speed with respect to CPUs, it also relies on other expensive hardware. Meanwhile the dev/content creator/workstation market is much better served by these multi-core behemoths. Intel really has…
Slight meta, and part of a larger 'rant,' but when are we going to get away from reviews that might as well have been printed on glossy pages in PC Magazine in 1986? Anandtech has been at it since the 90s and hasn't changed their format at all. This is a serious decades-long stagnation of the web. The graphs should be dynamic (able to choose what scenarios and components to compare, and able to search within them), a…
You don't get that excuse from AnandTech. We do our best to keep a long history of benchmark data for users to peruse: https://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU-2019/2224
The main limiting factor on how far back our benchmark database goes is software updates. When we have to update the OS or CPU microcode for Spectre, Meltdown, etc., or update GPU drivers, that invalidates results, and re-testing a large pile of older hardware takes a long time. Historically this has mostly been a problem for GPUs since their drivers are such a moving target, but the past two years of CPU vulnerabilities have been a hassle.
I find it interesting how desktop CPUs are essentially coming down to two enthusiast markets, developers/content creators/workstations and gaming. While the gaming market is (usually) seeking the highest top single core clock speed with respect to CPUs, it also relies on other expensive hardware. Meanwhile the dev/content creator/workstation market is much better served by these multi-core behemoths. Intel really has…
I agree with your overall synopsis of the status quo. We might however see gaming shift more to multi-core workloads as the next gen of consoles are highly likely to contain 8 core (16T) AMD CPUs based on Zen2 (and a lot of games are made for the lowest common denominator). This shouldn't be confused with the 8 core APUs found in current gen. Next gen will have an 8 core CPU and a NAVI 12+ GPU.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's more of a memory bottleneck though.
Yeah indeed chromium is a more efficient 2D rendering engine than what's available natively and performance of JS is comparable to Java. Electron apps being slow is mostly a developer laziness problem, not a technology problem. Making a fast electron app is actually easier than making a fast C++ app IMO, when you take into account the libraries and tooling available.
Have been eyeing TR for that reason, but as I don't really need this amount of I/O (and cores), I might be well served by AM4.
I find it interesting how desktop CPUs are essentially coming down to two enthusiast markets, developers/content creators/workstations and gaming. While the gaming market is (usually) seeking the highest top single core clock speed with respect to CPUs, it also relies on other expensive hardware. Meanwhile the dev/content creator/workstation market is much better served by these multi-core behemoths. Intel really has…
I'd expect there are far, far more servers than there are developer machines. There are probably many more servers than hardcore gamers as well, and maybe even more than all gamers put together. It'd be nice to see some hard stats on this, however.
This isn't the most groundbreaking release - it's not the first 16-core chip you can buy (edited), nor the first 7nm. No new clockspeed records were set. Still, $750 for all that power! Any professionals shopping for this, or waiting for 24 or 32-core Threadripper? Anyone trying to upgrade on an older motherboard, or are you getting a matching X570 to ensure maximum boost and PCI-e bandwidth?
I'm waiting for 64 core CPU. 32 is nice but still not enough.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would say it is the first 16-core "consumer chip", since every other 16-core chip has either been HEDT-class or server-grade, both requiring expensive motherboards. I would be happy to try plopping this into my B450 motherboard from my 2700X. I'm happy with my current NVMe storage, which is just about the only thing that takes advantage of the extra bandwidth. Graphics cards aren't there yet.
I had 24 core workstation 5 years ago for price of this single chip. Refurbished server...
I find it interesting how desktop CPUs are essentially coming down to two enthusiast markets, developers/content creators/workstations and gaming. While the gaming market is (usually) seeking the highest top single core clock speed with respect to CPUs, it also relies on other expensive hardware. Meanwhile the dev/content creator/workstation market is much better served by these multi-core behemoths. Intel really has…
I LOVE that the gaming market has created a serious desire for quality desktop hardware. I now build my workstations by hand and install Ubuntu. It's really nice to work on quality hardware!