4 ms·
And? Intel's $1,600 6950X loses to their own $170 i3-7350K in single-threaded benchmarks. When you pay extra for a CPU with more cores, you almost always get
by tomku 10y ago
And? Intel's $1,600 6950X loses to their own $170 i3-7350K in single-threaded benchmarks. When you pay extra for a CPU with more cores, you almost always get less single-threaded compute because of power/heat/design constraints forcing the clock speed down. Dual cores will often beat quad-cores, which will almost always beat hex/octo-cores.
What's happening here is that AMD has priced Ryzen so inexpensively that it actually broke the usual market segmentation by driving high-thread-count workstation CPUs (usually $1k+) into the same price range as high-end gaming CPUs (~$300-400). Think of it as being able to buy an industrial dump truck for the same price as a pickup truck. The dump truck is clearly a better value in terms of hauling capacity, but most people would be far better off with a pickup truck for their daily traveling.
AMD's pickup truck (the 1400X) doesn't launch until later this year. The 7700K will probably still beat it on single-threaded workloads due to the difference in clock speed, but it should get you most of the way there for substantially less money, around $200 if the leaks are accurate.
- jrockway 10y agoI think Intel severely underclocks the 6950X by default, so that it fits within the stated TDP of 140W with all 10 cores at full load. If you have adequate cooling, it is very easy to overclock. I think I ended up at 4.2GHz for 10 core loads, 4.4GHz for 4 cores.