Steam telepítése
belépés
|
nyelv
简体中文 (egyszerűsített kínai)
繁體中文 (hagyományos kínai)
日本語 (japán)
한국어 (koreai)
ไทย (thai)
Български (bolgár)
Čeština (cseh)
Dansk (dán)
Deutsch (német)
English (angol)
Español - España (spanyolországi spanyol)
Español - Latinoamérica (latin-amerikai spanyol)
Ελληνικά (görög)
Français (francia)
Italiano (olasz)
Bahasa Indonesia (indonéz)
Nederlands (holland)
Norsk (norvég)
Polski (lengyel)
Português (portugáliai portugál)
Português - Brasil (brazíliai portugál)
Română (román)
Русский (orosz)
Suomi (finn)
Svenska (svéd)
Türkçe (török)
Tiếng Việt (vietnámi)
Українська (ukrán)
Fordítási probléma jelentése
The 4c/4t is simply how people list CPU's, counting threads as a a total including the core count.
Which is why a ryzen 1700 is a 6c/12t and not 6 cores with an extra 6 threads, which, would be more accurate, I agree.
So 4c/4t is 4 total, taken from the threads while 4c/8t of the older i7's us 4 cores with 4 extra threads making a total of 8 threads, not 12 as if you were to add them, which seems to be the mistake you are making.
oh an i7 twice as expensive can outperforma budget i3 for half the cost? wow you dont say.
then how about you compare 8th gen i7 with your 6600K? 50% more cores, 50% more thread as it also has hyperthreading. And single core boost to 4.7GHz at stock unlike your 4.2GHz at stock and that for the same price. Superior in every single category.
we just compare an i3 8th Gen. to an i5 6th / 7th Gen. as both are 4c/4t CPU's and therefor have simliar performance. However and i5 8th Gen outperforms already your i7-6700K at cheaper cost because it has 50% more cores and therefor in multicore support 50% compared to an i5 6th / 7th Gen more performance while an i7 only provides about 30% perormance boost to 6th /7 th gen i5 as HT is not as good as real cores.
AMD is coming off of the "confuse the consumers to make more money" phaze and seem to now have better ethics involving customer service.
Hey, don't feel bad, it's just the way tech goes, hell, my £1100 7900X 10c/20t behemoth is beaten by 7700k in single core duties due to the latency added by the new mesh architecture over ringbus and in most games the 8700k is faster also.
As an actual investor in AMD, that wasn't ever a goal of theirs, they gambled on the development of many small cores, it failed, it took them a while to develop the new architecture to be competitive once more.
which then was a special offer. an i7-6700K always cost around 400$ for the same price you get a 7700K which currently in europe sells around ~320$ while an i7-8700K offers way more performance at the same starting price of ~400$.
---
I got my high end motherboard which normally cost more then 600$ for 300$ now everyone has to buy it because all other motherboards are bad compared to it. I know you wont get it for 300$ as me have to pay at least 550$ now but thats is the only motherboard you should take.
You would disagree with the comment so would everyone. But thats basically what you doing the entire time just that you recommend aged, outdated stuff over stronger newer stuff because you got yours for a special price that nobody else will now get. (not to mention that the 6700K isnt produced anymore and only sued or leftover stocks are sold).
AMD had to fire more then 1/3 of all their employees because they couldnt pay them. with it a large protion of their R&D department. they would have been at a point of bancrupcy befor Ryzen because of many failure. Luckily they didnt because they barely cold held their head over water with producing console chips. And luckily their last try to get back into the game and not get wiped from the market was Ryzen. Their next try to catch up to Nvidia with the Vega also failed. And we can only hope that they can stay in the game with Ryzen and Zen 2 so that neither Intel nor Nvidia gets 100% controll over the market.
So AMD is a long story of many failures and lucky events that held them in the game not something that is totally superior otherwise they wouldnt only have a very tiny amount of marketshares.
A good cooling solution is totally up to the user. You'll find cooling solutions less bulky for Kabelake and Skylake CPU's as well. The thing is that Coffelake has a lower TDP (aka Wattage) tolerance and therefore a lower tolerance to heat generated by Turboboost and hyperthreaddding. Temperatures will reach 88C on normal load...which is not good in terms of thermals.
Edit.
That's also not what tdp is, and all 3 sockets use the same coolers, they all also get to similar temps when overclocked under full load
You disable cores and transfer the TDP to other cores so they can auto overclock. To reach the listed Boost Clock all cores are disabled to get the last core run as high as possible. With Coffee Lake you can disable 5 cores why it boost so incredible high to 4.7GHz. Neither Skylake nor Coffee Lake can keep up with this because they only have 3 cores to disable.
TDP in its very basic is the heat one core is allowed to produce. Coffee Lake seems to have slow TDP but it is because of 6 cores. If you add them up they are not worse then Skylake or Kabylake.
All 3 generation have the exact same size and fittings for a cooler. So no generation has an advantage since they exactly fit the same coolers.
All the main boards are as good as each other, personally I like asus and MSI, and it's advisable to take an hour and manually over clock making the MCE stuff meaningless anyway.
I'd go with the one you like the look of in your price range that has the features you want, as there is alot of crossover between all the companies at each price point.