Vijesti i novosti o Intel procesorima i čipsetima

[demetrius]

https://www.nabava.net/search.php?q=r5+2600

vs

https://www.nabava.net/search.php?q=i5+9600k

cjena 9600k pala,500 kuna razlike hmhmhtj ryzen bi trebo bit 1300 intel 1800 onda bi znao što kupit,koja bi razlika u fpsoviam bila sa mojom gtx 1060??isto oko 40 fpsova.

[Zika21]

Autor demetrius

https://www.nabava.net/search.php?q=r5+2600

vs

https://www.nabava.net/search.php?q=i5+9600k

cjena 9600k pala,500 kuna razlike hmhmhtj ryzen bi trebo bit 1300 intel 1800 onda bi znao što kupit,koja bi razlika u fpsoviam bila sa mojom gtx 1060??isto oko 40 fpsova.

Krivo pretražuješ, za ryzene se ne pretražuje kao nekad za grafičke R7, R9, RX, već puno ime Ryzen 5.

[demetrius]

dada,opet 1000 kuna razlika 1400 vs 2400 je 40 fpsova više vrijedno 1000 kuna više.

[The Exiled]

Solidnih 16GB memorije je razlika u cijeni između ta dva procesora. 1.000 kn više za grafičku karticu. Kak god okreneš, tu razliku lako možeš preusmjeriti na neku drugu komponentu ili periferiju.

[demetrius]

gledam razliku z370 i z390 čipseata ako dobro vidim razlika je samo/ne samo nekom u CNVi Support i 3.1 portovima koje z370 nema,ja sam naviknuo dat ne više od 1000 kuna za ploču,tj ako ću postić takt recimo od 4,5 ghz sa pločom od 1000 kuna i onom od 1500 kuna.

mislim da neću ništa kupovat i5 4670k + gtx 1060 na 1080p sve vrti na full manje više sve igre.

[Manuel Calavera]

Autor demetrius

dada,opet 1000 kuna razlika 1400 vs 2400 je 40 fpsova više vrijedno 1000 kuna više.

Ček pod 40 fps-ova više sa gtx 1060 6gb misliš na R5 vs i5 9600K? FPS će ti biti identičan sa tom gpu, koji god uzeo.


Čak bi ti bio isti fps kao sa i5 4670K u 90%+ slučajeva (osim u eventualno par igara poput BFV, BF1 MP itd.). No mislim da smo o ovome već raspravljali da se ne ponavljamo

[demetrius]

da da s mojom grafom kolka je razlika,ne zanima me sa 2080 ti.testove vidjet,ako je isti fps sa mojom grafom zašto davat 1000 više za proc.

[Manuel Calavera]

To ti je "minus" balansirane konfe poput tvoje. Ako promjeniš samo cpu tj. platformu, a grafa ostane ista - sa fps-om ostaješ na istom u 90+% slučajeva jer ti je gpu iskorištena. Ako pak promjeniš samo gpu - može te cpu bottleneckat. Dakle da bi osjetio značajne pomake moraš promjeniti oboje - i platformu i primjetno jaču gpu. A to je skup sport, praktično 80% vrijednosti cijele konfe. No na kraju krajeva moraš krenit s nečim ako nećeš sve odjednom. Kasnije ubaciš nešto ranga ~ rtx 2070...

[demetrius]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiNKMWc7xAU

da mislio više ali ovi testovi te potvrđuju samo par fpsova razlike.

[Manuel Calavera]

Ma to ti je to. Što se tiče videa ta mala razlika može biti do:


- margin of error (statistička greška do 3%), ako su pravi testovi

- nedosljedno/neprofesionalno testiranje (pogotovo ako ne koristi ingame benchmark) nego solira po mapi, pa ne duplicira potpuno istu situaciju (i ponovi više puta da izvuče prosjek)

- jedan u nizu izmišljenih grafova na yt


U svakom slučaju to ti je to. Kažem naspram svog i5 bi sa bilo kojim od tih cpu-a eventualno dobio dosljedniji fps (manje dropove) u MP od BF1, BFV i sl. jer čisti quad stuttera, no 90+% situacija bi ti bilo isto tj. iskorištena ti je full gpu


BTW u krivoj smo temi

[Trbonja]

Autor lovranac

Odlikaši sa državnom stipendijom

Političari, uspješni gospodarski kriminalci i narko-bossovi.

[bAKa-47]

Autor Manuel Calavera

Ček pod 40 fps-ova više sa gtx 1060 6gb misliš na R5 vs i5 9600K? FPS će ti biti identičan sa tom gpu, koji god uzeo.


Čak bi ti bio isti fps kao sa i5 4670K u 90%+ slučajeva (osim u eventualno par igara poput BFV, BF1 MP itd.). No mislim da smo o ovome već raspravljali da se ne ponavljamo

imam pitanje, znam da nije tema al da ne ponavljam u nekoj drugoj temi kad je već tu napisano. Da li bi isto tako bila razlika sa Ryzenom i intelom da pokušava igrati na 144 fps? Dakle smanjiti detalje na low da bi se postigao što veći fps, pričam o 1080p gejmingu?

[Manuel Calavera]

Da, trebalo bi biti, jer je ipak gtx 1060 tu dosta limitirajući faktor. dva-tri fps-a gore-dolje tj. statistička greška na stranu...

[The Exiled]

Taiwan’s TSMC could be about to dethrone Intel

For more than 30 years, Intel Corp. has dominated chipmaking, producing the most important component in the bulk of the world’s computers. That run is now under threat from a company many Americans have never heard of. Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. was created in 1987 to churn out chips for companies that lacked the money to build their own facilities. The approach was famously dismissed at the time by Advanced Micro Devices Inc. founder Jerry Sanders. "Real men have fabs," he quipped at a conference, using industry lingo for factories. These days, ridicule has given way to envy as TSMC plants have risen to challenge Intel at the pinnacle of the $400 billion industry. AMD recently chose TSMC to make its most advanced processors, having spun off its own struggling factories years before. TSMC’s threat to Intel reflects a sea change in chipmaking that’s seen one company after another hire TSMC to manufacture the chips they design. Hsinchu-based TSMC has scores of customers, including tech giants Apple Inc. and Qualcomm Inc., second-tier players like AMD, and minnows such as Ampere Computing LLC. The explosion of components built this way has given TSMC the technical know-how needed to churn out the smallest, most efficient and powerful chips in the highest volumes.

It’s been a decade since Intel faced major competition and its 90 percent revenue share in computer processing will again deliver record results this year. But some on Wall Street are concerned, and rivals are emboldened, because TSMC has a real chance to replace Intel as the best chipmaker in the business. Last year, the Taiwanese company amassed a bigger market value than its U.S. rival for the first time. What Intel investors really worry about is that the largest internet companies will start making their own chips. This week, Amazon.com Inc., the biggest cloud-computing company, announced its first in-house server processor. The Graviton (1 - 2) is made by TSMC, and it supports a new version of an Amazon cloud service that’s more than 40 percent cheaper than a similar offering powered by Intel chips, the company said. Intel was the first to use 14-nanometer technology at scale in 2013, according to Goldman Sachs. It won’t have 10-nanometer ready for prime time until the end of 2019 -- by far the longest wait in its history. TSMC has gone from 20-nanometer to 7-nanometer production in the same time. Intel’s holdup revolves around yield, the number of good chips that emerge from each production run. In plants that cost about $7 billion and run 24 hours a day churning out millions of chips each month, the slightest hiccup can be disastrous financially. Intel hasn’t ironed out enough of these manufacturing wrinkles yet, and the company won’t shift to 10-nanometer production until it’s sure everything works properly.

TSMC didn’t catch Intel all by itself, though. The company’s real break came a decade ago when the smartphone began filling consumers’ pockets. Intel dabbled in mobile chips, but the U.S. company never committed its best production and design to the area, preferring to prioritize its existing cash cow PC and server chip businesses. When smartphone sales took off, phone makers used other processors from companies like Qualcomm. Or they designed their own using ARM technology, like Apple. And TSMC factories churned these components out. The smartphone business is now almost six times as big as the PC industry by volume. That’s given TSMC the advantage of high-volume manufacturing experience that previously belonged to Intel. With billions of transistors on chips, a problem with a small number of those tiny switches can render the whole component useless. Production runs can take up to six months and involve hundreds of steps requiring maniacal attention to detail. Each time there’s a mistake, the factory operator has a chance to make tweaks and try a new approach. If the change works, that information is retained to try on the next challenge. The more production runs, the better. And TSMC has the most nowadays.

Still, this is far from the first challenge Intel has faced. The company is working on its production problems, and in the meantime will deliver new chips built with existing production technology that it says will keep the opposition at bay. Navin Shenoy, head of Intel’s server division, argues nanometer-based production measures have never been the only factor of success (although the company liked to talk about this more in the past). Intel’s near-term solution is to design better chips using the old production technology. Historically, the company has squashed rivals using a research budget that dwarfed anything else in the industry. But TSMC’s approach is even undermining this advantage. While Intel still outguns TSMC in capital spending on new plants and equipment, the tables are turned when you combine the research budgets of TSMC customers like Qualcomm, Apple, Nvidia Corp. and Huawei Technologies Co. According to Goldman Sachs, the combined budgets of TSMC’s customers are not only larger than Intel but the gap is increasing. By 2020, they will spend almost $20 billion, according to its estimate, at least $4 billion more than Intel.

• Intel Exec discloses discrete GPU details and strategy

Izvor: Bloomberg i HotHardware