New
#1971
Which Z170 board are you running now? Anyway I vote Gigabyte, unless you already have one. I've been using Gigabyte boards since the Intel i7's first came out....
- Gigabyte GA-X58A-UD5 - i7-920, then i7-950
- Gigabyte G1 Sniper 5 (Z87 board) - i7-4770, then i7-4790K
- Gigabyte GA-Z170X-Gaming GT - i7-6700K
- Gigabyte GA-Z270X-Gaming 8 - i7-7700K
All these boards are upper end boards - the GT & Gaming 8 board second in lineup, the Sniper 5 top of the ladder. Anyway good quality boards as well as good overclockers. As you can see, I love Gigabyte boards and have never used an Asus board. In fact, I've never used any Asus parts in any of my PC builds.
Steve ,I have a video here about the two platforms X299 and X399
Honestly have you taken a look at X399 at all ?
In this video the reviewer focuses on that very thing people are leaning towards x399 maybe budget or how AMD is starting to get their stuff together
I want to see how they stack up
OMG... AMD is getting more coverage than Intel. Quick, throw my Intel systems out the Window
Self promotion with a high dosage of opinion. Much to do about nothing. Of course AMD is going to get a lot of coverage, they just launched a new series of products in competition with Intel. What's the news here???
Agreed. I thought he made some faulty assumptions. I watch Computex to see things that haven't been announced or released. What's coming to market in the next year. I only give motherboards a cursory glance, just to get platform features. We already knew, for the most part, what Intel was going to release and what 'Threadripper' was. If you don't know what the difference in X299 and X399 is, you're pretty lost anyway.
Now, put a CPU in those motherboards and I'll be watching closely. Show me some performance numbers, and I'll pay attention. I'm sorry Steve, I can't get excited about watching a motherboard sitting on a shelf when you are not going to tell me the performance, reliability or price. I get the fact he probably doesn't know any of that, so I don't watch a lot. But, that's just me. People are different, I know. As far as AMD vs Intel, no I'm not paying a lot of attention right now. Just my outlook on coverage. There was very little that came out of Computex, no matter who made the video, that captured my attention. Yes, I watched several videos. I turned about half of them off about half way through.
Yes, I'm just a grouchy old man, I guess.
No Steve, me and you see it the same way. Add that I don't get into the speculation game. Show me the real numbers, not the opinionated paper numbers. As we like to say, until we see it, it's all speculation.
Right now there's all sorts of speculation that AMD is going to supplant Intel but until that happens, it's all speculation.
Right now all I see is AMD and Intel having a core count war. Watch the AMD announcement of Ryzen and count how many times Lisa Su said "we have more cores". So, now Intel has said "No you don't". Core count is good, but there is a lot more that makes up a CPU than how many cores. Besides, as far as I'm concerned if you get over 10 cores, you are delving into the Industrial Server Market. There are few people who actually need 10 cores, certainly not more.
AMD has always played the core count game. I am just surprised Intel fell for playing that game for the home enthusiast market. Sure for the business/Industrial market. Regardless of price, who amongst us would even consider 18 cores / 36 threads? Yes, there are always the crazies who will buy biggest / fastest no matter how much it costs. But I doubt there are enough of them to justify the production/development costs. When Intel starts making large core count CPUs for the HEDT market, they are cutting into their Industrial sales, which is where they make most of their money. It is also why they are being so stingy on PCIe lanes with the HEDT chips, just so they don't hurt that market.