Page 27 of 78 FirstFirst ...
17
25
26
27
28
29
37
77
... LastLast
  1. #521
    Quote Originally Posted by Life-Binder View Post
    "tailor for us" means not have gaming perf regressions via arch/cache tweaks like SKL-X apparently has in some games compared to BW-E

    which it wont, because whether you like it or not - they do very much market i5 and i7 to gamers all the time in their slides/presentations


    businesses have larger volumes, but they also dont care nearly as much about that performance and wont upgrade for it



    you're one to talk lol

    - - - Updated - - -


    Intel doesnt care about Europe ? lol
    ok, so you use the term tailor for us differently. That's not what it means. If something is tailor-made for you, that means it's a custom fit and everyone else be damned. If they tailor it for us, they are not doing anything at all to help with business performance, as they would throw that out the window to tailor make it better for gmaing. That is never going to happen.

    Yes, of course they MARKET to us. Because we are the segment that needs and pays attention to marketing. That doesn't mean they tailor the chips for us. Two totally separate things. Marketing deals with what they are given. Doesn't matter how good it is for one thing or the other, it is their job to market it. To market to businesses is easy. You sell them cheap to Dell and businesses buy them. No marketing needed. Gamers are a different matter. Many gamers eat marketing up and will base their decisions entirely on marketing hype. Just look at all the "gaming" keyboards, mice, chairs, cases, everything that has gaming in it's title. Of course they market to us. That has no bearing on what is being produced though.

    You also think businesses will not upgrade when it increases performance and therefore makes them more money? You are crazy.

  2. #522
    http://diy.pconline.com.cn/940/9405484_2.html

    ^ 6 gaming results for 7820X (Im assuming 2K means 1920x1080)


    yeah, the difference with 6900K should be a little bit more than that given the clocks, its only ahead in AotS and GTA5

  3. #523
    Quote Originally Posted by Life-Binder View Post
    http://diy.pconline.com.cn/940/9405484_2.html

    ^ 6 gaming results for 7820X (Im assuming 2K means 1920x1080)


    yeah, the difference with 6900K should be a little bit more than that given the clocks, its only ahead in AotS and GTA5
    Ecxept in GTA% with Crazy Ultra settings, the 1800X is really only a few % behind. Less than 10% for sure. Actually looks like that will put them pretty close price/performance wise, though the motherboards for the 1800X should be less expensive.

  4. #524
    the 8700K will change that .. really hoping it and 8600K will pull ahead of all other CPUs (both Intel and AMD) both in perf and price/perf, in gaming


    and anyway you need a way bigger number of games tested than 6 to fully evaluate gaming performance .. like 15+ at minimum, preferably 20+
    Last edited by Life-Binder; 2017-06-19 at 05:52 PM.

  5. #525
    Quote Originally Posted by Life-Binder View Post
    and anyway you need a way bigger number of games tested than 6 to fully evaluate gaming performance .. like 15+ at minimum, preferably 20+
    Yeah, based on my wording, "looks like it will put them" obviously this was just speculation and a guesstimate that they will end up similar in price/perf. I never said, "THESE THINGS ARE GOING TO BE THE EXACT PRICE/PERF OF THE 1800X BECAUSE THESE EARLY, UNVERIFIED BENCHMARKS OF A SMALL SAMPLE OF GAMES SAYS SO." I clearly used wording to get that across. "Looks like"(guessing), "will be"(in the future when we have concrete info) "pretty close" (purposefully ambiguous, not giving a win to either side).

    Obviously, based on my wording, anyone would know that this is not being taken as a full evaluation on gaming performance. Do you even english bro?

  6. #526
    lol why you so mad

    take a chill pill bruh

  7. #527
    Stood in the Fire mojo6912's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    433
    I wonder if they used day 1 release benchmarks for that 1800x. I also wonder why they didn't compare it to an overclocked 5.1ghz 7700k. I don't know I cant read it.

  8. #528
    the benchmarks should be recent because Ryzens RotR results there are definitely after the latest Ryzen-optimized patch, otherwise the 1800X result would be waay lower (really the Ryzen results in RotR pre-patch were abysmal)


    either way I havent seen that the BIOS updates for Ryzen increased the overall gaming fps in a meaningful way, it was the patches in the select games themselves (Warhammer, RotR)

    higher freq memory also benefits Ryzen in games, but the same is true for Skylake/Kaby as well

  9. #529
    some Coffee hypu

    http://wccftech.com/intels-coffee-la...4-2-ghz-turbo/

    Intel’s Coffee Lake-S Engineering Samples Spotted On SiSoft Sandra Database – 6 Core / 12 Thread Processors With 3.5 GHz Base Clock / 4.2 GHz+ Turbo

    Today we have some more leaked benchmarks for you, this time of the Coffee Lake variety. The benchmark in question stems from the venerable SiSoft Sandra database which recently listed a Coffee Lake 6 Core / 12 Thread processor. The entry can be found over here. Coffee Lake is the code-name of the platform that will carry forward the optimized 14nm architecture found in Kaby Lake to more than 4 cores for the mainstream segment.


    The entry shows a ‘6’ core mainstream Kaby Lake processor (aka the Coffee Lake-S lineup).

    The entry reads Genuine Intel CPU 000, is part of the KabyLake family and has 6 Cores/12 Threads. The processor is clocked at 3.5 GHz, which is a decent base clock for a hexa-core part and 94.97 GFLOPs on the SiSoft Sandra benchmark (not that this is a very good indicator of real-life performance). The processor has 256 KB of L2 per core and 9 MB of shared L3 cache. There is also a variant that supports 12 MB of L3 cache. Both are engineering samples and feature a turbo clock upwards of 4.2 GHz. The IMC is clocked at 2.7 GHz which means you are looking at DDR4 2700 MHz. You can expect all clocks on the final version to be at least this high, if not a few hundred MHz more.

    The Coffee Lake-S series will have two variants, a 4+2 (quad core + GT2 graphics) and 6+2 (hexa core + GT2 graphics). The 4+2 variant will have a die size of 126mm2 while the 6+2 variant will have a die size of 149mm2 which is same as the Coffee Lake-X variants.
    ingerprint sensor, NFC, Codec, Touch Screen, 6 Type A/C USB 3.1 Ports, UF Camera, ODD, HDD (2x SATA 3) and Douglas Peak controller that offers WiGig + Wi-Fi + BT support.
    12MB L3 sounds good

    with these ES showing up in public databases already I wonder if it means the August-September launch is real ?

  10. #530
    Quote Originally Posted by Life-Binder View Post
    with these ES showing up in public databases already I wonder if it means the August-September launch is real ?
    No. Unless Intel wants to rush some more. I would count for Q4 2017 at the earliest and CES 2018 as the most realistic release times.
    R5 5600X | Thermalright Silver Arrow IB-E Extreme | MSI MAG B550 Tomahawk | 16GB Crucial Ballistix DDR4-3600/CL16 | MSI GTX 1070 Gaming X | Corsair RM650x | Cooler Master HAF X | Logitech G400s | DREVO Excalibur 84 | Kingston HyperX Cloud II | BenQ XL2411T + LG 24MK430H-B

  11. #531
    Quote Originally Posted by Thunderball View Post
    No. Unless Intel wants to rush some more. I would count for Q4 2017 at the earliest and CES 2018 as the most realistic release times.
    Mm, if Intel likes their release cycles, it's January next year. But if they are threathened, they will rush it much like X299 seems to be. Then again we haven't seen much big problems on x299 yet, other than half of the line up being MiA.

  12. #532
    The Lightbringer Evildeffy's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Nieuwegein, Netherlands
    Posts
    3,772
    Quote Originally Posted by mrgreenthump View Post
    Mm, if Intel likes their release cycles, it's January next year. But if they are threathened, they will rush it much like X299 seems to be. Then again we haven't seen much big problems on x299 yet, other than half of the line up being MiA.
    Actually there are quite a few problems on X299 so far.
    Quite a bit of stability issues and performance gains vs. mostly RAM issues on the Ryzen platform.
    There's also the fact that some experience a drain of 70W more than rated TDP in some benchmarks and that the 140W TDP is 150W in reality from almost all reviewers.

    If such issues are being made out of 1 platform and called huge than the other platform should have the same criteria.

    Edit:
    As far as Coffee Lake hype goes, same deal as before.
    Either Intel is threatened and tries to rush it which may work of fail disastrously or they simply overhyped the launch window in order to try and not lose market to AMD's Ryzen.
    Rushing uArch production though... never a smart idea.

  13. #533
    X299 isnt even out yet actually, only pre-orders are out, I think 26-th+ June is when it launches

    theres just some BIOS updates still needed which should be done by the time people start receiving their mobos and CPUs

  14. #534
    The Lightbringer Evildeffy's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Nieuwegein, Netherlands
    Posts
    3,772
    Quote Originally Posted by Life-Binder View Post
    X299 isnt even out yet actually, only pre-orders are out, I think 26-th+ June is when it launches

    theres just some BIOS updates still needed which should be done by the time people start receiving their mobos and CPUs
    That doesn't change the issues and them still being present, release date is 26th of June 2017, like with AMD's Ryzen some manufacturers will be faster and slower than others which means these issues will make it live as the boards are already in production long before the BIOS versions hit.

    Same thing happened with Ryzen and you really cannot say AMD sucks when it happens to them but make an exception for Intel.

    Equal standards have to be applied across both platforms, neither is without issue and future iterations won't be either.
    But the general attitude towards either brand has to remain the same and no exceptions for A but not for B.

  15. #535
    Warchief vsb's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Mongoloid
    Posts
    2,166
    I'm software developer (Java, JavaScript, Intellij Idea, some VMs) and WoW gamer. I'm thinking about building PC, I'm using Macbook now, but it can barely run WoW with 700x450 resolution and have terrible build quality. I've thought about 7700K initially, but 8 cores look so sexy. I'm going to get something like 32-64 GB RAM and 1080 Ti video card. What do you think? Also I would like future-proof system, I'm trying to run hardware for 5-10 years.

  16. #536
    if you can afford it - X299 with a 7820X ($600 CPU) .. 8 cores + high clocks, ST and MT perf, more lanes than mainstream boards, quad channel etc.


    if you cant and also cant wait - then Ryzen R7, also 8 cores, but slower than X299 with less features, but also cheaper

    if you cant afford, but can wait - I would wait for Coffee Lake - "only" 6 cores, but potentially even better per core perf than X299 and also cheaper (the 6c/12t Coffee is expected to be ~$350+)



    ^ this is with gaming as a priority .. for non-gaming workloads (i.e. if you want as much lower clocked cores crammed in as possible over anything else) you would need to wait for Threadripper

  17. #537
    The Unstoppable Force DeltrusDisc's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Illinois, USA
    Posts
    20,085


    Interesting. First CPU to do battle with and win over the 7700K for gaming.
    "A flower.
    Yes. Upon your return, I will gift you a beautiful flower."

    "Remember. Remember... that we once lived..."

    Quote Originally Posted by mmocd061d7bab8 View Post
    yeh but lava is just very hot water

  18. #538
    Quote Originally Posted by Life-Binder View Post
    if you can afford it - X299 with a 7820X ($600 CPU) .. 8 cores + high clocks, ST and MT perf, more lanes than mainstream boards, quad channel etc.


    if you cant and also cant wait - then Ryzen R7, also 8 cores, but slower than X299 with less features, but also cheaper

    if you cant afford, but can wait - I would wait for Coffee Lake - "only" 6 cores, but potentially even better per core perf than X299 and also cheaper (the 6c/12t Coffee is expected to be ~$350+)



    ^ this is with gaming as a priority .. for non-gaming workloads (i.e. if you want as much lower clocked cores crammed in as possible over anything else) you would need to wait for Threadripper
    For gaming only you go for 7700K. Waiting for Coffee Lake might be a good option, but it's currently not obvious that 6c Coffee Lake part will be better for gaming. Both R7 and Skylake-X are not worth it for gaming only systems. People keep saying that we need more cores for gaming: WE DONT. There is only a handful of games that can even work with that much multithreading, and new ones are not going to pour on us soon enough (for at least a typical upgrade cycle, which is 3-4 years). What we actually need is processors with 7700K like per core performance, same bracket of thermals and overclocking room and more cores, on a cheap enough platform.
    R5 5600X | Thermalright Silver Arrow IB-E Extreme | MSI MAG B550 Tomahawk | 16GB Crucial Ballistix DDR4-3600/CL16 | MSI GTX 1070 Gaming X | Corsair RM650x | Cooler Master HAF X | Logitech G400s | DREVO Excalibur 84 | Kingston HyperX Cloud II | BenQ XL2411T + LG 24MK430H-B

  19. #539
    Conclusion

    The Intel Core i9-7900X is one of those joyful things to sum up because the precis is so easy; it's blisteringly fast.

    We fear that might not be enough though, so let's quickly run over the main points.

    The i7-6950X on a X99 motherboard that was, until now, the benchmark for insane desktop performance is hardly a bad setup and one that still eats most of the competition for breakfast. It is also new enough that we didn't really think the new i7-7900X would take much of a lead. Sure there might be the odd place here and there where the additional features and refinement that form the basis of the X299 chipset might be enough to secure victory, but we expected the two big Intel ten core processors to swap positions throughout our testing. That was patently not the case, with the i9-7900X romping home in first place in every test that doesn't start with the words "PC Mark 7".

    So it's insanely fast. That isn't all it has going for it.

    Tweaking in the BIOS can take two different directions depending upon the result you wish to obtain. If you want to overclock then the 7900X will reward your efforts by getting comfortably north of the 4 GHz mark, with 4.8 GHz supporting most of our tests and 4.6 GHz running everything without getting too hot. It is certainly a warm processor though, as you would expect from something with this much silicon under the cover, so a good cooling solution is a bare minimum. We'd certainly not want to cool this with anything smaller than a 240mm AIO if youre planninjg on overclocking and 1.2v is probably going to be a ceiling even with a cooler like this if you like a quiet system. Delis are a viable option to reduuce a speculated 20c-30c off of your load temps but this comes with a great deal of risk and totally voiding your warranty. However, if you think ten cores at 4 GHz will be enough performance for you - and unless you're Pixar it probably is - then the 7900X also rewards undervolting. We managed to get it down to 1v VCore with the temperatures dropping to just a hair over 50°C. Excellent.

    Lastly the price has to be taken into account. The i7-6950X that this replaces was £1500+ to buy, and you needed to get all the other parts on top of that. The i9-7900X hits the market at a much more - relatively - affordable £950 in comparison, which means if you've budgeted for a 6950X you can grab the 7900X and a motherboard and either a cooler or some RAM for the same money. With higher performance. It's just a win all round.

    We knew the Intel Core i9 7900X was going to be good, new Intel launches always are, but we didn't expect the gap between this processor and the previous ten core offering to be quite so wide. If you must have the absolute best then the i7-7900X is the processor for you, and so it wins our OC3D Enthusiast Award.
    interesting .

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Thunderball View Post
    For gaming only you go for 7700K. Waiting for Coffee Lake might be a good option, but it's currently not obvious that 6c Coffee Lake part will be better for gaming. Both R7 and Skylake-X are not worth it for gaming only systems. People keep saying that we need more cores for gaming: WE DONT. There is only a handful of games that can even work with that much multithreading, and new ones are not going to pour on us soon enough (for at least a typical upgrade cycle, which is 3-4 years). What we actually need is processors with 7700K like per core performance, same bracket of thermals and overclocking room and more cores, on a cheap enough platform.
    the person I was replying to said
    "but 8 cores look so sexy. Also I would like future-proof system, I'm trying to run hardware for 5-10 years."
    so it seems like 8 cores will fit him well and with 7820X you also dont sacrifice ST perf

    I would not buy a 7700K today for a 5-10 year system, even for gaming only

    I would either splurge for a 7820X/7800X or wait and get 8700K Coffee



    but it's currently not obvious that 6c Coffee Lake part will be better for gaming.
    to me its very obvious that it will be

    if not immediately on launch then certainly later it will pull away


    hell, even if it were the exact same gaming perf as the 7700K for the same $350 price - thats still worth waiting for in my book for the extra 2 cores, which might come in handy here or there



    What we actually need is processors with 7700K like per core performance, same bracket of thermals and overclocking room and more cores, on a cheap enough platform
    that is literally what Coffee will be, more or less
    Last edited by Life-Binder; 2017-06-22 at 08:39 PM.

  20. #540
    Quote Originally Posted by Thunderball View Post
    For gaming only you go for 7700K. Waiting for Coffee Lake might be a good option, but it's currently not obvious that 6c Coffee Lake part will be better for gaming. Both R7 and Skylake-X are not worth it for gaming only systems. People keep saying that we need more cores for gaming: WE DONT. There is only a handful of games that can even work with that much multithreading, and new ones are not going to pour on us soon enough (for at least a typical upgrade cycle, which is 3-4 years). What we actually need is processors with 7700K like per core performance, same bracket of thermals and overclocking room and more cores, on a cheap enough platform.
    I think that, at least for CPUs, the typical upgrade cycle has lengthened a bit. I'd guesstimate 4-6 years for a CPU nowadays really. Of course I'd also say take the 10% or so hit in current gaming performance and save $100+ and just get a R5 1600. As devs optimize for them that gap will close and if we do see games that utilize more cores in the 4-6 years of it's life, you'll be better prepared. If we don't, well, were talking less than 10 FPS difference in most cases.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •