Support NeoGAF

[Ty4on]

...and 7700K and 6700K (mine) are pretty much equal, right?

They're equal per clock, but the new process of the 7700k means it generally overclocks higher and stock clocks are also higher.

So, is Ryzen the better choice for gaming...?

Does it have better single core performance?

No, not for gaming alone. This seems like it should have a ring bus which means the per core latency that plagued the Ryzen and LGA 2066 won't be a problem. That is the main reasons why the 7700K outperformed the Ryzen in most games. Ryzen is also very hard to push over 4Ghz so the per thread performance isn't quite as high.

There are obviously edge cases both with lower end parts and specific games where Ryzen did better, but generally the 7700K was the fastest CPU for gaming that money could buy so the main reason for getting Ryzen was if you also needed it for productivity or went for an R5 which usually outperformed the equivalently priced i5s in most games. If you have a specific game in mind, look it up as some CPU intensive games like ARMA 3 can perform differently to the average AAA title.

This seems to have a decent IPC bump and like it will overclock as well or better than Kaby Lake so I think it'll do really well for gaming. Nothing mind-blowing though, probably 15% max. I'm also talking about the i7; it will be interesting to see what the thread disadvantage does to the i5.

 

[Delusibeta]

While this should indicate that it's going to be the best CPU for gaming money can buy, it also seems to indicate that Intel really should start soldering on their heatspreaders instead of their (presumably cheaper) method of glue + thermal paste. I also don't see any indication that the Ryzen 5 1600 will be toppled from the bang per buck throne.

 

[longdi]

Im surprised 7800x does better in many multithreaded tests, when both are 6c/12t, 7800x is just a skylake

 

[dr_rus]

I guess I'll just wait for 8 core 10nm icelake then.

This will unlikely to be a big performance jump either - unless most of games released around the time Icelake will launch will actually have huge gains from +4 cores. Icelake looks to be mostly a power optimization right now meaning that it will consume less than 14nm gens while providing the same clocks and more cores.

Im surprised 7800x does better in many multithreaded tests, when both are 6c/12t, 7800x is just a skylake

Some workloads do gain a lot from quad channel memory configuration of HEDT.

While this should indicate that it's going to be the best CPU for gaming money can buy, it also seems to indicate that Intel really should start soldering on their heatspreaders instead of their (presumably cheaper) method of glue + thermal paste. I also don't see any indication that the Ryzen 5 1600 will be toppled from the bang per buck throne.

I think that 8000 series 6C/6T i5s will give Ryzen 5 a run for its money. This is arguably a bigger upgrade for Intel than the top i7s moving to 6C/12T.

 

[diehard]

Im surprised 7800x does better in many multithreaded tests, when both are 6c/12t, 7800x is just a skylake

Any test it wins on would be related to it having quad-channel memory. edit: Wow i'm way late.

The 7800x also has a different cache hierarchy which can help in a lot of scenarios that aren't dependent on cache latency (gaming isn't one of them).

 

[primasaurus]

Still rocking a i7 950, does the job well enough in Witcher 3 (coupled with a GTX 1070), 1080p max settings around 60fps in busy areas, it does hold the GPU back some, but not so bad that games are unplayable

But better CPU's are always welcome in a new rig

 

[ethomaz]

The 8700K has 2 extra cores that increase the heat and lower the performance.

He's saying that w/ the extra two cores, higher temperatures could possibly limit the frequencies that the boost clock hits regularly.

That makes no sense...

It should run most of time at 4.1Ghz to match the most of time 4.5Ghz of 7700K but the images shows it is at minimum 4.3GHz.

Temp is not affecting frequency if the minimum is 4.3Ghz that put it ahead 7700K at 4.5Ghz.

 

[ezodagrom]

That makes no sense...

It should run most of time at 4.1Ghz to match the most of time 4.5Ghz of 7700K but the images shows it is at minimum 4.3GHz.

Temp is not affecting frequency if the minimum is 4.3Ghz that put it ahead 7700K at 4.5Ghz.

The minimum is 3.7GHz despite what it says, I wonder if the results are accurate if it was truly running at 4.3GHz+.

 

[diehard]

Lack of Turbo Boost 3.0 is .. lame.

 

[XiaNaphryz]

Seriously considering jumping on this one. My 2600K is still working out fine thanks to OCing it and my GPU, but it's either this or wait for Icelake.

 

[mephixto]

Seriously considering jumping on this one. My 2600K is still working out fine thanks to OCing it and my GPU, but it's either this or wait for Icelake.

Me too, my old 3930k barely can hold any OC now, it's time to retire the champ. The best CPU and Mobo I ever owend, 5 years.

 

[Theonik]

He's saying that w/ the extra two cores, higher temperatures could possibly limit the frequencies that the boost clock hits regularly.

That was my point yes. Turbo works by dynamically scaling clocks based on core utilisation and thermal overhead.

Some workloads do gain a lot from quad channel memory configuration of HEDT.

There is also a different cache implementations that might lead to a different perf profile. Different platform implementation too.

That makes no sense...

It should run most of time at 4.1Ghz to match the most of time 4.5Ghz of 7700K but the images shows it is at minimum 4.3GHz.

Temp is not affecting frequency if the minimum is 4.3Ghz that put it ahead 7700K at 4.5Ghz.

? This is not always true and not every application benefits from having extra cores equally. If anything the multicore case can be inherently less efficient so you might get less perf.

 

[hoserx]

Me too, my old 3930k barely can hold any OC now, it's time to retire the champ. The best CPU and Mobo I ever owend, 5 years.

I'm still rocking my 3820k. What a great platform it's been. If your chip could hold an oc still, I'd say it would make sense to wait another gen, but I totally get it.

 

[Thunder_God_Bane]

I’m still using an i7 2700k with a gtx 970. I’m wondering whether it’s worth upgrading for gaming even tho I run everything maxed on a single 1080p monitor.

 

[ethomaz]

? This is not always true and not every application benefits from having extra cores equally. If anything the multicore case can be inherently less efficient so you might get less perf.

What?

It is the same applications/games used with fixed 4.5Ghz clock.

8700K fixed 4.5Ghz = 10% over 7700K fixed 4.7Ghz
8700K 4.3Ghz to 4.7Ghz = 7700K 4.2Ghz to 4.5Ghz

If 8700K is 10% better at the same clock then it could match the it at 4.1-4.2Ghz and it it showing it matching it running at over 4.3Ghz.

The minimum is 3.7GHz despite what it says, I wonder if the results are accurate if it was truly running at 4.3GHz+.

The images from the site says the minimum turbo clock was 4.3Ghz for 8700K and 4.2Ghz for 7700K.

 

[Theonik]

What?

It is the same applications/games used with fixed 4.5Ghz clock.


The images from the site says the minimum turbo clock was 4.3Ghz for 8700K and 4.2Ghz for 7700K.

We're talking abotu Turbo clocks being lower on average on the 8700k.

 

[ethomaz]

We're talking abotu Turbo clocks being lower on average on the 8700k.

Minimum turbo is 4.3Ghz for the 8700K in this benchmark.

Even at the minium boost clock 4.3Ghz (running 100% of the time) it will easily beat the 7700K at max boost clock (4.5Ghz).

There is absolutely something wrong with this benchmarks.

 

[Spooky Scary Skeleton]

Will this cpu improve the performance of ps3 emulator and cemu compared to 7700k?

 

[Flandy]

Seriously considering jumping on this one. My 2600K is still working out fine thanks to OCing it and my GPU, but it's either this or wait for Icelake.

I have a 2600k and I'm just gonna hold out for ice lake based off of this rumor
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1434114

I want to upgrade but I can wait another year

 

[ezodagrom]

Minimum turbo is 4.3Ghz for the 8700K in this benchmark.

Even at the minium boost clock 4.3Ghz (running 100% of the time) it will easily beat the 7700K at max boost clock (4.5Ghz).

There is absolutely something wrong with this benchmarks.

When it comes to the 7700K, 4.2GHz is its base clock, like how 3.7GHz is the 8700K's base clock.

Base / All core turbo / 1 core turbo
7700K: 4.2 / 4.4 / 4.5 GHz
8700K: 3.7 / 4.3 / 4.7 GHz

4.3GHz isn't the 8700K's minimum turbo, but the highest it can reach when all cores are under load.

 

[Theonik]

Minimum turbo is 4.3Ghz for the 8700K in this benchmark.

Even at the minium boost clock 4.3Ghz (running 100% of the time) it will easily beat the 7700K at max boost clock (4.5Ghz).

There is absolutely something wrong with this benchmarks.

You are making two assumptions here:
1) Those minimum values are true in typical use with all cores active. They are not, 4.3 is the max boost with 6 cores.
2) There is a significant IPC boost for these cores that justifies the clock gap. Not really true here.

Having the extra cores might not give extra performance in some cases but can decrease clocks and so performance.

 

[CreepingFear]

I think anyone with 6700k and above should probably hold off another year or two to see the going back and forth between Intel and AMD. I hope the rumors of Intel's next mainstream generation going 8 core are true. These are exciting times. I think AMD bringing competition is going to finally start to give us more cores.

 

[JWiLL]

I think anyone with 6700k and above should probably hold off another year or two to see the going back and forth between Intel and AMD. I hope the rumors of Intel's next mainstream generation going 8 core are true. These are exciting times. I think AMD bringing competition is going to finally start to give us more cores.

I have a 6700k and the only reason I'm considering an upgrade is so I can stream Overwatch without my stream randomly chugging. It runs beautifully most of the time, but no matter how I spec OBS, I always end up with 1.5%ish dropped frames.

I want to hit that crispy 60fps consistently.

 

[Mrbob]

That Witcher benchmark seems off. I'll wait for more reviews first.

Those looking at Ryzen vs Intel, wait for the full suite of reviews to hit. Should be about 10 days from now. The 8700k is going to be the best gaming cpu, but how much will it cost? And how much faster if it from the competition? If it's 15-20% faster than the Ryzen 1600 but it's 400 dollars, well, that's twice the cost as the 1600 is 200 dollars.

 

[Kaako]

Hmmm. Not as sexy as I'd like. Let's see what's in store with more reviews coming in soon.

 

[isamu]

Still not worth upgrading my 4790k it seems. Maybe next gen.

I'm rocking a 4790K as well, but I still want this CPU, because I want to hit 5.0Ghz. I play iracing and that game is 90% CPU bound, and requires a shit ton of processing power. Will this 8700k hit 5.0Ghz on a decent cooler(ie the Kraken)?

 

[hoserx]

I'm rocking a 4790K as well, but I still want this CPU, because I want to hit 5.0Ghz. I play iracing and that game is 90% CPU bound, and requires a shit ton of processing power. Will this 8700k hit 5.0Ghz on a decent cooler(ie the Kraken)?

It's not even out yet. No one knows what it'll do. Is it possible? Sure. Depends on how the silicon lottery goes for ya, among other factors like ambient temps and the motherboard you've chosen.

 

[Kaako]

I'm rocking a 4790K as well, but I still want this CPU, because I want to hit 5.0Ghz. I play iracing and that game is 90% CPU bound, and requires a shit ton of processing power. Will this 8700k hit 5.0Ghz on a decent cooler(ie the Kraken)?

With those turbo boost clocks already I don't know if these will be hitting 5Ghz stable with decent temps. I sure as shit hope so.

 

[CreepingFear]

I have a 6700k and the only reason I'm considering an upgrade is so I can stream Overwatch without my stream randomly chugging. It runs beautifully most of the time, but no matter how I spec OBS, I always end up with 1.5%ish dropped frames.

I want to hit that crispy 60fps consistently.

Fair enough, but I still believe in two PC stream setups. I have an older 2600k PC laying around that I could use for dedicated streaming.

 

[Diablohead]

I have a 6700k and the only reason I'm considering an upgrade is so I can stream Overwatch without my stream randomly chugging. It runs beautifully most of the time, but no matter how I spec OBS, I always end up with 1.5%ish dropped frames.

I want to hit that crispy 60fps consistently.

dropped frames might not be your processor and could be a mix of things, my 9500 can stream overwatch at 720p 60 without trouble but my only bother is I would have to use a very fast encoder which doesn't like fast motion.

It's hard to pinpoint problems like those dropped frames when they are so little.

 

[Rushersauce]

I'm rocking a 4790K as well, but I still want this CPU, because I want to hit 5.0Ghz. I play iracing and that game is 90% CPU bound, and requires a shit ton of processing power. Will this 8700k hit 5.0Ghz on a decent cooler(ie the Kraken)?

No.

 

[Lettuce]

So, is Ryzen the better choice for gaming...?

Does it have better single core performance?

Does the Ryzen chip run hotter than the surface of the sun like previous AMD chips though?

 

[dr_rus]

I have a 2600k and I'm just gonna hold out for ice lake based off of this rumor
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1434114

I want to upgrade but I can wait another year

This rumor is from WCCFTech who just casually thrown Icelake against Z390 chipset while Icelake as a new architecture will most certainly need a new PCH, not the Cannonlake one. It may be possible that Intel will add 8C/16T Coffeelake to the lineup in 2018 but I wouldn't expect Icelake until 2019. An 8C CFL is unlikely to beat 8700K either as it will run hotter and this in turn means less sustained clocks.

That Witcher benchmark seems off. I'll wait for more reviews first.

Those looking at Ryzen vs Intel, wait for the full suite of reviews to hit. Should be about 10 days from now. The 8700k is going to be the best gaming cpu, but how much will it cost? And how much faster if it from the competition? If it's 15-20% faster than the Ryzen 1600 but it's 400 dollars, well, that's twice the cost as the 1600 is 200 dollars.

The 8000 series prices were officially announced today: https://www.anandtech.com/show/1186...ation-coffee-lake-hex-core-desktop-processors

 

[dr_rus]

dp

 

[Steel]

Does the Ryzen chip run hotter than the surface of the sun like previous AMD chips though?

Nah, they run cooler than intel's chips, actually. They're not as good for gaming as a 7700k, but a 1600 is as good as a 7600k in gaming(better at everything else) for a cheaper price. It's intel that's been melting things lately.

 

[Glass]

So utterly confused about all Intels CPU's of late (as someone who just dips their toes into this when it comes time to upgrade) but its time to retire my i5-2500k, and get a new mobo and upgrade to 16gb ram at the same time, so think I'll have to bite.

 

[thelastword]

Those temps won't be great...and it seems AIO coolers is what will be necessary for most of those intel chips going forward, if you want to maintain a proper OC that is...maybe with a little delidding prior to as well....

 

[Camoxide]

Hmmm. Is it worth upgrading from an i5 3570K at 4.5Ghz?

 

[Bony Manifesto]

I have a 6700k and the only reason I'm considering an upgrade is so I can stream Overwatch without my stream randomly chugging. It runs beautifully most of the time, but no matter how I spec OBS, I always end up with 1.5%ish dropped frames.

I want to hit that crispy 60fps consistently.

With a 6700K you should be well above 60fps at all times in Overwatch, even when streaming. Unless you're using some high quality encoding settings, I don't think your CPU is the bottleneck.

 

[UnderWaterTree]

the productivity boost is good intel really as lacking there

 

[Damaniel]

My question is how will this perform compared to Intel's existing 6-core CPUs (like the i7-5820K)?

 

[Leonidas]

Are the 6-Core i5s expected to be better than the old 4C/8T i7s?

 

[Neith]

I feel good about getting a 6700k and sticking with that for a few more years now.

I feel good about my 2600K at this point lol.

 

[Unstable]

Are the 6-Core i5s expected to be better than the old 4C/8T i7s?

Yes. 2 real cores > 4 virtual ones.

 

[Mr Swine]

Are the 6-Core i5s expected to be better than the old 4C/8T i7s?

Yes and no I think, I think in some cases 6 cores are better than 4 cores with HT and vice versa. But someone would have to correct me though

 

[ezodagrom]

Are the 6-Core i5s expected to be better than the old 4C/8T i7s?

Yeah, I'm expecting them to be better when running at the same clock.

 

[Unstable]

My question is how will this perform compared to Intel's existing 6-core CPUs (like the i7-5820K)?

Very, very similarly. I'd imagine.

 

[ZOONAMI]

That’s a pretty good deal on that 8600k

I’d probably get a 1600 for $200 for the extra threads instead though. I don’t think intel is pricing these aggressively enough given the ryzen core and thread advantage for less money.

I guess the non k clocks are about as fast as an ocd ryzen though, but you're stilling losing cores and threads for the same money.

If all you care about is games though I guess the 8600k and 8700k will sell well. Also I do think there’s a fair amount of blind intel loyalty given their dominance in cpus for literally a decade.

 

[Timu]

Hitman and Witcher 3 got some improvements that I didn't expect!

 

[ethomaz]

When it comes to the 7700K, 4.2GHz is its base clock, like how 3.7GHz is the 8700K's base clock.

Base / All core turbo / 1 core turbo
7700K: 4.2 / 4.4 / 4.5 GHz
8700K: 3.7 / 4.3 / 4.7 GHz

4.3GHz isn't the 8700K's minimum turbo, but the highest it can reach when all cores are under load.

I know the base clock (3.8Ghz and not 3.7Ghz) but the bench was not running at base clock.

8700k: 4.3 - 4.7Ghz
7700k: 4.2 - 4.5Ghz

4.3Ghz was the minimum clock the CPU got when running the benchmark.

You are making two assumptions here:
1) Those minimum values are true in typical use with all cores active. They are not, 4.3 is the max boost with 6 cores.
2) There is a significant IPC boost for these cores that justifies the clock gap. Not really true here.

Having the extra cores might not give extra performance in some cases but can decrease clocks and so performance.

That has nothing related with what I found weird...

The benchmark shows 8700k running with clocks between 4.3 and 4.7Ghz while 7700k ran between 4.2 and 4.5Ghz.