I have a 5930K@4.5GHz. In 2-3 years, I am looking at a possible Intel 10-12 core and not a weak 8 core today or will be in the future, but whatever...
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Intel responds to i7-7700K high temp. issue tells owners they shouldn't overclock
- Thread starter ·feist·
- Start date
I have a 5930K@4.5GHz. In 2-3 years, I am looking at a possible Intel 10-12 core and not a weak 8 core today or will be in the future, but whatever...
Hoffelcopter
Member
I sure don't. No issues with mine. Even during full load the highest mine has gotten at 4.6ghz is 73*C with a Cryorig H7
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
I've got a 5820K @ 4.5Ghz? The Ryzen 8-cores aren't 'weak' that's your poor judgement if you think they are.
IlGialloMondadori
Member
6700k has temp spike issues, too. Annoying, but seems harmless...so far...after having my 6700k since the 6700k launched.
Skyfireblaze
Member
That's exactly the dilemma I'm in. I currently have a 3570k which lasted me for around 4 years that I want to upgrade by the end of the year. But how should my upgrade go? I would like my next CPU to be a future-proofing upgrade that lasts me another 4 years so I want something beyond a quad-core which seems quite hard to achieve. My primary usage is gaming which means if I go Ryzen I would need to gamble 100% on games scaling better with more cores in the future because the single-core IPC performance seems quite lackluster. And while Intel still is king here the issue with the 7700k makes me worry while at the same time the cheapest Intel six-core I can buy here right now is 400€ and no way in hell I'm paying 400€ for a CPU alone when I still have to replace my board and RAM along with it :/
Nevermind that I would need to factor in another 50-60€ for a new heatsink as, while my current Coolermaster Hyper TX3 Evo still does the job, I want a bit more headroom.
From the reviews, it's weaker than my cpu that come out almost 3 years ago. Continue keeping up your performance / price ratio crusade. It's off topic so there's no point for me to continue and keep on clogging this thread.
I can tell when playing VR, that's for sure. (Since 90fps is the minimum, and I notice the artifacts when I drop below)
TC McQueen
Member
Eh, if you play any games now that tend to be multi-threaded (or can be forced to be multi-threaded, like UE3 games), then jumping to a 1600(X) is a good move. I had a 3570K myself and Mass Effect: Andromeda brought it to its knees, with one area in particular maxing out the CPU just by standing there. Got a 1600X and the only time the CPU maxes out is when the game starts and I load a save.
Also, because the 1600X has 6 cores, I managed to double XCOM 2's performance with a GTX 970 by making 4 cores handle shaders, which got me to 1080p 60FPS from 1080P 30FPS.
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
Weaker? In what world? Knitoe & Son's?
Ryzen's IPC is around Broadwell's, so in advance of your Haswell-based chip.
jim2point0
Banned
Based on that picture I still don't know if it's easy and I'm terrified of trying it myself. I'd like to because I can't overclock my 7700k at all without getting into unreasonable heat territory. I'm already at 65 average when playing Battlefield 1. This is with an AIO cooler after about an hour, mind you (when they reach their max temps for a given workload). The voltage increase I'd need for even just 4.9Ghz would get into "too hot" territory for me.
Delidding would lower my temps to "nice and cool" when gaming, and I'd feel a lot better about trying to overclock. Though the only game I'm remotely CPU limited in is Breath of the Wild via CEMU.
I don't remember at what point it changed, but I swear back in the days, even CPUs that would be "unlocked" were not advertised as such by companies.
Pretty sure someone at the legal department of Intel is having the day of his life. "Told you guys we should never have removed that fine print". Since when did they stop telling consumer overclocking was a risk ? I'll give you it has become safer and easier. But still, Intel should be aware there are risks. And now the risk is their reputation. Which is all the more damaging.
Pretty sure someone at the legal department of Intel is having the day of his life. "Told you guys we should never have removed that fine print". Since when did they stop telling consumer overclocking was a risk ? I'll give you it has become safer and easier. But still, Intel should be aware there are risks. And now the risk is their reputation. Which is all the more damaging.
Rushersauce
Banned
There are services where I believe you can send your CPU in or buy one pre-delidded (google).
And yeah, I do get that the cost is annoyingly above and beyond than what you *should* be paying for an Intel CPU. (And should make you reconsider the competition) That's coke and hooker money.
They are, but they continue to lag behind in the enthusiast section. There are better products from both nVIDIA and Intel.
jim2point0
Banned
$50 to send it to SiliconLottery. Which I would do in a heartbeat would it not leave me without a CPU for a week (ship to them, delid, ship back). Can't have that, unfortunately.
Recently replaced my 6600k for a 7700k before this news 
I can certainly vouch for the chip running hotter than my 6600 at similar clock (4.6 currently) by about 10c. Delidding kit is on its way and I do hope that will do the trick as Im not really in the mood to replace my mobo and go a different route yet.
I can certainly vouch for the chip running hotter than my 6600 at similar clock (4.6 currently) by about 10c. Delidding kit is on its way and I do hope that will do the trick as Im not really in the mood to replace my mobo and go a different route yet.TheLostBigBoss
Banned
Whats the next letter after "K"?
·feist·;236079604 said:
Hmm if you read the intel warranty that is linked in that reply, there is only a warning by intel that they are not responsible for the norrmal operation of the CPU if you overclock or downclock but it doesn't void the warranty.
what voids the warranty:
In the world where I posted gaming screenshots and anyone can google many other reviews that clearly show they have slower fps? We must be living in different worlds...
Skyfireblaze
Member
I have the same issue in Battlefield 1 where on many maps my CPU is just pegged at 99% in multiplayer taking my GTX 1070 down with it :/ That's the only game where I notice my 3570k is near the end for me but I'm sure there will be more of that in the future. I'll see where Ryzen is at by the end of the year, for now I'm riding it out as I wait for further price-drops.
Interesting that manual core-management can make such a difference though. Out of curiosity, how would I go about this along with forcing UE3 games to use more threads?
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
And I could post about 10 screenies where the 5930K gets demolished by a 1800X but I won't because your mind is made up. So enjoy yourself.
Seems, unlike you, I have no problems being proven wrong. Go ahead, post them recent AAA games scores.
TC McQueen
Member
Just follow this guide (copied off Steam):
I think ThreadedShaderCompileThreshold has the most impact on CPU heavy games like XCOM, just due to the sheer amount of effects the game has, but if you go Ryzen, you can experiment with different core counts to see what works best for each game. I suspect something like Mass Effect 2 wouldn't need more than 2 cores for shaders for best performance, while the Arkham games might need 4.
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
http://www.game-debate.com/cpu/inde...ryzen-r7-1800x-vs-core-i7-5930k-6-core-3-5ghz
Not very smart of you to take that stance...
Isnt that just an automated number crunching website that predicts how well a game runs based on cpu specs?
It's as bad as citing v gchartz
I am sorry, but WTF did you linked? It's like one of those dumb generic cpu comparison chart site.
This is what I want to see. A real review.
http://www.pcgamer.com/gaming-performance-of-ryzen-7-vs-core-i7-with-geforce-gtx-1080-ti/
Overclocked R7 1700 vs. i7-5930K with the fastest graphics card on the planet.
With an overclocked Ryzen 7 1700 as the AMD contender, pitting it against my regular GPU testbed is a nearly perfect fight. My Intel testbed is running an i7-5930K overclocked to 4.2GHzI could push it to 4.5GHz, thanks to the liquid cooling, but I 4.2GHz with a decent air cooler (like the one in the AMD Ryzen system) seems a bit more of a fair fight.
The 1800x seems generally closer to i5's in gaming: http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreview...review-premiere-blender-fps-benchmarks/page-7
Pagusas
Elden Member
Just for shits and giggles I ran 5820k vs 6700k:
Rofl they seem to have a very simple text template for the comparisons.
The R5 CPU's are pretty damned legit, especially if you do production work etc. Right now it's like R5- mid-range, i7- high-end. (For gaming)
Hey, AMD Ryzens are good CPUs. Specially for the price. Right now I would recommend them over Intel's HEDT. But there's no reason to upgrade to them from them either and we have to say tha truth. Ryzen IPC seems to be between Haswell and Broadwell, but the difference between those Intel processors is already small, between 3% and 8%. And Haswell OC's better than Broadwell and much better than Ryzen.
Yeah it seems Ryzen is a viable choice anyways.
ss_lemonade
Member
Yikes. Surely you have a better source than that?
Frankfurter
Member
There is lots to praise about Ryzen. The R7 are a bit behind their Intel counterparts in gaming, but the longer you intend to own that CPU, the more interesting the Ryzens get (more threads, more CPU cores is gonna help in the future, we don't know the extent though). R5s are actually pretty much on par with their i5 counterparts in gaming, sometimes even in front + the time thing again is on AMDs side.
And for pretty much everything besides gaming, Ryzens are a no-brainer. No reason at all to get anything from the i5 or i7 line, unless you wanna go down the 1000$+ route.
Yep, when I was building my system with a 6700k, with a 212 evo I was getting 80C to 90C temps on CPU benchmarks with an average overclock.. I've noticed that it seemed to be spikes with various benchmark software (the Time Spy 3DMark CPU test was typically killer.) Standard gaming and CPU intensive activities never really get me over 70- 75C on average. I think these newer Intel CPUs just run hotter. 90+ though is insane.
PlayALLtheGames
Banned
I stress-tested mine on air before de-lidding + liquid ultra and after at 4.5 and 4.8Ghz - seemed to do quite well. I actually ran at 5Ghz (post de-lid) just to see if it would stay up and played ~hour-hour of Watch Dogs 2 with no issues. Temps were high but it was a $30 Intel cooler.
I've since put it on water but I've got a few things left to do before I fire that machine up.
Bullshit response though.
"Buy a $350 unlocked CPU!...but don't do anything to it."
I've since put it on water but I've got a few things left to do before I fire that machine up.
Bullshit response though.
"Buy a $350 unlocked CPU!...but don't do anything to it."
Haha, this thread is hilarious. The i7-7700k seems like it might have issues with temperature spikes, and the resident AMD enthusiasts decided this was a good time to knock on the door and offer everybody some literature. AMD's Ryzen is in no way a good substitute for a 7700k for gaming, and I have no idea why they would try to present it as one.
On topic: Wouldn't the spike in temperature indicate that the processor is processing a heavy load of some sort? If that's the case then logic would indicate eliminating these spikes would slow at least some of the work the processor does down. I'd imagine any good solution would have to wait for the next iteration of Intels processors.
On topic: Wouldn't the spike in temperature indicate that the processor is processing a heavy load of some sort? If that's the case then logic would indicate eliminating these spikes would slow at least some of the work the processor does down. I'd imagine any good solution would have to wait for the next iteration of Intels processors.
Frankfurter
Member
Looking at the benchmarks a few posts above the 7700K performs netter than the 1800X.
Looking at newegg, it is also cheaper.
I would say it depends on the price difference.
I got a 4960K because it was ~10-20$ more expensive than the non-K version.
I don't usually OC my CPU until its time to replace it (so i wont care if it dies).
Because if you are buying a 7700k for gaming then you are buying it because it's the single fastest processor for gaming. As the charts posted show there are multiple Intel processors that outperform the Ryzen line up.
The 1800x seems generally closer to i5's in gaming: http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreview...review-premiere-blender-fps-benchmarks/page-7
That i5 quote pisses me off.
Firstly, launch date benchmarks.
Secondly, those i5's are shitting themselves with 99% cpu usage as of today. Ryzen 7's ~40% and Ryzen 5's 50%
Search youtube channels such as duderandom and TestingGames. Look for the cpu usage. I always say you shouldn't judge Ryzen's worth with todays games.
So you want people to buy a computer part based on potential as-of-yet-unknown future performance? Ryzen (and it's hardware compatibility) is still heavily in the process of being updated across the board IIRC, so it's performance may be changing week to week.
Also Gamersnexus actually went back and revisited the 1700/1700x after some updates a month later, but I didn't post it because people were talking about the 1800x (actually, they may have re-benched the 1800x as well but I missed it, apologies): http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/2865-ryzen-revisit-ram-overclock-windows-update-efi-updates
I don't think a 7700k would even provide any sort of noticeable performance increase over a 4.7ghz 4790k
That is one optimized game if it's maxing out all cores all the time!
(i5s are doing just fine)
Also doesnt a 1600x do better than the 7s generally for single core?
I thought i saw some 1600x benches with the ryzen pretty much in a dead heat with intels best chips.
The 1600x is an excellent gaming cpu. It's constantly sold out at my microcenter.
i5's are not shitting themselves, they are properly utilizing all of the available HW to give you actual performance. While if your assertion on 40-50% utilization is correct, it means that 50-60% of the ryzen CPU is just a waste of HW for gaming purposes.
This is the main problem with AMD, their HW is always going be good for the future, but performs worse when compared at current conditions.
Same with their GCN GPU archetecture, it was good for DX12/vulkan when most games were dx11/9/OGL.
The problem with this attitude is that by the time games advance to the new APIs/programming styles that utilize those extra 50-60% intel/nvidia will already have a new generation of HW that does it as well.
It can be read anyway you'd chose. The way I meant it to be read is: My money will never go to buy any CPU that is pegged at 99% usage gaming wise while there are others that are within 20% of the performance with only 40% usage.
If you buy a cpu every 6 months then go for the current best scorer. If you buy one every two years like me, no i5's and the only i7 that would be worth is the 6900k but never for 1200 euro.
Ryzen changed the market picture for everyone that buys long term.
ps: i5's are shitting themselves, HARD.
Dreams-Visions
Member
so I'm a noob at CPU overclocking and I have a 6700k along side my 1080 FTW (soon to be 1080Ti).
You can easily see a 22+ fps difference.
And, by the time I upgrade my cpu, I start over fresh so lasting 2 gen means nothing for me.
If I'm looking at this correctly, the only thing you hope for by significantly overclocking my CPU (and potentially introducing heat, lifespan and stability issues) is 3-5 fps?
Is there anything I'm missing here that makes it something worth doing outside of the satisfaction of saying you did it? Are there other games that benefit meaningfully more? Or...nah?