• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Intel to launch 6 core Coffee Lake-S CPUs & Z370 chipset 5 October 2017

Intreasting that the same CPU running at the same speed can have such a large difference in performance, what's going on with that chart? the 1950X and 1920X are the same CPU, at lower speed its apparently faster... WTF?

Also i3 pretty much the same performance as the i7?

Edit: Oh, Gamers Nexus. figures.... please don't soil this good thread with trash :P
 
humbug said:
You're either incapable of or just not reading what i'm telling you. ^^^



You've just repeated what i have already said, you're agreeing with me on that, at least.
This is why Intel's user base will not switch to higher core count CPU's like the 12 thread 8700K, instead will most likely move to the 6 core i5 or the 4 core i3, what i'm saying is Intel will simply lose out of the higher revenue of the smaller, lower core count more expensive 4 core i7's, which currently makes up about half of Intel's total Desktop CPU sales.

I already said all of this, why am i saying it again?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure about that, we will have to wait and see. If anything has been learned over the last few years is that the i7's are ageing better than the i5's. HT has helped the older i7s against newer i5's

AndreiD said:
@gavinh87 :D
threadripper-bf1-benchmark.png

32 threads slower than 4, hmm....
Click to expand...

Wow, my 1700 is almost as fast as a stock 7600k :(
 
gavinh87 said:
I'm not sure about that, we will have to wait and see. If anything has been learned over the last few years is that the i7's are ageing better than the i5's. HT has helped the older i7s against newer i5's



Wow, my 1700 is almost as fast as a stock 7600k :(
Click to expand...

Think of it this way, Stock (3.0Ghz) its only about 10% slower than a 5.1Ghz Overclocked 7700K.
 
It's because XFR gets disabled when you overclock and with XFR the TR reaches up to 4.1~4.2Ghz on some cores. So in cases where it's single threaded performance limited, OC-ing to 4Ghz is detrimental it seems.
And yeah, in a lot of games the OC-ed i3 can be pretty good, unless they start spanning over 4 threads.

This is the GamersNexus review I took that slide from:
https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/3015-amd-threadripper-1950x-1920x-review/page-2
 
humbug said:
Think of it this way, Stock its only about 10% slower than a 5.1Ghz Overclocked 7700K.
Click to expand...

True, but this is a title that can use the extra cores. That gap would grow in an older title or something like an early access game.
This is why the 8700k interests me, higher single performance for bad engines and it has the cores available for games that can use them

If early cinebench results are anything to go by the 8700k offers 25% single core improvement and a 5% loss in multicore against a 1800x. Not a bad trade off imo.
 
AndreiD said:
It's because XFR gets disabled when you overclock and with XFR the TR reaches up to 4.1~4.2Ghz on some cores. So in cases where it's single threaded performance limited, OC-ing to 4Ghz is detrimental it seems.
And yeah, in a lot of games the OC-ed i3 can be pretty good, unless they start spanning over 4 threads.

This is the GamersNexus review I took that slide from:
https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/3015-amd-threadripper-1950x-1920x-review/page-2
Click to expand...

I know where it came from, Gamers Nexus never have been much good at this benchmarking malarkey, this is a prime example of it, somehow they managed to find a part of BF1 where pretty much on all CPU's the game is GPU bound, even with the 4 thread i3's and i5's in a game we know uses upto 8, mean you can't be serious when you look a the 3.0Ghz 1700 and the 5.1Ghz 7700K and see only a 10% difference and then also look at the i5 and i3 at about the same speed and see about the same difference again? wow that 1700 has some serious IPC. no?

I mean, i know what you think of me so 3.0Ghz 1700 vs 5.1Ghz 7700K ~10% i'll take it, great slide.

No, its just more Gamers Nexus shenanigans. its a good channel but they need to sack the fizzy haired guy, he comes up with some crap sometimes too, like "HEDT CPU's being pointless because of CUDA", please get rid of him.

I know what you used it for, you're trying to say even BF1 only uses 2 or so threads, and yet a 16 thread Ryzen running at 3Ghz is keeping up with a 5.1Ghz 7700K, how is that working? two threads two different CPU's one 3Ghz the other 5.1Ghz 10%, think....

Please, no Gamers Nexus slides....
 
Last edited:
humbug said:
I know where it came from, Gamers Nexus never have been much good at this benchmarking malarkey, this is a prime example of it, somehow they managed to find a part of BF1 where pretty much on all CPU's the game is GPU bound, even with the 4 thread i3's and i5's in a game we know uses upto 8, mean you can't be serious when you look a the 3.0Ghz 1700 and the 5.1Ghz 7700K and see only a 10% difference and then also look at the i5 at about the same speed and see about the same difference again?

I mean, i know what you think of me so 3.0Ghz 1700 vs 5.1Ghz 7700K ~10% i'll take it, great slide.

No, its just more Gamers Nexus shenanigans. its a good channel but they need to sack the fizzy haired guy, he comes up with some crap sometimes too, like "HEDT CPU's being pointless because of CUDA", please get rid of him.
Click to expand...

Perhaps this is a better one
 
@humbug GamersNexus aren't good at benchmarking because you don't agree with the results? :D
Their methodology is top notch, a lot better than most tripe that passes for reviews these days, they have a page for it in most of their articles.

@Raffles1911 Supposedly around October.
 
Each to his own for core count, but next year if it's going up for both companies I'd rather have the 8 core on mainstream, even if games start using 6 cores then 2 more free = do more stuff at the same time. Just IMO of course.

Either way i will save up a chunk of change to see if anything is worth the upgrade.
 
jigger said:
What?
Click to expand...
Your attempt to call 1080p a game console res. There a many people still on that res, including many high refresh rate gamers.
Unless that wasn't a back handed attempt to call 1080p a console res, in which case I apologise.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom