• 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.

7700k Tested at Tom's Hardware

Oh well will skip this, just looks like an overclocked 6700K with a new number :P. No real improvements.

Will keep my eye on Zen then, wouldn't mind a move to an 8 core / 16 thread chip. Hopefully red team have something decent coming with Zen xD
 
Boomstick777 said:
Oh well will skip this, just looks like an overclocked 6700K with a new number :P. No real improvements.

Will keep my eye on Zen then, wouldn't mind a move to an 8 core / 16 thread chip. Hopefully red team have something decent coming with Zen xD
Click to expand...

Yeah I feel like Intel can't string this out any longer. Hopefully it's true that Coffee Lake will be up to 6 core. And also that Zen is very good.

Intel need to stop taking the mick with 4 core £300 chips, and AMD need to give Intel real competition.
 
Do we think that we will ever seen true multi core scaling being adopted? like will anyone ever really code games and such to scale better with the more cores you have available?

I really like the sound of Zen and as ive said numerous times, aslong as it matches or betters my 4770k in performance i will buy the 8/16 version purely to take advantage of the increased cores, in the hope that we eventually get stuff that will make use of them.

Is there anything out currently that scales better the more cores you have? any games etc?
 
SiDeards73 said:
Do we think that we will ever seen true multi core scaling being adopted? like will anyone ever really code games and such to scale better with the more cores you have available?
Click to expand...


Battlefield 1 scales very well for multithreading / multi-core. For minimum framerate an 8 thread + i7 or FX CPU get great results - in either DX11 or 12.
 
eddiew said:
Because we all have our own reasons for wanting faster CPUs, and 5 years later there still aren't any with significant improvements :(
Click to expand...

But that should be seen a better value for money, you have a good CPU which lasted 5 years. Would you rather have the option of a new CPU every 12 months priced the £300+ each time? Regardless if they give a significant speed bump plus the hassle of changing motherboards too if they changed the socket type each time?

It seems people (not all) just want new toys to play with and raising their expectations too high with new CPU releases.

There is the i7 Extreme series if people are disappointed with Intels current releases and want new toys to play with.
 
How come a die-shrink hasn't resulted in lower voltages? Starting to think the nm number is just a number that marketing bandy about. If it looks like Skylake, performs like Skylake and sucks power like Skylake...
 
malachi said:
But that should be seen a better value for money, you have a good CPU which lasted 5 years. Would you rather have the option of a new CPU every 12 months priced the £300+ each time? ...
Click to expand...

If there was a new CPU that was 50% faster, I'd still have the option to say "nah, my 2500k is good enough". Right now the option isn't really there, especially for those of us who would benefit more from single-thread performance improvements...
 
eddiew said:
How come a die-shrink hasn't resulted in lower voltages? Starting to think the nm number is just a number that marketing bandy about. If it looks like Skylake, performs like Skylake and sucks power like Skylake...
Click to expand...
Leakage current?

HJonestly, I don't know enough about it to know the answer to this. We do know that most of the new transistors that can fit on a die due to the smaller process node are currently being used for the integrated GPUs and specialist fixed-functions, e.g. video decoding.
 
eddiew said:
If there was a new CPU that was 50% faster, I'd still have the option to say "nah, my 2500k is good enough". Right now the option isn't really there, especially for those of us who would benefit more from single-thread performance improvements...
Click to expand...

there is cpus 50 percent faster.:confused:
 
~>Dg<~ said:
there is cpus 50 percent faster.:confused:
Click to expand...

Single threaded? I'm not aware of anything that will be much more than 20-25% better than an overclocked 2500k... They're faster, but not that much faster that I'll be wowed by how awesome it is.

Multi threaded I agree, yeah, there's options, but that's not my particular gripe :)
 
SiDeards73 said:
Do we think that we will ever seen true multi core scaling being adopted? like will anyone ever really code games and such to scale better with the more cores you have available?
Click to expand...

Yes, definitely. It's just still fairly early days in that regard.

Probably by end of 2018 we'll see a lot of games scaling to 6 cores, and some to 8.

The consoles will drive the push to coding multi-core (they both have 8 cores), and they're still fairly young in the cycle. So I think once the PS4Pro and Xbox Scorpion have been out for ~2 years, and they're really trying to wring all the power they can out of them, we'll finally start to see core scaling take off.
 
~>Dg<~ said:
there is cpus 50 percent faster.:confused:
Click to expand...

Clock for clock it's at most 25% in terms of IPC. If IPC was only slowly being improved a lot of users have got use to higher and higher clockrates from overclocking but there's not been any real gain there either most quad core CPU's tapout anywhere between 4.6 and 4.8 with only a handful getting to 5Ghz.
 
Freddie1980 said:
Clock for clock it's at most 25% in terms of IPC. If IPC was only slowly being improved a lot of users have got use to higher and higher clockrates from overclocking but there's not been any real gain there either most quad core CPU's tapout anywhere between 4.6 and 4.8 with only a handful getting to 5Ghz.
Click to expand...

Yer, at a push I can squeeze 4.8 out of my 2500k, but it needs something like 1.41v and all fans on maximum, so I prefer to keep it slower and cooler. From the looks of the Tom's review, that 7700k is a magma demon with a tin hat, so I don't fancy my chances of keeping it on a leash at full tilt :/
 
DragonQ said:
For gaming at 1080p or higher, the GPU is always the main bottleneck these days.
Click to expand...

I'm currently running BF1 at 1440p and my GPU is so badly bottlenecked by my 2500k that it often sits around 50% GPU usage. A 6700k would improve things, but the performance increase gained from going to a 6700k from a 2500k is not worth the cost of a new CPU, Motherboard, RAM and Win 10.
 
gavinh87 said:
Toms hardware have retested this and have blamed certain issues on the motherboard used.

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-core-i7-7700k-kaby-lake-overclocking-update,33119.html
Click to expand...

Interesting.

So it was mostly the Gigabyte Motherboard's fault. And they also say they think their 6700k is a golden sample (so draws below average power, and runs cooler than normal).

At 1.3V and 4.8 GHz the 7700k sample consumed 170W. That should be fine to cool (think they were using the stock cooler?).

And since they've already showed a huge difference based on motherboard firmware, it's plausible to think a Z270 motherboard would make the 7700k run even better. And also it's an ES and not a final retail CPU, so could be a poor sample as well.

So the 7700k might turn out to be better than first appeared, but it'll still just end up being a highly clocked 6700k. No IPC improvement.

Fingers crossed Zen is good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom