7800X so slow ....

rIcK · 15 Jul 2017 at 22:41

Just been watching this youtube video where he reviews the 6 core 7800X. Ultimately it ends up being much slower than the quad core 7700k

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKX9Bcxnd7U

Anyone have any thoughts on why this may be? Seems like a real lame duck processor.

TheF34RChannel · 15 Jul 2017 at 22:58

1. X299 isn't a gaming platform;
2. SKL-X has a reworked cache design that negatively influences gaming performance;
3. The new mesh architecture is also a negative influence on gaming;
4. The 7700K clocks much, much better.

Radox-0 · 15 Jul 2017 at 23:00

Not an absolute expert but been reading into it to get a bit more grounding and no doubt someone with more knowledge can come along and correct me. But Skylake-X has moved to using a Mesh Topology vs Ring Bus method on Mainstream and even prior generation HEDT chips. The benefits of Mesh however it is easier to scale and work with when you have more cores rather then having all the cores on a single bus and having the information going to one of the cores needing to go through all of them. On the other hand Mesh introduces latency which is a non-issue for workstation tasks but does seem to crop up in gaming. May explain why older X99 CPU's in CPU bound situations for gaming, even with their IPC deficit and lower clock speeds kept on par or outpaced the higher clocked / core count X299 chips. Good article here: http://www.anandtech.com/show/11550...-core-i9-7900x-i7-7820x-and-i7-7800x-tested/5

The change in the way the Cache works is also unlikely to be helping things.

EDIT: Typos!

Panos · 15 Jul 2017 at 23:07

Radox-0 said:
Not an absolute expert but been reading into it to get a bit more grounding and no doubt someone with more knowledge can come along and correct me. But Skylake-X has moved to using a Mesh Topology vs Ring Bus method on Mainstream and even prior generation HEDT chips. The benefits of Mesh however it is easier to scale and work with when you have more cores rather then having all the cores on a single bus and having the information going to one of the cores needing to go through all of them. On the other hand Mesh introduces latency which is a non-issue for gaming but does seem to crop up in gaming. May explain why older X99 CPU's in CPU bound situations for gaming, even with their IPC deficit and lower clock speeds kept on par or outpaced the higher clocked / core count X299 chips. Good article here: http://www.anandtech.com/show/11550...-core-i9-7900x-i7-7820x-and-i7-7800x-tested/5

The change in the way the Cache works is also unlikely to be helping things.

On the new Intel optimisation manual, to get the best local latency, have to enable on-die NUMA/clustering (4 NUMA nodes per CPU)
Ironically, is exactly the same optimisation current Zen based AMD cpus need

Also a video of what you described above with the Ring bus which is correct

Gerard · 15 Jul 2017 at 23:13

Panos said:
Also a video of what you described above with the Ring bus which is correct

I remember ati gpu's having the ringbus memory setup.

Perfect_Chaos · 15 Jul 2017 at 23:27

TheF34RChannel said:
1. X299 isn't a gaming platform;
2. SKL-X has a reworked cache design that negatively influences gaming performance;
3. The new mesh architecture is also a negative influence on gaming;
4. The 7700K clocks much, much better.

And these are the kind of points that will likely make me stick with my 5820k for longer, i mostly game, but at the time i thought the CPU itself was well priced for a new 6 core.

Radox-0 · 16 Jul 2017 at 01:36

Panos said:
On the new Intel optimisation manual, to get the best local latency, have to enable on-die NUMA/clustering (4 NUMA nodes per CPU)
Ironically, is exactly the same optimisation current Zen based AMD cpus need

Also a video of what you described above with the Ring bus which is correct

Nice, good to see I understand stuff to an extent still and neat video

Have to say, so much variation in gaming benchmarks from all over the place. In this video his lower clocked 7900x outperforms a 7700k, yet in other video's a overclocked 7800x get hammered by lower clocked 7700k's.

queamin · 16 Jul 2017 at 03:04

Gerard said:
I remember ati gpu's having the ringbus memory setup.

Yeah the 2900xt

spoffle · 16 Jul 2017 at 03:33

"X299 isn't a gaming platform"

That's such a major cop-out and apologist statement. I've had X79 and X99. They were both gaming platforms. X58 was also a gaming platform. But because Intel have messed up and kinda dropped the ball, their HEDT is suddenly not for gaming.

Kelt · 16 Jul 2017 at 04:30

spoffle said:
"X299 isn't a gaming platform"

That's such a major cop-out and apologist statement. I've had X79 and X99. They were both gaming platforms. X58 was also a gaming platform. But because Intel have messed up and kinda dropped the ball, their HEDT is suddenly not for gaming.

Yep, the X299 is a High End platform...except when it isn't.

Brazo · 16 Jul 2017 at 08:32

Surely it's just another argument based on moar cores not always being relevant when most software (games) is only optimised for 4.

rs155 · 16 Jul 2017 at 08:48

2 cores are a waste when games only use 1, Quad core is a waste when games only use 1 or 2 cores, 6 cores are a waste when games only use 4, 8 cores are a waste etc etc

smogsy · 16 Jul 2017 at 09:07

Brazo said:
Surely it's just another argument based on moar cores not always being relevant when most software (games) is only optimised for 4.

tell that to dice, 100% on all 8 cores in some scenarios

DarkHorizon472 · 16 Jul 2017 at 09:08

Brazo said:
Surely it's just another argument based on moar cores not always being relevant when most software (games) is only optimised for 4.

Newer games use what is available for example bf1.

TheF34RChannel · 16 Jul 2017 at 10:19

Perfect_Chaos said:
And these are the kind of points that will likely make me stick with my 5820k for longer, i mostly game, but at the time i thought the CPU itself was well priced for a new 6 core.

I would stick with it!

spoffle said:
"X299 isn't a gaming platform"

That's such a major cop-out and apologist statement. I've had X79 and X99. They were both gaming platforms. X58 was also a gaming platform. But because Intel have messed up and kinda dropped the ball, their HEDT is suddenly not for gaming.

Ha ha ha you're funny! It never was a gaming platform. I can install games on Xeon based servers, which doesn't make it a gaming platform. Yet you want it to be (I assume you know the X series are rebranded Xeon CPUs). The proof is in their redesigned cache and mesh.

Previous X series have nothing to do with this one.

SiDeards73 · 16 Jul 2017 at 10:27

TheF34RChannel said:
I would stick with it!

Ha ha ha you're funny! It never was a gaming platform. I can install games on Xeon based servers, which doesn't make it a gaming platform. Yet you want it to be (I assume you know the X series are rebranded Xeon CPUs). The proof is in their redesigned cache and mesh.

Previous X series have nothing to do with this one.

Come on Fear that's Scone level of Straw grabbing, if it's not a gaming platform why then can you buy clearly gaming orientated motherboards etc for it? Surely if it was workstation or server focused only we would have only basic motherboards not the current blingtastic offerings

gavinh87 · 16 Jul 2017 at 10:32

SiDeards73 said:
Come on Fear that's Scone level of Straw grabbing, if it's not a gaming platform why then can you buy clearly gaming orientated motherboards etc for it? Surely if it was workstation or server focused only we would have only basic motherboards not the current blingtastic offerings

Yeah, clue is in the name.
msi
x299 gaming pro carbon ac (socket 2066) intel x299 atx motherboard

https://www.overclockers.co.uk/msi-...IdyEtyUbvVihwrXvR118faHkg8qPQEXgaAuWGEALw_wcB

Panos · 16 Jul 2017 at 11:09

spoffle said:
"X299 isn't a gaming platform"

That's such a major cop-out and apologist statement. I've had X79 and X99. They were both gaming platforms. X58 was also a gaming platform. But because Intel have messed up and kinda dropped the ball, their HEDT is suddenly not for gaming.

Might add, if X299 isn't for gaming also what is for? Because AMD has 60% more core count at same price brackets, so by default making irrelevant the X299 on productivity also.

gavinh87 said:
Yeah, clue is in the name.
msi
x299 gaming pro carbon ac (socket 2066) intel x299 atx motherboard

https://www.overclockers.co.uk/msi-...IdyEtyUbvVihwrXvR118faHkg8qPQEXgaAuWGEALw_wcB

Hahahaha. Ironic.

Typhoon · 16 Jul 2017 at 12:17

Of the 13 X299 motherboard on OC, 8 are gaming motherboards and a couple of others are blinged up with LED, despite not having 'gaming' in there name.

spoffle · 16 Jul 2017 at 16:29

TheF34RChannel said:
I would stick with it!

Ha ha ha you're funny! It never was a gaming platform. I can install games on Xeon based servers, which doesn't make it a gaming platform. Yet you want it to be (I assume you know the X series are rebranded Xeon CPUs). The proof is in their redesigned cache and mesh.

Previous X series have nothing to do with this one.

No, I don't want it to be. But you're being an apologist. You're making the assumption that their redesigned cache wasn't at all any sort of oversight because they've been caught with their pants down.

It's not that it's not for gaming, it's that it's inadequate. Intel don't really seem to know what they're doing with X299. Given games development is something people often use HEDT systems for, which double up as tester systems too, it's obvious that they've dropped the ball. Fortunately, I know have other options for high core counts, so it's not actually an issue.