• 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.

7800X so slow ....

spoffle said:
Intel don't really seem to know what they're doing with X299
Click to expand...

Definitely seems to be an element of this. Makes me really reluctant to move on from X79 - if it wasn't for the fact I bought a relatively budget motherboard (which lacks the power delivery for overclocking higher core count CPUs) I would stick with this setup and just put a higher core count 2011 CPU in it :s
 
Rroff said:
Definitely seems to be an element of this. Makes me really reluctant to move on from X79 - if it wasn't for the fact I bought a relatively budget motherboard (which lacks the power delivery for overclocking higher core count CPUs) I would stick with this setup and just put a higher core count 2011 CPU in it :s
Click to expand...

Move from X79, but move to AMD.

R7 or Threadripper ftw.
 
R7 not an option for my usage - I use a lot of older dev software compiled against Intel stuff that runs really really fast on the X79 platform while for gaming its not a significant enough upgrade from a highly clocked 4820K to be worth the hassle.

EDIT: I also tend to move some work loads over to a secondary i7 setup so less demand for higher core counts - I was looking at the X299 platform in the hope of seeing both higher core counts and significantly higher gaming performance in one package but it looks like it isn't to be.
 
OH NO! Ive just ordered the Asus x299 deluxe and the 7800x and after reading this thread I cannot play games? LOL (only kidding) I'm looking forward to it coming from an x99 strix and 5930k
 
BF1 using all cores seems great, but reading earlier all 8 cores pinned to 100% in some scenarios :o Doesn't that suggest Frostbite optimisation is abysmal, despite being able to use the extra cores?
 
Bluntwrapped said:
BF1 using all cores seems great, but reading earlier all 8 cores pinned to 100% in some scenarios :o Doesn't that suggest Frostbite optimisation is abysmal, despite being able to use the extra cores?
Click to expand...

It's actually quite well optimised, 64 people with those level of graphics/physics is impressive imo.
 
gavinh87 said:
Awaiting void to defend this.
In what seems to be the only member of the blue army.
Click to expand...
sooo, the 7820x is better, sometimes a little bit, sometimes a lot. but also costs more. Not everyone has the same budget restrictions. I would also hazard a guess that 4.5 is a bad overclocking example and has the ram clocked slow, whereas 4ghz for the ryzen is top whack give or take (willing to be disproved, just some observations)
 
ryzen people jump in saying its not a gaming cpu then benchmark show the intel chip is the 7820X is 13% faster than the 1700. in the best cpu intense game of recent times

 
james_2k said:
sooo, the 7820x is better, sometimes a little bit, sometimes a lot. but also costs more. Not everyone has the same budget restrictions. I would also hazard a guess that 4.5 is a bad overclocking example and has the ram clocked slow, whereas 4ghz for the ryzen is top whack give or take (willing to be disproved, just some observations)
Click to expand...

Yeah - personally budget is very much a secondary concern for me - if I was upgrading now then I'd probably be looking at the 7820X versus 1700 and more than a 10% gaming performance difference would weigh it a fair bit.
 
Rroff said:
Yeah - personally budget is very much a secondary concern for me - if I was upgrading now then I'd probably be looking at the 7820X versus 1700 and more than a 10% gaming performance difference would weigh it a fair bit.
Click to expand...

Decided to have two rigs. One for development, rendering etc using the current 6800k with my old furyX so it can take its time completing its tasks, and new one heavily overclocked (and delided) 8700K with my 1080ti.
That would cost me less than buying into X299 or X399 sacrificing gaming performance for all in one rig, at higher costs also. In addition wouldn't care less when games developers decide to optimise their product, or when NVidia plans to do so on their drivers
 
Bluntwrapped said:
BF1 using all cores seems great, but reading earlier all 8 cores pinned to 100% in some scenarios :o Doesn't that suggest Frostbite optimisation is abysmal, despite being able to use the extra cores?
Click to expand...
BF1 uses all cores at 100% when you load into a map once loaded it barely uses 30% of 8 cores. just allows for faster loading of maps from my experience
 
james_2k said:
sooo, the 7820x is better, sometimes a little bit, sometimes a lot. but also costs more. Not everyone has the same budget restrictions. I would also hazard a guess that 4.5 is a bad overclocking example and has the ram clocked slow, whereas 4ghz for the ryzen is top whack give or take (willing to be disproved, just some observations)
Click to expand...
Its not a case of budget restrictions lol. Some people don't like the blue teams practices.
Or they just wanted to support the underdog.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom