-
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.
AMD RYZEN 7 aka ZEN NOW AVAILABLE TO PRE-ORDER!
- Thread starter Gibbo
- Start date
Caporegime
I want to know this too but i get the feeling we ain't going to get an answer before official reviews.
Caporegime
Yes.
Don't think I was clear with my reply. I agree the 1800X is binned to attain the quoted max clocks but I don't think it necessarily correlates that it will clock better. High-end 1080s are similar.
But we just tested a 1700, it hit 4.0GHz stable in everything, but ONLY in the Crosshair mainboard, the lower-end boards it was hovering around 3.80GHz as the VRM's were cooking with extra voltage. It however was maxing around 4050MHz, so I'd say 1700 can do 3.9-4.1GHz, of course the 1800X will probably do 4.1-4.3 as no doubt better binned, but if your clocking the motherboard has a big impact on the overclock and so far Asus Crosshair and Asrock Taichi seem the best two.
I say it how it is, Intel is still selling and always will, we have no exposure on Intel.
4.1-4.3 isn't great overclock for a top bin.
Caporegime
Its actually no Overclock at all, the 1800X boosts to 4Ghz, some commentary say with XFR its boosting to 4.1Ghz, so 4.1Ghz is zero OC, 4.3 is, well, 4%, how can it already be running right on the limit at 95 watts? Gibbo and 8Pack say its VRM throttling, at 95 watts????? the FX-9590 i had was pulling 300 Watts stressed and even that never had VRM throttling.
Very strange.
Sorry Humbug, I had to go to bed!Across 15 or so games the lower clocked 6 core 6850K was faster than the higher clocked 4 core 7700K
Those results are quite close, around 5%, getting close to margin of error.
Also I guess they are all at stock, no overclocking so that could reduce the gap.
As you can see above 6 is diminishing returns. As I've said the 6c could be the gem. More cores is definitely something for the future, I just feel at the moment a balanced system is preferable. A 4c/8t + decent graphics card is better than an 8c/16t + a relatively weak graphics card.
Think he was refering to the 1700 with the extra volts.
The 1800X supposedly boosts to 4.1 automatically with adequate cooling.
The 1080 Pascal soon reach their limit because they are so aggressively clocked at stock, could be similar with the 1800X. Remember the Fury X was the same and that was watercooled!
Caporegime
Gibbo said the 1800X may only clock to 4.1 - 4.3Ghz ^^^^^^^ it also doesn't explain why the VRMs are apparently throttling at 95 watts +, that makes no sense.
One would assume a 4/4.1Ghz 95 watt chip is running at 95 watts, not 300+
So you get higher performance with 6 lower clocked cores than with 4 higher clocked cores, and that's an average across 15 game a lot of which are older low threaded games, so a 6 or 8 core chip at the same IPC and price as a 4 core chip can be a better option for gaming, do you not agree?
One would assume a 4/4.1Ghz 95 watt chip is running at 95 watts, not 300+
So you get higher performance with 6 lower clocked cores than with 4 higher clocked cores, and that's an average across 15 game a lot of which are older low threaded games, so a 6 or 8 core chip at the same IPC and price as a 4 core chip can be a better option for gaming, do you not agree?
Last edited:
He was referring to the VRMs using the 1700! Had to use a good board (Crosshair) to attain them.
15 game test
As I said it's very close. Was it at stock clocks?
Caporegime
They are all at stock clocks, would you qualify it only if the 4 core chip was overclocked but the 6 core not?
The 6850K is 27% ahead of the 4770K and 6% ahead of the 7700K across 15 games, the 6850K is faster than both of them, so if the 6850K is the same price or less than the 7700K its the better gaming chip, there is no getting away from that.
oh and i think i'm right in saying on average the 6850K has more OC headroom than the 7700K
Does it? I keep seeing people harp on about how all the 7700Ks are running at 5Ghz super easily. Especially on reddit and LLT forums.
Where as the 6850K apparently clocks less than the 5820K; then again I got a silicone dud that needs massively increase voltage to even reach 4.3Ghz and then it's a hot mess. So 4Ghz rock solid stable for AIDA64, and actual day long rendering projects.
Permabanned
It doesn't makes sense to me, A 7700k has a high stock clock while a 6850 doesn't so the 7700 should do better with a cross section of games, Can I have a link to that review so I can read up on it please
Here you goIt doesn't makes sense to me, A 7700k has a high stock clock while a 6850 doesn't so the 7700 should do better with a cross section of games, Can I have a link to that review so I can read up on it please
https://www.computerbase.de/2017-02/cpu-skalierung-kerne-spiele-test/#diagramm-anno-2205-fps
Caporegime
It doesn't makes sense to me, A 7700k has a high stock clock while a 6850 doesn't so the 7700 should do better with a cross section of games, Can I have a link to that review so I can read up on it please
Oh come on....... you're not that naive? is that a joke? surely you know Mhz is not the only thing that matters?
One of the German reviewers i think it is, i didn't post it...
Permabanned
I'm under the impression that the majority of games still only use one or two cores so it'll depend on the games tested, therefore I was interested in seeing how the individual games in the test scaled, why that would make me naive is beyond me but don't worry I found the review myself thanks.
Caporegime
That has not been true for a while and its increasingly more and more untrue, "4 core chips being the best gaming CPU's" is Intel shilling IMO brcause they are cheap to make small chips people are willing to pay £350 for as long as they are "the best gaming CPU"
They ain't now and more so in the future, especially next to a lower cost similar IPC 6 core.
A 6 core has 4 cores in it, its two thirds of a 6 core, if you only need 4 cores you have them right there to use, if 6 cores are cheaper at the same IPC get the 6 core even if you only need 4, its cheaper.
Last edited:
Associate
That's certainly my experience. I stream most of what I play and 2 unused cores of my i7 should I think give me a top quality stream, and although on a moderately slow moving game the stream is decent, it isn't the best quality by any means.
Using an Elgato on a 2nd PC (i3) gives me the best possible result (although I've moved away from that in order to game at 1440p) markedly better than using one i7 to game and stream.
No, keeping a level paying field with an ALL overclocked would have been interesting.
Are you sure about the 6850K OC? The 7700Ks are great OCs.
To put it in different terms, one and a half, two and two and a half times as many cores nets an average of 4.8 to 6.4 fps is pretty much negligible.
If we were talking about Vega vs Titan X those numbers wouldn't be negligible though. An improvement is an improvement; and if more and more developers start leveraging more cores the gap will only slowly widen; until the next 7700K tier CPU from Intel is suddenly a 6/12 one.