Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 5,223
- Location
- North East England
Other reviews show the opposite, while a few have a suspicious lack of game reviews.
-
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 THREADRIPPER VS INTEL SKYLAKE X
- Thread starter faceman123
- Start date
Other reviews show the opposite, while a few have a suspicious lack of game reviews.
You didn't even look at what i'm telling you, just blindly went running to his defence, look at his charts...
He's GPU bottlenecked, just because he can't see it, you can't see it... anyone who knows it when they see it can see it clear as day, all his CPU charts are resulting the same performance where others are getting huge variations, he's bottlenecked by the GPU, so what you are seeing is the GPU performance, not the CPU's.
This is Hardware enthusiast nOOb stuff man, he's an amateur, a really bad one at that.
GPU bottleneck...
Not GPU bottleneck, 7900X in Red, 6950X in Blue, see the difference?
Seriously find a better reviewer to follow, he's crap.
I was just about to post this. I don't rate him at all.
I'm not quite sure what you are so angry about. I don't even like the guy nor any of them for that matter.
What GPU are PCPer using? I can't seem to find it, nor the settings. This Australian guy is running with a Titan X Pascal. What should he be using?
Edit.. hang on i'll get you a link ^^^^
I'm impressed by PCPer's honesty in their Skylake-X reviews, would not have expected that from them. during testing in their last pod-cast even joking about how it hit 113c at one point.
Here... https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Processors/Intel-Core-i9-7900X-10-core-Skylake-X-Processor-Review
I'm not angry, well, admittedly i do have a thing about people posting clearly junk reviews to make a point.
Edit again... with a Pascal Titan he should find it very easy to separate the performance of these CPU's, the fact that he can't even with a GPU of that magnitude just reaffirms my dislike of him as a reviewer, he's crap.
I'm impressed by PCPer's honesty in their Skylake-X reviews, would not have expected that from them. during testing in their last pod-cast even joking about how it hit 113c at one point.
Here... https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Processors/Intel-Core-i9-7900X-10-core-Skylake-X-Processor-Review
I'm not angry, well, admittedly i do have a thing about people posting clearly junk reviews to make a point.
Edit again... with a Pascal Titan he should find it very easy to separate the performance of these CPU's, the fact that he can't even with a GPU of that magnitude just reaffirms my dislike of him as a reviewer, he's crap.
Last edited:
Edit.. hang on i'll get you a link ^^^^
I'm impressed by PCPer's honesty in their Skylake-X reviews, would not have expected that from them. during testing in their last pod-cast even joking about how it hit 113c at one point.
Here... https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Processors/Intel-Core-i9-7900X-10-core-Skylake-X-Processor-Review
I'm not angry, well, admittedly i do have a thing about people posting clearly junk reviews to make a point.
Most of the other reviews with Pcper being one of the exceptions show similar to the bad reviewer. I guess they are all bad.
So PCper using a slower GPU (1080) is giving a fairer reflection of CPU performance than the guy using a Pascal Titan X?
No they don't, Skylake-X gaming performance, or lack there of compared with the last gen is the biggest thing on the net right now....
Most other reviewers here being more of Nigel...
Heh ok so I'm lost.What's your point?
I've already made it, repeatedly
I'm off into town to run some errands
I've already made it, repeatedly
I'm off into town to run some errands
OK well sorry I'm sure its my lack of knowledge here missing the point. I'm not sure why a Pascal Titan X is GPU bound as you suggested in one review but a 1080 is not in another.
In reality, whether they are good reviewers or bad, they generally show the 7900 is not slower in games. It's clocked higher so clock for clock maybe but it clocks better than the 6900/6950 anyway.
I would like to take pause and see something here...
(FYI thats pure CPU socket consumption not wall draw)
A stock quad core (7700K) consumes similar or more power with a 8 core CPU and for a lot LESS MT perf!!!!!
7900X consumes 100% as much power than the 1800X, for just 25% perf on MT jobs (maximum)?
As for the 7900X how is that CPU TDP 140W rated? At 0% load?
6900K and 6950X were 140W TDP rated.
(FYI thats pure CPU socket consumption not wall draw)
A stock quad core (7700K) consumes similar or more power with a 8 core CPU and for a lot LESS MT perf!!!!!
7900X consumes 100% as much power than the 1800X, for just 25% perf on MT jobs (maximum)?
As for the 7900X how is that CPU TDP 140W rated? At 0% load?
6900K and 6950X were 140W TDP rated.
TTL finally got his review kit, few interesting points here
from all his tests, the Intel draws 70w more when clocked higher (slightly less actually because it's total system power draw)
when done clock for clock (4ghz 1800x vs 4ghz 7820x) the intel draws about 30w less than the ryzen setup.
he had a bios update for his asus motherboard which fixed the read on memory, now it's higher than the previous generations (look at 7900x vs 6950x which has the newest bios)
the 7900x at 4.6ghz is beating the 7700k at 5ghz in gaming! I'm very surprised by this, so it seems like the very first bios' wernt usong the cache correctly, since the 7820x at 4.8ghz should have been faster, but the 7900x now just edges past it with a 400mhz clock speed defecit.
https://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/cpu_mainboard/intel_i9_7900x_skylake-x_review/1
from all his tests, the Intel draws 70w more when clocked higher (slightly less actually because it's total system power draw)
when done clock for clock (4ghz 1800x vs 4ghz 7820x) the intel draws about 30w less than the ryzen setup.
he had a bios update for his asus motherboard which fixed the read on memory, now it's higher than the previous generations (look at 7900x vs 6950x which has the newest bios)
the 7900x at 4.6ghz is beating the 7700k at 5ghz in gaming! I'm very surprised by this, so it seems like the very first bios' wernt usong the cache correctly, since the 7820x at 4.8ghz should have been faster, but the 7900x now just edges past it with a 400mhz clock speed defecit.
https://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/cpu_mainboard/intel_i9_7900x_skylake-x_review/1
Yeah, its Intel's Bulldozer, ^^^^ its natural performance is not as good so clock it way up and sacrifice power efficiency.
Its not about the graphics card, its how you use it to demonstrate a fact, the fact that Nigel cannot do that with a pascal Titan while PcPer can with a 1080 shows nothing other than Nigel's incompetence, the fact that he apparently cannot see the bottleneck in his reviews says something far worse about Nigel, ask me who Nigel is to learn more.
PcPer are finding an average 15% 7900K performance deficit to the 6950X, that to you doesn't make any sense? but Nigel's 2% difference between a whole bunch of CPU's does? you think Nigel's review is a display of true performance between these chips but PcPer's isn't? you don't really think that.
Its not about the graphics card, its how you use it to demonstrate a fact, the fact that Nigel cannot do that with a pascal Titan while PcPer can with a 1080 shows nothing other than Nigel's incompetence, the fact that he apparently cannot see the bottleneck in his reviews says something far worse about Nigel, ask me who Nigel is to learn more.
PcPer are finding an average 15% 7900K performance deficit to the 6950X, that to you doesn't make any sense? but Nigel's 2% difference between a whole bunch of CPU's does? you think Nigel's review is a display of true performance between these chips but PcPer's isn't? you don't really think that.
Last edited:
You have serious issues about Intel and your comments make you seem petty.
That video was one that popped up in my box this morning. I only put it up as it was the latest one. I didn't even know the guys name which you clearly do, nor do I care. It's not the only review showing what he does.
Also, your argument works the other way. Because of the difference why should I, as a consumer, not take the difference between PCper and this Nigel bloke as an issue with PCPer. Just because you don't like the guy?
Anyway I don't normally get involved in threads and this is why. There's really no need to be so condescending.
How? you do understand what a GPU bottleneck is? you do understand that his results are GPU performance results while PcPer's results are CPU performance results? you do understand when what we are looking for is CPU not GPU performance Nigel's review is useless?
Edit, i don't know what Nigel's name is either, but is suspect you have meet a Nigel.
I do thanks yes and a Titan XP is not going to do that. So why. What are they doing that is making one an issue with the GPU and one a true representation of CPU performance? The numbers are similar on some games fine, I get it. So why? None of the reviews seems to be stating what BIOS revisions they are using etc. So Nigel is just lying or rubbish is what you are saying.
Also forget Nigel for a minute. It's not the only review showing the 7900 beating the rest in some games. Ultimately I'll use all the reviews to make a decision on my next CPU and not be so narrow minded.
To resolve the argument between B1gbeard and Humbug we must ask Joke to run a 720p benchmark
They did those when Ryzen came out, with 2133 ram among other things.
Why not the 7900X?????????????????????????????????????????????????
They did those when Ryzen came out, with 2133 ram among other things.
Why not the 7900X?????????????????????????????????????????????????
To resolve the argument between B1gbeard and Humbug we must ask Joke to run a 720p benchmark
They did those when Ryzen came out, with 2133 ram among other things.
Why not the 7900X?????????????????????????????????????????????????
I was wondering myself where were the 720p benchies.
Not sure why it's that surprising. It's well known that most new games use more than 4 cores effectively, it's just that the balance of "more, slower cores" versus "fewer, faster cores" was tipping either way depending on the game when considering average frame rates with the R7 1800X and the i7-7700K. Now we basically have something closer to the per-core speed of the i7-7700K with the high core count of the R7 1800X, it's obviously going to be faster, on average (some games will still favour i7-7700K @ 5 GHz for sure). Of course you have to pay a hell of a lot for that performance though.
Those who were spouting "single core performance is still king in gaming" after Ryzen was released will now have to rationalise that somehow with these results. I look forward to seeing how they do that and I also look forward to seeing what Zen+ brings - by the time it's released newer games will certainly be more optimised for Ryzen than a lot of the current crop are. If it can also clock higher to close the gap with Intel on that front, it will tip the scales so much that the quad core i7s will become obsolete (at their current prices anyway).
This is all talking about 1080p 144 Hz gaming by the way. At 1440p and 4K the gap is already so small as to make no difference with all but the very highest end GPUs, and modern GPUs can run 1080p 60 Hz with pretty much any CPU for most games anyway.
Ah, the BIOS argument... A new BIOS is not going to magically push it performance up by 30% to get it inline with where is should be.
I'll tell you what its doing, it uses so much power its hitting the celling and throttling, it can't run those 4.5Ghz low threaded clocks because that puts it way over its 140 Watt TDP and thermal limits, its a 6950X on steroids, yet those steroids are causing it to crash and burn, literally.
Actually you might be right, with a BIOS update to give it less aggressive volts its performance would improve as it would put it back inline with the 6950X power levels, but thats not what Intel want, they are stuck on the same path AMD was with Bulldozer, the only way to get the performance up is to up the power and Mhz, the only problem is thermals and motherboard TDP protection limits prevent it from clocking that high.
------------
Nigel is the unfortunate guy, at an un-namable competitor high-street store, Nigel drew the short straw this morning, Nigel was patted on the back by his manager and told "its ok, they will believe anything you tell them"
Nigel nervously takes his position on the shop floor, the one infront of the two screens, Nigel puts his best fake smile on and proceeds to tell a small gathering of customers to whiteness with their own eye's about how the £50 HDMI lead on the left connected to the hidden Blueray Player has so much better image quality than the £10 HDMI lead on the right connected to the hidden DVD Player.
Nigel, "your friendly Know How Customer Service Agent"
Thats who he is, we have all seen Nigel, he's an obvious Nigel.