Last edited:
-
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 "Zen" thread (inc AM4/APU discussion) ***
- Thread starter Boomstick777
- Start date
Yeah if I was to get an M.2 SSD it'd be a 1 TB model. To be honest with how large today's games are I'd probably even wait for 2 TB to be affordable. The smaller ones aren't as fast.
Associate
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2013
- Posts
- 142
First Intel cuts showing up... http://www.microcenter.com/category/4294966995,4294964566/Intel-Processors
Permabanned
Associate
You managed to miss totally the conversation that i was referring to the 1400x (199$), and 1600x (239$).
Associate
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2013
- Posts
- 142
By the time that game is released Ryzen will be like a Pentium now.
Soldato
Not the first, Intel prices from local EU vendors have dropped also earlier this week.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
http://www.pcgamer.com/intel-core-i7-7700k-review/
https://www.computerbase.de/2017-02/cpu-skalierung-kerne-spiele-test/#diagramm-f1-2016-fps
These are talking about more modern games, but not games out in the last 2 months, the last 2 years I guess. Flick through the results, which do the 7700k win? The first link is to a GTX 1080 running mostly 1080p at higher settings, the 7700k loses multiple benchmarks, it wins some, winning and losing most results are within 1-2% anyway. The second link is at lower settings, showing 720 and 1080p(not sure on settings), which shows with less gpu limiting, the 7700k loses in almost every scenario to a chip that has a 3Ghz base clock and a 3.5Ghz boost. From most accounts it would seem Zen is basically beating the 6900k. A LOT of games use over 4 threads now, some use two.... as can be seen in pcgamer from The Division link where the i3 comes joint second, but is ahead of the stock 7700k... and, well it's obviously very CPU limited and within the margin or error on multiple runs basically. But that the i3 Kaby is second suggests clock speed matters as much as cores, but it has basically the same performance as a 6950x. I actually revise my statement, it doesn't use specifically 2 threads. It seems to scale brilliantly but runs equally well with two very fast threads as it does on many slower threads by the looks of it. So even then, it looks like a scalable engine rather than a clock speed limited one.
What evidence do you have that there are enough games out there that rely purely on clock speed for performance and have low thread count that make the more expensive 7700k better?
http://gamegpu.com/mmorpg-/-onlayn-igry/tom-clancy-s-the-division-test-gpu.html
Actually if you scroll down to the CPU test here for The Division... quite interesting. Under DX11 we get a 6700 at the top, a FX9370 is not that far behind it, higher mins then the 4770k. It's obviously older so doesn't have Kaby but the quad core Skylake is way ahead of dual core Skylake. But if you go to DX12... weird. Every single CPU has effectively 70fps minimum, from a 5960x, to a 6700, to a FX4100... yes, you read that right. Also everything down to a FX4300 all get effectively 101fps average.
So DX12 is just down right strange, DX11 gives more expected numbers and shows higher clocked quads not beating out lower clocked 8 core from the previous architecture, and not far ahead of an 8 core Piledriver.
So I'd ask again, in which newer games is a 7700k easily superior? We are noticeably past the point where games can effectively use more than 4 cores AND beyond the point where the majority of bigger performance requiring games do equally well if not better on more cores rather than higher clock speeds.
There are undoubtedly going to be certain games where more cores will benefit... stuns me almost speechless that someone (least of all 8-Pack who I'd have thought would know better) would issue a blanket statement that the 7700k is best for gaming. Utterly false and misleading.
Ha, wonder how long it'll take for the i7-7700K to be sub-£300 over here.
You can say that but atleast some devs are interested muti threading and stoof. This is good news o;
Associate
looks like i sold my spare gaming rig just in the nick of time then
Associate
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2013
- Posts
- 142
Next week I guess, 7700K cheaper than the 1700 is what Intel needed.
Why? Unless they drop there 6900k down to 310 quid. It makes no difference lol
Associate
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2013
- Posts
- 142
Associate
I'd say awhile as that's one of microcenter's flash sells - which you have to goto their stores to get - when you start seeing newegg and others drop to those prices.....then you'll see them over here.
I'd still most likely get 1600X - or 1700 over 7700k - I can use the more cores; better video editing; streaming etc....my i5 struggles badly with that and my 8320e at 5 ghz doesn't.......
Some games do ofc, I went off-topic with Refund Citizen
I refunded SC too, Gonna wait for release till I buy it but its nice to know there in full support of loads of cores and muti threads o;
Well not the R7's - the R5 and R3 will do that - but its sounding like they might be delayed for some reason.
Why waste money on a 7700k when you can get a 1600X for less? The 1700 is the same price.
Both will be the same in games with the added benefit of having more total processing power for other cpu intensive tasks and possibly games in the next few years.
The type of market you are talking about frequent the overclockers forums here. You can clearly see Ryzen is stealing those sales in large numbers.