• 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.

Core 9000 series

humbug said:
Yeah, no point in cooking it, you get nothing for it :)
Click to expand...

Well I'll do some stress testing whenever the weather lets me have a normal room temperature :D At the moment it's a whisker under 1.25v on VCCIO, which seems to be the high end of safe. If backing it down to 3000 on the memory would let me curtail that to 1.2 I'd probably be happier.

(Turns out that fast, dual ranked 16gb dimms are a pita on all known systems! Probably a good thing that I'm not seeing a need to double up to 64gb, because I don't think it would run at XMP...)
 
Its also cheaper, 4000Mhz ram is a lot more expensive than 3200Mhz, and, at least my subjective feeling is because of the lose timings on 4000Mhz ram running 3200/3400Mhz with tight CL14 Timings might actually be better.
 
I see HUB did a comparison of how future proof certain CPU's are vs. others.



It's interesting to see that if you primarily play games, and are on a 6700K/7700K that can overclock to 4.6GHz+ then you should be fine for the next 2-3 years. It'll be interesting to see the take up in the gaming enthusiast space for these "new" 9000 series parts since they aren't really any benefit, and for that matter if you are on 4770K until PCI-E 4.0/5.0 comes around, it seems like spending won't be really needed, unless you happen to play at 240Hz 720p.
 
Journey said:
I see HUB did a comparison of how future proof certain CPU's are vs. others.



It's interesting to see that if you primarily play games, and are on a 6700K/7700K that can overclock to 4.6GHz+ then you should be fine for the next 2-3 years. It'll be interesting to see the take up in the gaming enthusiast space for these "new" 9000 series parts since they aren't really any benefit, and for that matter if you are on 4770K until PCI-E 4.0/5.0 comes around, it seems like spending won't be really needed, unless you happen to play at 240Hz 720p.
Click to expand...

Games are mostly tied to 4 cores, especially nVidia GPU's which use software based Asynchronous Compute which uses a controller thread on the CPU saturating it when you limit the core count, strange then that he should switch from a Vega GPU (which uses hardware based Asynchronous Compute across 8 threads) to an nVidia GPU when going sub 4 cores :confused:

I digress, my main point is he's trying to prove core scaling will not happen, and he is doing this using games and a GPU limited to 4 cores, its as bizarre as it is useless, it simply proves todays games are mostly limited to 4 cores, it does not prove higher core count CPU's will scale better in the future, you must be a bit daft to make a review like this to suggest that.
 
Last edited:
Journey said:
I see HUB did a comparison of how future proof certain CPU's are vs. others.



It's interesting to see that if you primarily play games, and are on a 6700K/7700K that can overclock to 4.6GHz+ then you should be fine for the next 2-3 years. It'll be interesting to see the take up in the gaming enthusiast space for these "new" 9000 series parts since they aren't really any benefit, and for that matter if you are on 4770K until PCI-E 4.0/5.0 comes around, it seems like spending won't be really needed, unless you happen to play at 240Hz 720p.
Click to expand...

However he is benching on a very clean environment.
He doesn't run TS or discort on the back. With internet radio streaming and a browser running on top.

You will realise that there is a big perf gain between 6700K @ 4.8Ghz and 6800K @ 4.1Ghz when you play game by doing other things also as above.
Also in a old video of his, said that he isn't going to install the BIOS patches for Meltdown and Spectre..... Which do affect perf in some cases.
 
I find it hard to believe that things like TS, discord or even internet radio affect gaming performance. I've seen @Panos talk about his 6800k beating a 6700k in games with light apps open and I'm not sure if I believe it. People were and have been coping on quad core cpus with voip clients running in the background for years without issue.
Hell even on a single core Celeron, teamspesk didn't slow anything down!!
 
gavinh87 said:
I find it hard to believe that things like TS, discord or even internet radio affect gaming performance. I've seen @Panos talk about his 6800k beating a 6700k in games with light apps open and I'm not sure if I believe it. People were and have been coping on quad core cpus with voip clients running in the background for years without issue.
Hell even on a single core Celeron, teamspesk didn't slow anything down!!
Click to expand...

April 2017, I had gone to some lengths to provide information regarding my statement.
Especially back then when I was playing the old WOT client, which was running on 2 threads, the effects were pretty obvious.

Yet I remember you, brushing under the carpet everything, including youtubers like GN videos on that matter when the first Ryzen came out.
 
Panos said:
April 2017, I had gone to some lengths to provide information regarding my statement.
Especially back then when I was playing the old WOT client, which was running on 2 threads, the effects were pretty obvious.

Yet I remember you, brushing under the carpet everything, including youtubers like GN videos on that matter when the first Ryzen came out.
Click to expand...

Still not buying it. A 6700k at 4.8 would beat a 6800k at 4.1 in any game with teamspeak or discord running. Those programs require little to nothing processing power. I was gaming on a Celeron D single core cpu in competitive counter strike matches with teamspeak or ventrillo running and never had a single problem. If it is as you say it is then why isn't this a more widespread topic?
And no, having voip running the same time as a game isn't multitasking.
 
I have to agree with @gavin87 I have been VOIPing since Battlefield 1942 (technically since Planetarion but I doubt anyone else remembers that) and never once considered it to be affecting game performance.

Tbh, I think the whole guff about shutting down extra services and background processes while gaming is... guff. Unless you're so short of memory that games are swapping, I just don't believe the difference is palpable. (This conclusion after I invested in one of the early Fatal1ty soundcards that promised to take processor load off the game and other programs that used sound. It did nothing.)
 
eddiew said:
I have to agree with @gavin87 I have been VOIPing since Battlefield 1942 (technically since Planetarion but I doubt anyone else remembers that) and never once considered it to be affecting game performance.

Tbh, I think the whole guff about shutting down extra services and background processes while gaming is... guff. Unless you're so short of memory that games are swapping, I just don't believe the difference is palpable. (This conclusion after I invested in one of the early Fatal1ty soundcards that promised to take processor load off the game and other programs that used sound. It did nothing.)
Click to expand...

^^ zero chance talking to someone over discord will be impacting game performance. If you’re shutting down loads of tasks to play a game then you’re doing it wrong as clearly that isn’t the point of modern systems.
 
The impact of gaming performance of just ONE Spectre related (V4) patch on CFL CPUS. No other Spectre patch applied.


Yep is 2% on average drop in perf just for the single patch.

Last time I check the perf difference between 2700X & 8700K was 4% without the Spectre patches applied on the intel CFL.
 
Panos said:
The impact of gaming performance of just ONE Spectre related (V4) patch on CFL CPUS. No other Spectre patch applied.


Yep is 2% on average drop in perf just for the single patch.

Last time I check the perf difference between 2700X & 8700K was 4% without the Spectre patches applied on the intel CFL.
Click to expand...

Performance difference in what? There are a number of games where the difference is significantly more than 4%.
 
Journey said:
It's interesting to see that if you primarily play games, and are on a 6700K/7700K that can overclock to 4.6GHz+ then you should be fine for the next 2-3 years. It'll be interesting to see the take up in the gaming enthusiast space for these "new" 9000 series parts since they aren't really any benefit, and for that matter if you are on 4770K until PCI-E 4.0/5.0 comes around, it seems like spending won't be really needed, unless you happen to play at 240Hz 720p.
Click to expand...

I have 2 systems, a 5960x/1080ti & 6700k/980ti.

Obviously, my main system for gaming is the system containing the 1080ti. It was originally paired with the 6700k but when AC:O came out, I noticed really bad hitching and cores being maxed out which was choking the GPU. I paired the 1080ti with the 5960x and the game ran buttery smooth at which point I'm starting to think more cores is becoming a thing now.

I've started playing SOW and now I'm seeing the opposite, the game is loading up a single core and the 5960x is now holding the 1080ti back but the 6700k is driving the 980ti fine even at stock settings.

Both systems are custom water cooled so it's not so easy to just swap GPUs between them. What I'd really like to do, is pick up an 8 core CPU with 8700k levels of single core performance (5GHz+) which is why I popped into this thread for a sniff around. However, it looks like this 9000 series won't provide that, will it?

I'm also concerned that the meltdown and spectre bugs will be present in this new 9000 series? If so, I won't be buying and this is the reason why I haven't picked up a 8700k system.
 
String said:
I have 2 systems, a 5960x/1080ti & 6700k/980ti.

Obviously, my main system for gaming is the system containing the 1080ti. It was originally paired with the 6700k but when AC:O came out, I noticed really bad hitching and cores being maxed out which was choking the GPU. I paired the 1080ti with the 5960x and the game ran buttery smooth at which point I'm starting to think more cores is becoming a thing now.

I've started playing SOW and now I'm seeing the opposite, the game is loading up a single core and the 5960x is now holding the 1080ti back but the 6700k is driving the 980ti fine even at stock settings.

Both systems are custom water cooled so it's not so easy to just swap GPUs between them. What I'd really like to do, is pick up an 8 core CPU with 8700k levels of single core performance (5GHz+) which is why I popped into this thread for a sniff around. However, it looks like this 9000 series won't provide that, will it?

I'm also concerned that the meltdown and spectre bugs will be present in this new 9000 series? If so, I won't be buying and this is the reason why I haven't picked up a 8700k system.
Click to expand...

The Intel patches affect I/O mostly so the games which will be affected are open world games which stream stuff off the install drive and modded games. I play FO4 with lots of mods,and the patches made performance noticeably worse in certain areas of the map on my IB Core i7!! :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom