• 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.

How is the i7 8700k better for gaming compared to 1950x

WhereHere1

WhereHere1

WhereHere1

Associate
Joined
10 Jun 2017
Posts
290
Ok so I know i7 8700k is supposed to be better, but didn’t amd aim 1950x at gamers?

Say I’m playing a game on the i7 and it is being pushed to the max.

Whereas if I was playing on the Threadripper and that was being pushed to the max, wouldn’t the extra cores kick in and take some of the load? Making it faster than the i7?
 
Most games are a long way off fully utilising 6c/12t CPUs. We're only just at the point of 4 core 4 thread CPUs being maxed out and occasionally seeing very high use on 4 core 8 thread. By the time games use 8 cores and 16 threads or more heavily, current gen architecture will be obsolete.
 
WhereHere1 said:
Ok so I know i7 8700k is supposed to be better, but didn’t amd aim 1950x at gamers?

Say I’m playing a game on the i7 and it is being pushed to the max.

Whereas if I was playing on the Threadripper and that was being pushed to the max, wouldn’t the extra cores kick in and take some of the load? Making it faster than the i7?
Click to expand...

A lot will depend on the game, engine, API, graphics card and driver.
 
WhereHere1 said:
Ok so I know i7 8700k is supposed to be better, but didn’t amd aim 1950x at gamers?

Say I’m playing a game on the i7 and it is being pushed to the max.

Whereas if I was playing on the Threadripper and that was being pushed to the max, wouldn’t the extra cores kick in and take some of the load? Making it faster than the i7?
Click to expand...


Since when was the 1950x aimed at gamers?

FYI, 1950x plays games fine.
 
Games do not usually use that many cores, though there are some that use more then 4 core's / 8 threads, but the cores / 12 threads on the 8700k is more then sufficient for anything on the market. Next to that the 8700k can hit very high clock speed compared to TR and has a very high IPC (instructions per cycle). Next to that, the architecture of the 8700k (Ring Bus) means very quick communication between cores while threadripper has a slight penetly with its CCX architecture, as does the Skylake-X CPU's using Mesh architecture for that matter.

AMD did not specifically aim the 1950x at gamers. Sure they will market the platform at gamers, just like Intel marketed the 7980XE and other various i9's at gamers in there marketing material.

With that said, the 1950x and various other TR CPU's along with Intel i9's can game pretty fine. Where the 8700k will make a gap is if your trying to push higher refresh rate panels where the CPU has to work harder to prepare more frames.
 
ryzen chips will play games fine.theres nothiing wrong with them its just what you buy for what you need.

if you buying a 8700k its so you can get the maximum performance available for gaming only. you pick the ryzen if you want to game and multitask edit or render / stream with a slight gaming performance percentage deficit compared to the intel chips.
 
Threadrippers aren't targetting gamers for one, 8700k is cheaper and outperforms it.

Go for a Ryzen 5 or 7 for gaming and multi-threading workloads and a better price/perf ratio.
 
I think it only really matters if your into benchmarking - Everything I've tried is very playable on my 1950X, even with a lot of other stuff running (E.G If I run a lot of quite demanding VMs - games aren't really taking a noticeable hit)
 
Ok so, say I'm playing for example cities skylines. This game has been apparently made for 4 core CPUs. If I am playing this, and all the votes are running at 100%, the other programmes running are just iTunes, chrome, steam and oculus but are all idle. Wouldn't thread ripper be better than i7? Because it has more votes to help with the game? Or would just 12 cores sit there doing nothing?
 
WhereHere1 said:
Ok so, say I'm playing for example cities skylines. This game has been apparently made for 4 core CPUs. If I am playing this, and all the votes are running at 100%, the other programmes running are just iTunes, chrome, steam and oculus but are all idle. Wouldn't thread ripper be better than i7? Because it has more votes to help with the game? Or would just 12 cores sit there doing nothing?
Click to expand...

City Skylines seems a strange one.

What I mean is my 6700k at 4.6ghz is running my 580k City OK ish. That means a max of 85% load and 12 second day cycle. It doesn't ever max out the CPU to 100% on any of the cores.
The 1080Ti is hardly used, as you would expect
Someone else posted that their 650k city behaves the same and when going from a 5820k to a 8700k the only difference had been less CPU utilisation rather than a faster day cycle.
It is tho some other game engine or timing restrictions apply beyond that what hardware will help with, when you are close to maximum limits of the game.
There is hardly any difference between 1 and 3x speed now on the city noted
 
WhereHere1 said:
Ok so, say I'm playing for example cities skylines. This game has been apparently made for 4 core CPUs. If I am playing this, and all the votes are running at 100%, the other programmes running are just iTunes, chrome, steam and oculus but are all idle. Wouldn't thread ripper be better than i7? Because it has more votes to help with the game? Or would just 12 cores sit there doing nothing?
Click to expand...

Running C:S on my 1600X looks a lot like it puts something on all cores. IIRC, it has heavy duty threads for graphics and water physics, but spins up a variable number of traffic pathfinding threads based on the CPU. It certainly doesn't hurt to have more cores available to make sure the graphics and water threads never have to share with anything ever :)
 
Games don't use multiple threads. Typically they have used 2 threads for a long time. Modern games are now becoming more multi-threaded though. So if you have a 4 core CPU then a modern game will utilize all of those cores leaving no headroom for background processes etc.

That's why Ryzen was so popular here because they delivered 6 core and 8 core CPUs for mainstream buyers. Intel responded by releasing the 8xxx series i5s and i7s that are 6 cores with the i7 being hyper-threaded.

The i7 8700k will be the fastest chip available for gaming. Additional threads just will not be utilized at all and will be left idle. Games aren't designed to make use of all those extra cores and threads because most of the people in the world don't have more than 6 cores so it makes no sense to wipe them out of the market.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom