-
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.
INTEL BRING THE BIG GUNS!
- Thread starter Gibbo
- Start date
Exactly, it's basically just a clockspeed bumped 7700k, a bit like the 2600k was or the 4790k. It shouldn't require a new motherboard.
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
11827 is my max at 4.1ghz. Timespy certainly doesn't seem to scale well with cores, Firestrike seems to scale a bit better (31100) but still not great. Wonder if the next 3DMark will be better able to use more cores?
Its a good test for games though to be fair which is its purpose. plenty of other benchmarks for mega core counts
Yeah junk scaling needs a patch to use the cores correctly.Its a good test for games though to be fair which is its purpose. plenty of other benchmarks for mega core counts
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
That reminds me, what is your Cinebench R15 score now with that 4.8ghz? I maxed out at 3378.Its a good test for games though to be fair which is its purpose. plenty of other benchmarks for mega core counts
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
Really? like your time spy score?
Maths time: you have 60% more cores than the 7900 and in a fully threaded benchmark have what.. 23% more performance?
in the time spy cpu which is much more indicative of game performance, the 7900x has 24% more performance than the 1950. (in this case)
Hey you are right, that is cute!
Maths time: you have 60% more cores than the 7900 and in a fully threaded benchmark have what.. 23% more performance?
in the time spy cpu which is much more indicative of game performance, the 7900x has 24% more performance than the 1950. (in this case)
Hey you are right, that is cute!
Last edited:
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
Lol, don't take it so personally, it's just friendly banter
So on average they have a similar performance for about the same amount of money. Less heat and less power draw though.Really? like your time spy score?
Maths time: you have 60% more cores than the 7900 and in a fully threaded benchmark have what.. 23% more performance?
in the time spy cpu which is much more indicative of game performance, the 7900x has 24% more performance than the 1950. (in this case)
Hey you are right, that is cute!
Not bad for a company with far, far less r&d and resources.
If you do a really crap conversion on those R15 scores, the TR scores 51.49 points per GHz of CPU and the 7900X is at 57.29.
I know it's a pants way of doing a comparison, but if you ignore the number of cores, then you can see what sort performance you are getting for your GHz.
EDIT: An Intel 16 core at 4.8GHz, should be hitting 4400 points!
I know it's a pants way of doing a comparison, but if you ignore the number of cores, then you can see what sort performance you are getting for your GHz.
EDIT: An Intel 16 core at 4.8GHz, should be hitting 4400 points!
Which is good, it seems they needed this kick up the backside. After all it allowed you to buy a cpu which otherwise would have likely cost you more than it did.
Very true. But if this had been 1500 i would have just bought an 8700k or something, so in a round about way i lose out!
Or the i9 is about 137.5 points per core, and the 1950 is about 95
Depends how high the higher core count chips clock to be honest, cant see them hitting the same as the 6/8/10 core, if they do ill buy one. If only to beat amigas cinebench
If you do a really crap conversion on those R15 scores, the TR scores 51.49 points per GHz of CPU and the 7900X is at 57.29.
I know it's a pants way of doing a comparison, but if you ignore the number of cores, then you can see what sort performance you are getting for your GHz.
EDIT: An Intel 16 core at 4.8GHz, should be hitting 4400 points!
Or the i9 is about 137.5 points per core, and the 1950 is about 95
Depends how high the higher core count chips clock to be honest, cant see them hitting the same as the 6/8/10 core, if they do ill buy one. If only to beat amigas cinebench
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
If you count ghz though, Threadripper gets 52.19 per ghz and the 7900X gets 57.29 per ghz - that's closer than I though it would be. Shows potential for Zen 2 if AMD can get the clocks up a bit. Also shows Intel need to be very careful for the "higher that 10 core" i9's iro keeping up their clocks.
Edit:- I see that someone already did the ghz thing above me.
To add, I've done a lot of testing now, looking at the numbers TR is producing and my old Haswell system - TR seems pretty much bang on level with Haswell IPC, maybe 1 or 2 % improvement. TBH, I'm more than happy with that as for my usge those 16 cores are really paying off and are usable in most of the apps I use professionally (3DSMax, Cinema4d, Lightwave, Blender, After Effects, Media Encoder, Terragen) and a little slower in some other apps (Photo shop I'm looking at you). Some apps show only show slight increases (Premier Pro - some things are quicker, some are the same and others are slower i.e. warp stabilizer).
A spread sheet I've built estimates my productivity will increase by around 25% - and I'm VERY impressed by that (bear in mind, while I'm 3D Modelling, rendering only forms a small part to the time within the program, however on TR I can continue working on something else, i.e. a texture on PS - on my 4770k the system was unusable while rendering).
I have a friend planning on getting the 7980X and he's going to build a spreadsheet similar to me, I fully expect it to match or beat my productivity improvement, I'll share the results here
Edit:- I see that someone already did the ghz thing above me.
To add, I've done a lot of testing now, looking at the numbers TR is producing and my old Haswell system - TR seems pretty much bang on level with Haswell IPC, maybe 1 or 2 % improvement. TBH, I'm more than happy with that as for my usge those 16 cores are really paying off and are usable in most of the apps I use professionally (3DSMax, Cinema4d, Lightwave, Blender, After Effects, Media Encoder, Terragen) and a little slower in some other apps (Photo shop I'm looking at you). Some apps show only show slight increases (Premier Pro - some things are quicker, some are the same and others are slower i.e. warp stabilizer).
A spread sheet I've built estimates my productivity will increase by around 25% - and I'm VERY impressed by that (bear in mind, while I'm 3D Modelling, rendering only forms a small part to the time within the program, however on TR I can continue working on something else, i.e. a texture on PS - on my 4770k the system was unusable while rendering).
I have a friend planning on getting the 7980X and he's going to build a spreadsheet similar to me, I fully expect it to match or beat my productivity improvement, I'll share the results here
Last edited by a moderator:
Depends how high the higher core count chips clock to be honest, cant see them hitting the same as the 6/8/10 core, if they do ill buy one. If only to beat amigas cinebench
Lol, just photoshop one
I chose to go with the GHz as it more closely represents IPC, and to some extent efficiency.