My 1700 below scores 1592 at 3.6GHz clock (P-state). This still has the 2 core turbo at 3.7GHz and 3200 C14 ram.
-
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 to launch 6 core Coffee Lake-S CPUs & Z370 chipset 5 October 2017
- Thread starter AthlonXP1800
- Start date
My 1700 below scores 1592 at 3.6GHz clock (P-state). This still has the 2 core turbo at 3.7GHz and 3200 C14 ram.
Yeah, I bet if we all ran scores from the same cpu the scores would be all over the place. Too many variables.
It does give a ballpark figure though and thats all we have at the moment.
No need for the pseudo maths... The 1800X scores ~1800 overclocked, that's 20% higher than the 8700K at 4.5 to 4.7Ghz. whatever the 8700K clocks beyond that is what it will eat into the Ryzen 7 chips MT performance, simple.
Anyway... Yes, both of them now offer aspects where one is better than the other and in 'that' we have real choices, isn't it great?
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Dec 2015
- Posts
- 3,043
Is the 1800X really (noticeably) faster for multi-thread performance? I'd like to see some realistic overclocking results. This obviously includes some easy delidding of the 8700K.
The overclocking results of the 1800X are known facts, its 4 to 4.1Ghz scoring just shy of 1800 points in Cinebench MT.
We have seen apparent leaks of the 8700K scoring between as low as 1230 point's to as high as 1523 points, i know the wishful tendency is to take the best of those performance rumours and marry them to the worst possible clock rate scenario. (HYPE)
Yet if you do the maths you realise that 1523 point is 60% higher than the 950 points 7700K at 4.5Ghz, with only 50% more cores and a scaling that is never 1:1... so in truth that is a score more a kin to clocks from 4.7Ghz, if not even higher.
Realistic expectations....
Last edited:
1523 Points vs 1780 points is a difference of a lot more than 5%, its 18%.
Very impressive if thats stable. Though AIO's wont do that.
1523 vs 1617 stock clocks on cpumonkey = 5.8%
http://www.cpu-monkey.com/en/cpu_benchmark-cinebench_r15_multi_core-8
We don't know what that score of 1523 represents yet. We'll have to wait for the benchmarks to be released before we can make the comparisons.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Dec 2015
- Posts
- 3,043
We all became streamers or content creators and games will all now start using 8 cores since Ryzen launched, it is known
Yes, and if a game cannot scale well beyond 4 cores then it's crap and should not be played
Yes thats one leak, there is also a live video of someone testing a HP Desktop and it got 1230 point's
I'm not taking anyone leaked slide as fact we know nothing about as facts, i'm doing the maths, 1523 points is well over 50% more than a 7700K scores at its 4.5Ghz stock clocks, scaling is never as much as a perfect 1:1 so add that to the higher than its core count difference its quite obviously a score derived from 4.7Ghz or more...
The chances are their result, where ever they got it from is from and overclocked 8700K.
Who is BTVA and why can he provide information that 8pack can't. Maybe he is right but I'd rather wait a couple of weeks than believe a random dude.
Yes thats one leak, there is also a live video of someone testing a HP Desktop and it got 1230 point's
I'm not taking anyone leaked slide as fact we know nothing about as facts, i'm doing the maths, 1523 points is well over 50% more than a 7700K scores at its 4.5Ghz stock clocks, scaling is never as much as a perfect 1:1 so add that to the higher than its core count difference its quite obviously a score derived from 4.7Ghz or more...
The chances are their result, where ever they got it from is from and overclocked 8700K.
Here.... it doesn't get much more real than an actual 8700K in an actual Cinebench run.
Yes thats one leak, there is also a live video of someone testing a HP Desktop and it got 1230 point's
I'm not taking anyone leaked slide as fact we know nothing about as facts, i'm doing the maths, 1523 points is well over 50% more than a 7700K scores at its 4.5Ghz stock clocks, scaling is never as much as a perfect 1:1 so add that to the higher than its core count difference its quite obviously a score derived from 4.7Ghz or more...
The chances are their result, where ever they got it from is from and overclocked 8700K.
PCPER also dismissed this score as being incorrect. Again we don't know but we can **** fling whilst we wait
I have no clue but he has provided screens and what does he have to lose? If 8pack broke NDA it would have consequences for him and OCUK, some random guy on a forum doesn't have that worry.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Dec 2015
- Posts
- 3,043
I read from somewhere that the leak was not using the correct version of Cinebench. That's why I'd prefer to see the final numbers.
PCPER also dismissed this score as being incorrect. Again we don't know but we can **** fling whilst we wait
I have no clue but he has provided screens and what does he have to lose? If 8pack broke NDA it would have consequences for him and OCUK, some random guy on a forum doesn't have that worry.
Ryan Sprout says a lot of things, usually without thinking or even knowing half of what's actually being talked about.
If its fake they faked it live on the show floor in HP's booth while the HP rep was talking about the score. right.....
So from that video it scores 100 points more running at 3.7ghz than a 1600 running at 3.2ghz.