Soldato
GTA5 is known to run best on Intel, show me something I don't know.
-
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
GTA5 is known to run best on Intel, show me something I don't know.
Soldato
Yeah gtx1080ti at 1080p... Any gpu less than, or resolution higher than and are equal.
And 1700X is £100 cheaper, and equally cheaper mobo like the b350 can be used and overclocked.
Soldato
Two things... Firstly, he was taking the pee, secondly the 1080 Ti performance will be coming to a mid range card near you in the next 12-24 months, but why bother to make sure your brand new system that you are just buying might be able to run your next GPU as fast as possible, right?
Ha I'll believe that when I see it. Yes nVidia has been providing nice improvements to GPU performance over the recent years but prices have also gone up significantly due to lack of competition. So unless by "mid-range" you mean £400+ then it's not going to happen.
Also this is based on a huge assumption that in the next 12-24 months all new games will perform the same as current games do on both Intel and AMD systems. We already know newer games work better with Ryzen than older ones do (such as GTA V that was used as the example here), so to suggest that an i5-8400 will last longer than an R5 1600(X) is pretty bold. I'm not sure how one can come to that conclusion at this moment. Maybe 6 cores will become the new 4 cores and be the king of gaming for another 5+ years, but maybe not.
Soldato
So, 6 months later and ryzen is still failing memory training even at 2933.
Must be a faulty board or cpu, right?
Soldato
780Ti top end card, released Nov '13, GTX 1060 released July '16 - which is the same or faster. So top end moves to mid-tier, within a three year window.
Also, don't try and put text in my mouth, I said
I didn't specify any brand, just that using a fast/very fast card is most sensible, if you are buying now as you can see how newer GPU's will cause it to behave.
So I believe you owe me an apology?
Soldato
What voltages are we looking at for 4.8 currently on 8700k - 1.275-1.3?
Exactly. That took 3 years at at a time when there was actually competition right the way through the stack, which we really don't have right now. I assume you meant 1-2 years from now, i.e. 1.5-2.5 years after the 1080 Ti launched? And I also assume that your comparison to a 1060 means your definition of "mid-range" is ~£200?
Huh? I specifically talked about both brands. I was talking about how testing currently high end GPUs on current CPUs using current games won't necessarily tell you performance of those same CPUs with newer GPUs using newer games. Do you not agree?
Soldato
I'd say that's a little high. For me anyway 4.7 is 1.2v and 5.0 is 1.32v
Your 8700K has been stolen by the DPD driver to check what it clocks like, if it's rubbish you'll get it tomorrow, if it's great he'll keep it and give you his rubbish one.
Soldato
Clearly when you said "I'm not sure how one can come to that conclusion at this moment" with reference to the previous part of the sentence, and quoting me in the first place, you were targeting that at me. If not then I'm not quite sure why you'd quote me, however forum text is easy to misinterpret.
Mid-range isn't defined by price, rather the model range. You can't use price in the UK as we don't work in $'s so prices from one year are not the same three years later.
I would consider mid-range to be the GTX 1060, low-mid 1050 Ti, and the newly invented high-mid GTX 1060 6GB. Regardless of competition, unless Nvidia keep releasing new technology they don't get volume sales as they've already come and gone, and very few people will spend money on a minor performance bump. So to convince a current user of a GTX 1060 to move up, you have to offer something as good as or better than the stuff you were peddling the generation previously. After all they are a publicly listed company, and as such generating income is how they keep people interested.
Either way, should reviews just be done with a low end card? Or do you think that it is sensible to show the performance differences between parts by using something that will show this, regardless of the cost?
All makes sense in theory but then Intel have done fine for themselves over the last 6 years whilst providing extremely little per generation. I think there's always a steady stream of people who are upgrading their entire system, who will generally look for the latest tech when deciding what to buy. If the GTX 3060 is only 15% faster than the GTX 1060, at the same price, it will surely still sell well, assuming AMD haven't moved on either. Or maybe even if they have, what with nVidia's mindshare.
Nah you just have to be sensible. Almost no-one is going to be pairing a GTX 1080 Ti with an i5-8400. I understand the desire to show that one CPU has more potential than another in the future because of how it performs now with a high end GPU, and there is merit in such a test (e.g. people playing e-sports games at 1080p and wanting maximum FPS). However, there's so many variables and assumptions that need to be made for that type of test to actually be indicative of performance when paired with future cards. Even when narrowing it down to the i5-8400 and R5 1600, all you need is for a couple of AAA games to utilise SMT well or to use the Vulkan API and the tables would likely turn in review sites' round-ups. You don't get that information from testing with a GTX 1080 Ti. What if Intel move to a mesh architecture with different cache setups for mainstream chips (like they did with X299) and then game developers start optimising for that? Ring bus CPUs with current cache setups would suffer. Then there's oddities like ROTR performing better on Ryzen with mid-range AMD GPUs than it does with nVidia ones. Does that necessarily mean Ryzen is more future proof then? Well no, because we don't know if future games will behave in the same way.
Erm...
Because it's faster.
Cores aren't everything, you only have to look to the FX series to realise that.
Ryzen is consistently behind intel in gaming benchmarks regardless of core counts. As of today a quad core intel is faster in gaming than an 8 core Ryzen. Plenty of graphs averaging out gaming performance to prove that.
Tomorrow? Who knows but it won't Ryzen mk1 that overtakes kaby/coffee, it's already too far behind.
Soldato
Good to know. I'll prob just clock straight to 4.8 and 1.28 after first boot at stock and go from there.
What sort of temps are 8700k retail owners seeing when using air and idle? I got half way through building my system this morning and booted into BIOS to see an idle temp of 35c with a Noctua NH-D15. If this is rubbish, I will reapply the paste before finishing up.
Caporegime
It depends on your ambient temperature in the room. If your room was 30c it would be fine but if your room was 5c it would be rather warm.
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Dec 2015
- Posts
- 18,512
so, i5 8400 and i5 8600k on the way... forgot to cancel the K version... question is do i keep it for 8400 vs 1600 shoot out and sell it or return it so another person on the list doesn't have to sit and wait ....
The ambient temp is about 15-20c so perhaps not great. I'll put the system under load and see what happens.
Caporegime
Well TBH my stock clocked IB Core i7 idles about the same with a Corsair H60. I would probably try a quick stress test to check if load temperatures are a bit off.
Caporegime
I would cancel the k - I get the impression the 8400 is going to be the sweet spot of the range TBH.