Actually NOT the 8700K is the mobile 4core Kabylake part.
-
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.
Modern day CPU reviews and what is wrong with them.
- Thread starter humbug
- Start date
Actually NOT the 8700K is the mobile 4core Kabylake part.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 9,387
- Location
- newcastle
Got to love the fanboy, there a no prices out yet but he is still trying to justify his point with made up prices, also intel have really struggled with core speed on anything above 4cores so what makes you think these new 6and 8 core chips will be different, intels cheap( I use that word lightly) 8 core chips are clocked the same as the lowest 8 core AMD chip and the fastest 6 core is still clocked slower than the 1800x, so what makes you think that all of a sudden the new 8 core will be as fast as the 7700 core speed
Last edited:
It's difficult to say at what point developers will start to develop games/general software that actually needs more than 8 powerful threads. I'm sure it will happen and yes theres a few lone examples kicking about already just like there's a couple of dx12 games out yet dx12 is praised as the next biggest thing but in reality it doesn't exist.
Largely Intel has produced CPUs over 4 cores primarily (this includes -e lines) for professional platforms which favour long term durability and low power/heat over raw performance - Xeons for instance have always been low clocks compared to consumer CPUs. I suspect a CPU designed primarily for consumers will be clocked a lot better.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 9,387
- Location
- newcastle
Yet when those xeons are clocked up to 3-3.5ghz they put out massive heat so where is the extra head room going to come from for the consumer chips, or are intel just going to release new unlocked chips but tell everyone not to overclock them like they just have with the 7700k LMAO
This is one of the most notable changes in my gaming behavior over the last year or so. I would never alt and tab and load up other apps while gaming before but since the last year I have at least 4 apps minimum running while gaming with chat and various gaming apps open to keep in touch with friends. I also have some kind of video app running as well these days.
The more power available the more things I want to do.
? Trolling I guess?
Kabylake mobile 4 core parts are the usual 7700HQ etc (https://ark.intel.com/products/97185/Intel-Core-i7-7700HQ-Processor-6M-Cache-up-to-3_80-GHz). Plus no mobile part has had the -K suffix thus far, so go educate yourself before posting nonsense in capitals.
Even if it's named the 8790k, or 9700k, my point still stands - Intel's flagship mainsteam CPU has been $350 for many, many years.
Exactly this, I wish someone did a bigger review similar to the below video. Nobody is switching all other apps off in the background before gaming, temp monitors, rgb apps, chrome,twitch, yt or spotify, something else running on second screen, etc. You don't have to do encoding to see advantage of many cores.
The thing is there is no one review of real gaming situations and use of PC for gaming. What will happen even at this 1080p with gtx1080ti, when your 4core CPU is at 100% and you have other apps running? Which will drop more fps? the one with 100% used power or the one with 50%...
Sad is that majority of people have GPU on the lower end (rx460-480 level) and for them CPU doesn't matter in gaming, but they go to read reviews, look at the graph and assume that they have to have i7 7700 to have ultimate results in gaming.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 9,387
- Location
- newcastle
I bet it's not $359 this year
The results of this were frankly predictable, really this just confirms a trend with current mainstream Intel CPU's, they don't really have enough threads, GPU's like the 1070/80 1080TI are so powerful that even when not running low res and settings those 4 core Intel chips are at the limits keeping up with the GPU muscle, so much so that as soon as you throw a few light tasks at them ontop of trying to keep pace with the GPU they can't handle it, meanwhile the £200 12 thread Ryzen 5 just yawns "yeah? what else, eh?"
8650U is a kaby lake mobile CPU coming out this year.
http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/first-core-i7-8650u-processor-says-hi-in-gfxbench-benchmark.html
And given Intel doesn't usually mix generations with numbering, 9xxx will be the Cannon Lake.
I do personally as do many old school FPS gamers - when gaming I usually close spotify and many other programs, sometimes have the web browser open but most drop to low or no CPU use when they don't have focus. Personally if I was doing any streaming seriously I'd probably move to external hardware capture and a 2nd system for encoding, etc.
Many casual gamers I suspect don't and probably some more serious gamers.
I used to encode a gameply Videos for Youtube on AVS Video Editor and go play Battlefield 3 while doing it, this on the old FX8350, no problem.... its one ability i do miss about the old AMD chip, its about the only thing but the ability to play a AAA game while it was encoding a video in the background is real nice, i did try it on the i5 and oh.... oh.... lol it did not like it, noooo way! :O
Last edited:
I think you'd be surprised at how many actually do run background apps. My 9 year old listens to tune in or twitch whilst playing. Many of us use VoIP too. I can only think of a few arguments for a four core cpu now.
1 would be high refresh rate, which ryzen copes with fine, I have one.
Old games that use only one or two strong cores.
You already have a motherboard where you can slot an upgrade in to.
Works okish on my i7 its one of the reasons I went for it over an i5 but I wouldn't choose to do that - probably not even on Ryzen (I'd still use a second system) but its nice that they have that capability for those that don't want or can't have a second system.
Nah not surprise - just responding to the "no one" comment as there are still a not insignificant number of people who do close everything down like its 1999 still heh.
I would, Using your PC for more than just one thing at a time, what a concept.....
I take my gaming relatively seriously - don't like anything that might kick in and degrade performance or as occasionally happens throw up a alert box infront of the game, etc. with the way Windows works even with 24324234 cores if something gets busy it can still kill system performance anyhow - especially if it is crashing IO heavily in sporadic bursts.