New CPU Time

[gavinh87]

what would be nice is forget other sites benchies. ocuk take top ten games " we " actually play that are popular and bench them.this works well for ocuk and for us as customers.then you can see what is what.

do stock and ocd max.

 

[Jono8]

This is also pretty astonishing, both the 7800X and Ryzen 1600 are 6 core 12 thread CPU's, not only does the Ryzen chip have about a 15% higher IPC its also far more power efficient, the 7800X is using 68 watts more power.

I would be wary of that review personally

https://www.reddit.com/r/intel/comm...unboxeds_7800x_review_is_flawed_and/?sort=new

Asrock have already released a micro code fix already

From that thread:

"The TechSpot/Hardware Unboxed guy's system or numbers are off. Here are results of the same games from two other sites except they put the 7800x versus the 1800X instead of the 1600.

https://nl.hardware.info/reviews/7443/12/intel-core-i7-7820x-en-7800x-review-goedkopere-skylake-x-cpus-getest-gaming-benchmarks-gtx-1080-ti-rise-of-the-tomb-raider-dx12

• 
  
• Hardware.info has the 7800x faster or equal to the 1800X at every game they tested, averaging out to 12.7% faster in gaming overall.
  
• In GTA V, Techspot shows the 7800x as being 2-3% slower than a 1600 but hardware.info shows the 7800x as being 6 to 15% faster than the 1800X.
  
• In BF1, Techspot shows the 7800x as being about equal to a 1600 but hardware.info shows the 7800x as being 17 to 31% faster than the 1800X.
  
• In Doom, Techspot shows the 7800x as being 10% slower than the 1600, but hardware.info shows the 7800x being equal to the 1800X.
  
• In RoTR, Techspot shows the 7800x as being 12% faster than the 1600 but hardware.info shows the 7800x being 16-18% faster than an 1800X

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2017-intel-skylake-x-review-core-i9-7900x-i7-7820x-i7-7800x-i7-7740x

• 
  
• Digital Foundry showed that the 7800x was faster in every game they tested than a Ryzen 1800X OCed to 4.0.
  
• In Farcry Primal, Techspot showed that the 7800x was 3% slower than a 1600 @ 4.0ghz, but Digital Foundry shows the 7800x being 15% faster than an 1800X @ 4.0ghz
  
• In The Division, Techspot showed that 7800x was equal to a 1600x @ 4.0ghz, but Digital Foundry shows the 7800x being 5% faster than an 1800X @ 4.0ghz"

Also, the two reviews I posted further up clearly show the 7820x beating the 1800x overall in gaming as well.

Ryzen is fantastic no doubt but pretending it is all of a sudden the fastest and best thing out there is unhelpful and I wouldn't want people to base their purchase on the hyperbole you are spouting on here.

Is Ryzen the best bang for buck? Yes.

Is it the fastest? No, not yet. Intel still has the edge (especially if overclocking) and will therefore continue to price their chips higher. Furthermore, like always some people will be prepared to pay the money to get the absolute best.

Hopefully Zen 2 can truly dethrone Intel.

 

[humbug]

I would be wary of that review personally

https://www.reddit.com/r/intel/comm...unboxeds_7800x_review_is_flawed_and/?sort=new

Asrock have already released a micro code fix already

From that thread:

"The TechSpot/Hardware Unboxed guy's system or numbers are off. Here are results of the same games from two other sites except they put the 7800x versus the 1800X instead of the 1600.

https://nl.hardware.info/reviews/7443/12/intel-core-i7-7820x-en-7800x-review-goedkopere-skylake-x-cpus-getest-gaming-benchmarks-gtx-1080-ti-rise-of-the-tomb-raider-dx12

• 
  
• Hardware.info has the 7800x faster or equal to the 1800X at every game they tested, averaging out to 12.7% faster in gaming overall.
  
• In GTA V, Techspot shows the 7800x as being 2-3% slower than a 1600 but hardware.info shows the 7800x as being 6 to 15% faster than the 1800X.
  
• In BF1, Techspot shows the 7800x as being about equal to a 1600 but hardware.info shows the 7800x as being 17 to 31% faster than the 1800X.
  
• In Doom, Techspot shows the 7800x as being 10% slower than the 1600, but hardware.info shows the 7800x being equal to the 1800X.
  
• In RoTR, Techspot shows the 7800x as being 12% faster than the 1600 but hardware.info shows the 7800x being 16-18% faster than an 1800X

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2017-intel-skylake-x-review-core-i9-7900x-i7-7820x-i7-7800x-i7-7740x

• 
  
• Digital Foundry showed that the 7800x was faster in every game they tested than a Ryzen 1800X OCed to 4.0.
  
• In Farcry Primal, Techspot showed that the 7800x was 3% slower than a 1600 @ 4.0ghz, but Digital Foundry shows the 7800x being 15% faster than an 1800X @ 4.0ghz
  
• In The Division, Techspot showed that 7800x was equal to a 1600x @ 4.0ghz, but Digital Foundry shows the 7800x being 5% faster than an 1800X @ 4.0ghz"

Also, the two reviews I posted further up clearly show the 7820x beating the 1800x overall in gaming as well.

Ryzen is fantastic no doubt but pretending it is all of a sudden the fastest and best thing out there is unhelpful and I wouldn't want people to base their purchase on the hyperbole you are spouting on here.

Is Ryzen the best bang for buck? Yes.

Is it the fastest? No, not yet. Intel still has the edge and will therefore continue to price their chips higher. Furthermore, like always some people will be prepared to pay the money to get the absolute best.

Hopefully Zen 2 can truly dethrone Intel.

They are completely trustworthy, All of them are correct, Digital Foundry and Hardware.info used slow RAM.

Techspot used LL 3200Mhz Ram which has a 20% + performance increase to the reviews you are citing, Hardware Unboxed also tested 30 Games with LL 3200Mhz ram and came up with very similar results, TPU also tested with 3200Mhz RAM and also get to with in 10% of the 7700K with the Ryzen 1600, theres a German reviewer who also got similar results to Techspot with 3200Mhz RAM.

Its not just Techspot, its a whole bunch of others coming up with the same results.

The fact is with 3200Mhz RAM Ryzen has much higher IPC than Intel which enables it to make up the clock deficit.

 

[gavinh87]

I'm also pretty sure I read that digital foundry have not retested ryzen since launch.

 

[humbug]

I'm also pretty sure I read that digital foundry have not retested ryzen since launch.

Actually they did, yesterday, while they tested it vs the i5 they have the Ryzen 1600 ahead, so that Reddit post Jano8 linked is now also out of date and wrong.

This is one of the screenshots out of it, there is no denying Ryzen now.

 

[RavenXXX2]

Just a butthurt Intel shill there on reddit.

 

[Jono8]

Actually they did, yesterday, while they tested it vs the i5 they have the Ryzen 1600 ahead, so that Reddit post Jano8 linked is now also out of date and wrong.

This is one of the screenshots out of it, there is no denying Ryzen now.

What? The i5 isn't in the link I posted. and that picture ^ has already been discussed.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Just a butthurt Intel shill there on reddit.

Its even more hilarious when some here are desperately trying to justify £300+ Core i7 7700K and Core i7 7800X CPUs,on more expensive motherboards and with the latter platform using quad channel RAM too.

I mean the little old CPU which can,ie,the Ryzen 5 1600 comes with a great stock cooler and is well under £200 and can be overclocked fine on £80 B350 motherboards. Not even the Core i5 7600K comes with a cooler. LMAO.

But,but lets excuse make for Intel cost cutting on the packaging by invalidating the warranty and delidding it since that will save the day. Intel is laughing all the way to the bank - they don't even need to spend money on the warranty for the K series parts since enthusiasts are quite happy to invalidate it.

This is why Intel is now making the Core i3 4C/8T - it seems Intel is spooked enough to essentially drop the price of a 4C/8T Core i7 by around 50% or thereabouts.

Edit!!

If the Core i3 8350K follows the initial RRP of the Core i3 7350K it will be basically Ryzen 5 1600 level pricing(or a tad higher once you get even a £20 to £30 cooler).

So that is how much Intel thinks a 4C/8T Core i7 is probably worth now.

Also,the Core i7 7800X for gaming - LOL,why would you even want to look at it with 6C/12T Coffee Lake,and sub £300 8C/16T Ryzen CPUs.

 

[DarkHorizon472]

haha just use games we play.which show benefit of a good cpu.think about it its good for ocuk if 8pack did some benchies of all the new and great cpus in gaming.many sites are biased or getting back handers.we mainly all come here to buy gear.let them show the best cpus for gaming and whatever.

pubg
battlefield 1
witcher 3
wow

cinebench and the like are great but we just want to see what we actually use them for.

 

[humbug]

Its even more hilarious when some here are desperately trying to justify £300+ Core i7 7700K and Core i7 7800X CPUs,on more expensive motherboards and with the latter platform using quad channel RAM too.

I mean the little old CPU which can,ie,the Ryzen 5 1600 comes with a great stock cooler and is well under £200 and can be overclocked fine on £80 B350 motherboards. Not even the Core i5 7600K comes with a cooler. LMAO.

But,but lets excuse make for Intel cost cutting on the packaging by invalidating the warranty and delidding it since that will save the day. Intel is laughing all the way to the bank - they don't even need to spend money on the warranty for the K series parts since enthusiasts are quite happy to invalidate it.

This is why Intel is now making the Core i3 4C/8T - it seems Intel is spooked enough to essentially drop the price of a 4C/8T Core i7 by around 50% or thereabouts.

Edit!!

If the Core i3 8350K follows the initial RRP of the Core i3 7350K it will be basically Ryzen 5 1600 level pricing(or a tad higher once you get even a £20 to £30 cooler).

So that is how much Intel thinks a 4C/8T Core i7 is probably worth now.

Also,the Core i7 7800X for gaming - LOL,why would you even want to look at it with 6C/12T Coffee Lake,and sub £300 8C/16T Ryzen CPUs.

AMD will simply react to that. those Ryzen 1600's will probably end up sub £150, which is great.

A race to the pricing rock bottom is good for use, maybe even those Threadrippers end up £200 cheaper, that will really put the pain on Intel.

Happy days.....

 

[Chuk_Chuk]

Not even the Core i5 7600K comes with a cooler. LMAO.

I haven't bought a CPU since i got my 4670k so i'm a bit out of the loop but are you seriously saying that intel doesn't offer a stock cooler anymore?

 

[humbug]

I haven't bought a CPU since i got my 4670k so i'm a bit out of the loop but are you seriously saying that intel doesn't offer a stock cooler anymore?

Not with the 7000K series no.

 

[Chuk_Chuk]

Not with the 7000K series no.

Are they being cheapskates or is it just no longer sufficient to keep control of them temps at stock speeds?

 

[gavinh87]

Are they being cheapskates or is it just no longer sufficient to keep control of them temps at stock speeds?

The latter I'd say, warm little buggers. Although most that buy a k series would bin the cooler anyway.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

AMD will simply react to that. those Ryzen 1600's will probably end up sub £150, which is great.

A race to the pricing rock bottom is good for use, maybe even those Threadrippers end up £200 cheaper, that will really put the pain on Intel.

Happy days.....

Thats the thing - why bother spending more than £200 on a CPU at this point,when instead of a £350 CPU,you can save £150+ and get a better graphics card?? This is how it used to be - buy a budget CPU,overclock it a bit,and put the savings into a faster card.

This is great for gamers!!

I haven't bought a CPU since i got my 4670k so i'm a bit out of the loop but are you seriously saying that intel doesn't offer a stock cooler anymore?

Not on the K series - but look at how smaller and smaller their stock coolers have got?? They could have easily included a cooler the size of the stock Ryzen 5 1600 or Ryzen 7 1700 had but CBA it appears.

Its seems AMD has to show Intel how stock coolers should be it appears,and that really factors into the equation too.

 

[jaffveyda]

Its even more hilarious when some here are desperately trying to justify £300+ Core i7 7700K and Core i7 7800X CPUs,on more expensive motherboards and with the latter platform using quad channel RAM too.

I mean the little old CPU which can,ie,the Ryzen 5 1600 comes with a great stock cooler and is well under £200 and can be overclocked fine on £80 B350 motherboards. Not even the Core i5 7600K comes with a cooler. LMAO.

But,but lets excuse make for Intel cost cutting on the packaging by invalidating the warranty and delidding it since that will save the day. Intel is laughing all the way to the bank - they don't even need to spend money on the warranty for the K series parts since enthusiasts are quite happy to invalidate it.

This is why Intel is now making the Core i3 4C/8T - it seems Intel is spooked enough to essentially drop the price of a 4C/8T Core i7 by around 50% or thereabouts.

Edit!!

If the Core i3 8350K follows the initial RRP of the Core i3 7350K it will be basically Ryzen 5 1600 level pricing(or a tad higher once you get even a £20 to £30 cooler).

So that is how much Intel thinks a 4C/8T Core i7 is probably worth now.

Also,the Core i7 7800X for gaming - LOL,why would you even want to look at it with 6C/12T Coffee Lake,and sub £300 8C/16T Ryzen CPUs.

That would be a great example of Intel ripping its customers.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

DF tests the Ryzen 5 1600/1600X against the Core i5 7600K:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2017-ryzen-5-1600-1600x-vs-core-i5-7500k-review

The Witcher 3, Rise of the Tomb Raider and especially Crysis 3 love frequency of course, but they also benefit heavily from as many cores and threads as you can throw at them, with both Ryzen 5s offering a significant advantage over Intel's stock Core i5. Here, Ryzen 5 sits comfortably at a mid-point between Core i5 and Core i7. However, not everything is as it seems based on the numbers alone. Assassin's Creed Unity posts a lead on the i5, but when studying performance at the per-scene level, i5 is pulling ahead in relatively empty scenes in our benchmark, with Ryzen 5 performing better in areas packed with NPCs. There's the suggestion that the i5 frame-rate average is boosted by big performance gains in less useful, more 'empty' rendering scenes. Similarly, in the Crysis 3 benchmark, the i5 and indeed i7's scores are skewed higher when the viewpoint shifts to similarly sparse scenes.

We've got a complete breakdown of this behaviour in our video review, but the bottom line is that it's not just different game engines that can favour i5 or Ryzen 5 processors - it can actually vary on a scene-by-scene nature in many games. And of course, therefore, results can vary depending very much on what scenes are chosen for benchmarking.

To illustrate, The Witcher 3's Novigrad City - our test area - can easily max an i5 quad with 100 per cent utilisation across all cores, and Ryzen 5 is faster here. However, benchmark a less demanding area or an engine-driven cut-scene and the i5 takes the lead. We've tried to tailor our tests to concentrate more on these heavier workloads and for our money Ryzen 5 is the more versatile, capable performer in areas where the CPU matters most in gaming.

But with the CPUs available to buy right now, Ryzen 5 1600 is our choice as the best mainstream gaming CPU on the market. And that's a simply phenomenal achievement - since the debut of the Core i5 2500K back in 2011, Intel's i5 K chips have earned their place at the heart of millions of users' gaming PCs. The Ryzen alternative is faster where it needs to be, better suited to more modern game engines, and comes across overall as a kind of hybrid of i5 and four-core/six-core i7s depending on how its resources are deployed. This is AMD at its best: innovative, disruptive and bringing about radical change in a static market, with a simply superb alternative product.

 

[Bluntwrapped]

Intel over the last few years have cut CCG costs considerably and reinvested the saving elsewhere. So they say anyway..

We give them too much credit speculating stock coolers are no longer included as they are not fit for purpose, or they use cheap TIM between the IHS and die due to hardware manufacturing limitations.

I guess many naturally try and defend these theories as no one likes to feel ripped off.

The truth is of course Intel set out to cut costs as quickly and simply as possible while maximising profit. Hence no soldered IHS, included cooler and increased pricing across the board.

It's hard to imagine how more obvious things need to be before everyone can acknowledge a ***** deal when they see one.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

Actually they did, yesterday, while they tested it vs the i5 they have the Ryzen 1600 ahead, so that Reddit post Jano8 linked is now also out of date and wrong.

This is one of the screenshots out of it, there is no denying Ryzen now.

Jesus - look at that shocking frame variance on the i5

 

[Deleted member 66701]

The truth is of course Intel set out to cut costs as quickly and simply as possible while maximising profit. Hence no soldered IHS, included cooler and increased pricing across the board.

Tbf to Intel, the reasons for non-soldered IHS isn't just cost saving, there's also an environmental impact re Indium to consider.