-
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.
Official OcUK Skylake-X & Kabylake-X Review thread
- Thread starter CAT-THE-FIFTH
- Start date
Considering that even you quoted about ****** thermal pads, how can you compare temps if TTl only measured heatsink temp? Don't you think they will be cool if there will be issue der8auer mentioned about? Or did you already forget what you wrote earlier?
did you not notice where TTL also measured temps in the back of the vrms? the exact same spot that der8auer did?
That is probably the most important post about the VRM issue.
Over on a certain American forum, many are making silly comments about der8auer and a conspiracy to defame Intel. Obviously, they are trying to sweepr the issue it under the carpet. (I apologise to whose who get that pun. It's not mine actually, but it was just too good not to use.)
TTL tested both the prime the strix and gaming 3. if you actaully listen to this video...
he captured the temperatures in the same place as the other guy. including the back of the PCB between the heatsink & the board
Not when his voice is so grating - I am not sitting through a 41 minute video. Please direct me to the exact time that he benchmarks the gaming 3
Man this thread is confusing. One minute the cpus are power hungry and run hot, the next minute they are fine. One minute the heat sinks are rubbish the next minute they are not it's the psu. One minute der8auer is world class over clocker able to push these chips to 5ghz, the next he's an incompetent shill lol.
Anyone actually got one yet preferable someone who doesn't have a bias or any kind?
Anyone actually got one yet preferable someone who doesn't have a bias or any kind?
What we know and everyone agrees, from many here to reviewers?
a) The CPUs are power hungry
b) They run hot and cannot be cooled efficiently.
c) PCI-E lanes castrated even the higher models
d) Terrible value for money. eg 7820X +X299 vs 1700 + X370, let alone B350 board.
Add poor gaming performance compared to last gens flagship to that list.
That's simply untrue. If you go through the reviews then the 7820/7900 are generally quicker in most gaming benchmarks. PCPer is certainly an exception and it doesn't win all games at all resolutions but poor gaming performance even in comparison to previous gen is false.
That one is really hilarious if you think about it.
First saw that on the big American forum with tons of Intel fans, and it's as if nobody there realised that der8auer (like 8pack here) works for Caseking and would really love to push lots of expensive X299 overclocked bundles, or at least for those not willing pay for that, his new de-lidding tool. That he doesn't recommend the current boards is a credit to him and Caseking really. But no, anything critical of a company makes someone a shill who'd rather get a few internet hits than selling full bundles.
OK so you've taken the time to pick out some bad ones. I could post up some good ones but whats the point? Anyone making a decision should look at all the reviews and make your own mind up rather than letting fanboys do it for you. As I said most of the game benchmarks show the 7900/7820 at the top or very near it.
My point being its no better than the chip it replaced, for gaming.
It is a very fast chip no doubt but when its losing to its predecessor whilst running hotter and consuming more power it doesn't look good.
If this was a graphics card this would be a very different conversation.
I think they perform pretty well for what they are, which is not a gaming chip. Your just not going to buy a 7900x for gaming purposes, you'll be better of with a 7700k or a coffee lake.
right but if you want the best performance that's something amd doesn't offer.
much with all tech, the more performance you want the less you get for your money.
look at the price jump for a 1050 to a 1060 then 70 then 80 then ti.
for each performanfe jump you get less performance for your cash, same even with amd cpus, compare price/performance of a 1700 to an 1800x.
same again with intel, yea it's more expensive than a ryzen setup but offers a fair chunk better performance for a 7820x, a 7900x again offers better performance but costs a chunk more etc etc.
But it's generally not losing. If you said it loses on some rare occasions fine, but just losing means nothing. I and anyone can only go by the numbers and looking at the reviews again just now, it wins a fair bit more than it loses. I'm not making it up, the numbers are there. In fact mostly it's hard to tell as so many of the numbers seem bottlenecked. That's not to say it's amazing or great value for money but saying it loses to previous gen is misleading.