If all you do is gaming mostly like myself then consider waiting for Zen+ within the next year or two, you should get more performance from 7nm and better RAM support but if you really need to upgrade now at least get the 1600 or 1700, I wouldn't want to be on a £300 4 core when you can get a 6 core for £160 or 8 core for £280.
-
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.
Replace my i5 2500k 4.5 Ghz for i7 7700K or wait ?
- Thread starter jasonsony735
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Dec 2015
- Posts
- 3,043
If gaming is your primary use case, then it would be better to stick with Intel and get yourself a Coffee Lake or something, as AMD is hitting the 4GHz wall. Many games are bottlenecked on single-thread performance (which is why you see the 7700K as the king for gaming).
That's what I'm waiting for. Neither Ryzen or the 7700k are bad CPUs but I feel they are both lacking. The 7700k has the single core performance but lacks the future proofing of 6+ cores. Ryzen has the cores but the 4Ghz wall hurts its single core performance. Hopefully a 6 core Coffeelake will be the best of both worlds.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 38,367
I've spoken to a lot of people and basically the 2500K is now at a point that it's starting to struggle with top end open world games with a lot of physics involved.
It's still great but your talking about 33% performance boost going to kabylake. It depends on how much you calue a smooth experience. I'd much rather my CPU have headroom than run maxxed out constantly.
I have a 2500K @ 4.4 Ghz and there is no point in selling it tbh. I'm going to keep the rig as a spare.
It's still great but your talking about 33% performance boost going to kabylake. It depends on how much you calue a smooth experience. I'd much rather my CPU have headroom than run maxxed out constantly.
I have a 2500K @ 4.4 Ghz and there is no point in selling it tbh. I'm going to keep the rig as a spare.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 38,367
just looked at the spec of your system very nice. however HD650's albeit amazing music headphones. are pretty bad for competitive gaming. even their cheaper counterpart HD598's which were only £80 on prime day fyi are better than them in terms of competitive gaming. AKG K702's however set the standard in terms of value for money and competitive gaming. k712 pro's are better but IMO not worth the extra.
I do own the HD 598's as well from when they were on sale on Black Friday, plus some AKG 553's I intend to sell, you're probably right, I just don't take gaming that seriously and I enjoy the sound of my HD 650's. They're honestly just a pleasure to wear and the sound is perfect. You'd probably want a sharper sound without the additional bass for something like CS:GO though you're right.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 38,367
I use HD558's which can be modded into 598's for gaming on PS4 using a mixamp.
I use Q701's for gaming on PC using an Asus ROG Xonar Phoebus Solo. If someone else is in the room I then switch to DT770's.
I have HD 600's as well that I use for music only. I also have HD700's that have never been used. Apparently really good for gaming so I'm going to have to try them out soon. Then got 2 small sennheisers (on ear momentums and HD25-1 II's) for portable use (holidays, train, etc).
If anything I should sell my HD600's tbh as it's too much faff to switch to them for music. I might put them downstairs to use with my AVR.
Associate
- Joined
- 12 Jun 2012
- Posts
- 313
If you have any current workloads that utilise AVX instructions (simulations, analytics, hashing, etc) then you're not going to chose Ryzen and you're definitely not going to throw money down on Threadripper either. Going forward these extensions are likely to start factoring more and more into many different areas, and not just scientific workloads. Anyone remember the days when MMX mattered? Well this is just a progression of that and we've been taking it for granted for years but haven't had a huge amount of development in these area until now. Yes, it's early days but if you're investing in a new platform that is going to last you another 5 or 6 years (ie, Sandybridge age) then I'm guessing you'll not want to be buying twice if it turns out you find you're missing a critical instruction set. There's some interesting stuff on the SiSoftware site about AVX and the new implementation vs legacy.
What? Ryzen 7 supports AVX and AVX2, and does very well on all reviews who bothered to do so all way back in March, considering.
Is even good on FP AVX, if thats what you want.
Yes is bit slower than the 6900K/6950X but is different platform and is not having quad channel ram (Ryzen 7 only).
AMD packed the Ryzen CPUs it with everything, even ECC ram support.
Utter tosh.
If this is even remotely true then intel are in trouble because the 7900x cannot do avx at stock without throttling on a 240 AIO.
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 May 2007
- Posts
- 3,221
I would be careful buying a cpu with 4 core or less now if thinking of future proofing, more and more games etc take advantage of extra cores and multi threading.
Handbreak uses AVX....
The 16 core Threadripper will muller the 7900X and muller it with 30% less power consumption.
Even the far cheaper 12 core also will do so.
Associate
- Joined
- 12 Jun 2012
- Posts
- 313
Lets compare apples with apples please.
AVX2 has been around for quite some time, around 4 years in consumer CPUs, but I'm referring to the latest AVX-512 extensions. Ryzen does not support it and Threadripper has been announced as only supporting AVX-128, thus crudely equating to a factor of 4 difference between Intel and AMD's best offerings although somewhat less than that in reality as AVX tasks run at lower clocks.
Have a read on SiSoftware's take on the implications of AVX-512.
http://www.sisoftware.eu/2016/02/24/future-performance-with-avx512-in-sandra-2016-sp1/
It's not an issue today, but there's plenty of movement in this direction and with cryptography becoming ever more relevant with every quarter that passes (for some at least) it's something that might come home to roost far sooner than we might think. AVX-512 has been developed to allow the transition from legacy versions relatively easily so developers using AVX-512 won't necessarily leave CPU's with legacy AVX out of the loop - they should be able to cater for all versions with little more than a recompile. This has been a concern with previous iterations and a reason for previously slow adoption.
Associate
- Joined
- 12 Jun 2012
- Posts
- 313
Where did you see that? Core i9-7900X TDP is 140W but the best guesses I've seen so far indicates that Threadripper 1920X is going to be nearer 180W. I'd suggest that anyone whining about cooling 140W should just go home already as it's clearly not a playground they need to entertain because the 16 core 1950X isn't going to be less although the turbo looks be dropped by 300Mhz ... cumulatively another 4 cores isn't going to offset that by much.
TDP (Thermal Power Design) is utterly meaningless, it is not a measure of power consumption, anyone can write anything they like on the box and Call it TDP to make people think they are getting a part with a level of power consumption that they actually are not, and it seem's Intel take this to extremes because with Skylake-X as they draw by far and a long way more than the TDP rating Intel gave them, well over 200 Watts in fact.
The power consumption of Intel HEDT 10 core uses twice as much power as AMD's mainstream 8 core with Intel's 8 core not far behind that ridiculously power hungry 10 core.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,466
- Location
- Planet Earth
LMAO,now the hype bandwagon has moved to AVX512. Hardware enthusiasts on tech forums were hyping up AVX MK1,which took years to show any market usage,then when didn't get traction it was AVX2 and now its AVX512. FFS,both SB and BD support AVX but even then its fairly limited in usage.
By the time AVX512 is actually used in any meaningful way for single socket desktop PCs there will be much newer CPUs out there and all the hardware enthusiasts would have moved onto the next hyped extension. It was the same hype with TSX too - all the PC gamers and hardware enthusiasts on forums were bigging that up,yet at least on the consumer side its not really done much.
On top of that in the commercial markets it seems to not really made as much impact as enthusiasts think it has - Xeon Phi has AVX512 support and apparently Nvidia was doomed,but they seem to be holding their own.
Lots of servers out there actually still run legacy code anyway,and it takes a long time for software companies to change over to newer extensions. This is because they need to think of the pre-existing userbase,not hardware enthusiasts who upgrade every 5 seconds.
The problem is that if AMD,Nvidia and ARM licensees don't support it either,then it needs Intel to keep pushing it,which is why AVX/AVX2 has taken yonks to get anywhere.
Coffee Lake appears to not support it either.
So basically most of the Intel powered gaming PCs and productivity desktops out there for example won't actually support AVX512.
Edit!!
The main issue,is the AVX512 functionality costs a lot of transistors. This is what AT had to say:
Second Edit!!
Also the consoles don't support AVX512 either,so do people honestly think for gaming it will start to see any large scale usage at all?? Again it would require Intel to pump more money into forcing devs to use it.
Third Edit!!
Apparently looking over on AT forums,even AVX512 support is segmented too(12 different sets),so that means even if AVX512 support were to start becoming more relevant in a few years there is no guarantee whether the current chips will be that great at it anyway,as they are not fully compliant even now let alone if there are any new additions.
By the time AVX512 is actually used in any meaningful way for single socket desktop PCs there will be much newer CPUs out there and all the hardware enthusiasts would have moved onto the next hyped extension. It was the same hype with TSX too - all the PC gamers and hardware enthusiasts on forums were bigging that up,yet at least on the consumer side its not really done much.
On top of that in the commercial markets it seems to not really made as much impact as enthusiasts think it has - Xeon Phi has AVX512 support and apparently Nvidia was doomed,but they seem to be holding their own.
Lots of servers out there actually still run legacy code anyway,and it takes a long time for software companies to change over to newer extensions. This is because they need to think of the pre-existing userbase,not hardware enthusiasts who upgrade every 5 seconds.
The problem is that if AMD,Nvidia and ARM licensees don't support it either,then it needs Intel to keep pushing it,which is why AVX/AVX2 has taken yonks to get anywhere.
Coffee Lake appears to not support it either.
So basically most of the Intel powered gaming PCs and productivity desktops out there for example won't actually support AVX512.
Edit!!
The main issue,is the AVX512 functionality costs a lot of transistors. This is what AT had to say:
Second Edit!!
Also the consoles don't support AVX512 either,so do people honestly think for gaming it will start to see any large scale usage at all?? Again it would require Intel to pump more money into forcing devs to use it.
Third Edit!!
Apparently looking over on AT forums,even AVX512 support is segmented too(12 different sets),so that means even if AVX512 support were to start becoming more relevant in a few years there is no guarantee whether the current chips will be that great at it anyway,as they are not fully compliant even now let alone if there are any new additions.
Last edited: