Hmm, the end of the life cycle for 7700K will arrive in 1 year, for 8700K will arrive in 2 years, while for Ryzen 2700 will arrive in 5 years or more.
GTX 1080 Ti should be used for 4K gaming, while in SLi it can do 8K gaming
-
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.
Why Benchmarking CPUs with the GTX 1080 Ti is NOT STUPID!
- Thread starter gavinh87
- Start date
Hmm, the end of the life cycle for 7700K will arrive in 1 year, for 8700K will arrive in 2 years, while for Ryzen 2700 will arrive in 5 years or more.
GTX 1080 Ti should be used for 4K gaming, while in SLi it can do 8K gaming
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 6,042
Who buys a PC only for gaming and will many actually notice the difference in FPS especially above 1080P? I find it funny enthusiasts will still game at 1080P and even concerned about benchmarks for CPU at that res. Heck, even I upgraded to 1440P in 2011.
The video/screenshot above shows in this one game at whatever resolution the 7700K despite being closer to it's limits is still producing faster FPS, by 0.4FPs, whoopee doo. Fact is though, it seems to be faster, if that really matters.
Moving forward it's obvious that the best CPU to buy has more cores, if buying something to last a while. At this very moment 4-cores may still be optimal for a higher % of games if you want to be anal about FPS but probably nobody will notice the difference anyway. So who really should care?
I like gaming but probably 97% or even higher of the use both my PC's get is non-gaming. I have a 16 Core TR system and a 6700K system. I tried a Titan X(pascal) in both and played some games and to me there was no difference at 1440P. A few benchmarks also showed the same, not much in it at all. Sure the 6700K system was ahead but does it even matter if you can't see the difference playing a game?
IMO unless buying a system only for gaming, buy a CPU based on the use the system is likely to receive the majority of the time and then buy the best GPU you can afford or justify buying. Job done.
I say reserve gaming benchmarks for GPU comparisons, not CPU.
Just my opinion and I've not heavily into this stuff, but seems to me just buy the CPU must suited to the uses your system will see most of the time and then throw the best GPU you can afford/justify paying at it for gaming, and pay little attention to gaming benchmarks to "prove" a CPU.
The video/screenshot above shows in this one game at whatever resolution the 7700K despite being closer to it's limits is still producing faster FPS, by 0.4FPs, whoopee doo. Fact is though, it seems to be faster, if that really matters.
Moving forward it's obvious that the best CPU to buy has more cores, if buying something to last a while. At this very moment 4-cores may still be optimal for a higher % of games if you want to be anal about FPS but probably nobody will notice the difference anyway. So who really should care?
I like gaming but probably 97% or even higher of the use both my PC's get is non-gaming. I have a 16 Core TR system and a 6700K system. I tried a Titan X(pascal) in both and played some games and to me there was no difference at 1440P. A few benchmarks also showed the same, not much in it at all. Sure the 6700K system was ahead but does it even matter if you can't see the difference playing a game?
IMO unless buying a system only for gaming, buy a CPU based on the use the system is likely to receive the majority of the time and then buy the best GPU you can afford or justify buying. Job done.
I say reserve gaming benchmarks for GPU comparisons, not CPU.
Just my opinion and I've not heavily into this stuff, but seems to me just buy the CPU must suited to the uses your system will see most of the time and then throw the best GPU you can afford/justify paying at it for gaming, and pay little attention to gaming benchmarks to "prove" a CPU.
Last edited:
It just seems, in reality probably stutters like hell.
Hmm, the end of the life cycle for 7700K will arrive in 1 year, for 8700K will arrive in 2 years, while for Ryzen 2700 will arrive in 5 years or more.
GTX 1080 Ti should be used for 4K gaming, while in SLi it can do 8K gaming
lol stop talking nonsense.8700k will be nearly 5ghz.when will mainstream amd chips be that close ? 5 years ? so its faster since release and faster than any amd chip even if its the next two years.thats 3 years faster than any amd chip for gaming.which is the whole point! while you owned the cpu. you have had the fastest cpu for your money over the period you used it.before upgrading again. but but my ryzen will of gained 5-10 fps over it in 3 years time . who cares ? by then 90 percent on here on the next platfrom. so stupid.even pointing it out. for a little more you can a intel option which will be faster in all games you play and be faster for the whole period you keep the pc for the majority of the owners.now if the intel option for the i7 you buy is £100 more thats 30 quid a year per 3 years you keep it to have the better pc . there is no reason to pick the amd chips.unless you either a fanboy and deluded or just cant work it out logically.if you have a decent high end pc you can afford that extra £100 over the 3 years you keep it.
Right, with CPU loads at 95% its not going to be smooth but the point passifid also made is that with faster GPU's the 1700 should pull ahead, i make this point now because you would never see that from slides, in fact if i remember correctly on the original BF1 benchmarks the 7700K was at the top of the slides, when you look at it like that, with this missing information one would be lead to believe the 7700K was the one to get, and in those days it was still put up against the 6800K, 6900K and 6950K.
The fact is like all 4 core CPU's the 7700K was not a good CPU to pair with a GTX 1080TI, if not Ryzen the 6800K is better.
It does make me curious about how the 7700K does against Ryzen 2###, i think the 2600/X will beat it.
Hmm, the gigahertz race ended long time ago with the EOL of the Pentium 4.
8700K reaches 5GHz but on a single core and that is its turbo frequency. The base frequency is much lower, actually below the 4GHz mark.
Its not you know, its 4.3Ghz, on some reviews with Asus boards it 4.7Ghz.
so in all the game benchmarks the amd chips are behind since forever it doesnt matter ? my god it gets worse.every game benchmark shows it matters . it will continue to matter. what you and others cant seem to grasp is intel put out the mainstream chips people need want.enough cores and the high mhz.amd just try to sell you " double " the amount of cores to seem like a better deal because they cant match or beat the mhz needed.
thats why in literally every decent gaming benchmark the intel chips are at the top. its not new either 920/6700k/7700k/8700k you get the drift.always at the top people whine about cores.intel give you the amount needed for mainstream gaming.
thats why in literally every decent gaming benchmark the intel chips are at the top. its not new either 920/6700k/7700k/8700k you get the drift.always at the top people whine about cores.intel give you the amount needed for mainstream gaming.
Well that's not quite true is it, every benchmark that appears in here where Ryzen is on top you go on a rant calling it fake so in your world nothing that disagrees with you is decent.
cause you only post ones that show ryzen top. why not post them where it shows that intel is faster ? your pro amd. to the core.im not either. i have both ryzen and intel systems.i post benchmarks to show what is actually better.not just for one or the other.
Your opinions of me a side for the sake of argument that doesn't make those reviews any less valid.
A lot of it is down to timing as well, e.g. when you bought into your last platform, and how rapidly new GPU's have become available, and how much the graphical API's change in that time frame.
Lets take an example of the 6700K, if you bought it at release October 2015, and at the time had a GTX 980Ti, you would have had no problems. Roll on to June 2017, and you've decided you want more performance in the wide range of games you play now, and have moved to a new monitor with higher refresh available to you, so you get a GTX 1080Ti, which is around 20-21 months after you first bought the platform, but the 6700K is still pushing the card to it's max in the majority of games.
Lets move on to October 2018 (the future) so far you've had the fastest platform available (for the majority of titles) and it's been your for 3 years. Nvidia/AMD finally decide to release faster GPU's to the consumer market, but only 20% faster than the 1080Ti, so you decide it's not worth it, and wait for the 1180Ti in August 2019, you've now had your whole platform for almost 4 years, and for 3/4 of that time you've experienced the best any system has to offer in the majority of titles. However there's a spanner in the works, the 1180Ti is being bottle-necked in some newer games by your lowly 4c/8t CPU (which you've had for 4 years), but still offers the ability to go toe-to-toe with the newer CPU's with more cores, and threads when the pure GHz makes the difference. It's reached 5 years now, and it's time to move on, since you can no longer put up with the stuttering and poor performance from your 5 year old CPU, but it's had a good life, and you've had the best years out of it.
What does it all boil down to? You've had the best possible performance you could get for more than 3/5 the life of your system, and for the last 1/5 it was almost holding you back, but you got the most value from it, for the longest amount of time. You can reverse the above, and swap out the 6700K, for the R5 1600. So you'd end up with worse performance for the first 2-3 years of the system, and possibly have the same or better performance for the last 2 years, that's assuming all you do is play games and not much else.
If for some reason you don't care about platform longevity, then all of this thread is pointless. I would say that 2017-2022 is going to be a huge shake up for the CPU world, a bit like when the Althon 64 launched in 2003, and Intel did an about face, and we saw the Core 2 Duo hitting shelves in 2006, that was a great time to be an enthusiast, we even had two players in the GPU market as well.
Lets take an example of the 6700K, if you bought it at release October 2015, and at the time had a GTX 980Ti, you would have had no problems. Roll on to June 2017, and you've decided you want more performance in the wide range of games you play now, and have moved to a new monitor with higher refresh available to you, so you get a GTX 1080Ti, which is around 20-21 months after you first bought the platform, but the 6700K is still pushing the card to it's max in the majority of games.
Lets move on to October 2018 (the future) so far you've had the fastest platform available (for the majority of titles) and it's been your for 3 years. Nvidia/AMD finally decide to release faster GPU's to the consumer market, but only 20% faster than the 1080Ti, so you decide it's not worth it, and wait for the 1180Ti in August 2019, you've now had your whole platform for almost 4 years, and for 3/4 of that time you've experienced the best any system has to offer in the majority of titles. However there's a spanner in the works, the 1180Ti is being bottle-necked in some newer games by your lowly 4c/8t CPU (which you've had for 4 years), but still offers the ability to go toe-to-toe with the newer CPU's with more cores, and threads when the pure GHz makes the difference. It's reached 5 years now, and it's time to move on, since you can no longer put up with the stuttering and poor performance from your 5 year old CPU, but it's had a good life, and you've had the best years out of it.
What does it all boil down to? You've had the best possible performance you could get for more than 3/5 the life of your system, and for the last 1/5 it was almost holding you back, but you got the most value from it, for the longest amount of time. You can reverse the above, and swap out the 6700K, for the R5 1600. So you'd end up with worse performance for the first 2-3 years of the system, and possibly have the same or better performance for the last 2 years, that's assuming all you do is play games and not much else.
If for some reason you don't care about platform longevity, then all of this thread is pointless. I would say that 2017-2022 is going to be a huge shake up for the CPU world, a bit like when the Althon 64 launched in 2003, and Intel did an about face, and we saw the Core 2 Duo hitting shelves in 2006, that was a great time to be an enthusiast, we even had two players in the GPU market as well.
Ok, but humbug just told you that frames-per-second is irrelevant, you must look also at time-for-each-frame and logical processors usage in % in order to get an idea what in practice tops the charts.
A lot of it is down to timing as well, e.g. when you bought into your last platform, and how rapidly new GPU's have become available, and how much the graphical API's change in that time frame.
Lets take an example of the 6700K, if you bought it at release October 2015, and at the time had a GTX 980Ti, you would have had no problems. Roll on to June 2017, and you've decided you want more performance in the wide range of games you play now, and have moved to a new monitor with higher refresh available to you, so you get a GTX 1080Ti, which is around 20-21 months after you first bought the platform, but the 6700K is still pushing the card to it's max in the majority of games.
Lets move on to October 2018 (the future) so far you've had the fastest platform available (for the majority of titles) and it's been your for 3 years. Nvidia/AMD finally decide to release faster GPU's to the consumer market, but only 20% faster than the 1080Ti, so you decide it's not worth it, and wait for the 1180Ti in August 2019, you've now had your whole platform for almost 4 years, and for 3/4 of that time you've experienced the best any system has to offer in the majority of titles. However there's a spanner in the works, the 1180Ti is being bottle-necked in some newer games by your lowly 4c/8t CPU (which you've had for 4 years), but still offers the ability to go toe-to-toe with the newer CPU's with more cores, and threads when the pure GHz makes the difference. It's reached 5 years now, and it's time to move on, since you can no longer put up with the stuttering and poor performance from your 5 year old CPU, but it's had a good life, and you've had the best years out of it.
What does it all boil down to? You've had the best possible performance you could get for more than 3/5 the life of your system, and for the last 1/5 it was almost holding you back, but you got the most value from it, for the longest amount of time. You can reverse the above, and swap out the 6700K, for the R5 1600. So you'd end up with worse performance for the first 2-3 years of the system, and possibly have the same or better performance for the last 2 years, that's assuming all you do is play games and not much else.
If for some reason you don't care about platform longevity, then all of this thread is pointless. I would say that 2017-2022 is going to be a huge shake up for the CPU world, a bit like when the Althon 64 launched in 2003, and Intel did an about face, and we saw the Core 2 Duo hitting shelves in 2006, that was a great time to be an enthusiast, we even had two players in the GPU market as well.
The 7700K being the same CPU as the 6700K is only 1 year old.
Today you wouldn't by a 1600 with the 2600 costing about the same.
Your whole post makes no sense.
Associate
- Joined
- 31 Aug 2017
- Posts
- 2,209
Buying cpus just because of a current performance advantage, that may or may not be held long term, while forgetting about the rest of the situation is lol worthy.
The 8700k is faster in many benchmarks at the moment vs the 2700 but its not by much, meanwhile it is only a 6 core 12 thread processor with a relatively high price, its got dubious security vulns, its on a dead end platform, it need stupid amounts of power to push the clocks most folk argue about and it needs dellidding for higher speeds due to toothpaste being used.
Yes its fantastic.
I will take the slightly slower single thread chip thank you very much, its not behind by much. Its multi threading is far better, its not a power hungry.monster, it doesnt cost a massive amount, currently has less of a security problem, has a socket that will be supported for at least another generation and comes with a great cooler.
Ohh and doesn't require vastly more costly memory.
I wish these reviewers would test the chips on windows builds most of us run, with loads of background tasks and stuff.
The 8700k is faster in many benchmarks at the moment vs the 2700 but its not by much, meanwhile it is only a 6 core 12 thread processor with a relatively high price, its got dubious security vulns, its on a dead end platform, it need stupid amounts of power to push the clocks most folk argue about and it needs dellidding for higher speeds due to toothpaste being used.
Yes its fantastic.
I will take the slightly slower single thread chip thank you very much, its not behind by much. Its multi threading is far better, its not a power hungry.monster, it doesnt cost a massive amount, currently has less of a security problem, has a socket that will be supported for at least another generation and comes with a great cooler.
Ohh and doesn't require vastly more costly memory.
I wish these reviewers would test the chips on windows builds most of us run, with loads of background tasks and stuff.
I never understand why everyone gets so wound up about subjects like this...
Surely it always has been and will continue to be a movable answer? Hardware changes and improves and software lags behind somewhat but eventually catches up. Yes a 7700k (or 8700K) is a great gaming cpu, but over time with better multi threading in new games the lack of cores will hold it back. Yes AMD's per thread performance is less than Intels, but with the thread density of Ryzen and again new games that may well change. Just buy the most appropriate kit for what software you use/ games you play at the time of buying. There is never an absolute answer as its constantly moving and also depends on your personal priorities. Over the many years I've been into PCs I've gone AMD and Intel and also Nvidia and ATi/ AMD, I've never felt the need to endlessly argue that my decision is the best and only... Without a crystal ball, I've come to the conclusion it's pointless second guessing what might happen in the future. Just take the best decision for you at the time of buying and hope it works out...
I'd also disagree that most people game at 1080p on a 1080ti, that's massive overkill... I still game on a an pair of sli'd gtx970's and that's at 3440x1440 on a 100hz Gsync monitor... If you just want to go all out and buy the best, then you will get no argument from me, I've certainly got carried away buying stuff just because I could. That doesn't mean it's necessary or typical. In a lot of cases though people on OCUK use their computers for much more than just gaming and that also factors into their buying decisions.
Surely it always has been and will continue to be a movable answer? Hardware changes and improves and software lags behind somewhat but eventually catches up. Yes a 7700k (or 8700K) is a great gaming cpu, but over time with better multi threading in new games the lack of cores will hold it back. Yes AMD's per thread performance is less than Intels, but with the thread density of Ryzen and again new games that may well change. Just buy the most appropriate kit for what software you use/ games you play at the time of buying. There is never an absolute answer as its constantly moving and also depends on your personal priorities. Over the many years I've been into PCs I've gone AMD and Intel and also Nvidia and ATi/ AMD, I've never felt the need to endlessly argue that my decision is the best and only... Without a crystal ball, I've come to the conclusion it's pointless second guessing what might happen in the future. Just take the best decision for you at the time of buying and hope it works out...
I'd also disagree that most people game at 1080p on a 1080ti, that's massive overkill... I still game on a an pair of sli'd gtx970's and that's at 3440x1440 on a 100hz Gsync monitor... If you just want to go all out and buy the best, then you will get no argument from me, I've certainly got carried away buying stuff just because I could. That doesn't mean it's necessary or typical. In a lot of cases though people on OCUK use their computers for much more than just gaming and that also factors into their buying decisions.
This would mean to support the status quo.
Imagine everyone begins to buy dual-core Pentiums, the developers will begin optimising their games for them.
So, no, the quad-cores are not great processors for anything, it is just that the software is built to run only on them.
True, I saw couple of game benchmark reviews these days, and the 4 cores were eating dust. The performance drop over 6 or 6/12 was huge.
And we are talking about Intel CPUs tested.
Quads are dead, I think we can all agree on this.