# Intel Core i7-7700K vs 6700K:  22 Games, RX 480 & GTX 1080



## W1zzard (Jan 3, 2017)

Intel's new Kaby Lake processors were just launched. We compare the Core i7-7700K to the i7-6700K, both stock and overclocked, to investigate the performance gains using AMD's Radeon RX 480 and NVIDIA's GTX 1080 in 22 games at three resolutions.

*Show full review*


----------



## Chaitanya (Jan 3, 2017)

As expected nominal gains over previous generation for PC users.


----------



## ZeppMan217 (Jan 3, 2017)

Can someone explain this to me





The performance DECREASES with a higher clock?


----------



## kruk (Jan 3, 2017)

Wow, underwhelming.

Also, read this: https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/semiaccurate-coffee-lake-points-to-issues-with-intel’s-10nm-process.2495934/#post-38656226

Goliath seems to be in trouble @TheMailMan78? 



TheMailMan78 said:


> I like you guys. Y'all got moxy. I'm sure this time will be different. I'm sure AMD with It's vastly smaller resources is gonna beat the big bad Intel. It will be a technology style David and Goliath.
> 
> A story for the ages indeed.....lol


----------



## the54thvoid (Jan 3, 2017)

Horrendous.  That is all.  To actually release this chip is a seriously ridiculous marketing move.

Hey - last year we sold you a ham and cheese sandwich.  Well, we've made some improvements and now we're selling you a cheese and ham sandwich.


----------



## NBH (Jan 3, 2017)

If the increased clock speeds do nothing then is there no point overclocking Skylake CPUs?


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Jan 3, 2017)

ZeppMan217 said:


> Can someone explain this to me
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Consider that is within margin of error and Doom in particular seems to care more about core count that clock speed, I would just ignore that as a fluke. Clearly Doom was getting all it needed from the CPU at stock and increasing the clock speed never really mattered. It could also be as simple as the GTC 1080 was getting slightly warmer due to the increased heat in the area and throttled slightly.


----------



## Vario (Jan 3, 2017)

and I'm sure a good chunk of users on here and overclock.net will probably upgrade anyway just to have the latest e-peen



			
				https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/semiaccurate-coffee-lake-points-to-issues-with-intel%E2%80%99s-10nm-process.2495934/#post-38656226 said:
			
		

> I actually read the full Intel article from Canard since I speak French. Here's the most important points:
> 
> 
> They say Intel's in the most precarious time ever in its existence.
> ...


----------



## ShurikN (Jan 3, 2017)

Amazing gains. Over at TH with the same clocks as 7700K the Skylake counterpart is either faster or equal...
AMD couldn't ask for a better opportunity with the Zen release. If they can't use this, might as well turn off the lights and close the door for good.


----------



## proxuser (Jan 3, 2017)

Well, for 2% difference no one move to new generation over skylake. I didn't expected difference either. My 6700k easly oc to 4.5ghz(1.248v), i do it when needed


----------



## Vario (Jan 3, 2017)

Its too bad they didn't continue the 128MB L4 Cache 'Crystalwell' as released on the 5775C, that seemed like a nice feature for an otherwise bland release.  It could have supplemented the weak incremental performance of the current releases.


----------



## Jetster (Jan 3, 2017)

Thanks for the review W1zzard

As I understand it this chip is more of a revision. To reduce temps for laptops and a change from the Tick- Tock Intel has done in the past.


----------



## 64K (Jan 3, 2017)

Abysmal, but I guess expected. I'm more disappointed that 10nm Cannonlake may not be available to buy until 2018 from what I've been reading. I'm not expecting much of an IPC increase with Cannonlake anyway but was hoping that the smaller process could make it more efficient per watt and so possibly a decent boost to the stock clocks.


----------



## Octopuss (Jan 3, 2017)

As expected...

A comparison between 7700K and 3770K would be much more interesting as I believe the latter still powers a significant amount of PCs.


----------



## VSG (Jan 3, 2017)

Yet another generation where the chipset and motherboard features are the only reason to upgrade the base hardware. Disappointing, but it is what it is.

Great job on the RX 480 CPU overhead numbers, and thanks for going the extra step and testing the GTX 1060 as well.


----------



## Vario (Jan 3, 2017)

Octopuss said:


> As expected...
> 
> A comparison between 7700K and 3770K would be much more interesting as I beleive the latter still powers a significant amount of PCs.


hell yeah, 3770K has no reason to upgrade unless you want DDR4 and newer SSD interfaces


----------



## Octopuss (Jan 3, 2017)

I will either wait two more years (being a stubborn Windows 7 users gives me even less of a reason to upgrade) to see if Intel actually produces anything worth my money, or I'll just go AMD (if Zen is decent) again after 12+ years.


----------



## ShurikN (Jan 3, 2017)

Octopuss said:


> As expected...
> 
> A comparison between 7700K and 3770K would be much more interesting as I beleive the latter still powers a significant amount of PCs.


I'd like to see that as well.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Jan 3, 2017)

Time to wait on AMD.


----------



## springs113 (Jan 3, 2017)

FreedomEclipse said:


> Time to wait on AMD.


I hope they let the cat out of the bag come Thursday.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Jan 3, 2017)

ohhh my 6600K will stay for a while ... unless i decide to go i7 ... and even there, _*"if"*_ the 7700K is at "a la" intel pricing and make the 6700K drop a little ... the 6700K would be a slightly better choice _*"if"*_


----------



## Jetster (Jan 3, 2017)

The 6700K has already dropped price. I just ordered one


----------



## xkm1948 (Jan 3, 2017)

So the entire take home message of this review are:

1. 7700K underwhelming.
2. AMD GPU performance scale well with CPU performance.

Indeed interesting.


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Jan 3, 2017)

TheLaughingMan said:


> Consider that is within margin of error and Doom in particular seems to care more about core count that clock speed, I would just ignore that as a fluke. Clearly Doom was getting all it needed from the CPU at stock and increasing the clock speed never really mattered. It could also be as simple as the GTC 1080 was getting slightly warmer due to the increased heat in the area and throttled slightly.



Also doom does not have a benchmark, so benchers have to use a sample run which may have variation.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Jan 3, 2017)

Jetster said:


> The 6700K has already dropped price. I just ordered one


i meant to a acceptable level   in Switzerland it's still only 3-5% lower than launch depending the retailer/etailer


----------



## ssdpro (Jan 3, 2017)

It is underwhelming but expected.  It still decimates anything we have from AMD on the CPU or chipset level.  The improvements here are almost zero on the CPU side, pretty darn minor on the chipset side.  If running something pre-sandy bridge, it is an upgrade route.  I'd wait for Zen reviews and then maybe what Intel does to counter it (assuming it meets performance/value expectations).


----------



## hv43082 (Jan 3, 2017)

Appreciate the review.  Still need a reason to upgrade my Intel i5 2500k.


----------



## petepete (Jan 3, 2017)

That 8 MB of L3 cache sure looks beastly, can't wait to see Ryzen benchmarks over 'Crappy' Lake


----------



## BiggieShady (Jan 3, 2017)

TheLaughingMan said:


> It could also be as simple as the GTC 1080 was getting slightly warmer due to the increased heat in the area and throttled slightly.


1080 is the only one that has some positive performance increase with higher clocks in DOOM. Two other less powerful cards may be even operating in gpu bottleneck scenario when frame times are this low ... if doom used single rendering thread we would always see some increase, with multithreaded rendering you can run into law of diminishing returns with thread synchronization overhead


----------



## Bansaku (Jan 3, 2017)

Chaitanya said:


> As expected nominal gains over previous generation for PC users.



How is virtually 0% considered nominal?


----------



## Ungari (Jan 3, 2017)

hv43082 said:


> Appreciate the review.  Still need a reason to upgrade my Intel i5 2500k.



Ryzen


----------



## hv43082 (Jan 3, 2017)

Ungari said:


> Ryzen



I will eager wait for the full review.


----------



## BiggieShady (Jan 3, 2017)

Bansaku said:


> How is virtually 0% considered nominal?


Instead of zero percent ipc increase I'll think of it as a zero percent ipc decrease  ... but the stock clocks are sweet for those who run bios defaults


----------



## LDNL (Jan 3, 2017)

With no competition Intel has no reason to innovate. Thats why people are still running systems with 2600k / 3770k and with a minimal overclock youll get the same performance compared to what Intel offers as "new" today. What really annoys me is the pricing. Its pretty much the same $h1t in a different package and the price has increased insanely (~33%). And this has gone on for 3 generations now...


----------



## Blueberries (Jan 3, 2017)

ZeppMan217 said:


> Can someone explain this to me
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Because video games are a moot benchmark for CPU performance?


----------



## W1zzard (Jan 3, 2017)

Blueberries said:


> Because video games are a moot benchmark for CPU performance?


They are, but in the end the majority of our readers use their CPUs for gaming. Honestly I was curious about the outcome, that's why I spent so much time on this article.


----------



## the54thvoid (Jan 3, 2017)

W1zzard said:


> They are, but in the end the majority of our readers use their CPUs for gaming. Honestly I was curious about the outcome, that's why I spent so much time on this article.



And I'm glad you did.  Now you have done it.... What about a sandy thru Kabylake comparison?  I mean, if you can fit an 8th day in your week....


----------



## Joss (Jan 3, 2017)

I wonder how an FX 8350 would fare in this company... ?
@W1zzard any chance of a small taste of this? Just a mini test for the sake of putting things in context.


----------



## nem.. (Jan 3, 2017)




----------



## birdie (Jan 3, 2017)

@W1zzard 

Please test just one most CPU performance dependent game with these CPUs:

Intel Core i7 860 (was quite popular in its day)
Intel Core i5 2500
Intel Core i5 2600
Intel Core i5 3570
Intel Core i7 3770
Intel Core i5 4570
Intel Core i5 4770
Intel Core i5 6500
Intel Core i5 6700
and some i3(s) for good measure.
Then retest it with all these CPUs running at the same clock/frequency, say 3.3GHz. I'm not asking for Kaby Lake, because it's basically Sky Lake with higher frequencies and power consumption.


----------



## qubit (Jan 3, 2017)

@W1zzard wrote:

"And in yet another landmark release, Intel launches the new Kaby Lake CPU range to broad critical acclaim. Feted for its large IPC improvements of 30%, it decimates the AMD competition and significantly improves on previous Intel CPUs, including the previous generation Skylake. On top of this, the large overclocking potential of over 1.5GHz increases this lead substantially. Amazingly, Intel even allows overclocking on certain non-K CPUs, negating the need to buy the expensive high end versions with just a simple overclock. On top of all this, the power consumption has been reduced significantly, allowing the CPUs to run very coolly and with very quiet heatsink fans. Astounding.

Phenomenal performance, phenomenal product, I'd give Kaby Lake 11 / 10 if it were possible! Whatever rig you have, just upgrade it to Kaby Lake as soon as you can - or sooner."

Oh shit, that was in an alternate universe.  AMD better clean up with Zen or just give up once and for all.

Great review though W1z, once again giving us accurate benchmarks to help us make informed buying decisions.


----------



## jormungand (Jan 3, 2017)

AYYYYYYYY lmao .................. NOW IS TIME FOR RYZEN TO SHOW UP or see it going downhill or zendown


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 3, 2017)

Well, this was another way to to show there wasn't any performamce gains per clock! I like the twist w1z, well done.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jan 3, 2017)

Snooze cruise.


----------



## Fluffmeister (Jan 3, 2017)

Now it's just time to play the waiting game and see how Ryzen turns out. I want something that is fast and efficient and I doubt I'd even bother overclocking it. AMD's MOAR cores obsession my swing my vote their way for the rare occasion I'm not playing some dodgy port.

Then I'll be happy and upgrade again in another 8 years.


----------



## xkm1948 (Jan 3, 2017)

Also if possible I wish @W1zzard can change the way the data is represented. For example group different GPU into different charts. The data illustration for this review is one of the most confusing one I have seen.


----------



## efikkan (Jan 3, 2017)

xkm1948 said:


> So the entire take home message of this review are:
> 1. 7700K underwhelming.
> 2. AMD GPU performance scale well with CPU performance.


*Why is everyone disappointed and blames the CPU for lack of scaling?*

First of all, the throughput of the CPUs scale very well, so there is nothing wrong with the CPUs.

Secondly, why is single threaded performance important for gaming in the first place? CPU speed matters because a slow CPU might bottleneck the GPU because it's not fast enough to feed the GPU due to overhead. This means that once a CPU is fast enough for the rendering thread(s) to work unobstructed, increasing the CPU speed further beyond it will give no further gains, because it's no longer a bottleneck. For later Intel CPUs this threshold seems to be around ~4 GHz, meaning that there is no point in overclocking beyond this point for gaming.

Thirdly, this will mean that Zen will also have a similar threshold, it might not be the exact same value, but above a certain limit there will be no more gains. Even if Zen was the most incredible architecture ever, there would be no scaling beyond the point where the CPU is no longer a bottleneck. In fact, a faster CPU will just mean it will hit this threshold at a lower clock.


----------



## Beastie (Jan 3, 2017)

Thanks W1zz for the review.

I'm not sure if it shows that there are minimal gains with the new chip or if most games are GPU bound rather than CPU bound or both.


----------



## ensabrenoir (Jan 4, 2017)

Vario said:


> and I'm sure a good chunk of users on here and overclock.net will probably upgrade anyway just to have the latest e-peen



*THIS^^............*

nuff said.....there is no other reason.... ENTHUSIAST 4 LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Antykain (Jan 4, 2017)

Welp, I guess the 4790k is sticking around for a while longer.  lol..  Really can't wait to see how the Ryzen fares against the Intel latest and "greatest"..  If the hype for Ryzen is legit this time around, I'll definitely be picking one up.


----------



## Solaris17 (Jan 4, 2017)

Great review. Not excited for the generation at all.


----------



## Jo3yization (Jan 4, 2017)

I just signed up to ask why this article was done in percentages as opposed to raw FPS results??

The percentage values are a very obscure way of showing a performance difference when "3%" at 1080p vs "5%" at 4K are two completely different things.

The conclusion even makes a point to state "_*There are games in which the GeForce GTX 1080 benefits by as much as 5% from an i7-7700K overclocked to 4.90 GHz. In "Mafia III", you get a performance gain of 5.8% at 4K resolution." *_- At 4.5ghz the 6700k is at 5.4% & 7700k at 6.1%, a 0.7% difference??? Hang on a second.

The test setup in this *MAFIA III review *shows the gtx 1080 + 6700k@4.5ghz performing at roughly 32fps. So lets just use that as our baseline seeing as no FPS results are given in the article & add 0.7%;;  we get 0.224fps. 2% would be 0.64fps. - So.. Very insignificant.

But the article seems to be trying to portray some benefit to the 7700k, at least going by the mafia III 4K performance that seemed to be worth mentioning in the last paragraph but then goes on to state that there really isn't any significant difference worth mentioning which is kindof contradictory lol. Or am I missing something. The mafia III 4K res 4.5ghz 7700k result is also better than the 4.9ghz result too. /confused


----------



## TheinsanegamerN (Jan 4, 2017)

Good to see my ivy i5 will have another 3-4 years left in it.


----------



## ensabrenoir (Jan 4, 2017)

.....honestly thats Intel's real problem..........their chips are too good.  You could easily stay on one from 3 to 5 years.


----------



## ShurikN (Jan 4, 2017)

BiggieShady said:


> Instead of zero percent ipc increase I'll think of it as a zero percent ipc decrease  ... but the stock clocks are sweet for those who run bios defaults


Actually I've read an article, before the release of Kaby (twas like a preview), where on same clocks in synthetics/real world/games, 7700k has an IPC gain of -0.4%.
Thats right, negative gains.


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Jan 4, 2017)

Gains from Skylake are rather.... tiny...


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jan 4, 2017)

ensabrenoir said:


> .....honestly thats Intel's real problem..........their chips are too good.  You could easily stay on one from 3 to 5 years.




they are sandbagging


----------



## RealNeil (Jan 4, 2017)

Thanks for the good review. Waiting for a little longer is looking like the right thing to do now.



eidairaman1 said:


> they are sandbagging



Yeah, I think so too.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jan 4, 2017)

RealNeil said:


> Thanks for the good review. Waiting for a little longer is looking like the right thing to do now.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I think so too.




Your Rig is Perfectly Fine, Same with Mine lol


----------



## GhostRyder (Jan 4, 2017)

I am speechless...  Well at least one good thing comes with the Kaby Lake chips, the unlocked i3.


----------



## bubbleawsome (Jan 4, 2017)

So now we get tick-tock-ᶜᶫᶦᶜᵏ I guess?


----------



## Nergal (Jan 4, 2017)

Pure marketing. Intel just wanted something "new" to compete with AMD. 
Since it´s speed is about the same as the previous generation, most likely, that is the speed AMD will hit too.
Else they would have put more juice into it.

Intel´s logic:
1) I also need to release something at the same time AMD does.
2) It doesn´t need to be more powerfull. People will prefer Intel if the speed is the same anyway.


----------



## Chaitanya (Jan 4, 2017)

Bansaku said:


> How is virtually 0% considered nominal?


Dont forget these CPUs come with higher clock speeds out of the box compared to 6th gen CPUs. So on same clock speeds both have 0% improvement but at higher clocks only nominal improvement.


----------



## btarunr (Jan 4, 2017)

the54thvoid said:


> Horrendous.  That is all.  To actually release this chip is a seriously ridiculous marketing move.
> 
> Hey - last year we sold you a ham and cheese sandwich.  Well, we've made some improvements and now we're selling you a cheese and ham sandwich.



Call of Duty: Core Processor.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Jan 4, 2017)

socket 1366 ........FTW.

My (nearly) 7 year old X5670 runs with 6 cores and 12 threads @ 4.5ghz. Aaaaaaaand it only cost 60 quid.



Cinebench R15

7700k @4.5............998
X5670 @4,5..........1035





http://arstechnica.co.uk/gadgets/2017/01/intel-core-i7-7700k-kaby-lake-review/

My X5670





http://hwbot.org/submission/3095126_capslockstuck_cinebench___r15_xeon_x5670_1035_cb/


@W1zzard
can you run the CPUZ bench with 6700k and 7700k  please.


----------



## W1zzard (Jan 4, 2017)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> can you run the CPUZ bench with 6700k and 7700k please.


The test setup has been dismantled. I'm rebenching all cards with new hardware, latest drivers and new games now


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Jan 4, 2017)

W1zzard said:


> The test setup has been dismantled. I'm rebenching all cards with new hardware, latest drivers and new games now




sounds like great fun....you should make vids.


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 4, 2017)

There won't be a difference at the same clocks.


----------



## geon2k2 (Jan 4, 2017)

GreiverBlade said:


> ohhh my 6600K will stay for a while ... unless i decide to go i7 ... and even there, _*"if"*_ the 7700K is at "a la" intel pricing and make the 6700K drop a little ... the 6700K would be a slightly better choice _*"if"*_



 that Skylake is basically brand new. I'm thinking my Haswell which is almost 4 years old by now, will last me for a while longer 
Not to mention the guys which still have the 2500K released 6 years ago (Jan 2011 !!!) and which is still a decent CPU for games, while it was also a monster overclock-er.


----------



## W1zzard (Jan 4, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> There won't be a difference at the same clocks.


I really liked your review at overclock.com


----------



## Drinnan (Jan 4, 2017)

ensabrenoir said:


> .....honestly thats Intel's real problem..........their chips are too good.  You could easily stay on one from 3 to 5 years.



Only 3-5?
I managed 8 years with my Q6600 @ 3ghz until I upgraded to the 6700k in April.
Even then, my main reason for upgrading was the wife bought me fallout 4 and my mobo only had 4gb ddr2. Wasn't worth spending a lot of money trying to get low density 2x4gb ddr2 sticks that would work on my mobo. 

Anyway back to the point, I was worried that the 7th gen would bring much higher clock speeds but seeing as my 6700k runs daily on 4.6ghz I'm okay with my choice, temps are still low in Scotland here. Got my rad plumbed outside in the shade and when the sun goes down I'm idling at 5C


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 4, 2017)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> socket 1366 ........FTW.
> 
> My (nearly) 7 year old X5670 runs with 6 cores and 12 threads @ 4.5ghz. Aaaaaaaand it only cost 60 quid.
> 
> ...



Is it really fair to compare a 7 year old CPU's price today, versus a brand new one? If you want to play that game. This is a $300 processor versus a $1400+ Xeon when both are new.

And those results are great if you play Cinebench/Render. Otherwise... that IPC is lacking (by like what, 35%+?) and the glass ceiling in games are real with midrange cards on up.

I mean that's nice to see such a small dataset and smile about the CPU you have, but the big picture is decidedly different in anything that uses 8 threads or less... and again, apples and oranges.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Jan 4, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Is it really fair to compare a 7 year old CPU's price today, versus a brand new one? If you want to play that game. This is a $300 processor versus a $1400+ when both are new.
> 
> And that's great if you play Cinebench/Render. Otherwise... that IPC is lacking and the glass ceiling in games are real.
> 
> I mean that's nice to see such a small dataset and cheer, but the big picture is decidedly different in anything that uses 8 threads or less.




I know........it makes me smile though...


Heres a better comparison












X5670








http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/core-i7-7700k-processor-review-desktop-kaby-lake,10.html


----------



## yogurt_21 (Jan 4, 2017)

cpu is about the lowest on my upgrade priorities. Still new chipsets typically drive down costs of old ones (typically, skylake didn't really drop the prices of z97 chipsets) so hopefully that happens this time and I can upgrade to a better mobo/memory set along with a new gpu this summer. That is unless that doesn't happen and z97 is still in high demand at which point I will be quite upset.


----------



## Diverge (Jan 4, 2017)

Well after using a 2500K for like 5 years, it looks like I'll be getting something similar out of 6700K. So a new GPU every year, and new CPU every 5 years...


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 4, 2017)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> I know........it makes me smile though...
> 
> 
> Heres a better comparison


That's a bigger picture perspective. At 4.45 Ghz it barely beats out a stock (3.8GHz all cores boost) 2600K in single thread. It is just as fast as a stock 6700K ($350) in multi threads. A $1400+ processor with 50% more cores and threads overclocked to ~4.5GHz, should hang close in multithreaded benchmarks to a stock 8t CPU. If you can bang on all those cores, its a good deal... but you are at the end of the line on that CPU whereas everything else you are comparing it to is stock and can still be overclocked.


----------



## efikkan (Jan 4, 2017)

Diverge said:


> Well after using a 2500K for like 5 years, it looks like I'll be getting something similar out of 6700K. So a new GPU every year, and new CPU every 5 years...


Well, until you need more cores there's no need for upgrading your existing CPU.
And if you do, you should probably buy the i5-7600K($243), since there's little point in buying the i7-7700K($350). If you need the HT support, you should buy more cores anyway, and the i7-6800K($434) is a better choice.
But this has been the case ever since Sandy-Bridge:
i7-2600K/2700K vs. i5-2500K
i7-3770K vs. i5-3570K
i7-4770K vs. i5-4670K
i7-4790K vs. i5-4690K
i7-6700K vs. i5-6600K


----------



## N3M3515 (Jan 4, 2017)

hv43082 said:


> Appreciate the review.  Still need a reason to upgrade my Intel i5 2500k.



This.


----------



## L'Eliminateur (Jan 4, 2017)

i wasn't expecting much from KBL... and intel delivered(on the dissapointment that is), i'm still running my watercooled 3570k @4.3ish(does not go 1Mhz beyond that even increasing vcore radically and lots of tweaks, probably due to cheap mb) and for what i see i'll still be running it for another 5+ years.

Even less reason to upgrade as i'd have to toss my perfecly good DDR3 ram meaning the upg from IVB to KBL is one of the most expensive you can do, whereas before you'd reuse your ram and be done with it


----------



## nem.. (Jan 4, 2017)




----------



## Nihilus (Jan 5, 2017)

Why not at least give the Kaby Lake an Iris 6200 iGPU?  At least it would be somewhat special.  Sort of the best from Skylake AND Broadwell.  It might have snatched up some AMD APU users that are sick up waiting for Ryzen


----------



## afw (Jan 5, 2017)

Still happy with my 2700k


----------



## Parn (Jan 5, 2017)

Way to go Intel, customer milking at its finest.

Ryzen, where are you??


----------



## Vario (Jan 5, 2017)

nem.. said:


> View attachment 82696


Wow looks like it has more performance, just look how much longer that bar is.

Reality is worse than that, the performance is the exact same.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jan 5, 2017)

Vario said:


> Wow looks like it has more performance, just look how much longer that bar is.
> 
> Reality is worse than that, the performance is the exact same.



So that picture is a lie


----------



## Agentbb007 (Jan 5, 2017)

Yay I will stick with my 6700k


----------



## areamike (Jan 5, 2017)

Vario said:


> Wow looks like it has more performance, just look how much longer that bar is.
> 
> Reality is worse than that, the performance is the exact same.


Look closer at the pic. It's an "illusion". The numbers are 101 to 100. The bars are longer to give the illusion the 7700 is much better.

lol


----------



## Jetster (Jan 5, 2017)

20% better than what? 






http://promotions.newegg.com/intel/...NEFL010517-_-EMC-010517-Latest-_-intel-_-LB0A


----------



## Vario (Jan 5, 2017)

areamike said:


> Look closer at the pic. It's an "illusion". The numbers are 101 to 100. The bars are longer to give the illusion the 7700 is much better.
> 
> lol


The thing is, it isn't even 1 "widget" better.



Jetster said:


> 20% better than what?
> 
> 
> http://promotions.newegg.com/intel/...NEFL010517-_-EMC-010517-Latest-_-intel-_-LB0A



Previous Generations, so i7 860, 920 and 2600K I guess.


----------



## Grings (Jan 6, 2017)

Jetster said:


> 20% better than what?



i5 6400-7400 maybe, as the 6400 was stupidly slow at 2.7ghz all cores (with a hyperthreaded i3 below it at 3.9)


----------



## areamike (Jan 6, 2017)

Vario said:


> The thing is, it isn't even 1 "widget" better.


Actually, yes it is. But nothing "new" or better.


----------



## birdie (Jan 6, 2017)

A must read review from expreview.com (Google translate translates it quite decently).

I especially liked these two tables:









_"From Core i7-870 in 2009 to 2016 Core i7-7700K, with 7 years for the seven-generation architecture in the same frequency performance gap is only 35%, the average performance improvement per generation is only 5%."_

IOW if you don't render or encode video, there are no reasons to upgrade to Kaby Lake from any platform unless you absolutely need some new platform/chipset features.


----------



## Nergal (Jan 6, 2017)

hmmm, what it does show, at least to me, is that the new CPU´s actually perform better with better RAM.
The 6700K uses 3200, whilst the 7700K only gets 2133

Upgrading your "old" 6700K with superb 5000MHZ RAM in the near future will provide a much better boost than upgrading to a 7700K

EDIT: why, for reference, not benchmark an old CPU with the then standard RAM? (1066 or even lower). 

I really think the RAM will provide the boost compared to the older gens in the end


----------



## Jetster (Jan 6, 2017)

birdie said:


> A must read review from expreview.com (Google translate translates it quite decently).
> 
> I especially liked these two tables:
> 
> ...



Thank you, that's what I was looking for


----------



## jarablue (Jan 9, 2017)

I want AMD to whoop Intels ass with Ryzen. I love how both companies battle it out. It's good for the consumer and the world. That being said, you can buy a 6700k for 269.00 at Microcenter right now (with motherboard 30$ off on cpu). Walk in the store and leave with it in your hand. At that price point (269.00), is AMD going to have 15 to 25fps more in games at that price with Ryzen? Because if they won't, then this isn't anything earth shattering. Yeah it's good for AMD and all their hard work should get rewarded with money but really? What are the performance increases we are going to see with Ryzen? I think for 269 bucks Intel has a decent chip. If AMD is much more than that, with mediocre gains it's not worth it to me. All in my opinion of course


----------



## Nergal (Jan 9, 2017)

Upgrade is only relevant for those who upgrade from pre-3th gen; or enthousiasts. 
Doesn´t matter if it is a (6/7)700K or the Ryzen


----------



## jarablue (Jan 9, 2017)

Nergal said:


> Upgrade is only relevant for those who upgrade from pre-3th gen; or enthousiasts.
> Doesn´t matter if it is a (6/7)700K or the Ryzen



Yeah that makes sense then. Hope this brings back the AthlonXP days. AMD whooped ass back in the day


----------



## Jetster (Jan 9, 2017)

Funny all I bought was AMD back in the day. Could not afford Intel but I don't remember AMD whooping ass on anything. The 939 was break through stuff but not out in front by any means


----------



## jarablue (Jan 9, 2017)

Jetster said:


> Funny all I bought was AMD back in the day. Could not afford Intel but I don't remember AMD whooping ass on anything. The 939 was break through stuff but not out in front by any means



The AthlonXP handed Intel it's bottom for awhile. I am surprised you don't remember that. Unless me being 41 is ancient. AMD soundly handed Intel it's ass with that cpu. Oh not to mention the 9800 pro (which was ATI back then). Pure beef those two were.

This is going back though. So if you're a youngin, you probably won't remember 

The cpu came out in - The Athlon made its debut on June 23, 1999.

So it was awhile ago. I am old as dirt


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 9, 2017)

Jetster said:


> Funny all I bought was AMD back in the day. Could not afford Intel but I don't remember AMD whooping ass on anything. The 939 was break through stuff but not out in front by any means


AMD clock for clock was as fast or faster than the Intel CPU's of the time s754/s939. It wasn't until C2D/Conroe hit the scene did they lose it.


----------



## Jetster (Jan 9, 2017)

Which AthlonXP Barton? Intel had Northwood which clearly beat AMD, then Prescott

Maybe I don't remember it that way. Long time ago


----------



## jarablue (Jan 9, 2017)

Northwood came out a few years later. I don't think it was competing directly head to head. Just referencing wikipedia on that one. But being on the scene since 1990, there was no question at all during that time. Intel lost during Athlon cpu reign.

Edit: Looks like it came out during the same time. Just checked. I wonder if I am thinking of the Athlon instead. Or if the AthlonXP was winning until the P4 came out. Either or AMD had the cpu crown for awhile during that time. Rusty on the exact specifics.


----------



## Jetster (Jan 9, 2017)

All I know is you needed a loan to get an Intel back then

BTW my first CPU was the K6-2 350


----------



## jarablue (Jan 9, 2017)

Jetster said:


> All I know is you needed a loan to get an Intel back then



Yeah....NOO shit. I paid 250$ for a P2 400 cpu. Slot 1 ice cream sandwich cpu from....get ready....PRICEWATCH.com. Remember that site? Was my whole paycheck. But man, I didn't leave the house that week.


----------



## Jetster (Jan 9, 2017)

I bought the board, CPU and Memory (K6-2 350) for $300 and the equivalent CPU from Intel was over $400 just the chip


----------



## Nergal (Jan 10, 2017)

jarablue said:


> The AthlonXP handed Intel it's bottom for awhile. I am surprised you don't remember that. Unless me being 41 is ancient. AMD soundly handed Intel it's ass with that cpu. Oh not to mention the 9800 pro (which was ATI back then). Pure beef those two were.
> 
> This is going back though. So if you're a youngin, you probably won't remember
> 
> ...



Was a beast series indeed. 
Unlocked 1.2GHZ@1.5GHZ with 1.5GB SDRAM
good times


----------



## Vlada011 (Jan 12, 2017)

i7-7700K is great for people who don't want to overclock because highest Turbo ever.
From other side overclockers need only 500MHz for magic number 5.0GHz or 5000MHz.
This is real successor of i7-4790K not i7-6700K. 

For now my recommendation if someone want to build new system is

i7-7700K + H115i
Maximus IX Code 
GSkill F4-3200C14D-16GTZSK or CORSAIR CMU16GX4M2C3200C16R

If someone want to save 70$ than Maximus IX Hero.
But CODE is beautifull.


----------



## hapkiman (Jan 15, 2017)

I had the opportunity to switch to a new i7-7700k from my i7-6700k for a whopping $25 - so yeah I went for it.  A simple BIOS update on my Z170A board and it's humming along just fine.  It is really an excellent processor, kind of like the smarter twin brother of the i7-6700k.

With a multiplier change only, mine is running at 4.8GHz easy as a pie.  That was the max OC I ever got my i7-6700k with much tinkering.  I have no doubt I can hit 5GHz with this 7700k.  Really liking it so far.


----------



## WhiteNoise (Jan 19, 2017)

So sad. I have been wanting to upgrade from Skylake to Kaby lake so I could move my sky lake rig to my daughters PC and her 2500K to my wifes but I won't do it for little to no gain. What is the point? Good review though. Saves me some cash.


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 19, 2017)

Nice a shot of a gpu benchmark with different gpus and not the same clocks on the cpu meant to show a comparison between the two cpus...


----------

