# Upgrade to 7700K was a let down!



## mcraygsx (Jan 13, 2017)

Just updated our main platform from X99 to Z270 and I must say I am not that impressed at all.  Upgraded from 5930K to 7700k and Asus X99 Deluxe to Maximus IX Hero and even got a decent discount at Overland Park Microcenter for combo purchase.

Positives:
X.M.P worked much better on this Z270 platform then it ever did on X99.
Decent Turbo boost of 4.5Ghz by default
Type-C port is a plus for my Lumia 950.
Noctua NH-D15 still rocks and is compatible.

Cons:

1151 Socket type feel very cheap and frail when compared to 2011-V3
5930K overclocked just as good
Miss the Quad channel memory
Higher cache 15MB vs 8 MB.
Most in game benchmark seem to perform worse as compare to overclocked 5930K.
X99 Platform offers the benefit of 40 PCIe lanes thus SLI will run at 16x instead of 8x on Z270.

You may call it a buyers remorse but for the first time I understood the meaning of Entry level platform!

 Any thoughts if I should just return the whole combo and just upgrade to Broadwell-E since I already have a decent X99 mb.


----------



## MT Alex (Jan 13, 2017)

I'm wracking my brain trying to come up with a more diplomatic and less caustic way to say "No duh" but I'm getting nothing.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Jan 13, 2017)

So you downgraded from a 6c12t setup to a 4c8t setup and you're telling us youre disappointed with the loss of performance?

::edit::

I apologise but you must be a special kind of stupid


----------



## mcraygsx (Jan 13, 2017)

FreedomEclipse said:


> So you downgraded from a 6c12t setup to a 4c8t setup and you're telling us youre disappointed with the loss of performance?
> 
> ::edit::
> 
> I apologise but you must be a special kind of stupid



Right my expectations were to get a superior single core performance out of 7700k. I am not comparing the argument of two extra cores here. .


----------



## hat (Jan 13, 2017)

5930k is Haswell... Skylake was barely an improvement over Haswell clock for clock and Kaby Lake is a mere refresh of Skylake.


----------



## exodusprime1337 (Jan 13, 2017)

I mean.. what are your bench comparisons for single threaded performance.. Seems this is the place to share some numbers??


----------



## Kanan (Jan 13, 2017)

[X] go back to the X99 platform and return those mainstream parts.


----------



## FR@NK (Jan 13, 2017)

X99 is currently the flagship platform....you downgraded.


----------



## GelatanousMuck (Jan 13, 2017)

You could overclock a lot further if you put fans on the Noctua, of course it can be used passively like you show in the picture, but that is far from it's actual true cooling potential.

I just bought a 7700K and the same motherboard as you, but I'm upgrading from a 3770K clocked at 5ghz, planning to run the same 5ghz clock with the 7700K.

Then hopefully the performance difference from the 3770K to the 7700K will not be a wasted upgrade, we'll see?

My CPU should be delivered tomorrow.


----------



## buildzoid (Jan 13, 2017)

Ok how on earth are the 7700K and 5930K doing the same clocks. Most 7700Ks should do 4.9GHz or more. Most 5930Ks top out around 4.6G. As for performance at the same clock there will be little difference in single threaded and the 7700K will alway lose in any multi threaded test.


----------



## hat (Jan 13, 2017)

With that cooling I'm sure you can... let's just hope the small generational gains are enough for you


----------



## mcraygsx (Jan 13, 2017)

FR@NK said:


> X99 is currently the flagship platform....you downgraded.



For the first time I am not going to argue why does INTEL ask premiums prices for their Extreme edition platform.



exodusprime1337 said:


> I mean.. what are your bench comparisons for single threaded performance.. Seems this is the place to share some numbers??


i7 7700K had a negative impact on FPS in both rainbow six siege and Armored Warfare. Basically all the game I have tested thus far suffer from minor performance despite the fact 7700K runs at higher frequency out of the box. Once I do fresh installation of OS, will post some 3DMark scores.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jan 13, 2017)

Really dude. I could of told you that from comparing my Rig to skt 2011-3 using CPU-Z. Tpu benched this cpu and there truly isn't a gain from 6700


----------



## Melvis (Jan 13, 2017)

Reviews are online for a reason....


----------



## exodusprime1337 (Jan 13, 2017)

mcraygsx said:


> For the first time I am not going to argue why does INTEL ask premiums prices for their Extreme edition platform.
> 
> 
> i7 7700K had a negative impact on FPS in both rainbow six siege and Armored Warfare. Basically all the game I have tested thus far suffer from minor performance despite the fact 7700K runs at higher frequency out of the box. Once I do fresh installation of OS, will post some 3DMark scores.


wait you swapped a proc and mobo.. I would post some benches after a fresh install.

I can only assume the 7700k would be slightly better at everything than a 4790k..


----------



## alucasa (Jan 13, 2017)

Sigh; where have ya been? It's been known for months that Kabylake is same (give or take 1%) with Skylake. And the gap between Skylake and Haswell is small already (single digit).

U downgraded.


----------



## Hotobu (Jan 13, 2017)

Part of me wants to sympathize with you for wasting your money, but I just can't. You could've figured this out in less than the time it took to complete your order. You're about 3 months too early for an April 1st thread.

... It isn't April buuut...


----------



## RejZoR (Jan 13, 2017)

Why on Earth have you replaced your HEDT platform for mainstream one? 7700K is essentially a Core i7 9xx series on steroids and with only dual channel memory. Basically a 7 years old design/arrangement with new node process and few tweaks. The 58xxK/59xxK come with more lanes, more cores and for the most part clock nearly as high. When I was buying new platform I was looking at 6700K and then decided for 5820K. It is a year later and I'd still do the same now. 6700K and 7700K are just pointless. Unless you're coming from I don't know, Pentium 4, Core 2 Duo/Quad or something actually that old. Haswell-E might be 2 years old, but it still has the grunt and it'll continue to have it for far longer than any Skylake or Kaby Lake...

EDIT:
I think buying a Broadwell-E refresh would make more sense. It would still be a waste of money since they aren't much better than Haswell-E, but it's at least the same design with new node process and tiny bit refreshed IPC. The loss in money would be a lot smaller including just CPU than entire platform with mobo and everything.


----------



## Vlada011 (Jan 13, 2017)

Upgrading from X99 to Z270 is from one side maybe and downgrade, but 100% is not upgrade.
You had nice chance to increase life time of your platform and replace for Skylake Xtreme in the end of 2017.
I upgrade on X chipset because I couldn't look any more new chipsets after 10 months. Here same chipset work 3 years.

You should invest in 6850K or wait Skylake-Xtreme depend of money in pocket.
Much better option was to evolve completely from HDD to SSD and M.2.
Example 512GB M.2 + 1/2TB SATA III SSD.
Or 1TB M.2 + 1TB SSD or something like that.
That was far more important than changing platform.
ASUS sell Intel Kaby Lake more than Intel, because nice motherboards and customers than upgrade even before time.
I searched for some cheaper i7-6850K ES or something like that, if not I will stay on i7-5820K 4.2GHz until Skylake Xtreme, than I will sell 5820K and RVE and invest in 6 core CPU, I will need to pay only for new Rampage motherboard, that will be investment. Memory will even stay mine first 2 months until more memory models show up, than I will cross on 32GB and I change nothing until new chipset/Socket 2021.

If you have any chance to back on X99 you should use i7-6850K OC him on 4.2GHz and that's same as i7-5930K on 4.5GHz. That's best at the moment for enthusiast because very small benefits from 8 and 10 Cores and they cost a lot. I think and Intel try to move as much possible gamers on cheaper version of X99 6 cores and 32GB of memory. That's best at the moment multi purpose platform.


----------



## Komshija (Jan 13, 2017)

Why would you downgrade from a 6-core/12-thread i7 5930K to a 4-core/8-trhread i7 7700K? 



hat said:


> 5930k is Haswell... Skylake was barely an improvement over Haswell clock for clock and Kaby Lake is a mere refresh of Skylake.


 Exactly. There's merely a 5% improvement from generation to generation because AMD was sleeping since 2012.


----------



## BiggieShady (Jan 13, 2017)

Maybe you should buy Broadwell-E for your X99 mobo and come right back here to complain how it's not faster than your old Haswell-E


----------



## Kursah (Jan 13, 2017)

*Really guys?*

Sure he should've done his homework, but to berate him and be assholes to him, or post useless posts is pointless, rude and a waste of space. TPU is about helping others. Every single one of us has made a stupid mistake, to be a dick to someone that is advertising theirs on a forum isn't necessary by any means. Frankly he was nice enough to share his results and thoughts, along with expectations. Seems lesson learned to me.

A little joking is one thing if you're also helping or making quality suggestions. Sure even I don't agree with seeing the 7700K/Z270 as a platform upgrade from an X99 setup, but there are better ways of telling the OP and really users doing that is part of what not only brought me to this forum, but kept me here. Many of you are fucking that up and it's getting quite old and disappointing.

Now the OP knows the err in their ways, and shared some of their results, with Pro's and Con's even.


----------



## the54thvoid (Jan 13, 2017)

Frankly I am helped by @mcraygsx's predicament.  I'm on a 4.2Ghz Sandy-E 3930k and 5+ years on thinking, surely a new, lightning fast KL at almost 5Ghz will be a vast improvement.  This post makes me think I'll wait it out for next month for sure (Zen) and if Zen isn't great, I'll just bloody throw a big tantrum.  I'd love to see a benchmark for a fleet of games from a 6 core Sandy to a 4 core Kaby at 4.4Ghz.


----------



## tabascosauz (Jan 13, 2017)

@mcraygsx Armored Warfare isn't optimized for shit at higher 1440p settings. I don't believe that a frame drop in that game actually means anything, since there's so much variance across different maps that a fair comparison cannot be made. Your GTX 780 Ti is definitely not cut out to push Very High / Ultra 1440p Armored Warfare. My GTX 1070 cannot do Ultra above 45 fps, and virtually no single card can. Don't blame that one on the CPU; get a better graphics card.

I sympathize with your sentiments that Kaby Lake is a hot pile of trash on the desktop scene, but I doubt anyone with their head screwed on straight recommended that you downgrade from Haswell-E to Kaby.


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 13, 2017)

MT Alex said:


> I'm wracking my brain trying to come up with a more diplomatic and less caustic way to say "No duh" but I'm getting nothing.


worth quoting again... oy.



mcraygsx said:


> Right my expectations were to get a superior single core performance out of 7700k. I am not comparing the argument of two extra cores here. .


And you have that.. by a couple % at the same clockspeed. Not much, but known. And you can push the 7700k to 5ghz+.



the54thvoid said:


> Frankly I am helped by @mcraygsx's predicament.  I'm on a 4.2Ghz Sandy-E 3930k and 5+ years on thinking, surely a new, lightning fast KL at almost 5Ghz will be a vast improvement.  This post makes me think I'll wait it out for next month for sure (Zen) and if Zen isn't great, I'll just bloody throw a big tantrum.  I'd love to see a benchmark for a fleet of games from a 6 core Sandy to a 4 core Kaby at 4.4Ghz.


If you use all cores, it will be close at the same clocks. Thing is, 5ghz is in the cards for retail 7700K. I bet you are close to being topped out on that 3930K.

For games, only games which use more than 8 threads will benefit. 

I'd upgrade to kaby and never look back...or wait for zen and see what the landscape looks like at that point.


----------



## the54thvoid (Jan 13, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> worth quoting again... oy.
> 
> And you have that.. by a couple % at the same clockspeed. Not much, but known. And you can push the 7700k to 5ghz+.
> 
> ...




Yeah - used to run at 4.4Ghz but reduced it to 4.2Ghz a year or so back for stability.  I think it will be February Zen or Kaby for me.  Not wasting time waiting on Skylake-E, not for gaming.


----------



## mcraygsx (Jan 13, 2017)

exodusprime1337 said:


> wait you swapped a proc and mobo.. I would post some benches after a fresh install.
> 
> I can only assume the 7700k would be slightly better at everything than a 4790k..



In my case almost all the AAAA titles take a performance hit. 3D vantage (Extreme) results comparison between 7700k vs 5930k vs 6700k, XMP was enabled on 7700K/6700k only @stock.







Here is a (Performance) comparison against old CPU's


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jan 13, 2017)

Well your solution is to sell off that rig and go back to Skt 2011-3 or wait for Skylake-E


----------



## Tomgang (Jan 13, 2017)

This i why i am keeeping X58 in sted of bay cheap new mainstream platform, cause i know i just gonna end up dissapointed + high-end platform also do have more vursital when it comes to configuration of cpu and GPU´s. Just take X58 i have and Quad-core now but next week a 6 core cpu (an I7 980X is on the way to my door step) on the same platform. Try upgrade a quad-core cpu on any mainstream to a six core cpu from intel, its gonna be very hard no matter how cause it is op to this day not possible.

You would have been better of just keept your old CPU or upgradet to 6000 series 6 or 8 core cpu on the same platform.


----------



## Frag_Maniac (Jan 13, 2017)

Most know by now the 7000 series is really just Skylake with slightly higher clocks and a bit better onboard graphics. Other than that, just new MB features.

There's one kid on Tom's insisting HT is great for gaming because one game ran slightly smoother with a stock clocked 7700k than his OCed 6600k.

I told him the only fair way to test just the HT effectiveness, is to run the 7700k with and without HT. Instead he calls MY comments misleading, merely for saying his methods weren't accurate.

I don't know what it is with gamers these days, but when a lot of them get the upgrade bug, they're in total denial when they swap for something that isn't really better.

It's refreshing for a change to see someone call Intel out on these cheap arse refresh series.


----------



## erocker (Jan 13, 2017)

mcraygsx said:


> Any thoughts if I should just return the whole combo and just upgrade to Broadwell-E since I already have a decent X99 mb.


That's what I'd do. Well, I probably would of just kept the original CPU as it's no slouch!

*Also, love your avatar!


----------



## alucasa (Jan 13, 2017)

Can't beat Freespace 2. I absolutely loved that game. Don't think I've seen a proper successor for it...

*Edit: *What I loved about Freespace2 is the mentality of the game. You are just a mere pilot. You cannot alter the outcome of the war. But do your best and perhaps, just perhaps, you could alter few minor details of the war.


----------



## fourletterfame (Jan 13, 2017)

mcraygsx said:


> Right my expectations were to get a superior single core performance out of 7700k. I am not comparing the argument of two extra cores here. .



Reviews have been pretty explicit about what to expect from kaby lake, I'm disappointed people still make purchases without reading them thoroughly.


----------



## mcraygsx (Jan 13, 2017)

Frag Maniac said:


> Most know by now the 7000 series is really just Skylake with slightly higher clocks and a bit better onboard graphics. Other than that, just new MB features.
> 
> There's one kid on Tom's insisting HT is great for gaming because one game ran slightly smoother with a stock clocked 7700k than his OCed 6600k.
> 
> ...



Two of the titles I tested benefit from full core with HT disabled including WOW and Company of heroes 2. But The Division and RainbowSix Siege Performs much better w/HT is enabled.


erocker said:


> That's what I'd do. Well, I probably would of just kept the original CPU as it's no slouch!
> 
> *Also, love your avatar!



Thank You, Lesson learned and moving back to my original setup.

No matter how many times I've finished FS2 , it still gives me the goose bumps.


----------



## Kursah (Jan 13, 2017)

Tough to blame you for moving back to your old setup, means you did it right when you built it! 

FS2 is a classic that I still enjoy as well and something I always have installed and ready-to-go, and FS2Open 2014 rocks!


----------



## alucasa (Jan 13, 2017)

Freespace 2 with modern graphics would be awesome as hell. They don't need to change anything else.

It was one of few games I was actually swearing out loud as I was trying to survive against giant motherf...., well, you know. Either way, I was totally roleplaying it.


----------



## Frag_Maniac (Jan 13, 2017)

mcraygsx said:


> ...The Division and RainbowSix Siege Performs much better w/HT is enabled.


Yeah I'm aware there's now a scant few titles that get a slight benefit from HT, but HT in general  is still far from being a selling point for gamers. You're usually far better off taking the difference in money and spending it on a better GPU. My main point though was his HT testing method wasn't even sound.


----------



## FireFox (Jan 13, 2017)

fourletterfame said:


> Reviews have been pretty explicit about what to expect from kaby lake,



and?



fourletterfame said:


> I'm disappointed



Good for you



fourletterfame said:


> people still make purchases without reading



What should i read?

This?


Frag Maniac said:


> Most know by now the 7000 series is really just Skylake with slightly higher clocks and a bit better onboard graphics.



I already know all that BS.


----------



## dorsetknob (Jan 13, 2017)

FreedomEclipse said:


> I apologise but you must be a special kind of stupid


Consumer Simpson Seduced by the Shiny Shiny new thing 
"" Marg is not as good as the old stuff ""
Take or Send it back to the Quicky mart !!!!!


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Jan 13, 2017)

Broadwell-e would fix your xmp issues, also i bet we've crossed paths at that microcenter before and didnt know


----------



## fourletterfame (Jan 14, 2017)

Knoxx29 said:


> and?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Four smarmy quotes later, you still look foolish.


----------



## Frag_Maniac (Jan 14, 2017)

Knoxx29 said:


> I already know all that BS.


Then you just validated my point, didn't you?


----------



## Toothless (Jan 14, 2017)

The dumb is strong.


----------



## RejZoR (Jan 14, 2017)

Frag Maniac said:


> Most know by now the 7000 series is really just Skylake with slightly higher clocks and a bit better onboard graphics. Other than that, just new MB features.
> 
> There's one kid on Tom's insisting HT is great for gaming because one game ran slightly smoother with a stock clocked 7700k than his OCed 6600k.
> 
> ...



It has actually been proven several times HT actually negatively affects games in most cases. I still have it on because who doesn't like to see 12 active threads  Games run fast anyway, I don't see the nee to turn off HT and then negatively afect other stuff like encoding of videos and compression of files.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Jan 14, 2017)

I love you socket 1366


----------



## FireFox (Jan 14, 2017)

fourletterfame said:


> you still look foolish.



You should stop crying like a little Girl.



Frag Maniac said:


> Then you just validated my point, didn't you?



Yes i did.


----------



## Outback Bronze (Jan 14, 2017)

Its all good mate 

I've just recently downgraded also but I'm perfectly happy with my outcome. I was running a 5960x and it was just a power hog, ran hot and was completely overkill for my games.

I even run SLI on the Z170 @ 8x+8x and its perfectly fine. I don't think ill see the 1FPS difference between 16x+16x. You are right about the build quality though (X99) about it feeling more of a Top Tier product.

Nothing wrong with my sweet little overclocking 7600K, its got great IPC for my games over the 5960x for the 99% of my games (I feel). I might even go back to it one day, when a game I love needs all those cores/threads.

Let them all call me a dumb ass, I don't care. They know where they can stick it.


----------



## GelatanousMuck (Jan 14, 2017)

Whew! I'm so glad I had already ordered before reading this thread.

My 7700K at stock speed, beat my 3770K overclocked to 5ghz by 1,000 points in Firestrike PhysX.

With my 7700K overclocked to 5ghz it beat the 3770K at 5ghz PhysX score by over 3,000 points.

The 7700K rocks!

Also it was overclocked on the same M/B as the OPs the ASUS Maximus IX Hero.


----------



## Toothless (Jan 14, 2017)

GelatanousMuck said:


> Whew! I'm so glad I had already ordered before reading this thread.
> 
> My 7700K at stock speed, beat my 3770K overclocked to 5ghz by 1,000 points in Firestrike PhysX.
> 
> ...


Your situation is completely different than OP's. You went from a 3rd gen to a 7th gen and Firestrike isn't a real way to see real world performance. You missed the point of the thread.


----------



## nomdeplume (Jan 14, 2017)

I agree the OP was more of a fell asleep at the wheel and woke up in a wreck situation.  Hurts to watch but since nobody died you only partially stifle a laugh.


----------



## Recon-UK (Jan 14, 2017)

Meh could do worse..

I could understand coming from X58 or X79 to Kaby as well there is a decent gain right there in IPC, and you have no real use for those extra cores.

But X99 is the lead platform... silly move but learn for next time.


----------



## GelatanousMuck (Jan 15, 2017)

Toothless said:


> Your situation is completely different than OP's. You went from a 3rd gen to a 7th gen and Firestrike isn't a real way to see real world performance. You missed the point of the thread.



I did not miss the point of the thread, I chose not to jump on the bash the OP train, that's all.


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 15, 2017)

By being thankful you saw this thread AFTER you made your purchase from something 4 gens old? It's ok to say oops.. 

What you posted and what you said above are two different things.


----------



## n-ster (Jan 15, 2017)

Outback Bronze said:


> Its all good mate
> 
> I've just recently downgraded also but I'm perfectly happy with my outcome. I was running a 5960x and it was just a power hog, ran hot and was completely overkill for my games.
> 
> ...



I think people here are just surprised that he didn't see this coming in advance. You certainly knew what you were getting into when you switched platforms, and it seems you've done quite a logical choice. 

Also, jealousy that he has a 5930k while most people are on mainstream platforms probably doesn't help lol. 

@OP, I'm guessing the upgrade itch got to you and when you saw a great deal at MicroCenter you couldn't resist? Honestly it's an easier mistake to do than many are willing to admit! 

I'm still happy with my 3930K, hopefully more games become multi threaded like BF1 and make my  CPU relevant for a while, just miss  USB C, 3.1 gen 2 and NVMe


----------



## hapkiman (Jan 15, 2017)

This guy can't be legit, he's just trying to troll and start a flame war.  Who would think going from a HEDT X99 level to Z270 would be an "upgrade?"


----------



## the54thvoid (Jan 15, 2017)

hapkiman said:


> This guy can't be legit, he's just trying to troll and start a flame war.  Who would think going from a HEDT X99 level to Z270 would be an "upgrade?"



Well, I'm thinking about it from a x79....

But to be fair, x79 is a lot more aged and doesn't have native NVMe.  For me it s a system thing.  And I'd rather not pay silly bucks again for a 6+ core system when z270 is cheaper for agrguably same or better gaming performance.


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 15, 2017)

X79 is different, and in most all cases, would actually be an upgrade. X99, broadwell-e or haswell-e, no way.


----------



## NinkobEi (Jan 15, 2017)

why didn't you read up on it before buying in? and so close to ryzen...


----------



## Ikaruga (Jan 15, 2017)

4 cores vs 6 cores doesn't matter in gaming unless in some very rare cases and only if you are playing in low resolution, but if you used the more cores in other apps (even for streaming), then you are downgraded in that regard.
I don't think there is much difference with 16x vs 8x in PCIe3 with current cards, so don't worry about that, you can't except all the enthusiast features from mainstream products, even if they are higher quality.


----------



## Ebo (Jan 15, 2017)

We can all agree on that X99 is Intels HEDT platform right ?

That means no matter what for OP, that he downgraded. That might be okay for him, but it still is a step back.


----------



## phanbuey (Jan 16, 2017)

Ikaruga said:


> 4 cores vs 6 cores doesn't matter in gaming unless in some very rare cases and only if you are playing in low resolution, but if you used the more cores in other apps (even for streaming), then you are downgraded in that regard.
> I don't think there is much difference with 16x vs 8x in PCIe3 with current cards, so don't worry about that, you can't except all the enthusiast features from mainstream products, even if they are higher quality.



True but the cache and memory subsystem do make a slight difference.


----------



## thesmokingman (Jan 16, 2017)

hapkiman said:


> This guy can't be legit, he's just trying to troll and start a flame war.  Who would think going from a HEDT X99 level to Z270 would be an "upgrade?"



It makes for a good PSA though.


----------



## frunction (Mar 3, 2017)

I am considering doing a similar thing, going from 5820K to 7700K.

I have a new 240hz 1080p monitor, so I am trying to squeeze out ~240fps minimum in gaming with low-mid settings.  The 5820K is close, but considering the 7700K might do better.


----------



## Toothless (Mar 4, 2017)

frunction said:


> I am considering doing a similar thing, going from 5820K to 7700K.
> 
> I have a new 240hz 1080p monitor, so I am trying to squeeze out ~240fps minimum in gaming with low-mid settings.  The 5820K is close, but considering the 7700K might do better.


No OC?


----------



## frunction (Mar 4, 2017)

5820K is at 4.5ghz, ASUS 1080 max OC, and in a newer game like for honor, I get 200-245FPS.

Maybe the 7700K will bring the minimum up.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Mar 4, 2017)

that would be a downgrade frunction


----------



## Vlada011 (Mar 4, 2017)

On AMD site is party, they celebrate funeral of Intel, dictator is dead after 10 years of domination.
People are robbed, i7-3970X is 10% slower than i7-6850K, distance is 5 years. Both are with same number of cores, same CPU Cache and similar frequency.
Overclock i7-5820K vs i7-5820K on stock is bigger difference than i7-3970X vs i7-6850K.
i7-6950X have single threade performance as i7-3770K, people need to overclock him to reach i7-4770K single performance.
Need to be overclocked more than 1000 MHz to avoid huge difference in single threaded applications from 350$ worth processors. Tragedy, pure tragedy.

Only logic upgrade for Z97, Z170, Z270 and any i7 for last 5 years I see R7 1800X.
Only he will give you good performance difference as you never had with Intel.
If Intel don;t want, there is who want to give you same speed as i7-6950X for 500$.
Only is question what you want to take that.

AMD Beat in any situation in all segments and Intel is not good option any more no matter on budget.

3 most important things are on AMD side.

1. Faster
2. Cheaper
3. Smaller Power consumption

There is other advantages important as well.

4. No non K models and no sabotage of overclocking Non K models
5. No cheap paste under IHS, all of them are as Sandy Bridge and Intel Xtreme
6. Life time of chipset and socket is always on side of AMD and one socket is compatible sometimes with 3-4-5 years newer processors.

Dictator is Dead!
We used 5 years old performance and lived in false reality, we thought that old architecture almost useless is perfection.
But they drain everything and couldn't improve any more performance except to add cores and decrease clocks and manipulate in circle.
My advice wait Crosshair Extreme, Impact or mATX and upgrade... I would bought 1800X immediately only is question later about motherboard, ROG mATX or ROG E-ATX.
But people could use even Mini ITX.
If someone work something with PC and very rear use PC for gaming he could install 1800X on some small motherboard, add 500W fanless Seasonic and buy RX 480 or wait RX 580.
For same price as i7-6950X could build PC with 1800X, ROG mobo, 32GB DDR4, Samsung 512GB M.2 + 1TB EVO are same price as i7-6950X, even less, there is money for reference RX 480.
That's almost whole PC without HDD with all new stuff.
If I have chance I would change, I would like to see how faster 1800X finish CINEBENCH than my i7-5820K.
Only still no mATX Gene... I look price of Ryzen and if something nice show up, and If I find some money maybe...I could use my memory only need CPU and mobo. For mobo is easier, I could afford that.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Mar 4, 2017)




----------



## EarthDog (Mar 4, 2017)

What the?????

1. Only using more than 8 threads...
2. Yep
3. Yep
4. What??!!
5. Yippee... still can't overclock past its own boost and is temp limited. 
6. Yep.

Impressive rant there...lol


----------



## the54thvoid (Mar 4, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> What the?????
> 
> 1. Only using more than 8 threads...
> 2. Yep
> ...



I failed the patience test and quit second time 'Dictator is dead' popped up.


----------



## infrared (Mar 4, 2017)

Our Serbian friend had a lot on his mind xD


----------



## Tatty_One (Mar 4, 2017)

Early hours of the morning, possibly self induced mind alteration? Ohhhh and off topic, the Ryzen thread is over the other side


----------



## brandonwh64 (Mar 4, 2017)

Ummm what??? "Dictator is dead"??? The reviews are clear that AMD's new CPU does not game as well as everybody had hoped. AMD even posted yesterday that "There will be patches!!! Ryzen will get better!!"... Seriously.. A patch? AMD had plenty of time to put a whoppin on intel but they released something that you have to fiddle with (Turn some features off) to get it to game right. That is not something I and other want to deal with. Then there is the post about patches... WHY do you have to patch your CPU.. Did you not test it OVER AND OVER again in every aspect of what it will be used for? I am sorry, I was excited for AMD since I had used it for AGES until I went Intel right when the I7-920 was released.

It reminds me of an old mitch hedburg joke "Hey man you are a good cook but can you farm??"

*Sorry tatty I was typing my post before yours popped up*


----------



## P4-630 (Mar 4, 2017)

brandonwh64 said:


> ... Seriously.. A patch? AMD had plenty of time to put a whoppin on intel



+1^


----------



## RaZzZz (Mar 4, 2017)

I was hyped for Ryzen but now I'm looking around for an i7-7700k.. confused and lost as to where to go! love it


----------



## infrared (Mar 4, 2017)

brandonwh64 said:


> The reviews are clear that AMD's new CPU does not game as well as everybody had hoped. AMD even posted yesterday that "There will be patches!!! Ryzen will get better!!"... Seriously.. A patch? AMD had plenty of time to put a whoppin on intel but they released something that you have to fiddle with (Turn some features off) to get it to game right. That is not something I and other want to deal with. Then there is the post about patches... WHY do you have to patch your CPU.. Did you not test it OVER AND OVER again in every aspect of what it will be used for? I am sorry, I was excited for AMD since I had used it for AGES until I went Intel right when the I7-920 was released.
> 
> It reminds me of an old mitch hedburg joke "Hey man you are a good cook but can you farm??"
> 
> *Sorry tatty I was typing my post before yours popped up*




Ryzen is an entirely new platform from the ground up, it isn't surprising at all that drivers and software need sorting out. It's only been released for 2 days!!!


----------



## P4-630 (Mar 4, 2017)

Hmm this thread is about a Intel 7700K though...


----------



## infrared (Mar 4, 2017)

Good point, back on topic, my bad


----------



## de.das.dude (Mar 4, 2017)

mcraygsx said:


> Right my expectations were to get a superior single core performance out of 7700k. I am not comparing the argument of two extra cores here. .


Do you realize that other than some shitty games, you will never really face single threaded usage now a days?? Hell, even if you are playing an single threaded game and recoding a video on some threads,  you wont see any effect on the game / encoding. Because  the OS itself is designed to allow you multitasking instead of the pseudo stuff or time sharing that happened before.


----------



## Kanan (Mar 4, 2017)

infrared said:


> Ryzen is an entirely new platform from the ground up, it isn't surprising at all that drivers and software need sorting out. It's only been released for 2 days!!!


That's true. Anyone cursing Ryzen now isn't patient, it's too early to say Ryzen is a sub-par performer in games. We will see, and I'm still sure Ryzen is great.

Don't forget every game and even Windows is optimized to Intel / FX CPUs right now, and not really to Ryzen - only a bunch of games are running well, and in those Ryzen is comparable to even the 7700K and better CPUs of Intel (Crysis 3, BF4/BF1/Farcry 4 without SMT and especially Doom).


----------



## bonomork (Mar 4, 2017)

Be patient several improvements are coming


----------



## erocker (Mar 4, 2017)

frunction said:


> 5820K is at 4.5ghz, ASUS 1080 max OC, and in a newer game like for honor, I get 200-245FPS.
> 
> Maybe the 7700K will bring the minimum up.


No.


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 5, 2017)

infrared said:


> Our Serbian friend had a lot on his mind xD


it's always those ESL ones that are chatter boxes.. isn't it?


----------



## BluesFanUK (Apr 19, 2017)

As an owner of an X99 system, I don't think it's as stupid as some think.

All fair and well OC'ing a 5820K to reach Skylake/Kaby Lake single core speeds, but an OC'd X99 chip is well known for producing the occasional blue screen of death under heavy load, stable or not (see whea_uncorrectable_error). Then there's the massive increase in power consumption for it.

I've also had trouble on my X99-S board getting the faster M.2 drives to function properly, particularly the Samsung SM951, and I hate the X99 memory training every time the system boots up (due to quad channel). It's something you can turn off granted, but it's not advisable. Speaking of which, it doesn't like those XMP profiles much with the faster speeds. The newer motherboards work flawlessly with quicker memory.

The X99 boards also don't have native USB3.1, at least the ones from 2014/2015.

I could pick all kinds of holes in it, but if i'm being brutally honest unless you are rendering, the X99 platform is a complete waste of space. I naively went from an i5-2400 to an i7-5820K expecting silly speed increases, how wrong was I. Outside of going from a 270x to a 980ti, the only real noteworthy upgrade i've stuck in my computer over the last decade was an SSD.


----------



## Vlada011 (Apr 19, 2017)

BluesFanUK said:


> As an owner of an X99 system, I don't think it's as stupid as some think.
> 
> All fair and well OC'ing a 5820K to reach Skylake/Kaby Lake single core speeds, but an OC'd X99 chip is well known for producing the occasional blue screen of death under heavy load, stable or not (see whea_uncorrectable_error). Then there's the massive increase in power consumption for it.
> 
> ...



That's because people overclock too much X99. Some of them keep processors 1000MHz overclocked. 8 cores even 1000+ MHz.
I thin perfect speed for i7-5820K is up to 4.2GHz. Better to overclock up to 1.200-1.250V and less chance for degradation.
I kept i7-5820K first on 4.0GHz, that's nothing for him, he worked on stock voltage, performance are 20% better on 4.0GHz.
Now I increase voltage to 1.200V both Core and Cache and Change settings to 4.2/4.0GHz and I will keep like that constantly.
Maybe and my processor could work on 4.5GHz on 1.300-1.350V but I didn't push him, this is enough until Intel X299.
Even if Intel fail with LGA2066, people with X99 have enough performance to wait Intel to develope completely new gen or eventually to think about AM4 1800X.
But if Intel launch something good than I expect X299 to be great platform. Rumors say Skylake-E up to 10 cores and Kaby Lake-E 4 cores. That mean maybe people could choose between processor for multi threaded application and CPU with 4 cores but high frequency, on same chipset. Maybe is not bad idea. But everything is in vain if Intel ask more than 300-350 for 1700X competition and more than 500-550 for 1800X competition. Higher power consumption, more expensive motherboards, many customers will turn to AMD in that case.
Intel must beat 1800X for same price, no matter how, 6 or 8 cores.
For me is X99 platform best after X58. X58 was best investment and for most people best platform in life. People still use Xeons and i7-980X. Many customers both i7-920 and later upgrade to i7-980X. Only X99 is in shadow of AMD now, but without AMD that would be premium platform 2014-2015-2016 and now is 2017. In August 2014 Intel present i7-5820K and ASUS Rampage V Extreme, they are still premium Intel platform and X99 will stay attractive and capable to keep high end hardware up to 2020. That's long life time. People have many options, price of used 8 and 10 cores will rapidly drop after Intel launch X299. Maybe Intel keep their price on Amazon and Newegg, but i7-6950X will cost soon 500$ and no one will pay single dollar over that, special if Intel move little more with LGA2066. i7-6900K and i7-6950X if replace i7-5820K and i7-5930K could seriously to prolongue life time of X99. Owners could freely to invest in some watercooling and no reason to change chipset. Not even on X299.
Overclocked i7-6900K with Cache on 4.0GHz and clock on 4.2GHz is better than best AMD option, CPU and Memory results. And owners of X99 could continue to use 3 years old platform. Only problem is Intel's price. Intel could stay competitive and with so strong AMD, only price is problem.
Their answer should be changing price on X79 level, i7-6900K to cost as i7-4930K and i7-6950X as i7-4960X, I7-6850K same as mainstream generation and i7-6800K 200$ budget variant and Intel is in game again. He dominate in memory even with 2666-3200MHz copy-write-read performance as well. Extraction, unpacking, everything is faster on X99 with overclocked Cache + Core, premium motherboards with better VRM and power section, more options.


----------



## FireFox (Apr 19, 2017)

Vlada011 said:


> That's because people overclock too much X99. Some of them keep processors 1000MHz overclocked. 8 cores even 1000+ MHz.
> I thin perfect speed for i7-5820K is up to 4.2GHz. Better to overclock up to 1.200-1.250V and less chance for degradation.
> I kept i7-5820K first on 4.0GHz, that's nothing for him, he worked on stock voltage, performance are 20% better on 4.0GHz.
> Now I increase voltage to 1.200V both Core and Cache and Change settings to 4.2/4.0GHz and I will keep like that constantly.
> ...



It would take me less time to read the full story of the Bible than your post

Btw, I had a nice read.


----------



## Vlada011 (Apr 20, 2017)

Knoxx29 said:


> It would take me less time to read the full story of the Bible than your post
> 
> Btw, I had a nice read.



It's only for 1/3 longer than his post.
Nobody force you to read.


----------



## EarthDog (Apr 20, 2017)

Knoxx29 said:


> It would take me less time to read the full story of the Bible than your post
> 
> Btw, I had a nice read.



Before this thread was revived i said...





EarthDog said:


> it's always those ESL ones that are chatter boxes.. isn't it?


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Apr 20, 2017)

mcraygsx said:


> Right my expectations were to get a superior single core performance out of 7700k. I am not comparing the argument of two extra cores here. .


Why wouldn't you with all the tripe spoken on the internet about the 7700k s gaming prowess ?? And now some call you wtf..
Comedy abounds in Tpu land.


----------



## Cvrk (Apr 21, 2017)

mcraygsx said:


> Right my expectations were to get a superior single core performance out of 7700k.


This.

I think it will shine in the upcoming games . ashes of singularity should score more with your rig. 
Keep us updated. Still nice build


----------



## gottistar (Apr 25, 2017)

looks like you got punkt by all the hype...my 920 @4.4 is just as good 5 plus years ago....what did you really expect..


----------



## EarthDog (Apr 26, 2017)

gottistar said:


> looks like you got punkt by all the hype...my 920 @4.4 is just as good 5 plus years ago....what did you really expect..


Funny... my 486 dx4 100mhz is just as good as it was 22 years ago. That doesnt mean it can play today's games as well as the latest gen cpu.

The fact is your cpu is holding a lot of games back just because its slow compared to the latest gen or two. Your cpu places a glass ceiling on many titles without even using a high end gpu...

While your statement is true as it reads, when put in context, the chip is pretty played out. 

But, OP did get punked.


----------



## phanbuey (Apr 26, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Funny... my 486 dx4 100mhz is just as good as it was 22 years ago. That doesnt mean it can play today's games as well as the latest gen cpu.
> 
> The fact is your cpu is holding a lot of games back just because its slow compared to the latest gen or two. Your cpu places a glass ceiling on many titles without even using a high end gpu...
> 
> ...


that chip was awesome.


----------



## evernessince (Apr 26, 2017)

Should have waited for Ryzen.  The 7700K gets you an imperceivable FPS boost that you won't see with anything but a 240 Hz monitor.  Ryzen will give you a boost in literally everything but games and that''s only for now as we sure as heck know games are going to require more cores over time.  The only acceptable reason to be buying a 7700K right now is if you are a hardcore / pro gamer.  For everyone else, Ryzen is the best choice not just for it's all around performance now but because it absolutely crushes the 7700K in the future thanks to it's additional cores.  Being able to drop in Zen+ and Zen++ into the same mobo is a nice thing to note.


----------



## Ithanul (Apr 26, 2017)

I'm curious, why go from a X99 to Z270?
The small percentage is just not going to be noticeable in every day usage.  Unless, there were features on the Z270 you wanted.

Heck, I have several CPUs.  Some of them hardly have a difference unless you doing some crazy work loads on them.  There are far greater difference in features on the motherboard.


----------



## Kanan (Apr 26, 2017)

Ithanul said:


> I'm curious, why go from a X99 to Z270?
> The small percentage is just not going to be noticeable in every day usage.  Unless, there were features on the Z270 you wanted.
> 
> Heck, I have several CPUs.  Some of them hardly have a difference unless you doing some crazy work loads on them.  There are far greater difference in features on the motherboard.


I'd never step down from a ~more or less same gen X platform to a Z platform. I even prefer X79 compared to Z270. For obvious reasons.


----------



## ensabrenoir (Apr 26, 2017)

...thought this was a joke....


----------



## EarthDog (Apr 27, 2017)

Kanan said:


> I'd never step down from a ~more or less same gen X platform to a Z platform. I even prefer X79 compared to Z270. For obvious reasons.


You own it. 

If one uses all the cores (read more than 4), that stance makes sense. But the gap between them isnt as big as one may think either...if tbere is still one. There are four generations of incremental IPC improvements totaling 20%-25% clock for clock. Then the 7700k is a 5ghz chip versus say, a 4.5ghz 3960x... Way less power use, dont need the non-existent improvements quad core ram brings, modern technology like nvme (or if you get a pcie card, booting from nvme), native usb3.1....etc.


----------



## Kanan (Apr 27, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> You own it.
> 
> If one uses all the cores (read more than 4), that stance makes sense. But the gap between them isnt as big as one may think either...if tbere is still one. There are four generations of incremental IPC improvements totaling 20%-25% clock for clock. Then the 7700k is a 5ghz chip versus say, a 4.5ghz 3960x... Way less power use, dont need the non-existent improvements quad core ram brings, modern technology like nvme (or if you get a pcie card, booting from nvme), native usb3.1....etc.


Its true, if someone offered me a free 7700K i would probably go for it. Then again my 3960X clocks higher than 5GHz if I'd care to do it. But I'm not into retarded overclocks for long term usage. My statement wasn't meant like that however. In the end I don't get a free 7700K and buying it to replace my 3960X is simply not worth it. Atm. I'm still fine, though I get a GPU upgrade soon and I'm curious if it will be fine with the 3960X at 4.5GHz. That said I plan to use it for a few years at least, maybe 4 years tops. Maybe Ryzen II is a thing then, the alternative would be to buy a Intel 8 core on a future X platform (I don't like the mainstream platform, again for obvious reasons).


----------



## EarthDog (Apr 27, 2017)

I doubt there are many 5ghz 24/7 3960x out there...just talking 24/7 clocks.

Anyhoo, i get your point... reading between the lines you use all those cores i guess. 

Youll have the same minor glass ceiling any SB based cpu has with a highdr end gpu. More cores wont help that.


----------



## alucasa (Apr 27, 2017)

If I was given a free 7700k, I would ask the guy if I could sell it right away and sell it.


----------



## Kanan (Apr 27, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Youll have the same minor glass ceiling any SB based cpu has with a highdr end gpu. More cores wont help that.


Well I have 7 mb more l3 cache as well so it's not "any" SB processor, It's comparable to 6700K without! overclocking it. With overclocks it's easily as fast as 7700K or faster making a "upgrade" to 7700K just silly and dumb.


alucasa said:


> If I was given a free 7700k, I would ask the guy if I could sell it right away and sell it.


Right, I would rather sell it and get a proper 6800K then, which is an actual high end cpu and not a stupid 4 core once again.


----------



## jboydgolfer (Apr 27, 2017)

Kanan said:


> not a stupid 4 core once again.



 Your post has moved me. ...... I will now burn all my CPUs that are less than six Cores


----------



## alucasa (Apr 27, 2017)

Me has enough cores.


----------



## Kanan (Apr 27, 2017)

Well im glad Ryzen AMD is ending 4 core dominance once and for all.


----------



## alucasa (Apr 27, 2017)

That was bound to happen. Intel had the dominance for a decade. Hard not to get complacent over such a long period.


----------



## Kanan (Apr 27, 2017)

Still AMD did a great job with Ryzen. 52% more ipc.


----------



## purecain (Apr 27, 2017)

intel have brought their product line ahead of schedule. so we can expect to see mainstream 6core intel desktop cpu's very soon. I think everyone whos upgraded recently is going to feel a little guttered when these new cpu's arrive.

I'm not waiting for their supposed 20%ipc improvement.  ryzen hits the spot nicely with 8c 16t.


----------



## alucasa (Apr 27, 2017)

Considering how bad FX was, the improvement was easy.

FX was 100% slower than Haswell in Blender.


----------



## Kanan (Apr 27, 2017)

Nothing was "easy" about Ryzen. This is a disrespectful statement. Are you an engineer?


----------



## alucasa (Apr 27, 2017)

Nope. For AMD, Ryzen was finally bringing stuff up to date.


----------



## Kanan (Apr 27, 2017)

Yeah, no, It's still a remarkable achievement whether you respect it or not.


----------



## alucasa (Apr 27, 2017)

I have respect for neither company since I am no fanboy of either.


----------



## Kanan (Apr 27, 2017)

Has nothing to do with being a fanboy, It's just called being a decent human being to respect the good work of other people.


----------



## alucasa (Apr 27, 2017)

As a consumer, I go where price / performance matters. Respect has little to do with my choice of purchase unfortunately.


----------



## Kanan (Apr 27, 2017)

Nice you changed the subject. For obvious reasons.  /nuff said


----------



## EarthDog (Apr 27, 2017)

Kanan said:


> Well I have 7 mb more l3 cache as well so it's not "any" SB processor, It's comparable to 6700K without! overclocking it. With overclocks it's easily as fast as 7700K or faster making a "upgrade" to 7700K just silly and dumb.


3960x needs to be close to 6ghz to match KL IPC at stock. Average overclocks on air/water are 4.7ghz according to hwbot. Its not until subambient these can hit 5ghz.

Cache really isnt going to be a factor in not limiting a high end gpu.. sorry. Maybe the cache is thw same, otherwise, its still way behind ipc wise. 

Anyway, again, i hear ya... you use the cores. Makes sense.


----------



## alucasa (Apr 27, 2017)

Kanan said:


> Nice you changed the subject. For obvious reasons.  /nuff said



Doh. You changed subject. For obvious reasons. 

Listen, seeing you getting all worked up means you are a fanboy. Sorry, pal. That's how it looks to me.


----------



## Kanan (Apr 27, 2017)

I never said it can match its ipc in fact that is impossible as instructions per clock isn't about a amount of core clock it's about instruction per clock, do you actually know what you're speaking of? Seems not like it.

And L3 cache helps for anything. Hearing "advice" from a guy who don't knows the real meaning of IPC is useless anyway, sorry.


alucasa said:


> Doh. You changed subject. For obvious reasons.


No I did not.


> Listen, seeing you getting all worked up means you are a fanboy. Sorry, pal. That's how it looks to me.


Bullshit I just don't like it when people behave like that. You're disrespectful. Simple. Would you do the same with Intel or Nvidia I would react all the same. Laughable try to mark me as a fanboy.


----------



## alucasa (Apr 27, 2017)

Aye, I am disrespectable. I agree with that.

I hold little respect for a company (Intel in this example) to linger on improvements and eventually end up rebranding stuff before getting a rude awakening.

I also bear little respect for a company (AMD now) to fail to capitalize their success with Athlon and let Conroe rape them.

By the by, why are you going all technical now?

Edit: Poor spelling on Athlon


----------



## dorsetknob (Apr 27, 2017)

purecain said:


> intel have brought their product line ahead of schedule. so we can expect to see mainstream 6core intel desktop cpu's very soon. I think everyone whos upgraded recently is going to feel a little guttered when these new cpu's arrive.
> 
> I'm not waiting for their supposed 20%ipc improvement.  ryzen hits the spot nicely with 8c 16t.


i laughed out loud more than a little at the above
any HEDT 6core  intel releases in response to AMD's latest offering is going to play KY Jelly your Wallet and Bend over  games


----------



## Kanan (Apr 27, 2017)

alucasa said:


> Aye, I am disrespectable. I agree with that.
> 
> I hold little respect for a company (Intel in this example) to linger on improvements and eventually end up rebranding stuff before getting a rude awakening.
> 
> I also bear little respect for a company (AMD now) to fail to capitalize their success with Althan and let Conroe rape them.


You know what? Do what you want, and behave like you want, I don't care.


----------



## alucasa (Apr 27, 2017)

Of course, we do what we want. We are humans after all.

Whether you care or not regarding others' behavior is up to you, sire.


----------



## EarthDog (Apr 27, 2017)

Kanan said:


> I never said it can match its ipc in fact that is impossible as instructions per clock isn't about a amount of core clock it's about instruction per clock, do you actually know what you're speaking of? Seems not like it.
> 
> And L3 cache helps for anything. Hearing "advice" from a guy who don't knows the real meaning of IPC is useless anyway, sorry.
> 
> ...


I mentioned IPC as you mentioned a high end gpu and keeping the thing for a few years. IPC is where its at for those types things. Sure, cache plays a role, but it isnt going to make as big of a difference as you seem to infer. 

I clearly know what IPC means... in a bit of irony, you didnt seem to understand my comparison??? Let me clarify... at the same clock its 20-25% slower. So in order for the slower cpu to be as fast, clocks need to be that 20-25% higher or so. Make sense now? These types of comparisoms are done all the time bud. 

At this point, im just not sure why you are resorting to throwing barbs out about my knowledge from your glass house. What happened to you man...over the past couple months you have really turned for the worse. Its tough to disagree with you and have it stay on the up and up... 

But... this has turned all 'red herring' now (like your duscussion with alu) so, ill just leave it be. Clearly this isnt getting anyone anywhere and is dissolving into insults for no reason.. For shame.


----------



## alucasa (Apr 27, 2017)

Yeah, this perv went a little too far. My apologies @EarthDog. I will withdraw from this thread.


----------



## Kanan (Apr 27, 2017)

Oh man, the problem is you, not me. At least I'm not confusing IPC with "general performance" or "performance" and then on the other hand try to give "advice" to someone who not even asked to have some.  

The actual "barb" got thrown by you for the same reason - if I want advice I'll ask for it or open a thread, thanks. General tip: don't give people "advice" that didn't ask for it.

Generally we will never be friends, and thats perfectly fine. Just don't talk to me again (at least not in that way). Same holds true for some other elitists here as well. One is already on ignore since yesterday, the rest can follow if they want to behave like that as well, I wouldn't ever care. I'm not here to waste my time with people that just want to argue things out of egoistic reasons. I'm here to help people, and get informed, and maybe, just maybe have a nice talk with someone. But that seems to be pretty hard to achieve here.


----------



## jboydgolfer (Apr 27, 2017)

alucasa said:


> Listen, seeing you getting all worked up means you are a fanboy. Sorry, pal. That's how it looks to me.


----------



## Kanan (Apr 27, 2017)

Because calling a longtime Intel/Nvidia user a AMD fanboy makes so much sense. /facepalm. You guys are really special.


----------



## EarthDog (Apr 27, 2017)

Kanan said:


> Oh man, the problem is you, not me. At least I'm not confusing IPC with "general performance" or "performance" and then on the other hand try to give "advice" to someone who not even asked to have some.
> 
> The actual "barb" got thrown by you for the same reason - if I want advice I'll ask for it or open a thread, thanks. General tip: don't give people "advice" that didn't ask for it.
> 
> Generally we will never be friends, and thats perfectly fine. Just don't talk to me again (at least not in that way). Same holds true for some other elitists here as well. One is already on ignore since yesterday, the rest can follow if they want to behave like that as well, I wouldn't ever care. I'm not here to waste my time with people that just want to argue things out of egoistic reasons. I'm here to help people, and get informed, and maybe, just maybe have a nice talk with someone. But that seems to be pretty hard to achieve here.


Not going in circles with the IPC thing. The posts/facts speak for themselves.  

I see I went wrong in offering (you) unsolicited advice. Ill leave you be on that front moving forward.

I offer advice/suggestions for the same reasons you do, to help people. Sometimes it doesnt come in the form of a thread but a post in a thread that can use information to make an even more informed opinion/conclusion. It seems like some dont want it...and thats ok. But there are better ways to say it than to carry on a discussion about a topic, disagree with another strong and knowledgeable personailty on tpu, drop an insult, then take your ball and go home as a marytr. Just as I know there are better ways I can share information with others here too. If you dont want to hear it, just say so... dont humor the conversation... im good with that.

Anyway...shitstorm over. SMFH..


----------



## Tomgang (Apr 27, 2017)

you guys can keep your new systems. X58 is still a platform with great random properties. Sure if i upgradet to X99 i shut get a better performence but i dont need it and just upgrading from a I7 920 to a I7 980X and i even got an M.2 NVMe SSD to work as a boot drive now and that just made this old puppy fast and snappy again to my desires. And after also swapped to a second gen X58 Mobo i also have sata 3 and USB 3.0. What more can i desire really. I can not come to any idea to why upgrade to a new platform. I have lots of SSD´s including the latest M.2 standart, sata 3, USB 3.0, 6 cores/12 threads, running win 10, 12 GB of ram. I can litterly not come with a good reason to upgrade forthe use i have.

I dont know how much a different i would feel if i upgradet to X99 but X58 does its job great for my use. If i upgrade/down gradet to an I7 7700K i would perperly see a gain in games but multitasking hmm  and that I7 980X overclock like nothing else i have tryed so far. Got it to 4.77 GHz on air cooling still with all core and HT on.

This is how my system runs today:


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Apr 28, 2017)

^^^^^^^^^^^^


----------



## Kanan (Apr 28, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Not going in circles with the IPC thing. The posts/facts speak for themselves.
> 
> I see I went wrong in offering (you) unsolicited advice. Ill leave you be on that front moving forward.
> 
> ...


Yeah, you had your go on me for days now, don't think for one second it goes unnoticed and I would accept that forever. Especially some fruitless discussions with me in the Unigine thread, that so far, was running perfectly fine. And I want to keep it that way.
---------
@Tomgang "upgrading" to another system is only necessary when you see your FPS are too low and your GPU utilization is low as well. Before that happens, you don't even need to think about it basically. I'm upgrading like that for my entire life (maybe some exceptions here and there) now and it always went well for me, I think I saved a lot of money as well.


----------



## Tomgang (Apr 28, 2017)

Kanan said:


> Yeah, you had your go on me for days now, don't think for one second it goes unnoticed and I would accept that forever. Especially some fruitless discussions with me in the Unigine thread, that so far, was running perfectly fine. And I want to keep it that way.
> ---------
> @Tomgang "upgrading" to another system is only necessary when you see your FPS are too low and your GPU utilization is low as well. Before that happens, you don't even need to think about it basically. I'm upgrading like that for my entire life (maybe some exceptions here and there) now and it always went well for me, I think I saved a lot of money as well.



Yeah. Even games still run great like BF1 and i have also tried quake champions beta and even that runs great. With high settings (ultra is the higest right after high) i got between 100 and 130 FPS and thats with only one GTX 970 because it does not have sli support since it is in beta state still. And i find that pretty great considered this old CPU/platform. i have yet to se a game that totally kill this old system and even cant getting over 60 FPS at medium or high settings. most games even run ultra setting with no problem at all. I game in 1080P.

To be onestly i find it more fun and giving to keep this system alive than buy new the hole time and its hell of alot cheaper.


----------



## Kanan (Apr 28, 2017)

Tomgang said:


> Yeah. Even games still run great like BF1 and i have also tried quake champions beta and even that runs great. With high settings (ultra is the higest right after high) i got between 100 and 130 FPS and thats with only one GTX 970 because it does not have sli support since it is in beta state still. And i find that pretty great considered this old CPU/platform. i have yet to se a game that totally kill this old system and even cant getting over 60 FPS at medium or high settings. most games even run ultra setting with no problem at all. I game in 1080P.


You know, for me something's "old" when it's outdated. Your system isn't outdated.


----------



## Tomgang (Apr 28, 2017)

Kanan said:


> You know, for me something's "old" when it's outdated. Your system isn't outdated.



Yeah i agreed. Sure ipc and power use has been improved, but if that really is the major sale agument i am not buying it.

As told an i7 7700k will improve game fps but do you really get a better gaming exspirince when ever you have 80 to 100 fps or 100 to maybe 140 fps. I dont think so in most cases. So i am not upgrading.


----------



## EarthDog (Apr 28, 2017)

I can agree with that TomG. But for some, its just about removing limits. Id hate to buy a 1080+ caliber card to put limitations on it. SLI especially likes ghz and IPC. Surely, whats the difference between 100 and 110 fps.. most wont notice. In my mind, its the principle of having a bottle neck that is affordably avoidble. Not to mention every frame counts, even at 4k where cpu doesnt matter as much, but can still limit FPS.


----------



## Tomgang (Apr 28, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> I can agree with that TomG. But for some, its just about removing limits. Id hate to buy a 1080+ caliber card to put limitations on it. SLI especially likes ghz and IPC. Surely, whats the difference between 100 and 110 fps.. most wont notice. In my mind, its the principle of having a bottle neck that is affordably avoidble. Not to mention every frame counts, even at 4k where cpu doesnt matter as much, but can still limit FPS.



Yes agreed with gpu. That its also why i just dont go out and bay something like gtx 1080 ti as tempting it might be. I dont need it and i dont think my cpu can use it properly at 1080P.

And besides gtx 970 sli is still around one gtx 1070/1080 depending on how well a given game supports sli and how high i overclock my cards and that is plenty for 1080p any way.


----------



## hapkiman (Apr 28, 2017)

Man there are a lot of Kaby Lake haters here.  Say what you want about it - but I've had a lot of processors over the years, including a hexa-core i7-970 (which was great), and I can say without hesitation the i7-7700k is a fantastic processor.  Quad Core?  Yes, but so what.

I have another rig for "work."


----------



## Kanan (Apr 28, 2017)

hapkiman said:


> Man there are a lot of Kaby Lake haters here.  Say what you want about it - but I've had a lot of processors over the years, including a hexa-core i7-970 (which was great), and I can say without hesitation the i7-7700k is a fantastic processor.  Quad Core?  Yes, but so what.
> 
> I have another rig for "work."


The "so what" about it is this: I don't say it's bad, but Intel sold it way too expensive and gave us the same 4 / 8 T now for years because of lack of competition through amd or other companies. It's not bad but 6 cores are better. Now that Ryzen upped the game Intel is suddenly pushing 6 cores for consumer platform. Speaking of pointing a gun to head and forcing someone to do the most essential things. Intel are sure bloodsuckers.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Apr 28, 2017)

Why is this thread even open still? 

It appears it has went way off topic.


----------



## EarthDog (Apr 28, 2017)

Its actually on topic, lol...we are talking KL and the decision to move to it or not...no?

Its a god discussion sans the insults from particular users... moderate THEM, not the thread.


----------



## Tatty_One (Apr 28, 2017)

Kanan said:


> The "so what" about it is this: I don't say it's bad, but Intel sold it way too expensive and gave us the same 4 / 8 T now for years because of lack of competition through amd or other companies. It's not bad but 6 cores are better. Now that Ryzen upped the game Intel is suddenly pushing 6 cores for consumer platform. Speaking of pointing a gun to head and forcing someone to do the most essential things. Intel are sure bloodsuckers.



6 cores are only better if you use them for a decent amount of what you do, whilst I don't disagree with you in principle (because clearly they are more productive), there are an awful lot of people out there who just moderately game, surf the net, stream some TV or a movie and do some MS Office type work, in most circumstances a 4 core, 8 thread is much more than adequate, it may even be much more than is actually needed so why would they spend the extra cash (that they might not have anyway) on the x99 platform and a hex core, damn the difference in price would probably mean they could afford a 1070 over a 1060 (example).


----------



## EarthDog (Apr 28, 2017)

Spot on Tatty!

To add a bit to this, before Ryzens release, intel had already mentioned there would be some blurred lines moving forward...more than 4c in mainstream and a lesser core option in HEDT (while continuing to push core count up).

I cant agree it was too expensive either...at least when ryzen wasnt out amyway. That was simply a product of a lack of competition in the space. They are a for profit company.. I dont blame them. Now we have competiton, we should see things level out. I mean look around, people were super excited about ryzen because of what it will do to the market/price because of its performance. Business 101.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Apr 28, 2017)

8 years old, just installed it...............cost me 4 quid including p and p


----------



## dorsetknob (Apr 28, 2017)

Good to see another functioning X58
Nice quick overclock ( is the chip hot seeing as its a 45nm 130w workstation Part )


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Apr 28, 2017)

ive only got 2 small fans on the cooler. This is at 3.80 ghz


----------



## ERazer (Apr 28, 2017)

Athlon>Q6600>i7 860>I7 2600k>I7 6800k best upgrade so far


----------



## Tomgang (Apr 28, 2017)

Well since you guys likes X58 so much, i shall deliver a few screenshots more aswell and there are more where it comes from than i post here now, so let me know if i shall post more after this.

CPU-z bench mark I7 980X at stock, 4.25 GHz (the clocks i ran for every day use) and 4.7 GHz with all core and HT still on.














A few screenshot of my older I7 920 at 4.4 GHz before i upgradet to I7 980X and of that cpu result at 4.25 GHz (side note: GPU score is lower here because just as with cpu at 4.25 GHz GPU´s are here clokket to what i run them at for daily use aswell) and 4.77 GHz in 3Dmark Firestrike.













Whats more to say than X58 still delivers a good performence for its age. X99 is more powerful and has new and better features, but the cost for such a system compare to what you get and what i need just cant justify the additional price X99 cost in my eyes at least.

To compare here is a more resent system with a I7 6800K and two GTX 980.

http://www.3dmark.com/fs/10811547


----------



## Kanan (Apr 29, 2017)

@Tatty_One I use them, though it's only BF1 that needs all the cores and threads atm, the other games don't need it (yet). My point is, 4/8 is nice for now but I wouldn't buy a new expensive 4 core anymore and rather spend it on a nice 6 core that will be way better suited long term. X99 MB you can get used on eBay, saving 30-50% of its price. It's even cheaper than a nice Z270 then.


----------



## trog100 (Apr 29, 2017)

i bought one ( a 7700K) and all the junk that goes with it.. but only because my 4790K and the motherboard it sat in died on me.. 

4th to 7th generation.. in real life general usage i cant detect the slightest difference.. benchmarks tell me there is a difference but thats about it.. 

trog


----------



## Vayra86 (Apr 29, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> You own it.
> 
> If one uses all the cores (read more than 4), that stance makes sense. But the gap between them isnt as big as one may think either...if tbere is still one. There are four generations of incremental IPC improvements totaling 20%-25% clock for clock. Then the 7700k is a 5ghz chip versus say, a 4.5ghz 3960x... Way less power use, dont need the non-existent improvements quad core ram brings, modern technology like nvme (or if you get a pcie card, booting from nvme), native usb3.1....etc.



That IPC bump per gen is highly abstract and definitely not an across-the-board boost to a CPU clock. Its way too easy to say this, especially if you start counting from Haswell onwards. I'd even go as far as saying its ONLY about clocks if you run Haswell or newer and primary purpose is gaming. It is very easy to get a twisted view of things; reviewers for example test a number of suites and take the average performance increase to get that IPC boost % number, you can't just extrapolate AVX or a Blender run to real world perf across the board.



Tomgang said:


> you guys can keep your new systems. X58 is still a platform with great random properties. Sure if i upgradet to X99 i shut get a better performence but i dont need it and just upgrading from a I7 920 to a I7 980X and i even got an M.2 NVMe SSD to work as a boot drive now and that just made this old puppy fast and snappy again to my desires. And after also swapped to a second gen X58 Mobo i also have sata 3 and USB 3.0. What more can i desire really. I can not come to any idea to why upgrade to a new platform. I have lots of SSD´s including the latest M.2 standart, sata 3, USB 3.0, 6 cores/12 threads, running win 10, 12 GB of ram. I can litterly not come with a good reason to upgrade forthe use i have.
> 
> I dont know how much a different i would feel if i upgradet to X99 but X58 does its job great for my use. If i upgrade/down gradet to an I7 7700K i would perperly see a gain in games but multitasking hmm  and that I7 980X overclock like nothing else i have tryed so far. Got it to 4.77 GHz on air cooling still with all core and HT on.
> 
> This is how my system runs today:



I absolutely love how your HDDs are 'ledig af' or 'empty as fuck'  At least that's how I like reading that.


----------



## Tatty_One (Apr 29, 2017)

Kanan said:


> @Tatty_One* I use them*, though it's only BF1 that needs all the cores and threads atm, the other games don't need it (yet). My point is, 4/8 is nice for now but I wouldn't buy a new expensive 4 core anymore and rather spend it on a nice 6 core that will be way better suited long term. X99 MB you can get used on eBay, saving 30-50% of its price. It's even cheaper than a nice Z270 then.


I don't doubt that but I was talking about the millions that probably wouldn't today or in the next couple of years...... like me for example


----------



## Kanan (Apr 29, 2017)

Tatty_One said:


> I don't doubt that but I was talking about the millions that probably wouldn't today or in the next couple of years...... like me for example


I just ask you this: what would you rather buy for 350 bucks: a 4 core or a 6 core? Mainboard is maybe 50 bucks more, a negligible difference if you ask me. CPU and stuff is a long term investment nowadays, so saving 50 bucks is not exactly smart then.


----------



## Tatty_One (Apr 29, 2017)

Kanan said:


> I just ask you this: what would you rather buy for 350 bucks: a 4 core or a 6 core? Mainboard is maybe 50 bucks more, a negligible difference if you ask me. CPU and stuff is a long term investment nowadays, so saving 50 bucks is not exactly smart then.


I can only speak for myself, I change CPU's approx. every 2-3 years, I have literally last week moved from a Haswell i5 to a Skylake 6700k, to be fair I got a great deal, for that 350 bucks you mentioned I pretty much got a bundle deal of the 6700k and a decent mid ranged Z170 board, I stress I went this route because of the deal, had the deal not existed I would be in a similar situation to the topic of this thread, albeit I would have chosen between the 7700k or a 6 core Ryzen 5 but I probably would have gone Kaby because I really don't see myself needing 12 threads in a couple of years but that's exactly the point, all our needs are different.


----------



## Tomgang (Apr 29, 2017)

Vayra86 said:


> That IPC bump per gen is highly abstract and definitely not an across-the-board boost to a CPU clock. Its way too easy to say this, especially if you start counting from Haswell onwards. I'd even go as far as saying its ONLY about clocks if you run Haswell or newer and primary purpose is gaming. It is very easy to get a twisted view of things; reviewers for example test a number of suites and take the average performance increase to get that IPC boost % number, you can't just extrapolate AVX or a Blender run to real world perf across the board.
> 
> 
> 
> I absolutely love how your HDDs are 'ledig af' or 'empty as fuck'  At least that's how I like reading that.



"Ledig af" is danish and means free space on the drives. So if it says 400 GB ledig af 936 GB. It means there are 400 GB of free space on the drive i can still use for storage.

All those empty drives is because that screenshot is from an early windows install after i swapped that M.2 Samsung SSD in my pc. Then i had to delete and install all my porn again  ups i mean games again.
Those drives are empty no more. But only 7 drives is left because one of my WD Velociraptor those to commit suicide last week. But oh well it 8 years old so it where doomed to fail at some point any way.


----------



## EarthDog (Apr 29, 2017)

Vayra86 said:


> That IPC bump per gen is highly abstract and definitely not an across-the-board boost to a CPU clock. Its way too easy to say this, especially if you start counting from Haswell onwards. I'd even go as far as saying its ONLY about clocks if you run Haswell or newer and primary purpose is gaming. It is very easy to get a twisted view of things; reviewers for example test a number of suites and take the average performance increase to get that IPC boost % number, you can't just extrapolate AVX or a Blender run to real world perf across the board.


Yes, that ~25% was an average across multiple benchmarks from anandtech. Sometimes its less, sometimes more. Including avx based tests, etc. Point is, its generally 'that much' faster. Splitting hairs doesnt change anything. Its a SB based CPU vs KL.

Cores, more than 4(or 8t), are only useful if they are used anyway. There are very few games, but more every year, which respond to more than 8t. Ive mentioned that since we took the red pill here.


----------



## Kanan (Apr 29, 2017)

Haswell to Skylake/KL is 5-10% Ipc diff. SB to Skylake is 20-30%. As in minimum and tops. You have to count in Cache differences and clock differences as well. Whole reason why I still use SB, I simply switched to more cores, but even the 3820 was still easily fast enough at 4.3GHz. Intel's "advancement" is slim. Hence why they started to sabotage overclocking on consumer platform seeing SB is doing too well, starting with Ivy Bridge and only when it got really bad at Haswell K processors toothpaste, the uproar was so big that they were forced to improved the toothpaste and changed it to something at least bearable.


----------



## EarthDog (Apr 29, 2017)

Kanan said:


> Intel's "advancement" is slim. Hence why they started to sabotage overclocking on consumer platform seeing SB is doing too well


That's an interesting theory... 

But yeah, we are talking SB to KL... as you have SB and mentioned KL. So, you agree. 20-30% (I said around 20-25%).


----------



## Kanan (Apr 29, 2017)

Yes it's a theory. The other theory is they were forced to stay away from proper soldering because their CPUs were too small after SB, but if you ask me, this is scientifically made up bullshit. Anyway, Intel lovers would you tell this in defense of "their" company.


----------



## EarthDog (Apr 29, 2017)

I have no idea why they did that. Overclockers and overclocking is such a small part of sales, it doesnt really matter much in the scheme of things. You also have to consider, even though its a small part monetarily, those results are what drive many consumers to the brand in general, its performamce lead (overclocking or not - speaking core for core here). 

The real gem in amds lineup, if you are like the majority and do not benefit from more than 8t, is their quad with smt. Performance is close enough to a 7700k, and comes in $100 cheaper. Bringing things around full circle, AMDs cant overclock worth a damn past their XFR (the octos, most almost not 50mhz more), and they are, rightfully so, selling well.


----------



## Kanan (Apr 29, 2017)

The best Ryzen right now is the 1600, as seen in benchmarks, ofc with overclock. 2nd the 1600X. I'm not a fan of their 4 Cores and they aren't that good, not compared to the 7700K at least.


----------



## trog100 (Apr 29, 2017)

the 7700K does clock well.. mine is running nicely at 5000 mhz on all cores.. the only effort required was upping the multiplier from 45 to 50.. the vcore is at 1.32.. the chip could probably go higher or i could use less voltage i just havnt tried ether.. my cooling fans are all set in silent mode.. i dont mind some noise when things are working hard but i like silence whilst browsing and the likes..

i must admit to favoring less cores at higher clocks and i still see the more core thing as bit of a con as regards most folks.. its taken 10 years from when the more core thing started and we are at where we are now.. only professional software makes any real use of them..

whatever people like to think this aint gonna change any time soon.. why should it..

trog

ps.. at rough guess i recon my 7700K is maybe 20% faster than my 4790K.. in real life the difference is genuinely not noticeable.. this is with both cpus running a well within their limits overclock..


----------



## Vayra86 (Apr 30, 2017)

trog100 said:


> the 7700K does clock well.. mine is running nicely at 5000 mhz on all cores.. the only effort required was upping the multiplier from 45 to 50.. the vcore is at 1.32.. the chip could probably go higher or i could use less voltage i just havnt tried ether.. my cooling fans are all set in silent mode.. i dont mind some noise when things are working hard but i like silence whilst browsing and the likes..
> 
> i must admit to favoring less cores at higher clocks and i still see the more core thing as bit of a con as regards most folks.. its taken 10 years from when the more core thing started and we are at where we are now.. only professional software makes any real use of them..
> 
> ...



But consoles! AMD! Ryzen! We can't possibly make do with just quads! The world is burning!

Etcetera. Same story for the past 15 years really. There is only one rule of thumb with any system: you should get the stuff that works best for its primary purpose. And for gaming, its not Ryzen. For perf per dollar, it is definitely Ryzen but the bottom end of the stack, or go lower and you will definitely turn up on Intel's doorstep anyway with a Pentium.


----------



## Kanan (Apr 30, 2017)

I rather simply take a 6 core if it's for the same money. 5820k and 6800k are great value compared to the 7700k if you're a overclocker  (and you should be). Some people have a hard time understanding, this - "more is better" especially for the long run. There's no denying that, unless it's about power consumption but I don't think anyone cares about that. People are used to their 4 core/8 thread CPU way too much, some don't seem to let it go. But the future is "mooaaar cores" it's a fact.


----------



## EarthDog (May 1, 2017)

Kanan said:


> I rather simply take a 6 core if it's for the same money. 5820k and 6800k are great value compared to the 7700k if you're a overclocker  (and you should be). Some people have a hard time understanding, this - "more is better" especially for the long run. There's no denying that, unless it's about power consumption but I don't think anyone cares about that. People are used to their 4 core/8 thread CPU way too much, some don't seem to let it go. But the future is "mooaaar cores" it's a fact.


As has been the theme from many in this thread, only if you use the cores. Very few titles today benefit more than 4c/8t. As time goes on, presumably, more titles will make use of more than 8t. But a 8t cpu will be plenty for years to come. If you can't/dont want to afford the premium to get into to that platform (cpu, quad channel ram, more expensive boards - comparing new to new here), you wont be hurting much a couple years down the road...

...only time will tell, but i think looking at it in a couple more years, moving to a cpu with more than 8t, is more prudent than today. Depends on the user and their upgrade frequency too. Blanket statememts (from all parties) FTL.


----------



## trog100 (May 1, 2017)

i worry about power consumption in the sense it generates heat.. heat generation and getting rid of it is the real limiter with any cpu.. my 7700K with its 4 core 8 thread configuration already generates too much heat.. it figures to me that an extra couple of cores doing 50% more work just isnt reasonably possible.. 

with the right software 6 or 8 is better than 4 but not quite in the way the simple multiplying of core numbers suggests.. i suppose clever software could play with the core speeds of each core all controlled by heat generation.. my asus bios works along these lines but only in a basic way.. 

the idea being that clock speeds vary not just by load but more by how many cores are actually in use.. but if keeping it all cool is the real limiter which i am pretty sure it is the future isnt quite as simple as adding more cores..

trog


----------



## Kanan (May 1, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> As has been the theme from many in this thread, only if you use the cores. Very few titles today benefit more than 4c/8t. As time goes on, presumably, more titles will make use of more than 8t. But a 8t cpu will be plenty for years to come. If you can't/dont want to afford the premium to get into to that platform (cpu, quad channel ram, more expensive boards - comparing new to new here), you wont be hurting much a couple years down the road...
> 
> ...only time will tell, but i think looking at it in a couple more years, moving to a cpu with more than 8t, is more prudent than today. Depends on the user and their upgrade frequency too. Blanket statememts (from all parties) FTL.


Next time actually read and try to understand my posts. Not gonna bother having more discussions with you unless you're able to do that. /nuff
---
The 7700k has a massive price premium because it's the best quad core. A price premium not present on 5820k and 6800k. Far better value than 7700k, because the future and in part present already belongs to CPUs with more than 4 Cores.


----------



## Frag_Maniac (May 1, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> ...i think looking at it in a couple more years, moving to a cpu with more than 8t, is more prudent than today.


Well if you plan to do your GPU, CPU, MB, RAM upgrade at the end of this year like me, that also means were I to go quad core, in a measly 1.5 years I'd probably wished I'd gone 6 or 8 instead. Looking forward, especially since I tend to keep my CPU/MB for 5 years, I think I'm better off with something more than quad. I've read Intel has bumped their Coffee Lake launch up to June this year vs the original early 2018 plan, so it might not be long before I get a much better feel for what I'll get in the way of a CPU.

Ryzen has too many issues for my liking, but it's sold well enough for Intel to take note and respond. Word is Intel will have at least one 6 core CPU in their "S" line of mainstream chips, plus I'm reading even the "X" platform will be two channel and 16 lane. So it looks like they are even trying to make their enthusiast platform more affordable. This is a smart move to compete with AMD I think. SLI and Crossfire aren't all that popular anymore anyway, and there are always MB manufacturers that have exotic extra lane versions of MBs.


----------



## EarthDog (May 1, 2017)

I dont think in 1.5 years it will be a make or break either. I think it will look something like a quad (no ht) does today as far perfomance goes. In very few titles more tha 4c will help.. so in 3-4 years, youll find a quad with ht(8t) in very few titles, will be holding things back compared to more cores/threads.


----------



## erixx (May 1, 2017)

I just went from a dead or mad x99, 600 € board, to a 140 € Z170 board and a i7 7700 (non K), temporaly this week before getting a better one, and WOW. everything FEELS FASTER, ALBEIT AIDA MEMORY TESTS. (I am not editing videos a la Spielberg, just office and games). Well in all truth, the x99 at 4400 Mhz felt realy smooth. But before I found the manual OC that makes it 24/7 stable it died. ( Auto-AI Suite 3 overclocking never was stable)

I thought X99 was futureproof. Well maybe if you don't 'use' all the ROG features, maybe, but then I could have just bought a Pro/WS series board and never ever enter the BIOS.


----------



## wiak (May 1, 2017)

"Should have gotten a ryzen"


----------



## erixx (May 2, 2017)

Superposition bench (4K) is just the same as before (X99 6850K vr Z170 7700, both with GTX1080Ti): 9700 points
3D Mark overall is 500 points less. GPU tests are equal, CPU is worse a bit.
But system boots in 10 secs, not 2 minutes.
I could not run my RAM above 3200 Mhz Now same RAM is cleansweeping at 3800 Mhz.


----------



## eidairaman1 (May 2, 2017)

erixx said:


> Superposition bench (4K) is just the same as before (X99 6850K vr Z170 7700, both with GTX1080Ti): 9700 points
> 3D Mark overall is 500 points less. GPU tests are equal, CPU is worse a bit.
> But system boots in 10 secs, not 2 minutes.
> I could not run my RAM above 3200 Mhz Now same RAM is cleansweeping at 3800 Mhz.



Sounds like the mobo was bad from the get go.


----------



## erixx (May 2, 2017)




----------



## jboydgolfer (May 2, 2017)

erixx said:


> View attachment 87359



  What frequency is your CPU at in this cpuZ test?Just curious


----------



## erixx (May 2, 2017)

it is a non "K" and using the bios "Boost" I think it was set to 42-41-41-40 in the bios for the four cores, but Aida says all 4 cores are 4100 Mhz during stress test..


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (May 2, 2017)

LMAO you didnt upgrade, you downgraded. No shit its a let down. This is a perfect example of more money than brain cells.


----------



## erixx (May 2, 2017)

Jboy: 4100Mhz
another screen capture, here X99 wins clearly, but... night and day?
MxPH: I know! My X99 died. I am using a kit my shop gave me. Just saying I am not too unhappy, not frustrated at all with the kit... Go get yourself a beer and chill


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (May 2, 2017)

erixx said:


> Jboy: 4100Mhz
> another screen capture, here X99 wins clearly, but... night and day?
> MxPH: I know! My X99 died. I am using a kit my shop gave me. Just saying I am not too unhappy, not frustrated at all with the kit... Go get yourself a beer and chill



Im not talking about you, im talking about the OP. You had a legit reason.


----------



## EarthDog (May 2, 2017)

MxPhenom 216 said:


> Im not talking about you, im talking about the OP. You had a legit reason.


Perhaps you should quote the person you are talking to.....178 posts ago.


----------



## erixx (May 4, 2017)

hey boys and girls!
Here is some realworld info: 
(I'm still on this 7700 non K.)

Something I never saw before working with a X99 mobo: I just started work and was listening to an internet radio station and working in Abbyy Finereader, OCR-ing some documents.
...Everytime I clicked "Recognize text" (a processor heavy task), the internet radio sound was *interrupted for 1/10th of a second! (This happened everytime I did it, so it's not accidental).
*
Hmm...


----------



## erixx (May 5, 2017)




----------



## Vayra86 (May 5, 2017)

erixx said:


> hey boys and girls!
> Here is some realworld info:
> (I'm still on this 7700 non K.)
> 
> ...



Have you seen the recent reports about temp spiking on this CPU? May be related


----------



## EarthDog (May 5, 2017)

Id bet money it isnt related...


----------



## wurschti (May 5, 2017)




----------



## erixx (May 5, 2017)

LOL.
but: cpu+mobo x99=1200 coins
z270 combo = 700

happy funny friday


----------



## Slizzo (May 5, 2017)

erixx said:


> LOL.
> but: cpu+mobo x99=1200 coins
> z270 combo = 700
> 
> happy funny friday



Extremely highly dependent. When looking at upgrades from my Z68/i5 2500k @4.5GHz system, I priced out two systems. One was Z170 or Z270 based (believe it was Z270) and one was X99 based.  The X99 system was around $35-$50 more expensive.

I went with the X99 system. My experience in Battlefield 1 with my GTX 1080, was INCREDIBLY much improved. And this was from an i5 2500K @ 4.5GHz, to my i7 6800K @ 4.0GHz.  i5 2500K had 16gb of 1600MHz RAM, so it wasn't really a slouch in that regard either. All other hardware was the same.


----------



## erixx (May 5, 2017)

I can't remember if the 2500K was before or after Buddha/JC/Elvis.... but of course a huge step up!

For me, system stability increase is sort of an upgrade, and a huge one. RAM running peacefully at 3866 Mhz and a dozen USB devices running as they should without constant malfuction warnings, but it has nothing to do with the original post. It is not a raw performance upgrade, we agree on that. It is just being able to love your hardware again! Must be Spring! hahaha


----------



## EarthDog (May 5, 2017)

Slizzo said:


> Extremely highly dependent. When looking at upgrades from my Z68/i5 2500k @4.5GHz system, I priced out two systems. One was Z170 or Z270 based (believe it was Z270) and one was X99 based.  The X99 system was around $35-$50 more expensive.
> 
> I went with the X99 system. My experience in Battlefield 1 with my GTX 1080, was INCREDIBLY much improved. And this was from an i5 2500K @ 4.5GHz, to my i7 6800K @ 4.0GHz.  i5 2500K had 16gb of 1600MHz RAM, so it wasn't really a slouch in that regard either. All other hardware was the same.


You missed a "1" in fromt of 35-50...

Or, do tell how you managed that with retail pricing???? 6800k is $90 more than 7700k, quad channel ram is at least $50 more than dual at the same speed and motherboards are also generally more expensive...


----------



## Vayra86 (May 5, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> You missed a "1" in fromt of 35-50...
> 
> Or, do tell how you managed that with retail pricing???? 6800k is $90 more than 7700k, quad channel ram is at least $50 more than dual at the same speed and motherboards are also generally more expensive...



That's easy. Overpriced Z versus bottom-line X


----------



## EarthDog (May 5, 2017)

Vayra86 said:


> That's easy. Overpriced Z versus bottom-line X


No. Well, yes..


Apples and oranges... even at release, you can only do that by buying a highend mobo or faster 2xX ram... when doing like for like, otherwise, they arent close.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (May 5, 2017)

wiak said:


> "Should have gotten a ryzen"



Im guessing you have a time machine at the ready so the OP could go back in time to January and use it and jump forward in time by 2-3 months to make this possible????


----------



## Slizzo (May 5, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> You missed a "1" in fromt of 35-50...
> 
> Or, do tell how you managed that with retail pricing???? 6800k is $90 more than 7700k, quad channel ram is at least $50 more than dual at the same speed and motherboards are also generally more expensive...



I purchased my 6800K for $380, and my motherboard for $159.

Care to re-evaluate?


----------



## ERazer (May 5, 2017)

Slizzo said:


> I purchased my 6800K for $380, and my motherboard for $159.
> 
> Care to re-evaluate?


at Microcenter? love that place


----------



## EarthDog (May 5, 2017)

Slizzo said:


> I purchased my 6800K for $380, and my motherboard for $159.
> 
> Care to re-evaluate?


Not yet...

Microcenter? Sale? Do tell...

There arent any NEW x99 based motherboards for $160 on newegg...your board is 200..180 after mir...149 refurbd. Quad channel ram is still about double dual channel pricing. And if you bought at MC, 7700k is 300. So far i see $80 there plus the ram...and whateber mobo difference. Considering you bought a low end x99 board, a comprable low end z270 can be found for 130.. im still over 150 difference...

Really, its clear when comparing apples to apples, the difference is well over the 35-50. Quad channel memory alone covers that... the processor price difference amd board difference keep pushing that difference (much) higher.


----------



## Slizzo (May 6, 2017)

I bought in November, from NewEgg. All new parts. Also, I tend to buy 4 sticks at a time anyway. RAM ran me around $185.

I have no Microcenters near me.


----------



## EarthDog (May 6, 2017)

Nixing the ram because you buy 4 anyway, that still leaves the CPU and board. which is well over a $50 difference when comparing apples to apples. You literally bought the 2nd cheapest X99 board out which is full size. That translates to a ~$100 board on Z270. You are looking at ~$100 difference in platforms not counting the ram. 

Anyway, fun excersise... but its still pretty clear to me there is a much more significant price difference between the two platforms than mentioned.


----------



## Frag_Maniac (May 6, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> I dont think in 1.5 years it will be a make or break either. I think it will look something like a quad (no ht) does today as far perfomance goes. In very few titles more tha 4c will help.. so in 3-4 years, youll find a quad with ht(8t) in very few titles, will be holding things back compared to more cores/threads.


I'd say more like "very few" now, but much more common in 3-4 years. That said, part of the reason I'm holding out to look at Coffee Lake is in hopes Intel will clock their new 6 and 8 core chips higher, because I know fully well spreading usage across more cores, especially with lower clocks, means less FPS.

Ultimately it comes down to what GPU you pair it with though, since it does most of the work. I won't be playing all my games at 4k, but certainly the 1080 Ti I'm planning on can play most at that res and at 60 FPS as well. Games like GR Wildlands I'll likely be playing at 1440p.

I can't stress enough as well that for me it's not just about FPS. I care just as much about smoothness of gameplay, which you generally get from higher minimum frames. That's the main advantage of a 6 or 8 core chip in gaming if you ask me.

Example, game X yields 65 FPS on a 7700k, while only 55 FPS on a 6 or 8 core. However due to higher minimum frames, the 6 and 8 core chips yield smoother gameplay. I want the chip that makes the game feel smoother regardless of lower frame rate.


----------



## alucasa (May 6, 2017)

X99 mobo can be indeed pretty cheap in even Canada now. You just need to watch surprise sales.

A big retailer in Canada like NCIX offer open box X99 often now and they can be had for as low as 160 CAD sometimes. Grab a cheap Xeon off Ebay and you get a good workstation/WCG rig going. Granted, they won't be brand new.


----------



## Slizzo (May 7, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Nixing the ram because you buy 4 anyway, that still leaves the CPU and board. which is well over a $50 difference when comparing apples to apples. You literally bought the 2nd cheapest X99 board out which is full size. That translates to a ~$100 board on Z270. You are looking at ~$100 difference in platforms not counting the ram.
> 
> Anyway, fun excersise... but its still pretty clear to me there is a much more significant price difference between the two platforms than mentioned.



Yeah, it's a cheap X99 motherboard, but then again, most cheap X99 motherboards have many features that the more midrange or high end Z170/Z270 boards have.


----------



## EarthDog (May 7, 2017)

Slizzo said:


> Yeah, it's a cheap X99 motherboard, but then again, most cheap X99 motherboards have many features that the more midrange or high end Z170/Z270 boards have.


Not really... between z170/270 and x99, the feature sets are remarkably similar. About the only difference is number of pcie lanes and ports etc....

Point was its bottom of the barrel pricewise. I could care less about features as that wasnt the point. My point was made. Its best to let it rest.


----------



## frunction (Aug 22, 2017)

As an update, I put my 5820k@4.6/X-99 Pro to a different use and put in a 7700k@5.0/Gaming 5 as my main gaming machine.  Was said here to be a downgrade, but with all else being the same, I'm getting average 10-15% better performance in the games I play.

OP might need to change something.


----------



## de.das.dude (Aug 23, 2017)

Op needs to ride to ryzen...


----------



## Artas1984 (Aug 24, 2017)

mcraygsx said:


> Just updated our main platform from X99 to Z270 and I must say I am not that impressed at all.  Upgraded from 5930K to 7700k and Asus X99 Deluxe to Maximus IX Hero and even got a decent discount at Overland Park Microcenter for combo purchase.



If you wanted to upgrade, you could have gotten a Core i7 6900K in future, which is actually, as i see the current benchmarks, more than often faster than Core i7 7820X! With that X99 platform you had massive upgrade options!

No one upgrades high-end to mainstream. People upgrade high-end to high-end.

That being said i doubt that many people upgrade even X99 to X299.

I would understand only X58 to X299 upgrade due to many things, from which CPU power would be the least important, right CAPSLOCKSTUCK?

With that S1151 there is no path to upgrade. WTF have you done?


----------



## Kanan (Aug 24, 2017)

X299 is a let down because IPC is barely higher whereas efficiency is gruesome ("MESH" my ass). I would never upgrade from X79 to X299 or from X99 to X299. In fact the most appealing platform for me right now would be X99 with an 8 core/10 core (5960X/6900K/6950X <- best gaming CPU atm) or being able to snatch of one of the ultra rare Xeon 1000 series for X79, that have 8 cores (Ivy Bridge based) and are unlocked. That would set me for another X years.


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 24, 2017)

6950x of those listed, id also consider the best. However, a 7700k for any games which use less than 8 threads (what, 99%?) rules the roost, both in performance and higher clocks, and is cheaper. So, yes and no...ill wait for a lot more games to hit the market than can utilize 8t before id say hedt is the best for gaming. Now, gaming amd streaming... you have a different story..

About the only way id invest in more than 4 cores now is if i was planning to keep the machine for more than 4 years. 4c/8t is plenty for the next few years, really. 

I wpuldnt go any further back than 6950x generationally... that glass ceiling with ivybridge is real at 1080p and even 2560x1440 using high end cards.


----------



## Kanan (Aug 24, 2017)

7700K is fine, but I'm not talking about having multiple machines, so I'd simply go for one CPU, the best CPU and that's the 6950X. Kingpin is still using it as well. 6950X is leading in average in gaming benchmarks (conducted by PCGH for example), so 7700K being the "king in games" is a myth. I learned about that basically a week ago or so and I was kinda surprised. As a matter of fact, most modern games utilize more than enough threads to handily beat the 7700K in average now. Especially have a look at those minimum FPS, the 7700K is quite the sucker when it comes to that. Even Ryzen is often better there, that is the power of having more cores. 

As a matter of fact, the days of "quad cores being the kings of games" is over. And every day that passes it's even more over. The new king that will soon arrive, will probably be the 8700K, 6 cores with highest IPC clocked very high. I think it will even beat the 6950X, just not in benchmarks.


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 24, 2017)

Id like to see a link showing what you are inferring is true. Both the 7700k losing out more than the 6950x and many games using more than 8 threads. Or, wait, you said minimums?

Here is a link showing a couple of games. 7700k beat it out except for witcher3..
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=#&ved=0ahUKEwjI6rrh-fDVAhVEOyYKHYOeDHkQwqsBCCcwAA&usg=AFQjCNF1sHlk2z9QIx28jtvfnGP_UlkifA

And regarding kingpin using it... of course, it has more threads and half the 3d marks respond more to threads than to clocks. A 5.5ghz 6950x will give better cpu and overall scores than a 6.5ghz 7700k. That argument really isnt relevant.


----------



## Kanan (Aug 24, 2017)

6950X is better in anything than 7700K. TPU is using the wrong CPU for their benchmarks as well, as 6950X is superior, 6900K is as well among some others to be seen here:

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/CPU-Hardware-154106/Tests/Rangliste-Bestenliste-1143392/

-> Also include 6950X via settings.

Surprisingly the new Skylake X CPUs are doing rather fine, only the power consumption is bad. And this test even includes StarCraft which is a game which only uses a few cores. Even with that game in the chart, >Hexa+ CPUs are still ruling.


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 24, 2017)

Sorry, what does that link show? I dont see a 6950x there.

"Better than anything"? Please elaborate/clarify that point...


----------



## Kanan (Aug 24, 2017)

You're just deflecting buddy. 6900K is even better than 7700K, it's obvious that 6950X doesn't need to be OPTED IN to prove my point. But next time read my post better: I told you to include it via settings.

7700K isn't even the prince of gaming CPUs. It's far off. And the games they tested there includes StarCraft, a notoriously bad threaded game. 

Edit: 6900K is better in tests found on other websites, not here. To make that clear.

Edit 2: you also have to set it to "games only".


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 25, 2017)

_Deflecting? _Im trying to follow is all...no need to be short with me about it... sheesh.. 

I see the 6900k is 1% slower games... whatever they tested and said.. its a german website which isnt translating on my phone. I have no idea what games or much of anything right now..


----------



## Kanan (Aug 25, 2017)

Yeah 6900K is 1% slower. But these tests include StarCraft, you can believe me 100% that in other tests the 6900K would win. I think even the strange Skylake X CPUs are faster once you apply more games and less "StarCraft 2". 

Games are listed there, same names as in english obviously.  Don't play the " I can't read different languages" card here, I mean, the important part is written in english. 



> Games Anno 2205, Asssassin's Creed Syndicate, Crysis 3, Dragon Age Inquisition, F1 2015, Far Cry 4, Starcraft 2 Legacy of the Void, The Witcher 3



I wouldn't say that is a list of games that really favours the 6950X. It's even somewhat outdated. The 6950X should be even better benchmarked with a suite of newer games. I think all those new Skylake X and 6900K would also be faster then.


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 25, 2017)

That a 6900k is slower.. got it. Thanks. 

Edit: ill look when i get home and off mobile.


----------



## Kanan (Aug 25, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> That a 6900k is slower.. got it. Thanks.


Even so, when I first spoke about the 6950X being king I had different websites in mind.  I just need to find those, and the 6900K is better anyway. I think everyone knows that. 

Anyway, the 6950X is better, that debate is settled.  I just wanted a few other CPUs as a bonus to further be ahead of you. Wrong website, kinda favours outdated quad cores, nvm.


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 25, 2017)

Oh, its not settled... i think you are right though in the few games that scale over 8 threads.... which isnt more than a handful. In time, more SHOULD be coded that way... but weve been waiting for that since q6600 days. A quad with ht is going to be fine for the next 3+ years. Onky after that point when (a lot) more games are out which can use more threass will that be true... that is, until you support your assertions. 

Yoy are reading the obvious future well, but we disagree on the present (and that isnt even getting into cost benefits).


----------



## Kanan (Aug 25, 2017)

Oh it is, because this is a list with a quite outdated suite that kinda even favours the 7700K. In a suite with just newest games the 7700K would stand no chance. AFAIK the Skylake X chips, 6900K and 6950X were all faster there. 

Oh and here you go, I'm not waiting:






Quad Cores are pretty much over since Ryzen 7 arrived, Ryzen is the first herald of dawn, ending Quad Core (myth) being sovereign for good. Intel is doing it anyway with Coffee Lake soon, question just is, will the 8700K be fast enough to dethrone 6950X, or not? I think yes.


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 25, 2017)

Ok, got down to it.......... finally.

One thing I noticed is this testing is at 720p... What muppets have a 980Ti at 720p res? 1080p or bust... none of this low res no AA stuff is terribly relevant considering most are playing at 1080p with plenty of AA using a 980Ti where the story changes. Why do sites insist on creating these BS environments to test in is beyond me!

Anyhoo, another vid showing it winning in one title (Civ V - also is at 1080p - games are 5:15 in)..








EDIT: Another with one title winning...(3:15 in)


----------



## Kanan (Aug 25, 2017)

Well 720p makes perfect sense because it sets the limit totally to the CPU (or lets say, makes CPU the bottlenecking factor, not the GPU). As a matter of fact Wizzard did the same here for TPU. It makes perfect sense.

edit: regarding those videos, Skylake X is not bad, but it showed odd behaviour in some games, that's why I'd still prefer the 6950X. It's simple, has the old cache architecture and works. I'll try to find some of what I was talking about.


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 25, 2017)

We disagree on that point as well. In your absence, there was a huge thread/debate about that. Running at 720p with no AA/PProcessing gives you a great idea of how a CPU responds at that res. However, people don't play there with a high end card. Results do not scale linearly and are different datasets together. It is creating an environment to try to isolate the CPU as best it can, and it does. The problem is, as I said, it doesn't scale with higher res. So, yes, if you play at 720p with a 980ti/1070, a 6950x is faster by 1%. Now, for those that play at 1080p with high settings and use AA, the story changes.

See the two vids I edited in.


----------



## Kanan (Aug 25, 2017)

See my edit.

I like videos that are actually understandable (11.20min going):









Now, you think 7700K is king. It is not. Those 6+ Core CPUs are all running on awfully low clockrates, but we all know here, that nobody would buy a 6950X for gaming and then let it run stock. That said, with overclock the 7700K has no chance against Skylake X (at least 7900X) and 6950X / 6900K. I think 5960X as well. Not sure about the 6 cores, but for the 8 and 10 cores it's a safe bet.  I think Kingpin and some others agree with me here as well.

I still need a website or video with more games though. And please understandable. I rather do not trust reviewers I cannot understand.


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 25, 2017)

LOL, Kingpin is useless here.. he is a benchmarker, not a gamer. I already went over that and why he would still use it. That said, 7900X is clocking better and a bit faster than the 6950x so he will start using that for benchmarking.............again, benchmarking, not gaming. He uses it for 3DMark records where cores actually matter and scale.

I'm sorry if my videos were in English, my native tongue and the person had an accent... but they were all pictures/graphs as well. I gave the times where the graphs etc are in there if you can't be pained to listen for the setup details because of a person's accent.

EDIT: And my sole talking point in the vids are 7700K and 6950X... you are correct in SL-X acting wonky because of the private cache setup...but that isn't a talking point either. Just 7700K and 6950X hoss.


----------



## Kanan (Aug 25, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> LOL, Kingpin is useless here.. he is a benchmarker, not a gamer. I already went over that and why he would still use it. That said, 7900X is clocking better and a bit faster than the 6950x so he will start using that for benchmarking.............again, benchmarking, not gaming. He uses it for 3DMark records where cores actually matter and scale.


I don't think so, as I said earlier, the new Skylake X CPUs show odd behaviour in some games/benchmarks. And he has more than enough money and is also supported, so he would've already done it - but he didn't. 


> I'm sorry if my videos were in English, my native tongue... but they were all pictures/graphs as well. I gave the times where the graphs etc are in there if you can't be pained to listen for the setup details.


Since when is "Italian" and "I don't know" the English language? Are you even playing your own videos, you post?  The actual person here that posted an english video was me and basically for that same reason as well.


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 25, 2017)

My fault.. he's already moved on to the 7960X........ 
http://hwbot.org/user/kingpin/

Vinbo and what he is BENCHMARKING has nothing to do with this discussion.

EDIT: Sorry, 2nd vid is english, first is not, LOL! But again, read between the lines and stop pretending to be dense. There are graphs and words. 

EDIT2: You link showed the 7700K winning BF1, losing in the 2nd title but way better minimum/1% FPS, winning in the 3rd title. Only AOTS showed it winning there, no? So, thanks?


----------



## Kanan (Aug 25, 2017)

lol doesn't matter my friend. 7960X is still not an 7700K, and he would never use an 7700K to game, because it's easily easily easily slower. My arguments are rock solid, no, diamond solid. 6950X already beats 7700K in numerous games running STOCK, with a nice overclock the 7700K is *destroyed*. Safe bet. You lost that one. And I'm sure it holds true for numerous 6 to 10 cores as well, once overclocked. The difference here is, 7700K is already running very high, that means overclocks won't change a lot there, whereas for CPUS, especially ones that are clocked low and have a high amount of cores, it changes a fucking damn lot. 

Yeah 2nd video is english, I already saw - his english is so weird that I though it's something else, skipping through it.  

I'm not sure who is dense here, I think you're living in the past, still thinking the 7700K to be king - it never was, and never will be. 6950X pretty much rules since arriving, has maybe, just maybe, passed the scepter on to 7900X or higher now. And before 6950X there was 5960X (including overclocks), and before that, there were other CPUs, all faster than Quad Core mainstream ones. Mainstream pretty much *never* ruled. I can spin this back as far as Core i7 1st gen, LGA1366 which still has 6 core CPUs that were faster. 3960X was faster than 2600/2700K. 4960X was faster than 3770K. 5960X destroyed 4770K/4790K. 5960X is still faster than 7700K and 6000 series which got pretty much ignored by gamers. 6900K and 6950X are easily faster than 7700K once clocked with same clocks or higher compared to 7700K. It's a easy task. A easy comparison. And Skylake X is another nail on the coffin for quad core CPUs, as well as Ryzen 5 + 7. Ryzen 3 on the other hand pretty much killed dual cores other than for APUs / media center PCs maybe. Intel is lucky that Ryzen can't achieve high clocks, because I'm sure Ryzen would've done great with high clocks.


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 25, 2017)

Lol, more Kingpin...no shit he wouldn't use a 7700k for benching 3D... how many times do I have to tell you WHY he uses core heavy CPUs on certain benchmarks???? I bench under LN2, I know the ins and outs of why its done. Yet, you are reaching and saying when he games he....... how the hell do you know what he games with? And just because he games with it, doesn't mean it's the best... I mean, I have a 7900X....... is it the best because I game with it and had 3DMark records myself back in the day? Come on..... you are smart guy... don't let pride get in the way of rational thought.  

...your links don't seem to show what you are saying. Well, one did, by 1% tested at a jenky arse 720p with no AA. Your other link, showed otherwise. You can also overclock the 7700K to 5Ghz. And since cores really don't matter in most titles, IPC and clocks do, well, most can see where that is going.

Anyhoo, just going to back out of this conversation as its clearly going nowhere. Welcome back.


----------



## erixx (Aug 25, 2017)

7700K is fine, very fine, that's all I care for. In fact I have stoped caring for everything since then


----------



## THE_EGG (Aug 25, 2017)

I have a confession to make, I also made the move from 5930k to 7700k  (Asus X99-Deluxe -> Asus Z270G) back in July.

The main reason for moving was that my motherboard started to act up where it sometimes wouldn't POST and it wouldn't save settings I'd change in the BIOS etc etc. Also my top x16 slot stopped working properly which was really weird. Literally about 2 weeks out of the 3 yr warranty too.

Anyway I wanted to move to mATX but still have the capability of SLI and the only board available at local retailers was an Asus X99M-WS which I was set on getting until I saw that the local price was around $650-$700AUD........And this was for a 3 year old platform which I thought was crazy. So I tried my 5930k in a friend's Asus X99-A, everything seemed fine. I sold my X99-Deluxe for a large discount because of the problems I was starting to get and also sold my 5930k for a decent amount and it ended up covering most of my new 7700k and Z270G costs. Frankly if there was an X370 mATX board capable of SLI at the time I probably would have tried out Ryzen.

On the whole I am happy with my decision as I really only use my PC for gaming now (only occasionally using it for document recognition and video encoding). I used to use my old machine a lot more for work in my old job - not so much now in my new position. I've found that my whole machine feels much more "crispy" and responsive. Games seem to run better too. My only criticism is the well known heat troubles the 7700k has.


----------



## OneMoar (Aug 25, 2017)

sidegrade problems
send me your z270 setup ill happly give it a home


----------



## phanbuey (Aug 25, 2017)

THE_EGG said:


> I have a confession to make, I also made the move from 5930k to 7700k  (Asus X99-Deluxe -> Asus Z270G) back in July.
> 
> The main reason for moving was that my motherboard started to act up where it sometimes wouldn't POST and it wouldn't save settings I'd change in the BIOS etc etc. Also my top x16 slot stopped working properly which was really weird. Literally about 2 weeks out of the 3 yr warranty too.
> 
> ...



i will honestly say that ryzen sucks at gaming... not all gaming... but the performance is quite inconsistent - i find myself having to tweak settings to get smooth performance between games: ill have to tweak it one way for Witcher 3, and then another for Deus Ex - mutually exclusive, the settings that run one great, induce frame drops in the other. 

Ryzen 7 at 4.0 GHZ is basically 2 2600Ks glued together at 4.3ish GHZ, but with less optimizations and finickier BIOS, and quite a few programs that just flat out hate it.  Unless you want to devote a large portion of your time f*cking with bios settings, I would avoid ryzen for the current moment.  You made the right choice IMO.

the R5 vs i5 battle is closer, but the benchmarks you see online don't tell the full story, at all.  the bugs are real, the hate of the cache structure in games is also quite real.


----------



## OneMoar (Aug 25, 2017)

there is no reality where a ryzen chip is a good call on a thread for thread basis
as with every other previous amd chip if you can use the extra threads then yes else intel still rules the roost


----------



## phanbuey (Aug 25, 2017)

OneMoar said:


> there is no reality where a ryzen chip is a good call on a thread for thread basis
> as with every other previous amd chip if you can use the extra threads then yes else intel still rules the roost



It's really only a good call if you know 'EXACTLY' what you're going to be doing for the next two years.  Which no one does... Anyone can take an IPC hit for singlethreaded performance anyday if it's consistent (i.e. HEDT platform people)...  What people dont talk about is the spread of the inconsistency of that ryzen hit -- that 5 month old tech  -- that can blur the picture quite a bit.  One excel test will beat the the 6900k (monte carlo) while a insert row with vlookups on the other side of the insert will lock down the machine for 4 minutes and your i3 does it in 45 seconds...  So what's the value there? am i really saving $800?

It's tough to calculate.  It manifests in games by having averages that look like they are a certain % lower, but behavior that is all over the place (certain areas unplayable, random stutters with certain memory settings etc. - buttery smooth sometimes etc.) - the reviews don't really show or talk about that, they just kind of go - "welp... here are the numbers... divide that by the dollars you paid and it's such a great value for money".

Not the full story.

"you can have a 4 cylinder jeep or an 12 cylinder ferrari... welcome to to Schitzville where we have partially paved roads -- it just depends on where you normally drive"...

Well f**k - the jeep can go anywhere and it does it at the same speed, so.... might as well do that till we get roads.


----------



## Kanan (Aug 25, 2017)

@phanbuey is your 1080 Ti running fine combined with that Ryzen, or do you have a CPU bottleneck @ 1440p?


----------



## phanbuey (Aug 25, 2017)

Kanan said:


> @phanbuey is your 1080 Ti running fine combined with that Ryzen, or do you have a CPU bottleneck @ 1440p?



Overall: bottlenecked... but it kind of depends

I experience it in 4 categories:
1. older games like it when i use process lasso to lock them down to 1 CCX, no SMT and give them real-time priority (path of exile, Farcry 3, 4, bloodragon, bioshock) - bottlenecked but no one cares since it's at 80+ fps mins anyways - these run great on Ryzen.
2. Badly ported / coded games (Fallout 4, 3, Skyrim remastered, DOTA2) run like crap in certain areas - nothing you can do about it - hard bottleneck - hack the ini file to an extent but you're still gonna hurt.
3.  AAA games that aren't optimized (Dishonored 2, Deus Ex: Mankind Divided, Witcher 3 Wild Hunt) will bottleneck based on specific settings - but run amazingly smooth if you tweak the chip a certain way - Witcher 3, dishonored 2, and hellblade like a bios reset with a straight 4.0ghz OC and memory to 3200 DOCP 15-15-15-35 and that's it (if you touch anything else they will freak otherwise great) -  Deus ex, Divinity Original Sin 2 like tighter 14cl timings with lower ram speed (3066) power down&gear ratio off, BGS off, 1t timings, and a prefetcher bias (asus cinebench 11.5)...
4. AAA games that are optimized run amazing regardless of settings- (BF1, DOOM2)

-- all of these need to run either with the specific Ryzen Power Plan in windows 10 or the High Performance Plan.... anything else will noticeably degrade performance.

^ that pretty much is why you want a 7700K if you game.  Pop it in like a lego and forget about it.


----------



## Kanan (Aug 25, 2017)

phanbuey said:


> Overall: bottlenecked... but it kind of depends
> 
> I experience it in 4 categories:
> 1. older games like it when i use process lasso to lock them down to 1 CCX, no SMT and give them real-time priority (path of exile, Farcry 3, 4, bloodragon, bioshock) - bottlenecked but no one cares since it's at 80+ fps mins anyways - these run great on Ryzen.
> ...


That's more than I expected, nice analysis & findings, thank you. Yeah Ryzen imo (both, TR as well) are rather multipurpose CPUs than straight gaming CPUs, unless you go for 60 Hz gaming or 4K (GPU bottleneck), then it doesn't matter. My opinion on best gaming CPU, I don't want to repeat that, but I'm not a fan of recycled architectures, still with 4 cores and a different name on it.  X platform or go home. My own CPU is comparable to a 6700K in games - that is, without overclocking. As I'm running it, its even better. Does great with the 980 Ti I got a few days ago, no bottlenecks at all.


----------



## R0H1T (Aug 25, 2017)

phanbuey said:


> Overall: bottlenecked... but it kind of depends
> 
> I experience it in 4 categories:
> 1. older games like it when i use process lasso to lock them down to 1 CCX, no SMT and give them real-time priority (path of exile, Farcry 3, 4, bloodragon, bioshock) - bottlenecked but no one cares since it's at 80+ fps mins anyways - these run great on Ryzen.
> ...


Well if you;ve got process lasso then set the games &/or programs that need performance & more CPU to *high I/O priority*.
You can;t set it to critical but high I/O works great, alternatively you could set the background process to idle I/O & that'll do just as well.
I use process lasso & *process hacker* myself, in benchmarks or games, I usually set the worker threads to time critical with process hacker alongside high I//O priority for the whole process, that's the best way to get higher scores & run any number of programs at max speeds within the OS.


----------



## phanbuey (Aug 25, 2017)

R0H1T said:


> Well if you;ve got process lasso then set the games &/or programs that need performance & more CPU to *high I/O priority*.
> You can;t set it to critical but high I/O works great, alternatively you could set the background process to idle I/O & that'll do just as well.
> I use process lasso & *process hacker* myself, in benchmarks or games, I usually set the worker threads to time critical with process hacker alongside high I//O priority for the whole process, that's the best way to get higher scores & run any number of programs at max speeds within the OS.



I never use critical IO (always high) and sparingly use realtime priority as some perform worse/fail startup - the farcry ones LOVE it though in combination with no HT/SMT cores - 10-15 FPS boost off the bat.


----------



## cdawall (Aug 25, 2017)

7700k is still the best gaming cpu /thread


----------



## Kanan (Aug 25, 2017)

cdawall said:


> 7700k is still the best gaming cpu /thread


 nope.


----------



## cdawall (Aug 25, 2017)

Kanan said:


> nope.



As of right now if you took an average of all games commonly played at 1080/1440p there is no cpu that performs better.


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 26, 2017)

Its a losing battle man...his tests...sorry, test, is at 720p with no aa exaggerating any difference. Through that, its 1% average. My links show differently with reasonable res, but were dismissed. We havent even gotten into the massive cost difference between those two platforms and cpus (hundreds...). I can see his point in a couple years when more games actually use more than 4c/8t, or if you stream and play. There are use models for going 6950x, its just that few people would pay nearly double for similar performance in gaming, so its tough to wrap my head around it being "best" looking at what ive seen performance wise and then including price on top...

 I have an open mind, however i simply cant buy 720p testing with no aa is showing us what results will be at 1080p running settings people actually use with high cards. Thats proven it doesnt scale.

The discussion is worth it to drill down, but i just dont see the company involved participating without its typical swirl to crapperville.


----------



## HammerON (Aug 26, 2017)

Please be respectful when stating your opinion and learn that it is okay to disagree with someone else's opinion.  If you cannot do this, then you will be scolded


----------



## Nicholas Peyton (Nov 1, 2017)

mcraygsx said:


> Just updated our main platform from X99 to Z270 and I must say I am not that impressed at all.  Upgraded from 5930K to 7700k and Asus X99 Deluxe to Maximus IX Hero and even got a decent discount at Overland Park Microcenter for combo purchase.
> 
> Positives:
> X.M.P worked much better on this Z270 platform then it ever did on X99.
> ...



A comparison at userbenchmark.com shows that once overclocked -- a 5930k is only about 7% slower at quad core tasks. At multi-core tasks (6+ cores) the 5930k is still 27% faster than an i7 7700k.

Sorry but I really think you could have benefited from a bit more pre-purchase research.

I hear what you're saying about single core performance. But once both platforms are overclocked; the 7700k is *only* about 15% faster than a 5930k at single core tasks.

The loss of PCI-E lanes, 4 channel memory & other things just *isn't* worth the 7% rise at quad-core performance and 15% rise at single core performance.

The reason the 15% single core performance increase isn't multiplied by 4 to give a 60% rise at quad-core is because the 7700k is running two threads on each core.

In terms of gaming -- this is STILL an upgrade. But just not a very substantial one. It's only a very slight upgrade at most. 7% to 15% at most...

If you want to see any benefit at all -- you're going to have to de-lid and overclock the 7700k to within an inch of it's life. Even then -- it might still only be about 6 or 7 FPS better at most.


----------



## StrayKAT (Nov 1, 2017)

7700k is more than enough for me. I don't even know why anyone would need more. And if you did, you'd probably be on Xeon and not even relevant to my world.

That said, the heat/efficiency is abysmal. edit: bah, fairly old thread. but the point stands. i really don't understand the demand for the highest cpu use.


----------



## Toothless (Nov 1, 2017)

I thought this thread was dead. Now we can talk about all the temp differences to the 8700k!


----------



## Upgrayedd (Nov 1, 2017)

It was dead when the OP stopped replying on page 2. LMAO 8 more pages of told ya so.


----------



## Frag_Maniac (Nov 1, 2017)

Toothless said:


> I thought this thread was dead. Now we can talk about all the temp differences to the 8700k!


LOL, yeah hail the new king. Funny that some are saying temps are all over the place from one user to the next on the 8700k though. After perusing through a several page thread someone just made insisting temps were too high even at stock speed, I have to think it was a MB voltage problem since he got it sorted by just dropping it to a more reasonable level.

These kind of things are common when a new MB chipset debuts, so give it a few months and feedback will no doubt change. Even if the CPU voltage wasn't a bug on his, the Auto setting on most MBs is not nearly as stable as a dialed in manual setting.


----------

