# Intel i7 7700K stagnate, but getting 5Ghz............



## revin (Jan 3, 2017)

So is this really it? ARS has a pretty wild comment about: The Intel Core i7-7700K is what happens when a chip company stops trying.
Supposedly Kaby Lake desktop is effectively Sandy Bridge polished to within an inch of its life, a once-groundbreaking CPU architecture hacked, and tweaked, and mangled into ever-smaller manufacturing processes and power envelopes.
Asus claims it can push the i7-7700K to 5GHz with a reasonable (read: no extravagant water cooling required) setup and that most decent unlocked Core i7 and Core i5 Kaby Lake chips will hit 5GHz between a reasonable 1.29-1.35 volts.
Did anyone really think Intel was at a dead end with these CPU's?
We must have the TPU review to see just what is really going on here. 
*Source*


----------



## RejZoR (Jan 3, 2017)

But at the end of the day, 7700K is still just a quad core we had for like 6+ years now? Totally uninspiring piece of silicon even if it hits 5GHz. People have CPU's with more cores that run at slightly lower clocks...


----------



## Nicholas Peyton (Jan 3, 2017)

They're reaching the limit of the laws of physics and whats possible. They know that eventually they just won't be able to go any faster.

Releasing 100's of processors with only tiny increments in performance will net them more money in the long-run because people will buy the latest edition each time.

Sell 50 processors over 50 years and you net a lot more money than only selling 20 processor upgrades over 50 years. (which people will buy because they always want that extra 10%). _In this example the 20th processor is equally as powerful as the 50th after the 50 years!_

The consumer is partly to blame for giving in.

I just heard someone sold their 6700k for a 7700k. For what. A 10% increase?

Imagine their 6700k was a great over-clocker and their 7700k didn't overclock for shit; what would the increase be then.. 2%? lol

I don't even have an intel processor, I have an AMD... and I can see how silly this is.

Anyway, roll on ZEN


----------



## Tomgang (Jan 3, 2017)

And this is also why i year after year ending up putting my money back in my wallet. 

Its the same shit every year the last six or so years. Close to no performance gain. I Mean you really need to have a pretty old cpu before you will get a major performance boost out of a new cpu when we talking quad vs. Quad cpu. Even 10 years after the release of Intel's first generation of quad core like the core 2 quad q6600. Quad core is stil considered hign end atleast when we talking i7.

This just shows how slow the teknologi has come the pasta fem years.

The two first gen core i cpu gave a decent speed boost whit the i7 800 and 900 series and 2000 series. After that speed gain where low and only a very fem % performance boost.

After 8 years with an i7 920 @ 4 Ghz+ cpu i would never had exspected i would had keept the same cpu for 8 fucking years back when. Udgrading it i would after so many years be decent performance boost but is also first after 7-8 years. Back in the single core days you cut upgrade cpu every 2-3 years if you wanted  it performe decent in all games. Today how ever a 6 year old i7 cpu that is hign overclocked can still performe and run games to the point where most people would still be satisfied.

Cpu speed gain has Truly be come slow over the past years or so.


----------



## Nicholas Peyton (Jan 3, 2017)

aye, exactly why I've held onto my FX-8350 (overclocked to 4.8GHZ) for so long.

It serves my needs. And despite what people say even at 4k (and *especially* at 2560 x 1440) it is more than capable in games.  Maybe I only have 35-40FPS at 4k and 75--100FPS at 1440 but that's all I have needed.

And overclocking a 32nm CPU is fun.

People make comments like "what are you doing with a 1080 GPU with that CPU" and laugh at me.

But the FX-8350 owners club is actually still going strong; you'd be so surprised how active it still is over there.  New updates every day.  More active than the 1080 owners club. (and that technology isn't even a year old).

But for a 40% increase in ZEN (and with all the new features like how it rewards premium cooling) e.t.c  you can see they have *really tried.  *

It would almost be an insult not to upgrade to ZEN.

A very exciting time for AMD owners is upon us.

Sorry we can't say that for intel.

Think about that; everyone who comments about any benchmarks I post up saying things like "yeah on an FX CPU blah blah"....

All I say is can't wait for ZEN! i76900k performance without getting raped for it. (roomer is half the price)!


----------



## Kursah (Jan 3, 2017)

revin said:


> We must have the TPU review to see just what is really going on here.



https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i7-7700K_vs_6700K_Game_Performance/



Not 5GHz, but 4.9 is pretty close for TPU results...though this is just the comparison. Good enough for this thread until they release the full-on review.

@RejZoR hit the nail on the head with his comment, so did ARS. It's pretty much the same thing we've seen for years, with a few improvements and tweaks throughout. I do gotta say making the jump from my OC-d i5-760 to the 4770K was great. Swapping for a 4790K due to a deployment situation for a client, I couldn't be happier. This chip hits 4.8GHz on air, before delidding. So far I see no need to upgrade, I'm not using SSD's beyond SATA interfaces and my 980Ti runs excellent performance-wise. I just picked up some DDR3 2400, and am pushing my current 1866 to 2200 with great results. Not quite DDR4 performance, but for my needs its all good.

I really hope Zen does bring on some challenge, something we've yet to see, hopefully a surprise. If it were Athlon vs Pentium 4 again, I'd be very happy to welcome the competition. 

Intel really has no need in the consumer market, or really any market, to truly improve speed. Why pull harder when you're already in the lead? They clearly see that and know they have the time to screw around with other things, which I imagine are more SoC/portable markets, or simple optimizations and fab testing. 

But for those that just want the newest and fastest, and even a K-series though don't OC, this might be an option I suppose...or if they NEED the iGPU to decode 4K video ...I dunno I'm reaching for straws. I'm still pretty bummed at the separated HEDT platform, sure I see the reasoning behind it...but in the same breath...I'm curious how long the mainstream market will need to wait for a truly affordable, brand new, 6-8 core CPU from Intel that goes in a mainstream chipset instead of the HEDT market niche.

Well good thing we're still seeing gains in the GPU market from NV and AMD! And hopefully AMD will launch a worthy challenge that catches Intel off guard... we can truly hope for the sake of competition and performance that happens...


----------



## erocker (Jan 3, 2017)

7700K is designed to replace the previous CPU to please investors. That's about it as far as I can see and without any competition at all, that's all that needs to be done.


----------



## phanbuey (Jan 3, 2017)

yep... super disappointing... I hope zen stomps it into the dirt.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jan 4, 2017)

I certainly wouldn't be on here boasting about a 600mhz oc on air like that's a good thing bro, they're clearly already ringing its neck to get all they can, Why becauses it's the only way they were getting 10% this year.


----------



## revin (Jan 4, 2017)

Indeed it seam's like a great opportunity is open for AMD now and hopefully it will be a home run for them !
Meanwhile I'm still pretty satisfied with the ole 2600K, even if it's 5 Gen's old. I don't care to have every ounce of benchmark epeen at this late stage of life 
Though I think I did say after getting it up and running with great clock's few years ago "it'll probably due me for most of the rest of my life" WTH *that* many years go by already !


erocker said:


> to please investors


Pity that Intel tried riding their coat tails with this. They should know that the Intel consumers won't be happy, and could bite them in the ass


----------



## Recon-UK (Jan 4, 2017)

Sorry what was that? can't hear you over my 1.8ghz overclock on my XEON.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jan 4, 2017)

Exactly.


----------



## RejZoR (Jan 4, 2017)

The thing is, 7700K is a boring CPU even if you still have an aging Core i7 920 from what, 6-7 years ago now? I was at that same point of decision. I had Core i7 920 running at 4GHz. I was deciding for newly released 6700K like a year ago and I just couldn't see a point. It was the same quad core with same number of HT threads, it was clocked tiny bit higher and it had slightly better IPC. Now, imagine how someone coming with more recent mainstream Haswells or Ivy Bridges would feel. Even less excited. You really still have to own like a dual core or maybe even Q6600 to be really excited about this thing. For everyone else it's total meh, because in all this time, mainstream didn't even catch with the over half a decade old HEDT parts. 7700K, if it was a 6 core CPU with everything else the same, now that would feel exciting even for 6700K users to upgrade to. And because it has just dual channel controller and less lanes on motherboards, it's not a direct threat to X99 platform and CPU's for it. But no, Intel, due to lack of serious competition picked the lazy way, just mildly refreshing the 6700K. Which is just boring.


----------



## ratirt (Jan 4, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> The thing is, 7700K is a boring CPU even if you still have an aging Core i7 920 from what, 6-7 years ago now? I was at that same point of decision. I had Core i7 920 running at 4GHz. I was deciding for newly released 6700K like a year ago and I just couldn't see a point. It was the same quad core with same number of HT threads, it was clocked tiny bit higher and it had slightly better IPC. Now, imagine how someone coming with more recent mainstream Haswells or Ivy Bridges would feel. Even less excited. You really still have to own like a dual core or maybe even Q6600 to be really excited about this thing. For everyone else it's total meh, because in all this time, mainstream didn't even catch with the over half a decade old HEDT parts. 7700K, if it was a 6 core CPU with everything else the same, now that would feel exciting even for 6700K users to upgrade to. And because it has just dual channel controller and less lanes on motherboards, it's not a direct threat to X99 platform and CPU's for it. But no, Intel, due to lack of serious competition picked the lazy way, just mildly refreshing the 6700K. Which is just boring.



Well I couldn't get this answer wrapped more precise as you did bro. The only improvement now for intel is to go more core and thread. That would be an improvement compared to previous gen's of I7.


----------



## Tatty_One (Jan 4, 2017)

If we measure any CPU's viability and/or success based on overclocking potential then it's a fail before it is launched simply because the numbers of users that actually overclock would not make for any profitability.


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 4, 2017)

Recon-UK said:


> Sorry what was that? can't hear you over my 1.8ghz overclock on my XEON.


Sorry... I can't hear you through your glass ceiling and my stock cpu (which i can also overclock) performing better... 

Guys, this chip isn't meant to sway haswell+ owners to it. But if you are on SB or ivybridge, a 20-25% increase is a lot. It takes away the glass ceiling nehelam and amd cpus have over modern midrange+ cards. People can wait for Zen... it's going to be good (haswell like IPC it seems), it will have more cores, and be cheaper per core...but it's only going to be worth it if you use those cores or haswell pricing doesn't come down to match.

IMO both companies have consumers by the short and curlies. One doesn't have any ipc upgrades across like 5 years (amd) and adds cores most dont need. The other improves 25% across 5 'generations' and the last chip, which is NO different than Devils Canyon was to Haswell, we are getting upset and waiting for a slower cpu...

... I can't say I understand that logic unless you need the cores and their price (which I guess their 8c/16t cpu will cost more than 7700K...). So to make price be worth it, you'd have to step down to 4c/8t cpu.... which is again, a bit slower than Kaby Lake. But at least it's better competition.


----------



## mobiuus (Jan 4, 2017)

got to mention that majority of 7700k reviewed that can actually reach 5.0ghz with voltages 1.30v to 1.34v
are
engineering samples...


----------



## RejZoR (Jan 4, 2017)

ratirt said:


> Well I couldn't get this answer wrapped more precise as you did bro. The only improvement now for intel is to go more core and thread. That would be an improvement compared to previous gen's of I7.



I don't think higher clock is viable anymore at this point. They'd have to dramatically improve IPC or "invent" new HT which manages to get 4 threads out of single physical core. Or just stack more cores although given ecosystem of software not really using beyond 4 cores (especially games), I can't really see that as any kind of benefit at the moment or for the near future. So, dramatic IPC improvement is really the only option. I mean, just look at Pentium 4 as well as AMD's latest Bulldozer based CPU's. You can only go as high with the clock. You can't just increase it forever till I don't know, 8 GHz and beyond. It just wouldn't work.


----------



## Frick (Jan 4, 2017)

Nicholas Peyton said:


> aye, exactly why I've held onto my FX-8350 (overclocked to 4.8GHZ) for so long.
> 
> It serves my needs. And despite what people say even at 4k (and *especially* at 2560 x 1440) it is more than capable in games.  Maybe I only have 35-40FPS at 4k and 75--100FPS at 1440 but that's all I have needed.
> 
> ...



And games becomes increasingly multithreaded so strangely 2017 games will run better on it than 2014 games.


----------



## HTC (Jan 4, 2017)

phanbuey said:


> yep... super disappointing... *I hope zen stomps it into the dirt.*



ZEN doesn't have to stomp it. All it has to do is be close enough (or match) to put pressure on Intel.

Once that's achieved, then we get price wars, which is what WE consumers want.

It's because AMD has been lagging too far behind Intel that prices have become this bad for the higher end, which ends up affecting the other price segments as well.


----------



## ratirt (Jan 4, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> I don't think higher clock is viable anymore at this point. They'd have to dramatically improve IPC or "invent" new HT which manages to get 4 threads out of single physical core. Or just stack more cores although given ecosystem of software not really using beyond 4 cores (especially games), I can't really see that as any kind of benefit at the moment or for the near future. So, dramatic IPC improvement is really the only option. I mean, just look at Pentium 4 as well as AMD's latest Bulldozer based CPU's. You can only go as high with the clock. You can't just increase it forever till I don't know, 8 GHz and beyond. It just wouldn't work.


Of course not and I'm not talking about the frequency of intel's CPU's but core count and threads. OC, as many ppl think now, is treated as an improvement. IMO it is a feature that's why they got the "K" version of processors. Pentium 4 was behind AMD back in the days(Even though Pentium had higher clock rates) since INTEL switched to longer pipeline boosting frequency hoping to mitigate the stalls in instruction flow which didn't work out as we all know. I7 was successful and we all could benefit from it. They didn't care as much about the frequency but instead they've reduced the pipeline stages and CPU didn't have to go through all of them if no needed. That was a huge difference even though the CPU frequency wasn't as big as Pentium 4's. That's just the simplified explanation. Of course there where other architectural changes but one mentioned was the most significant boost in performance. Intel didn't have to worry as much since AMD wasn't successful with they products in terms of IPC but still solid CPUs. Maybe now Intel will worry and should cause Kaby is nothing at least for me


----------



## silkstone (Jan 4, 2017)

No major bump in performance? I guess I can hold back on upgrading another couple of years . . . I've been waiting a few already.

Honestly, unless you are building a whole new PC from scratch or have money to burn, I see little reason to upgrade any i5/i7 if you're just using it for gaming and every day tasks.
Hell, my HTPC with a C2Q can still play GTAV at decent frame rates and my old laptops (i5 and C2D) are still snappy as hell for what I use them for.


----------



## qubit (Jan 4, 2017)

HTC said:


> ZEN doesn't have to stomp it. All it has to do is be close enough (or match) to put pressure on Intel.
> 
> Once that's achieved, then we get price wars, which is what WE consumers want.


Unfortunately, I have a more cynical viewpoint - the cartel.

I can just see AMD and Intel getting into a nice little cartel where they avoid stepping onto each other's toes and prices stay high on both sides. It wouldn't surprise me if they even agreed that stock AMD performance would always lag Intel by just a little bit too, to keep up the perception that AMD is perpetually second and more into the "value" product.

A cartel is illegal of course, so they'll cleverly do it in a way that isn't found out.

It's all supposition of course, as I don't have any evidence that they'll actually do this, but I wouldn't put it past them.


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 4, 2017)

Thats... that's a....that's a uh, creative thought. I'm going to leave it at that.


----------



## Recon-UK (Jan 4, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Sorry... I can't hear you through your glass ceiling and my stock cpu (which i can also overclock) performing better...
> 
> Guys, this chip isn't meant to sway haswell+ owners to it. But if you are on SB or ivybridge, a 20-25% increase is a lot. It takes away the glass ceiling nehelam and amd cpus have over modern midrange+ cards. People can wait for Zen... it's going to be good (haswell like IPC it seems), it will have more cores, and be cheaper per core...but it's only going to be worth it if you use those cores or haswell pricing doesn't come down to match.
> 
> ...



Tell us more about glass ceilings with hardware that does not pronounce that issue please.


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 4, 2017)

Have a look at techspot game reviews. They, prior to the last couple of reviews, test a slew of cpus. In most of those, not all, the 920 sits with the amd octo processors which are typically behind. Overclocking certainly helps, but it's still behind.. be it a few frames or dozens. Be it still playable or not. You want to mitigate it.. get a modern intel processor from IB on up. In some titles, even the 2600k is holding things back a bit.


----------



## Recon-UK (Jan 4, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Have a look at techspot game reviews. They, prior to the last couple of reviews, test a slew of cpus. In most of those, not all, the 920 sits with the amd octo processors which are typically behind. Overclocking certainly helps, but it's still behind.. be it a few frames or dozens. Be it still playable or not. You want to mitigate it.. get a modern intel processor from IB on up. In some titles, even the 2600k is holding things back a bit.




Uhmm GTX 670 mate, seriously.


----------



## qubit (Jan 4, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> I'm going to leave it at that.


Thanks, appreciated.


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 4, 2017)

There's a button for that.


----------



## Frick (Jan 4, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> There's a button for that.



Not if you're on LN2.


----------



## ratirt (Jan 5, 2017)

qubit said:


> Unfortunately, I have a more cynical viewpoint - the cartel.
> 
> I can just see AMD and Intel getting into a nice little cartel where they avoid stepping onto each other's toes and prices stay high on both sides. It wouldn't surprise me if they even agreed that stock AMD performance would always lag Intel by just a little bit too, to keep up the perception that AMD is perpetually second and more into the "value" product.
> 
> ...


Knowing that AMD and Intel had such a spat in the past no cartel will be created. These are huge companies they care not only about cash(which is why they were created for in the first place) but also reputation. Don't think AMD will talk to Intel about the price point of the CPU's nor Intel will talk to AMD but if AMD's ZEN CPU's come out with a decent price intel will have to lower price for it's products and i'm like 100% sure that would be the case. Huge companies are not stupid and even if "cartel" will see the light with the 2 companies believe me the price will still be lower for intel's CPU's why? Because people are waiting for it and even if they drop 15-20% it will still be great.


----------



## qubit (Jan 5, 2017)

ratirt said:


> Knowing that AMD and Intel had such a spat in the past no cartel will be created. These are huge companies they care not only about cash(which is why they were created for in the first place) but also reputation. Don't think AMD will talk to Intel about the price point of the CPU's nor Intel will talk to AMD but if AMD's ZEN CPU's come out with a decent price intel will have to lower price for it's products and i'm like 100% sure that would be the case. Huge companies are not stupid and even if "cartel" will see the light with the 2 companies believe me the price will still be lower for intel's CPU's why? Because people are waiting for it and even if they drop 15-20% it will still be great.


It's all supposition as I said. Basically a hunch that's all. Never let previous history rule anything out where there's big money involved.


----------



## ratirt (Jan 5, 2017)

qubit said:


> It's all supposition as I said. Basically a hunch that's all. Never let previous history rule anything out where there's big money involved.


History, something that has gone to past is certain. Future is all speculations but if you wanna know a bit of the future look how it worked in the past.


----------



## thesmokingman (Jan 6, 2017)

trt740 said:


> This is cool that this chip can do 4.8 to 5.0ghz on air. It is more efficient and faster by 25 percent but not against overclocked chips...



There are no IPC gains, so it is only faster than the 6700K because of the fact that it starts at a higher clock and potentially or more likely overclocks higher. I suppose that's cool but it's not really that cool. 

One thing I see though is that this stagnation gives AMD a chance to re-enter and maybe be competitive again. Maybe...


----------



## terroralpha (Jan 6, 2017)

i went from a 2500K @4ghz to 5930K @4.7GHZ because the difference in performance was insanely steep. for example, making and extracting archives it's at least 5 times faster.

but i won't be upgrading for several years to come, even though i can afford to burn the money, simply because the gain won't be noticeable


----------



## Derek12 (Jan 6, 2017)

It's all energetic efficiency and in great part, mobile
NVMe, DDR4, USB 3.1 Thunderbolt etc.
End of Moore's Law.
AMD will also hit the wall.


----------



## thesmokingman (Jan 6, 2017)

Derek12 said:


> AMD will also hit the wall.



Intel has literally stopped thinking outside the box. Intel's box has gotten small and stale now. AMD cannot make as good a box because they just don't have the resources, so they have to think outside the box. In other words, instead of devising a better mouse trap, Intel just keeps pushing smaller and smaller and now they've hit the wall.


----------



## FireFox (Jan 6, 2017)

thesmokingman said:


> now they've hit the wall.



I don't think so, that's what they make you believe.


----------



## phanbuey (Jan 6, 2017)

I think that they haven't had much competition, and have had a hard time coming up with an x86 design that is widely compatible with old software but is much  faster than the design they currently have.

Intel has been reportedly looking into revamping their chip design at the expense of backwards compatibility.


----------



## Derek12 (Jan 6, 2017)

thesmokingman said:


> Intel has literally stopped thinking outside the box. Intel's box has gotten small and stale now. AMD cannot make as good a box because they just don't have the resources, so they have to think outside the box. In other words, instead of devising a better mouse trap, Intel just keeps pushing smaller and smaller and now they've hit the wall.



I think is because the silicon has reached a point. Intel had to ditch tick tock, When graphene, quantum computing, alternate materials for ULSI circuits become feasible, then maybe there will be a new wider gap in performance between generations and Intel could reinstate tick tock. Meanwhile, all they can is improve efficiency and adopt new/future technologies as mentioned in my post.
AMD may have more room to improve upon their products, but they will also hit the wall imposed by the limits on the current semiconductor technology.

All this is my opinion


----------



## thesmokingman (Jan 6, 2017)

Derek12 said:


> I think is because the silicon has reached a point. Intel had to ditch tick tock, When graphene, quantum computing, alternate materials for ULSI circuits become feasible, then maybe there will be a new wider gap in performance between generations and Intel could reinstate tick tock. Meanwhile, all they can is improve efficiency and adopt new/future technologies as mentioned in my post.
> AMD may have more room to improve upon their products, but they will also hit the wall imposed by the limits on the current semiconductor technology.
> 
> All this is my opinion



The limits of physics everyone will hit and Intel is hitting theirs now. However, I'm talking about design and that's where they are stagnate. W/o a competitor, they are not looking to improve anything but the obvious which is just to shrink shrink and more shrink. We see this in Krabby Lake, much ado about nothing but process improvement and no design leaps.


----------



## Psychoholic (Jan 6, 2017)

I "Upgraded" to 7700K From 4790K just to simply be on the new platform/chipset..  Picked it up local yesterday from Fry's.  

what can i say, i just like new hardware.. maybe its the "new motherboard" smell


----------



## Derek12 (Jan 7, 2017)

thesmokingman said:


> The limits of physics everyone will hit and Intel is hitting theirs now. However, I'm talking about design and that's where they are stagnate. W/o a competitor, they are not looking to improve anything but the obvious which is just to shrink shrink and more shrink. We see this in Krabby Lake, much ado about nothing but process improvement and no design leaps.


What do you mean by "design"?

Instructions per cycle?
Maximum clock rate?
Overall performance?
Overclocking capabilities?
Power efficiency?
More instructions like SSE or AVX?

I think those are also constrained to physics because you need to put a lot of transistors to improve these things.
Also the shrinking process could be challenged beyond 14nm in that case only researching new semiconductor material is possible.


----------



## FireFox (Jan 7, 2017)

Psychoholic said:


> what can i say, i just like new hardware.. maybe its the "new motherboard" smell



I like that


----------



## Mussels (Jan 7, 2017)

die shrunk 2500k/3770k with DDR4 support, is all i see.

All the other changes have been on the motherboard end of things (m.2 etc)


----------



## Derek12 (Jan 7, 2017)

Mussels said:


> die shrunk 2500k/3770k with DDR4 support, is all i see.
> 
> All the other changes have been on the motherboard end of things (m.2 etc)


From Sandy/Ivy Bridge to Kaby Lake  there are more features than simply DDR4 and die shrink and not being on motherboard.
Like new instructions for example.


----------



## R-T-B (Jan 7, 2017)

Derek12 said:


> From Sandy/Ivy Bridge to Kaby Lake  there are more features than simply DDR4 and die shrink and not being on motherboard.
> Like new instructions for example.



And increased IPC, yeah.  It's not a ton but there are differences.


----------



## trt740 (Jan 7, 2017)

Derek12 said:


> What do you mean by "design"?
> 
> Instructions per cycle?
> Maximum clock rate?
> ...




and you forgot Hot as hell


----------



## thesmokingman (Jan 7, 2017)

Derek12 said:


> What do you mean by "design"?
> 
> Instructions per cycle?
> Maximum clock rate?
> ...



The ?'s are all measurements, but the design... hmm architecture is probably more of what you're expecting I'm guessing. There's a reason AMD brought Jim Keller back to helm the design of the Zen family. They went back to the drawing table and started from the ground up with Zen. Contrast this with Intel, who have not fundamentally changed since the Core design dating back to the mid 90's after abandoning the failed Netburst. They've been improving upon Core for decades now and it seems they've hit the end of the gravy train.


----------



## Outback Bronze (Jan 7, 2017)

Psychoholic said:


> what can i say, i just like new hardware.. maybe its the "new motherboard" smell



Yeah me too matey!

Its the smell of a new power supply, once they burn it a little that really gets my hairs sticking on end


----------



## Derek12 (Jan 8, 2017)

thesmokingman said:


> The ?'s are all measurements, but the design... hmm architecture is probably more of what you're expecting I'm guessing. There's a reason AMD brought Jim Keller back to helm the design of the Zen family. They went back to the drawing table and started from the ground up with Zen. Contrast this with Intel, who have not fundamentally changed since the Core design dating back to the mid 90's after abandoning the failed Netburst. They've been improving upon Core for decades now and it seems they've hit the end of the gravy train.


How do you define design? Because my ?s are end-user features of an architecture (not counting things like pipeline length, etc
As I said, maybe AMD has more margin to improve than Intel.
But will Zen outperform Kaby Lake?



trt740 said:


> and you forgot Hot as hell


Ivy Bridge


----------



## HTC (Jan 8, 2017)

Derek12 said:


> How do you define design? Because my ?s are end-user features of an architecture (not counting things like pipeline length, etc
> As I said, maybe AMD has more margin to improve than Intel.
> *But will Zen outperform Kaby Lake?*
> 
> ...



If it could come to within margin of error distance, should be enough to "force" Intel into taking steps:

- lowering their prices
- launch something with better performance (if they have it, ofc)
- launch something with new features (that AMD has yet to think of / put in place

I said it before: as long as ZEN pushes Intel's hand, i'd be content. That said, i seriously doubt AMD has managed to reach Intel with ZEN but i'm convinced it's @ least close to make Intel sweat quite a bit.

We'll see ...


----------



## trt740 (Jan 10, 2017)

After two day of bullcrap, boy am I glad to have my old system back . My Ivybridge runs cooler (never though I would say that) and more stable than the Kabylake I had, and the core reminded me of the old E8400/ Q6600 cores how they all read different temps (reading more than 5c-10c apart). Temps spikes and all kinds of crap. Might have been the motherboard but man that was a not  a good experience at all. However, I did like the board even with all the bios and voltage issues. Me and Ivy making love again.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jan 10, 2017)

trt740 said:


> After two day of bullcrap, boy am I glad to have my old system back . My Ivybridge runs cooler (never though I would say that) and more stable than the Kabylake I had, and the core reminded me of the old E8400/ Q6600 cores how they all read different temps (reading more than 5c-10c apart). Temps spikes and all kinds of crap. Might have been the motherboard but man that was a not  a good experience at all. However, I did like the board even with all the bios and voltage issues. Me and Ivy making love again.



I would have gone 6700K since 7700K shows no gains. Either way. Glad youre happy


----------



## hat (Jan 10, 2017)

revin said:


> So is this really it? ARS has a pretty wild comment about: The Intel Core i7-7700K is what happens when a chip company stops trying.
> Supposedly Kaby Lake desktop is effectively Sandy Bridge polished to within an inch of its life, a once-groundbreaking CPU architecture hacked, and tweaked, and mangled into ever-smaller manufacturing processes and power envelopes.
> Asus claims it can push the i7-7700K to 5GHz with a reasonable (read: no extravagant water cooling required) setup and that most decent unlocked Core i7 and Core i5 Kaby Lake chips will hit 5GHz between a reasonable 1.29-1.35 volts.
> Did anyone really think Intel was at a dead end with these CPU's?
> ...



They're basically right, as far as the CPU architecture is concerned. Nehalem was ~20% better than its predecessor, Sandy Bridge ~20% better than Nehalem, and from then on we got small tweaks and die shrinks resulting in small incremental performance benefits. Kaby might be 20% better than Sandy clock for clock... 4 generations later. I'd expect 5GHz to be the max sustainable overclock (with very good cooling) on these chips... much like their predecessors. They just do it better clock for clock. 

The main improvements are in the chipset (support for newer SSDs and stuff) and in the integrated graphics. The new iGPUs are capable of a lot more now, especially multimedia wise.


----------



## Psychoholic (Jan 10, 2017)

Funny I went back to my old system, too.

After dealing with the uneven temps (high temps for the volts) and a sleep/wake issue on top of that I returned it and went back to my Devils Canyon @ 4.7 1.25v
I think after the boards and bios mature kaby will be a better option than it is right now.



trt740 said:


> After two day of bullcrap, boy am I glad to have my old system back . My Ivybridge runs cooler (never though I would say that) and more stable than the Kabylake I had, and the core reminded me of the old E8400/ Q6600 cores how they all read different temps (reading more than 5c-10c apart). Temps spikes and all kinds of crap. Might have been the motherboard but man that was a not  a good experience at all. However, I did like the board even with all the bios and voltage issues. Me and Ivy making love again.


----------



## Flybyderp (Jan 10, 2017)

But but but 4K netflix on PC..... xD


----------



## trt740 (Jan 10, 2017)

Psychoholic said:


> Funny I went back to my old system, too.
> 
> After dealing with the uneven temps (high temps for the volts) and a sleep/wake issue on top of that I returned it and went back to my Devils Canyon @ 4.7 1.25v
> I think after the boards and bios mature kaby will be a better option than it is right now.




I would agree one hundred percent. You can tell if they get the bugs out, these will be good chips. Seems like voltage in the cores when overclocked is an issue. The whole experience felt rushed and not fine tuned.


----------



## revin (Jan 10, 2017)

trt740 said:


> After two day of bullcrap, boy am I glad to have my old system back . My Ivybridge runs cooler (never though I would say that) and more stable than the Kabylake I had, and the core reminded me of the old E8400/ Q6600 cores how they all read different temps (reading more than 5c-10c apart). Temps spikes and all kinds of crap. Might have been the motherboard but man that was a not  a good experience at all. However, I did like the board even with all the bios and voltage issues. Me and Ivy making love again.




Um.......this is for your Kabylake overclocking thread


----------



## trt740 (Jan 10, 2017)

revin said:


> Um.......this is for your Kabylake overclocking thread


I'm confused what?


----------



## revin (Jan 10, 2017)

Indeed your confused


trt740 said:


> After two day of bullcrap, boy am I glad to have my old system back . My Ivybridge runs cooler (never though I would say that) and more stable than the Kabylake I had, and the core reminded me of the old E8400/ Q6600 cores how they all read different temps (reading more than 5c-10c apart). Temps spikes and all kinds of crap. Might have been the motherboard but man that was a not  a good experience at all. However, I did like the board even with all the bios and voltage issues. Me and Ivy making love again.


This is in relation to your thread about not cheating in Overclocking Prime score's
Why will your post about your bad motherboard have any bearing on the new chip from Intel.
This thread is about whether Intel was at a dead end with a chip that is the highest based clocked CPU Intel released for the consumer, not about overclocking failures, so it seemed that you posted your comment in the wrong thread, instead of in your thread in which it would then be most relevant
Edit: I don't find your thread now, but maybe you had the wrong tab open


----------



## R-T-B (Jan 10, 2017)

thesmokingman said:


> The ?'s are all measurements, but the design... hmm architecture is probably more of what you're expecting I'm guessing. There's a reason AMD brought Jim Keller back to helm the design of the Zen family. They went back to the drawing table and started from the ground up with Zen. Contrast this with Intel, who have not fundamentally changed since the Core design dating back to the mid 90's after abandoning the failed Netburst. They've been improving upon Core for decades now and it seems they've hit the end of the gravy train.



Sorry, but no.  There have been several major redesigns since now and then.  Core 2 had a fsb ffs.


----------



## trt740 (Jan 11, 2017)

revin said:


> Indeed your confused
> 
> This is in relation to your thread about not cheating in Overclocking Prime score's
> Why will your post about your bad motherboard have any bearing on the new chip from Intel.
> ...




 I was talking about my motherboard used to overclock a Kabylake and how hot it ran and all the problem with the chip and motherboard leading me to switch back to Ivybridge. Sure seems relevant to this topic to me. Since I am saying the chip did not seem worth it over the last  several generations (core temperatures etc).  I am sorry if I was talking a bit over your head. Thanks for putting me back on the right topic.


----------



## RejZoR (Jan 11, 2017)

It's a bit hard to believe heat was such of an issue that you were forced to resort back to Ivy Bridge CPU...


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 11, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> It's a bit hard to believe heat was such of an issue that you were forced to resort back to Ivy Bridge CPU...


That's just classic.. absolutely classic someone would do that. Wow.

And there is another dude that upgraded from haswell to KL??? Heh... well. Yikes.


----------



## RejZoR (Jan 11, 2017)

Unless they screwed up something with ther thermal paste between core and IHS... Now, that would also be a classic for Intel...


----------



## FireFox (Jan 11, 2017)




----------



## ratirt (Jan 11, 2017)

Derek12 said:


> How do you define design? Because my ?s are end-user features of an architecture (not counting things like pipeline length, etc
> As I said, maybe AMD has more margin to improve than Intel.
> But will Zen outperform Kaby Lake?
> 
> ...


well it already did. 6900 version differs from Kaby with actually nothing comparing IPC. The difference is not even worth mentioning. Besides I haven't seen Kaby lake lineup with 8c/16t so Kaby is behind SkyLake at the moment in terms of IPC. Maybe zen didn't crash skylake but showed competitive.


----------



## Outback Bronze (Jan 11, 2017)

Gees nothing wrong with my Kaby Lake atm...wtf..??


----------



## CounterZeus (Jan 11, 2017)

ratirt said:


> well it already did. 6900 version differs from Kaby with actually nothing comparing IPC. The difference is not even worth mentioning. Besides I haven't seen Kaby lake lineup with 8c/16t so Kaby is behind SkyLake at the moment in terms of IPC. Maybe zen didn't crash skylake but showed competitive.



6900K is broadwell, not skylake.


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 11, 2017)

And skylake isn't faster than kaby... it's the same thing.


----------



## GelatanousMuck (Jan 11, 2017)

trt740 said:


> I was talking about my motherboard used to overclock a Kabylake and how hot it ran and all the problem with the chip and motherboard leading me to switch back to Ivybridge. Sure seems relevant to this topic to me. Since I am saying the chip did not seem worth it over the last  several generations (core temperatures etc).  I am sorry if I was talking a bit over your head. Thanks for putting me back on the right topic.



What motherboard are you referring to?


----------



## trt740 (Jan 11, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> It's a bit hard to believe heat was such of an issue that you were forced to resort back to Ivy Bridge CPU...


Read some reviews these chips are blistering hot and are having all kinds of heat spikes in the cores when overclocked. Mine would have its cores at random times jump from 66c to 90c+ for a few seconds. Plus the cores would exceed the max tcase temps at not very extreme voltages.  It was not just me having these issues several reviewers report temps spikes and uneven core temps. Plus the motherboard I had, had a trash bios and windows software . I'm not so sure what's classic about returning a defective hot, not very impressive product and moving back to a polished bios and a stable more stable chip for the time being. I have a very good cooling set up but these chips are crazy hot. The chip I had would easily overwhelm a factory cooler running prime. I'm sure that's why they do ship with a factory cooler. I know these chips will get better with time. I suspect these chipsets have not been completely tuned voltage wise for them yet. You do realize, I'm not the only member to return a Kabylake CPU and board to return to a prior set up because of these issues. I fully intend to revisit these chips after a few bios updates but for now it's not for me. However, who knows I might try again with a different board even sooner. Also,I think I know how to build a system Rejzor and I'm very capable of install thermal paste.

Maximus IX Hero bios 701 was the board. Nice board crap bios.


----------



## ratirt (Jan 11, 2017)

CounterZeus said:


> 6900K is broadwell, not skylake.


You are correct 6900 is a broadwell-E. and that what I was referring to. Kaby and skylake maybe same thing but in some tests it would show that Kaby is slower(gaming look at the video above). Either way none of those is capable to surpass 6900 or 6950X with their core count.


----------



## revin (Jan 11, 2017)

GelatanousMuck said:


> What motherboard are you referring to?


Go here to continue https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/kabylake-overclocking-thread.229360/

Now then to sum up the following as TLDR: It seems that even if it can be a hot, maybe sometimes quirky chip,  quite a few are getting good results with the 7700K, and it has new features that will lead to a better computing experience and imagine if a higher core count get's released.

After reading a few review's on the web, first with w1zzards gaming *review* and ending with the latest motherboard *review* from *@cadaveca,* the new 7700 while yes it is not a big jump is a pretty good CPU.
There is some reports of jumpy readings with some boards, but it seems clear that with the right combination it is holding up to produce good results.
Yes there is issue's of heat, but still the reviewer's were able to reel it in after some adjustments whether it was voltage, cooling or even motherboards just whatever they did.  Just because a [insert cooler name] controlled CPUxyz don't necessarily mean it will with this, same as the motherboard. Maybe it works great with Skylake XXXX but not with Kabylake. There could be numerous things that might appear to be the issue 

This bring's me back to when I got my Sandy and was ready for overclocking it. There was some discussion's about how some were not getting good results, and a lot of finger pointing to motherboards mine included. 
I weighed my choices to end up with the current Z68BC Extreme and proceeded to start the boost! There was a few different way's to approach it, BIOS, voltages, offset,  base clock, and software you get the drift.
Remembering to KISS I tried some within BIOS, mainly just added some vCore. After getting a reasonable OC I started with the XTU software, and of coarse when it was brought up in the forum's
I kind felt it was shunned upon. But as I kept on remembering that Dave had used a different approached that used something that "came with the motherboard" . I started looking into the XTU that came with mine and after deciphering some voltage language that even puzzled a few of our member's I proceeded to push on.
Turned out that sometimes some BIOS auto functions would mess up things that shouldn't be mainly other voltages. So remembering to back track and readjust things all that was needed was mainly to change some limits and WHAM success. Even thou I used the software to first achieve the result, it allowed me to set them in BIOS when needed like after a reversion to Default. I went out of the box to get there.

So it appears this 7700K chip with these new Z270 boards  might need the right touch to achieve a better control of heat and even get a decent overclock that just maybe going back to the roots of overclocking universe of unknown's.  Bottom line, no overclock is guaranteed so YMMV as always 
Remember this is not about overclocking win's or failures, but it is about a new chip that may need to have an approach that might be out of the box.


----------



## Athlon2K15 (Jan 11, 2017)

Have the Maximus IX Hero on the way from Asus, will be interesting to see if i get same results.


----------



## trt740 (Jan 11, 2017)

You will definitely like the board it's very cool. I just had a lot of trouble with the voltage and the software. Heck now that I've been away from it for a few days, I'm half tempted to buy another one and give it a try. Who knows maybe I just had a bad board.  Make sure you use CPU installation tool that Asus gives you it's pretty cool and it protects the pins on the motherboard, Plus it makes your cooler fit tighter on the CPU.


----------



## sneekypeet (Jan 11, 2017)

I have cleaned the thread. Stay on topic and stop with the personal bs, thanks.


----------



## FireFox (Jan 18, 2017)

It's pointless to upgrade from 6700K to a 7700K but i have ordered it today


----------



## Kursah (Jan 18, 2017)

Well here's to hoping you get that golden sample that reaches 5.2!


----------



## AndrewWyb (Feb 19, 2017)

I personally love the 7700K I recently bought. I upgraded from the still-capable 3770K and it's a good 50%+ increase in performance. I also paired it with the IX Hero, and I'm 100% stable @ 5.0 GHZ running 1.3V, and staying around 28C while idle and 65C @ 100% load. I haven't tried upping the voltage to see if I can hit 5.1 or 5.2, but I'm a little nervous to do so because my rig is running so perfectly right now and I don't wanna mess with the performance I've already got, or heavily degrade the CPU for only a 1 or 2% performance increase. I also upgraded my SLI GTX 670's to a Zotac ArcticStorm GTX 1080 and I'm dominating (#1 in both baby!) in the most recent Unigine Valley and Heaven benchmark rank threads in the TPU graphics forum, easily beating out users with the same GPU and similar overclocks, but paired with high-end x99 CPU like the uber expensive i7 6950x. For $330, it's an amazing deal and a quality processor. Plus it has the best integrated graphics out of any CPU on the market, which can't be anything BUT a positive!


----------



## Mussels (Feb 19, 2017)

AndrewWyb said:


> I personally love the 7700K I have. I upgraded from a 3770K and it's a good 50%+ increase in performance. I also paired it with the IX Hero, and I'm 100% stable @ 5.0 GHZ running 1.3V, and staying around 28C while idle and 65C @ 100% load. I haven't tried upping the voltage to see if I can hit 5.1 or 5.2, but I'm a little nervous to do so because my rig is running so perfectly right now and I don't wanna mess with it . I also upgraded my SLI 670's to a Zotac ArcticStorm GTX 1080 and I'm dominating (#1 ranks baby!) in both the most recent Unigine Valley and Heaven benchmark threads in the TPU graphics forum, easily beating out users with the same GPU and overclocks, but paired the uber expensive i7 6950x. For $330, it's an amazing deal and a quality processor. Plus it has decent integrated graphics which is always a plus!



serious question, what ram did you have on your 3770k? i noticed a huge boost with 2400mhz DDR3, and i'm beating my skylake secondary/friends skylake 6600k in every bench i can throw at it


----------



## AndrewWyb (Feb 19, 2017)

I was running G.Skill Ripjawz Z 1866 Mhz DDR3 RAM w/ my 3770K, and with my 7700K I'm running G.Skill Ripjawz V 3000 Mhz (OC'd to just under 3200 Mhz) DDR4 RAM. I've also noticed a huge improvement, but since I moved to Z270 and upgraded the CPU, GPU, Mobo, & RAM all in one go, I can't tell exactly how much the upgraded RAM is contributing to the whole equation


----------



## EarthDog (Feb 19, 2017)

Not much.


----------



## Mussels (Feb 19, 2017)

AndrewWyb said:


> I was running G.Skill Ripjawz Z 1866 Mhz DDR3 RAM w/ my 3770K, and with my 7700K I'm running G.Skill Ripjawz V 3000 Mhz (OC'd to just under 3200 Mhz) DDR4 RAM. I've also noticed a huge improvement, but since I moved to Z270 and upgraded the CPU, GPU, Mobo, & RAM all in one go, I can't tell exactly how much the upgraded RAM is contributing to the whole equation



that exlains it, once OC'd past 4GHz i saw a large difference in game FPS going from 1600 to 2400 - 1866 wouldnt have been much different.

I feel like intel CPU's have been very stagnant, with ram speeds being the real difference between generations.


----------



## AndrewWyb (Feb 19, 2017)

I definitely agree they've been stagnant. Intel hasn't needed to do much beyond incremental upgrades to keep consumers buying, ever since AMD stopped realistically competing with Intel's higher-end CPU's (I truly miss the Athlon days of my childhood..), all in the name of profits. There will always be a segment of consumers that will buy the latest and greatest regardless of the actual performance vs. value, just so they can swing a mightier E-dong (me being one of those people occasionally ). Honestly, if I owned a CPU even slightly better than the 3770K (like the 4770K), I would have waited another year or even two before upgrading. But I felt at the price point and performance gain I would receive, not to mention I can still sell my 3770K for ~$230 and can upgrade to the newer Z270 platform w/ Kaby Lake, really made it a no-brainer for me.

I do feel the additional RAM speeds don't have as much impact as upgrading CPU speeds though, but that's just from me reading a lot other peoples thoughts and opinions, not from any real experience or benchmarking of my own to back it up.


----------



## EarthDog (Feb 19, 2017)

Ram speeds matter on such few titles, that really isn't it... look up some testing on it.. 

http://techbuyersguru.com/gaming-ddr4-memory-2133-vs-26663200mhz-8gb-vs-16gb?page=1


----------



## FYFI13 (Feb 19, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Lol, ram speeds matter on such few titles, that really isn't it... look up some testing on it..


Based on what i play, Arma 3 is the only game that actually benefits from overclocking RAM. Every other game bench results are within margin of error.


----------



## FireFox (Feb 19, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> The thing is, 7700K is a boring CPU



Uhmmm.

That's the same thing everybody that doesn't own a 7700K says


----------



## Mussels (Feb 19, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Ram speeds matter on such few titles, that really isn't it... look up some testing on it..





FYFI13 said:


> Based on what i play, Arma 3 is the only game that actually benefits from overclocking RAM. Every other game bench results are within margin of error.



you need to go deeper (this is about OC'd systems such as K chips with higher ram speed - not generic testing at stock clocks)

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/d...it-finally-time-to-upgrade-your-core-i5-2500k


----------



## EarthDog (Feb 19, 2017)

You will also note, my link was 4.4ghz 5820k and 6700k. 

Perhaps it matters more on ddr3?

Here is ddr3 testing...http://techbuyersguru.com/does-ram-speed-matter-ddr3-1600-vs-1866-2133-and-2400-games?page=1

Shows about nothing in those titles, no?? That's a 4.5 ghz 4770k and 970, btw.

Maybe it's on a 6 year old cpu (2500k) with emerging ddr3 (1600-2133) speeds using a Titan X from 2015 @ 1080p skews Rich's results in the video... who has that setup? Lol...


----------



## TheHunter (Feb 19, 2017)

it only shows so gpu is not the bottleneck like by your example with 970gtx..


----------



## RejZoR (Feb 19, 2017)

Knoxx29 said:


> Uhmmm.
> 
> That's the same thing everybody that doesn't own a 7700K says



My 12 threads at 4.5 GHz say otherwise... XD


----------



## FireFox (Feb 19, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> My 12 threads at 4.5 GHz say otherwise... XD



The 4.5GHz thing it's kinda boring for meI guess it's time to change my profile pic.


----------



## EarthDog (Feb 19, 2017)

TheHunter said:


> it only shows so gpu is not the bottleneck like by your example with 970gtx..


 I suppose ok to prove a point with an unrealistic situation to make said point true. It's like testing cpu differences in games at 800x600 res... I mean I understand this puts more on the cpu, but at the end of the day, nobody plays that way. So perhaps with a 2500k (2011) and titan x(2015), memory shows some improvements in that situation. But if you have a well apportioned pc, you are going to find negligible at best gains.


----------



## Jetster (Feb 19, 2017)

Its still the fastest 4 core processor even if its an incremental advantage over last gen. Less power required, Jesus what do you want? Okay it could be a little more exciting


----------



## thesmokingman (Feb 19, 2017)

AndrewWyb said:


> I personally love the 7700K I recently bought. I upgraded from the still-capable 3770K and it's a good 50%+ increase in performance.



That's magical for a cpu that brings hardly any IPC increase.


----------



## AndrewWyb (Feb 19, 2017)

thesmokingman said:


> That's magical for a cpu that brings hardly any IPC increase.


Ok, maybe I embellished a bit on the "50%+" but I do see quite an improvement over the 3770k in all areas, especially my PCMark 7 benchmarks. But as I said earlier, It's hard to really judge exactly my improvements with regards to each component since I upgraded everything in one go, but I do think it's telling that owners of the i7 7700K are getting high benchmark scores in all charts I'm seeing (I took the top spot from an i7 6950x with same GPU https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/unigine-heaven-4-0-benchmark-scores-part-2.222125/). Overall I'm just very happy with the performance, regardless of how similar it is on paper to past gen CPU's.


----------



## thesmokingman (Feb 19, 2017)

AndrewWyb said:


> Ok, maybe I embellished a bit on the "50%+" but I do see quite an improvement over the 3770k in all areas, especially my PCMark 7 benchmarks. But as I said earlier, It's hard to really judge exactly my improvements with regards to each component since I upgraded everything in one go, but I do think it's telling that owners of the i7 7700K are getting high benchmark scores in all charts I'm seeing (I took the top spot from an i7 6950x with same GPU https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/unigine-heaven-4-0-benchmark-scores-part-2.222125/). Overall I'm just very happy with the performance, regardless of how similar it is on paper to past gen CPU's.



That has more to do with your gpu overclock than your cpu.

For ex. Overclocked 7700K at 5.3ghz vs 6700K at 4.7ghz... does not do much to gpu scores.

www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/11138351/fs/11579546


----------



## AndrewWyb (Feb 19, 2017)

Of course the GPU is the main factor being tested here and makes the most difference in benchmark scores, it is a graphics benchmark after all. I wasn't just talking about that benchmark, it's showing up in PCMark 7 as well. Either way, it's a great CPU at a great price. I don't understand all the hate the 7700K gets honestly. If they sold it a higher price, I'd understand. But it's literally the exact same price as the 6700K, so what's the problem?


----------



## thesmokingman (Feb 19, 2017)

AndrewWyb said:


> Considering we both have the same GPU running at very similar core core/mem clock frequencies, it does have a lot to do with more than just the GPU overclock. His overclock isn't much diff than mine.



That's clearly your narrative as your gpu is clocked a step higher.


----------



## AndrewWyb (Feb 19, 2017)

You're clearly on the i7 7700K hate bandwagon, so let's just agree to disagree.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 19, 2017)

The moral of the story is that Intel's 10nm process is broken.  We're not going to any big moves from Intel until they transition to 7nm.  It's not because of lack of trying; it's because physics are making die shrinks difficult.

The stars are aligning in a spectacular fashion for AMD right now.  They need to capitalize on it before "chipzilla" digs out of their process hole.


----------



## AndrewWyb (Feb 19, 2017)

Yea, if those leaked Ryzen benchmark scores are true then Intel should be pretty nervous about what's to come. I'd be selling Intel stock right about now if I owned any.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 19, 2017)

I wouldn't.  The Trump/Intel announcement (Chandler, AZ Fab) was Intel doubling down on 7nm.  I see that move as like Intel abandoning Netburst and switching to Core.  They have decided they can't twiddle their thumbs waiting for a 10nm miracle.  They've tried long enough.

I think the threat of Ryzen expedited the turn of focus towards 7nm.  Intel has faced a Jim Keller architecture before and it set them scurrying.


----------



## AndrewWyb (Feb 19, 2017)

Hopefully it pans out. Consumers would benifit with another Intel vs. AMD rivalry. It's been pretty one-sided lately.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 19, 2017)

For a decade!  Core 2 launched July 2006.


----------



## MrGenius (Feb 19, 2017)

AndrewWyb said:


> ...(I took the top spot from an i7 6950x with same GPU https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/unigine-heaven-4-0-benchmark-scores-part-2.222125/).


I'll let you in on a little "secret". You easily took the #1 spots for the Heaven and Valley scores here mostly because your GPU is water-cooled. Operating temps can play a significant role in FPS. With lower temps yielding higher framerates. I've seen it make all the difference between similarly clocked cards.

That said. Depending on the benchmark CPU speed can make a big difference too. Not so much with Heaven. But much so with Valley.


----------



## AndrewWyb (Feb 19, 2017)

Well good to know. I didn't think lower temps improved frame rate. I figured if two people have the same GPU running at the same clock speeds, with one at 35C and the other at 75C, they'd still perform equal to eachother, and assumed the only time temp would affect frame rate is if it got too high and thermal throttling occurred.


----------



## MrGenius (Feb 19, 2017)

Like I said, it's sort of a "secret". Or rather a "little known" fact. Not too many are aware of it. Outside of the dedicated enthusiast circles anyway.


----------



## thesmokingman (Feb 19, 2017)

MrGenius said:


> Like I said, it's sort of a "secret". Or rather a "little known" fact. Not too many are aware of it. Outside of the dedicated enthusiast circles anyway.



Yea, it's definitely not a secret with enthusiasts/overclockers. It's kind of the whole point, lower temps = higher overclock. And in context with Nv's boost, lower temps = higher sustained clock, not to mention lower power draws which means more time before throttle.


----------



## MrGenius (Feb 19, 2017)

I'm not sure we're on the same page. I'm not talking about OC vs. OC. I'm talking about clock for clock. By which I mean the same clock speeds on the same cards. Where the cooler card can achieve higher FPS. Just by staying cooler than the other one. Which, frankly, I'm at a loss to describe the physics of. I just know it's true because I've seen it happen enough to be forced into believing it. Heat is bad for FPS. That's what I'm really trying to say.


----------



## thesmokingman (Feb 20, 2017)

MrGenius said:


> I'm not sure we're on the same page. I'm not talking about OC vs. OC. I'm talking about clock for clock. By which I mean the same clock speeds on the same cards. Where the cooler card can achieve higher FPS. Just by staying cooler than the other one. Which, frankly, I'm at a loss to describe the physics of. I just know it's true because I've seen it happen enough to be forced into believing it. Heat is bad for FPS. That's what I'm really trying to say.



I already explained why cooler equals faster. Current gpus scale clocks and sustain clocks via temperature. Two gpus in two different setups will not maintain the same clock frequency curve due to differences in cooling. Heat also affects leakage, causing silicon to be less efficient. That's why much effort is spent to cool chips, keep the leakage down and maintain efficiency. It's not that mysterious.


----------



## AndrewWyb (Feb 20, 2017)

thesmokingman said:


> It's kind of the whole point, lower temps = higher overclock.



The way you worded it had me thinking you weren't on the same page as well. This isn't the point he was trying to make, because obviously we all understand that lower temps can sustain higher clock speeds, and therefore higher FPS. I don't know where you yourself explained cooler = faster regardless of clock speeds. It's not common knowledge and it's certainly news to me.


----------



## thesmokingman (Feb 20, 2017)

AndrewWyb said:


> The way you worded it had me thinking you weren't on the same page as well. This isn't the point he was trying to make, because obviously we all understand that lower temps can sustain higher clock speeds, and therefore higher FPS. I don't know where you yourself *explained cooler = faster regardless of clock speeds.* It's not common knowledge and it's certainly news to me.



Ok, that line there is getting into nothing quantifiable, ie. cool sounding explanation or something other not based in facts. I'm not even sure what that means. Cooler, by how much? Regardless of clock speeds, is there no limit? If that is what the other poster is debating, then obviously that's not what I'm saying.


----------



## EarthDog (Feb 20, 2017)

AndrewWyb said:


> Ok, maybe I embellished a bit on the "50%+" but I do see quite an improvement over the 3770k in all areas, especially my PCMark 7 benchmarks. But as I said earlier, It's hard to really judge exactly my improvements with regards to each component since I upgraded everything in one go, but I do think it's telling that owners of the i7 7700K are getting high benchmark scores in all charts I'm seeing (I took the top spot from an i7 6950x with same GPU https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/unigine-heaven-4-0-benchmark-scores-part-2.222125/). Overall I'm just very happy with the performance, regardless of how similar it is on paper to past gen CPU's.


lol... you took the first place spot because of your gpu core and memory clocks are higher.. not to mention 5gHz vs 4.2ghz helps out on this bench.



As far as temps making a difference in performance... sort of. If your temps keep boost bins/clocks higher, then yes. But if we are talking same clocks but with lower temps... it doesn't make a damn difference. None. 2100mhz at 75C is the same at 35C.


----------



## revin (Feb 20, 2017)

AndrewWyb said:


> But it's literally the exact same price as the 6700K, so what's the problem?


Hell it's same price as the 2600K was ! I'd jump on it in a heartbeat if mine was to poop out, but alas it is a way older gen. Even still I like what they brought to the table with it.
Any way congrats on a great upgrade


----------



## MrGenius (Feb 20, 2017)

Drop your clocks to match his and see if 35°C doesn't get you anything. Debate over.


----------



## AndrewWyb (Feb 20, 2017)

thesmokingman said:


> Ok, that line there is getting into nothing quantifiable, ie. cool sounding explanation or something other not based in facts. I'm not even sure what that means. Cooler, by how much? Regardless of clock speeds, is there no limit? If that is what the other poster is debating, then obviously that's not what I'm saying.



 If two people have the same GPU with the exact same clocks speeds, but one is running significantly cooler than the other, the cooler card will attain higher FPS. I do believe this to be true after MrGenius pointed it out to me. I just tried matching GPU clock speeds to the other user with an i7 7700K on the list below me and I benched a modest amount higher. Could there be other factors at play? Sure, but I believe temp is also a contributing factor. But yea this is my last comment on the matter, so lets agree to disagree again.


----------



## TheHunter (Feb 20, 2017)

AndrewWyb said:


> You're clearly on the i7 7700K hate bandwagon, so let's just agree to disagree.


Its not hate per say, more like despise or a bad/sour ripoff joke.

Its nothing but a better binned SkyLake, or what DevilsCanyon was to Haswell (most stopped at 4.6ghz).

Idk if one would celebrate or praise it.. Heck it barely reaches 5Ghz at reasonable temp. and voltage, that's if you're lucky.
 Haswell to DevilsCanyon - very few went pass 4.8Ghz and its not like Intel tried to believe 5Ghz guarantied bla bla, same shit now. xD


----------



## EarthDog (Feb 20, 2017)

AndrewWyb said:


> If two people have the same GPU with the exact same clocks speeds, but one is running significantly cooler than the other, the cooler card will attain higher FPS. I do believe this to be true after MrGenius pointed it out to me. I just tried matching GPU clock speeds to the other user with an i7 7700K on the list below me and I benched a modest amount higher. Could there be other factors at play? Sure, but I believe temp is also a contributing factor. But yea this is my last comment on the matter, so lets agree to disagree again.


What it WILL ACTUALLY do is perhaps save a couple watts. We've already seen before on the forums as temps rose we saw a very small increase in power used at the same load. So, yes, efficiency goes up, but not in performance. Nothing changes in ipc. Ive had dozens of cpus on water, and several gpus on water... nada.. zilch...zippo. nunca. No differences at the same clocks. Been there, done that... it's not on me to support my assertion considering what's being said goes against what is commonly held as true.

It's clear there are other differences between your system and the other one to reflect your 'modest' increases... whatever that was (margin of error perhaps??). 

Anyhoo, this is about the 7700k, so.. I'll just step back.


----------



## Mussels (Feb 20, 2017)

the only reason temps can affect performance is thermal throttle/turbo states.


----------

