# I7 3770k vs i7 7700k



## i9000gt (Jan 12, 2017)

Planning on upgrading to the i7 7700k from the i7 3770k as I'm planning on getting a gtx 1080

Do I really need to upgrade the CPU or will the 3770k be just fine? 

Thanks guys


----------



## Vario (Jan 12, 2017)

3770K is almost the same performance as the 7700K, don't bother.


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Jan 12, 2017)

Considering you will have to also buy a new motherboard and ddr4 ram the cost far outweighs the performance difference imo...


----------



## CounterZeus (Jan 12, 2017)

Overclock CPU and RAM and you'll have performance close to 7700K.

There was an article about this some time ago about this here: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/d...it-finally-time-to-upgrade-your-core-i5-2500k

Since kaby lake is basically skylake, the figures still hold.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Jan 12, 2017)

i9000gt said:


> Planning on upgrading to the i7 7700k from the i7 3770k as I'm planning on getting a gtx 1080
> 
> Do I really need to upgrade the CPU or will the 3770k be just fine?
> 
> Thanks guys



For gaming purposes, your i7-3770k will be just fine!  At this point, unless you just want to upgrade, or you have CPU-intensive tasks, you really aren't going to need the new CPU. 

3770k overclocks nicely, and when paired with 1866 or above RAM, it should definitely enough to keep the GTX 1080 fed while gaming.


----------



## yogurt_21 (Jan 12, 2017)

CounterZeus said:


> Overclock CPU and RAM and you'll have performance close to 7700K.
> 
> There was an article about this some time ago about this here: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/d...it-finally-time-to-upgrade-your-core-i5-2500k
> 
> Since kaby lake is basically skylake, the figures still hold.


wow from that overclocking or getting faster ram would be the best bang for the buck.
 they have ddr3 all the way up to 3100MHZ (granting those are insanely priced) but getting a good 2400MHZ set and clocking it would be a 50-80$ upgrade, especially from 1600.


----------



## Komshija (Jan 12, 2017)

There's no need for such replacement unless your CPU is defective. With proper GPU, the i7 3770K has more than enough power for all games.


----------



## peche (Jan 12, 2017)

i9000gt said:


> Planning on upgrading to the i7 7700k from the i7 3770k as I'm planning on getting a gtx 1080
> 
> Do I really need to upgrade the CPU or will the 3770k be just fine?
> 
> Thanks guys


fill sys specs better... to see what you really have and what will be a notable upgrade, forget upgrading you CPU indeed, 

Regards,


----------



## Vario (Jan 12, 2017)

Some G.Skill DDR3 2400 might help if you have 1600 ram.  If you sell your current ram to finance the purchase, it won't be much incremental cost.

Also 2x4GB Samsung Greens can get you 2133 at a low voltage usually.  I have a spare set I could sell.


----------



## basco (Jan 12, 2017)

3770k is fine even whithout oc.


----------



## Recon-UK (Jan 12, 2017)

Faster memory will bump up performance significantly for gaming.


----------



## peche (Jan 12, 2017)

witout sys specs we dont know what memory OP has.... also we dont even know if he have and SSD for a smooth experience...


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jan 12, 2017)

i9000gt said:


> Planning on upgrading to the i7 7700k from the i7 3770k as I'm planning on getting a gtx 1080
> 
> Do I really need to upgrade the CPU or will the 3770k be just fine?
> 
> Thanks guys



You would be wasting money, 3770 are still very worthy. Heck the 2500K are still good too


----------



## GelatanousMuck (Jan 14, 2017)

Vario said:


> 3770K is almost the same performance as the 7700K, don't bother.



That statement is absolutely false!

My 7700K at stock speed running Firestrike and noting the PhysX score beat my 3770K OCd to 5ghz by 1,000 points.

When I OCd the 7700K to 5ghz it beat the 3770Ks PhysX score at 5ghz by over 3,000 points.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Jan 14, 2017)

GelatanousMuck said:


> That statement is absolutely false!
> 
> My 7700K at stock speed running Firestrike and noting the PhysX score beat my 3770K OCd to 5ghz by 1,000 points.
> 
> When I OCd the 7700K to 5ghz it beat the 3770Ks PhysX score at 5ghz by over 3,000 points.



In gaming though, not really enough to make a difference noticeable to most people using the same GPU on each.  

Benchmarks and CPU-intensive tasks, yeah you'll see a difference.  That's why most advised him the cost of total upgrade needed is not worth it and the 3770k is just fine.


----------



## Prima.Vera (Jan 16, 2017)

I have a 3770K, and I have Firestrike benchies with better scores that the ones with 6700K, just by oc a little the CPU and video card.
Complete waste of money to move to 7700K imo.


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 16, 2017)

Vario said:


> 3770K is almost the same performance as the 7700K, don't bother.


It is???????? I mean, first, you have ~10-15% clock IPC increase, then you have a higher base clock and overclocking potential...

The bottom line is he will be just fine, but by no means are these things "almost the same performance". There are also other features (native 4x M.2 support, USB3.1 G2, etc).


----------



## Folterknecht (Jan 16, 2017)

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2017/01/13/kaby_lake_7700k_vs_sandy_bridge_2600k_ipc_review

IvyBridge has ~5-7% better IPC than Sandy.


----------



## i9000gt (Jan 17, 2017)

Wow thanks for all the post guys I guess I'll just hold onto my current setup ATM. 

Btw my current setup is. 

-P8Z77-I DELUXE mono
-I7-3770k CPU with Corsair h110 CPU water cooler.
-Samsung evo 500gb ssd 
-Corsair ax860 psu
-Corsair CML16GX3M2A1600C10 -Vengeance Low Profile 16GB (2x8GB) DDR3 1600 Mhz CL10 XMP Performance Desktop Memory Kit Black. 
Philips 40" 4k monitor.

And last but not least....
Intel Onboard graphics lmao!
 but I'm in the process of upgrading to a gtx 1080.

I think I'm running xmp profle automatic overclock in the bios God knows what speed that is or if it's any good.

So I'll leave it as it is? Or shall I overclock the memory CPU more? 

Thanks guys


----------



## peche (Jan 17, 2017)

@i9000gt again... fill this completely, help others to help you ....
and forget about replacing and wasting money on the new 1151 build, worthless upgrade...

Regards,


----------



## i9000gt (Jan 17, 2017)

peche said:


> @i9000gt again... fill this completely, help others to help you ....
> and forget about replacing and wasting money on the new 1151 build, worthless upgrade...
> 
> Regards,



Done thanks


----------



## FireFox (Jan 17, 2017)

Vario said:


> 3770K is almost the same performance as the 7700K, don't bother.






*I hope you realize what you are saying*


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Jan 17, 2017)

Knoxx29 said:


> View attachment 83150
> 
> *I hope you realize what you are saying*



I think he meant clock for clock.... and if both are clocked the same the difference is likely to be around 10% give or take.


----------



## RejZoR (Jan 17, 2017)

He's saying the truth. Both are K SKU's, do you seriously expect to compare them at stock speeds? Beyond clocks and few tiny change, both are quad cores with HT. I'm on a hexa core running at 4.5 GHz and while there is some difference compared to Core i7 920 that I had before, the difference is minor. Here, we're comparing essentially the same thing. No point really.


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Jan 17, 2017)

i9000gt said:


> Done thanks



You said you are running XMP but have you overclocked your 3770k or just left it on auto cause you should be able to get a good 4.2-4.5ghz on that CPU without too much hassle at all.


----------



## peche (Jan 18, 2017)

a wise upgrade will be adding a video card, thats all, with XMP you just need to try a bit moar numbers up in your unlocked multiplier, try to keep the stock voltage, if possible use max 1.35V

Regards,


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jan 18, 2017)

i9000gt said:


> Wow thanks for all the post guys I guess I'll just hold onto my current setup ATM.
> 
> Btw my current setup is.
> 
> ...



Grab the latest motherboard bios before plugging a new gpu in.


----------



## Vario (Jan 20, 2017)

Knoxx29 said:


> View attachment 83150
> 
> *I hope you realize what you are saying*


Presumably he games.  Gaming performance in terms of frame rate is nearly identical.  Go ahead, waste your time pulling up a few instances or benchmarks where it isn't.  Then try to justify the expense of an upgrade to something that is nearly identical.

If Intel does start making serious performance gains in the next few years instead of paltry 1-5% improvements from generation to generation, he would be a fool to waste his money now when the difference is so small for what he does (gaming?).


----------



## i9000gt (Jan 22, 2017)

yeah guys its really just for gaming. thanks guys read everyones post and i think im just gonna stick to my current setup, stick a gtx 1080 in there. and overclock it a bit!!! much appreciated everyone thanks!


----------



## FireFox (Jan 22, 2017)

Prima.Vera said:


> Complete waste of money to move to 7700K imo.



No if you can afford it


----------



## cfortney92 (Jan 23, 2017)

i9000gt said:


> Wow thanks for all the post guys I guess I'll just hold onto my current setup ATM.
> 
> Btw my current setup is.
> 
> ...



I have a nearly identical setup to you - same motherboard, same CPU, same RAM, nearly the same monitor (I have the refreshed Philips 43" 4K IPS monitor) and I dropped an EVGA GTX 1080 SC into it. Pretty narrow fit into my Silverstone SG-13, but the performance is great! I've been looking at upgrading everything to Kaby Lake, but the only thing I think I'll gain is access to streaming 4K content as it becomes available and a couple frames. Doesn't seem worth the cost of everything to me, even though I can afford it.


----------



## i9000gt (Jan 23, 2017)

cfortney92 said:


> I have a nearly identical setup to you - same motherboard, same CPU, same RAM, nearly the same monitor (I have the refreshed Philips 43" 4K IPS monitor) and I dropped an EVGA GTX 1080 SC into it. Pretty narrow fit into my Silverstone SG-13, but the performance is great! I've been looking at upgrading everything to Kaby Lake, but the only thing I think I'll gain is access to streaming 4K content as it becomes available and a couple frames. Doesn't seem worth the cost of everything to me, even though I can afford it.



What do u mean access to streaming you can do that anyway with i7-3770k right? 

And did you overclock your setup? If so, what?


----------



## NinkobEi (Jan 23, 2017)

GelatanousMuck said:


> That statement is absolutely false!
> 
> My 7700K at stock speed running Firestrike and noting the PhysX score beat my 3770K OCd to 5ghz by 1,000 points.
> 
> When I OCd the 7700K to 5ghz it beat the 3770Ks PhysX score at 5ghz by over 3,000 points.



The RAM is going to play at least a decent-sized part in that. 1600mhz ddr3 lacks a lot of bandwidth compared to DDR4.


----------



## droopyRO (Jan 23, 2017)

The only game i played where RAM speed made a small difference was Witcher 3 at 1333 i got something like 70 fps in a scene and at 2133 75 fps. If you are building a new rig go for >2000 Mhz RAM speed but if you have an old platform with 3770k like i have don`t bother. Invest that money in a new GPU if you want more frame rate.


----------



## NinkobEi (Jan 23, 2017)

droopyRO said:


> The only game i played where RAM speed made a small difference was Witcher 3 at 1333 i got something like 70 fps in a scene and at 2133 75 fps. If you are building a new rig go for >2000 Mhz RAM speed but if you have an old platform with 3770k like i have don`t bother. Invest that money in a new GPU if you want more frame rate.



er, the guy was talking about 3dmark scores. RAM certainly plays a part there


----------



## Palladium (Jan 24, 2017)

In general, people exaggerate and overanalyse the shit out of CPU differences in games. I doubt most will even pass a blind test in most games between a 7700K vs a G4560, much less a 3770K.

That said, plenty of Ebayers are paying near-MSRP for used 3770Ks and Z77 boards, if you can find one to sell to why not?


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 24, 2017)

NinkobEi said:


> The RAM is going to play at least a decent-sized part in that. 1600mhz ddr3 lacks a lot of bandwidth compared to DDR4.


Maybe 10% of the difference really.


NinkobEi said:


> er, the guy was talking about 3dmark scores. RAM certainly plays a part there


Not a big one, however.


----------



## hat (Jan 24, 2017)

Well, jumping from 1600 DDR3 to fast DDR4 will yield some benefit to FPS, along with the better CPU. Of course, unless you're rolling in cash, the only logical solution remains upgrading the video card only. If you have the funding to pay for an entire new platform... there will be some added benefit, but how much is debatable. You're probably better off clocking the piss out of your existing chip and RAM.


----------



## Mussels (Jan 24, 2017)

i9000gt said:


> Planning on upgrading to the i7 7700k from the i7 3770k as I'm planning on getting a gtx 1080
> 
> Do I really need to upgrade the CPU or will the 3770k be just fine?
> 
> Thanks guys



look at my specs. 3770k handles a gtx 1080 just fine.

definitely run fast DDR3 to get the most out of the chip, i have a handy image of someone who did sandy/ivy/skylake comparisons and found out ram speed was one of the key factors seperating them for gaming.

there is 100% a noticeable difference with a GTX 1080 at 4K, between slower and faster ram. Slowest i'd use is 1866, after that the gains reduce.


----------



## Recon-UK (Jan 24, 2017)

Not found a game that maxes my XEON yet... it won't drive a 1080 to max GPU usage in some games i'm sure but that's due to old tech and a glass ceiling rather than a bottleneck.

8 threaded intel chips still got a lot of power under the hood, especially overclocked.


----------



## LiveOrDie (Jan 24, 2017)

Knoxx29 said:


> View attachment 83150
> 
> *I hope you realize what you are saying*



Haha only a 7700K owner would say that, for gaming even a 2600K with a OC is fine, and DDR4 memory is no faster than DDR3, go out and buy our self a new GPU.


----------



## droopyRO (Jan 24, 2017)

Mussels said:


> i have a handy image of someone who did sandy/ivy/skylake comparisons and found out ram speed was one of the key factors seperating them for gaming.


Why is there a 10 fps difference at stock speed for the 2500k and at 4.5Ghz there is a 6 fps between 1600 and 2133 Mhz ?


----------



## basco (Jan 24, 2017)

if i understand your question correct:
at 4,6ghz cpu speed the gpu is more saturated then with stock.


----------



## Mussels (Jan 24, 2017)

OCing the CPU and RAM help on their own, but help more, together. the full review (lost the link) contained a 3770k as well, with more ram speeds - i saved that image to show a friend with a 2500k why it was worth coughing up the extra few $ for 2400mhz ram like mine, over stick 1333


----------



## R-T-B (Jan 24, 2017)

> and DDR4 memory is no faster than DDR3



From a latency to Mhz perspective, high end DDR4 is finally starting to beat high-end DDR3 so no, not really true anymore.

That said no game is going to care.


----------



## yogurt_21 (Jan 24, 2017)

droopyRO said:


> Why is there a 10 fps difference at stock speed for the 2500k and at 4.5Ghz there is a 6 fps between 1600 and 2133 Mhz ?


tunnel vision if you believe something so hard you force yourself to not see anything that contests it.
witcher 3 2500k stock all 1600MHZ ddr3 = 60.8 fps
stock cpu, 2133 ram = 70.1fps
oc cpu 1600 ram = 72.8fps
oc cpu 2133 ram = 86.4fps

so to recap at stock upgrading the ram gave you 9.3 fps or 15.3% improvement
oc the cpu gives you 12 fps (+19.7%) more over stock or 2.7 fps more over stock cpu with 2133 ram (+3.8%)
however if you overclock the cpu AND get better ram it nets you 26.4 fps above stock or a 43.4% improvement
the 2133 accounts for 13.6 fps over the same oc cpu with 1600 ram or an 18.6% improvement.

far cry 4 sees similar gains while BF4 and crysis 3 show lesser ones. GTA5 results are between but still very significant.

to average them all you get 
stock cpu 1600 ram 361 total fps averaging 72.2 per game (stock)
stock cpu 2133 ram 397.5 total fps averaging 79.5 per game (+10% over stock)
cpu 4.5GHZ 1600 ram 426.2 total fps averaging 85.2 per game (+18% over stock)
cpu 4.5GHZ 2133 ram 472.5 total fps averaging 94.5 per game (+ 30.8% over stock)

going from 1600 to 2133 memory alone is an additional 10-12% overall. That can easily be the difference between playable at your detail level and not. Overclocking the cpu alone does give the biggest individual boost, but doing that and bumping the memory is the sweet spot.

you need to broaden your tunnel. If this works for a 2500k, it's going to be far greater on a more modern chipset.


----------



## droopyRO (Jan 24, 2017)

yogurt_21 said:


> tunnel vision


In BF4 (cause that is the only MP game in that table) 88 vs 98 at stock, 104 vs 110 at 4.5Ghz
In GTA5 you need to overclock to 4.5 with 2133 memory to get above 60 fps. That means a good cooler and a memory upgrade vs changing your GPU. Rest of the games are already >60 fps , so what tunnel vision are you on about Mighty Mouse ?


----------



## yogurt_21 (Jan 24, 2017)

droopyRO said:


> In BF4 (cause that is the only MP game in that table) 88 vs 98 at stock, 104 vs 110 at 4.5Ghz
> In GTA5 you need to overclock to 4.5 with 2133 memory to get above 60 fps. That means a good cooler and a memory upgrade vs changing your GPU. Rest of the games are already >60 fps , so what tunnel vision are you on about Mighty Mouse ?


ah the tunnel.

so of the many popular games including several games of the year, only bf4 counts because "multiplayer" 

ok there punkin.


----------



## droopyRO (Jan 24, 2017)

Of course, you are telling me that you missed a headshot in GTA 5 because you got 50 fps with 1600 Mhz memory ? oh the horror, lets throw money and upgrade to 2133Mhz on an old platform so that you get a constant and solid 60 fps. Or should we talk about nekkers getting you in Witcher 3 because well you had only 60 fps, what about aliens in Crysis 3, do a 360 no scope with 95 fps, impossibiru! lets upgrade to 2133Mhz so that you get 98 fps.
Is that a light a see at the end of the tunnel ??? or money wasted on an old platform ?


----------



## FYFI13 (Jan 24, 2017)

R-T-B said:


> From a latency to Mhz perspective, high end DDR4 is finally starting to beat high-end DDR3 so no, not really true anymore.
> 
> That said no game is going to care.


Except Arma 2/3 *cough cough*. In this game fast RAM matters just as much as fast CPU. There's a nice thread about it on BIS forums.


----------



## yogurt_21 (Jan 24, 2017)

droopyRO said:


> Of course, you are telling me that you missed a headshot in GTA 5 because you got 50 fps with 1600 Mhz memory ? oh the horror, lets throw money and upgrade to 2133Mhz on an old platform so that you get a constant and solid 60 fps. Or should we talk about nekkers getting you in Witcher 3 because well you had only 60 fps, what about aliens in Crysis 3, do a 360 no scope with 95 fps, impossibiru! lets upgrade to 2133Mhz so that you get 98 fps.
> Is that a light a see at the end of the tunnel ??? or money wasted on an old platform ?


soo now it's not that it doesn't provide the performance...it's that extra performance for a few more dollars is bad? 


say you have 2x4GB and want to go to 16GB without mixing sets.

16GB (2x 8GB) ddr3 1600 kit? 90$
16GB (2x 8GB) ddr3 2133 kit? 95$
16GB (2x 8GB) ddr3 2400 kit? 99$

damn that 5-10$ is KILLER. 

Shoot even if you weren't upgrading your ram's capacity you're talking less than 100$ to add 10-12% more performance overall in gaming. 

how many people went from a 970 to a 980 to get 10% more performance in games? You can guarantee they spend more than 100$ even after selling the 970.


----------



## Octopuss (Jan 25, 2017)

The more I think about it the more I want to just find a better motherboard and stick with my 3770K running at 4,5GHz (with just a 0,020V increase) for another two years.
The only reason I have an upgrade itch is this damn Gigabyte board I learned to hate (Z77X-UD3H).


----------



## Mussels (Jan 25, 2017)

Octopuss said:


> The more I think about it the more I want to just find a better motherboard and stick with my 3770K running at 4,5GHz (with just a 0,020V increase) for another two years.
> The only reason I have an upgrade itch is this damn Gigabyte board I learned to hate (Z77X-UD3H).



i just lucked onto a dirt cheap i5 6400, and even OC'd to 3.1Ghz (best it can do) its behind my i5 2500k and 3770k in every benchmark.

even my wifes regular 2400 competes neck and neck for performance (6400 does it at under half the wattage which is nice, but still)


----------



## droopyRO (Jan 26, 2017)

yogurt_21 said:


> damn that 5-10$ is KILLER.


Let me make this clearer, cause that "tunnel vision" 


droopyRO said:


> If you are building a new rig go for >2000 Mhz RAM speed but if you have an old platform with 3770k like i have don`t bother.


I faced that dillema myself, decided to add a 2x2GB 1333 kit i had laying around and run my 2x4 2133 kit at 1333 and have 12 GB of RAM rather than sell them add 40-50$ to get a 16GB kit and get 0-12% performance.
If you have money to spend go ahead and upgrade your platform to one with DDR4.


----------



## yogurt_21 (Jan 26, 2017)

^ mmkay there punkin.


----------



## peche (Jan 26, 2017)

yogurt_21 said:


> how many people went from a 970 to a 980 to get 10% more performance in games? You can guarantee they spend more than 100$ even after selling the 970.


most of my friends that had 970 and upgraded to 980 or 980ti are 100% happy with the upgrade, i have upgraded from a 680 to a 980, upgrade has been ultra notable, and reselling the card its subject to regions, not all the places have a market or active market that will allow to sell the card at great price!

Regards,


----------



## phanbuey (Jan 26, 2017)

droopyRO said:


> Let me make this clearer, cause that "tunnel vision"
> 
> I faced that dillema myself, decided to add a 2x2GB 1333 kit i had laying around and run my 2x4 2133 kit at 1333 and have 12 GB of RAM rather than sell them add 40-50$ to get a 16GB kit and get 0-12% performance.
> If you have money to spend go ahead and upgrade your platform to one with DDR4.




12% performance is quite a bit, most people will spend way more than $50 to get it...  also I would never put mixed kits together like that, esp with lower performing ram - they have different sub-timings and will generally increase your latency and slightly decrease your performance.


----------



## yogurt_21 (Jan 26, 2017)

should also note that the 10-12% was based on going from 1600 to 2133. 

if he's coming from 1333 to 2133 the performance difference will be greater. Just as it would be going from 1600 to 2400. 

again there is a 3100MHZ ddr3 kit, but for the price you could buy a GTX 1080...


----------



## twicksisted (Jan 26, 2017)

I recently bought a gtx 1080 and it works perfectly with my i7 2600k... I have oc'd to 4ghz though.


----------



## peche (Jan 26, 2017)

yogurt_21 said:


> again there is a 3100MHZ ddr3 kit, but for the price you could buy a GTX 1080...


no point getting expensive DDR3 at this moment... its better to improve cooling, case, storage or other hardware.

Regards,


----------



## droopyRO (Jan 26, 2017)

yogurt_21 said:


> ^ mmkay there punkin.


AZ is Arizona right ? i will come to visit by way of Mexico if you call me "pumpkin" one more time, ain't no wall high enough to stop me.
Here i wasted 40 minutes benchmarking the only games i have installed DiRT Rally, TW Warhammer and DE: Mankind Divided, i also have DoW2: Chaos Rising but a 2010 game is not relevant. CPU is at 4.1Ghz RAM was at 1333 or 2133 no tweaking, also no OC on the GPU.

 

 

Except DiRT Rally where we can see a jump from 80 to 90 fps in the minimum FPS the other two games gain nothing.
Tests were run at 2560x1440, maybe at 1920x1080 things are different.
Will post the entire videos if you people want as soon as i upload them to YT.


----------



## NinkobEi (Jan 27, 2017)

droopyRO said:


> AZ is Arizona right ? i will come to visit by way of Mexico if you call me "pumpkin" one more time, ain't no wall high enough to stop me.
> Here i wasted 40 minutes benchmarking the only games i have installed DiRT Rally, TW Warhammer and DE: Mankind Divided, i also have DoW2: Chaos Rising but a 2010 game is not relevant. CPU is at 4.1Ghz RAM was at 1333 or 2133 no tweaking, also no OC on the GPU.
> View attachment 83463 View attachment 83464
> View attachment 83465View attachment 83466
> ...



timings are going to be a little important as well as the amount of ram - 8gb is the new 4gb. In this specific situation, unless running a 144hz monitor I would say that you are right and ram will not make a difference. but the performance gain is greater than 0, so faster ram does affect gaming FPS -its probably more of a matter of specific games gaining more than others. 

we're all here to improve our FPSes so any extra frames is cool and good and we should all want that.


----------



## Mussels (Jan 27, 2017)

the higher you OC the CPU, the more benefit from the faster ram.

stock - 1333
4ghz - 1600
4+ 1866
4.5+ 2000+

1080p 60hz isnt too demanding by todays standards, the FPS change will be much larger at higher res and refresh. not sure why people are still arguing over this, as several of us with these chips and high speed ram have already chipped in with results.


----------



## Octopuss (Jan 27, 2017)

I don't even care about performance, but I still sometimes get overclocking itch (back from times where it actually mattered over 10 years ago ), so over time I oc'ed my 1866MHz memory to 2200. Everything still works and my virtual dick finally got to a metre in leght.


----------



## droopyRO (Jan 27, 2017)




----------



## yogurt_21 (Jan 27, 2017)

droopyRO said:


> AZ is Arizona right ? i will come to visit by way of Mexico if you call me "pumpkin" one more time, ain't no wall high enough to stop me.
> Here i wasted 40 minutes benchmarking the only games i have installed DiRT Rally, TW Warhammer and DE: Mankind Divided, i also have DoW2: Chaos Rising but a 2010 game is not relevant. CPU is at 4.1Ghz RAM was at 1333 or 2133 no tweaking, also no OC on the GPU.
> View attachment 83463 View attachment 83464
> View attachment 83465View attachment 83466
> ...


all the way from romania? that is one long trip there punkin. All because you refuse to accept the professional results and are somehow hoping your individual ones will trump what most of us have known for years. 

If you took a gander at reviews on the net you'd see there is no point in your endeavor. 

this is a place where we want as much performance out of our hardware as we can get. 

your intent seems quite different from that. 

might I suggest you switch to console gaming and leave us alone?


----------



## droopyRO (Jan 27, 2017)

It's spelled with a capital R, but yes. So i should believe what some "professional" results tell me, over what i tested on my setup ??? bwuhahaha it's like driving a car at 200km/h but the professional journalists say i can only get to 170km/h so i should belive them and buy another car that can reach 200km/h.

PS: if it is your forum you can ban me, if not it is not your decision to stop me from posting, use the ignore function like i just did.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Jan 27, 2017)

Please guys, if everyone keeps using the ignore button (and there are a couple not here who have half the members ignored), pretty soon we won't have a forum.  Nothing we do on here is the end of the world or worth these hard feelings.


----------



## hat (Jan 27, 2017)

Right, I never ignore anybody. Even if somebody is being an asshat, I might miss out on something useful they say in the future. I've never seen anybody here who would deserve to be on my ignore list.


----------



## Papahyooie (Jan 27, 2017)

When I upgraded my gtx 770 to a 980 ti, I put the 770 in my living room PC which still has a Q6600 and DDR2 ram. It does maybe 5fps less than the main rig did (with an i5 4690.)

Don't bother. CPU doesn't matter nearly as much as people think, for gaming.


----------



## NinkobEi (Jan 27, 2017)

droopyRO said:


> It's spelled with a capital R, but yes. So i should believe what some "professional" results tell me, over what i tested on my setup ??? bwuhahaha it's like driving a car at 200km/h but the professional journalists say i can only get to 170km/h so i should belive them and buy another car that can reach 200km/h.



your own results showed an increase in FPS. I think at this point you are willfully ignoring your own evidence


----------



## yogurt_21 (Jan 27, 2017)

I have 5 on there..tbh I don't remember why but I'm naturally a bridge burner and that's where they'll stay. 


for this guy I don't need to since he put me on ignore. So I'm cool with that.


----------



## Tatty_One (Jan 27, 2017)

I see the reply ban(s) will be coming to a thread near you pretty soon if this baiting continues.


----------



## Slizzo (Jan 27, 2017)

eidairaman1 said:


> Grab the latest motherboard bios before plugging a new gpu in.



Late reply, but totally unnecessary. My old setup was an ASUS P8Z68-V with an i5 2500K. I was running a GTX 780 on it (well, two of them, then one) and swapped it out with a GTX 1080. No issues, everything worked as it should.


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 28, 2017)

Slizzo said:


> Late reply, but totally unnecessary. My old setup was an ASUS P8Z68-V with an i5 2500K. I was running a GTX 780 on it (well, two of them, then one) and swapped it out with a GTX 1080. No issues, everything worked as it should.


Some Boards Need this, actually. Perhaps yours was already in the latest bios, or maybe it just didn't need jt. But again, some of these old platforms need to be on the latest bios to support the latest cards for whatever reason. I've seen it a dozen times at OCF.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jan 28, 2017)

Slizzo said:


> Late reply, but totally unnecessary. My old setup was an ASUS P8Z68-V with an i5 2500K. I was running a GTX 780 on it (well, two of them, then one) and swapped it out with a GTX 1080. No issues, everything worked as it should.



Ive seen those with 900 series needing it. Same for 1000 series


----------



## Kursah (Jan 28, 2017)

Papahyooie said:


> When I upgraded my gtx 770 to a 980 ti, I put the 770 in my living room PC which still has a Q6600 and DDR2 ram. It does maybe 5fps less than the main rig did (with an i5 4690.)
> 
> Don't bother. CPU doesn't matter nearly as much as people think, for gaming.



That's too general of a blanket statement to be true in my experience. 

Sure it might do that well in the games YOU play, at the settings and resolution YOU play at...but what if there's a difference in the games I play and settings I play at? That could have quite an effect on performance and variations between said performance on differing systems. Really it depends on several factors...there's games I play that make my 4790K OC'd @ 4.8GHz work pretty hard... I'd imagine that the Q6600/GTX 770 combo wouldn't fare will in those titles that do rely heavily on the CPU. Nor would it maintain the same performance level because it's just not capable of it in some aspects...sure in others where the CPU isn't as necessary to be higher performing, those old Q6600's are probably okay... 

I still remember the G0 SLACR days and the ones I got to work with and OC...the golden era of OC for me. Last time I compared a Q9650 DDR2 system to my rig in gaming, there was a noticeable difference in quite a few things beyond just FPS where the newer system, it's higher efficiency, speed, bandwidth and overall performance made the gameplay smoother and snappier overall, less hitching, less loading, less bogging down...even if FPS stay close...that doesn't mean the gaming experience will be the same. Good enough for some? Sure. But that's about it really. Going between closer CPU generations than that, sure I have seen a smaller difference but depending on builds, available performance from OC's and bandwidth still make a difference. It just depends on if that difference matters to the gamer or not and if they're willing to pay for that difference.


----------



## Papahyooie (Jan 30, 2017)

Kursah said:


> That's too general of a blanket statement to be true in my experience.
> 
> Sure it might do that well in the games YOU play, at the settings and resolution YOU play at...but what if there's a difference in the games I play and settings I play at? That could have quite an effect on performance and variations between said performance on differing systems. Really it depends on several factors...there's games I play that make my 4790K OC'd @ 4.8GHz work pretty hard... I'd imagine that the Q6600/GTX 770 combo wouldn't fare will in those titles that do rely heavily on the CPU. Nor would it maintain the same performance level because it's just not capable of it in some aspects...sure in others where the CPU isn't as necessary to be higher performing, those old Q6600's are probably okay...
> 
> I still remember the G0 SLACR days and the ones I got to work with and OC...the golden era of OC for me. Last time I compared a Q9650 DDR2 system to my rig in gaming, there was a noticeable difference in quite a few things beyond just FPS where the newer system, it's higher efficiency, speed, bandwidth and overall performance made the gameplay smoother and snappier overall, less hitching, less loading, less bogging down...even if FPS stay close...that doesn't mean the gaming experience will be the same. Good enough for some? Sure. But that's about it really. Going between closer CPU generations than that, sure I have seen a smaller difference but depending on builds, available performance from OC's and bandwidth still make a difference. It just depends on if that difference matters to the gamer or not and if they're willing to pay for that difference.



Absolutely, and I understand all of that. I'm not saying CPU is irrelevant. I'm simply saying that if such a HUGE difference in CPU speed and power makes such little difference for me, then the tiny difference between the OP's choices won't likely make a huge impact. If he had a Q6600 and were asking if he should upgrade to a 7700k, then the answer would be a resounding yes. I'm just using that as an example to say that such a tiny increase in CPU power is unlikely to make enough difference to be worth it, and money is going to be much better spent elsewhere. Even in largely CPU-bound titles, it isn't likely to make much of a difference.


----------



## Slizzo (Jan 30, 2017)

Overall platform will make more difference than just the CPU. I was running a first gen Z68 board prior to my current setup, so that meant USB 3.0 only, and PCI-E gen 2. I sort of needed an upgrade more for that fact than anything else.

So I went nuts and paid into an X99 platform.


----------



## ArfaMo100 (Jun 13, 2017)

Hi guys, noob on here but long time builder of games' rigs (like over 20 years )

I have 7700K (oc 4.8 GHz on water) on ASRock Z270 Pro Gaming and have kept my old 3770K (oc 4.0 GHz on air) on ASRock Z77 OC Formula - a spare rig for the time being.  Using MSI 1070 Gaming X in both for the time being (planning SLi in the Z270 later probably).

Both CPUs overclocked, but to a similar proportional increase, just over 14%.

So temporarily a very good opportunity for pretty direct "look and feel" comparison with same vid card in both rigs. Both PCs have Win 7 64bit as primary OS.

Saw this thread a while back when considering the upgrade.  Good comments, felt I owed you guys some input.

No specific benches yet, honestly I prefer the feel of real world rather than synthetic benches which mean captain zero to me.  The delta in games which need high grunt is surprisingly very significant, far more than I expected - I certainly agree with your comments that CPU upgrade may not make so much difference, given the extreme video grunt now available so I did not expect the extent of the results below.

e.g. Warhammer Total War - probably the most demanding game I'm playing lately.  Needs a lot of grunt at times in certain battle modes.

- 3770K - 2560x1600 is the best I can do for very smooth gaming with zero visible lag or stutter - most in-game settings at ultra, but anisotropic and AA filtering only around 30% of max - 4x for both (I played with all the settings for quite a while to optimise)

- 7700K - 3620x2263, all settings at ultra and anisotropic and AA on max (8x & 16x) is as smooth as the lower res on the 3770K rig - I just went straight to my max and it smokes

I would call that a very significant increase.  Surprised me for sure, but def no complaints here 

Again no benches, but very large files (>10GB), winrar & 7zip (on both compress & decompress) video encoding and chopping or joining large video files etc. - again, very obvious and significant speed improvement, guessing around 15% reduction, possibly even as much as 20% in those areas.  I am using both rigs for similar work at present, so the comparison is very obvious to me.

The very obvious reduction in vid and compression work was the most surprising to me.  I would have expected that with a 6850K maybe, but not the 7700K, but I see and believe.

Cheers guys


----------



## Toothless (Jun 13, 2017)

ArfaMo100 said:


> Hi guys, noob here but I have 7700K (oc 4.8 GHz) on ASRock Z270 Pro Gaming and have kept my old 3770K (oc 4.0 GHz) on ASRock Z77 OC Formula as a spare rig for the time being.  Using MSI 1070 Gaming X in both for now (planning SLi in the Z270 later).
> 
> Both overclocked, yes, but to a similar percent increase in GHz on both, just over 14%.
> 
> ...


Invalid test since both aren't clocked the same. The only actual test between Intel chips is to test for IPC differences.


----------



## ArfaMo100 (Jun 13, 2017)

Yep, expected that comment, will not bother clock them both down to stock, just trying to give some feedback, not into muscle flexing, but I think near enough for a good comparison, like I said, 14% oc on both, near enough for an idea, and the increase is far from marginal.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jun 13, 2017)

Bump the cpu up on the 3770


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 13, 2017)

ArfaMo100 said:


> Yep, expected that comment, will not bother clock them both down to stock, just trying to give some feedback, not into muscle flexing, but I think near enough for a good comparison, like I said, 14% oc on both, near enough for an idea, and the increase is far from marginal.


apples and oranges through...its good enough for an idea, but so is a hand grenade vs an rpg... 

The only way to tell the difference is the same exact clocks really. Otherwose its just your personal gain on the clocks youve set (on a 7 month old thread.. ).


----------



## rtwjunkie (Jun 13, 2017)

ArfaMo100 said:


> Yep, expected that comment, will not bother clock them both down to stock, just trying to give some feedback, not into muscle flexing, but I think near enough for a good comparison, like I said, 14% oc on both, near enough for an idea, and the increase is far from marginal.


Don't need to be down to stock, but you've almost got a GHz difference in speed there.  The 3770k will do more than 4.0 easily, and if you put in on water too it would be very likely to be well north of 4.5.  Mine is on a daily 4.2 with fairly low voltage.

I think you would find that both clocked high, but at the same speed, you would find only some real world gaming differences. Nothing as extreme as your results.


----------



## Mussels (Jun 14, 2017)

my question would be RAM speed, as i get the impression faster system RAM is what helps out at the higher resolutions


----------



## ArfaMo100 (Jun 14, 2017)

Thanks guys, I'm holding back big time, but my point was this:

IMHO a sensible comparison because both are a "easy" overclock that can be achieved by most, not just rocket heads.  Been running the 3770K at 4.0 on air for over 3 years, no heat problems and I am in Aust - summer is VERY hot here, 43- 45 C is not uncommon, so anything above the 4.0 is asking for trouble.

Also easy to take the 7700K to 4.8 is def enough for me, I fry my eggs in a pan, not on a CPU.  I don't believe in running CPUs long term at unnecessarily high OC, particularly here in Oz.

So, my comparison is the 2 CPUs, with a sensible (IMHO) and easy overclock on both, which happened to result in a very substantial (and surprising) difference for me as it turned out.

And yes, an old thread, but giving back having used the advice here.

I am 70 years old, and for what it's worth, moderated and held many records on overclocking sites over the years when I was seriously overclocking tiny AMD XP CPUs in the early 90s.  CPU surface areas were minute, water was unheard of, there was only liq nitro, dry ice and air, and the best available fans sounded like Boeing 747s!  

ofc records are only ever good for a week or two, lol, there's always someone faster, and those days are long over for me.  You guys would not believe how easy you have it now by comparison.

Really can't believe how fast the "swoopers" are here, especially on an old thread as you rightly said.  In the old days, it was a black art, and great fun - we had a ball and we actually helped each other, a lot.  

Honestly, thanks guys, but please save the "I know more than you", it is irrelevant, and please just take it or leave it, just trying to contribute a little with my 2 cents worth.  Very hard to find a forum where muscles are not flexed these days.  I thought this maybe one (help and fun), but seems I was wrong.  Over and out on this one for me now.  Have fun guys.

Cheers


----------



## ArfaMo100 (Jun 14, 2017)

Kursah said:


> That's too general of a blanket statement to be true in my experience.
> 
> Sure it might do that well in the games YOU play, at the settings and resolution YOU play at...but what if there's a difference in the games I play and settings I play at? That could have quite an effect on performance and variations between said performance on differing systems. Really it depends on several factors...there's games I play that make my 4790K OC'd @ 4.8GHz work pretty hard... I'd imagine that the Q6600/GTX 770 combo wouldn't fare will in those titles that do rely heavily on the CPU. Nor would it maintain the same performance level because it's just not capable of it in some aspects...sure in others where the CPU isn't as necessary to be higher performing, those old Q6600's are probably okay...
> 
> I still remember the G0 SLACR days and the ones I got to work with and OC...the golden era of OC for me. Last time I compared a Q9650 DDR2 system to my rig in gaming, there was a noticeable difference in quite a few things beyond just FPS where the newer system, it's higher efficiency, speed, bandwidth and overall performance made the gameplay smoother and snappier overall, less hitching, less loading, less bogging down...even if FPS stay close...that doesn't mean the gaming experience will be the same. Good enough for some? Sure. But that's about it really. Going between closer CPU generations than that, sure I have seen a smaller difference but depending on builds, available performance from OC's and bandwidth still make a difference. It just depends on if that difference matters to the gamer or not and if they're willing to pay for that difference.


Great advice - thanks


----------



## EarthDog (Jun 14, 2017)

I dont think there was muscle flexing here... just sharing knowledge and thoughts on why that .02 is relevant or not and helpful tips.


----------



## AsRock (Jun 14, 2017)

rtwjunkie said:


> Don't need to be down to stock, but you've almost got a GHz difference in speed there.  The 3770k will do more than 4.0 easily, and if you put in on water too it would be very likely to be well north of 4.5.  Mine is on a daily 4.2 with fairly low voltage.
> 
> I think you would find that both clocked high, but at the same speed, you would find only some real world gaming differences. Nothing as extreme as your results.



Like to add the 3770 is about $80 cheaper too.


----------

