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

[EarthDog]

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


Heres a better comparison

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

 

[efikkan]

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

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

 

[N3M3515]

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

This.

 

[L'Eliminateur]

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

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

 

[nem..]

 

[Nihilus]

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

 

[afw]

Still happy with my 2700k

 

[Parn]

Way to go Intel, customer milking at its finest.

Ryzen, where are you??

 

[Vario]

View attachment 82696

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

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

 

[eidairaman1]

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

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

So that picture is a lie

 

[Agentbb007]

Yay I will stick with my 6700k

 

[areamike]

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

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

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

lol

 

[Jetster]

20% better than what?

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

 

[Vario]

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

lol

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

20% better than what?


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

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

 

[Grings]

20% better than what?

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

 

[areamike]

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

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

 

[birdie]

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

I especially liked these two tables:

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

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

 

[Nergal]

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

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

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

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

 

[Jetster]

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

I especially liked these two tables:

View attachment 82750

View attachment 82751

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

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

Thank you, that's what I was looking for

 

[jarablue]

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

 

[Nergal]

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

 

[jarablue]

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

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

 

[Jetster]

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

 

[jarablue]

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

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

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

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

So it was awhile ago. I am old as dirt

 

[EarthDog]

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

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