In games, yes. In nearly everything else, not so much.
Well... define "everything" else that goes well with a 10 core HEDT part and fails miserably on the 6 core mainstream part... There is a reason Intel is revamping its HEDT and frantically rebrands high core count parts. Its because HEDT is rapidly losing its USPs. The only real one it has is quad channel and if you managed to pick the right board and CPU, some storage and PCIE, at a tremendous premium.
The reality is, HEDT is a niche and with the increased core counts across the board and from competition, it has become largely obsolete even for much of the old niche. As much as quad channel can improve min fps for example, the advantage is lost or heavily diminished due to lower allcore clocks, a principle that goes for many other workloads as well. There really aren't that many workloads that saturate RAM to that degree, most of those are found in the server space, well beyond our reach and pockets.
If all I care about is gaming, do I even need avx or can I just raise the multiplier to 50x but leave avx at stock 43 ? I'd like to see that tested. Can't do it myself since I don't have a CL cpu, but it'd be interesting to see this:
run a CPU demanding game (I suggest watchdogs 2 or ac origins, they stress cpu like crazy), make sure you're using 1080p low/medium to rule out gpu bottleneck. Run what you normally run, like 50x with -1/2 avx offset, and then run 50x with -7 avx offset. See how they compare.
Your CPU will be running at 43x most of the time, end of story. The AVX offsets are broken really and anyone overclocking 'with' that, is just deluding themselves.
Yes, tried and tested in a wide variety of games such as Guild Wars 2 (DX9 and definitely no AVX), TW:Warhammer, Overwatch, etc etc etc
Comparisons aren't that interesting either, clocks tend to translate directly to higher FPS as long as there are no other (RAM, GPU, engine, net) bottlenecks in play. And with the games you suggest there are MANY such bottlenecks that aren't related to CPU clocks; as you showed very well with your AC:Origins purePC benches that scale heavily off RAM speeds
Anyone running 7800X here?, I did a search nothing came up.
Curious about this over R5 2600X for future build.
The prospect of running quad channel memory makes logical sense the more cores & threads we go up in. Pity software development is still lagging at least with games I like.
TR4 platform attractive but 180w TDP by default a little too high for my liking.
Don't fool yourself with the idea that games are made for top end hardware. Games are made for the common denominator in hardware, which means right now the console level of hardware: 6-8 cores supported by relatively fast RAM is the optimal choice even in terms of 'future' proofing. Going higher in core counts provides zero benefit and I can tell you right now that going beyond 8 cores won't be feasible for gaming for a loooong time. The investment should go towards faster RAM and
optimal core counts at the highest possible clocks.
And then there is optimization. If you choose to buy into a niche for a specific use case, which a TR/HEDT part for gaming very much is, you choose subpar optimization by default. Again: common denominators rule the game, because they represent the largest volume of sales.
