Intel Skylake / Kaby Lake

[krumme]

The man is not in doubt and straight about it. 1700 is the better buy vs 7700 even for gaming. And the reason is perfectly explained in the video. The 1700 is just much much faster and it will show in the future. Remember the 1800x is at 6900 class perf today. Its not remotely like when bd was launched. Its fast out the gate and will only get faster.

 

[Conroe]

I kind off doubt well see many 5ghz eight core skylake x'es. That will take serious cooling. 4.8 may be common. Over 4.8 seems to be where my 7700k starts to hunger for more voltage. In any case Skylake IPC is much better than Zen, but Zen seems to have matched Skylake SMT. Skylake X will be a powerhouse.

I don't see Zen as much of a threat. It's best for professionals and professionals have better things to do than beta test for AMD. It's not a game.

 

[krumme]

When the next consoles launch in 3 years they will have more perf than a 7700. At that time people with fast 4c8t will have to upgrade.
The total throughput of the oc 7700 is simply to weak for the next gen dx12 games vs a oc 1700.
Unless you have a game where ryzen is an actual bottleneck today its imo far more safe to go 1700 vs 7700. The brutal power is there.

 

[Conroe]

Same old story. When we have a GPU for 4k, Zen will be a bottleneck at 4k.

 

[Sweepr]

Remember the 1800x is at 6900 class perf today. Its not remotely like when bd was launched. Its fast out the gate and will only get faster.

Broadwell-E is 20% per clock than Ryzen in games (both with HT off), as shown by Hardware.fr. More overclocking headroom as well, so no, they're not in the same class. And unless 1700 pulls some magic and outperforms the more expensive 1800X, the fact is, i7-7700K is the fastest gaming chip today according to multiple tests, include the ones I just posted last page. It's been more than 3 years since PS4/X1 launched and the best IPC + clocks combination still beats the extra cores, so saying i7-7700K will age bad (gaming rigs) is FUD.

 

[krumme]

I just gave you evidence to the contrary. Watch the video in its entire lenght and you will agree with him.
You cant dispute and oc 1700 is far more powerfull than an oc 7700 and it will show in the future. Hell it even shows in bf1 today.

 

[Conroe]

There are many Zen threads. Why did you post that video here?

 

[Bouowmx]

I'd just postpone a processor purchase: AMD AM4 platform can use tuning, and Intel Skylake-X and Coffee Lake are coming. Kaby Lake is in a pinch, but if one already has a Kaby Lake processor, it will still perform well.

 

[Sweepr]

Couldn't have picked a worse example, the latest 4C/8T CPUs are doing just fine in Battlefield 1:

Hardware.fr:
- i7-7700K: 162.5 FPS
- 1800X SMT: 127.4 FPS
- 1800X SMT off: 145.4 FPS

PurePC:
- i7-7700K: 143-154 FPS
- 1800X: 119-126 FPS

 

[krumme]

There are many Zen threads. Why did you post that video here?

To compare and explain.
The video is about 7700 and 1700. Its the excact same price bracket.
Its higly relevant comparison. If not the most relevant.

The basic problem is that there still is a myth that says 7700 is better gaming cpu. But its build on wrong premises says the analysis in the video;
Benchmarking on low res says nothing about how a future cpu perform. But number of threads does. The video explains and lays proof of it using data from one of the most trusted sources on this planet.
And his conclusion is Ryzen 1700 is the better buy vs a 7700.

And btw. I post a single video. Sweepr post like 20 ryzen graphs. If you dont like the results or think they are wrong just argue. Fine.
I perfectly understand that glancing over the results it looks like 7700 is faster but you have to dive into the numbers and let go of the conventional way of adressing it.

 

[Conroe]

To compare and explain.
The video is about 7700 and 1700. Its the excact same price bracket.
Its higly relevant comparison. If not the most relevant.

The basic problem is that there still is a myth that says 7700 is better gaming cpu. But its build on wrong premises says the analysis in the video;
Benchmarking on low res says nothing about how a future cpu perform. But number of threads does. The video explains and lays proof of it using data from one of the most trusted sources on this planet.
And his conclusion is Ryzen 1700 is the better buy vs a 7700.

And btw. I post a single video. Sweepr post like 20 ryzen graphs. If you dont like the results or think they are wrong just argue. Fine.
I perfectly understand that glancing over the results it looks like 7700 is faster but you have to dive into the numbers and let go of the conventional way of adressing it.

It's not a myth.

 

[krumme]

[graphs showing nothing that resembles hard bf1 mp64 load]

The interesting stuff is not single player or conquest 64 as thats all super for all cpu from i5 and up. But mp 64 in game modes like operations. Here in some sectors at map scar and amien as the worst, in some situations, you can perfectly fine wreck a skl i7.
https://forums.anandtech.com/index.php?posts/38779132
The easy solution is obviously to play another map and mode or even ignore the few dips but if you dont want too its a problem. Btw there is many playing scar and amiens in operation mode. Its simply a nice progress and you get to know the players a bit during the 1-1.5 hrs it take for around.

 

[krumme]

It's not a myth.

What do you think is wrong with the analysis in the video then?

 

[Conroe]

I'm not giving it view. Wrong thread for that BS.

 

[Sweepr]

ComputerBase Battlefield 1 - Multiplayer (DX12)

i7-7700K 36-41% faster + better frametimes.

 

[PPB]

Lol, all those bf1 benches are single player. I havent even touched sibgle player as bf is known for multiplayer

Dx12 on bf1? Someone is sure not playing that game if suggest that dx12 is giving a good experience. Its just borked, more so if you use nv gpus. Try again.
Sent from my XT1040 using Tapatalk

 

[krumme]

Read what i and others that play bf1 write. Tons of meaningless graphs doesnt change it.
And btw. Who in their sane minds use dx12. Its buggy and give dips like crazy. If you want good perf thats not the way to go. Very disappointing dx12 implementation.

 

[Sweepr]

Here's another multiplayer test, from SweClockers:

The best performing Intel Core i7-7700K, which manages to keep the smoothest frame rate of the combatants.

Tons of meaningless graphs doesnt change it.

You used this title as 'proof' that i7-7700K wouldn't age well, looks like it backfired fast.

4C/8T Kaby Lake performs just fine in MP, in both DX11 and DX12 mode.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Couldn't have picked a worse example, the latest 4C/8T CPUs are doing just fine in Battlefield 1:

Hardware.fr:
- i7-7700K: 162.5 FPS
- 1800X SMT: 127.4 FPS
- 1800X SMT off: 145.4 FPS

PurePC:
- i7-7700K: 143-154 FPS
- 1800X: 119-126 FPS

Yea, I knew it was coming. If AMD can't win proven benchmarks today, then comes the inevitable, unproven assertations that it will be faster sometime in the future.

 

[krumme]

The basic problem is those wrecking situations is not something you can just replicate and make a solid benchmark.
Tons of the same graps and methology dont change that.
What i just know is that we are a bunch of bf1 operations players on scar and amiens that is obsessed with tons of cpu power now. Lol. Needless to say we take a 6900/1800/1700 over a 7700 each day of the week for our gaming need.

 

[raghu78]

sweepr you are selectively showing the computerbase DX12 BF1 multiplayer result for R7 1800x while missing out the fact that DX11 BF1 multiplayer is much faster on R7 1800X and basically ties 7700k DX12 BF1 multiplayer (which is slightly better than 7700k DX11 result) . computerbase.de shows 7700k is faster by 4% at 1080p on avg.

https://www.computerbase.de/2017-03.../#diagramm-battlefield-1-dx11-multiplayer-fps

Thats nothing when you consider the fact that 1800x murders 7700k in any content creation application or any application which can utilize the 16 threads. So for any consumer who does gaming + content creation Ryzen 7 is a better CPU. For pure gamer in today's games the 7700k is better. That too is because the majority of games today are not well multithreaded. But when you have a game which is well multithreaded like WatchDogs 2 the 1800x is faster. So if you are a gamer who buys hardware very often then maybe 7700k is better. But if you want to keep your PC around for 3+ years the Ryzen 7 is definitely the better option. We are going to see next gen consoles built on 7nm by 2020 and we are likely to see a next gen PS or Xbox come with 8C/16T. Anyway none of this matters to you as you are always going to support an Intel / Nvidia product.

 

[krumme]

4C/8T Kaby Lake performs just fine in MP, in both DX11 and DX12 mode.

Yeaa. Especially at dx12. The avg framerate is through the roof.
J/k

 

[Conroe]

AMD caught up to Intel in everything but gamming in the over $330 market. Maybe be it should have it's own thread. Sky lake -X should have it's own too.

 

[PPB]

Yea, I knew it was coming. If AMD can't win proven benchmarks today, then comes the inevitable, unproven assertations that it will be faster sometime in the future.

No, if you care to read whats written, sp is meaningless to actual multiplayer gameplay. The real important thing for mp is that you dont go below you X threshhold of minimum fps. Ryzen seems to do good im that department.

I know for sure maximums and averages mean squat, as i play bf1 mp 64p and i cap max fps as they are just wasted power if my refresh rate isnt as high, the issue comes when you are swarmed of guys in an already fallen down amiens to pieces and the framerate starts ti falter Beyond my max refresheate. this is how you user your cpu in mp.

Also, Gamernexus said AMD lied with theur gaming demos showing more sky on the ryzen testbed. How can i know that reviewers dont do that if they arent showing me the exact gameplay as digitalfoundry tries to do? This is why joker's video hold at least some value to predict perfornance

Sent from my XT1040 using Tapatalk

 

[Sweepr]

i7-7700K leads Watch Dogs 2 in multiple websites:

Spoiler

Minor win for 1800X in BF1 (DX11 MP) @ ComputerBase. Slower than i7-7700K @ SweClockers as shown above. So best case scenario Kaby Lake can pull out significantly better performance, worst case the fastest Ryzen is either on par or a bit faster (gaming). They were lucky Intel didn't have Coffee Lake ready this year.