• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Intel Skylake / Kaby Lake

Page 522 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

JoeRambo

Golden Member
Jun 13, 2013
1,119
979
136

tamz_msc

Platinum Member
Jan 5, 2017
2,839
2,591
136
You must be blind if you don't see the 7800x beating the entire Ryzen lineup in multithreaded apps in that review. And the same review from this website.
I don't know what review you read but in the AnandTech review the only fully threaded benchmarks where the 7800X beats the Ryzen 7 lineup are Luxmark, PovRay, encoding and compilation.

You link a website's review starting with the gaming section, but don't mention if one is supposed to look at the gaming results or the entire thing.

Anyway, the last time I checked, this isn't the Ryzen thread.

We rejected this kind of argument when Ryzen launched and now you bring it back when it fits the narrative? That's low.
What was the argument? 4 core high clocked CPU beating a 6+ core low clocked CPU in games, or 6+ core CPU with extremely poor L3 losing out to a well-rounded 4 core CPU with strong L3?

I can't help if you failed to grasp my point, but it was the latter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drazick

coercitiv

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2014
4,372
5,725
136
What was the argument? 4 core high clocked CPU beating a 6+ core low clocked CPU in games, or 6+ core CPU with extremely poor L3 losing out to a well-rounded 4 core CPU with strong L3?

I can't help if you failed to grasp my point, but it was the latter.
The 7600K beating 7700K in those benchmarks does not ring a bell to you? I did not fail to grasp your point, you failed to grasp the meaning of the benchmarks.

But don't let me stop you, keep explaining to these fine folks how the 7600K is a better CPU than 7700K.
 

tamz_msc

Platinum Member
Jan 5, 2017
2,839
2,591
136
The 7600K beating 7700K in those benchmarks does not ring a bell to you? I did not fail to grasp your point, you failed to grasp the meaning of the benchmarks.

But don't let me stop you, keep explaining to these fine folks how the 7600K is a better CPU than 7700K.
One-off case where HT makes a difference perhaps, hard to tell because there are no other data points in that graph.

Please explain why the 6800K is nearly 13% faster than the 7800X, or why Broadwell-E shows positive scaling with # of cores, while Skylake-X doesn't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drazick

Zucker2k

Golden Member
Feb 15, 2006
1,399
745
136
Why would you say something like that?? You can get a perfectly decent mobo under $90 for any Ryzen CPU, and an 1600 or X for MUCH MUCH less for a performance difference you would never notice in gaming, and still a lot of MT horsepower. Heck, you can get a 6 core Ryzen and a mobo for less then the price of just the 7800X, talk about obsolete... Such cocky kids these days.

PS: let me know the price of the cheapest mobo you can pair a 7800X and is comparable to its AM4 counterpart. Obsolete...

Sent from my VTR-L09 using Tapatalk
Easy there, grandpa! We don't want you getting a heart attack over a forum discussion of hardware, do we now? :D

Basically, what I was driving at is this: A six core Intel cpu costing $389 is holding the entire Ryzen line-up in check. This is a chip with noticeable weaknesses, ie. gaming, and yet it trounces everything AMD. Now, imagine what'll happen in September when the 7700k is shrinked and gains two additional cores and an even larger L3 cache! So, yes, with all AMD's Ryzen chips losing to Intel's hexacore in the vast majority of benchmarks, only three months after release, the picture on the wall is clear enough - AMD needs something better than Zen in it's current iteration to remain competitive. This is where the obsolescence comes in. Indeed, we shall be seeing the replacement soon enough.
 

beginner99

Diamond Member
Jun 2, 2009
4,794
1,188
136
A common point of regression ( the GPU driver ) would explain why games aren't scaling as expected even when applications, 3dmark CPU tests, and game sub-tests (like Civ 6 AI) are fine.
Well in Ryzen test we have already seen that Nvidias DX12 driver basically only scales to 4 cores so 4 fast cores with a 1080TI in DX12 will beat any multi core config.

The 7800x renders the entire Ryzen line obsolete. Only the R7 1700 is worth consideration because of price, but you lose significant performance. Looking at those results, AMD better have something to counter coffeelake or things wouldn't look good for them in September.
BS. See above. That review was done with a 1080Ti and BF1 in dx12. Ryzen would actually do better in dx11, in general the game is better in dx11. Then as always with BF1: Single-player benches are essentially useless as the real limit in terms of CPU is multiplayer and here Ryzen beats a 7700k. Even more so if anyone would actually to real-world testing like browser open in background with 10 tabs and streaming.

But yeah if you need ultimate high FPS, then Ryzen is not for you. That is why I'm waiting for Coffelake.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KompuKare
Aug 11, 2008
10,451
641
126
Well in Ryzen test we have already seen that Nvidias DX12 driver basically only scales to 4 cores so 4 fast cores with a 1080TI in DX12 will beat any multi core config.



BS. See above. That review was done with a 1080Ti and BF1 in dx12. Ryzen would actually do better in dx11, in general the game is better in dx11. Then as always with BF1: Single-player benches are essentially useless as the real limit in terms of CPU is multiplayer and here Ryzen beats a 7700k. Even more so if anyone would actually to real-world testing like browser open in background with 10 tabs and streaming.

But yeah if you need ultimate high FPS, then Ryzen is not for you. That is why I'm waiting for Coffelake.
Well my gaming must not be "real world" then, because if I am playing a cpu demanding game, I turn off any background tasks except for maybe one internet tab open for a walkthrough, which uses almost no cpu resources.

Must be a boring game if you need 10 internet tabs open in the background to amuse you while playing. Really, there are 24 hours in the day, maybe 4 of them spent for gaming. So that leaves 20 hours for all the other things that moar cores fans claim one needs to be doing while gaming. The only tasks I see any justification at all for running during cpu demanding gaming are streaming/recording. Even then most recording can be offloaded to the gpu. So that leaves streaming, which serious streamers do with dedicated hardware. Granted if one wants to stream with the cpu while gaming, perhaps more cores are needed. Otherwise, just turn off the background crap if you want the best framerate.
 

UncleCrusty

Junior Member
Jul 25, 2016
22
6
51
Coffee Lake is the same old 14nm and not a shrink. If it's as "refined" as Kaby Lake was, I wouldn't expect miracles here.
Imho, 14nm+ refinement has been better for us PC guys than any recent shrinks. We actually got a nice ~8% frequency bump to maximum attainable ambient overclocks, rather than a regression as with 22nm and 14nm. We shall see if 14nm++ is a smaller improvement due to diminishing returns (interconnect bottle-necking etc), but I currently find myself looking forwards to these process refinements more than node shrinks.
 

teejee

Senior member
Jul 4, 2013
361
199
116
So, yes, with all AMD's Ryzen chips losing to Intel's hexacore in the vast majority of benchmarks, only three months after release, the picture on the wall is clear enough - AMD needs something better than Zen in it's current iteration to remain competitive. This is where the obsolescence comes in. Indeed, we shall be seeing the replacement soon enough.
If needed AMD will just adjust the price in order to sell as many Ryzen they want (within limits of course). Ryzen cost like 50$ to make so there is a large head room for lower prices.

Sent from my LG-D855 using Tapatalk
 

TheF34RChannel

Senior member
May 18, 2017
782
301
106
It's kind of eerily quiet surrounding Coffee Lake for a week or so :/ I could use a good leak.
 
Last edited:

Markfw

CPU Moderator, VC&G Moderator, Elite Member
Super Moderator
May 16, 2002
21,386
9,450
136
Easy there, grandpa! We don't want you getting a heart attack over a forum discussion of hardware, do we now? :D

Basically, what I was driving at is this: A six core Intel cpu costing $389 is holding the entire Ryzen line-up in check. This is a chip with noticeable weaknesses, ie. gaming, and yet it trounces everything AMD. Now, imagine what'll happen in September when the 7700k is shrinked and gains two additional cores and an even larger L3 cache! So, yes, with all AMD's Ryzen chips losing to Intel's hexacore in the vast majority of benchmarks, only three months after release, the picture on the wall is clear enough - AMD needs something better than Zen in it's current iteration to remain competitive. This is where the obsolescence comes in. Indeed, we shall be seeing the replacement soon enough.
Now I didn;t read all the benchmarks, or scan for actual number of wins and losses, but even the 1700 at less money beats the 7800x at times, and the 1700x trades blows in the Anandtech review I just re-read, so I don't know where you get this "and yet it trounces everything AMD".

Edit: and at 50% higher power consumption.......
 

ManyThreads

Member
Mar 6, 2017
99
29
51
Coffee Lake is the same old 14nm and not a shrink. If it's as "refined" as Kaby Lake was, I wouldn't expect miracles here.
Yes I know, I just thought thats what the person meant so I took the liberty of clarifying :) . Coffee Lake will be on 14++ rather than 14+, not shrunk, but I think that's what he meant.
 

Zucker2k

Golden Member
Feb 15, 2006
1,399
745
136
Now I didn;t read all the benchmarks, or scan for actual number of wins and losses, but even the 1700 at less money beats the 7800x at times, and the 1700x trades blows in the Anandtech review I just re-read, so I don't know where you get this "and yet it trounces everything AMD".

Edit: and at 50% higher power consumption.......
The latest benchmarks link contained in the post I quoted. Check it out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Arachnotronic

Markfw

CPU Moderator, VC&G Moderator, Elite Member
Super Moderator
May 16, 2002
21,386
9,450
136
The latest benchmarks link contained in the post I quoted. Check it out.
It wins more, but its a different suite, and a different website, and Ryzen wins quite a few also, even the 1700. I won't bother to count how many, but again, its another reviewer/site, and still does not "eliminate Ryzen from the field".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drazick

Lodix

Senior member
Jun 24, 2016
307
90
101
Yes I know, I just thought thats what the person meant so I took the liberty of clarifying :) . Coffee Lake will be on 14++ rather than 14+, not shrunk, but I think that's what he meant.
This new 14nm++ is less dense than the original 14nm... so the opposite of a shrink indeed.
 

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
17,278
6,279
136
Now I didn;t read all the benchmarks, or scan for actual number of wins and losses, but even the 1700 at less money beats the 7800x at times, and the 1700x trades blows in the Anandtech review I just re-read, so I don't know where you get this "and yet it trounces everything AMD".

Edit: and at 50% higher power consumption.......
Particular to readers of this site, I think we should look at what a 4.0 GHz (or heck, to be fair, 3.8 GHz) R7 1700 can do against a 4.5 GHz 7800X. Because that's where a lot of us will be running those chips. And throw in some older Broadwell-E (6800k) OCed to 4.2-4.3 GHz as well, along with the 7700k @ 5.0 GHz to get a clear picture of what's available.

It's up the end-user to decide what balance of MT and ST computing power they want. The 7800X is definitely "in the mix" if you want what it has on-offer. A gamer might be better-served by the 7700k, while an encoder/streamer might like the 1700 better. The 7800X and 6800k sort of split the difference, at a higher overall platform cost.
 

Markfw

CPU Moderator, VC&G Moderator, Elite Member
Super Moderator
May 16, 2002
21,386
9,450
136
Particular to readers of this site, I think we should look at what a 4.0 GHz (or heck, to be fair, 3.8 GHz) R7 1700 can do against a 4.5 GHz 7800X. Because that's where a lot of us will be running those chips. And throw in some older Broadwell-E (6800k) OCed to 4.2-4.3 GHz as well, along with the 7700k @ 5.0 GHz to get a clear picture of what's available.

It's up the end-user to decide what balance of MT and ST computing power they want. The 7800X is definitely "in the mix" if you want what it has on-offer. A gamer might be better-served by the 7700k, while an encoder/streamer might like the 1700 better. The 7800X and 6800k sort of split the difference, at a higher overall platform cost.
I agree. AMD for the first time in 10 years is "in the mix" for price/performance. Just don't say "They are out of the game or out of consideration".

And undisputed, they have the power advantage this time, and that matters to me. At 50% less power usage. Those of us that have multiple CPU rigs running 24/7 can see the difference the first month in the power bill.
 

krumme

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2009
5,914
1,538
136
The latest benchmarks link contained in the post I quoted. Check it out.
Its not a good review. Lots of meaningless graphs showing single player bf1 dx12 bm. No body on this planet plays bf1 sp. And nobody uses dx12 as it sucks both for core and ryzen for the mins. The world plays mp maps and here the frametimes for a 7700k is very bad vs a 1800x and r7 1800x is as strong as a 6850. Computerbase testing. Check it out.

Its relevant because its a game where you can actually use all the computational power of your cpu.
7800x is slower in gaming. Excactly where it should be strong.

The good thing about the 6800k was that it was a balanced peformer at good efficiency. 7800x looses a lot of that ability due to the new cache design prefactory oc and heavy ressource allocation due to avx512 standing idle. Perf is regressed vs prior gen oc vs oc (gaming). Power and cooling is far worse. Price is the same.
 

krumme

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2009
5,914
1,538
136
Particular to readers of this site, I think we should look at what a 4.0 GHz (or heck, to be fair, 3.8 GHz) R7 1700 can do against a 4.5 GHz 7800X. Because that's where a lot of us will be running those chips. And throw in some older Broadwell-E (6800k) OCed to 4.2-4.3 GHz as well, along with the 7700k @ 5.0 GHz to get a clear picture of what's available.

It's up the end-user to decide what balance of MT and ST computing power they want. The 7800X is definitely "in the mix" if you want what it has on-offer. A gamer might be better-served by the 7700k, while an encoder/streamer might like the 1700 better. The 7800X and 6800k sort of split the difference, at a higher overall platform cost.
Agree. Just add that for skl x if you want to keep noise levels in check or comparable to either r7 or bwe you are in for a massive platform cost addition. It matters for some of us noise sensitive. I dont know if its actually practically possible to keep temps below 70c and at the same time noise in check without delidding. On the plus; 7800x is a cheaper cpu so delidding is a far more viable road here than say a 7900x.

You can also debate how comparable a oc 1700 with b350 is vs a oc 7800x anyway. The total cost including ps and cooling is more than 2 times as high.

In comparison i wouldnt be surpriced if a tr 12c %wise is closer to a 7800x for total cost compared to a 1700 b350. Add power and efficiency. Its kind of very different products even outside of its performance profile even if they both tilt to productivity side vs bwe or kbl.
 
Aug 11, 2008
10,451
641
126
Its not a good review. Lots of meaningless graphs showing single player bf1 dx12 bm. No body on this planet plays bf1 sp. And nobody uses dx12 as it sucks both for core and ryzen for the mins. The world plays mp maps and here the frametimes for a 7700k is very bad vs a 1800x and r7 1800x is as strong as a 6850. Computerbase testing. Check it out.

Its relevant because its a game where you can actually use all the computational power of your cpu.
7800x is slower in gaming. Excactly where it should be strong.

The good thing about the 6800k was that it was a balanced peformer at good efficiency. 7800x looses a lot of that ability due to the new cache design prefactory oc and heavy ressource allocation due to avx512 standing idle. Perf is regressed vs prior gen oc vs oc (gaming). Power and cooling is far worse. Price is the same.
The graphs are hardly "meaningless" because they do not show the one scenario that you must have quoted at least 50 times in one or another various forums. I hate to tell you, but there *are* other games than BF1 multiplayer. Broadwell E, mainstream i7, and even the much maligned Skylake X are *all* faster than any Ryzen cpu in GTA V, Prey, Witcher 3, and ROTTR. (That is actually every game tested, BTW, except for DOOM which gives the same result for essentially every cpu) Even worse for Ryzen, the highest clocked chips have virtually zero overclocking headroom, and still lose every benchmark in the review, while most of the intel chips can still be overclocked.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pcp7 and Sweepr

ASK THE COMMUNITY