Intel Skylake / Kaby Lake

[Conroe]

They were lucky Intel didn't have Coffee Lake ready this year.

No not lucky, they just pushed it out the door before it was ready because any longer was too late.

 

[frozentundra123456]

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.

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.

The preponderance of gaming results shows 7700k overall the winner. With the very competitive performance of Ryzen in every other area, I dont really know why the usual suspects have their shorts in a bunch trying to prove it is the absolute best at everything. Not to mention, there are nine Ryzen threads already. Not really necessary to threadcrap an intel thread as well.

 

[Conroe]

The people I trust the least are on youtube. They are just after views. All are after views. Some are honest though. This is BS after views spam troll BS.

 

[IntelUser2000]

7700K might still be the best gaming CPU even when SKL-X is out.

Dual to quad is different than quad to octacore. The latter will take a lot longer time than 2 years.

Get the CPU you need for the application you use. Right now there isn't a single CPU good for everything. YouTube isn't the authority I would go by either.

 

[french toast]

7700K might still be the best gaming CPU even when SKL-X is out.

Dual to quad is different than quad to octacore. The latter will take a lot longer time than 2 years.

Get the CPU you need for the application you use. Right now there isn't a single CPU good for everything. YouTube isn't the authority I would go by either.

No chance, 6 core SKX will murder a 7700k.

 

[Borealis7]

it would also murder your wallet.

AMD does not need to beat Intel in pure performance on the highest bracket, all it needs to do is provide a better price/performance ratio - and it does just that.

but on the ~300$ mark, AMD loses because the 1700 is slightly inferior to 7700K in gaming and that's an area where AMD does not have good price/performance ratio against the 7700K

 

[french toast]

it would also murder your wallet.

AMD does not need to beat Intel in pure performance on the highest bracket, all it needs to do is provide a better price/performance ratio - and it does just that.

but on the ~300$ mark, AMD loses because the 1700 is slightly inferior to 7700K in gaming and that's an area where AMD does not have good price/performance ratio against the 7700K

People are ignoring the fact the 270$ 1600x is AMDs answer to the 350$ 7700k.

 

[krumme]

People are ignoring the fact the 270$ 1600x is AMDs answer to the 350$ 7700k.

And i can safely say as a bf1 player that saving 60usd vs a 8c 1700 is the most bad decision you can do for your future gaming if you oc the 1700.
Sorry but fork out that meager 60usd and oc that 1700 to 3.8. I can get a 1700 stock at 3.0 to min 58 fps in bf1 and a i5 ib 4.2 under 30fps.
You do not want to skimp on that computational power for 60usd if you can oc your cpu. And mildly oc you cpu today is as easy as installing a game as it can be done automaticly.

 

[krumme]

Not really necessary to threadcrap an intel thread as well.

When we point to data and analysis that a 1700 is better for gaming than a 7700 in one year its "thread crapping". One single video.

Yet its not noted when sweepr post 30 ryzen graphs.

Double standard.

Bd was a bad processor and i consistently recommended i5. It needed to be said. There was i few that didnt like it then. But it should be possible to point to a better processor without beeing accused of thread crap.

 

[french toast]

And i can safely say as a bf1 player that saving 60usd vs a 8c 1700 is the most bad decision you can do for your future gaming if you oc the 1700.
Sorry but fork out that meager 60usd and oc that 1700 to 3.8. I can get a 1700 stock at 3.0 to min 58 fps in bf1 and a i5 ib 4.2 under 30fps.
You do not want to skimp on that computational power for 60usd if you can oc your cpu. And mildly oc you cpu today is as easy as installing a game as it can be done automaticly.

Agreed, but the hope is 1600x will OC a bit better and will look better in games that are <2018 era, not to mention whilst it will be slower than 7700k it will be significantly cheaper.

 

[CakeMonster]

Intel's challenge now is to outdo the ST performance of 7700K with a 6core on the same 14nm process and within the power/heat budget of that process. They can't launch it with worse gaming performance than the 7700K.

 

[french toast]

Intel's challenge now is to outdo the ST performance of 7700K with a 6core on the same 14nm process and within the power/heat budget of that process. They can't launch it with worse gaming performance than the 7700K.

The hilarious thing is, all the same people who denigrate higher than 8 thread processors, saying it doesn't mean faster performance in future will change their tune completely when 6/12 8700k wipes the floor with 7700k, whilst having same ipc and marginally higher clocks.(single core 100mhz)
Same benchmarks will show a 6800k doing the same, i predict R7 1700 and possibly 1600x at least matching 7700k by the time 8700k launches..Possibly beating it.

 

[krumme]

I think the testing methology we use and the way game benchmarking is done, will have problem showing the benefit of a 6c Intel vs the 4c part. I dont think it will wipe the floor with 7700k. Especially if Intel - for good reasons - have to lower freq to stay below 100w tdp. The results will be a lot of bm showing the 4c is as fast - but for loads where you are not cpu limited anyway.

We also need to consider the resolution tested and especially if its for 144Hz or 60Hz min fps wanted.

 

[DrMrLordX]

So this thread went to hell in a handbasket . . . does anyone have Skylake/Kabylake news that doesn't have to do with Ryzen?

 

[LTC8K6]

Well, 4 core KL-X will beat a 7700K. So 6 core CL and 6/8 core SL-X will have to beat KL-X for the gaming crown.

 

[VirtualLarry]

I'm still hoping for an unlocked G4560-equivalent, maybe next year.

Edit: For those that don't remember, the G3258 was unlocked, and it was roughly in the same "price class" as the G4560 is. ($64-$70)

IMO, that would bring some real value and "enthusiast cred" back to the Pentium name.

Of course, it might completely kill of today's i3 as we know it. But CoffeeLake i3 might be a 4C/4T CPU.

So, to have an unlocked Pentium 2C/4T, is not so crazy. And, like the G3258 before it, even highly overclocked, it would be barely nipping at the heels of the i3.

Also, Intel needs to provide more value to their customers, to even stay relevant, in the face of Ryzen.

 

[mikk]

Well, 4 core KL-X will beat a 7700K. So 6 core CL and 6/8 core SL-X will have to beat KL-X for the gaming crown.

There is a very little difference between them and you cannot know if it will beat a 7700k. i7-7740k clocks with 4.3-4.5 Ghz, so it will only beat the 7700k by a marginal difference if it can boost up to 4.5 Ghz for all 4 cores because i7-7700k already does 4.4 Ghz.

 

[DrMrLordX]

I'm still hoping for an unlocked G4560-equivalent, maybe next year.

Edit: For those that don't remember, the G3258 was unlocked, and it was roughly in the same "price class" as the G4560 is. ($64-$70)

IMO, that would bring some real value and "enthusiast cred" back to the Pentium name.

Of course, it might completely kill of today's i3 as we know it. But CoffeeLake i3 might be a 4C/4T CPU.

So, to have an unlocked Pentium 2C/4T, is not so crazy. And, like the G3258 before it, even highly overclocked, it would be barely nipping at the heels of the i3.

Also, Intel needs to provide more value to their customers, to even stay relevant, in the face of Ryzen.

I will tell you this much . . . if there is a big push for AVX/AVX2 in consumer-grade software in the next year or so, people may miss that functionality. And i3s have that. Pentiums don't.

 

[VirtualLarry]

I will tell you this much . . . if there is a big push for AVX/AVX2 in consumer-grade software in the next year or so, people may miss that functionality. And i3s have that. Pentiums don't.

Could NVidia's new PhysX middleware (I forgot what it's called), that runs on DirectX 12 / DirectCompute (?), take advantage of AVX/AVX2? You might seem more people buying capable hardware ("gamers"), if it's finally supported in a significant way in gaming middleware.

 

[Shivansps]

I'm still hoping for an unlocked G4560-equivalent, maybe next year.

Edit: For those that don't remember, the G3258 was unlocked, and it was roughly in the same "price class" as the G4560 is. ($64-$70)

IMO, that would bring some real value and "enthusiast cred" back to the Pentium name.

Of course, it might completely kill of today's i3 as we know it. But CoffeeLake i3 might be a 4C/4T CPU.

So, to have an unlocked Pentium 2C/4T, is not so crazy. And, like the G3258 before it, even highly overclocked, it would be barely nipping at the heels of the i3.

Also, Intel needs to provide more value to their customers, to even stay relevant, in the face of Ryzen.

They have no silicion for that, Pentium its either 4/4, or rebranded Kaby Lake. They may do 4/4 Pentium, 4/8 I3, 6/6 I5 and 6/12 I7, that is the scale used from Sandy Bridge to Skylake btw.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Could NVidia's new PhysX middleware (I forgot what it's called), that runs on DirectX 12 / DirectCompute (?), take advantage of AVX/AVX2? You might seem more people buying capable hardware ("gamers"), if it's finally supported in a significant way in gaming middleware.

It's possible. I won't dismiss that. It is almost certain that it won't be targeting non-Nvidia GPUs/iGPUs. So it's either going to run on Nvidia GPUs or it's going to use ubiquitous SIMD instruction sets, assuming the workloads are highly-parallel in nature (which with PhysX it will be). Intel still has a huge share of the market, and AVX2 has been common since Haswell on many CPUs.

 

[LTC8K6]

There is a very little difference between them and you cannot know if it will beat a 7700k. i7-7740k clocks with 4.3-4.5 Ghz, so it will only beat the 7700k by a marginal difference if it can boost up to 4.5 Ghz for all 4 cores because i7-7700k already does 4.4 Ghz.

Well, I was thinking that Intel's intent might have been to get a few more gamers over to HEDT Socket 2066. So having a fast (the fastest?) gaming chip might have been the idea with 7740K?
Anyway, it will have a big heat spreader compared to 1151 lid.

 

[escrow4]

So finished the rebuild of my main box with a 7600 non K and an H270M-PRO 4. Interestingly, Speed Shift was disabled and the BIOS reports the CPU speed as 3.9GHz (max four core bins) as opposed to the boost speed of 4.1GHz. I have to wonder why the 7400 exists when an extra $30 gets you a base clock of what the 7400 can boost to - 3/3.5Ghz vs 3.5/4.1GHz - is a huge difference for a locked CPU. $30 is $30 sure, but the gap is huge, all four cores turbo you get an extra 400MHz-500MHz.

 

[IntelUser2000]

No chance, 6 core SKX will murder a 7700k.

You think a HEDT SKL-X will murder a higher clocked 7700K on gaming workloads?

I think the term murder needs more than possible 5 to 10 percent advantage in select games to be justified in using it.

-SKL-X is based off server Skylake so it likely won't clock high, even compared to 6700K. Did we mention it's also because of 50 percent more cores?
-Quad channel memory is a disadvantage not an advantage because of latency. Higher clocked RAM is better. Same with extra cores
-if anything, it'll be more pricey as a platform than BDW, let alone LGA115x

They can't launch it with worse gaming performance than the 7700K.

They surely can. It's HEDT. It happened with 3 generations already. Why not 4th? Also gaming workloads are the hardest to optimize a CPU for, and gamers are the hardest to satisfy.

 

[french toast]

You think a HEDT SKL-X will murder a higher clocked 7700K on gaming workloads?

I think the term murder needs more than possible 5 to 10 percent advantage in select games to be justified in using it.

-SKL-X is based off server Skylake so it likely won't clock high, even compared to 6700K. Did we mention it's also because of 50 percent more cores?
-Quad channel memory is a disadvantage not an advantage because of latency. Higher clocked RAM is better. Same with extra cores
-if anything, it'll be more pricey as a platform than BDW, let alone LGA115x



They surely can. It's HEDT. It happened with 3 generations already. Why not 4th? Also gaming workloads are the hardest to optimize a CPU for, and gamers are the hardest to satisfy.

You
Need to move with the times dude, this isn't 2015 anymore..
https://www.computerbase.de/2017-02/cpu-skalierung-kerne-spiele-test/#diagramm-watch-dogs-2-fps

That's a 6850k beating a 7700k in most games, 6/12 skylake x will wipe the floor with a 7700k.
Value for money, if you are looking for a cpu that performs fantastic now with strong staying power and excellent all round performance, perf/$ wise either R7 1700, or for Intel a 6800k, both of which are either cheaper or around the same price depending where you look.