Just got an i7-970 with a DX58SO board.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

legcramp

Golden Member
May 31, 2005
1,671
113
116
Interesting that you say the X5650 came close to the R5 1600, I would have thought there would be a clear distinction between it and the Ryzen as it is supposed to have similar IPC to Haswell which is several generations newer than Westmere.

A 1080Ti is a huge improvement over an R9 290, especially at 1440P. Still, I can imagine your min fps would be much better on a 8700K especially on CPU bound games such as PUBG.

Do you happen to have any numbers to show the kind of improvement we can expect going from Westmere to Coffee Lake?

I am only going to compare using PUBG and the numbers that I saw on the 1080 Ti, I never did any benchmarks with Fraps or anything so I am basing this on the hours I have played on each system. Roughly 30 hours on Westmere, 20 on Ryzen, and 40-50 on my current 8700K setup.

The Westmere @ 4.0Ghz setup was decent for what it is, an old but relevant platform even by today's standard. I would drop down into the mid 40s and hovered around 60-75 fps most of the time. When I upgraded to the Ryzen setup (1600 @ 4.0Ghz, 3200Mhz B-Die CL 14 memory), I saw a nice increase but it was definitely not worth the money spent coming from the Westmere strictly for this game. FPS hovered around 70-90 fps most of the time and would dip into the mid 50's in areas where the Westmere dipped into the 40s. I didn't like the huge spike / drops in FPS on both of these systems because it is very noticeable for me on a 144hz monitor, the Ryzen setup would've been cheaper and perfect for someone who is running a 60hz setup though.

Then I upgraded to the 8700K system @ stock and it was literally double the FPS I was getting on the Westmere setup. My minimum rarely dip into the 70s and most of the time I am hovering around 100+ fps and capping game's 144fps limit. So for about $250 more for the 8700K setup vs Ryzen, I felt it was worth every penny just for playing PUBG alone. I was quite shocked at the difference because it was night and day for me in overall smoothness with the CPU being so powerful. Of course, I have not owned any of the 6/7700K series from Intel so I am sure the difference would be much less pronounce, if at all.

I would absolutely recommend a 8700K system for people coming from a 1366 setup, it is just blazing fast if you're looking for the highest FPS possible for games. Ryzen is no slouch either but I just wanted better minimums and overall smoothness in this specific game, every other game I played I really couldn't tell a big difference between 8700K and Ryzen TBH since FPS was already really high.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Campy and epsilon84

epsilon84

Golden Member
Aug 29, 2010
1,142
927
136
I am only going to compare using PUBG and the numbers that I saw on the 1080 Ti, I never did any benchmarks with Fraps or anything so I am basing this on the hours I have played on each system. Roughly 30 hours on Westmere, 20 on Ryzen, and 40-50 on my current 8700K setup.

The Westmere @ 4.0Ghz setup was decent for what it is, an old but relevant platform even by today's standard. I would drop down into the mid 40s and hovered around 60-75 fps most of the time. When I upgraded to the Ryzen setup (1600 @ 4.0Ghz, 3200Mhz B-Die CL 14 memory), I saw a nice increase but it was definitely not worth the money spent coming from the Westmere strictly for this game. FPS hovered around 70-90 fps most of the time and would dip into the mid 50's in areas where the Westmere dipped into the 40s. I didn't like the huge spike / drops in FPS on both of these systems because it is very noticeable for me on a 144hz monitor, the Ryzen setup would've been cheaper and perfect for someone who is running a 60hz setup though.

Then I upgraded to the 8700K system @ stock and it was literally double the FPS I was getting on the Westmere setup. My minimum rarely dip into the 70s and most of the time I am hovering around 100+ fps and capping game's 144fps limit. So for about $250 more for the 8700K setup vs Ryzen, I felt it was worth every penny just for playing PUBG alone. I was quite shocked at the difference because it was night and day for me in overall smoothness with the CPU being so powerful. Of course, I have not owned any of the 6/7700K series from Intel so I am sure the difference would be much less pronounce, if at all.

I would absolutely recommend a 8700K system for people coming from a 1366 setup, it is just blazing fast if you're looking for the highest FPS possible for games. Ryzen is no slouch either but I just wanted better minimums and overall smoothness in this specific game, every other game I played I really couldn't tell a big difference between 8700K and Ryzen TBH since FPS was already really high.

Thanks for that detailed response, as a PUBG player that is very useful information about the potential improvements I can expect if I upgrade my 2600K system, which based on my own experience performs similarly to your Ryzen system.
 

el etro

Golden Member
Jul 21, 2013
1,581
14
81
PUBG is a programming mess. They(PUBG dev team) at least should beg to borrow the latest Frostbite from EA.
 

Klingenberg

Member
Oct 29, 2012
31
0
61
Made it to 4Ghz with turbo enabled, just by upping bclk to 155. Still trying to reach 1000 in cinebench.

However, when I try going higher, I can't get it to post. Any suggestions for settings to get higher?

Also, I'm not sure how to configure ram speeds and multipliers in the bios, and how to see if dual-channel or triple-channel is enabled.

Other than that, I love this cpu. Hard to believe it was released in 2010, it's a fricking beast :)