Overclock.net banner

[TechSpot] Core i7-7800X vs. 7700K, 6 or 4 Cores for Gaming?

31K views 366 replies 83 participants last post by  cstkl1 
#1 ·
Quote:


See Source for full benchmarks











































The 7700K was 13% faster at the stock speeds when comparing the minimum performance in all the games tested. As you can see, Far Cry Primal and Dawn of War III were a problem for the 7800X while it also struggled in Hitman, Grand Theft Auto V, Civilization IV, Player Unknowns Battlegrounds and Doom.

Roughly half of the games tested saw little difference between the CPUs and surprisingly of those games we find quite a few that are CPU demanding. Titles such as Overwatch, Ashes of the Singularity, Battlefield 1 and to an extend F1 2016.
Source: https://www.techspot.com/review/1445-core-i7-7800x-vs-7700k/
 
#2 ·
Quote:
The likely reason for this is down to Intel restructuring the cache hierarchy. Compared to the 7700K, the 7800X has quadrupled the L2 cache per core while the shared L3 has been reduced by just over 30% per core. It's believed these changes combined with the way this new cache works makes Skylake-X more suited for server-related tasks and less efficient when it comes to things such as gaming
Wow that sucks, can do they anything about this ? Patch every game or what ahah
rolleyes.gif
 
#3 ·
I would take 6 cores rather than 4.
Fps difference in games between 4 core with higher frequency 5.0GHz and 6 core 4.5GHz is so small that it's not visible. If someone play on 60 or 120fps who care is it 190 fps or 185 fps.
But performance of 6 core are noticable better if applications recognize more than 4 cores.
For me that's important. I looked example CPU-Z some little benchmark inside, and measured performance of mine i7-5820K OC to 4.2GHz and Cache to 4.0GHz show same resultsa as i7-5960X default.
X299 Chipset better than Z270WAsCX Platform will stay much longer on market and give you opportunity to install much better processor when price drop.
 
#4 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkBlade6 View Post

Wow that sucks, can do they anything about this ? Patch every game or what ahah
rolleyes.gif
Yep. This is what RyZen is facing too. All games were made for previous Intel CPUs and not many will get patched. But future games should be a different story...
 
#5 ·
Almost all of the games released in the last 12 months have pretty identical performance on 6 cores vs 4 cores. The older games fare worse though. Wildlands, Division, and Andromeda. All newer games, and they all fare just fine on 6 cores.
 
#8 ·
It is going to take time to see 6 and above cores being better.
Game engines need to be completely reviewed and changed in order to accommodate the changes in how many threads they open, how the game engine works in parallel etc.
This is not just about developing for intel. When a game engine is built in the first place being almost single threaded engine, doing most calculations in serial, this happens, either if it was developed on intel or AMD systems, doesn't matter.
The next replacement for the 7700K should be 6 core, and depends on how the L2/L3 will be set on it, it will be an upgrade or not in terms of games.
 
#9 ·
Great review, however testing 4-core vs 6-core on a clean windows does not show the whole picture. It would be great to see a continuation of this review where they test 4-core vs 6-core (or/and 8-core) CPUs with some background processes on, such as opened tabs, music playing, virus scans, etc and see how much performance degradation will happen.

Ever since moving from lowly 4-core Athlon to the R7 1700, the multitasking capabilities made a massive difference for me.
 
#11 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlada011 View Post

I would take 6 cores rather than 4.
Fps difference in games between 4 core with higher frequency 5.0GHz and 6 core 4.5GHz is so small that it's not visible. If someone play on 60 or 120fps who care is it 190 fps or 185 fps.
But performance of 6 core are noticable better if applications recognize more than 4 cores.
I agree 100%.
 
#12 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlada011 View Post

I would take 6 cores rather than 4.
Fps difference in games between 4 core with higher frequency 5.0GHz and 6 core 4.5GHz is so small that it's not visible. If someone play on 60 or 120fps who care is it 190 fps or 185 fps.
But performance of 6 core are noticable better if applications recognize more than 4 cores.
For me that's important. I looked example CPU-Z some little benchmark inside, and measured performance of mine i7-5820K OC to 4.2GHz and Cache to 4.0GHz show same resultsa as i7-5960X default.
X299 Chipset better than Z270WAsCX Platform will stay much longer on market and give you opportunity to install much better processor when price drop.
If you like war hammer then you'll be missing on over 30 min fps. That's the thing with gaming, CPU optimization vary widely and specific games like Arma 3 or civ really talked a hit on fps depending on your CPU. Kinda suck to get a More expensive CPU and not get any benefit. In fact it's quite sad to see no games where the 6 cores beat the 4 core CPU. I guess cache is really a major factor for games.
 
#14 ·
As was said earlier, more threads doesn't necessarily help in game, but can lead to great multi-tasking for streams or game overlays....even having steam open in the background is taking some power. maybe you're connected to a teamspeak server or something. maybe you are a streamer yourself. Maybe you just want things to be smooth and resources to be available to your OS while you are in-game.

4-cores are more than adequate for this task currently, but we are headed towards more multi-threaded applications. However, somethings are simply illogical to multi-thread and must be serial calculations.

Intel continues to lose the "value" segment, but as we've seen consistently, they don't care. They are still getting in w/ the big system builders, which is great for them. A person who is lusting after some new tech won't mind a hefty price tag, even though their dollars should be better spent elsewhere, such as, on peripherals. I am seeing a greater trend towards valuing an excellent monitor, keyboard, and mouse and other such things.

My personal experience is that I jumped from an older FX-8350 to a i7-6700k, even after the 7700k came out. I did that because I love the value of the used market and sniping a deal, and whatever. I am glad that I haven't been seeing too much hype over the current CoreX stuff, because Intel doesn't need it/want it anyway. Their tick-tock model is working for them, and I don't think folks who are on running 2600k or 3770k cpus should think of upgrading yet, unless they have drastically changed their software requirements.

IMO, I think it's more worth it to upgrade every 3-4 intel socket changes these days. It's the same feeling I got when people were dumping their Core2Quads to get on the first gen i7's.

Sorry for the rambling.
smile.gif
 
#15 ·
This is why I'm going with the 7740k (5.5ghz OC range) once they get the 2nd generation X299 boards out. Unfortunately the Z270 (7700k) is basically already maxed out. When I put together a rig I want nice upgrade path to be available. The 7800x is just not impressive enough for me and the 7900x is priced too high considering I use my rig exclusively for gaming.
 
#17 ·
Heres the thing. At currently 389 price and a much more expensive motherboards its in the same price rnage with the 1800x.

now 1800x is superior to anything multi , in fact from that we can see that has better performance when stream aka run other applications in the back than even the 7820 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ypELk3jl48

So the question is why buy the 7800x when the 1800x exist.
 
#18 ·
I went from a 6700k to a 6800k and my frame rates went up (especially mins) while my clock speed went down., This being in BF1.
 
#19 ·
There's something more going on here than the cache changes, just not sure what yet.
 
#20 ·
Do you think developers cares about your 6 or 12 core CPU while they are just doing console ports ?
 
#21 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sin0822 View Post

Why wouldn't they clock them to the same speed to see what changes have been made clock for clock?
Yeah, it doesn't make sense to draw conclusions without doing a clock for clock test, especially when they claim that Kaby Lake has "superior IPC performance" compared to Skylake-X, when both should be the same - unless the cache system is bottlenecking the Skylake-X chip in games, but that needs a clock for clock test at the very least, plus checking that the chosen platform / motherboard is behaving normally (see comment below).

And also, they should have added a 6800K or 6850K in the mix and also done a clock for clock comparison against the 7800X.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aDyerSituation View Post

There's something more going on here than the cache changes, just not sure what yet.
The platform is immature. Tom's detailed that a few days ago:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/-intel-skylake-x-overclocking-thermal-issues,5117-3.html
Quote:
It didn't go down that way this time, though, and it sounds like Intel's rushed launch was to blame. None of the motherboards we tested ahead of the embargo behaved well. They all deviated from Intel's specifications in some way, from faulty P-states, incorrect Turbo Boost frequencies, and so much more.
 
#24 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by f1LL View Post

Exactly. They'll just program for the 8 cores (real ones, no smt) that consoles have.
Show me PC games that fully utilize 8 cores, and show me a console that have 8 cores.
Quote:
Originally Posted by n4p0l3onic View Post

Where is this console version of civilization 6?
One of the few PC games that is not a port, you think you are smart ?
 
  • Rep+
Reactions: francisw19
#25 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by st3roids1 View Post

Heres the thing. At currently 389 price and a much more expensive motherboards its in the same price rnage with the 1800x.

now 1800x is superior to anything multi , in fact from that we can see that has better performance when stream aka run other applications in the back than even the 7820 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ypELk3jl48

So the question is why buy the 7800x when the 1800x exist.
Show me benchmarks of a 1800x outperforming a 7700k in actual games that 95% of us on here build a PC for?
 
#26 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by TUFinside View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by f1LL View Post

Exactly. They'll just program for the 8 cores (real ones, no smt) that consoles have.
Show me PC games that fully utilize 8 cores, and show me a console that have 8 cores.
Quote:
Originally Posted by n4p0l3onic View Post

Where is this console version of civilization 6?
One of the few PC games that is not a port, you think you are smart ?
The uh... current gen consoles. All 3 of them actually, even the Switch. Did you miss that boat?
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top