Overclock.net › Forums › Intel › Intel - General › Thinking about the 8600K
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Thinking about the 8600K - Page 4

post #31 of 49
It makes no sense to consider Ryzen for a gaming machine, unless you are going to be GPU bound anyway.

Most widely popular and esport games are heavily CPU dependant and this is why Intel CPU's pull ahead of Ryzen.

I mean, my 6 year old Ivy at 5 GHz generally beats Ryzen at ~3.9 GHz in gaming. My single thread performance is better. If I lowered my OC to 4.6 it might be on par with Ryzen at ~3.9 GHz.
Golden Ivy
(14 items)
 
HTPC
(10 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-3770K @ 5 GHz Gigabyte Z77X-UD5H 980 Ti @ 1580/2000 2x 8GB G.Skill @ 2400/CL10 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
2x 850 Evo 500 GB Custom Water Windows 10 Pro Asus PG258Q 1080p/240Hz TN 
MonitorKeyboardPowerMouse
Dell U2515H 1440p/60Hz AH-IPS Logitech G610 MX-Red + O-Rings EVGA SuperNova G2 850W Logitech G403 
AudioAudio
Asus Xonar Essence STX Philips Fidelio X1 
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
i3-4150T AsRock Z97E-ITX/ac 2x 4GB @ 1600/CL9 Samsung 850 Evo 250GB + 20TB NAS 
Optical DriveCoolingKeyboardPower
None Fanless Logitech K400 Streacom Nano150 Fanless 
Case
Streacom FC8 Evo 
  hide details  
Reply
Golden Ivy
(14 items)
 
HTPC
(10 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-3770K @ 5 GHz Gigabyte Z77X-UD5H 980 Ti @ 1580/2000 2x 8GB G.Skill @ 2400/CL10 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
2x 850 Evo 500 GB Custom Water Windows 10 Pro Asus PG258Q 1080p/240Hz TN 
MonitorKeyboardPowerMouse
Dell U2515H 1440p/60Hz AH-IPS Logitech G610 MX-Red + O-Rings EVGA SuperNova G2 850W Logitech G403 
AudioAudio
Asus Xonar Essence STX Philips Fidelio X1 
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
i3-4150T AsRock Z97E-ITX/ac 2x 4GB @ 1600/CL9 Samsung 850 Evo 250GB + 20TB NAS 
Optical DriveCoolingKeyboardPower
None Fanless Logitech K400 Streacom Nano150 Fanless 
Case
Streacom FC8 Evo 
  hide details  
Reply
post #32 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by virpz View Post

Hello? Who is talking about price ?

While that is not exactly how it works, we have the whole architecture to take into account and only a few people in the world know how it exactly works. For sure I am not one of them but I am 110% confident sure you are not anywhere close to that circle... FIY this is overclock.net - We overclock to get more the most out of it and cinebench has been one of the top CPU benchmarks for years now.

The problem is you're spreading incorrect information. You can't add individual core and thread frequencies and say that's the processor's speed. If that was how it works, Intel and AMD would market their processors that way. Considering they don't ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lass3 View Post

It makes no sense to consider Ryzen for a gaming machine, unless you are going to be GPU bound anyway.

Most widely popular and esport games are heavily CPU dependant and this is why Intel CPU's pull ahead of Ryzen.

I mean, my 6 year old Ivy at 5 GHz generally beats Ryzen at ~3.9 GHz in gaming. My single thread performance is better. If I lowered my OC to 4.6 it might be on par with Ryzen at ~3.9 GHz.
It's well-known that Ryzen is the inferior gaming processor, but you buy Ryzen for more than gaming. You're making it sound like Ryzen is a waste of money for gaming when it isn't. It's a great budget and mid-range solution. For the higher end, it's a great workstation CPU that isn't a compromise for gaming.
post #33 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by chessmyantidrug View Post

The problem is you're spreading incorrect information. You can't add individual core and thread frequencies and say that's the processor's speed. If that was how it works, Intel and AMD would market their processors that way. Considering they don't ...

Who cares on how they market their processors, fact is performance scales with GHz, no matter what you say it will not change. obviously MC scaling is different within the two vendors/architecture but in the end you can compare apples to apples if you know your ****. I am not spreading incorrect information, if you can't spot the GHz vs cache vs architecture=performance then that's your problem.

Also, saying Ryzen is inferior CPU for gaming is another nubnut assumption, it is the same as stating a Xeon is made for servers and workstations only and we know for a long time now that there is no truth behind that statment.
It is correctly to say that most old/new bad coded games games won't take advantage of it's multiple cores/SMT but then if said game can make good use DX12 or Vulkan and have the game code optimized to SMT then it will run on par with the Intel processors. Before you come saying blah blah I should inform you that SMT and HT are different animals in many regards, that's why you need to optimize for it, that's why some games on were the 7700K get's outclassed by the 6900K also run better on a Ryzen.
Edited by virpz - 9/22/17 at 3:59pm
post #34 of 49
I guess I can't speak in generalities (Kaby Lake > Ryzen in gaming) and you can (multiplying clock speed by thread count like that means anything). Ignorance truly is bliss. I'm done trying to correct you. It's clear you're too entrenched to be convinced otherwise.

Long story short: the i7-8700K will be better at streaming while gaming than the i5-8600K. Ryzen processors should offer similar streaming performance at a lower price point. Don't add clock speeds because that isn't how it works. Whichever purchase you make will be a good one.
post #35 of 49
Neither is a bad choice. And choice is what have again.
post #36 of 49
Here is another chart, that time showing cinebench points you get per dollar spent. Benchmark numbers from anandtech, prices from manufacturers MSRP.


*8700K score and price are speculated but may prove right in the future. MSRP $ 350

If you have a preference for Intel then go with the 8700K and it is supposed to be a great step forward in performance and cost.
Obviously, CB 15 is good enough for any processor, more than often needs no optimization to display the full potential of a CPU out of the box, which is a good scenario for Ryzen. It is up to you to take into account if the software you use is going to take any advantage of the performance vs price in the chart.

Here there is a good article on streaming with 8 vs 4 cores.
https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/2993-amd-1700-vs-intel-7700k-for-game-streaming/page-2
Quote:
Originally Posted by chessmyantidrug View Post

I guess I can't speak in generalities (Kaby Lake > Ryzen in gaming) and you can (multiplying clock speed by thread count like that means anything). Ignorance truly is bliss. I'm done trying to correct you. It's clear you're too entrenched to be convinced otherwise.

Whatever you say Darling.
You seem too squared to be able to see things out of your comfort zone, from a different perspective. You may also be too old to exercise creativity.
I had enough of you already in the X5660 thread.thumb.gif blocked
Edited by virpz - 9/22/17 at 8:16pm
post #37 of 49
Different perspective? You mean a correct perspective? You're using an argument that has been around for almost 20 years and it's been wrong the entire time.
post #38 of 49
So far the 8700k seems to look much like a 7700k with 2 extra cores, if that helps.
post #39 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by ucode View Post

So far the 8700k seems to look much like a 7700k with 2 extra cores, if that helps.

More like 2 cores and 4 extra threads.
post #40 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMatzelle60 View Post

More like 2 cores and 4 extra threads.

Can we call jerry.gif already ? Please !
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Intel - General
Overclock.net › Forums › Intel › Intel - General › Thinking about the 8600K