[ZoLKoRn] R7 vs i7 - core for core - clock for clock - Page 14 - Overclock.net - An Overclocking Community

Forum Jump: 

[ZoLKoRn] R7 vs i7 - core for core - clock for clock

Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #131 of 374 (permalink) Old 03-12-2017, 01:46 PM
New to Overclock.net
 
GreedyMuffin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Norway
Posts: 1,688
Rep: 42 (Unique: 38)
In Norway, the 1700 is about 20-40 USD cheaper than the 7700K.

My 1700 will be here tomorrow. I have a 5820K and a 6700 still in my house. I've tested the 4770K, 5820K, 5960X, 4790K, 6700K and 7700K long term. The last five have been under water. The 7700K did not get 5 ghz stable as the temp would get too hot. The 24/7 clock on those was 4.5, 4.8, 4,5, 4,6, 4,6 and 4,9 ghz.

I am guessing that I will do 4.0 ghz on my 1700 quite well. I am only missing a motherboard.

I got the money for every motherboard out there, but I do not need any special motherboard as long as it will not stop me overclocking wise, I am happy. Thinking about getting the Aorus 5.

Folding for Team.Hardware.no. - Team number 37651 - My [email protected] Stats -

I9 9900K - 1080Ti - 16GB DDR4 - Z390 Master - AX1500I - 950 PRO - ROG SWIFT - MO-RA420LT, 2xD5s, IV PRO, EK 1080Ti - Define R5
GreedyMuffin is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #133 of 374 (permalink) Old 03-12-2017, 01:50 PM
^^That's my user name^^
 
KSIMP88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Your moms
Posts: 9,838
Rep: 395 (Unique: 286)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tsumi View Post

If Bulldozer came out of the box at 5 ghz and overclocked to 6 ghz on air, no one would have said it was a failure. It failed because it had significantly worse IPC and clock speeds, both stock and overclocked.

Ryzen manages to have IPC almost on par, with stock clock speeds only marginally lower. That's why it's not the failure Bulldozer was. However, its overclocked performance is still significantly behind Intel's overclocked performance, and for overclockers (we are on overclock.net), that is a fail.
Brand recognition, product support after the sale, and so on all factor in to what businesses and OEMs buy. Consumers who buy OEM machines are heavily influenced by brand recognition. AMD has a lot of work to do in this regard, as well as working with OEMs to have a broader OEM lineup to attract more attention from consumers.
I feel like we're saying the same thing.

Hodor, hodor hodor hodor hodor. Hodor hodor hodor hodor hodor hodor, hodor hodor. Hodor, hodor hodor, hodor hodor hodor hodor. -Hodor


KSIMP88 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #134 of 374 (permalink) Old 03-12-2017, 02:50 PM
⤷ αC
 
AlphaC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 11,177
Rep: 904 (Unique: 590)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tsumi View Post

If Bulldozer came out of the box at 5 ghz and overclocked to 6 ghz on air, no one would have said it was a failure. It failed because it had significantly worse IPC and clock speeds, both stock and overclocked.

Ryzen manages to have IPC almost on par, with stock clock speeds only marginally lower. That's why it's not the failure Bulldozer was. However, its overclocked performance is still significantly behind Intel's overclocked performance, and for overclockers (we are on overclock.net), that is a fail.
Brand recognition, product support after the sale, and so on all factor in to what businesses and OEMs buy. Consumers who buy OEM machines are heavily influenced by brand recognition. AMD has a lot of work to do in this regard, as well as working with OEMs to have a broader OEM lineup to attract more attention from consumers.
Ryzen is decent for what it offers but DX11 and older engines built on that mindset hold it back, I don't know what you are going on about RTS games since for the longest time they used only 2 cores.

AMD has admitted themselves that DX11 only scales up to 6 cores well.

Starcraft 2 (a 2010 title) for example shows a large delta between i5 and i7:


Total War Warhammer

http://www.techspot.com/review/1348-amd-ryzen-gaming-performance/page3.html

Total War Atilla (<10 FPS difference between i5 and i7 = poor threading , any difference is likely due to cache / +300MHz)

Ryzen is on par with locked i3/i5 (https://www.computerbase.de/2017-03/amd-ryzen-1800x-1700x-1700-test/3/#diagramm-total-war-attila-720p)

Ashes of the Singularity


Ashes of the Singularity on DX12 is having issues likely due to cross-CCX communication but still presents a good showing.

Total War Warhammer DX12 :

https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/total_war_warhammer_directx_12_pc_graphics_performance_benchmark_review,8.html

If you mean RTS games that are poorly threaded past 4 cores then you're looking at the wrong CPU. The last RTS to pioneer 4 cores was Supreme Commander (not the successor Sup Com 2).

If you factor in the 10% clock speed advantage the i7-7700k has out of the box and the 20% achievable @ 5GHz overclocks that is relevant to up to 8 threads.

A month ago if someone stated they had a Haswell i7 [email protected] nobody would have complained about that being inadequate for gaming. This is not much different ; in fact it has DDR4 + USB 3.1 Gen 2 + NVMe support to make it more relevant as a platform.

All this talk of console ports supporting up to 8 cores is not looking at the fact that it may only be up to 8 logical cores. On top of that anything made since 2010 is going to be made such that it runs best on Intel i5/i7 quadcore CPUs.

► Recommended GPU Projects: [email protected] , [email protected] (FP64) (AMD moreso) ► Other notable GPU projects: [email protected] (Nvidia), GPUGrid (Nvidia) ► Project list


AlphaC is offline  
post #135 of 374 (permalink) Old 03-12-2017, 02:51 PM
New to Overclock.net
 
JJBY's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Canada
Posts: 109
Rep: 12 (Unique: 12)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artikbot View Post

Round here a 7700K is €349-359, the R7 1700 is €359-369.

Here I can pick up an "on sale" 7700k for about $450 Cad, or a 1700 R7 is $440 Cad. *imo the 7700k "sale" price isn't really a sale.

Motherboards are also cheaper for AM4, go figure.
JJBY is offline  
post #136 of 374 (permalink) Old 03-12-2017, 03:08 PM
New to Overclock.net
 
Tsumi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 5,435
Rep: 247 (Unique: 174)
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaC View Post

Ryzen is decent for what it offers but DX11 and older engines built on that mindset hold it back, I don't know what you are going on about RTS games since for the longest time they used only 2 cores.

AMD has admitted themselves that DX11 only scales up to 6 cores well.

Starcraft 2 (a 2010 title) for example shows a large delta between i5 and i7:


Total War Warhammer

http://www.techspot.com/review/1348-amd-ryzen-gaming-performance/page3.html

Total War Atilla (<10 FPS difference between i5 and i7 = poor threading , any difference is likely due to cache / +300MHz)

Ryzen is on par with locked i3/i5 (https://www.computerbase.de/2017-03/amd-ryzen-1800x-1700x-1700-test/3/#diagramm-total-war-attila-720p)

Ashes of the Singularity


Ashes of the Singularity on DX12 is having issues likely due to cross-CCX communication but still presents a good showing.

Total War Warhammer DX12 :

https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/total_war_warhammer_directx_12_pc_graphics_performance_benchmark_review,8.html

If you mean RTS games that are poorly threaded past 4 cores then you're looking at the wrong CPU. The last RTS to pioneer 4 cores was Supreme Commander (not the successor Sup Com 2).

If you factor in the 10% clock speed advantage the i7-7700k has out of the box and the 20% achievable @ 5GHz overclocks that is relevant to up to 8 threads.

A month ago if someone stated they had a Haswell i7 [email protected] nobody would have complained about that being inadequate for gaming. This is not much different ; in fact it has DDR4 + USB 3.1 Gen 2 + NVMe support to make it more relevant as a platform.

All this talk of console ports supporting up to 8 cores is not looking at the fact that it may only be up to 8 logical cores. On top of that anything made since 2010 is going to be made such that it runs best on Intel i5/i7 quadcore CPUs.

The point is that there are still games being played that show CPU bottlenecks regardless of resolution. In those games, high per core performance matters more than core count. Those types of games are typically RTS games. People claim that Ryzen is good enough and show no differences at 1080p probably don't play RTS, just FPS or other games that aren't reliant on a single thread.

Starcraft 2 performance difference is most likely due to clock speed, once again, due to the fact that it relies heavily on single core performance. This is especially true in modded maps where there are large numbers of units. As further proof, just look at the i5 and i3 results. The i3 is 4.2 ghz and is barely behind the i5, which is 3.8-4.2 ghz. The i7 is 4.2-4.5 ghz, which can explain the difference in performance.

DX12 (and Vulkan) is supposed to change that bottleneck (draw calls) in RTS games. However, there is a significant lack of DX12 and Vulkan games, and by the time DX12 and Vulkan are relevant, they will be new generations of CPUs to choose from, with new conclusions to draw from at that time.

Tsumi is offline  
post #137 of 374 (permalink) Old 03-12-2017, 03:11 PM
 
IRobot23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 449
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaC View Post

Ryzen is decent for what it offers but DX11 and older engines built on that mindset hold it back, I don't know what you are going on about RTS games since for the longest time they used only 2 cores.

AMD has admitted themselves that DX11 only scales up to 6 cores well.

Starcraft 2 (a 2010 title) for example shows a large delta between i5 and i7:

Well something very fishy here.
i5 7600K vs i7 7700K
7% clock advantage and 25% boost.
As far as I know SC2 is mostly single threaded (2-3 cores max). Scales good up to two cores.
IRobot23 is offline  
post #138 of 374 (permalink) Old 03-12-2017, 03:57 PM - Thread Starter
Laptop Enthusiast
 
Imglidinhere's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Posts: 9,165
Rep: 447 (Unique: 333)
Editted the OP to help the majority understand what they're reading... rolleyes.gif

SKYNET Mobile v3.0
(12 items)
Inspiring Greatness
(13 items)
CPU
i7-8750H @ 3.9GHz
Motherboard
Intel HM370
GPU
6GB GTX 1060
RAM
32GB DDR4 2666
Hard Drive
256GB SSD
Hard Drive
500GB Samsung 840 Pro
Power Supply
180w Power Adapter
Case
Tongfang GK5CN6Z
Operating System
Windows 10 Home
Monitor
1920x1080 144hz IPS Display
Mouse
Logitech G502 Proteus
Mousepad
Xtrac Ripper
CPU
Intel Core i5-6300HQ
Motherboard
Dell Proprietary
GPU
4GB Nvidia GTX 960M
RAM
Samsung 12GB (1x8GB 1x4GB) DDR3L 1600 MHz
Hard Drive
256GB SanDisk M.2 SSD
Hard Drive
1TB HGST 7.2k HDD
Power Supply
130w PSU
Cooling
Custom Cooling by Dell Solutions
Operating System
Windows 10 Home 64-Bit
Monitor
15.6" 1920x1080 IPS Screen
Keyboard
Dell
Mouse
Logitech G602 Wireless
Mouse
Xtrac 'Ripper' Mouse Pad
▲ hide details ▲
Imglidinhere is offline  
post #139 of 374 (permalink) Old 03-12-2017, 04:45 PM
New to Overclock.net
 
cskippy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 105
Rep: 7 (Unique: 7)
So unless I'm blind, I don't get how this is a revelation for most. Yes, performance is close but still behind the 7700k, and it's $150 more.

For applications that can make use of the extra cores/threads it will surely be a benefit but for most users, gamers, etc. the cost difference alone makes it irrelevant.
cskippy is offline  
post #140 of 374 (permalink) Old 03-12-2017, 04:51 PM
Retired Staff
 
Mad Pistol's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: The Beach, Florida
Posts: 6,209
Rep: 280 (Unique: 201)
Quote:
Originally Posted by cskippy View Post

So unless I'm blind, I don't get how this is a revelation for most. Yes, performance is close but still behind the 7700k, and it's $150 more.

For applications that can make use of the extra cores/threads it will surely be a benefit but for most users, gamers, etc. the cost difference alone makes it irrelevant.

True, but I'm very serious when I say that I cannot recommend the i7 7700k FOR ANYTHING at this point. The reason for this is because processor tech is at a crossroads; we're right on the cusp of needing more than 4c/8t for serious gaming. I also have a feeling that AMD's Ryzen is going to accelerate this transition over to higher core-count optimized games now that it's a good bit cheaper.

If you only plan to game right now, I suppose the i7 7700k makes sense... but lets face it. If you're planning on keeping the CPU for at least 2 years, it stands to reason that the Ryzen 8-core and 6-core variants are going to come into their own and actually end up faster in the long-run. Even the 4c/8t variants of Ryzen will be much cheaper than the i7 7700k, so people should at least wait for that.

The i7 7700k is officially on the clock, people; you're buying last generation tech that will soon be outclassed.



Mad Pistol is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Overclock.net - An Overclocking Community forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off