Tuesday, July 18th 2017

Benchmarks Find Intel Core i7-7700K Better Than i7-7800X for Gaming

Over at Techspot, Steven Walton managed to get a hold of Intel's new six-core, 12-thread Core i7-7800X CPU, and chose to take it for a spin over a levy of gaming benchmarks. The results don't bode particularly well for Intel's new top i7 offering, though: it is soundly beat by its smaller, svelter brother in virtually all gaming tasks.

Out-of-the-box results are somewhat in line with what we would expect: the Core i7-7700K does bring about a base clock increased by 700 MHz compared to the i7-7800X (4.2 GHz vs 3.5 GHz), and has a higher boost clock to boot (4.5 GHz vs 4 GHz.) And as we've seen over and over again, including with Intel rival AMD's Ryzen offerings, frequency usually trumps core count when it comes to performance when applications are exposed more than four cores. And this leads to Walton's results: the Core i7 7700K is still king in pure FPS terms, coming in with a much more attractive proposition than the 7800X in both minimum and maximum FPS, as well as power consumption.
Now, to be fair, most of us were probably expecting that: consumer application optimization for high core-count processors (if we can actually call a six-core a high core-count processor in a soon to be Threadripper-infused world, but I digress) is sorely lacking. However, what really paints Intel's i7-7800X in a bad light is that its performance continues to be lacking even when it has a frequency advantage over the 7700K. As you can see in the performance metrics, a Core 17-7800X overclocked to 4.7 GHz (with a 500 MHz advantage over stock clocks of the 7700K and 200 MHz over its Boost clock) still performs slower than it. The stock 7700K has 5% higher minimum and maximum framerates than the 7800X, despite being clocked lower, having a ridiculously lower amount of L2 cache, and having about the same total L3 cache (which actually results in an about 30% lower available L3 cache per core.) And these lower frame rates are delivered with a 41% higher idle power consumption, and 23% higher gaming power consumption. Check the source link for some detailed benchmarks. As for all this, it seems that while Intel likes to take digs on AMD for their "glued-together" desktop dies repurposed for servers, Intel's 7800X, which has its cache hierarchy and core interconnect re-architected for servers, may be little more than a repurposed server CPU for the desktop crowds...Source: Techspot
Add your own comment

136 Comments on Benchmarks Find Intel Core i7-7700K Better Than i7-7800X for Gaming

#1
R0H1T
ratirt said:
I'm taking about the 7700 and 7800x not Ryzen. It's just crazy to say that you compare the gaming performance over overall. 7700k is faster but not significantly, compare multithreaded apps between the 2 and then you'll see difference. 6 cores is always better than 4 when you compare same segment of performance. if I were to pick a cpu with those 2 it wouldn't be a 7700k that's for sure.
What about CFL, cheap mainstream hexa core?
Posted on Reply
#2
theoneandonlymrk
R0H1T said:
Shocking I tell you, totally unexpected :twitch:
Only in that it's even worse than i expected.
Posted on Reply
#3
EarthDog
Manu_PT said:
But.. but... the 6 core is more "future proof".... oh wait, that doesnt apply here because is an Intel chip, only on Ryzen :D
Hahahahahahaha!!!


Yeah, how is this news??? 700 mhz clockspeed difference amd most games cant use more than 4c/8t... i guess thanks for the confirmation techspot!!
Posted on Reply
#4
Gasaraki
And water is wet. NEXT.


Come on, people didn't see a 700MHz higher clock would effect gaming performance?
Posted on Reply
#5
Raevenlord
News Editor
Gasaraki said:
And water is wet. NEXT.


Come on, people didn't see a 700MHz higher clock would effect gaming performance?
"However, what really paints Intel's i7-7800X in a bad light is that its performance continues to be lacking even when it has a frequency advantage over the 7700K. As you can see in the performance metrics, a Core 17-7800X overclocked to 4.7 GHz (with a 500 MHz advantage over stock clocks of the 7700K and 200 MHz over its Boost clock) still performs slower than it."
Posted on Reply
#6
Mark Little
From the comments thus far, it seems most are ignoring the fact that the higher clock Coffee Lake processor losses to the lower clocked Kaby Lake processor. The overall frame rates are lower with the 4.7 GHz (CL) chip versus the 4.2 Ghz (KL) chip. This implies a regression in IPC.
Posted on Reply
#7
EarthDog
Coffee lake?


Also, these are not rebrands with just aesthetic changes.. it went back to a fivr, mesh is new... i mean, its x86, lol!
Posted on Reply
#8
Gasaraki
Raevenlord said:
"However, what really paints Intel's i7-7800X in a bad light is that its performance continues to be lacking even when it has a frequency advantage over the 7700K. As you can see in the performance metrics, a Core 17-7800X overclocked to 4.7 GHz (with a 500 MHz advantage over stock clocks of the 7700K and 200 MHz over its Boost clock) still performs slower than it."
For people like myself who look at lots of benchmarks, you can tell something is not right with their benches. When you overclock a chip to 4.9GHz (the 7700K) and you get NO FRAMERATE increase, something is wrong. It's not "CPU bound" like he keeps saying. People even said something in their comments section. It could be BIOS or Windows issues like Ryzen cpus when they came out.
Posted on Reply
#9
Fluffmeister
Aargh, I'll upgrade one day... who knows when.
Posted on Reply
#10
B-Real
Can we now laugh at people who at the Ryzen start also cried about the 7700K being faster in games than any Ryzens? Oh well, in many cases the 7600K is still faster than the 7700K. AMD launched Ryzens on price level that would normally just "crush" Intel. R3 will with 4 cores will be cheaper than the cheapest Skylake i3-7100 with 2 cores.
Posted on Reply
#11
The Quim Reaper
Well anyone building an X299 rig for gaming has obviously got more money than brains and quite frankly deserves to be disappointed.
Posted on Reply
#12
ratirt
R0H1T said:
What about CFL, cheap mainstream hexa core?
I'm talking about the two mentioned which are going to occupy same segment I guess. Just the 2 mentioned no other. You didn't read my post right.
Posted on Reply
#13
trparky
We know that the X299-based CPUs changed the internal cache systems which from what it appears they added took away L3 cache and replaced it with more L2 cache which appears to be showing some decrease in performance because programs that have been built for this platform expect to have a different cache architecture.

So with that said, I propose this question... If Intel were to take almost the same chip that we have here yet apply the same cache architecture that the 7700k has, would it suffer from the same performance penalties or would it start to perform similar to that of the older 7700k?
Posted on Reply
#14
TheinsanegamerN
In other news: intel continues to be caught with its pants down.

It seems that many readers are not actually reading what was written, with so many saying "well dun, the 770k is higher clocked". Even when OCed above the 7700k, the 7800x was still slower.

which is amazing. How hard did intel bungle the skylake x platform to manage that? The cache changes shouldnt have made that big of an impact, unless core i was more cache dependent and the rapid changes screwed up something else.
Posted on Reply
#15
the54thvoid
Fluffmeister said:
Aargh, I'll upgrade one day... who knows when.
Buy a 7700k. Golden choice for 99% of games. As long as you get a 1080ti too. :D

But if you like a challenge, buy a Ryzen 1600X.
Posted on Reply
#16
Manu_PT
the54thvoid said:
Buy a 7700k. Golden choice for 99% of games. As long as you get a 1080ti too. :D

But if you like a challenge, buy a Ryzen 1600X.
But a 6 core @ 3,9ghz is more "future proof" than your 7700k @ 5ghz :D
Posted on Reply
#17
Nihilus
Raevenlord said:
... As you can see in the performance metrics, a Core 17-7800X overclocked to 4.7 GHz (with a 500 MHz advantage over stock clocks of the 7700K and 200 MHz over its Boost clock) still performs slower than it."
Yep, plenty of people here are good at being snarky before taking the time to read...

The only reason the difference wasn't higher o/c to o/c was that many games were already hitting fps limits. When they were not, the differences were HUGE for 200 mhz.
Posted on Reply
#18
Gasaraki
TheinsanegamerN said:
In other news: intel continues to be caught with its pants down.

It seems that many readers are not actually reading what was written, with so many saying "well dun, the 770k is higher clocked". Even when OCed above the 7700k, the 7800x was still slower.

which is amazing. How hard did intel bungle the skylake x platform to manage that? The cache changes shouldnt have made that big of an impact, unless core i was more cache dependent and the rapid changes screwed up something else.
Did YOU actually look at the article. They overclock the 7700K more. I don't know why if they are trying to compare the CPU's they just didn't overclock the 7700K to the same MHz as the 7800X.
Posted on Reply
#19
Fluffmeister
the54thvoid said:
Buy a 7700k. Golden choice for 99% of games. As long as you get a 1080ti too. :D

But if you like a challenge, buy a Ryzen 1600X.
I am torn, I've had the 7700K sitting in my basket many a time, but I've strongly considered Ryzen 1600 and 1700 chips too, I do like the idea of moar cores longer term.

Bah! I'm off to have an ice cream.
Posted on Reply
#20
USGroup1
Yeah except TweakTown did the test on the latest BIOS with Turbo 3 enabled and it's faster than 7700k in games:

"The issue is that the normal 7900K results were done on older BIOS versions, while the new ones are done on the latest BIOS versions that support Turbo 3 without any software requirements. You will see results in line with the better performing 7900X results, but I do know some other media who were getting the same low gaming scores I was, and that was because Turbo 3 wasn't working."

Same issue here with 7800X.
Posted on Reply
#21
Manu_PT
Fluffmeister said:
I am torn, I've had the 7700K sitting in my basket many a time, but I've strongly considered Ryzen 1600 and 1700 chips too, I do like the idea of moar cores longer term.

Bah! I'm off to have an ice cream.
Ryzen chips are unbeatable for their price, and are amazing CPUs. Just dont go on the "is the same as Intel minus 5fps" wagon. Is false.
Posted on Reply
#22
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
Gungar said:
Huh, yeah, i didn't see that, well idk wtf Intel did for it to be less powerful than the 7700k.
They clocked it lower. I figured this was pretty obvious.
Posted on Reply
#23
Mark Little
Gasaraki said:
Did YOU actually look at the article. They overclock the 7700K more. I don't know why if they are trying to compare the CPU's they just didn't overclock the 7700K to the same MHz as the 7800X.
You are allowed to look at ANY two CPUs in the chart. And if you look at the 7800k at 4.7 GHz OC and the 7700k at 4.2 GHz stock (4.5 GHz turbo), the 7700k generates higher frame rates even though it is 200-500 Mhz lower. Many of us are just pointing out this is an odd result. Whether it's due to OS, lower IPC, reviewer error, game maxed out, etc. is yet to be known.
Posted on Reply
#24
B-Real
the54thvoid said:
Buy a 7700k. Golden choice for 99% of games. As long as you get a 1080ti too. :D

But if you like a challenge, buy a Ryzen 1600X.
Actually there's a 12% difference in FHD performance between the 1600 and 7700K (in a 2 month old review), and around 0 in 1440p and especially in 4K, and 110$ difference (50+%) in price. So the golden choice is not the right word for the 7700K, but the fastest choice. Golden choice is much more proper to the R5 1600.
Posted on Reply
#25
Steevo
Intel is suffering the mesh, and suffering in process development.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment