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
Slizzo
Vayra86 said:
The additional cores are the only change, since Skylake what's really new? They put a new name tag on the same stuff, bump the clocks a bit, increase the TDP to match.
There is that whole massive cache restructuring that was mentioned here before as well. It's one reason why Skylake-X performs so poorly in gaming compared to normal Kaby Lake.
Posted on Reply
#2
Nihilus
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 still not getting it. Even overclocked to 4.7 ghz, the 7800x would lose to the 7700k at STOCK clocks (4.2-4.5 ghz) For games that were cpu limited, the 7700k crushed the 7800x. So much so, that the author suggested the 7800x might be at Ryzen 7 levels for gaming.

So, you have 7800x that might trade blows with thr R7 series in productivity AND gaming. Not the best scenario for Intel considering the R7 mothetboard/cpu platform is about half the price.
Posted on Reply
#3
GhostRyder
Edit: This is the 6 core variant performing like this... I think for the pricing and this is coming from Intel that it should be a lot better than it is...
Posted on Reply
#4
hapkiman
Manu_PT said:
But a 6 core @ 3,9ghz is more "future proof" than your 7700k @ 5ghz :D
I've been in this game long enough to remember when the consensus was that more cores will be used within the "next few years" so you better get on the 6/8 core bandwagon to "future proof" or you'll be left in the dust. That was about 10 years ago, and it still hasn't proved to be true in 2017. With one or two outliers out of the myriad of games out today, the measly 4 core 8 thread i7-7700k can beat anything and everything by the shear force of its mighty clock speed and a nice GPU. Now that being said, I myself am wanting to build a rig using AMDs second gen Ryzen (hopefully which will come out in 2018), but I submit to you that gaming on a quad core proc, with a high clock speed (4GHz or above) will be good to go for quite some time, not this year or the next. So stating a 6 core 3.9GHz processor is more future proof than a 7700k at 5Ghz is incorrect and has no basis in fact. It is simply an opinion.
Posted on Reply
#5
RejZoR
So, years and years of sticking with quad cores, encouraging everyone to write for quad cores and now that they released bunch-cores CPU's, there are no benefits to it. Imagine my shock. You created this shit Intel, you and your quad cores for freaking decade and a half...
Posted on Reply
#6
TheLaughingMan
hapkiman said:
I've been in this game long enough to remember when the consensus was that more cores will be used within the "next few years" so you better get on the 6/8 core bandwagon to "future proof" or you'll be left in the dust. That was about 10 years ago, and it still hasn't proved to be true in 2017. With one or two outliers out of the myriad of games out today, the measly 4 core 8 thread i7-7700k can beat anything and everything by the shear force of its mighty clock speed and a nice GPU. Now that being said, I myself am wanting to build a rig using AMDs second gen Ryzen (hopefully which will come out in 2018), but I submit to you that gaming on a quad core proc, with a high clock speed (4GHz or above) will be good to go for quite some time, not this year or the next. So stating a 6 core 3.9GHz processor is more future proof than a 7700k at 5Ghz is incorrect and has no basis in fact. It is simply an opinion.
I disagree. Last time, that 10 years ago mark, I was there too and we were switching from single core to dual-core. It took 3 or 4 years for games to catch up because it takes a long time to produce a game of AAA quality. The game industry is not agile enough to keep up with big shifts. However, we started the focus on using as many threads as available with Mantle and OpenGL years ago with BF4. Now we have Vulkan and DX12 where most game companies have been focusing on 4 to 8 threads for years already. Doom and Prey are the first so I think we are already past the 3 to 4 years for games to catch up. I think 8+ threads are overkill right now, but I think we will start seeing a lot more games with 4 cores as minimum specs very soon. Single core game is dead and dual core 4 threads has 1 foot in the grave already.
Posted on Reply
#7
Blueberries
This should be a no-brainer for anybody tech savy. Core count has not and will never be superior to clock speed, especially for light to medium tasks like video games.
Posted on Reply
#8
hapkiman
TheLaughingMan said:
I disagree. Last time, that 10 years ago mark, I was there too and we were switching from single core to dual-core. It took 3 or 4 years for games to catch up because it takes a long time to produce a game of AAA quality. The game industry is not agile enough to keep up with big shifts. However, we started the focus on using as many threads as available with Mantle and OpenGL years ago with BF4. Now we have Vulkan and DX12 where most game companies have been focusing on 4 to 8 threads for years already. Doom and Prey are the first so I think we are already past the 3 to 4 years for games to catch up. I think 8+ threads are overkill right now, but I think we will start seeing a lot more games with 4 cores as minimum specs very soon. Single core game is dead and dual core 4 threads has 1 foot in the grave already.
As has always been the case..... Time will tell.

BTW, BF4 runs just fine on my Lenovo laptop, which only has a i7-6500U. A dual core processor.
Posted on Reply
#9
Tom_
Vayra86 said:

I agree, technically its not a straight rebrand, but this is like a new VW Golf release - you get your car lights in a different shape, they updated the styling a bit, and add a fancy letter on the back so it seems to go faster. If you pick a Diesel, you get the cheating engine for free. (Couldn't resist)
That is not true. Even the Engines are new.
Posted on Reply
#10
R0H1T
GhostRyder said:
Well it is the 12 core variant, there had to be compromises somewhere and it seems the single threaded is where its going to be held back.

That being said, for the price I don't feel like this is acceptable.
The unreleased dodecacore, that many are hoping would be soldered & not pasted or glued with abominable TIM?
Posted on Reply
#11
Manu_PT
hapkiman said:
I've been in this game long enough to remember when the consensus was that more cores will be used within the "next few years" so you better get on the 6/8 core bandwagon to "future proof" or you'll be left in the dust. That was about 10 years ago, and it still hasn't proved to be true in 2017. With one or two outliers out of the myriad of games out today, the measly 4 core 8 thread i7-7700k can beat anything and everything by the shear force of its mighty clock speed and a nice GPU. Now that being said, I myself am wanting to build a rig using AMDs second gen Ryzen (hopefully which will come out in 2018), but I submit to you that gaming on a quad core proc, with a high clock speed (4GHz or above) will be good to go for quite some time, not this year or the next. So stating a 6 core 3.9GHz processor is more future proof than a 7700k at 5Ghz is incorrect and has no basis in fact. It is simply an opinion.
And I agree with you mate, I was being ironic! I prefer high clock speeds or improved IPC over this 6/8 core bandwagon crap. I don´t use my system for any content creation, is totally irrelevant to me. I use a 240hz screen tho so i want 200fps minimum on every title (1080p Medium settings I´m happy with). 7700k obliterates any AMD offer right now for that purpose, and has less cores.

And we have 6 core cpu since 980x, AMD phenom x6 and in that time people would tell you the same crap "future proof". When an i7 7700k isn´t enough for gaming, your 6-8 core Ryzen 3,9ghz won´t be enough aswell and you will need to change platform anyway, simple.

So many people still game on a Pentium G4560 or i3s and is more than enough for 60fps gaming on 90% of the titles and will be for some time.

Now with that being said Ryzen is an amazing product for the price and lets you do way more stuff than just gaming, oposed to intel mainstream offer. Wether or not you need that productivity tasks, is a different story. I dont, I want 200 frames, that´s all. I dont use many programs while Im gaming, not even social media, wich I have on my phone if I need to use it (even music, I play from phone spotify to my bluetooth sound system, ez pz).

All this wagon about 6 and 8 core is BS, and started only because AMD released competitive chips with that core amount. Truth is, I need 245fps on Quake Champions, AMD can´t deliver that due to lower clocks. I dont care about the productivity.
Posted on Reply
#13
theoneandonlymrk
hapkiman said:
As has always been the case..... Time will tell.

BTW, BF4 runs just fine on my Lenovo laptop, which only has a i7-6500U. A dual core processor.
See people say this all the time , but "it running fine "would not be enough for me, no context , what resolution what fx level etc etc , i doubt your super sic Lenovo dual core could push my version of the Same game adequately enough for me attached to my 4k.
This is the greatest bit of fail I've seen from intel in a while , their Mesh within this core topology is not a win , their ringbus worked better ,they should have stuck with it upto 8/16 cores and left mesh for Hedt.
So unsurprisingly intel hasn't actually got much up its sleave after all , they'll be shouting up Keller for a new job soon at this rate.
Posted on Reply
#14
mcraygsx
Enough said " 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."

Intel should not have released SKYLAKE-X all together especially when it lacks for the asking price.
Posted on Reply
#15
GhostRyder
R0H1T said:
The unreleased dodecacore, that many are hoping would be soldered & not pasted or glued with abominable TIM?
Misread, thanks for correcting me. Was tired this morning and though it said 12 core. I take back my previous comment and adjusted it as I thought I was commenting about a 12 core part not a 6 core 12 threaded part.
Posted on Reply
#16
TheLaughingMan
hapkiman said:
As has always been the case..... Time will tell.

BTW, BF4 runs just fine on my Lenovo laptop, which only has a i7-6500U. A dual core processor.
Also recall that the Mantle part of BF4 was an update that was released after the game release that provided a big uplift to AMD graphics cards and systems with high-end CPUs.
Posted on Reply
#17
R0H1T
GhostRyder said:
Misread, thanks for correcting me. Was tired this morning and though it said 12 core. I take back my previous comment and adjusted it as I thought I was commenting about a 12 core part not a 6 core 12 threaded part.
Adding to that, your previous comment, it's clear that Intel won't offer more to their consumers. If you want more cores, AMD is the better choice, heck it's cheaper, cooler & less hot than KBL or SKL-X.
It's only Achilles heel is the OC headroom, but that may just be down to the process at GF. We'll just have to wait & watch if Intel's hubris gets them a second time, after a long long time.
Posted on Reply
#18
HTC
R0H1T said:
Adding to that, your previous comment, it's clear that Intel won't offer more to their consumers. If you want more cores, AMD is the better choice, heck it's cheaper, cooler & less hot than KBL or SKL-X.
It's only Achilles heel is the OC headroom, but that may just be down to the process at GF. We'll just have to wait & watch if Intel's hubris gets them a second time, after a long long time.
There's another one: the latency between different CCXs. That favors Intel's chips on some types of workloads.
Posted on Reply
#19
R0H1T
HTC said:
There's another one: the latency between different CCXs. That favors Intel's chips on some types of workloads.
That's basically negated with Intel's mesh, for mainstream there's likely going to be a single CCX APU.
People forget that it's AMD who's brought octa core to mainstream with phenomenal pricing, their mainstream (& lower end) is still not launched yet, afterall the 7700k is an APU.
Posted on Reply
#20
dicktracy
Nihilus said:
You are still not getting it. Even overclocked to 4.7 ghz, the 7800x would lose to the 7700k at STOCK clocks (4.2-4.5 ghz) For games that were cpu limited, the 7700k crushed the 7800x. So much so, that the author suggested the 7800x might be at Ryzen 7 levels for gaming.

So, you have 7800x that might trade blows with thr R7 series in productivity AND gaming. Not the best scenario for Intel considering the R7 mothetboard/cpu platform is about half the price.
Good thing that's not the case. From Techspot's review:

The Pascal Titan is bottlenecked by the best Ryzen model whereas the 7800x is up there with the best.
Posted on Reply
#21
R0H1T
dicktracy said:
Good thing that's not the case. From Techspot's review:

The Pascal Titan is bottlenecked by the best Ryzen model whereas the 7800x is up there with the best.

Bottlenecked how, the min fps is better by 10fps wrt 7800x & it even beats the 7820x & 6950x albeit only marginally.
Posted on Reply
#22
hapkiman
theoneandonlymrk said:
See people say this all the time , but "it running fine "would not be enough for me, no context , what resolution what fx level etc etc , i doubt your super sic Lenovo dual core could push my version of the Same game adequately enough for me attached to my 4k.
This is the greatest bit of fail I've seen from intel in a while , their Mesh within this core topology is not a win , their ringbus worked better ,they should have stuck with it upto 8/16 cores and left mesh for Hedt.
So unsurprisingly intel hasn't actually got much up its sleave after all , they'll be shouting up Keller for a new job soon at this rate.
You misconstrue my post and seem uninformed. I speak of a mid level Lenovo laptop used primarily for school and [very] occasional gaming. It is not "super sic" by any stretch of the imagination. My point is that I can indeed game on it "just fine" with its dual core i7 proc and 950M GPU. Typically 30-40 FPS on most games at 1080p, (and even 60FPS on some like Overwatch.) Again - this is not even considered to be a gaming laptop, but it does the job, adequately.

By saying it ran "fine" I meant I have no issues playing at med to high settings at 1920x1080 with acceptable frame rates.

You see I have another rig that you might refer to as "super sic" - just take a look at my System Specs. You see I'm not one of those uninformed "people" you refer to as saying something like this all the time. I am educated, and have a very good point of reference while gaming at 4k. Can you say the same? The rig listed in my System Specs is a gaming monster and is what I game on at home. And it is a true 4k gaming rig achieving well over 60FPS on any game I am currently playing (e.g. BF1 on Ultra settings at 4k, I am getting ~70FPS).
I rarely game on that Lenovo laptop anymore since I graduated, but for a while I did fairly regularly while away from home and I had no complaints at all. And I am quite picky about how smooth a game runs and about slide-show frame rates below 30.

But why in the world would anyone want to attach a laptop such as mine to a 4k display (which has no DisplayPort output BTW)? Simply ridiculous. No claim such as that was ever made, so why would you make such a statement?


Posted on Reply
#23
hapkiman
TheLaughingMan said:
Also recall that the Mantle part of BF4 was an update that was released after the game release that provided a big uplift to AMD graphics cards and systems with high-end CPUs.
That is true.
Posted on Reply
#24
Basard
So, can't we just say the 7700k is best for gaming and be done with it.... better than pretty much any CPU, right?
Posted on Reply
#25
HopelesslyFaithful
Vayra86 said:
Yeah, nothing on the architecture level, and moving the L2/L3 cache sizes around so far seems to be counter productive in this segment. Its a clear sign that the Core arch is optimized and that's that. Improved process? That is exactly the marketing of AMD's RX580 which has higher TDP for a clock bump. That's not an improved process, it's giving it more juice and a higher TDP cap.

I agree, technically its not a straight rebrand, but this is like a new VW Golf release - you get your car lights in a different shape, they updated the styling a bit, and add a fancy letter on the back so it seems to go faster. If you pick a Diesel, you get the cheating engine for free. (Couldn't resist)
you have no idea what your talking about so please stop. Go read anandtech review before you start talking. It is really painful to your read posts.

SkylakeX is a replacement of Broadwell X not Kaby. So there are plenty of changes.

The L2/L3 was probably changed due to the server/workstation world according to anandtech since those are L2 heavy...according to them. I wouldnt know.

Go read anandtech reviews if you want to actually know something about the changes.

Right now your just spewing garbage and cluttering this thread with ignorance.

Additionally,

I find many of these review charts people post highly suspect given the lack of details and ussually I find some stupid difference that makes one process better than the other as if they purposefully did so to skew results.

I.E.
low MHz/high latency RAM
An overclock that doesn't adjust uncore or other parts that can affect results.
Pointless charts of stock speeds
Games specifically selected that they know suck for X CPU design.

On hardforum I constantly see these dumb charts toted around that have very little bit of scientific method put into them.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment