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
theoneandonlymrk
hapkiman said:
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?



Bully for you seigfried still a pointless comment.
Step back consider your relevance to op and also consider that what you play and how well it plays on your shit ,in your consideration means nothing to this debate i Can play shit to a satisfactory level on a tablet pc ,And....???

Back on topic this is still fail , nothing bar a bios wizard or harsh oc is fixing this, people are talking about overclocking its mesh to compete, wouldn't intel have done that though if they can.
Posted on Reply
#2
Th3pwn3r
Here's a thought for future-proofers. If you want to future proof, buy a 7700K now and in the future buy another processor.
Posted on Reply
#3
NicklasAPJ
EarthDog said:
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!!
I would nerver take a 4 Core/HT today :)

6 Core + in 2017.

6 Core is the new sweet spot, I use easy 40-70% of my CPU 6900k @ 4.5Ghz, the system is running alot more smooth overall on my 8 core, than my 7700k.
Posted on Reply
#4
Frick
Fishfaced Nincompoop
hapkiman said:
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.
Dual core with HT. That is a pretty important distinction.
Posted on Reply
#5
Prima.Vera
Th3pwn3r said:
Here's a thought for future-proofers. If you want to future proof, buy a 7700K now and in the future buy another processor.
That's Future Proof for intel not the end-user. ;)
Posted on Reply
#6
jigar2speed
Dj-ElectriC said:
A 4.5Ghz kaby-lake quad core faster than a 4Ghz skylake six-core in gaming.

In other news, half life 3 doesn't seem to come out soon.
In other news even at 4.7GHZ Skylake is not beating Kaby Lake quad core. See again
Posted on Reply
#7
jigar2speed
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
Oh manu, you trying to be funny ?? Really ??
Posted on Reply
#8
ratirt
7700k better than 7800x :) Nice. Maybe its because this new mobo needs some tweaking? I bet that's the case. Some changes in the memory cache being utilized and here we go. No everybody knows what slight change makes so imagine an impact when architecture is changing.

Some said that Ryzen is a bottleneck for titan. What a crap. Same as 7800x is a bottleneck. Just because they have less FPS. That person didn't mentioned that the 7700k runs at 99% utilization while the 7800x or Ryzen hit half of 7700k's or something like that. this 7700k may have the highest FPS now. it will end up down in the dumps pretty soon especially if Intel decided to go more cores now.
Posted on Reply
#9
Melvis
If your getting over 60FPS in most of your games who gives a F?
Posted on Reply
#10
ratirt
Melvis said:
If your getting over 60FPS in most of your games who gives a F?
Well I don't. but as you already know some people want to get 200fps cause it's better for some reason :). Well I don't see it.
Posted on Reply
#11
JalleR
NicklasAPJ said:
I would nerver take a 4 Core/HT today :)

6 Core + in 2017.

6 Core is the new sweet spot, I use easy 40-70% of my CPU 6900k @ 4.5Ghz, the system is running alot more smooth overall on my 8 core, than my 7700k.
I guess you are not gaming... I cant really see any deference from my 4771 to my 5930K other than CPU load in games has dropped from 40 ish to 11 ish.....



Regarding the PCI lanes remember it is 2.0 VS 3.0 so even a 28 lane CPU has more bandwidth than an old 40lane..
and you have 24lanes on the chipset vs 8 on x99 that are linked with 8GT/s where x99 had "only" 5GT/s

so i dont see the big issue regarding pci lanes
Posted on Reply
#12
biffzinker
Melvis said:
If your getting over 60FPS in most of your games who gives a F?
How about 72 FPS as a minimum? It feels smoother to me over 60.
Posted on Reply
#13
Tomorrow
Overcloking the mesh will not help much 2-6% at best. Still loses to 7700K:

Posted on Reply
#14
Melvis
biffzinker said:
How about 72 FPS as a minimum? It feels smoother to me over 60.
Well it is over 60FPS so I guess thats what I am saying?

Its all about the Min FPS more so then the Max and if it feels smooth, even some games at 30FPS feel smooth.
Posted on Reply
#15
Vayra86
HopelesslyFaithful said:
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.
So you came in here just to tell me that you don't know either, but you do feel the need to post about it? Clutter?

The change in L2/L3 benefits cloud computing and in all fairness, there isn't much to see in the Anandtech article at all, beyond AVX512 being the most important reason to jump on it if you feel the need to. So far, this topic was about concluding that the changes don't really benefit a lot of typical workloads at all, contrary in fact. And the bottom line still is that 80% of the changes we see here is out of necessity, not because Core will become so much better than it was. (the mesh is a good example - needed because core counts go up and a ringbus alone wont cut it)

So there you go, any more complaints? Skylake-X still is a shit release and still is part of a dreadful platform called X299 and as far as its changes, what I've said is simply true. Its the same shit in a new package with some bandaids to keep it going, the E changed to an X to make it seem like it goes faster.

Now, I'm looking forward to your sensible contribution to this topic, as you seem to have a lot to offer so far, but got stuck at 'these look fishy' without really talking about any of the charts in this very topic. Cool.
Posted on Reply
#16
Atnevon
Vayra86 said:
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
Not a bad analogy. I'd say though this is more like the 2014 vs 2017 Civic Si though. Because in this case its a whole new socket, core design, and motherboard needed to upgrade. The Civic Si went to a smaller engine, with a turbo, and in terms of numbers it didn't get much of an upgrade at all.

Vayra86 said:
add a fancy letter on the back so it seems to go faster.
Did VW do this? Because there are HUGE differences between the SEL, GTI, and R for sure :P
Posted on Reply
#17
las
I expect X299 / Skylake-X performance to improve over time. The platform is new. Ryzen still has many issues after almost 6 months...

That said, I have no interrest in HEDT.

I'm probably going CFL 6C/12T. Ryzen hurts my fps too much. Ryzen gaming performance is all over the place. Sometimes even Pentium/i3 beats Ryzen...
Posted on Reply
#18
Steevo
Atnevon said:
Not a bad analogy. I'd say though this is more like the 2014 vs 2017 Civic Si though. Because in this case its a whole new socket, core design, and motherboard needed to upgrade. The Civic Si went to a smaller engine, with a turbo, and in terms of numbers it didn't get much of an upgrade at all.



Did VW do this? Because there are HUGE differences between the SEL, GTI, and R for sure :p
You are right, for the price serious racers but the base model and modify it from there, which is the same as a overclocker buying a good board and cheap chip and tuning it for maximum performance beyond what it was meant for with aftermarket cooling, higher speed memory etc....
Posted on Reply
#19
Th3pwn3r
Prima.Vera said:
That's Future Proof for intel not the end-user. ;)
That depends on if AMD can offer something good 10 years from now. With what is going on with Vega I can't say I have faith in them but I always hope that all companies be it AMD, Intel or Nvidia always raises the bar. I'll buy hardware from any of them if it's worth it.
Posted on Reply
#20
HanaLover
las said:

I'm probably going CFL 6C/12T. Ryzen hurts my fps too much. Ryzen gaming performance is all over the place. Sometimes even Pentium/i3 beats Ryzen...
Ryzen hurts my fps, u mean 5-10 lower fps in some games?
Posted on Reply
#21
Fluffmeister
All i know for sure is CPUs are really boring.

The joys of a stagnant duopoly.
Posted on Reply
#22
ratirt
las said:
I expect X299 / Skylake-X performance to improve over time. The platform is new. Ryzen still has many issues after almost 6 months...

That said, I have no interrest in HEDT.

I'm probably going CFL 6C/12T. Ryzen hurts my fps too much. Ryzen gaming performance is all over the place. Sometimes even Pentium/i3 beats Ryzen...
Never seen Pentium or i3 doing better than ryzen. maybe in old games but that's just a guess cause like I said never seen that happening.
Posted on Reply
#23
Tomorrow
Fluffmeister said:
All i know for sure is CPUs are really boring.

The joys of a stagnant duopoly.
Lol that did not take long. When Intel ruled people compained that there was monopoly. Now they complain there is duopoly.
So who exactly do you think will offer Intel and AMD the competition? ARM? VIA? Someone else? Because noone besides Intel and AMD holds the x86 license. If someone even so much as tried to make a x86 CPU without a license they would be sued to bankrupt.
Posted on Reply
#24
HopelesslyFaithful
ratirt said:
Never seen Pentium or i3 doing better than ryzen. maybe in old games but that's just a guess cause like I said never seen that happening.
majority of games are single thread so if its a high clock it will do better. Out of the 1200+ games i own I doubt even 200 of them are threaded beyond 2 threads.
Posted on Reply
#25
ratirt
HopelesslyFaithful said:
majority of games are single thread so if its a high clock it will do better. Out of the 1200+ games i own I doubt even 200 of them are threaded beyond 2 threads.
I don't know which games you play but I haven't seen any I3 being better than Ryzen. and even if that happens the FPS difference is particularly none.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment