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
HopelesslyFaithful
ratirt said:
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.
again...single thread. almost all games minus some major AAA games are single thread. Most Indy, anything older than 5 or so years are all single thread. That is why i paid extra to get a 4.8GHz 6700K and been dying to buy a 5.2GHz Kaby but just dont have the doh.

NS2, HL2, War Thunder, PS2, most RTSs, MMOs, and the list goes on and on for single thread limited games.

when you game on 1440p 120hz ULMB single thread is a pain.
Posted on Reply
#2
Tomorrow
This should be appropriate to post here. R5 1600 faster than 7800X too. Also 13% slower vs 7700K both at stock and 9% slower when both OC-ed (and 7700K having 700Mhz clock advantage). So much for Kaby Lake-s superior IPC vs Ryzen.
Posted on Reply
#3
ratirt
HopelesslyFaithful said:
again...single thread. almost all games minus some major AAA games are single thread. Most Indy, anything older than 5 or so years are all single thread. That is why i paid extra to get a 4.8GHz 6700K and been dying to buy a 5.2GHz Kaby but just dont have the doh.

NS2, HL2, War Thunder, PS2, most RTSs, MMOs, and the list goes on and on for single thread limited games.

when you game on 1440p 120hz ULMB single thread is a pain.
I dont event know the shorts for the games. Pretty old i think or i'm not in those mentioned much. How much difference is there in overall FPS between I3 and ryzen( and which ryzen?)


Tomorrow said:
This should be appropriate to post here. R5 1600 faster than 7800X too. Also 13% slower vs 7700K both at stock and 9% slower when both OC-ed (and 7700K having 700Mhz clock advantage). So much for Kaby Lake-s superior IPC vs Ryzen.

Yeah seen that one. What a bummer for Intel. It's weird cause it would seem that Intel is going backwards with performance. I'm just guessing that the core count and threads really hit him hard this time.
Posted on Reply
#4
EarthDog
Tomorrow said:
This should be appropriate to post here. R5 1600 faster than 7800X too. Also 13% slower vs 7700K both at stock and 9% slower when both OC-ed (and 7700K having 700Mhz clock advantage). So much for Kaby Lake-s superior IPC vs Ryzen.

It has superior ipc. The gaming issue is with how the cache hits are handled. ;)
Posted on Reply
#5
Tomorrow
I meant that if R5 1600 was running at 4,7Ghz it would be faster or as fast as 7700K at 4,7Ghz. Or 7700K running at 4Ghz compared to Ryzen at 4Ghz. Either way the IPC seems very close already.
Posted on Reply
#6
EarthDog
Impossible to find out (on ambient cooling) since they struggle mightly to pass 4ghz while 7700k is 5ghz+.

Not sure why the gap closes when overclocking though...that makes little sense to me on KL cpu as it does not have that cache issue SL-X does.

Seems you are mixing KL and SL-x? They overclocmed the 7700k to 4.9.. a 900mhz difference.
Posted on Reply
#7
ratirt
EarthDog said:
Impossible to find out (on ambient cooling) since they struggle mightly to pass 4ghz while 7700k is 5ghz+.

Not sure why the gap closes when overclocking though...that makes little sense to me on KL cpu as it does not have that cache issue SL-X does.

Seems you are mixing KL and SL-x? They overclocmed the 7700k to 4.9.. a 900mhz difference.
They do struggle. I mean they overheat like crazy. Wonder why. Dont think that's the cache mamory change that's causing this it wont change that much except this.
With the IPC you mentioned earlier. Is it that different from kaby lake? i dont think they are that much different. Change from kaby to skylake wasnt great probably same is here.
Posted on Reply
#8
EarthDog
Its the only difference (mostly) between them is the cache... It can change things quite a bit. What fit in L3 that doesn't anymore can cause slow downs. This was seen in other testing of the CPU already.
Posted on Reply
#9
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
HopelesslyFaithful said:
Most Indy, anything older than 5 or so years are all single thread. That is why i paid extra to get a 4.8GHz 6700K
Any pretty much all of those games won't benefit from that fast of a processor, because they'll get over 100FPS with an i3 non-overclocked, because they really don't need that much CPU power to run.

EarthDog said:
Its the only difference (mostly) between them is the cache... It can change things quite a bit. What fit in L3 that doesn't anymore can cause slow downs. This was seen in other testing of the CPU already.
Are you comparing the cache between the 7700k and the 7800X or the 7800X and the older HEDT processors?
Posted on Reply
#11
ERazer
Tomorrow said:
This should be appropriate to post here. R5 1600 faster than 7800X too. Also 13% slower vs 7700K both at stock and 9% slower when both OC-ed (and 7700K having 700Mhz clock advantage). So much for Kaby Lake-s superior IPC vs Ryzen.

hmm my 6800k is faster than 7800X!? 6800k is a little better than 1600x

wow intel just wow
Posted on Reply
#12
HopelesslyFaithful
newtekie1 said:
Any pretty much all of those games won't benefit from that fast of a processor, because they'll get over 100FPS with an i3 non-overclocked, because they really don't need that much CPU power to run.



Are you comparing the cache between the 7700k and the 7800X or the 7800X and the older HEDT processors?
nope all those games i listed except HL2 can't maintain 120FPS at 1440p

Star Wars Empire at War and RCT3 are horribly single thread limited. Total war games are also single thread limited on a 4.8GHz SKL.

HL2 was CPU limited until 4GHz+ SB came out. My 920QM I ran at 3.33GHz to almost maintain 120 FPS. Wasn;t until SB/IB i no longer had FPS issues.
Posted on Reply
#13
pleaseno
qubit said:
Why am I not surprised.

In almost every comparison I've seen the HEDT CPUs weren't any better than the consumer CPUs for gaming. Total waste of money if trying to improve framerate. They're better for heavily multitasking scenarios. I'm surprised that here it fails even with a clock advantage. @Raevenlord are they the same architecture?
They are better in any case involving gaming with additional tasks (streaming, recording, whatever), so a total waste would be wrong to say. The surprising part here is that having the same or even better(?) IPC vs 7700k (compared to Ryzen who is inferior to Intel in that case) doesnt seem to help at all.
Posted on Reply
#14
qubit
Overclocked quantum bit
pleaseno said:
They are better in any case involving gaming with additional tasks (streaming, recording, whatever), so a total waste would be wrong to say. The surprising part here is that having the same or even better(?) IPC vs 7700k (compared to Ryzen who is inferior to Intel in that case) doesnt seem to help at all.
Ok, that's an advantage in a multitasking scenario when running games. I was thinking about someone like me who just wants to run his games with the best framerate possible. I want the bottleneck to be at the graphics card for as long as possible since I won't be changing the CPU for several years, while the GPU can potentially get a yearly upgrade or even sooner. Hence, the fastest CPU is required.

Sorry, I didn't quite get your IPC point - can't figure which way round you mean it? :confused:
Posted on Reply
#15
ratirt
qubit said:
Ok, that's an advantage in a multitasking scenario when running games. I was thinking about someone like me who just wants to run his games with the best framerate possible. I want the bottleneck to be at the graphics card for as long as possible since I won't be changing the CPU for several years, while the GPU can potentially get a yearly upgrade or even sooner. Hence, the fastest CPU is required.

Sorry, I didn't quite get your IPC point - can't figure which way round you mean it? :confused:
If you want to run your games with the highest frame rates for as long as possible i wouldn't suggest 7700k. In some games it's almost maxed out even when OC'ed which means there's not a long time left since it becomes a bottleneck considering all new games coming out and AMD's and Intel's decision to give more cores in the desktop segment.
Posted on Reply
#16
qubit
Overclocked quantum bit
ratirt said:
If you want to run your games with the highest frame rates for as long as possible i wouldn't suggest 7700k. In some games it's almost maxed out even when OC'ed which means there's not a long time left since it becomes a bottleneck considering all new games coming out and AMD's and Intel's decision to give more cores in the desktop segment.
Sure, I intend to get the 8700K as it's the latest version gen and has 6 cores. Shame it doesn't have the soldered IHS like my old Sandy Bridge.
Posted on Reply
#17
Th3pwn3r
ratirt said:
If you want to run your games with the highest frame rates for as long as possible i wouldn't suggest 7700k. In some games it's almost maxed out even when OC'ed which means there's not a long time left since it becomes a bottleneck considering all new games coming out and AMD's and Intel's decision to give more cores in the desktop segment.
:D might as well just wait 10 years for a processor so you're not at risk of a bottleneck. Do you really think the newest processors won't become a bottleneck either?
Posted on Reply
#18
ratirt
Th3pwn3r said:
:D might as well just wait 10 years for a processor so you're not at risk of a bottleneck. Do you really think the newest processors won't become a bottleneck either?
Better 10 years than 1 year with the 4 core 7700K.
Posted on Reply
#19
EarthDog
ratirt said:
Better 10 years than 1 year with the 4 core 7700K.
lol, no.

A 7700k will be fine for 3 years+. If this mangy core thing takes off, you may find a few titles neededing more than 8 threads and holding things back... but, a year? Come on now...

Weve been waiting for multithreaded games since q6600 came out what 7 years ago? Just now are we starting to see some games use more than 4 threads.. and we can can count that number on one hand.

What titles max out 8 threads on a 7700k, btw?
Posted on Reply
#20
Th3pwn3r
EarthDog said:
lol, no.

A 7700k will be fine for 3 years+. If this mangy core thing takes off, you may find a few titles neededing more than 8 threads and holding things back... but, a year? Come on now...

Weve been waiting for multithreaded games since q6600 came out what 7 years ago? Just now are we starting to see some games use more than 4 threads.. and we can can count that number on one hand.

What titles max out 8 threads on a 7700k, btw?
I actually bought a Q6600 thinking that newer games would actually be developed with extra threads in mind. At least I got a really good deal on it at Fry's back then.
Posted on Reply
#21
ratirt
EarthDog said:
lol, no.

A 7700k will be fine for 3 years+. If this mangy core thing takes off, you may find a few titles needing more than 8 threads and holding things back... but, a year? Come on now...

Weve been waiting for multithreaded games since q6600 came out what 7 years ago? Just now are we starting to see some games use more than 4 threads.. and we can can count that number on one hand.

What titles max out 8 threads on a 7700k, btw?
For example BF1 with 1080 on 1440p res and the CPU utilization jumps to 70% CPU usage. With higher FPS count with higher res and better GPU it can choke. Definitely there are more games with this cpu behavior. And that's with the OC'ed to 5Ghz 7700k. Here you got with 1080 Ti , CPU OC'ed to 5Ghz and the utilization jumps to 100% on all cores

Time 3:00.
Of course that also depends of the game scenario but it does jump to 100% utilization for the 7700k OC'ed to 5Ghz.
Posted on Reply
#22
EarthDog
One title blips and hits 100% and the 7700k isnt good for year???? Sustained was around 60-70%. Come on man. It will still last 3+ years. 1 year is being incredibly over dramatic.

Also, i dont see 70% use in bf1 with a 1080 at 1440p...
Posted on Reply
#23
ratirt
EarthDog said:
One title blips and hits 100% and the 7700k isnt good for year???? Sustained was around 60-70%. Come on man. It will still last 3+ years. 1 year is being incredibly over dramatic.

Also, i dont see 70% use in bf1 with a 1080 at 1440p...
This is just an example. I don't know if other titles are utilizing 100% of the CPU. I bet there are and probably with time more will come out.
I could see it. 70% was there not all the time but it was there. You wanted an example and here it is.
It will last 3 years or even more. My 3770k is still running great but in games it is a bottleneck though you can still play. If 7700k becomes a bottleneck which i believe it will you would still play games with decent FPS but the bottleneck is there and this game shows it. With Volta coming out and i'm sure you believe it will be faster than 1080 Ti the bottleneck will be more apparent than now. Wouldn't you agree? besides more FPS and higher res will also impact CPU utilization. Volta comes out next year (if I'm correct). Look at the utilization difference in BF1 with the 1080 vs 1080Ti. from 70(maximum that i have noticed) to a 100. Since you didn't see the 70 claiming it was less than that then just imagine the 7700k CPU utilization in that game when Volta comes out being faster than 1080 Ti. Remember that's just one title example. BF1 is not that much CPU intensive but higher resolutions(1440p is more common now) and higher FPS counts (everybody wants 144Hz monitors) will impact CPU's pretty much in that game. There are plenty games that would use all the 7700k's resources and max the utilization out. With Volta which will be faster is like nothing. Keep in mind that games are also becoming more and more demanding.
BTW I'd like to look at the CPU utilization level with 7820X in that game. couldn't find one yet.
Posted on Reply
#24
EarthDog
Zzzzzzzzz. It will last a lot longer than a year man, period. 3 years it will be just fine.
Posted on Reply
#25
Prima.Vera
ratirt said:
This is just an example. I don't know if other titles are utilizing 100% of the CPU. I bet there are and probably with time more will come out.
I could see it. 70% was there not all the time but it was there. You wanted an example and here it is.
It will last 3 years or even more. My 3770k is still running great but in games it is a bottleneck though you can still play. If 7700k becomes a bottleneck which i believe it will you would still play games with decent FPS but the bottleneck is there and this game shows it. With Volta coming out and i'm sure you believe it will be faster than 1080 Ti the bottleneck will be more apparent than now. Wouldn't you agree? besides more FPS and higher res will also impact CPU utilization. Volta comes out next year (if I'm correct). Look at the utilization difference in BF1 with the 1080 vs 1080Ti. from 70(maximum that i have noticed) to a 100. Since you didn't see the 70 claiming it was less than that then just imagine the 7700k CPU utilization in that game when Volta comes out being faster than 1080 Ti. Remember that's just one title example. BF1 is not that much CPU intensive but higher resolutions(1440p is more common now) and higher FPS counts (everybody wants 144Hz monitors) will impact CPU's pretty much in that game. There are plenty games that would use all the 7700k's resources and max the utilization out. With Volta which will be faster is like nothing. Keep in mind that games are also becoming more and more demanding.
BTW I'd like to look at the CPU utilization level with 7820X in that game. couldn't find one yet.
Your whole post is a bunch of nonsense. Sorry dude, try again. Your 3770k is bottleneck in games?? LOL, the most stupid thing I've read in years. :laugh::laugh:
Oh yeah, is a bottleneck if you consider that 150fps (3770k) vs 155fps (7700k) to be bottleneck.
Watch the video above more carefully. The only thing that is the bottleneck in that game is the GPU who is on average at 95% most of the time, while the CPU is 55%.
Please do tell again how the CPUs are a bottleneck in games...:nutkick::shadedshu:
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment