Intel i7 7700K stagnate, but getting 5Ghz............

[thesmokingman]

Considering we both have the same GPU running at very similar core core/mem clock frequencies, it does have a lot to do with more than just the GPU overclock. His overclock isn't much diff than mine.

That's clearly your narrative as your gpu is clocked a step higher.

 

[AndrewWyb]

You're clearly on the i7 7700K hate bandwagon, so let's just agree to disagree.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

The moral of the story is that Intel's 10nm process is broken. We're not going to any big moves from Intel until they transition to 7nm. It's not because of lack of trying; it's because physics are making die shrinks difficult.

The stars are aligning in a spectacular fashion for AMD right now. They need to capitalize on it before "chipzilla" digs out of their process hole.

 

[AndrewWyb]

Yea, if those leaked Ryzen benchmark scores are true then Intel should be pretty nervous about what's to come. I'd be selling Intel stock right about now if I owned any.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

I wouldn't. The Trump/Intel announcement (Chandler, AZ Fab) was Intel doubling down on 7nm. I see that move as like Intel abandoning Netburst and switching to Core. They have decided they can't twiddle their thumbs waiting for a 10nm miracle. They've tried long enough.

I think the threat of Ryzen expedited the turn of focus towards 7nm. Intel has faced a Jim Keller architecture before and it set them scurrying.

 

[AndrewWyb]

Hopefully it pans out. Consumers would benifit with another Intel vs. AMD rivalry. It's been pretty one-sided lately.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

For a decade! Core 2 launched July 2006.

 

[MrGenius]

...(I took the top spot from an i7 6950x with same GPU https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/unigine-heaven-4-0-benchmark-scores-part-2.222125/).

I'll let you in on a little "secret". You easily took the #1 spots for the Heaven and Valley scores here mostly because your GPU is water-cooled. Operating temps can play a significant role in FPS. With lower temps yielding higher framerates. I've seen it make all the difference between similarly clocked cards.

That said. Depending on the benchmark CPU speed can make a big difference too. Not so much with Heaven. But much so with Valley.

 

[AndrewWyb]

Well good to know. I didn't think lower temps improved frame rate. I figured if two people have the same GPU running at the same clock speeds, with one at 35C and the other at 75C, they'd still perform equal to eachother, and assumed the only time temp would affect frame rate is if it got too high and thermal throttling occurred.

 

[MrGenius]

Like I said, it's sort of a "secret". Or rather a "little known" fact. Not too many are aware of it. Outside of the dedicated enthusiast circles anyway.

 

[thesmokingman]

Like I said, it's sort of a "secret". Or rather a "little known" fact. Not too many are aware of it. Outside of the dedicated enthusiast circles anyway.

Yea, it's definitely not a secret with enthusiasts/overclockers. It's kind of the whole point, lower temps = higher overclock. And in context with Nv's boost, lower temps = higher sustained clock, not to mention lower power draws which means more time before throttle.

 

[MrGenius]

I'm not sure we're on the same page. I'm not talking about OC vs. OC. I'm talking about clock for clock. By which I mean the same clock speeds on the same cards. Where the cooler card can achieve higher FPS. Just by staying cooler than the other one. Which, frankly, I'm at a loss to describe the physics of. I just know it's true because I've seen it happen enough to be forced into believing it. Heat is bad for FPS. That's what I'm really trying to say.

 

[thesmokingman]

I'm not sure we're on the same page. I'm not talking about OC vs. OC. I'm talking about clock for clock. By which I mean the same clock speeds on the same cards. Where the cooler card can achieve higher FPS. Just by staying cooler than the other one. Which, frankly, I'm at a loss to describe the physics of. I just know it's true because I've seen it happen enough to be forced into believing it. Heat is bad for FPS. That's what I'm really trying to say.

I already explained why cooler equals faster. Current gpus scale clocks and sustain clocks via temperature. Two gpus in two different setups will not maintain the same clock frequency curve due to differences in cooling. Heat also affects leakage, causing silicon to be less efficient. That's why much effort is spent to cool chips, keep the leakage down and maintain efficiency. It's not that mysterious.

 

[AndrewWyb]

It's kind of the whole point, lower temps = higher overclock.

The way you worded it had me thinking you weren't on the same page as well. This isn't the point he was trying to make, because obviously we all understand that lower temps can sustain higher clock speeds, and therefore higher FPS. I don't know where you yourself explained cooler = faster regardless of clock speeds. It's not common knowledge and it's certainly news to me.

 

[thesmokingman]

The way you worded it had me thinking you weren't on the same page as well. This isn't the point he was trying to make, because obviously we all understand that lower temps can sustain higher clock speeds, and therefore higher FPS. I don't know where you yourself explained cooler = faster regardless of clock speeds. It's not common knowledge and it's certainly news to me.

Ok, that line there is getting into nothing quantifiable, ie. cool sounding explanation or something other not based in facts. I'm not even sure what that means. Cooler, by how much? Regardless of clock speeds, is there no limit? If that is what the other poster is debating, then obviously that's not what I'm saying.

 

[EarthDog]

Ok, maybe I embellished a bit on the "50%+" but I do see quite an improvement over the 3770k in all areas, especially my PCMark 7 benchmarks. But as I said earlier, It's hard to really judge exactly my improvements with regards to each component since I upgraded everything in one go, but I do think it's telling that owners of the i7 7700K are getting high benchmark scores in all charts I'm seeing (I took the top spot from an i7 6950x with same GPU https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/unigine-heaven-4-0-benchmark-scores-part-2.222125/). Overall I'm just very happy with the performance, regardless of how similar it is on paper to past gen CPU's.

lol... you took the first place spot because of your gpu core and memory clocks are higher.. not to mention 5gHz vs 4.2ghz helps out on this bench.



As far as temps making a difference in performance... sort of. If your temps keep boost bins/clocks higher, then yes. But if we are talking same clocks but with lower temps... it doesn't make a damn difference. None. 2100mhz at 75C is the same at 35C.

 

[revin]

But it's literally the exact same price as the 6700K, so what's the problem?

Hell it's same price as the 2600K was ! I'd jump on it in a heartbeat if mine was to poop out, but alas it is a way older gen. Even still I like what they brought to the table with it.
Any way congrats on a great upgrade

 

[MrGenius]

Drop your clocks to match his and see if 35°C doesn't get you anything. Debate over.

 

[AndrewWyb]

Ok, that line there is getting into nothing quantifiable, ie. cool sounding explanation or something other not based in facts. I'm not even sure what that means. Cooler, by how much? Regardless of clock speeds, is there no limit? If that is what the other poster is debating, then obviously that's not what I'm saying.

If two people have the same GPU with the exact same clocks speeds, but one is running significantly cooler than the other, the cooler card will attain higher FPS. I do believe this to be true after MrGenius pointed it out to me. I just tried matching GPU clock speeds to the other user with an i7 7700K on the list below me and I benched a modest amount higher. Could there be other factors at play? Sure, but I believe temp is also a contributing factor. But yea this is my last comment on the matter, so lets agree to disagree again.

 

[TheHunter]

You're clearly on the i7 7700K hate bandwagon, so let's just agree to disagree.

Its not hate per say, more like despise or a bad/sour ripoff joke.

Its nothing but a better binned SkyLake, or what DevilsCanyon was to Haswell (most stopped at 4.6ghz).

Idk if one would celebrate or praise it.. Heck it barely reaches 5Ghz at reasonable temp. and voltage, that's if you're lucky.
Haswell to DevilsCanyon - very few went pass 4.8Ghz and its not like Intel tried to believe 5Ghz guarantied bla bla, same shit now. xD

 

[EarthDog]

If two people have the same GPU with the exact same clocks speeds, but one is running significantly cooler than the other, the cooler card will attain higher FPS. I do believe this to be true after MrGenius pointed it out to me. I just tried matching GPU clock speeds to the other user with an i7 7700K on the list below me and I benched a modest amount higher. Could there be other factors at play? Sure, but I believe temp is also a contributing factor. But yea this is my last comment on the matter, so lets agree to disagree again.

What it WILL ACTUALLY do is perhaps save a couple watts. We've already seen before on the forums as temps rose we saw a very small increase in power used at the same load. So, yes, efficiency goes up, but not in performance. Nothing changes in ipc. Ive had dozens of cpus on water, and several gpus on water... nada.. zilch...zippo. nunca. No differences at the same clocks. Been there, done that... it's not on me to support my assertion considering what's being said goes against what is commonly held as true.

It's clear there are other differences between your system and the other one to reflect your 'modest' increases... whatever that was (margin of error perhaps??).

Anyhoo, this is about the 7700k, so.. I'll just step back.

 

[Mussels]

the only reason temps can affect performance is thermal throttle/turbo states.