Upgrade to 7700K was a let down!

[EarthDog]

Yeah, it's a cheap X99 motherboard, but then again, most cheap X99 motherboards have many features that the more midrange or high end Z170/Z270 boards have.

Not really... between z170/270 and x99, the feature sets are remarkably similar. About the only difference is number of pcie lanes and ports etc....

Point was its bottom of the barrel pricewise. I could care less about features as that wasnt the point. My point was made. Its best to let it rest.

 

[frunction]

As an update, I put my 5820k@4.6/X-99 Pro to a different use and put in a 7700k@5.0/Gaming 5 as my main gaming machine. Was said here to be a downgrade, but with all else being the same, I'm getting average 10-15% better performance in the games I play.

OP might need to change something.

 

[de.das.dude]

Op needs to ride to ryzen...

 

[Artas1984]

Just updated our main platform from X99 to Z270 and I must say I am not that impressed at all. Upgraded from 5930K to 7700k and Asus X99 Deluxe to Maximus IX Hero and even got a decent discount at Overland Park Microcenter for combo purchase.

If you wanted to upgrade, you could have gotten a Core i7 6900K in future, which is actually, as i see the current benchmarks, more than often faster than Core i7 7820X! With that X99 platform you had massive upgrade options!

No one upgrades high-end to mainstream. People upgrade high-end to high-end.

That being said i doubt that many people upgrade even X99 to X299.

I would understand only X58 to X299 upgrade due to many things, from which CPU power would be the least important, right CAPSLOCKSTUCK?

With that S1151 there is no path to upgrade. WTF have you done?

 

[Kanan]

X299 is a let down because IPC is barely higher whereas efficiency is gruesome ("MESH" my ass). I would never upgrade from X79 to X299 or from X99 to X299. In fact the most appealing platform for me right now would be X99 with an 8 core/10 core (5960X/6900K/6950X <- best gaming CPU atm) or being able to snatch of one of the ultra rare Xeon 1000 series for X79, that have 8 cores (Ivy Bridge based) and are unlocked. That would set me for another X years.

 

[EarthDog]

6950x of those listed, id also consider the best. However, a 7700k for any games which use less than 8 threads (what, 99%?) rules the roost, both in performance and higher clocks, and is cheaper. So, yes and no...ill wait for a lot more games to hit the market than can utilize 8t before id say hedt is the best for gaming. Now, gaming amd streaming... you have a different story..

About the only way id invest in more than 4 cores now is if i was planning to keep the machine for more than 4 years. 4c/8t is plenty for the next few years, really.

I wpuldnt go any further back than 6950x generationally... that glass ceiling with ivybridge is real at 1080p and even 2560x1440 using high end cards.

 

[Kanan]

7700K is fine, but I'm not talking about having multiple machines, so I'd simply go for one CPU, the best CPU and that's the 6950X. Kingpin is still using it as well. 6950X is leading in average in gaming benchmarks (conducted by PCGH for example), so 7700K being the "king in games" is a myth. I learned about that basically a week ago or so and I was kinda surprised. As a matter of fact, most modern games utilize more than enough threads to handily beat the 7700K in average now. Especially have a look at those minimum FPS, the 7700K is quite the sucker when it comes to that. Even Ryzen is often better there, that is the power of having more cores.

As a matter of fact, the days of "quad cores being the kings of games" is over. And every day that passes it's even more over. The new king that will soon arrive, will probably be the 8700K, 6 cores with highest IPC clocked very high. I think it will even beat the 6950X, just not in benchmarks.

 

[EarthDog]

Id like to see a link showing what you are inferring is true. Both the 7700k losing out more than the 6950x and many games using more than 8 threads. Or, wait, you said minimums?

Here is a link showing a couple of games. 7700k beat it out except for witcher3..
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=#&ved=0ahUKEwjI6rrh-fDVAhVEOyYKHYOeDHkQwqsBCCcwAA&usg=AFQjCNF1sHlk2z9QIx28jtvfnGP_UlkifA

And regarding kingpin using it... of course, it has more threads and half the 3d marks respond more to threads than to clocks. A 5.5ghz 6950x will give better cpu and overall scores than a 6.5ghz 7700k. That argument really isnt relevant.

 

[Kanan]

6950X is better in anything than 7700K. TPU is using the wrong CPU for their benchmarks as well, as 6950X is superior, 6900K is as well among some others to be seen here:

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/CPU-Hardware-154106/Tests/Rangliste-Bestenliste-1143392/

-> Also include 6950X via settings.

Surprisingly the new Skylake X CPUs are doing rather fine, only the power consumption is bad. And this test even includes StarCraft which is a game which only uses a few cores. Even with that game in the chart, >Hexa+ CPUs are still ruling.

 

[EarthDog]

Sorry, what does that link show? I dont see a 6950x there.

"Better than anything"? Please elaborate/clarify that point...

 

[Kanan]

You're just deflecting buddy. 6900K is even better than 7700K, it's obvious that 6950X doesn't need to be OPTED IN to prove my point. But next time read my post better: I told you to include it via settings.

7700K isn't even the prince of gaming CPUs. It's far off. And the games they tested there includes StarCraft, a notoriously bad threaded game.

Edit: 6900K is better in tests found on other websites, not here. To make that clear.

Edit 2: you also have to set it to "games only".

 

[EarthDog]

Deflecting? Im trying to follow is all...no need to be short with me about it... sheesh..

I see the 6900k is 1% slower games... whatever they tested and said.. its a german website which isnt translating on my phone. I have no idea what games or much of anything right now..

 

[Kanan]

Yeah 6900K is 1% slower. But these tests include StarCraft, you can believe me 100% that in other tests the 6900K would win. I think even the strange Skylake X CPUs are faster once you apply more games and less "StarCraft 2".

Games are listed there, same names as in english obviously. Don't play the " I can't read different languages" card here, I mean, the important part is written in english.

Games Anno 2205, Asssassin's Creed Syndicate, Crysis 3, Dragon Age Inquisition, F1 2015, Far Cry 4, Starcraft 2 Legacy of the Void, The Witcher 3

I wouldn't say that is a list of games that really favours the 6950X. It's even somewhat outdated. The 6950X should be even better benchmarked with a suite of newer games. I think all those new Skylake X and 6900K would also be faster then.

 

[EarthDog]

That a 6900k is slower.. got it. Thanks.

Edit: ill look when i get home and off mobile.

 

[Kanan]

That a 6900k is slower.. got it. Thanks.

Even so, when I first spoke about the 6950X being king I had different websites in mind. I just need to find those, and the 6900K is better anyway. I think everyone knows that.

Anyway, the 6950X is better, that debate is settled. I just wanted a few other CPUs as a bonus to further be ahead of you. Wrong website, kinda favours outdated quad cores, nvm.

 

[EarthDog]

Oh, its not settled... i think you are right though in the few games that scale over 8 threads.... which isnt more than a handful. In time, more SHOULD be coded that way... but weve been waiting for that since q6600 days. A quad with ht is going to be fine for the next 3+ years. Onky after that point when (a lot) more games are out which can use more threass will that be true... that is, until you support your assertions.

Yoy are reading the obvious future well, but we disagree on the present (and that isnt even getting into cost benefits).

 

[Kanan]

Oh it is, because this is a list with a quite outdated suite that kinda even favours the 7700K. In a suite with just newest games the 7700K would stand no chance. AFAIK the Skylake X chips, 6900K and 6950X were all faster there.

Oh and here you go, I'm not waiting:

Quad Cores are pretty much over since Ryzen 7 arrived, Ryzen is the first herald of dawn, ending Quad Core (myth) being sovereign for good. Intel is doing it anyway with Coffee Lake soon, question just is, will the 8700K be fast enough to dethrone 6950X, or not? I think yes.

 

[EarthDog]

Ok, got down to it.......... finally.

One thing I noticed is this testing is at 720p... What muppets have a 980Ti at 720p res? 1080p or bust... none of this low res no AA stuff is terribly relevant considering most are playing at 1080p with plenty of AA using a 980Ti where the story changes. Why do sites insist on creating these BS environments to test in is beyond me!

Anyhoo, another vid showing it winning in one title (Civ V - also is at 1080p - games are 5:15 in)..

EDIT: Another with one title winning...(3:15 in)

 

[Kanan]

Well 720p makes perfect sense because it sets the limit totally to the CPU (or lets say, makes CPU the bottlenecking factor, not the GPU). As a matter of fact Wizzard did the same here for TPU. It makes perfect sense.

edit: regarding those videos, Skylake X is not bad, but it showed odd behaviour in some games, that's why I'd still prefer the 6950X. It's simple, has the old cache architecture and works. I'll try to find some of what I was talking about.

 

[EarthDog]

We disagree on that point as well. In your absence, there was a huge thread/debate about that. Running at 720p with no AA/PProcessing gives you a great idea of how a CPU responds at that res. However, people don't play there with a high end card. Results do not scale linearly and are different datasets together. It is creating an environment to try to isolate the CPU as best it can, and it does. The problem is, as I said, it doesn't scale with higher res. So, yes, if you play at 720p with a 980ti/1070, a 6950x is faster by 1%. Now, for those that play at 1080p with high settings and use AA, the story changes.

See the two vids I edited in.

 

[Kanan]

See my edit.

I like videos that are actually understandable (11.20min going):

Now, you think 7700K is king. It is not. Those 6+ Core CPUs are all running on awfully low clockrates, but we all know here, that nobody would buy a 6950X for gaming and then let it run stock. That said, with overclock the 7700K has no chance against Skylake X (at least 7900X) and 6950X / 6900K. I think 5960X as well. Not sure about the 6 cores, but for the 8 and 10 cores it's a safe bet. I think Kingpin and some others agree with me here as well.

I still need a website or video with more games though. And please understandable. I rather do not trust reviewers I cannot understand.

 

[EarthDog]

LOL, Kingpin is useless here.. he is a benchmarker, not a gamer. I already went over that and why he would still use it. That said, 7900X is clocking better and a bit faster than the 6950x so he will start using that for benchmarking.............again, benchmarking, not gaming. He uses it for 3DMark records where cores actually matter and scale.

I'm sorry if my videos were in English, my native tongue and the person had an accent... but they were all pictures/graphs as well. I gave the times where the graphs etc are in there if you can't be pained to listen for the setup details because of a person's accent.

EDIT: And my sole talking point in the vids are 7700K and 6950X... you are correct in SL-X acting wonky because of the private cache setup...but that isn't a talking point either. Just 7700K and 6950X hoss.

 

[Kanan]

LOL, Kingpin is useless here.. he is a benchmarker, not a gamer. I already went over that and why he would still use it. That said, 7900X is clocking better and a bit faster than the 6950x so he will start using that for benchmarking.............again, benchmarking, not gaming. He uses it for 3DMark records where cores actually matter and scale.

I don't think so, as I said earlier, the new Skylake X CPUs show odd behaviour in some games/benchmarks. And he has more than enough money and is also supported, so he would've already done it - but he didn't.

I'm sorry if my videos were in English, my native tongue... but they were all pictures/graphs as well. I gave the times where the graphs etc are in there if you can't be pained to listen for the setup details.

Since when is "Italian" and "I don't know" the English language? Are you even playing your own videos, you post? The actual person here that posted an english video was me and basically for that same reason as well.

 

[EarthDog]

My fault.. he's already moved on to the 7960X........
http://hwbot.org/user/kingpin/

Vinbo and what he is BENCHMARKING has nothing to do with this discussion.

EDIT: Sorry, 2nd vid is english, first is not, LOL! But again, read between the lines and stop pretending to be dense. There are graphs and words.

EDIT2: You link showed the 7700K winning BF1, losing in the 2nd title but way better minimum/1% FPS, winning in the 3rd title. Only AOTS showed it winning there, no? So, thanks?

 

[Kanan]

lol doesn't matter my friend. 7960X is still not an 7700K, and he would never use an 7700K to game, because it's easily easily easily slower. My arguments are rock solid, no, diamond solid. 6950X already beats 7700K in numerous games running STOCK, with a nice overclock the 7700K is *destroyed*. Safe bet. You lost that one. And I'm sure it holds true for numerous 6 to 10 cores as well, once overclocked. The difference here is, 7700K is already running very high, that means overclocks won't change a lot there, whereas for CPUS, especially ones that are clocked low and have a high amount of cores, it changes a fucking damn lot.

Yeah 2nd video is english, I already saw - his english is so weird that I though it's something else, skipping through it.

I'm not sure who is dense here, I think you're living in the past, still thinking the 7700K to be king - it never was, and never will be. 6950X pretty much rules since arriving, has maybe, just maybe, passed the scepter on to 7900X or higher now. And before 6950X there was 5960X (including overclocks), and before that, there were other CPUs, all faster than Quad Core mainstream ones. Mainstream pretty much *never* ruled. I can spin this back as far as Core i7 1st gen, LGA1366 which still has 6 core CPUs that were faster. 3960X was faster than 2600/2700K. 4960X was faster than 3770K. 5960X destroyed 4770K/4790K. 5960X is still faster than 7700K and 6000 series which got pretty much ignored by gamers. 6900K and 6950X are easily faster than 7700K once clocked with same clocks or higher compared to 7700K. It's a easy task. A easy comparison. And Skylake X is another nail on the coffin for quad core CPUs, as well as Ryzen 5 + 7. Ryzen 3 on the other hand pretty much killed dual cores other than for APUs / media center PCs maybe. Intel is lucky that Ryzen can't achieve high clocks, because I'm sure Ryzen would've done great with high clocks.