VagabondWraith

It seems everybody overwhelmingly approves of them. I'll just shut up now. ha

RTG will soon belong to Intel. AMD will be a CPU only company. Which is good, because Intel will actually challenge NVidia. How cool would it be to have an Intel branded dGPU in your rig?

done12many2 -- 7900x -- 5.1 GHz -- Multi 2872cb / Single 233cb
 
This run was done with a "Per Usage" OC.  When 4 or less cores are being used, the CPU runs at 5.2 GHz.  When more than 4 are used, it drops to 5.1 GHz.
 
 

Benchmark:     Fire Strike
CPU:                i9-7900x @ 5GHz
GPU:                EVGA 1080 Ti FE (2-way SLI)
GPU Core:       2,088 MHz
GPU Memory: 1,526 MHz (12,208 MHz effective)
Score:              36,327
3DMark Link:   https://www.3dmark.com/fs/13821257
 
 

IT Manager: Uhmm, yeah, we're gonna have to replace all of our wireless APs...
Executive: Didn't we just finish rolling out the upgrades last month?
IT Manager: Uhmm, yeah...
Executive: ... ... ... You're fired.

AdoredTV is a channel that should be ignored by everyone.

Uhm.... What?
 
Thats a very cherry picked graph, and anyone could tell you that at 1440p and 4k the bottleneck is on the GPU, that has nothing to do with how one CPU compares to another in any other scenario. You're focused so hard on the gaming performance, youre forgetting CPU's do more than bottleneck a GPU  at lower resolutions

Not sure whether to start a new thread or not, but the new Nvidia drivers 387.92 improved Nvidia card performance in Forza 7
https://www.overclock3d.net/news/gpu_displays/nvidia_s_geforce_387_92_driver_offers_a_15-25_performance_boost_in_forza_motorsport_7/1#.WduAk5Tv9GY.reddit
https://www.computerbase.de/2017-09/forza-7-benchmark/2/
 
Computerbase.de only tested the 1080 and 1060, but indeed gains are around 20% as claimed. however the 1080 is still 13% slower than the Vega 64 (1% slower than 56). on the other hand, the 1080 gains on the 64 at 1440p, then beating it at 4k 

I see it’s able to utilize AVX2 and AVX512. Will definitely give Intel CPU’s a clear advantage.
 
@done12many2 @TahoeDust
 
Just a a heads up since I know you guys love benchmarking too.

done12many2 -- 7900x -- 5 GHz -- Multi 2830cb / Single 225cb
 
 

I thought his points were rather good and "non-toxic"... and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one. If you have to resort to personal insults in the end, I'd say it's rather evident that you lost the argument anyway.
 
Don't be the guy who throws a tantrum because he wasn't able to agree with somebody. It just makes you look bad.

For reference, here is an i9-7960X all stock setting:
 
 

There’s one on eBay if anyone wants an 8700K.
 
 

There’s one on eBay if anyone wants an 8700K.
 
 

There’s one on eBay if anyone wants an 8700K.
 
 

There’s one on eBay if anyone wants an 8700K.
 
 

There’s one on eBay if anyone wants an 8700K.
 
 

Yeah... it takes about a month for my local Microcenter to get enough stock in order to provide a discount over other retailers. Right now, they only have 1 of each CFL CPU in stock, and they are charging a premium due to the high demands. I say for most retailers, 1-2 months after launch is your best bet to get the product at a decent price. Especially with these products that offer more cores at similar prices. People are going to eat these up. 

Okay, let me stop you right here. If you honestly think Intel NEEDS a new architecture to answer Ryzen, you are mistaken. They can simply lower prices and put several nails in AMD's coffin. Remember, Ryzen's ONLY appeal is it's prices and PCIe lane counts. Weaker IMC, inferior IPC, high cross-CCX latency (and poor scaling of the infinity fabric on lower CCX count SKU's), etc.
 
Coffeelake has less to do with Intel answering Ryzen, and more to do with them being greedy enough to sell consumers the same architecture 3 times in a row (Skylake 3.0). As stated earlier, answering ryzen is as simple as lowering prices. 
 
I also like how you completely changed your own argument from AMD being as fast or faster than Intel, to one that is about price:performance. As for "AMD would already be dead", that's simply not true. They have been bailed out a few times now, and that trend would likely continue if Intel became over-competitive. For the sake of not letting you get away with your misinformation, allow me to go back and double down on my points.
 
https://hardforum.com/threads/amd-ryzen-blender-benchmark-scores-thread.1919896/
 
https://www.pcworld.com/article/3151464/hardware/you-can-find-out-how-your-cpu-compares-to-amds-ryzen-for-free.html
People did not know about this render sample change until after the initial tests, which made Ryzen look much faster than what it actually was. When the leaked Blender benchmarks came out, people were trying to test this themselves on stock blender settings (which is what they assumed AMD used) and saw themselves have extremely slower times than AMD, which caused them to assume AMD was X percentage faster, when in reality, they were on par with Stock Intel X99 CPU's, and slower when comparing OC vs OC. 
 
Instead of trying to justify your misinformation with a video on why Intel is a bad company, why not present some actual performance results instead? That would be far more beneficial to your claims. 

It was the Wraith cooler. They automatically stop working on anything over 4GHz.  

TDP relates to power consumption in the same way radiator size in a car relates to fuel economy.
 
It doesn't.  It doesn't even indicate how much power the CPU will draw at stock.  In fact the only thing TDPis good for is designing a cooler for a specific CPU usage. 
 
 

Is an AMD lover for sure.  I like how he mentioned that it could probably go faster, but he just went with 4.1 GHz.
 
Constantly trying to hard so screw comparisons.  Meanwhile, everyone else is running 4.3 and higher.  
 
 

Playing around with a 7920x.  Fast little 12c for sure.
 
4.8 GHz - 3267cb multi / 216cb single
 
 
 

It seems to me to be a storm in a tea cup,  How many people do you know (online or otherwise) that buy the latest CPU with the intention of upgrading said CPU only within the next 2 years?  The first time I even heard the term "place holder CPU" was in discussion regarding this very topic.  No one has ever recommended CPU only as a viable upgrade path because even with 2 year product support it isn't (the current CPU, in this case likely a 7700K, is still good for a few more years versus the cost of a new K series CPU for the hoped gain).  There are only one or two that would buy every year, but they are hard core overclockers/enthusiasts. Everyone else goes to the 4 year mark which means getting a new motherboard even with AMD.  
 
It seems the tone has changed hugely,  as not 1 year ago people where recommending spending extra on a Z series mobo and K series CPU to ensure a few extra years of service, now people are complaining they spent all that money and can't upgrade the CPU next year.  

Sexy beast. If I had 2 grand to plop down I’d buy it just to make my e-penis grow a foot.