8700k performance dismal in comparison to 1600?

[This kid builds pc]

http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/intel-core-i7-8700k-benchmarks.html Here the 8700k at stock 3.7ghz only gets about 1230... to put that in comparison my cpu (1600) gets 1200ish (just did one quick test) at 3.7ghz. That's only about a 3% improvement in terms of ipc yet the 8700k is going to about 140 more. Sure the 8700k can overclock higher, but the statement at hand is still mind boggling imo.

[Guest]

I'll wait a few days for real benchmarks, not some out of an HP...

[This kid builds pc]

Just now, Legendarypoet said:

I'll wait a few days for real benchmarks, not some out of an HP...

A cpu is a cpu no matter what pc it's in.

[vanished]

Are those scores real?  Accounting for clockspeed (1230 @ 4.3 GHz and 196 @ 4.7 GHz) the extra boost due to hyperthreading appears to be about 14.3%.  To put that in perspective, past generations have seen numbers in the 30s and 40s

 

The math for those who care:

Spoiler

Multi-threaded:

1230 / (4.3 * 6) = 47.6744... cb / core·GHz

 

Single-threaded:

196 / (4.7 * 1) = 41.70212... cb / core·GHz

 

Ratio:

47.6744 / 41.70212 = 1.143... (14.3% boost)

 

--- for comparison, the cinebench scores for a 7700k ---

 

Multi:

985 / (4.4 * 4) = 55.9659... cb / core·GHz

 

Single:

201 / (4.5 * 1) = 44.6666... cb / core·GHz

 

Ratio:

55.9659 / 44.66666 = 1.25296... (About 25.3%.  I know other chips have been higher in the past.)

 

Also as a side note this means IPC has gone down!?

 

--- And to prove that this is valid, something with no HT should score about 0% improvement, so lets try an i5 7600k ---

 

Multi:

696 / (4 * 4) = 43.5 cb / core·GHz

 

Single:

182 / (4.2 * 1) = 43.33333... cb / core·GHz

 

Ratio: 43.5 / 43.3333 = 1.0038 or ~0.38% (margin of error)

 

Edited October 2, 2017 by Ryan_Vickers
added calcs

[This kid builds pc]

1 minute ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Are those scores real?  Accounting for clockspeed (1230 @ 4.3 GHz and 196 @ 4.7 GHz) the extra boost due to hyperthreading appears to be about 14.3%.  To put that in perspective, past generations have seen numbers in the 30s and 40s

I can't vouch for the numbers as it really is speculation at best. 

[Guest]

Just now, This kid builds pc said:

A cpu is a cpu no matter what pc it's in.

This could have been an engineering sample with any number of limitations.

Real benchmarks are just days away. Just simply stating that I'll wait before passing judgment.

[tp95112]

Wait till actual benchmarks. 3 days away from launch. 

[AresKrieger]

2 minutes ago, This kid builds pc said:

A cpu is a cpu no matter what pc it's in.

Umm no, have you seen a high end cpu try to run off 2GB of ram before

 

Anyway the IPC of intel is significantly higher than AMDs thus these benches are almost surely BS, we should just wait for confirmed test before drawing any conclusions

[Guest]

Just now, AresKrieger said:

Umm no, have you seen a high end cpu try to run off 2GB of ram before

 

Anyway the IPC of intel is significantly higher than AMDs thus these benches are almost surely BS, we should just wait for confirmed test before drawing any conclusions

I tried to post a 1950X w/ a 2 gig stick. It wanted no part of that, lol!

[This kid builds pc]

1 minute ago, Legendarypoet said:

I tried to post a 1950X w/ a 2 gig stick. It wanted no part of that, lol!

I didn't even know they sold 2gb sticks for ddr4.

[gbergeron]

14 minutes ago, This kid builds pc said:

http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/intel-core-i7-8700k-benchmarks.html Here the 8700k at stock 3.7ghz only gets about 1230... to put that in comparison my cpu (1600) gets 1200ish (just did one quick test) at 3.7ghz. That's only about a 3% improvement in terms of ipc yet the 8700k is going to about 140 more. Sure the 8700k can overclock higher, but the statement at hand is still mind boggling imo.

That is the ryzen overclocked and the intel not overclock.....

 

Watch your ryzen getting destroyed by the 8700k overclocked in 1 month... 

 

get ready for it  

[Guest]

1 minute ago, This kid builds pc said:

I didn't even know they sold 2gb sticks for ddr4.

Idk about "sell." It came out of a Dell PowerEdge. I haven't even seen one sold anywhere.

[Princess Luna]

1 minute ago, This kid builds pc said:

I didn't even know they sold 2gb sticks for ddr4.

There certainly are 2gb sticks for laptops but for desktops I also haven't seen yet... I think that i9 and TR should still work fine with 4gb but that clearly is a bottleneck.

[vanished]

I'm calling fake, surly the real scores will be higher than this.  It just doesn't add up (check my post above, and the link in my sig about the typical performance of past generations)

[Princess Luna]

Just now, Legendarypoet said:

Idk about "sell." It came out of a Dell PowerEdge. I haven't even seen one sold anywhere.

OEM solutions does have its trivias... funny.

[Colin Donoghue]

 

Just now, Legendarypoet said:

Idk about "sell." It came out of a Dell PowerEdge. I haven't even seen one sold anywhere.

why would they do that a 4 gb stick is like 20 to 30 bucks

[This kid builds pc]

1 minute ago, Colin Donoghue said:

 

why would they do that a 4 gb stick is like 20 to 30 bucks

I remember when 16gb was 60 bucks .

[Guest]

Just now, Colin Donoghue said:

 

why would they do that a 4 gb stick is like 20 to 30 bucks

Just OEMs doing OEM things.

[PCGuy_5960]

I bet that they were using an Intel stock cooler.

[Guest]

Just now, This kid builds pc said:

I remember when 16gb was 60 bucks .

And you can bet there will be a new "crisis" to hold RAM prices where they are as soon as the low yield excuse dries up.

[just_dave]

8700K will be stronger in multicore than R5 1600 but weaker than R7.

I still rather buy the Ryzen chips or 8600K if you only mindlessly game.

[This kid builds pc]

1 minute ago, dave_k said:

8700K will be stronger in multicore than R5 1600 but weaker than R7.

I still rather buy the Ryzen chips or 8600K if you only mindlessly game.

For gamers 8350k sounds a-ok

 

[gbergeron]

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-8700K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-5-1600X/3937vs3920

 

 

 

40% better 

[VagabondWraith]

47 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

I bet that they were using an Intel stock cooler.

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

[ivryk]

21 minutes ago, This kid builds pc said:

http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/intel-core-i7-8700k-benchmarks.html Here the 8700k at stock 3.7ghz only gets about 1230... to put that in comparison my cpu (1600) gets 1200ish (just did one quick test) at 3.7ghz. That's only about a 3% improvement in terms of ipc yet the 8700k is going to about 140 more. Sure the 8700k can overclock higher, but the statement at hand is still mind boggling imo.

If anything, the i5-8600k will have that score or even more(1200ish), if we assume same ipc as Skylake, 208cb single core(when clocked at 4.8ghz) X6 cores = 1248cb, we should just wait for the 5th.