New to Come from Intel: 6-core i7-7800X sells for $389

[Haeking]

Im thinking this will be the most bought cpu in the new line up from the intel series. It has 6 cores and compared to a 4 core for about $339 the $50 will be worth it. Any thoughts ?

Article: https://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickmoorhead/2017/05/30/intel-announces-new-x-series-high-end-desktop-processors-and-new-i9-line/#7cb7b6c78c4e

[Guest]

Still more expensive than a $300 R7 1700 8 core

[cpuwaiy]

They're screwing over the builders that put together a 7700k system late last year.

[LUUD18]

9 minutes ago, deXxterlab97 said:

Still more expensive than a $300 R7 1700 8 core

Cores doesn't say everything. I feel like that cores is the new Ghz. 

[DocSwag]

2 minutes ago, LUUD18 said:

Cores doesn't say everything. I feel like that cores is the new Ghz. 

It does, when there's decent IPC to back it up.

 

If you're getting a 6 core over a 4 core it means you can make use of many cores. In which case a 1700 has better multi thread performance than a 7800x, no doubts.

[LUUD18]

48 minutes ago, DocSwag said:

It does, when there's decent IPC to back it up.

 

If you're getting a 6 core over a 4 core it means you can make use of many cores. In which case a 1700 has better multi thread performance than a 7800x, no doubts.

But who need's multithread performance nowadays?

[DocSwag]

2 minutes ago, LUUD18 said:

But who need's multithread performance nowadays?

A lot of people? Content creators, programmers using lots of vms, 3D modelers using certain programs, people running simulations, etc.

[done12many2]

1 hour ago, cpuwaiy said:

They're screwing over the builders that put together a 7700k system late last year.

 

Last year?  How long did they expect their PC to remain of substantial value?  Pretty much irrelevant in the PC world.  

 

2 hours ago, deXxterlab97 said:

Still more expensive than a $300 R7 1700 8 core

 

It's a back and forth trade.  The 7800X will be great for guys who still want the higher single-threaded performance then that offered by the R7 1700, but want just a little extra multi-threading.  Multi-threading is still not as prevalent as most people want to make it seem.  

 

It'll have quad channel memory and 28 CPU PCIe + 24 PCIe chipset lanes for a total of 52 PCIe lanes. Yes you have to buy into the X299 platform, but that's also a benefit considering the ability to expand with CPUs of higher core counts if you need to.  

 

My beauty of a 5960x, which will run circles around any Ryzen chip I've seen to date (short of LN2 could chips) spends 95% of it's time using a couple of cores at most.  Sure there are times when all cores get used, but that is VERY rare and only when doing a specific workload.  The other 95% of the time, its single-threaded performance is what matters most.

 

More threads is far from better as my 7700k makes my 5960x look like a slug in most everything I do short of video editing.  

 

If you know for a fact that you will be using all cores most of the time then sacrificing single-threaded performance for the sake of multi-threaded performance makes complete sense the the R7 1700 is the smarter purchase by far.  If you will not be using all the cores all the time, higher single-threaded performance will serve you best.  

[Biggerboot]

2 hours ago, cpuwaiy said:

They're screwing over the builders that put together a 7700k system late last year.

This is so far from the truth, but I would love for you to be right.

 

 

[porina]

 

3 hours ago, cpuwaiy said:

They're screwing over the builders that put together a 7700k system late last year.

Different market. If you didn't pick 6800k instead of 7700k, you're not likely to consider 7800X either.

2 hours ago, DocSwag said:

If you're getting a 6 core over a 4 core it means you can make use of many cores. In which case a 1700 has better multi thread performance than a 7800x, no doubts.

Unless you care at all about AVX. There my 1700 is slower than my 6700k (either stock or OC).

[DocSwag]

7 minutes ago, porina said:

 

Different market. If you didn't pick 6800k instead of 7700k, you're not likely to consider 7800X either.

Unless you care at all about AVX. There my 1700 is slower than my 6700k (either stock or OC).

Avx isn't widely used yet tho  

[done12many2]

10 minutes ago, DocSwag said:

Avx isn't widely used yet tho  

 

More common then folks think.  They just may not know that they are using it.  How often do people actually check to see what instructions are being utilized?  I think more people should.  

 

Some stuff that uses AVX.  (not my list, but I added Handbrake to it) There is quite a bit more out there.  

1. Adobe Photoshop.
2. Adobe After Effects.
3. Adobe Premiere.
4. Photoshop / After Effects / Premiere Plug In's.
5. PeaZip / 7 Zip / WinRar.
6. x264 / FFMPEG (Used by many desktop applications, for instance, Firefox and VLC Player).
7. Excel.
8. MATLAB / Octave / Python (Numpy, Scipy, TensorFlow, etc...).
9. Julia.
10. Numeric Libraries (Used intensively in many applications).
11. Handbrake (H.265 encoding)

[porina]

3 minutes ago, DocSwag said:

Avx isn't widely used yet tho  

Similar argument to more cores. If stuff uses it, it helps a lot. Any buying decision has to consider likely uses and if some are prioritised over others.

[Biggerboot]

1 minute ago, porina said:

Similar argument to more cores. If stuff uses it, it helps a lot. Any buying decision has to consider likely uses and if some are prioritised over others.

While that is true, by the time it becomes useful on that platform, the platform itself may be dated.  That's why the more cores arguments for FX fell flat.

[done12many2]

2 minutes ago, Biggerboot said:

While that is true, by the time it becomes useful on that platform, the platform itself may be dated.  That's why the more cores arguments for FX fell flat.

 

What @porina was saying was, much like the argument of AVX not being widely used, the same can be said about extra cores.  

 

If someone knows for a fact that they need them, great.  If not, you're better served by a processor with stronger cores then more cores.   

[Biggerboot]

1 minute ago, done12many2 said:

 

What @porina was saying was, much like the argument of AVX not being widely used, the same can be said about extra cores.  

 

If someone knows for a fact that they need them, great.  If not, you're better served by a processor with stronger core then more cores.   

Understood.  The context of the buyer matters a lot.  I just wanted to clarify because I'll also see people invest in a platform despite their current needs, because they think it's future proof.  Sometimes it can be, sometimes it isn't.

The counter example to the FX is certainly the RX 480.

[porina]

9 minutes ago, Biggerboot said:

While that is true, by the time it becomes useful on that platform, the platform itself may be dated.  That's why the more cores arguments for FX fell flat.

Thanks to @done12many2 for clarifying my intent. AVX is useful for some things right now. It wont help everything. Similarly, some tasks can use many cores, but it also can't help everything. Attempting to use my 1700 system for high fps gaming, mainly because it was the nearest free system at the time, wasn't the best choice and my 6600k bested it... I probably wouldn't have noticed any difference had I used it on a 60Hz monitor.

[LUUD18]

16 hours ago, DocSwag said:

A lot of people? Content creators, programmers using lots of vms, 3D modelers using certain programs, people running simulations, etc.

Those are only specific people and most of them work for a company and they probably have a server for this. The fact is that most programs aren't optimized for multithreading and won't be in the next 5 years.

[Jumper118]

17 hours ago, cpuwaiy said:

They're screwing over the builders that put together a 7700k system late last year.

People who are buying a quad core in 2017 are screwing themselves over

[Lt.Speirs]

18 hours ago, deXxterlab97 said:

Still more expensive than a $300 R7 1700 8 core

IPC is far more important than core count alone.

[cpuwaiy]

6 hours ago, Jumper118 said:

People who are buying a quad core in 2017 are screwing themselves over

Correct.  I love to watch ESPN and play GTA V at the same time.  But on a Quad core the hit to the frame rate is too damn high!

[Jumper118]

28 minutes ago, cpuwaiy said:

Correct.  I love to watch ESPN and play GTA V at the same time.  But on a Quad core the hit to the frame rate is too damn high!

high fps is a con to induce tearing to make you buy higher refresh rate monitors

[SpaceGhostC2C]

9 hours ago, LUUD18 said:

Those are only specific people and most of them work for a company and they probably have a server for this. The fact is that most programs aren't optimized for multithreading and won't be in the next 5 years.

Who cares about most people? You buy a PC for yourself, not for some living statistic to come and use it. So it either helps you or it doesn't. We don't have 300 CPUs for all of them to be clones targeted to the average user, we have them so that each user can self-select into the CPU that makes the most sense to her/him.

[LUUD18]

On 6/9/2017 at 7:30 PM, SpaceGhostC2C said:

Who cares about most people? You buy a PC for yourself, not for some living statistic to come and use it. So it either helps you or it doesn't. We don't have 300 CPUs for all of them to be clones targeted to the average user, we have them so that each user can self-select into the CPU that makes the most sense to her/him.

I was responding to DocSwag because he said that a lot of people need multithreading.

[Simon771]

If it will cost around 350€ in EU, that would be interesting.

But still you would need 250€ priced motherboard to run it.

 

Main reason why I won't be buying Intel, is because those CPUs aren't soldered. I don't need to go over the same problem that I did with i7 4790k.

Or you know ... i7 7700k for which they said that users shouldn't even overclock lol

 

Intel does have great IPC and AVX support.

But high prices, and high temps.

 

Ryzen have nice multicore speed and decent price. Also no temp problems (at leat for me).

But it does lack in IPC, AVX support, and right now also RAM speed ... if I'm not mistaken, we can't have 4 sticks of RAM running at 3200MHz yet. But lets hope that gets fixed.