7900X reviewed!

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, The Benjamins said:

The 1800x was never value oriented so it would make more sense to compare the 7700k to a 1700 value wise.

Drak3 asked for the $500 1800X for good reason. Now Drak3 slightly annoyed, you've doomed them all.

[Taf the Ghost]

4 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

You missed one small detail

The 7600K is 7% better and costs 30% less than the 1700

I'm actually most impressed by the 6700k & 7700k.  Beyond the normal Red vs Blue stuff, it's an utterly impressive CPU and clearly where Intel designed their platforms around. Which actually suddenly makes me worried about the 6c Coffeelake CPUs.

 

But I'm just being a jerk about charts.  That's actually much of my day-job, haha.

[PCGuy_5960]

3 minutes ago, tom_w141 said:

So, the 7820X significantly outperforms every single Ryzen CPU in pretty much every single test.

[The Benjamins]

1 minute ago, Drak3 said:

Drak3 asked for the $500 1800X for good reason. Now Drak3 slightly annoyed, you've doomed them all.

why?

Note I never said the 7700k wasn't better it just make sense to compare the 1700 vs 1800x in my eyes.

[Drak3]

Just now, The Benjamins said:

why?

Something something spirit animal.

 

Just now, The Benjamins said:

Note I never said the 7700k wasn't better it just make sense to compare the 1700 vs 1800x in my eyes.

Yes, but it doesn't suit the freakin joke.

 

 

[PCGuy_5960]

8 minutes ago, The Benjamins said:

What CPU's are you comparing?

Check the graphs, the 1800X to the 7820X

[tom_w141]

8 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

So, the 7820X significantly outperforms every single Ryzen CPU in pretty much every single test.

^ Fixed. Even including the outliers, the HEVC 4K (They used a 1700X and no 1800X) and WinRAR (a program I didn't know was still popular) the average is 19.25% that's not significant for the price difference.

 

Excluding HEVC 4K = 16.25% (Which I believe is fair as it is the only result with different test samples)

 

So in conclusion my whole point since the NDA lifted and reviews came in the difference was 16% on average for between 2-3x the cost is "meh" in my opinion. That is the workstation average. The gaming average is even closer  This is what I mean when I say I'm severely underwhelmed by X299 to be honest. Of course X299 isn't bad by any means its just not... Good enough to  justify the Intel Tax anymore. Like I have said in other threads I think Intel need to realise they aren't just competing with themselves anymore and need to either price accordingly or get back on the R&D.

[done12many2]

9 minutes ago, tom_w141 said:

Graphs can be scary and very unrepresentative.

 

Especially when people accidentally miss align starting points and zoom in on one of the bar graphs.  

 

9 minutes ago, tom_w141 said:

 

Here is the summary at a glance with %s that paint a far more accurate picture than numbers in the millions  sorry it took awhile the amount of times I had to minimise this was insane  Btw a negative indicates a win just because of the sheet layout. Excluding the AES row.

 

 

You have a metric shit ton of information missing from this to be of any value.  For starters, what are we looking at?

[done12many2]

1 minute ago, done12many2 said:

You have a metric shit ton of information missing from this to be of any value.  For starters, what are we looking at?

 

2 minutes ago, tom_w141 said:

^ Fixed. Even including the outliers, the HEVC 4K (They used a 1700X and no 1800X) and WinRAR (a program I didn't know was still popular) the average is 19.25% that's not significant for the price difference.

 

Excluding HEVC 4K = 16.25% (Which I believe is fair as it is the only result with different test samples)

 

So in conclusion my whole point since the NDA lifted was 16% on average for between 2-3x the cost is "meh" in my opinion. That is the workstation average. The gaming average is even closer  This is what I mean when I say I'm severely underwhelmed by X299 to be honest. Of course X299 isn't bad by any means its just not... Good enough to  justify the Intel Tax anymore. Like I have said in other threads I think Intel need to realise they aren't just competing with themselves anymore and need to either price accordingly or get back on the R&D.

 

Never mind.  You were still talking about value.  

 

All I can say is your bought the right CPU man.  

[tom_w141]

1 minute ago, done12many2 said:

 

Especially when people accidentally miss align starting points and zoom in on one of the bar graphs.  

 

 

You have a metric shit ton of information missing from this to be of any value.  For starters, what are we looking at?

That was an accident  god damn it . its the 8 vs 8 core using the graphs taken from @PCGuy_5960's post. I'm late for meeting! Back later.

[PCGuy_5960]

Just now, tom_w141 said:

^ Fixed. Even including the outliers, the HEVC 4K (They used a 1700X and no 1800X) and WinRAR (a program I didn't know was still popular) the average is 19.25% that's not significant for the price difference.

 

Excluding HEVC 4K = 16.25% (Which I believe is fair as it is the only result with different test samples)

16-19% is significantly better. Results are even more impressive if you take into account the frequency. Both are clocked at 3.6GHz, but the 7820X can overclock to 4.5-5GHz depending on your cooler and if the CPU is delidded or not whereas the 1800X/1700X/1700 are stuck at 4GHz and won't go any higher (unless you use DICE or LN2).

[Drak3]

3 minutes ago, done12many2 said:

You have a metric shit ton of information missing from this to be of any value.  For starters, what are we looking at?

A spreadsheet, stupid.

 

 

 

Sorry, didn't mean to call you stupid, we friends, right? Right?

[done12many2]

Just now, tom_w141 said:

That was an accident  god damn it .

 

Sure it was.  

 

Just now, tom_w141 said:

its the 8 vs 8 core using the graphs taken from @PCGuy_5960's post. I'm late for meeting! Back later.

 

Well, thanks for showing us which is faster, but from a different angle.  That always helps.  

[Taf the Ghost]

This thread has gone somewhere hilarious, haha.

 

Threadripper's release is going to be a damn salt-mine, though.  I do look forward to that.

[Drak3]

Just now, Taf the Ghost said:

This thread has gone somewhere hilarious, haha.

 

Threadripper's release is going to be a damn salt-mine, though.  I do look forward to that.

I need to stock up on GIFs and stuffs then.

[done12many2]

1 minute ago, Drak3 said:

A spreadsheet, stupid.

 

 

 

Sorry, didn't mean to call you stupid, we friends, right? Right?

 

@tom_w141 created a spreadsheet to show us which chip is faster instead of wasting money on paper to do the same thing.  The guy is all about saving a buck.  You've got to respect him for that.  

[PCGuy_5960]

Just now, done12many2 said:

 

@tom_w141 created a spreadsheet to show us which chip is faster instead of wasting money on paper to do the same thing.  The guy is all about saving a buck.  You've got to respect him for that.  

But, the spreadsheet doesn't show overclocked performance, a 4.7GHz 7820X would be at least 30% better than a 4GHz Ryzen

[Taf the Ghost]

Just now, Drak3 said:

I need to stock up on GIFs and stuffs then.

I'd highly recommend it. Though, as I've mentioned already in this thread, Core Latency is about to become a huge issue.  We don't know how the Infinity Fabric to the other package is going to come in for speed (my guess is that it'll be around a 10-15 ns penalty per path, so 20-30 ns round-trip over the ~120 CCX to CCX is now; if for no other reason than physical distance.) But we also have Intel's Mesh on a CPU with two Rows of dies when we get up to the 12c part.

 

It's going to have a fairly large effect on how much more you can get out of those extra cores.

 

Also, no one has taken the Click-bait approach and made the "The i7-7740X is the BEST! GAMING! CPU! YOU! CAN! BUY!" article yet.  Soon. I look forward to the mockery to unload.

[done12many2]

1 minute ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

But, the spreadsheet doesn't show overclocked performance, a 4.7GHz 7820X would be at least 30% better than a 4GHz Ryzen

Now you and I both know that @tom_w141 prefers shaping the outcome to make a point.

[The Benjamins]

1 minute ago, Taf the Ghost said:

I'd highly recommend it. Though, as I've mentioned already in this thread, Core Latency is about to become a huge issue.  We don't know how the Infinity Fabric to the other package is going to come in for speed (my guess is that it'll be around a 10-15 ns penalty per path, so 20-30 ns round-trip over the ~120 CCX to CCX is now; if for no other reason than physical distance.) But we also have Intel's Mesh on a CPU with two Rows of dies when we get up to the 12c part.

 

It's going to have a fairly large effect on how much more you can get out of those extra cores.

 

Also, no one has taken the Click-bait approach and made the "The i7-7740X is the BEST! GAMING! CPU! YOU! CAN! BUY!" article yet.  Soon. I look forward to the mockery to unload.

I got the best gaming setup with my $300 Motherboard and a $340 CPU and my GTX 1050ti, even though I could of got a i5/r5 with a 1080.

[Taf the Ghost]

3 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

But, the spreadsheet doesn't show overclocked performance, a 4.7GHz 7820X would be at least 30% better than a 4GHz Ryzen

Sadly, I predicted the i7-7820X would come in between 15-25% "better" in most workloads over the Ryzen 7. I was able to do that because actually the performance results are right in line with the IPC of the 7700k.  But as we're also seeing, you also get the Power Usage of it as well.

[PCGuy_5960]

8 minutes ago, done12many2 said:

Now you and I both know that @tom_w141 prefers shaping the outcome to make a point.

To his defence, the graph didn't have overlcocked performance numbers, but when both are at the same frequency (3.6GHz) the 7820X is 16% better, but it can also clock 15-25% higher, so overclocked, he 7820X will be able to destroy a 4Ghz 1800X

[PCGuy_5960]

1 minute ago, Taf the Ghost said:

Sadly, I predicted the i7-7820X would come in between 15-25% "better" in most workloads over the Ryzen 7. I was able to do that because actually the performance results are right in line with the IPC of the 7700k.  But as we're also seeing, you also get the Power Usage of it as well.

At the same frequency, yes, it is 15-20% better, but don't forget that it can clock much higher than Ryzen.....

[Taf the Ghost]

2 minutes ago, The Benjamins said:

I got the best gaming setup with my $300 Motherboard and a $340 CPU and my GTX 1050ti, even though I could of got a i5/r5 with a 1080.

Considering some of the hilarious suggestions for X99 setups for gaming since Ryzen's launch, someone is going to go full-on Shill and do it. I look forward to mocking them.

[The Benjamins]

4 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

Considering some of the hilarious suggestions for X99 setups for gaming since Ryzen's launch, someone is going to go full-on Shill and do it. I look forward to mocking them.

what is funny x99 had a 40 PCIe at $500 which helped in 2-4 way SLI/Crossfire, but now it is at the $1000 price point. sure 28 is better then 16 but it is nice to see that Threadripper will have 64 on all Skus

 

EDIT: and the move to NVME drives does not help this situation.