Linus i9 7900X review... Opinions?

[done12many2]

8 minutes ago, othertomperson said:

If your game uses 4 cores or less, its latency is ~60ns more than Ryzen's. If the game uses more than 4 cores it is only 30ns better.

 

And yes, if both chips have high latency, then they both have the same problem --  high latency. Ryzen could be consistently worse than the 7900k and my original comment would still be true.

 

You're sitting here defending a CPU that does worse in games than the 6950X when clocked higher with higher IPC due to this issue, with your fingers in your ears saying it's not an issue and that it won't need optimisations.

 

Actually, I'm not defending the CPU, but simply saying that your original statement is not correct.

 

4 hours ago, othertomperson said:

This is the best news R5 and R7 owners could have asked for.

 

Now AMD and Intel both suffer from the same core-to-core latency problem. Game devs are going to have no choice but to optimise for it

 

The 7900X and R5/R7 do not suffer from the same core-to-core latency problems.  They are completely different in their cause and any possible remedy.  Therefore how could this be the "best news R5 and R7 owners could have asked for."?

 

One has nothing to do with a fix for another.  

[othertomperson]

4 minutes ago, done12many2 said:

 

Actually, I'm not defending the CPU, but simply saying that your original statement is not correct.

 

 

The 7900X and R5/R7 do not suffer from the same core-to-core latency problems.  They are completely different in their cause and any possible remedy.  Therefore how could this be the "best news R5 and R7 owners could have asked for."?

 

One has nothing to do with a fix for another.  

Were you the person I quoted when I made that defending the CPU comment? I know your arguments stem from your inability to read a graph, not the blind fanboyism of IntelAvatar over here.

 

I don't care what's causing the core-to-core latency -- that's a hardware issue that game devs can't touch. The important thing is the latency itself and writing games that don't suffer for it.

[PCGuy_5960]

1 minute ago, othertomperson said:

I know your arguments stem from your inability to read a graph, not the blind fanboyism of IntelAvatar over here.

Yeah, such a good argument man! Give it up everyone!

[done12many2]

21 minutes ago, othertomperson said:

Were you the person I quoted when I made that defending the CPU comment? I know your arguments stem from your inability to read a graph, not the blind fanboyism of IntelAvatar over here.

 

I don't care what's causing the core-to-core latency -- that's a hardware issue that game devs can't touch. The important thing is the latency itself and writing games that don't suffer for it.

 

Like I said, your first post was wrong.  The 7900X is in no way the answer or the inspiration for a fix for Ryzen's CCX related latency problems.  

 

It's funny when someone puts on a show telling people that they can't read a graph, when they themselves are the one screwing it up all along.  If you would have avoided the whole tough guy routine, you might have seen that.  

[PCGuy_5960]

22 minutes ago, othertomperson said:

All because, what, you can't stand the thought of Ryzen gaming performance improving alongside it?

WTF are you even talking about? I wish that Ryzen's gaming performance improves, that's literally the only thing putting me off buying one. 

22 minutes ago, othertomperson said:

You're sitting here defending a CPU that does worse in games than the 6950X when clocked higher with higher IPC due to this issue, with your fingers in your ears saying it's not an issue and that it won't need optimisations

Defending a CPU? This is all I said.........

32 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

The graph, from PCPer:

Yes, the 7900X's latency is higher, but it is nowhere near 1800X levels.

I didn't say that it's not an issue, I just said that it's not the exact same issue as Ryzen. 

And I didn't say that it won't need optimizations, you're way off the mark in your accusations

[done12many2]

13 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

WTF are you even talking about? I wish that Ryzen's gaming performance improves, that's literally the only thing putting me off buying one. 

 

Ryzen has definitely improved in gaming.  It's not like there's a substantial difference between Ryzen and the top Intel CPUs.  For the price, it holds it's own.  

 

http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/2961-intel-i9-7900x-review-benchmarks-game-streaming-vr-premiere/page-6

 

[PCGuy_5960]

1 minute ago, done12many2 said:

Ryzen has definitely improved in gaming.  It's not like there's a substantial difference between Ryzen and the top Intel CPUs.  For the price, it holds it's own.  

 

http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/2961-intel-i9-7900x-review-benchmarks-game-streaming-vr-premiere/page-6

Yeah, but still, I am afraid that if I get a 1700X I will be downgrading in terms of gaming performance

[done12many2]

1 minute ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

Yeah, but still, I am afraid that if I get a 1700X I will be downgrading in terms of gaming performance

 

Well technically you will.  You can't have your cake and eat it too.  haha.

 

A 6 or 8 core Skylake-X chip around 4.8 to 5 GHz is just nasty for gaming.  If you don't believe most YouTubers, listen to your buddy Linus.  

 

Queued up just for you.  

 

 

[SoloDolo]

4 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

Yeah, but still, I am afraid that if I get a 1700X I will be downgrading in terms of gaming performance

I dont think you will be necessarily downgrading depending on what your monitor is. Are you gaming at 1080p at 144hz? If not Ryzen makes a ton of sense. Yes, GPUs will catch up and eventually even higher resolutions will push CPUs to be the bottleneck. However, by then DX12 and Vulcan are showing that the future is more cores dependent. Also, for everything else that Ryzen does slightly worse in gaming does better in everything else than say a I7-7700k. 

[done12many2]

Just now, SoloDolo said:

I dont think you will be necessarily downgrading depending on what your monitor is. Are you gaming at 1080p at 144hz? If not Ryzen makes a ton of sense. Yes, GPUs will catch up and eventually even higher resolutions will push CPUs to be the bottleneck. However, by then DX12 and Vulcan are showing that the future is more cores dependent. Also, for everything else that Ryzen does slightly worse in gaming does better in everything else than say a I7-7700k. 

 

Agreed, it may technically be worse, but does it matter?  Nope.  

[PCGuy_5960]

Just now, done12many2 said:

Well technically you will.  You can't have your cake and eat it too.  haha.

 

A 6 or 8 core Skylake-X chip around 4.8 to 5 GHz is just nasty for gaming.  If you don't believe most YouTubers, listen to your buddy Linus.  

 

Queued up just for you.  

Yeah, idk.... I may get a Kraken X62 to overclock the 5820K and wait for Coffeelake and Zen2 to upgrade 

(Or maybe upgrade my fucking 1080p monitor. lol)

[PCGuy_5960]

1 minute ago, SoloDolo said:

I dont think you will be necessarily downgrading depending on what your monitor is. Are you gaming at 1080p at 144hz? If not Ryzen makes a ton of sense. Yes, GPUs will catch up and eventually even higher resolutions will push CPUs to be the bottleneck. However, by then DX12 and Vulcan are showing that the future is more cores dependent. Also, for everything else that Ryzen does slightly worse in gaming does better in everything else than say a I7-7700k. 

1080p at 60Hz LOL  I want high FPS in benchmarks tho.....

[done12many2]

Just now, PCGuy_5960 said:

Yeah, idk.... I may get a Kraken X62 to overclock the 5820K and wait for Coffeelake and Zen2 to upgrade 

(Or maybe upgrade my fucking 1080p monitor. lol)

 

I'd damn sure upgrade monitors before getting rid of a 5820k.  Still a damn good CPU with plenty of OC headroom that you haven't even taken advantage of.  There should be a law against that.  

[PCGuy_5960]

Just now, done12many2 said:

I'd damn sure upgrade monitors before getting rid of a 5820k.  

Oh hell no, I am not getting rid of it!  I am definitely going to keep it as a "backup" rig

 

[othertomperson]

29 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

WTF are you even talking about? I wish that Ryzen's gaming performance improves, that's literally the only thing putting me off buying one. 

Defending a CPU? This is all I said.........

I didn't say that it's not an issue, I just said that it's not the exact same issue as Ryzen. 

And I didn't say that it won't need optimizations, you're way off the mark in your accusations

It is the exact same issue -- that issue is inter-core latency. Both CPUs suffer for it. Like I've said multiple times now, it does not matter what is causing this at the architectural level. The effect is high inter-core latency, and that is what is adversely affectedly gaming performance. Do I have to stick to words of one syllable, or are you going to stop saying that latency isn't the singular one issue I've been talking about in this thread?

 

16 minutes ago, done12many2 said:

 

Ryzen has definitely improved in gaming.  It's not like there's a substantial difference between Ryzen and the top Intel CPUs.  For the price, it holds it's own.  

It shouldn't be holding its own "for the price", it should be performing identically to the 6900K. This one single issue (the same that the 7900K shares) is what is preventing this from happening.

 

30 minutes ago, done12many2 said:

 

Like I said, your first post was wrong.  The 7900X is in no way the answer or the inspiration for a fix for Ryzen's CCX related latency problems.  

 

It's funny when someone puts on a show telling people that they can't read a graph, when they themselves are the one screwing it up all along.  If you would have avoided the whole tough guy routine, you might have seen that.  

There is no "tough guy routine", just someone who is exasperated at your lack of literacy -- mathematical and otherwise. One again, it does not matter to the point I am making whether the latency is caused by CCXs or Intel's mesh interconnect -- the effect is the same. Worse performance due to higher intercore latency, which needs to be optimised for in software.

[done12many2]

Just now, PCGuy_5960 said:

Oh hell no, I am not getting rid of it!  I am definitely going to keep it as a "backup" rig

 

 

Wouldn't that be cool if Intel had plans to port 8th gen mainstream CPUs to x299 as well.  Maybe the 7740X was a preview of some future possibilities?

[Phate.exe]

2 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

1080p at 60Hz LOL  I want high FPS in benchmarks tho.....

GTX 1080, for the ultimate in rock stable 60fps in literally any game you throw at it for the next 8 years, lol.

 

Also I really like that the gamersnexus Ashes of the Benchmark results included both a 1090T and a 4GHZ 1090T.  Looks like my new 1600X will bring me up to ~31fps/23min vs the 15.3/6.9 on the overclocked Thuban.

 

 

Kinda wish the graphs would be sorted by minimums/frametimes though.  Once framerates get much over 100fps I tend to not care (either on my current display or my new 60hz 4k freesync panel), but lower minimums would annoy me while playing.

[VagabondWraith]

6 minutes ago, done12many2 said:

 

Agreed, it may technically be worse, but does it matter?  Nope.  

It may, eventually.

 

Ryzen is a nice product, but I fear that Volta (and beyond) will start pounding CPU's at 1440p/165Hz soon. Even a 7700K at 5GHz can't keep up with a 1080 Ti at 1080p. 1440p is next and is the reason Intel is a better choice (IMO) for the long run (in my case, I plan to keep this platform for at least 5 years). 7820X will be fine, but if I need more horsepower in ~3 years, I can just OC the 7820X and be solvent again. Whereas Ryzen is stuck at 3.8-4.0GHz and no headroom.

[done12many2]

8 minutes ago, othertomperson said:

There is no "tough guy routine", just someone who is exasperated at your lack of literacy -- mathematical and otherwise. One again, it does not matter to the point I am making whether the latency is caused by CCXs or Intel's mesh interconnect -- the effect is the same. Worse performance due to higher intercore latency, which needs to be optimised for in software.

 

There you go again with your tantrums.  

 

And your attempting to change the context of your original first post.  

 

5 hours ago, othertomperson said:

This is the best news R5 and R7 owners could have asked for.

 

Now AMD and Intel both suffer from the same core-to-core latency problem. Game devs are going to have no choice but to optimise for it

 

So for the 3rd or 4th time now.  You attempted to say that they suffer from the same core-to-core latency problems and that R5/R7 owners should somehow celebrate the coming of the 7900X and Skylake-X as they will somehow magically motivate devs to fix two different UNRELATED latency problems.  

 

I know you can't see it (trust me, it's beyond obviously in your need to insult), but one thing has nothing to do with the other.  I'm sorry that your tried to imply that.  

 

Keep trying to reshape what you said.  Let me know how that works out for you?

 

By the way, trying to sound intelligent while also sounding very ignorant doesn't suit you well.  I like the use of "exasperated" one post and "fuck" and all kinds of lower class stuff previous to that.  Stepping up your game.  Nicely done sir.  

[PCGuy_5960]

1 minute ago, Phate.exe said:

GTX 1080, for the ultimate in rock stable 60fps in literally any game you throw at it for the next 8 years, lol.

Unless this game is Watch_dogs 2, because....... Ubisoft

[done12many2]

7 minutes ago, Phate.exe said:

GTX 1080, for the ultimate in rock stable 60fps in literally any game you throw at it for the next 8 years, lol.

 

Also I really like that the gamersnexus Ashes of the Benchmark results included both a 1090T and a 4GHZ 1090T.  Looks like my new 1600X will bring me up to ~31fps/23min vs the 15.3/6.9 on the overclocked Thuban.

 

 

Kinda wish the graphs would be sorted by minimums/frametimes though.  Once framerates get much over 100fps I tend to not care (either on my current display or my new 60hz 4k freesync panel), but lower minimums would annoy me while playing.

 

What ultimately doesn't matter is talking about gaming and gaming optimization for Skylake-X.  Probably the last CPU line anyone should consider for that sole purpose.  

[SoloDolo]

23 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

1080p at 60Hz LOL  I want high FPS in benchmarks tho.....

Lol. I would upgrade your monitors! You have a great CPU still. Unless you are into heavy production.   Get an awesome 3440x1440p monitor at 60hz or a 1440p 144hz monitor.  

[othertomperson]

12 minutes ago, done12many2 said:

 

There you go again with your tantrums.  

 

And your attempting to change the context of your original first post.  

 

 

So for the 3rd or 4th time now.  You attempted to say that they suffer from the same core-to-core latency problems and that R5/R7 owners should somehow celebrate the coming of the 7900X and Skylake-X as they will somehow magically motivate devs to fix two different UNRELATED latency problems.  

 

I know you can't see it (trust me, it's beyond obviously in your need to insult), but one thing has nothing to do with the other.  I'm sorry that your tried to imply that.  

 

Keep trying to reshape what you said.  Let me know how that works out for you?

 

By the way, trying to sound intelligent while also sounding very ignorant doesn't suit you well.  I like the use of "exasperated" one post and "fuck" and all kinds of lower class stuff previous to that.  Stepping up your game.  Nicely done sir.  

Disagreeing with you isn't a "tantrum". I'm not changing anything about my argument. I've said many times now: the problem is latency. Devs can't do shit about the architecture of any of these CPUs. They can't make Ryzen magically one single big CCX (which would have its own problems), they can't put a ring bus back on a 7900l, all they can do is mitigate the effect -- which is latency. Any optimisations are going to have to deal with the impacts of the architecture, they can't "fix" the architecture itself.

 

I'm not "trying to sound intelligent". I'm sorry if I confused you with a big word. I'll stick to monosyllabic words from now on. And there's nothing "lower class" or unintelligent about the word fuck. There is something highly unbecoming of your snobbery, however.

[PCGuy_5960]

1 minute ago, SoloDolo said:

Lol. I would upgrade your monitors! You have a great CPU still. Unless you are into heavy production.   Get an awesome 3440x1440p monitor at 60hz or a 1440p 144hz monitor. 

I mostly play games on my PC. lol. I don't need an upgrade, but I really want one

[done12many2]

Just now, SoloDolo said:

Lol. I would upgrade your monitors! You have a great CPU still. Unless you are into heavy production.   Get an awesome 3440x1440p monitor at 60hz or a 1440p 144hz monitor. 

 

I have a 3440 x 1440 right next to a 4k, and the 3440 x 1440 is my got to every time.  It's just very usable with all of that real estate.  Don't get me wrong, 4k has tons of real estate, but it's just not as usable and when Windows scaling sucks, it SUCKS!