i7-7820X Reviews

[done12many2]

4 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

No one here is arguing that Ryzen isn't better in terms of price performance, but the 7820X performs quite a bit better than the 1700/1700X/1800X

 

You can't argue performance only with a price to performance type guy man.  It strictly violates LTT Community Standards.  Stop that.

 

 

1 minute ago, djdwosk97 said:

I'm not commenting on the price of the 7820x. I'm just saying the 7820x consuming 30% more power isn't a bad thing considering it's also 30% faster. 

 

You too buddy.  Watch it and stop making sense. 

[TahoeDust]

I wonder when we'll see more 7820x reviews.  The only one with any real overclocking info is OC3D's.

[done12many2]

1 minute ago, TahoeDust said:

I wonder when we'll see more 7820x reviews.  The only one with any real overclocking info is OC3D's.

 

We're lucky we got to see them at all.  Some companies make you wait until the product is launched, which is actually smart.  

[79wjd]

1 minute ago, done12many2 said:

You too buddy.  Watch it and stop making sense. 

I did nothing wrong! I Swear! 

 

The post I responded to wasn't even talking about price to performance -- just power consumption. 

[Energycore]

Just now, djdwosk97 said:

I'm not commenting on the price of the 7820x. I'm just saying the 7820x consuming 30% more power isn't a bad thing considering it's also 30% faster. 

It's not terribly bad, but it's 80-100W more going by OC3D's numbers. Not reason enough to point someone with the budget necessary away from it, but it's reason enough to remind would-be buyers to also get a 360mm AIO and a beef(ier) power supply.

 

Honestly the more important distinguishing feature of it is that it costs $600 which is double the price of AMD's 1700, the only R7 worth considering by my book.

[79wjd]

3 minutes ago, Energycore said:

It's not terribly bad, but it's 80-100W more going by OC3D's numbers. Not reason enough to point someone with the budget necessary away from it, but it's reason enough to remind would-be buyers to also get a 360mm AIO and a beef(ier) power supply.

 

Honestly the more important distinguishing feature of it is that it costs $600 which is double the price of AMD's 1700, the only R7 worth considering by my book.

The 7820x (@4.8ghz) consumes about 30% more power than the oc'd 1800x (probably @4ghz~). All I'm saying is that the performance/watt is similar. I choose to ignore the stock-speed results as there's no telling what speed each core was turboing to on either CPU, but I certainly wouldn't discredit the potential for the 1800x to be much more efficient at stock.

 

To be clear, I'm not arguing for or against Skylake-X, I'm just refuting the claim that the 7820x is horribly power hungry compared to Ryzen (at least based on the evidence provided).

[done12many2]

5 minutes ago, Energycore said:

It's not terribly bad, but it's 80-100W more going by OC3D's numbers. Not reason enough to point someone with the budget necessary away from it, but it's reason enough to remind would-be buyers to also get a 360mm AIO and a beef(ier) power supply.

 

In order for any of us to even begin to speculate to efficiency, we have to ask exactly what the testing involved.  As @PCGuy_5960 mentioned previously, if some of their power testing included the use of AVX enabled software, the numbers would be skewed for very obvious reasons.  So would the performance during those same conditions.

 

Quote

Honestly the more important distinguishing feature of it is that it costs $600 which is double the price of AMD's 1700, the only R7 worth considering by my book.

 

Can't argue with that from a value standpoint.  Then again, if you want the best of the best, you pay to play.  

[Energycore]

Just now, djdwosk97 said:

The 7820x (@4.8ghz) consumes about 30% more power than the oc'd 1800x (probably @4ghz~). All I'm saying is that the performance/watt is similar. I choose to ignore the stock-speed results as there's no telling what speed each core was turboing to on either CPU, but I certainly wouldn't discredit the potential for the 1800x to be much more efficient at stock.

Ultimately for people who make money off their computer (and anyone who doesn't really shouldn't look at the 7820X), 100W more isn't really that much more, but imo it's better to provide the whole picture by saying that under full load, the whole system with 1800X consumed 300W and with 7820X it consumed 400W, just about.

 

I'll be waiting for measurements on CPU-only power consumption like the ones tomshardware has been doing until I give a final verdict on how much power it consumes.

[TahoeDust]

So....360mm AIOs?  The only one I know of is the Thermaltake.  Anyone have any experience with it?  Anyone have any other recommendations?  Just starting to wonder if it would not be a worthy move from my 280mm h115i.  I am a fan whore, so I would probably go 6 fan push/pull on it.

[PCGuy_5960]

1 minute ago, TahoeDust said:

So....360mm AIOs?  The only one I know of is the Thermaltake.  Anyone have any experience with it?  Anyone have any other recommendations? 

The Fractal Design Celsius Cooler, Gamers Nexus and Jayztwoecnts reviewed it and iirc it was pretty good. I would get a Kraken X62 though, it's better than both the Thermaltake and the Fractal Design ones...

2 minutes ago, TahoeDust said:

Just starting to wonder if it would not be a worthy move from my 280mm h115i.  

Not really, unless you want to build a 360mm custom loop

[TahoeDust]

1 minute ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

The Fractal Design Celsius Cooler, Gamers Nexus and Jayztwoecnts reviewed it and iirc it was pretty good. I would get a Kraken X62 though, it's better than both the Thermaltake and the Fractal Design ones...

Not really, unless you want to build a 360mm custom loop

I keep coming back to the idea of doing a custom loop with a 360mm and 280mm in my Phanteks Evolve ATX.  I have just never done one and am a little intimidated. 

[Deli]

3 minutes ago, TahoeDust said:

So....360mm AIOs?  The only one I know of is the Thermaltake.  Anyone have any experience with it?  Anyone have any other recommendations?  Just starting to wonder if it would not be a worthy move from my 280mm h115i.  I am a fan whore, so I would probably go 6 fan push/pull on it.

360 rad had only about 10% more surface area than 280 rad. I doubt you will see a noticeable difference in CPU temp.

[PCGuy_5960]

1 minute ago, TahoeDust said:

I keep coming back to the idea of doing a custom loop with a 360mm and 280mm in my Phanteks Evolve ATX.  I have just never done one and am a little intimidated. 

This should help:

https://www.ekwb.com/custom-loop-configurator/

[TahoeDust]

16 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

This should help:

https://www.ekwb.com/custom-loop-configurator/

I have done that a few times in the last couple of weeks.  

 

Damnit....you guys are a bunch of enabling assholes. 

[TahoeDust]

The system I priced out was just under $800...lol.  I am going to wait and see how my H115i handles things.

[David89]

15 hours ago, Enderman said:

Where did you get 180W MORE than an 1800x????

The X299 CPUs don't even go over 140W, so you're saying the 1800X uses negative 40W?

3 hours ago, Enderman said:

393 - 307 = 86W

Where are you getting 180 from...

Yeah, that "1" shouldn't be there. It's 82 Watts more@stock. Sorry!

 

8 hours ago, Drak3 said:

AVX and AVX2 are used in the prosumer world rather frequently, just not the mainstream consumer world, yet. @done12many2uses programs that use AVX, and so does anyone who uses Blender or Linux software RAID. Tasks that some enthusiasts actually do. Anything using H.265 will also benefit from any of Intel's HEDT that is Haswell-E+, more so is SLX consistantly clocks better on the higher core count skus.

And as it stands, we've got 2 realistic means of increasing performance on silicon: more cores, and using instruction sets that enable better performance. Tasks can only be parallelized so much, and you're dealing with heat and power draw constraints with the first one, so we can't go far on it. So, we'll eventually have to go with the second one for tasks that could benefit a good deal from better performance. Gaming comes to mind. That'll happen before these processors are at the end of their usable lives, especially when first gen i7 is still viable having come as far as we have.

Ryzen's support for AVX is lacking. A 4GHz R7 will just about match a stock 6700K/7700K in a pure AVX workload. AVX 2 should be on part with Intel, core for core and clock for clock, on Haswell's level. But AVX performance also relies on RAM performance, which is still a key issue on Ryzen.

 

5 hours ago, TahoeDust said:

Comparing 1800x to 7820x (both 8-core) the price difference is only 30%...

 

Yeah, but you can get the R7 1700. There is just one single 8-Core from Intel, that is overclockable. You can get the 1700 to just about the same clocks as the 1800X. If you overclock with P-States, Power Draw most of the time is around 90 Watts. h.264 btw. uses AVX-2. And there they are pretty much on par with the i7-6950x (provided the clock speeds are decent). There is just no comparison for someone, who will be overclocking the chip anyway. Getting the 7820X over the 1700 is just insanely stupid, unless you really, really need that last bit of power for very certain tasks.

 

Also: The 6700K/7700K both run with over 4 GHz on AVX. Not for long, but they do and if you overclock them, they will longer. So, the comparison in itself is kind of flawed. I mean, even SKL-X is an over 4 year old architecture, that has been optimized. If Ryzen hits 4.5 GHz with some optimisations, i'm mildly optimistic, they will get extremely close to coffee lake with Zen 2.

[Enderman]

1 minute ago, David89 said:

Yeah, that "1" shouldn't be there. It's 82 Watts more@stock. Sorry!

LOL there we go

[MageTank]

6 hours ago, djdwosk97 said:

Within spec doesn't mean equally good. @MageTank has been having a terrible time with Ryzen's IMC. 

I wouldn't say "terrible time", but it's indeed chaotic when compared to traditional Intel IMC's. I cannot tell if it's the IMC itself, or this cheapo ASUS board, but tFAW defaults at an unstable value (outside of tRRD x4/8 formula) and tertiary timings follow an inverse ratio, rather than a traditional "tight = better" methodology. tRFC is also confusing, as there are 3 tRFC timings, two of which seem to do absolutely nothing, and yet change alongside clock speed like standard tRFC. 

 

I just need more free time to study the IMC behavior before committing the data into my guide. The problem is, finding that free time, lol. 

[Curufinwe_wins]

4 hours ago, DXMember said:

PCPer review shows problems with gaming workloads and thread to thread latency inherent to Skylake-X architecture going from ring-bus to mesh-bus and playing with the L3$, might prove interesting on MISD and cross validation workloads or the likes

Some gaming workloads, and comments on some of them (as mentioned agian by pcper and hexus) also mentioned bios updates making huge differences... This launch was super rushed, I'm not particularly worried with that difference just yet, SL-X latency is better after 8 threads than Ryzen, and I don't think Ryzen's is generally unacceptable. Tradeoffs for sure, and it will require application to application validation to see if the improvements still hold, but I expect on the whole a pretty decent improvement once the massive increase in frequency will keep things moving forward.

[Curufinwe_wins]

4 hours ago, goodtofufriday said:

If im not wrong that was the 480 taking too much power from the pcie slot. Which wasnt an issue in the 580.

 

Nano usually gets recommened for cases like the CM110. But in the past few years people have been wanting to do full length cards, so I could see if now a days the nano isnt recommended. 

It is more that the nano struggles really hard in enclosures that have fairly poor ventilation (for example the LTT bomb video disaster). I mean still was on par with an itx 970 in the worst case, but the other options have gotten much better since then (I mean even itx 1080s work better than the nano)

[Drak3]

40 minutes ago, David89 said:

h.264 btw. uses AVX-2. And there they are pretty much on par with the i7-6950x (provided the clock speeds are decent).

H.264 isn't that intensive though, and in a pure AVX, the entire R7 stack is outperformed by the 7700K, which loses out to the 6950X by a decent amount. If we were to use H.265, The Ryzen stack wouldn't be that impressive in comparison to what Intel's CPUs can do, especially if we throw in SLX and AVX512.

[cj09beira]

14 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

H.264 isn't that intensive though, and in a pure AVX, the entire R7 stack is outperformed by the 7700K, which loses out to the 6950X by a decent amount. If we were to use H.265, The Ryzen stack wouldn't be that impressive in comparison to what Intel's CPUs can do, especially if we throw in SLX and AVX512.

i do feel like its a good compromise, as amd in the gpu side amd has lost lots of money with features that aren't used for too long,

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, cj09beira said:

i do feel like its a good compromise, as amd in the gpu side amd has lost lots of money with features that aren't used for too long,

Eh, it's not all that good a compromise for content creators and the enterprise. AVX is widely adopted there, and AVX512 is just going to make Intel that much more attractive as it doubles AVX2 performance without any optimization, just due to AVX512's design. Whereas AVX1 is gimped, and AVX2 on Ryzen leaves a decent bit to be desired as memory plays a factor in performance.

[cj09beira]

10 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Eh, it's not all that good a compromise for content creators and the enterprise. AVX is widely adopted there, and AVX512 is just going to make Intel that much more attractive as it doubles AVX2 performance without any optimization, just due to AVX512's design. Whereas AVX1 is gimped, and AVX2 on Ryzen leaves a decent bit to be desired as memory plays a factor in performance.

except they offer much more cores per price point, so in the end its probably balanced 

[Drak3]

Just now, cj09beira said:

except they offer much more cores per price point, so in the end its probably balanced 

Outside of small content creators starting out, and streamers, the raw core count doesn't mean much if your best instruction set for content creation takes 2 Ryzen cores to match 1 Skylake core. After a certain point, Intel's hexacores make much more sense for content creation, and the entry level of X99 (and the only one on X299), don't cost that much more than an i7 or 1700.