7900X Coming In Hot?!

[Flavio hc 16]

2 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

So what? The 7800X will run hotter at the same voltage, but if you use less voltage it will run just as cool. And FYI Dow Corning TC-1996 is by no means "thoothpaste"

What I understand from what you just said: "I have no use for those features, so they are completely useless"

I'm not saying that ( the 2nd part), but imho the difference in offering is not balanced by the difference in prices, especially when threadripper is coming

[tom_w141]

3 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

Because performance is there. The 9590 was a space heater and performed worse than an i5. The 7900X is a space heater, but it performs 3-4x better than an i5

Still conveniently didn't comment on this part:

 

6 minutes ago, tom_w141 said:

To show this further look at pre 2017 posts against recent when Intel started to get hot. People asking if 60-70 deg on broadwell-E was too hot. Fast forward to 2017 and they are comparatively chilly

 

[tom_w141]

30 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

Intel actually hasn't gotten any hotter until Skylake than historical

I think the 7700k is definitely in a different league to the 6700k thermally. At 4.8GHz my 6700k did not require a delid, yet 7700k is notorious for running hot at even a mild OC. Also look at X99 vs X299, yes clocks are higher but thermals have skyrocketed.

[PCGuy_5960]

Just now, tom_w141 said:

At 4.8GHz my 6700k does not require a delid, yet 7700k is notorious for running hot at even a mild OC

Wait.... Very few 6700Ks could reach 4.8GHz

[tom_w141]

6 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

Wait.... Very few 6700Ks could reach 4.8GHz

Wish you'd asked last week  I sold the 6700k & maximus viii hero last week. My partner was using it but she needed a GPU upgrade far more than she needed an i7 so I replaced with an R5 and used the £400 to buy her a 1070.

 

I know that sounds convenient so believe me or don't I don't mind  I can't prove you wrong so I won't argue. I was more making a point about it not having thermal issues.

[PCGuy_5960]

1 minute ago, tom_w141 said:

Wish you'd asked last week  I sold the 6700k & maximus viii hero last week. My partner was using it but she needed a GPU upgrade far more than she needed an i7 so I replaced with an R5 and used the £400 to buy her a 1070.

 

I know that sounds convenient so believe me or don't I don't mind  I can't prove you wrong so I won't argue. I was more making a point about it not having thermal issues.

How many V did you need for 4.8GHz? If you needed less than 1.4V it probably was a golden one

[tom_w141]

9 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

How many V did you need for 4.8GHz? If you needed less than 1.4V it probably was a golden one

1.38V if I remember correctly, definitely less than 1.4 but I dropped the overclock off to preserve its life because she didn't need the performance. I knew it was a good chip but the used market doesn't care too much here especially if they don't intend to OC. Was looking for a quick sale so I sold it as a bundle with W10 because its an OEM key and bound to the mobo anyway.

 

EDIT: @PCGuy_5960@done12many2 Just got back from hospital and long story short they have now confirmed my meniscus in my knee is torn and I need surgery. So in the weeks I can't do anything i'll have fun shit posting on the forums with you  

[goodtofufriday]

22 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

Because performance is there. The 9590 was a space heater and performed worse than an i5. The 7900X is a space heater, but it performs 3-4x better than an i5

IDK I'm pretty satisfied with the performance of my 9590. I tried switching to an OC'd 4790k, but the Perf difference in games was minimal. I also have another build with a 6700k, and again I cant say that in games it really makes that much of a difference. 

[done12many2]

5 minutes ago, tom_w141 said:

EDIT: @PCGuy_5960@done12many2 Just got back from hospital and long story short they have now confirmed my meniscus in my knee is torn and I need surgery. So in the weeks I can't do anything i'll have fun shit posting on the forums with you  

 

I have all day everyday.  Bring on the topics.  

 

Seriously though, I might start taking some classes in the near future, because if I don't I'll be throwing money away.  I don't see that consuming much of my time though.

[PCGuy_5960]

13 minutes ago, goodtofufriday said:

IDK I'm pretty satisfied with the performance of my 9590. I tried switching to an OC'd 4790k, but the Perf difference in games was minimal. I also have another build with a 6700k, and again I cant say that in games it really makes that much of a difference. 

Something is probably wrong with the 6700K build, because the 6700K should destroy the 9590 in games:

Spoiler

 

 

[tom_w141]

2 minutes ago, done12many2 said:

because if I don't I'll be throwing money away

Elaborate?

[tom_w141]

@PCGuy_5960

 

While I appreciate you are right and replying to someone else, if its more than 1 chart please use spoiler tags to collapse it. That has nothing to do with it being my thread I just hate scrolling down charts, especially if he quotes you because then the same charts are there again.

[goodtofufriday]

1 minute ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

Something is probably wrong with the 6700K build, because the 6700K should destroy the 9590 in games:

8370 =/= 9590. Doesnt reach 130 fps sure, but again in actually playing the game, especially something like fallout 4, it hardly made a difference. 

 

And this is me playing at 3440x1440

[PCGuy_5960]

Just now, goodtofufriday said:

8370 =/= 9590.

8370= slightly lower clocked 9590 but anyways

1 minute ago, goodtofufriday said:

And this is me playing at 3440x1440

Well at 3440x1440 the 9590 won't be too much of a bottleneck, because the GPU is limiting the performance

[Taf the Ghost]

6 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

Something is probably wrong with the 6700K build, because the 6700K should destroy the 9590 in games:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

Only if your GPU is fast enough to be fed the data. That's either 1080 or 1080 Ti testing.  Anything from the 1070 and below or older it's much, much closer.   Once you get over the 1% min at 60 FPS, it doesn't matter much.

 

It's the "rub" to all buying advice. The 7700k is the better Gaming CPU, *if* you're buying at 1080 or 1080 Ti.  Otherwise get a Ryzen 5 1600.  We'll see what RX Vega does, as that advice is really only true because of the Nvidia DX11 driver structure.

[goodtofufriday]

Just now, PCGuy_5960 said:

8370= slightly lower clocked 9590 but anyways

Well at 3440x1440 the 9590 won't be too much of a bottleneck, because the GPU is limiting the performance

1Ghz is a slightly lower clock? 

[done12many2]

13 minutes ago, tom_w141 said:

Elaborate?

 

I have the GI Bill after serving in the military.  They pay your books/tuition and a per month allowance.  I have 48 40 months of entitlements so that adds up to a shitload of money thrown away if I don't take the classes.  

[PCGuy_5960]

1 minute ago, goodtofufriday said:

1Ghz is a slightly lower clock? 

The 8370 boosts to 4.3GHz (FX boosts all of its cores to the boost frequency) and the 9590 is clocked at 4.7GHz

[PCGuy_5960]

23 minutes ago, tom_w141 said:

EDIT: @PCGuy_5960@done12many2 Just got back from hospital and long story short they have now confirmed my meniscus in my knee is torn and I need surgery. So in the weeks I can't do anything i'll have fun shit posting on the forums with you  

[tom_w141]

5 minutes ago, done12many2 said:

months of entitlements so that adds up to a shitload of money thrown away if I don't take the classes.

Cool, what can you study?

[tom_w141]

2 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

LOOL love cats, mine shat on my bed the other week... Hes a c*** but I love him  

[goodtofufriday]

1 minute ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

The 8370 boosts to 4.3GHz (FX boosts all of its cores to the boost frequency) and the 9590 is clocked at 4.7GHz

Not sure why you aren typing that the boost clock of the 9590 @ 5ghz. But ok. Ant my cpu is OC'd to 5.3ghz

 

But thats beside the point, match with my fury x (or my 1070 strix + 6700k) There is hardly enough difference during actual real world gameplay. I was actually extremely disappointing. I built a new machine thinking I'd get a pretty noticeable performance jump, but considering the cost it was marginal at best. You can read a thread here on LTT where I complain about this earlier in the year.

[Ordinarily_Greater]

What is going on with this thread?! Should be off topic chat!

[PCGuy_5960]

Just now, Ordinarily_Greater said:

What is going on with this thread?! Should be off topic chat!

Welcome to LTT

[tom_w141]

1 minute ago, goodtofufriday said:

There is hardly enough difference during actual real world gameplay.

You are probably correct, BUT its a subjective topic so no one can answer. Personally I can't see much after 100Hz so I have a 100HZ 3440x1440 Gsync monitor. To be honest nothing gets noticeably different until you drop below the golden 60 fps anyway, which both systems will do easily. Though while they both do this the derp-dozer will be 100 degrees and causing a neighbourhood black out.

 

The 6700k is better in every way you just happen to be GPU bound at your resolution that's all. Which isn't bad by any means you are still achieving smooth gameplay but it means you won't see a difference.

 

tldr: The 6700k has more to give you are just gpu/refresh rate bound.