Kaby Lake-X, complete dissapointment?

[Princess Luna]

Now that we know that the High End i7 7740x and i5 7640x are actually INFERIOR to the Mainstream counter parts, 7600k and 7700k, it is safe to say the only reason what so ever for the existence of these processors is for "people who want to go x299 can get a cheap CPU(not that cheap) and upgrade later."

 

And quite frankly that is a terrible justification, if you need more cores you probably need them NOW not here in a year or two, so for the same price you should just get a Ryzen 7, if you want the best high end gaming desktop on the other hand it is safe to say that the i7 7700k is still king.

 

So can we confirm now that Kaby Lake-X is as useless as the ludicrous i3 7350k for Z270?

 

 

[Majestic]

Bit late aren't we? Everyone already pooped all over X299 the past few weeks.

[GanstaKingofSA]

I think Kaby Lake X is just Competition to the Upcoming Ryzen Threadripper. But then Intel has limit 4 cores and 8 threads and more for a very expensive price. Of Course Some can be Justified but then why more money for a 4 core 8 thread and instead get a Ryzen 7 that has double than that

[Ordinarily_Greater]

I like that channel! And didn't intel say core X series?

if it is core i5-7640X it is not called as X series (even on the X behind), it should be like Core X5-7640X, that can be cool covering their imperfections.

 

they are so panic to threadripper that they can't concentrate on the namings!

 

On 7/7/2017 at 9:10 AM, GanstaKingofSA said:

I think Kaby Lake X is just Competition to the Upcoming Ryzen Threadripper. But then Intel has limit 4 cores and 8 threads and more for a very expensive price. Of Course Some can be Justified but then why more money for a 4 core 8 thread and instead get a Ryzen 7 that has double than that

What other things is expensive from X299 is the motherboards itself, this is what happens when a company tries to combine HEDT and mainstream products

[DocSwag]

Inferior? Kaby Lake X is definitely better than the mainstream CPUs from a performance standpoint, just not from a perf/$ one.

[Princess Luna]

On 7/7/2017 at 9:13 AM, Ordinarily_Greater said:

What other things is expensive from X299 is the motherboards itself, this is what happens when a company tries to combine HEDT and mainstream products

The time where only a few people understood how the PC market worked and the majority were clueless what was was the best cost to performance are coming to an end, Intel no longer can just rely on it's brand name they need to offer good value otherwise AMD will continue to grow on market share that once belonged to Intel.

 

I have no idea what are they trying to achieve with x299 but it clearly is failing and since after Coffee Lake we'll be getting into 10nm lithography we might actually see the life span of the x299 being extremely limited.

 

On 7/7/2017 at 9:18 AM, DocSwag said:

Inferior? Kaby Lake X is definitely better than the mainstream CPUs from a performance standpoint, just not from a perf/$ one.

Did you bother watching the benchmarks from the source video? the Mainstream CPUs beated the High End CPUs on almost every single benching, including gaming while consuming considerably less power.

[Redicat]

We as average consumer do not need a faster CPU (anymore)

[Ordinarily_Greater]

1 minute ago, Princess Cadence said:

The time where only a few people understood how the PC market worked and the majority were clueless what was was the best cost to performance are coming to an end, Intel no longer can just rely on it's brand name they need to offer good value otherwise AMD will continue to grow on market share that once belonged to Intel.

 

I have no idea what are they trying to achieve with x299 but it clearly is failing and since after Coffee Lake we'll be getting into 10nm lithography we might actually see the life span of the x299 being extremely limited.

Some people that pooped in some money (instead of rainbows) to X299 may not be excited to 10nm because they say "ah it's just 4nm of improvements!"

 

and they were too excited about PCIe up tos

[rockon5622]

6 minutes ago, Redicat said:

We as average consumer do not need a faster CPU (anymore)

Always need faster. My favorite game is cinebench. Lol.

[typographie]

To be disappointed, one first has to have elevated expectations. And that is a really, really bad habit when dealing with unofficial tech rumors.

 

What has Intel actually done in the last few years that would have given you real reason to expect something exciting?

[DocSwag]

7 minutes ago, Princess Cadence said:

Did you bother watching the benchmarks from the source video? the Mainstream CPUs beated the High End CPUs on almost every single benching, including gaming while consuming considerably less power.

The thing is, I'm guessing the reason for the disparity is probably down to stuff in the bios in the x299 board he used. If you check the gamers nexus review

http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/2965-intel-i7-7740x-cpu-review-vs-7700k-not-worth-it/page-4

 

You'll note the 7740x is getting similar fps to the 7700k. This is further evidenced by the fact that hardware unboxed saw the x CPUs consuming more power which indicates they were running at higher clock speeds, which in turn means that it makes zero sense that the mainstream CPUs were winning.

 

The reason I said the X CPUs were better is because they OC better. Ian Cutress at Anandtech could only get 4.8/4.9 ghz on his 7700k but could get 5 ghz on his 7740x. Bitwit was able to get 5.3 ghz on his delidded 7740x, whereas it took done12many2 a few thousand CPUs before they found a 7700k that could hit 5.3 ghz even when delidded.

[Princess Luna]

2 minutes ago, typographie said:

What has Intel actually done in the last few years that would have given you real reason to expect something exciting?

Optane

/s

[Redicat]

1 minute ago, rockon5622 said:

Expected. But in all seriousness, newer games need faster cpus. Also, something cool has been power managment. Look at how good laptops are.

Bullshit. games need to be optimized more to run on the hardware not just let CPU do the job.. 

 

My Intel® Core™ i7-3930K has more PCI-E 3.0 (yes man X79) then a freaking Intel® Core™ 7820X and it has 1 more mb of L3 i have 40 PC-E 3.0 

[NoMercy]

Those are for people who want to buy the i9 extreme 18 core processors (forgot its code number), and urgently need a processor now, since the 18 cores one is not available yet. So might as well buy the i7 7740x and wait until 18 cores available.

 

Btw they should be rich af.

[Guest]

As an AMD "fanboi", I'm very happy with the 7740x and the price of Z299, so nope. From my point of view, it's no dissapointment at all. Let the AMD market share increase!

[Redicat]

1 minute ago, Dutch-stoner said:

As an AMD "fanboi", I'm very happy with the 7740x and the price of Z299, so nope. From my point of view, it's no dissapointment at all. Let the AMD market share increase!

This guy seems to have stocks invested into AMD,

[Guest]

@Redicat Nope, just an big AMD fan (for CPU's). Had some 086-286-386 (DX-4?) and 486 (DX2) pc's, and never looked at those CPU's, but the first time I bought a new CPU, it was an 300 MHZ AMD CPU. Have had several, and even once had an slot A CPU from AMD. Nothing to do with stocks invested, just like the company/products/prices. AMD did lots of great things for the CPU industry, and they need market share/profit to get enough of them currency items to go on.

 

Intel has proven to me time and time again it needs a kick in the nuts to really improve their stuff. Has been a long time coming from AMD, and happy for it. And now it's just time to grab some of that market share back.

[Princess Luna]

29 minutes ago, DocSwag said:

The reason I said the X CPUs were better is because they OC better. Ian Cutress at Anandtech could only get 4.8/4.9 ghz on his 7700k but could get 5 ghz on his 7740x. Bitwit was able to get 5.3 ghz on his delidded 7740x, whereas it took done12many2 a few thousand CPUs before they found a 7700k that could hit 5.3 ghz even when delidded.

Yes but if the i7 7700k is actually outperforming the i7 7740x at same clocks then the tiny 0,1ghz~0,2ghz increase in overclock (which personally I can no see how the hell is this minimal clock improve worth the premium price tag) ends up null'ing any actual real life gain.

 

If overclocks around 0,2ghz better but that boost only helps to make them even since the i7 7700k somehow is outperforming it at same clocks we're exchanging 6 for half a dozen here... aside the fact we're paying so much more on the motherboard for features we can't use.

[Guest]

Totaly different CPU here, but I had to decrease my max turbo with 0.2 ghz. (from 4.5 to 4.3 ghz turbo) It's 15 degrees hotter in my home, compaired to the winter time where I changed this turbo setting. I do notice the difference. Some things I do on my pc are just a bit slower.

[DocSwag]

4 minutes ago, Princess Cadence said:

Yes but if the i7 7700k is actually outperforming the i7 7740x at same clocks then the tiny 0,1ghz~0,2ghz increase in overclock (which personally I can no see how the hell is this minimal clock improve worth the premium price tag) ends up null'ing any actual real life gain.

 

If overclocks around 0,2ghz better but that boost only helps to make them even since the i7 7700k somehow is outperforming it at same clocks we're exchanging 6 for half a dozen here... aside the fact we're paying so much more on the motherboard for features we can't use.

But as I said, the difference is likely due to the mobo used as evidenced by the article I linked not showing any difference between the 7740x and 7700k.

[Princess Luna]

Just now, DocSwag said:

But as I said, the difference is likely due to the mobo used as evidenced by the article I linked not showing any difference between the 7740x and 7700k.

We'll see, but regardless future optimizations and BIOS refreshes it'll be really hard to play devil's lawyer for Intel on this one, more than ever I'm focused on Canon Lake, 14nm may have started promising with the i7 6700k but end up a great nightmare for Intel.

[DocSwag]

1 hour ago, Princess Cadence said:

We'll see, but regardless future optimizations and BIOS refreshes it'll be really hard to play devil's lawyer for Intel on this one, more than ever I'm focused on Canon Lake, 14nm may have started promising with the i7 6700k but end up a great nightmare for Intel.

Yeah I never said the 7740x and 7640x were good choices . They're pretty retarded if you ask me.

 

I'm not sure if cannonlake will bring huge performance/power efficiency improvements but what really interests me is the (I think) 2.7* higher density. THAT is interesting.

[arnavvr]

2 minutes ago, DocSwag said:

Yeah I never said the 7740x and 7640x were good choices . They're pretty retarded if you ask me.

 

I'm not sure if cannonlake will bring huge performance/power efficiency improvements but what really interests me is the (I think) 2.7* higher density. THAT is interesting.

The 7640X is a stupid chip I agree. The 7740X is literally the fastest gaming chip sooo... 

[DocSwag]

1 minute ago, arnavvr said:

The 7640X is a stupid chip I agree. The 7740X is literally the fastest gaming chip sooo... 

But at the same you're paying $50-$100 extra for it for not that much performance gain. IMO that money would be better spent on a 120gb or 250gb ssd, faster ram, better cooler, or better gpu.

[arnavvr]

Just now, DocSwag said:

But at the same you're paying $50-$100 extra for it for not that much performance gain. IMO that money would be better spent on a 120gb or 250gb ssd, faster ram, better cooler, or better gpu.

The CPUs cost the same....