7800x vs 7700k, hint: the 7800x is slower(even when overclocked)

[MageTank]

Just now, Enderman said:

Watch the other half of the video.

You will see the blue line is almost always above the green line.

It's not that hard to see tbh, it's at the bottom left in case you didn't notice.

 

If they had the same IPC then you would only be able to see the blue line the whole time because green would be underneath.

Yeah, because the max FPS difference being 2 (in regards to literally 100+FPS on average) totally matters. I mean, that's an entire 2% or less! Thank god we can ignore the analytical data, and simply refer to the images of graphs to give us the information we need. It's not like they can be deceptive or misleading. 

[Vode]

5 minutes ago, Enderman said:

 

Are you kidding me?

Like half the video has the 7700k clearly above the 6700k...

 

There are many other benchmarks online that show the same, go look them up.

Good job bro. You used the benchmarks at stock to prove exactly nothing.

 

Stop arguing and quietly walk away or just admit you are wrong.

[tom_w141]

4 minutes ago, Enderman said:

Watch the other half of the video.

You will see the blue line is almost always above the green line.

It's not that hard to see tbh, it's at the bottom left in case you didn't notice.

 

If they had the same IPC then you would only be able to see the blue line the whole time because green would be underneath.

Rek't  Quit while you are behind.

[MageTank]

Just now, Enderman said:

Look at the second half of the video...

Holy crap dude, it's not hard to look at two lines...

 

 

 

If you somehow can't tell that the two lines appart, you might want to get your eyesight checked, because it is obvious that the green and blue lines are not the same.

 

Yes, and still images of a framerate graph means absolutely nothing when we are talking literally a max difference of 2fps between the processors on average. You linked this video, but didn't even bother to read the article. Instead, you are going on and on about a graph that shows a solid color over top of another, for a 1-2 difference in FPS? Come on man, you can do better than that. 

 

[Enderman]

2 minutes ago, MageTank said:

Yeah, because the max FPS difference being 2 (in regards to literally 100+FPS on average) totally matters. I mean, that's an entire 2% or less! Thank god we can ignore the analytical data, and simply refer to the images of graphs to give us the information we need. It's not like they can be deceptive or misleading. 

2 fps huh?

Seriously, did you even watch the video?

Obviously they are not the same IPC, idk why you have such a hard time comprehending this.

It's almost like you have a 6700k and are trying to convince yourself that the 7700k is not better...

[Citadelen]

12 minutes ago, Enderman said:

Watch the other half of the video.

You will see the blue line is almost always above the green line.

It's not that hard to see tbh, it's at the bottom left in case you didn't notice.

 

If they had the same IPC then you would only be able to see the blue line the whole time because green would be underneath.

Spoiler

 

Margin of Error

              Margin of Error

                                             Margin of Error

                                                                 Margin of Error

                                                                                   Margin of Error

                                                                                      Margin of Error

                                                                                                              Margin of Error

                                                                                                                         Margin of Error

                                                                                                                                          Margin of Error

                                                                                                                                                                                                            Margin of Error

 

                        

[MageTank]

Just now, Enderman said:

2 fps huh?

And yes

Seriously, did you even watch the video?

Obviously they are not the same IPC, idk why you have such a hard time comprehending this.

It's almost like you have a 6700k and are trying to convince yourself that the 7700k is not better...

Did you let that average out? DigitalFoundry, the very source of this video, did, and the biggest FPS difference on average was 2.2fps in The Witcher 3. 141.7 (7700k at 4.5) vs 139.5 (6700k at 4.5). Difference of exactly 1.5%. 1.5% is certainly margin of error. Do you not understand why we don't use graphs and still-images of a specific framerate as concrete proof to performance? It's impossible to capture an average using that data alone. All of it can be misleading, when a 1.5% difference in framerates on average, shows one bar being above the other by a substantial degree (due to how the graphs are scaled). Seriously, go read your own evidence before trying to use it against me. 

[tom_w141]

2 minutes ago, MageTank said:

Did you let that average out? DigitalFoundry, the very source of this video, did, and the biggest FPS difference on average was 2.2fps in The Witcher 3. 141.7 (7700k at 4.5) vs 139.5 (6700k at 4.5). Difference of exactly 1.5%. 1.5% is certainly margin of error. Do you not understand why we don't use graphs and still-images of a specific framerate as concrete proof to performance? It's impossible to capture an average using that data alone. All of it can be misleading, when a 1.5% difference in framerates on average, shows one bar being above the other by a substantial degree (due to how the graphs are scaled). Seriously, go read your own evidence before trying to use it against me. 

Stop he's already dead!  

[Enderman]

Just now, MageTank said:

Did you let that average out? DigitalFoundry, the very source of this video, did, and the biggest FPS difference on average was 2.2fps in The Witcher 3. 141.7 (7700k at 4.5) vs 139.5 (6700k at 4.5). Difference of exactly 1.5%. 1.5% is certainly margin of error. Do you not understand why we don't use graphs and still-images of a specific framerate as concrete proof to performance? It's impossible to capture an average using that data alone. All of it can be misleading, when a 1.5% difference in framerates on average, shows one bar being above the other by a substantial degree (due to how the graphs are scaled). Seriously, go read your own evidence before trying to use it against me. 

 

 

 

I guess it's just very difficult for you to understand that they are not the same IPC.

Anyway, you've already derailed this topic too much, so I'll just stop wasting my time trying to explain A+B=C to three people.

If you want to believe that skylake is the same as kaby lake, then that's your problem

 

 

[Vode]

26 minutes ago, Enderman said:

2 fps huh?

Seriously, did you even watch the video?

Obviously they are not the same IPC, idk why you have such a hard time comprehending this.

It's almost like you have a 6700k and are trying to convince yourself that the 7700k is not better...

Are you high?

 

The 6700k is clearly faster clock for clock. Over 3 FPS !!!!1!!

 

 

 

13 minutes ago, Enderman said:

 

I guess it's just very difficult for you to understand that they are not the same IPC.

Anyway, you've already derailed this topic too much, so I'll just stop wasting my time trying to explain A+B=C to three people.

If you want to believe that skylake is the same as kaby lake, then that's your problem

 

 

So we are talking about the IGPU now? Ok... lol

 

It's more like you are trying to "explain" 1+1=potato and we are refusing to believe it.

[TheRandomness]

Please people, calm down.

[tom_w141]

2 minutes ago, Enderman said:

 

 

 

I guess it's just very difficult for you to understand that they are not the same IPC.

Anyway, you've already derailed this topic too much, so I'll just stop wasting my time trying to explain A+B=C to three people.

If you want to believe that skylake is the same as kaby lake, then that's your problem

 

 

You realise the 1.79% difference between 182.96 and 179.74 is well within margin of error right? If Kaby lake had higher IPC then skylake then wouldn't Intel be shouting it from the heavens?

[MageTank]

Just now, Enderman said:

 

 

 

I guess it's just very difficult for you to understand that they are not the same IPC.

Anyway, you've already derailed this topic too much, so I'll just stop wasting my time trying to explain A+B=C to three people.

If you want to believe that skylake is the same as kaby lake, then that's your problem

 

 

Would you at least present sources to your synthetic benches for me to see their testing methodology? Hard for me to present a counter-argument if you just google random graphs on the internet and paste them from several sources, especially given the many variables that alter scores. Memory speed, cache speed, AVX offset (in the case of photoworxx), etc. Photoworxx is also heavily reliant on memory bandwidth. My case in point? 

This is my old 6700k at 4.5, running my 3600 C14-14-14-28-2 memory overclock. Notice how my 33k absolutely smashes your 4.5ghz 7700k result? Does that mean my IPC is 20% higher? Come on Enderman. You can do better than this.

[sazrocks]

3 minutes ago, Enderman said:

 

Not that I want to jump into this but what the heck is that graph!? You’re telling me a 7700k running at 5.1 GHz is slower than a stock 7700k? And how is that system only getting 50 FPS on low!?

[tom_w141]

Just now, sazrocks said:

Not that I want to jump into this but what the heck is that graph!? You’re telling me a 7700k running at 5.1 GHz is slower than a stock 7700k? And how is that system only getting 50 FPS on low!?

That's the kind of graph you get when you are desperate for sources  

[TheRandomness]

Just now, sazrocks said:

Not that I want to jump into this but what the heck is that graph!? You’re telling me a 7700k running at 5.1 GHz is slower than a stock 7700k? And how is that system only getting 50 FPS on low!?

When they're using the iGPU. There's a reason those HEDT CPUs have a score of 0.

 

[MageTank]

Just now, tom_w141 said:

I think Enderman is gonna blow. Can someone please reassure him Kaby lake = Sky lake IPC? Maybe a mod post will soothe him

There is no need to stoke the flames even more. At this point, all of us are just as bad, derailing this thread with our ego's to prove a point. I'll go ahead and back down, for the sake of keeping the peace, but he needs to at least understand that graphs are not the be all, end all way to compare performance. The end result is all that matters. 

[tom_w141]

2 minutes ago, MageTank said:

There is no need to stoke the flames even more. At this point, all of us are just as bad, derailing this thread with our ego's to prove a point. I'll go ahead and back down, for the sake of keeping the peace, but he needs to at least understand that graphs are not the be all, end all way to compare performance. The end result is all that matters. 

It's an LTT news thread you can assume derailment by page 2 anyway  While I agree we are all derailing it equally as much, I think its better to do so than to leave other people with the false impression kaby lake IPC > Skylake IPC when it just isn't. Preventing the spread of inaccurate information is worth a little derailment imo.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

3 minutes ago, TheRandomness said:

When they're using the iGPU. There's a reason those HEDT CPUs have a score of 0.

 

So we can all agree: the iGPU in the 7700K is better than the iGPU in the 6700K.

 

So much misunderstanding could have been avoided if someone had just told the poor guy that you were walking about the CPU part!

[MageTank]

Just now, tom_w141 said:

It's an LTT news thread you can assume derailment by page 2 anyway  While I agree we are all derailing it equally as much, I think its better to do so than to leave other people with the false impression kaby lake IPC > Skylake IPC when it just isn't. Preventing the spread of inaccurate information is worth a little derailment imo.

That is true, but all we can do is present our argument, and hope that they come to their own conclusion. If they see both sides, and still choose to believe a false statement, then it cannot be helped. We are beyond beating a dead horse at this point. He presented his evidence, I presented mine. I can say that, I have a 7700k in my system, and a 6700k sitting on my desk. If personal experience counts for anything, there is zero difference between the two. The improved speedshift is extremely nice for how snappy windows feels, but for gaming, it's not doing much for those that keep their clocks pegged at a static speed. For mobile systems, this is certainly a much bigger difference. 

[Carclis]

Well, we almost made it to one page of discussion about the actual news topic.

[Dabombinable]

World of Tanks runs well on even an old Phenom II N970, so why the hell did they include it as a benchmark?

[jjohnthedon1]

1 hour ago, tom_w141 said:

Good point  I haven't got time to pour over the entire article at work but my guess would be the restructuring of the cache on skylake-X affecting the performance.

 

Do they have 2 moduals with cores on like ryzen ? Could be latency between cores ? 

[Valentyn]

2 hours ago, tom_w141 said:

We knew this anyway? HEDT isn't for gamers... Well not primarily. Games are still quad core optimised. If they were suited to more cores (which they may be in a few years) then you'd see the likes of Ryzen beating 7700k and the 7800X/7820X smashing the 7700k. At the moment due to the quad core focus of games, a highly clocked quad core will always win over more slower cores (assuming IPC is comparable).

 

EDIT: More cores is the better long term purchase and useful for more than gaming. Streaming/video editing for example. Intel knows quad cores won't live forever which is why coffeelake is hotly tipped to be bringing a 6 core SKU to the mainstream platform.

Except that Skylake X has the same IPC as Skylake and Kabylake, and at 4.7Ghz shouldn't be losing so badly to a stock 7700k.

 

I still remember people here believing Anandtech when they stated the new cache structure would give up to a 20% IPC increase over regular Skylake. Looks like it was the exact opposite.

 

As Steve also mentions in the video the 6 core Ryzen was in some cases 40% faster than the quad core variants.

 

Skylake X has some major issues, despite the very high clocks.

 

They mentioned also testing the 1600x and 1700 against the 6800X, that should be interesting. Especially with Skylake X falling flat in the same games as Ryzen; Far Cry, Dawn of War 3, and GTAV.

[PCGuy_5960]

Results are probably wrong. 

 

This review:

Spoiler

TechSpot's launch review:

Spoiler

What I find very interesting is that both Hardware Unboxed/TechSpot and Science Studio (the only 2 channels that got those gaming results for X299) were using the AsRock Taichi board. Which makes me believe that this is a board problem, because Gamers Nexus (using the ASUS X299 Deluxe) got these results:

Spoiler

And Tom's Hardware (using the MSI Carbon board) got these results:

Spoiler

 

As for the IPC debate, well even if there was a difference (there's no difference tho) Skylake-X is the same or better than Kabylake clock for clock according to @done12many2's and @MageTank's testing