Skylake X bashing

[SubLimation7]

This thread should have never been made....

[Bananasplit_00]

i dont think thats how you use the word markup tbh. also go take a look at how the 7700K compares to the R7 chips and get back to me seeing as it will win in basically every title where CPUs play a roll. For the Coffee lake "saveing Intel" idk what they would be saved from tbh. they are preformance king at the moment at all but mid teir CPUs where the R5s are better. Coffeelake will just bring more cores to the consumer platform but i doubt it will be a better chip for games compared to the 7700K at launch. Second gen Zen could be no better for all we know. its probably quite a while away, id say 8+ months, possiably we could get some hints off it at CES 2018.

[tom_w141]

This is known. Intel shat the bed with X299. Main thing they have going for them is AVX512 which appeals to some.

 

Threadripper will make the situation even worse.

 

Truly exciting times to see competition in the cpu sector again.

 

(Gaming and single core perf is irrelevant as X299 doesn't beat the 7700k for those purposes)

[SubLimation7]

On ‎7‎/‎27‎/‎2017 at 5:41 AM, Bananasplit_00 said:

i dont think thats how you use the word markup tbh. also go take a look at how the 7700K compares to the R7 chips and get back to me seeing as it will win in basically every title where CPUs play a roll. For the Coffee lake "saveing Intel" idk what they would be saved from tbh. they are preformance king at the moment at all but mid teir CPUs where the R5s are better. Coffeelake will just bring more cores to the consumer platform but i doubt it will be a better chip for games compared to the 7700K at launch. Second gen Zen could be no better for all we know. its probably quite a while away, id say 8+ months, possiably we could get some hints off it at CES 2018.

How else would you explain it?  Its that much more money for very similar performance, if we are just looking at real world numbers. However the quad channel memory is nice I suppose, but doesn't really help real world performance except very niche situations.

 

I'm really not concerned about how CPUS perform in Dx9 games, I already get 300+fps in those,  if your talking about on modern APIs, heres a decent example, and its pretty damn close.  

 

How could someone justify spending an extra ~$200+ on 7700k just for gaming, and only getting a max of like 8% higher fps.  Plus all the extra muscle waiting to be used.  

 

I own a 6800k 

Built a r7 build for girlfriend

We play side by side

 

We both tear through everything, so no point in comparing old titles when they are both plenty competent, what about the new and future titles?

 

Watch GamersNexus video comparing 7700k to r7 in streaming while gaming (7700k is ocd to over 5ghz, r7 is stock)

 

But I'll stop the flame war here, but I don't like Intels business practices, and in the current market I seriously don't understand how anyone could justify a buy from Intel unless they are rich as hell, or a pro CSGO player with 240hz screen, even then the r7 could deliver.

[tom_w141]

11 minutes ago, Bananasplit_00 said:

Coffee lake

Has issues of its own. Whilst 6 cores on the mainstream is great I don't see the point in Copylake it should have been instead of Kabylake. Whats wrong? Well its incompatible with Z170/270 and will be replaced in 2018 by the 10nm platform. So what on earth is the point in a stop-gap platform with zero upgrade path??

[tom_w141]

1 minute ago, SubLimation7 said:

the quad channel memory

lol such a placebo feature ^ it does virtually nothing.

 

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2982965/components/quad-channel-ram-vs-dual-channel-ram-the-shocking-truth-about-their-performance.html

[SubLimation7]

Just now, tom_w141 said:

lol such a placebo feature ^ it does virtually nothing.

 

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2982965/components/quad-channel-ram-vs-dual-channel-ram-the-shocking-truth-about-their-performance.html

That's why I separated it from real world examples, but it does help for some VERY specific things.  After I delidded a 3570k two of the memory slots went out, so we were down to 1 channel, I was like OMGNOOOOO, turns out it didn't affect fps 1 bit.

[tom_w141]

@SubLimation7

 

Btw just saying prepare for some serious flack coming your way. The Intel squad will roll in shortly  a topic like this was risky and prepare for the flame war.

[SubLimation7]

1 minute ago, tom_w141 said:

@SubLimation7

 

Btw just saying prepare for some serious flack coming your way. The Intel squad will roll in shortly  a topic like this was risky and prepare for the flame war.

I'm gonna do my best not to say anything once that happens, maybe they'll actually do some research on current market environment and learn something.  Wont hurt me either way.  At least someone other than me will get a kick out of it  

 

I just wish I could delid Ryzen for my own selfish reasons, I sure miss feeling like I'm cheating shaving 30c+ and ~400 extra MHz while staying chilly.  Not that its a bad thing AT ALL, just gives me less room to shine lol.

[tom_w141]

9 minutes ago, SubLimation7 said:

but I don't like Intels business practices

This is known by many but if you aren't fully versed on the subject there is this:

 

Not news but the video does a good job of collating sources and presenting in chronological order.

 

Warning: The above linked thread contains fanboyism and blind defence/ignorance of Intel's actions.

[SubLimation7]

2 minutes ago, tom_w141 said:

This is known by many but if you aren't fully versed on the subject there is this:

 

Not news but the video does a good job of collating sources and presenting in chronological order.

 

Warning: The above linked thread contains fanboyism and blind defence/ignorance of Intel's actions.

One reason I'm so happy to see Intel falling, kinda scum of a company, even when I was buying their cpus I hated that I had to.  I'll give that video a watch though, maybe its got some info that I missed.

[tom_w141]

6 minutes ago, SubLimation7 said:

I just wish I could delid Ryzen for my own selfish reasons, I sure miss feeling like I'm cheating shaving 30c+ and ~400 extra MHz while staying chilly.  Not that its a bad thing AT ALL, just gives me less room to shine lol.

The reason you can do this with Intel is because the cpus are unsoldered and use toothpaste. Ryzen cpu's are gold-indium soldered which offers the best thermal transfer possible between the die and IHS. Nothing you could do would make it better. Except maybe direct die LN2 cooling  But that isn't exactly mainstream. Ryzen frequency is process limited not thermally limited.

[SubLimation7]

3 minutes ago, tom_w141 said:

The reason you can do this with Intel is because the cpus are unsoldered and use paste. Ryzen cpu's are gold-indium soldered which offers the best thermal transfer possible between the die and IHS. Nothing you could do would make it better. Except maybe direct die LN2 cooling  But that isn't exactly mainstream. Ryzen frequency is process limited not thermally limited.

Oh I'm well aware, I've delidded many Intel cpus with great results, that gap is horrible not to mention low quality paste.  I managed to set a couple national records even (on air cooling).

[Bananasplit_00]

5 minutes ago, SubLimation7 said:

How else would you explain it?  Its that much more money for very similar performance, if we are just looking at real world numbers, the quad channel memory is nice I suppose.

for the word "markup" im just generaly saying thats probably not really how you use it. its not markup, markup is how much higher then the expenses you price your product. Intel probably has a greater markup on their products then AMD but this:

 

23 minutes ago, SubLimation7 said:

 

So that makes it $999 (Intel)

And....... $270 (AMD) WITH COOLER

 

So a $730 markup, plus $300 extra for motherboard ($1030 markup)

 

isnt how you use it.

 

8 minutes ago, SubLimation7 said:

 

I'm really not concerned about how CPUS perform in Dx9 games, I already get 300+fps in those,  if your talking about on modern APIs, heres a decent example, and its pretty damn close.  

 

a hell of a lot of DX 11 games are quad core / 8 thread optimised seeing as Intel has dominated the market for ages. just because the API is modern dosent mean the game will just magically take advantage of the extra threads.(cant watch the video, im on a computer without sound at work lol)

 

10 minutes ago, SubLimation7 said:

 

How could someone justify spending an extra ~$200+ on 7700k just for gaming, and only getting a max of like 8% higher fps.  Plus all the extra muscle waiting to be used.  

 

7700K beats the R7 chips in most games, and getting one over an R7 isnt going to be another $200 if you are looking at the same quality of motherboards.

 

12 minutes ago, SubLimation7 said:

I own a 6800k 

Built a r7 build for girlfriend

We play side by side

ok. i dont really care, hope you are haveing fun?

 

13 minutes ago, SubLimation7 said:

We both tear through everything, so no point in comparing old titles when they are both plenty competent, what about the new and future titles?

its going to take a few years but i would say the R7 chips will pull ahead later on, just like how the FX 8350 has almost caught up to the I7 2600k from being worse then the I5 2500K. games are taking more and more advantage of more cores then 4 but single core preformance still rains supreme today.

 

15 minutes ago, SubLimation7 said:

Watch GamersNexus video comparing 7700k to r7 in streaming while gaming (7700k is ocd to over 5ghz, r7 is stock)

 

But I'll stop the flame war here, but I don't like Intels business practices, and in the current market I seriously don't understand how anyone could justify a buy from Intel unless they are a pro CSGO player with 240hz screen, even then the r7 could deliver.

havent watched that but the R7 haveing litteraly doubbe the threads is quite obviously the winner seeing as it can split up its preformance more and it can use the cores that the game dosent for streaming. Intel has always been a shady little bastard, pulling dirty ticks on AMD and the market as a whole, as long as they are preformance king people will buy them because Intel, they dont need to be the best price/preformance just because Intel has brand recognition. people see Intel and go, "hey thats a chip i know will preform well so lets buy it"

[SubLimation7]

2 minutes ago, Bananasplit_00 said:

for the word "markup" im just generaly saying thats probably not really how you use it. its not markup, markup is how much higher then the expenses you price your product. Intel probably has a greater markup on their products then AMD but this:

 

isnt how you use it.

 

a hell of a lot of DX 11 games are quad core / 8 thread optimised seeing as Intel has dominated the market for ages. just because the API is modern dosent mean the game will just magically take advantage of the extra threads.(cant watch the video, im on a computer without sound at work lol)

 

7700K beats the R7 chips in most games, and getting one over an R7 isnt going to be another $200 if you are looking at the same quality of motherboards.

 

ok. i dont really care, hope you are haveing fun?

 

its going to take a few years but i would say the R7 chips will pull ahead later on, just like how the FX 8350 has almost caught up to the I7 2600k from being worse then the I5 2500K. games are taking more and more advantage of more cores then 4 but single core preformance still rains supreme today.

 

havent watched that but the R7 haveing litteraly doubbe the threads is quite obviously the winner seeing as it can split up its preformance more and it can use the cores that the game dosent for streaming. Intel has always been a shady little bastard, pulling dirty ticks on AMD and the market as a whole, as long as they are preformance king people will buy them because Intel, they dont need to be the best price/preformance just because Intel has brand recognition. people see Intel and go, "hey thats a chip i know will preform well so lets buy it"

I don't buy chips for brand recognition.

[Bananasplit_00]

Just now, SubLimation7 said:

I don't buy chips for brand recognition.  You seem offended.

what?... no. im just saying Intel has it and people will buy them regardless of price/preformance. never did i state that you did lol

[Princess Luna]

Exactly my thoughts, people are paying extreme overprices for a damn narrow difference in performance, I bough a lot of argue back when x99 was still current that since you could make an entire 1800x build with mobo, ssd, ram, gpu, psu and case for the price of a single i7 6900k processor there was simply no reason any one would pay more than double for a system that at the end of the day performs so near the same.

 

Gaming? I still can't understand why is the i7 7700 seen so bad for gaming, it is a lot more cheaper than getting the i7 7700k with more expensive cooling and motherboard and gaming performance is near the same, sure there's the enthusiasms and PC MASTER RACE deal but come on if people would shop more consciously the market would obviously be better.

 

I just come from a thread where this person actually bought x299+i7 7800x JUST FOR GAMING because he "wanted the best", and that after we see the gaming performance between it and the Ryzen 5 1600 is on a tie once we test multiple titles.

 

I just can't understand people, I truly don't, in a world where stuff made sense x299 wouldn't even exist as it is the worse cost for value Intel has ever made, Kaby Lake wouldn't exist as it should've been Coffee Lake already, 4cores still as i7 high end is a joke and Ryzen would be selling far more workstations as they are insane good value for money.

 

I love seeing people say "the i7 7700k beats Ryzen 7 on games" but when you're gaming full max out on ultra at 3440x1440p100hz G-sync with a 1080ti (or two lol) does a few fps in average with the same minimums make any difference at all? I can't see it making.

[SubLimation7]

28 minutes ago, Bananasplit_00 said:

what?... no. im just saying Intel has it and people will buy them regardless of price/preformance. never did i state that you did lol

That's my bad, I skimmed your answer, I immediately edited after reading more.  So I used markup incorrectly, luckily it still gets the point across.  Also, I think having real world experience with high end Ryzen and Intel is quite relevant.  A lot of people just remember benchmarks from when Ryzen first came out with bad bios and such, FPS has gone up quite significantly since then and will only get better.  To me its like you want to buy a race car, one car has better brakes, handling, etc.  But the other car can go 5 mph faster in a straight line (they both go 150mph+)  an experienced driver would definitely buy the more balanced car, whereas an unexperienced kid might get the one that goes 5mph faster in a straight line, but underperforms in every other situation.  Oh and the 5mph faster but worse in every other way cost more as well and is from a shady company.

 

I'm very tired lol... my body decided it just wanted to stay awake though so here I am.

 

So tired I didn't even realize that you are the same person I replied to earlier lol.  

 

Also, its really not fair to compare Ryzen to Fx vs older core chips, the IPC on those was around 50% worse lol (don't quote me, its a rough estimate).  Where with Ryzen its pretty much neck and neck with IPC, 7700k is a tad higher, but mainly comes from extra frequency.

 

Also, high thread usage in games is getting quite mainstream, and it certainly doesn't hurt that AMD has 8 core cpus in every single console lol.

 

Also(x3 lol), it might not be $200 difference exactly, but I'm certainly not running a stock Intel cooler, however I'm fine with wraith cooler, with some liquid metal I can hit 4ghz and its pretty quiet and looks very nice.

 

[ravenshrike]

17 minutes ago, Bananasplit_00 said:

7700K beats the R7 chips in most games, and getting one over an R7 isnt going to be another $200 if you are looking at the same quality of motherboards.

It beats it in most games sure, except the vast, vast majority of users will never be able to tell unless they're playing competitive twitch FPS's on a LAN at max settings. I suppose those with fighter pilot level eyesight and reflexes would be able to tell the difference in normal games or twitch FPS's at low settings.

12 minutes ago, SubLimation7 said:

So I used markup incorrectly

In fairness given Ryzen's supposed yield's Intel's 7700k might be more expensive to manufacture by a whole 50 bucks.

 

 

 

As for the Skylake X bashing, had they not used toothpaste most of it would go away. But as a bean counting measure they did, and so they're rightfully getting slapped silly for it in the public eye. Kaby-Lake X is an entirely different story and should die in a fire.

[Bananasplit_00]

9 minutes ago, Princess Cadence said:

Gaming? I still can't understand why is the i7 7700 seen so bad for gaming, it is a lot more cheaper than getting the i7 7700k with more expensive cooling and motherboard and gaming performance is near the same

there is quite the diffrence in prefomance from 4.2GHz to 5GHz. thats an 800MHz overclock and you notice it in the framerates.

 

11 minutes ago, Princess Cadence said:

I love seeing people say "the i7 7700k beats Ryzen 7 on games" but when you're gaming full max out on ultra at 3440x1440p100hz G-sync with a 1080ti (or two lol) does a few fps in average with the same minimums make any difference at all? I can't see it making.

90% of people dont have a 4K display m80. at 1080p the I7 7700K is currently the best chip if you want high framerates on maxed out settings. same for all other resolutions too. it IS a better chip for gameing seeing as it wont be bottlenecking the more powerfull cards at 1080p. at 4K it starts to matter less however, if you want to game at 4K its almost entirely the GPU that matters, but then again, most people dont game at 4K because a 4K display costs you more then a 1070.

 

X299 is just Intels way of reclaiming the preformance thone more or less. it can make some sense for content creators but for gamers its pretty stupid.

 

15 minutes ago, SubLimation7 said:

That's my bad, I skimmed your answer, I immediately edited after reading more.  So I used markup incorrectly, luckily it still gets the point across.  Also, I think having real world experience with high end Ryzen and Intel is quite relevant.  A lot of people just remember benchmarks from when Ryzen first came out with bad bios and such, FPS has gone up quite significantly since then and will only get better.  To me its like you want to buy a race car, one car has better brakes, handling, etc.  But the other car can go 5 mph faster in a straight line (they both go 150mph+)  an experienced driver would definitely buy the more balanced car, whereas an unexperienced kid might get the one that goes 5mph faster in a straight line, but underperforms in every other situation.  Oh and the 5mph faster but worse in every other way cost more as well and is from a shady company.

i follow Ryzen benchmarking a bit, but mainly on LN2. the recent BIOS versions can really push up the preformance, but AMD is really shit at launch functionallity in general. the racecar analogy is a bitt off, but i cant really fix it because that would take me a while to think about.

 

7 minutes ago, ravenshrike said:

It beats it in most games sure, except the vast, vast majority of users will never be able to tell unless they're playing competitive twitch FPS's on a LAN at max settings.

so preformance dosent matter as long as its "good enough"? nice one, sounds like the RX Vega leaks lol.

9 minutes ago, ravenshrike said:

I suppose those with fighter pilot level eyesight and reflexes would be able to tell the difference in normal games or twitch FPS's at low settings.

i really dont get this one, there are very noticable diffrences between high and low settings, and i can with ease pick out 75Hz from 60Hz or 120Hz and so on. im not a fighter pilot, im just a normal gamer.(though being a fighter pilot would be fun...)

 

11 minutes ago, ravenshrike said:

In fairness given Ryzen's supposed yield's Intel's 7700k might be more expensive to manufacture by a whole 50 bucks.

probably cloer to $2 a pop

 

12 minutes ago, ravenshrike said:

As for the Skylake X bashing, had they not used toothpaste most of it would go away. But as a bean counting measure they did, and so they're rightfully getting slapped silly for it in the public eye.

*if it werent for Ryzen

 

12 minutes ago, ravenshrike said:

Kaby-Lake X is an entirely different story and should die in a fire.

agreed. Kabylake X should never have been a thing.

[SubLimation7]

8 minutes ago, Bananasplit_00 said:

there is quite the diffrence in prefomance from 4.2GHz to 5GHz. thats an 800MHz overclock and you notice it in the framerates.

 

90% of people dont have a 4K display m80. at 1080p the I7 7700K is currently the best chip if you want high framerates on maxed out settings. same for all other resolutions too. it IS a better chip for gameing seeing as it wont be bottlenecking the more powerfull cards at 1080p. at 4K it starts to matter less however, if you want to game at 4K its almost entirely the GPU that matters, but then again, most people dont game at 4K because a 4K display costs you more then a 1070.

 

So what game at 1080p can the R7 not give you the performance you need?  And if you don't play past 1080p, you really shouldn't be worried about what would happen to your super graphics card you buy in the future.  And if we are talking about the future, than the Ryzen will come out on top anyway so it will still be the better buy even if just for gaming, no?  

 

This of course is totally ignoring the way better at everything else argument.

 

When the FX chips launched they IMMEDIATELY underperformed and held gamers back while AMD fanboys screamed just wait till more cores are used than you will see!  This isn't another FX (or a Pentium 4) heh heh.....

 

Maybe I'm overstepping here a bit, but to me its like:

8 core 6700k for $270? or...

4 core 6700k with 5-10% bump for $330

 

I'm pretty sure even the most hardcore gamers would choose line 1.

 

(I'm a graphics whore, I can't wait till 144hz 4k IPS panels)

[Princess Luna]

12 minutes ago, Bananasplit_00 said:

there is quite the diffrence in prefomance from 4.2GHz to 5GHz. thats an 800MHz overclock and you notice it in the framerates.

Uh nope you won't, the framerates are so damn close that you can only see a difference with a fps counter turn on, I can game any thing I want locked on 80fps which is my monitors refresh or simply break the 300fps mark on CS:GO and other fast paced titles to ensure no delays, and the greatest majority of people, even with 144hz monitors would realize the i7 7700 is enough to satisfy their needs and CPU will not be the limiting factor but the GPU either ways.

 

People often forget that their monitor is a major factor as well and getting stuff beyond its capability is hardly any beneficial any ways

 

Overclocking makes no sense at all in current Intel mainstream, before sure you could do it all for free and get some boost in performance it was cool, now you pay almost the price of a new processor solely to be able to overclock to add insignificant gains, again just Intel milking money out of people who are driven by bad youtubers rather than test the differences themselves.

12 minutes ago, Bananasplit_00 said:

90% of people dont have a 4K display m80. at 1080p the I7 7700K is currently the best chip if you want high framerates on maxed out settings. same for all other resolutions too. it IS a better chip for gameing seeing as it wont be bottlenecking the more powerfull cards at 1080p. at 4K it starts to matter less however, if you want to game at 4K its almost entirely the GPU that matters, but then again, most people dont game at 4K because a 4K display costs you more then a 1070.

 

X299 is just Intels way of reclaiming the preformance thone more or less. it can make some sense for content creators but for gamers its pretty stupid.

The performance of a ryzen 5 or 7 on 1080p is more than sufficient for high paced games or slow paced games, games such as The Wither 3, GTA V, Tomb Raider and so on that are GPU driven will allow a smooth gameplay experience above 60fps all times should GPU allow it, games where you need high fps such as CS:GO still manages to do well above 200fps easily maxing out any competitive monitor out there so then again being "best chip" is nothing but a money grabber.

 

FYI my i7 7700 doesn't bottleneck a GTX 1080ti on 1080p, so another point to the whole overclocking mainstream CPUs is pointless deal.

[porina]

1 hour ago, tom_w141 said:

Has issues of its own. Whilst 6 cores on the mainstream is great I don't see the point in Copylake it should have been instead of Kabylake. Whats wrong? Well its incompatible with Z170/270 and will be replaced in 2018 by the 10nm platform. So what on earth is the point in a stop-gap platform with zero upgrade path??

In the real world, how many people ever upgrade CPU? They buy a system and run it until they replace the whole thing. Ram, GPU or storage upgrades, maybe, but CPU is way down on the list and not having an upgrade is not going to make any measurable difference to sales numbers.

1 hour ago, tom_w141 said:

lol such a placebo feature ^ it does virtually nothing.

Ram bandwidth only really makes a difference if you have enough CPU power to need it. The biggest case I know of is running AVX2 intensive workloads on Intel systems, since AMD's implementation is not strong enough to push the ram demand to the same level.

[SubLimation7]

5 minutes ago, porina said:

In the real world, how many people ever upgrade CPU? They buy a system and run it until they replace the whole thing. Ram, GPU or storage upgrades, maybe, but CPU is way down on the list and not having an upgrade is not going to make any measurable difference to sales numbers.

Not in the enthusiast world, and it certainly doesn't make it a good thing.  Also, that's just more points for Ryzen IF you were to get one cpu assuming you care at all about value and future proofing, plus the fact theres an upgrade path if you somehow need more within a couple of years.

[Princess Luna]

5 minutes ago, SubLimation7 said:

plus the fact theres an upgrade path if you somehow need more within a couple of years.

Personally speaking I find the idea of upgrade path pointless nowadays the way the market is envolving, I rather keep doing how I do it, get the cheapest possible motherboard I can find since it doesn't effect performance, throw the best locked i7 Intel has currently and use it until can't satisfy me, then I just do it again since I am virtually having no loss on the motherboard unlike people getting 400$+ x299 boards.