Intel 8700k 11% faster than 7700k

[Mr.Meerkat]

3 hours ago, TheRandomness said:

8350k (I wonder how many people would buy an FX CPU by accident) - 4.0

8100 - 3.0

Wouldn't the 8100 be more likely? I mean there are no FX chips named '8350K' however there is a FX chip named '8100'... 

 

3 hours ago, Merp83 said:

If this is true, it will disrupt ryzen - however i Have a feeling ryzen has a dirty update to give more performance...

AMD Finewine™ technologies on CPUs?  

[ScratchCat]

3 hours ago, porina said:

I was too lazy to post this, and there is less here than what I wrote in another thread

 

7700k boost of 4.5, add 11% = 5 GHz. Could Intel be angling trying to sell the first 5 GHz consumer CPU? OR any CPU for that matter... this assumes no IPC change and performance is due only to clock. 51% more multithread could simply be from same clocks but more cores.

 

Similar exercise could be performed for lower models in time.

FX-9590 was the first consumer CPU to reach 5GHz, though it only held it for a short period of time.

[PCGuy_5960]

9 minutes ago, done12many2 said:

Average for all submissions to our LTT thread for Cinebench is 1714 for the R7, so I'd say you should redo the math.  

Yeah, if Intel manages to improve IPC by 10%, the 8700K should be able to beat the 1700 in multi threaded workloads while destroying it in single core workloads (and AVX )

[mynameisjuan]

10 minutes ago, LordTaco42 said:

Intel being known for the past years of little incremental improvement of their mainstream CPUs from generation to generation and just the general business speak and run around that all companies do to try to promote their own products.

Yeah incremental in terms of single core performance. But the 50% is due to actually 50% more cores. This isnt marketing BS. 

[TheRandomness]

8 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

Yeah, if Intel manages to improve IPC by 10%, the 8700K should be able to beat the 1700 in multi threaded workloads while destroying it in single core workloads (and AVX )

I predict Coffee lake to release at decent prices... And then for AMD to cut Ryzen prices more

[done12many2]

1 minute ago, TheRandomness said:

I predict Coffee lake to release at decent prices... And then for AMD to cut Ryzen prices more

 

...and we keep winning regardless of whatever company you prefer.  Great times. 

 

I wish AMD would have gotten back in the game sooner.  

[ravenshrike]

13 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

Yeah, if Intel manages to improve IPC by 10%, the 8700K should be able to beat the 1700 in multi threaded workloads while destroying it in single core workloads (and AVX )

It's not. Whatever benchmark they're doing is almost certainly strictly a memory benchmark. As Taf noted they're moving to 2666 which is just under 11.1 percent faster than 2400.

 

 

Addendum - Amusingly, this means that the two numbers are two separate benchmarks.

[PCGuy_5960]

1 minute ago, ravenshrike said:

It's not.

No one knows, as I said:

14 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

Yeah, if Intel manages to improve IPC by 10%, the 8700K should be able to beat the 1700 in multi threaded workloads while destroying it in single core workloads (and AVX )

 

[ravenshrike]

2 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

No one knows, as I said:

Except Geekbench was within margin of error(1-2 percent in favor of the 8700 which very well could he been the increased memory speed) between the 8700k and 7700k. GB may be a poor benchmark, but its not 9% poor on what is virtually the same architecture.

[done12many2]

Just now, ravenshrike said:

Except Geekbench was within margin of error(1-2 percent in favor of the 8700 which very well could he been the increased memory speed) between the 8700k and 7700k. GB may be a poor benchmark, but its not 9% poor on what is virtually the same architecture.

 

It doesn't matter if an improvement is memory related or not.  If efficiency is increased and the CPU is fed better, than an increase is an increase.  

[ravenshrike]

3 minutes ago, done12many2 said:

 

It doesn't matter if an improvement is memory related or not.  If efficiency is increased and the CPU is fed better, than an increase is an increase.  

Except the same increase can be gotten by using 2666 or higher clocked memory on Kaby Lake. Who uses base speed memory with a k processor?

[PCGuy_5960]

8 minutes ago, ravenshrike said:

Except Geekbench was within margin of error(1-2 percent in favor of the 8700 which very well could he been the increased memory speed) between the 8700k and 7700k. GB may be a poor benchmark, but its not 9% poor on what is virtually the same architecture.

1. Geekbench is complete crap
2. Idc if the improvement is memory related or not. It's an improvement and that's what matters.

[NumLock21]

2 hours ago, Sniperfox47 said:

*Facepalm* let's all believe the unsubstantiated source with no references?

 

Yeah like i know the freakin source...

We all have to wait until aug 21 or when reviewers get their hands on one, to prove intel's claim.

[mynameisjuan]

8 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

It's an improvement and that's what matters.

I dont get why people are getting so butt hurt over this. 

 

11% or not, its a gain, I dont care if a 7700k can be overclocked to match it, this is 11% increase by default and most likely after you OC an 8700k it will be 11% faster than an OCed 7700k.

[spat55]

Let's see how the 8700k performs, if it's decent I'll probably upgrade but I'm wanting to see Zen+ first

[done12many2]

11 minutes ago, ravenshrike said:

Except the same increase can be gotten by using 2666 or higher clocked memory on Kaby Lake. Who uses base speed memory with a k processor?

 

Do you understand what raising the rated supported speed means?

[Morgan MLGman]

3 hours ago, done12many2 said:

As I said, there is no indicator at this point to even assume that this will apply to the Coffee Lake architecture.  Skylake-X needed to go to mesh to include the 14 - 18c parts as well.

I don't think Intel had HCC parts planned at all. AMD pushed them to create them, also part of the reason why we got Skylake-X parts up to 10C earlier and 12C+ later.

If Zen turned out to be a complete flop, I'm almost 100% certain that 7900X would be the top-end chip (the 12C part at best) that would retail for 1500$...

[done12many2]

3 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

I dont get why people are getting so butt hurt over this. 

 

11% or not, its a gain, I dont care if a 7700k can be overclocked to match it, this is 11% increase by default and most likely after you OC an 8700k it will be 11% faster than an OCed 7700k.

 

It's a trend on LTT, hype even the possibility from one company and cast doubt all over the other.  We all do it to some degree so I understand.  

[done12many2]

4 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

I don't think Intel had HCC parts planned at all. AMD pushed them to create them, also part of the reason why we got Skylake-X parts up to 10C earlier and 12C+ later.

If Zen turned out to be a complete flop, I'm almost 100% certain that 7900X would be the top-end chip (the 12C part at best) that would retail for 1500$...

 

So you think that Intel just created the 12c through 18c parts that fast, right?  Trust me, they were already in the works.  They were most definitely being developed for a later release, but to say that AMD forced them to "create them" is really reaching.  Even Intel can't work miracles.   

 

There's always a second half to Intel Extreme platforms.  x99 was Haswell-E first half and Broadwell-E second half.  

[The Benjamins]

6 minutes ago, spat55 said:

Let's see how the 8700k performs, if it's decent I'll probably upgrade but I'm wanting to see Zen+ first

Zen+ will only be a clock speed improvement, I say 10% max.

[done12many2]

Just now, The Benjamins said:

Zen+ will only be a clock speed improvement, I say 10% max.

 

That would be great too.  Short of improving the IMC, I can't see them doing anything more than increasing clocks for the next release, which would help a lot.

[Morgan MLGman]

1 minute ago, done12many2 said:

 

So you think that Intel just created the 12c through 18c parts that fast, right?  Trust me, they were already in the works.  They were most definitely being developed for a later release, but to say that AMD forced them to "create them" is really reaching.  Even Intel can't work miracles.   

Intel can't work miracles? So explain to me the reason behind releasing a 4th gen 5960X for 1100$ with 8 cores, going 6950X next gen with 10 cores for over 1700$ and suddenly next gen after that has a 999$ 10 core and an 18 core for nearly the same price of a 10-core from previous gen? This just seems to sketchy to be a coincidence, no matter how you look at it.

[The Benjamins]

1 minute ago, Morgan MLGman said:

Intel can't work miracles? So explain to me the reason behind releasing a 4th gen 5960X for 1100$ with 8 cores, going 6950X next gen with 10 cores for over 1700$ and suddenly next gen after that has a 999$ 10 core and an 18 core for nearly the same price of a 10-core from previous gen? This just seems to sketchy to be a coincidence, no matter how you look at it.

Well they made them for Xeons and then responded by rebranding them as x299 chips. This is the first time they used the MCC dies on a extreme edition CPU.

[Morgan MLGman]

Just now, The Benjamins said:

Well they made them for Xeons and then responded by rebranding them as x299 chips. This is the first time they used the MCC dies on a extreme edition CPU.

That doesn't change the fact that if Ryzen turned out to be a flop, those would definitely either not show up at all or be priced a lot higher  

[spat55]

6 minutes ago, The Benjamins said:

Zen+ will only be a clock speed improvement, I say 10% max.

You don't think that IPC will improve by 10% and clocks speeds improve by 10% too with stronger IMC?