Which cpu for my upgrade 8700k or 7800x

[roelversteeg]

So I am going to upgrade my pc around september this year.

But I am left with a choice, I7 7800X or the i7 8700k.

 

So before you say 'you dont need 6 cores go 7700k', no I do some video editing, run servers, photoshop, and other multithread loads. But yes I game a lot as well.

 

My planned setup involves

GTX 1080Ti

32Gb ram

360mm aio watercooling (for silent cooling but oc potential)

8700k or 7800x (with respecting motherboard, I like the asus maximus xx hero line not to expensive and nice features and looks)

 

my budget is around 2000 euro's (a bit more if neccesairy)

 

what should I do, wait for the 8700k and benefit from the lower TDP and hopefully better performence then 7800x like the leaked benchmarks suggested.

Or go for the 7800x now and pay the extra premium for the motherboard.

 

Side question. Why should Intel make the 8700k perform better then the 7800x, if they follow the pricing that they usually do then the 8700k will be cheaper and perform better then the 7800x.

They would effectivly be making there own product obsolete within a year.

 

So.. help

 

[themctipers]

8700k in two months 

 

or ryzen 1700

[Angusticlavii]

3 minutes ago, roelversteeg said:

They would effectivly be making there own product obsolete within a year.

exactly... thats the point of a new product

[PCGuy_5960]

Wait for Coffeelake, it will be better and cheaper

1 minute ago, roelversteeg said:

Side question. Why should Intel make the 8700k perform better then the 7800x, if they follow the pricing that they usually do then the 8700k will be cheaper and perform better then the 7800x.

The 8700K will probably not have AVX-512 and it will definitely not have quad channel DDR4 or more than 16 PCIe lanes. If you need AVX-512, quad channel DDR4 or more PCIe lanes, you have to get the 7800X.

 

So yeah, the 8700K will render the 7800X obsolete for most people, but the 7800X will still be a good option for those who need the aforementioned features.

[roelversteeg]

Just now, CaptainKieseI said:

exactly... thats the point of a new product

But so fast? 

[porina]

I have a 7800X and I will likely get a 8700k to test as well... but until then we don't know until final info is released. Don't count on the 8700k to beat the 7800X, depending on the test.

 

8700k I suspect will do better in gaming as it looks like it keeps with the traditional cache structure, which is the likely cause of 7800X's below 7700k gaming performance even when OC'd. The 7800X will still offer increased ram bandwidth for compute situations, not to mention AVX-512 once things start to support it.

 

I'd gamble on waiting for the 8700k as the extra refinement generation on the process technology could give it that edge, where all else is equal.

[Angusticlavii]

Hardware Unboxed tested the 7800x and it performed very poor in gaming even with oc.

The new Mesh design on Skylake-X is not a benefit on a 6-core chip

[porina]

3 minutes ago, CaptainKieseI said:

Hardware Unboxed tested the 7800x and it performed very poor in gaming even with oc.

The new Mesh design on Skylake-X is not a benefit on a 6-core chip

To call it "very poor" is over-stating it a bit, but certainly it doesn't keep up with the 7700k. The cache is believed to be responsible, but we're looking at a gaming perspective here, and it may be different in other workloads.

[roelversteeg]

7 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

Wait for Coffeelake, it will be better and cheaper

The 8700K will probably not have AVX-512 and it will definitely not have quad channel DDR4 or more than 16 PCIe lanes. If you need AVX-512, quad channel DDR4 or more PCIe lanes, you have to get the 7800X.

 

So yeah, the 8700K will render the 7800X obsolete for most people, but the 7800X will still be a good option for those who need the aforementioned features.

would there be a noticable difference between 4 8gb sticks of ram with dual channel or quad channel?

[PCGuy_5960]

1 minute ago, roelversteeg said:

would there be a noticable difference between 4 8gb sticks of ram with dual channel or quad channel?

No, unless you use programs that benefit from more memory bandwidth  I doubt that quad channel would perform much better than dual channel in the programs that you're using.

17 minutes ago, roelversteeg said:

I do some video editing, run servers, photoshop, and other multithread loads. But yes I game a lot as well.

 

[Morgan MLGman]

5 minutes ago, porina said:

To call it "very poor" is over-stating it a bit, but certainly it doesn't keep up with the 7700k. The cache is believed to be responsible, but we're looking at a gaming perspective here, and it may be different in other workloads.

Well, I suppose you could call it "very poor" considering the price. If it performs within 1-2% of an R5 1600 in games (as tested by HardwareUnboxed in 25 games) then what's the point of it? That's a 200$ CPU price difference, not to mention the mobo cost etc.

[roelversteeg]

Just now, PCGuy_5960 said:

No, unless you use programs that benefit from more memory bandwidth  I doubt that quad channel would perform much better than dual channel in the programs that you're using.

 

okay thanks. I think I will wait for some benchmarks when the 8700K comes out and see what it is going to cost and then go for the one that has the most bang for the buck in my applications. Its really hard to choose this year both in GPUs and CPUs.

[just_dave]

I expect 8700K to be next to unusable without delid

[roelversteeg]

Just now, dave_k said:

I expect 8700K to be next to unusable without delid

why?

[just_dave]

Just now, roelversteeg said:

why?

Look at Kaby Lake 7700K, it runs hot, has both bad TIM and the power efficiency of Kaby Lake sucks (2*Ryzen's efficiency)

Coffee lake is just refresh, take 7700 and add 2 more hot cores to something that is already fire hazard

[porina]

12 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

Well, I suppose you could call it "very poor" considering the price. If it performs within 1-2% of an R5 1600 in games (as tested by HardwareUnboxed in 25 games) then what's the point of it? That's a 200$ CPU price difference, not to mention the mobo cost etc.

There's more than gaming. Also performing poorly is different than poor value.

2 minutes ago, dave_k said:

I expect 8700K to be next to unusable without delid

Only more adventurous overclockers need worry about that.

[roelversteeg]

2 minutes ago, dave_k said:

Look at Kaby Lake 7700K, it runs hot, has both bad TIM and the power efficiency of Kaby Lake sucks (2*Ryzen's efficiency)

Coffee lake is just refresh, take 7700 and add 2 more hot cores to something that is already fire hazard

Right, but the solution to this would be to wait for like the 9700k because the 7800x run hot aswell due to the high TDP. tnx for the argument though

[porina]

3 minutes ago, dave_k said:

Look at Kaby Lake 7700K, it runs hot, has both bad TIM and the power efficiency of Kaby Lake sucks (2*Ryzen's efficiency)

It has double the IPC of Ryzen in conditions more likely to hit rated TDP (AVX2). Ryzen is very weak in that area.

[just_dave]

Just now, porina said:

It has double the IPC of Ryzen in conditions more likely to hit rated TDP (AVX2). Ryzen is very weak in that area.

The IPC on Ryzen is retarded by the lower clocks. I saw comparison at the same speeds and Ryzen was leading.

[porina]

Just now, dave_k said:

The IPC on Ryzen is retarded by the lower clocks. I saw comparison at the same speeds and Ryzen was leading.

IPC is irrespective of clocks. And I'm specifically referring to AVX2 workloads, which is when Intel CPUs get hot (think Prime95). It is easy to test yourself using P95 benchmark is see that where not ram limited, Intel CPUs have double the IPC of Ryzen. They're lower power as they are doing much less work.

[Morgan MLGman]

2 minutes ago, porina said:

There's more than gaming. Also performing poorly is different than poor value.

In 'more than gaming' tasks they're similar enough to make the 7800X pretty much a bad buy.

 

Also, performing poorly has to be relative to the price, IMO you can't just say that a 20$ CPU performs poorly cause a 200$ one beats it, there's more to it than just performance.

2 minutes ago, dave_k said:

The IPC on Ryzen is retarded by the lower clocks. I saw comparison at the same speeds and Ryzen was leading.

 

2 minutes ago, porina said:

IPC is irrespective of clocks. And I'm specifically referring to AVX2 workloads, which is when Intel CPUs get hot (think Prime95). It is easy to test yourself using P95 benchmark is see that where not ram limited, Intel CPUs have double the IPC of Ryzen. They're lower power as they are doing much less work.

Interesting chart that Guru3D did with all CPUs tested at 3,5GHz with all Turbo/XFR stuff turned on for stable clocks:

[just_dave]

1 minute ago, Morgan MLGman said:

In 'more than gaming' tasks they're similar enough to make the 7800X pretty much a bad buy.

 

Also, performing poorly has to be relative to the price, IMO you can't just say that a 20$ CPU performs poorly cause a 200$ one beats it, there's more to it than just performance.

 

Interesting chart that Guru3D did with all CPUs tested at 3,5GHz with all Turbo/XFR stuff turned on for stable clocks:

Well not entirely leading but not performing way worse either. So i was right (??)

[porina]

4 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

In 'more than gaming' tasks they're similar enough to make the 7800X pretty much a bad buy.

 

Also, performing poorly has to be relative to the price, IMO you can't just say that a 20$ CPU performs poorly cause a 200$ one beats it, there's more to it than just performance.

If Ryzen does what you want at a price you like, go get one. Not everyone treats pricing and value as the highest priority. There is a measure of overall adequateness, which if not met, will disqualify lower end products. Thus I like to separate out value until after the performance adequacy is addressed first. Also by understanding performance independent of value, it makes it easy to predict future performance of products not yet available.

 

4 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

Interesting chart that Guru3D did with all CPUs tested at 3,5GHz with all Turbo/XFR stuff turned on for stable clocks:

I fail to see how that relates as a reply to my previous post. That is an indicator of IPC in one case, but not of AVX2 of which I was referring to.

[Morgan MLGman]

13 minutes ago, porina said:

If Ryzen does what you want at a price you like, go get one. Not everyone treats pricing and value as the highest priority. There is a measure of overall adequateness, which if not met, will disqualify lower end products. Thus I like to separate out value until after the performance adequacy is addressed first. Also by understanding performance independent of value, it makes it easy to predict future performance of products not yet available.

Maybe... It's just that if a product A (R5 1600) performs within 5-10% in productivity and 1-2% in games from a product B (i7-7800X) while costing A LOT less overall (2x less if you factor the mobo) then the product B pretty much doesn't exist to me as the rewards for paying more are not enough to justify it.

13 minutes ago, porina said:

I fail to see how that relates as a reply to my previous post. That is an indicator of IPC in one case, but not of AVX2 of which I was referring to.

This was just an interesting graph regarding to your IPC conversation, nothing else

[porina]

44 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

Maybe... It's just that if a product A (R5 1600) performs within 5-10% in productivity and 1-2% in games from a product B (i7-7800X) while costing A LOT less overall (2x less if you factor the mobo) then the product B pretty much doesn't exist to me as the rewards for paying more are not enough to justify it.

I do believe in buy the right tool for the job. To me my 1600 system isn't at all comparable to my 7800X system. The 1600 is ok for what I call light loads, but comparing stock voltage overclocks (essentially "free" performance without disproportionately increasing power), the 1600 managed 3.6 GHz, the 7800X does 4.3 AVX stable, possibly it would go higher in non-AVX but I've not explored it at stock voltage yet. On top of that, Intel has the 2x IPC advantage over Ryzen in AVX. Sure, Ryzen is a lot cheaper, but it is a lot less CPU to me in those areas. I know for most they don't care about that difference, which is fair enough. Get the Ryzen for a lot less, but don't write off Intel on value alone. Of course, 7800X is not without its problems. To get the overclock I do need a decent watercooling system, whereas the 1600 reaches its low voltage limit on bundled cooler. Combined that for gaming (which is the excuse I gave to myself to buy it) it turned out to be worse than a 7700k... 

 

#firstworldproblems