"Con Lake" - Coffee Lake by AdoredTV

[staubgame]

So I looked and have not found this here so I just link him.

If it is already discussed or on here, I apologize in advance.

 

There's a loot of things beind said that everyone needs to remember when talking Coffee Lake.

Mostly there's a lot of discussion about this topic already.

[ColdCrystal]

The biggest thing to remember is that 8700k costs over 90% more than the 1600x while being on the same level of performance.

 

It is absolutely unreasonable to buy 8700k given that reason alone, you could have a huge GPU upgrade for that monetary difference.

[TVwazhere]

16 minutes ago, ColdCrystal said:

The biggest thing to remember is that 8700k costs over 90% more than the 1600x while being on the same level of performance.

 

It is absolutely unreasonable to buy 8700k given that reason alone, you could have a huge GPU upgrade for that monetary difference.

I haven't seen anything that shows the 1600x and 8700k being on the same level of performance.....

[ColdCrystal]

1 minute ago, TVwazhere said:

I haven't seen anything that shows the 1600x and 87006 being on the same level of performance.....

You don't understand the word "level"?

 

Did I say that it is of the same performance or on the same level of performance? Especially when it comes to gamin on 1440p.

[TVwazhere]

Just now, ColdCrystal said:

You don't understand the word "level"?

 

Did I say that is of the same performance or on the same level of performance?

Thats kinda like asking "Did i say two apples or did i say an green delicious and a emperor apple"... Because theyre both still apples. You're just nitpicking the exact terminology at that point. 

 

Also, back to my point, theyre not in the same performance, same level of performance, or same ballpark. 

https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/3076-intel-i7-8700k-review-vs-ryzen-streaming-gaming-overclocking/page-6

[staubgame]

6 minutes ago, ColdCrystal said:

The biggest thing to remember is that 8700k costs over 90% more than the 1600x while being on the same level of performance.

 

It is absolutely unreasonable to buy 8700k given that reason alone, you could have a huge GPU upgrade for that monetary difference.

That is also not what this whole thing is about.

 

I mainly posted it because of the MCE feature being active on all motherboards right now (or most) technically overclocking the CPU on "stock" performance, thus giving a false image of performance.

This will especially pay into consideration, once the cheaper boards are released as they might not feature the required voltage stability to run all cores on max boot frequency, especially not with the mostly used stock cooler (in case of the i5-8400).

[NumLock21]

AdoredTV?! Another wannabe tech channel?

Checking out its history, seems to start out by uploading video game plays, then got subscribers, where it then got them sponsors? Now they seem be like those that know everything while in reality knows nothing. This coffee lake con video can be better made, without the need to attack those that knows a lot more than they do.

 

[79wjd]

20 minutes ago, NumLock21 said:

AdoredTV?! Another wannabe tech channel?

Checking out its history, seems to start out by uploading video game plays, then got subscribers, where it then got them sponsors? Now they seem be like those that know everything while in reality knows nothing. This coffee lake con video can be better made, without the need to attack those that knows a lot more than they do.

 

i guess you havent seen most of his other tech videos.

 

He has a history of spreading garbage.

[NumLock21]

Just now, djdwosk97 said:

i guess you havent seen most of his other tech videos.

 

He has a history of spreading garbage.

This topic is actually my first and last time hearing about them. The problem with these channels is when they spread misinformation, it's really difficult to correct those who believes in them.

 

[ColdCrystal]

No.

 

Like I said, it is unreasonable to consider 8700 over 1600X -less than 2% difference at 1440p.

[JusticeBeaver]

1 hour ago, ColdCrystal said:

The biggest thing to remember is that 8700k costs over 90% more than the 1600x while being on the same level of performance.

 

It is absolutely unreasonable to buy 8700k given that reason alone, you could have a huge GPU upgrade for that monetary difference.

This must be some of that common core math.. 8700k = 379.99 1600x = 239.99.... If the 8700k costs 90% more... That makes it 38$ for the 1600x? I don't know but the engineer in me is a firm believer that when you attempt to prove a point you quantify it not using hyperbole's. 

[PlayStation 2]

1 hour ago, ColdCrystal said:

The biggest thing to remember is that 8700k costs over 90% more than the 1600x while being on the same level of performance.

 

It is absolutely unreasonable to buy 8700k given that reason alone, you could have a huge GPU upgrade for that monetary difference.

I don't think $359 is 90% more than $229. Try ~57%.

Hardly the same ballpark. Don't get me wrong, for a $230 CPU, the R5 1600X was a pretty good CPU, but you're comparing a basic red apple to a good ass Granny Smith apple.

Edited October 11, 2017 by Dan Castellaneta
Maybe I should do my math better.

[TVwazhere]

33 minutes ago, ColdCrystal said:

No.

 

Like I said, it is unreasonable to consider 8700 over 1600X -less than 2% difference at 1440p.

Uhm.... What?

 

Thats a very cherry picked graph, and anyone could tell you that at 1440p and 4k the bottleneck is on the GPU, that has nothing to do with how one CPU compares to another in any other scenario. You're focused so hard on the gaming performance, youre forgetting CPU's do more than bottleneck a GPU  at lower resolutions

[PlayStation 2]

4 minutes ago, TVwazhere said:

Uhm.... What?

 

Thats a very cherry picked graph, and anyone could tell you that at 1440p and 4k the bottleneck is on the GPU, that has nothing to do with how one CPU compares to another in any other scenario. You're focused so hard on the gaming performance, youre forgetting CPU's do more than bottleneck a GPU  at lower resolutions

Bingo. When you remove any real taxing on the GPU side of things, you hit the limits of a CPU.

[NvidiaIntelAMDLoveTriangle]

AdoredTV is a channel that should be ignored by everyone.

[Armakar]

2 hours ago, ColdCrystal said:

The biggest thing to remember is that 8700k costs over 90% more than the 1600x while being on the same level of performance.

 

It is absolutely unreasonable to buy 8700k given that reason alone, you could have a huge GPU upgrade for that monetary difference.

... What? Same perfomrnace??

 

On alot of benchmarks, the 8700K leaves behind even the 7700k, which was already smashing every other CPU on the market..

 

Same level of performance?? How did you come to that conclusion?

 

Not only is intel, undeniably ahead in IPC, but the 8700K can reach 5 GHZ across all cores - most Ryzen CPUs struggle to get 4GHZ.

 

Did AMD pull some new factor out of there ass to match the 8700k?

[staubgame]

37 minutes ago, JusticeBeaver said:

This must be some of that common core math.. 8700k = 379.99 1600x = 239.99.... If the 8700k costs 90% more... That makes it 38$ for the 1600x? I don't know but the engineer in me is a firm believer that when you attempt to prove a point you quantify it not using hyperbole's. 

That actually is core math. A 90% increase assumes the base price of the 1600x, thus adding 90% on top. That does not go both ways.

I might be wrong here but the other way you roughly only have half the %. So i7 price -45% is ryzen price. I did not check that, though.

20 minutes ago, ColdCrystal said:

-SNIP-

The main problem is that you wouldn't buy an i7-8700k solely for gaming.

A few days ago I asked why so many channels check games on 1440p witht the i7 as it makes no sense since the GPU is the limiting factor then, not the CPU.

Once you start rendering or some actual CPU workload, the i7 destroys the Ryzen. As it should, for twice the price. (as said)

 

17 minutes ago, Armakar said:

... What? Same perfomrnace??

 

On alot of benchmarks, the 8700K leaves behind even the 7700k, which was already smashing every other CPU on the market..

 

Same level of performance?? How did you come to that conclusion?

 

Not only is intel, undeniably ahead in IPC, but the 8700K can reach 5 GHZ across all cores - most Ryzen CPUs struggle to get 4GHZ.

 

Did AMD pull some new factor out of there ass to match the 8700k?

Totally agree, though one might argue why it needed ryzen for this "jump" in performance for intel.

 However, Adored makes the point that currently there's only Z370 motherboards out, with higher end components. We don't know wether the cheaper b or h series motherboards will provide the same means to power the cpu at these levels.

Further, what buyer of an i5-8400 (the CPU that's currently hyped as the new price/performance king) invests in a powerfull AiO over the stock fan.

And suddenly the Ghz drop due to heat.

Edited October 11, 2017 by W-L
Moderation Content

[W-L]

Thread cleaned keep to the context at hand.

[Jon Jon]

It's weird when people say you need these faster CPUs if you are just gaming.

I literally see no value unless you have a high refresh rate monitor, since we are bottlenecked at 1440P and 4K by the GPU primarily currently.

 

To me, if someone is getting an 8700K for gaming, you'll see it's value more so if you are looking to push 144hz+ at 1080P or beyond.

I would also say it's basically a requirement if you want longevity over the 7700K.

 

EDIT: But if you are just gaming on a 60hz panel, then it really doesn't matter. ANY modern mid-range CPU will do you just fine!