Looks good. Seems a better refresh than what we've seen from others.
What others?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Looks good. Seems a better refresh than what we've seen from others.
What others?
CPCHardware: i7 7700k is 6% faster in games than i7 6700k
CPCHardware: R7 2700X is 3% faster in games than R7 1800X
I don't think the a320 that they use even has XFR which would make for a huge ST performance difference. KBL and Ryzen+ are probably similar in performance advantages.
A320 supports XFR 2. This is in the slides that were leaked days ago.
The whole review looks rather 'Canarded'. They day 14% performance increase over the 1800x, but the graph shows less.
As a side note, an overclocked 1800x will often lose to a stock 1800x in ST scenarios due to XFR being disabled.
I might be confusing XFR with various precision boost, but there is no way the a320 will maximize stock protocols of Ryzen+ like the x470 or b450.
This implies that the CPUs in question had their Precision Boost [Overdrive] disabled, this technology being only on the 400 series motherboards. This does not change much the performances, 1 to 2% as top maximum, and does not change the ratio perf / consumption a bit.
Yeah, gamers as whole are often bad at math.
What I want to know is why CanardPC is testing the processors on an A320 motherboard.
...too cheap to buy an X370 motherboard for testing?
I think they were worried about false MCE-like presets in the early review bioses. Gigabyte did this in their F2 review bios of the CFL, which had MCE on by default with no option of even disabling it.
CPC Hardware explained before publication why are using A320 instead X370/X470: To avoid the omnipresent cheats in the X370/X470's BIOS ("Pour éviter les cheats à la con omniprésents dans les BIOS des X370/X470").
The overclockingmadeinfrance magazine also mentions that using a 400-series mobo wouldn't really change the performance or efficiency results, performance would change only 1 or 2% top maximum ("Cela ne change pas beaucoup les performances, 1 à 2% grand maximum").
Was Core i7-7700K also tested using the cheapest H110 motherboard that CanardPC can find?
The overclockingmadeinfrance magazine also mentions that using a 400-series mobo wouldn't really change the performance or efficiency results, performance would change only 1 or 2% top maximum ("Cela ne change pas beaucoup les performances, 1 à 2% grand maximum").
How can I trust now anything those tech sites publish in their reviews, when they fail to do basic math?
However, non-tech sites as Forges are obtaining the correct percentages.
i notice that 140 watts is still lower than the 152watts the 7700k uses.
Yes according to tech power up whom I believe is more reputable than cpc.Not according to CPC-Hardware.
i7 7700k: 66W
R7-1800X: 129.4W
R7-2700X: 142.6W
At least it didn't require a new motherboard to run itSo glad we can ignore the comparison review right here on [H] showing around 1% difference between 6700k and 7700k. All hail the CPC Overlords of truth.
https://www.hardocp.com/article/2016/12/09/intel_kaby_lake_core_i77700k_ipc_review/4
CPC Hardware explained before publication why are using A320 instead X370/X470: To avoid the omnipresent cheats in the X370/X470's BIOS ("Pour éviter les cheats à la con omniprésents dans les BIOS des X370/X470").
The overclockingmadeinfrance magazine also mentions that using a 400-series mobo wouldn't really change the performance or efficiency results, performance would change only 1 or 2% top maximum ("Cela ne change pas beaucoup les performances, 1 à 2% grand maximum").
Not according to CPC-Hardware.
i7 7700k: 66W
R7-1800X: 129.4W
R7-2700X: 142.6W
Yes according to tech power up whom I believe is more reputable than cpc.
Wait what? so a budget board with less chokes and VRM's which are also lower quality is not going to make a difference, yet you sit here and tell me with a straight face it was okay to bench a 8700K using a board that is 7.5K in my country with MCE. on a A320 basically all the benefits of a X chip are going to be negated, no overclocks, no turbo states including XFR and 2.0 stages and you are going to have Controller issues.
A320's will give a fair baseline but it is going to come at the cost of a lot of performance. I have been in the testing environment and motherboards are not created equally.
The overclockingmadeinfrance magazine also mentions that using a 400-series mobo wouldn't really change the performance or efficiency results, performance would change only 1 or 2% top maximum ("Cela ne change pas beaucoup les performances, 1 à 2% grand maximum").
Oh juan...(i) TPU didn't test Zen+. CPC did.
(ii) I commented before on the weird results that TPU measures for Zen and other chips.
(iii) I can add now TPU is one of those tech sites that fail at basic math
It really is. That what they measured that's what it is.
And yes that's more watts than the 2700x too.
Incorrect measurements aren't valid. And those measurements coming from a site that doesn't know basic math isn't helping much.
(i) TPU didn't test Zen+. CPC did.
(ii) I commented before on the weird results that TPU measures for Zen and other chips.
(iii) I can add now TPU is one of those tech sites that fail at basic math
Overclocking is a non-issue because CPC hardware tested all chips on stock settings.
300-series motherboards support both XFR 2 and Precision Boost 2. The only feature wasn't activated during the review was the new overdrive/enhancement boost, because that requires a 400-series motherboard. But as mentioned before