D
Deleted whining member 223597
Guest
250W(VRM side) for 4.5Ghz with no AVX512 offset? Not bad
But mobo makers needs to step up on VRM cooling instead of bling bling.
Dude but where will the RGB go?
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.
250W(VRM side) for 4.5Ghz with no AVX512 offset? Not bad
But mobo makers needs to step up on VRM cooling instead of bling bling.
Nice editorializing.Skylake X: Closer to Ryzen in gaming than Kabylake X.
https://www.techspot.com/review/1445-core-i7-7800x-vs-7700k/page9.html
Nowhere in your link do they state that Skylake-X is "closer to Ryzen in gaming than Kabylake (X)." Never mind the fact that they compared it to a Kabylake chip, the 7700K, not a Kabylake-X chip.The Article said:That doesn't really explain why the 7800X was just flat out slow by comparison for quite a few of the games tested. The likely reason for this is down to Intel restructuring the cache hierarchy. Compared to the 7700K, the 7800X has quadrupled the L2 cache per core while the shared L3 has been reduced by just over 30% per core. It's believed these changes combined with the way this new cache works makes Skylake-X more suited for server-related tasks and less efficient when it comes to things such as gaming, and that's certainly what we're seeing here.
...
If you're a gamer, you should get the 7700K or look to AMD's Ryzen lineup.
Nice editorializing.
Nowhere in your link do they state that Skylake-X is "closer to Ryzen in gaming than Kabylake (X)." Never mind the fact that they compared it to a Kabylake chip, the 7700K, not a Kabylake-X chip.
Its a regression in performance, the 7700K should not be faster then the 7800x and yet it is.
Did you read the part I quoted? And again, if you're buying a HEDT processor just for gaming then you need to reexamine your priorities. I mean, unless you're really starving for PCI-E lanes by running a lot of PCI-E SSD or something.Its a regression in performance, the 7700K should not be faster then the 7800x and yet it is.
Did you read the part I quoted? And again, if you're buying a HEDT processor just for gaming then you need to reexamine your priorities. I mean, unless you're really starving for PCI-E lanes by running a lot of PCI-E SSD or something.
Why not? Uncore is clocked 900Mhz higher, base clock is 700Mhz higher and turbo clock is 500Mhz higher.
Skylake X: Closer to Ryzen in gaming than Kabylake X.
https://www.techspot.com/review/1445-core-i7-7800x-vs-7700k/page9.html
Its a regression in performance, the 7700K should not be faster then the 7800x and yet it is.
Skylake-X is not designed for gaming and still it is only 8% behind the king of gaming CPUs. Note as well that OC the mesh in SKL-X gives huge double digit performance improvements in games.
In the bios. Increase frequency and add voltage as needed. Just like overclocking core. Factory is 2400MHz. In my case 3200MHz was easily attainable.Hmmm that sounds interesting. Maybe this is a dumb question, but how do you OC the mesh?
In the bios. Increase frequency and add voltage as needed. Just like overclocking core. Factory is 2400MHz. In my case 3200MHz was easily attainable.
No problem...except I sent my 7820x to Silicon Lottery to be delidded yesterday. I should have it back this weekend...hopefully.Would you mind running some benchmarks?
Not even close. This article is "Intel vs Intel". There is no RyZen reviewed. The only reason why they barely mention RyZen in the conclusions is for price, not performance.
RyZen numbers are found in the Skylake-X review
https://www.techspot.com/review/1433-intel-core-i9-core-i7-skylake-x/page3.html
where you can find top 8-core Ryzen loosing to six-core Skylake even in games more favorable to AMD
http://www.amd.com/en-us/markets/game/featured/ashes-of-the-singularity#
https://www.extremetech.com/gaming/...update-substantially-boosts-ryzen-performance
Which ones would you like to see?Would you mind running some benchmarks?
Would you mind running some benchmarks?
Which ones would you like to see?
I've got my 7820x running at 4.6/4.7/4.8 (8c/4c/2c) with mesh OC to 3.0Ghz.
Here are a few I just ran with my 1080 Ti at stock (100% power, +0/+0):
3DMark Time Spy 10014 (graphics 9843, CPU 11109)
3DMark Firestrike Normal 22631 (graphics 27724, physics 24312)
3DMark Firestrike Ultra 7133 (graphics 7018, physics 23504)
Unigine Superposition 1080p Medium 18210
Unigine Superposition 1080p Extreme 5812
Unigine Superposition 4K Optimized 9247
EDIT: I set the mesh back to stock, 2.4Ghz, and re-ran the benchmarks to help isolate it:
3DMark Time Spy 9960 (graphics 9854, CPU 10611)
3DMark Firestrike Normal 22089 (graphics 27341, physics 24032)
3DMark Firestrike Ultra 7113 (graphics 6985, physics 23984)
Unigine Superposition 1080p Medium 18033
Unigine Superposition 1080p Extreme 5792
Unigine Superposition 4K Optimized 9239
Now back to BF1 multiplayer, where this thing is a beast.
https://videocardz.com/newz/intels-12-core-i9-7920x-features-2-9-ghz-base-clock
Intels 12 core 7920x to feature a 2.9GHz base clock. (No boost announced) and 16.5 MB L3
Thats pretty slow base clock, it's going to be a problem for them with their current process as the core count goes up it favors AMD
I am not so sure that the 2.9GHz is really an issue. I mean with the higher IPC of the i9 would that slower or faster per thread than a 3.4GHz TR? I would expect it to be still a little faster per core than the 16C TR. But the 16C TR will clearly be better if you can use 32 threads.
TR appears to be ~10 to 15% slower per clock. So they will likely be close to even.
Potentially unpopular opinion, but I kinda feel like AMD and Intel are getting ahead of themselves with these 12+ core CPUs. HEDT is already niche, but finding a buyer for a 16 core who isn't already better served by the server platforms seems like it's super duper niche. On top of that, it seems like with all the heat struggles we're already seeing with the 10 core, I feel like the 16 cores are going to have to have too low of clock speeds to be interesting to almost anybody (and again, CPUs with tons of cores and low clocks already exist in the server land, so why recreate them?) Maybe I'm missing something.
ThreadRipper includes 64 PCIE lanes, that's a big deal.
Sure, but others may. Capture cards / Audio cards / More Nics / .... other things (admittedly im not the target market here either).For those few who need it. Most users will have no need for that.
I could use the cores in my medical imaging research work but have absolutely no need for that many lanes on a workstation. A server possibly.
I think 'yall are missing a bigger picture here comparing the 12 core i9 with the 12 core RTR.
Even if the RTR is - say - 10 % slower in ALL tasks, its still $799, versus the (likely) $1500+ i9.
People are indeed missing the picture, and its called turbo clocks
Ok even with Turbo Core, low thread workloads MIGHT be as fast as the 7900x while still being about the same on multi thread with the lower freq. So again, what is the point?