Which part, the first one?
The 1600 & 1600x are running at stock, should be higher than stock 8400 when OCed close to 4GHz.
https://www.computerbase.de/2017-10...#diagramm-battlefield-1-multiplayer-1920-1080It still depends on the game (& the settings) though, for instance BF1 MP should favor 1600x & non X especially when OCed.
Which part, the first one?
The 1600 & 1600x are running at stock, should be higher than stock 8400 when OCed close to 4GHz.
https://www.computerbase.de/2017-10...#diagramm-battlefield-1-multiplayer-1920-1080
8400 is 23% faster in BF1 MP. 1600X boosts to 3.7 GHz, so add 5.5% to the score for 3.9 GHz. 8400 would still be about 16-17% faster.
Two things: 1) That's SP, IINM. 2) at 1440 the game is GPU limited. For a true CPU comparison you should look at 1080 or even 720.
But I use 1440p.
I doubt most people now are using anything lower than 1080p.
Few things, if you're talking about games do so in cases which truly simulate real world, how many people buy 8400 & play at 720p?https://www.computerbase.de/2017-10...#diagramm-battlefield-1-multiplayer-1920-1080
8400 is 23% faster in BF1 MP. 1600X boosts to 3.7 GHz, so add 5.5% to the score for 3.9 GHz. 8400 would still be about 16-17% faster.
Two things: 1) That's SP, IINM. 2) at 1440 the game is GPU limited. For a true CPU comparison you should look at 1080 or even 720.
because pretty much any modern CPU is going to perform almost identically to any other modern CPU in games during real-world scenarios. Either the GPU will be holding you back, or you're getting such a high FPS that it doesn't matter anyway.
The point of using 720 is to show the CPU's (near) actual performance capability. Besides, the test I linked to was at 1080, and 8400 was 23% faster even there. Even Digital Foundry uses 720 tests to find out a CPU's real performance.Few things, if you're talking about games do so in cases which truly simulate real world, how many people buy 8400 & play at 720p?
Then at your resolution, the GPU is almost always the limiting factor, unless you are running a 1080 Ti or multi-GPU config.
However, if we want to objectively measure CPU gaming performance without GPU bottlenecks, 720P is still the way to go.
The review you linked to also had 8600k & 8700k within 5~10 fps of the 8400, for BF1 MP, what conclusion can you draw from that, any GPU or CPU bottlenecks you saw?The point of using 720 is to show the CPU's (near) actual performance capability. Besides, the test I linked to was of 1080, and 8400 was 23% faster even there. Even Digital Foundry uses 720 tests to find out a CPU's real performance.
Also, don't change the subject. You claimed 1600X would be faster. It isn't. Bringing GPUs into this discussion is pointless.
When the next gen GPUs hit, which would elevate the GPU limit, one would probably not want to be on a slower CPU.
The review you linked to also had 8600k & 8700k within 5~10 fps of the 8400, for BF1 MP, what conclusion can you draw from that, any GPU or CPU bottlenecks you saw?
I said overclocked 1600x & non X should be faster once OCed, do we have OC numbers of both around 4GHz vs stock 8400?
I also said in the first part that it depends on the games & settings ~
Do you want to go again at the point I was making or would you like to skip to your predetermined conclusion?
Oh zip it, I said it should be (because of 12t & Zen's SMT advantage) btw where's your evidence of 20% IPC that CFL has over Ryzen, should I dig up all those posts up where you claim something & do not back it up with irrefutable facts?You got called out by saying the 1600 will be faster in BF1 MP, it's not. Let your agenda go and stop derailing this thread, please.
Oh zip it, I said it should be (because of 12t & Zen's SMT advantage) btw where's your evidence of 20% IPC that CFL has over Ryzen, should I dig up all those posts up where you claim something & do not back it up with irrefutable facts?
GPU. Look at the 720 result and you can see 8700K's lead grows to ~11% over 8400.The review you linked to also had 8600k & 8700k within 5~10 fps of the 8400, for BF1 MP, what conclusion can you draw from that, any GPU or CPU bottlenecks you saw?
As I mentioned, it's not hard. Add 5.5% to 1600X's scores. 3.9 GHz vs. 3.7 GHz.I said overclocked 1600x & non X should be faster once OCed, do we have OC numbers of both around 4GHz vs stock 8400?
Of course, but find me another game where 1600X is faster. Civilization VI is the one game where ryzens beat intel all the time. Even a 1500X beats 8700K, which means two things. Either it's terribly unoptimized for intel, or excellently optimized for ryzen, or both.I also said in the first part that it depends on the games & settings ~
It was a conditional statement, in case you didn't notice, I didn't claim anything, unlike you previously. That's why I also added this later on~Are you seriously going to derail this thread further by talking about IPC now? *shakes head*
because pretty much any modern CPU is going to perform almost identically to any other modern CPU in games during real-world scenarios.
I do, of course stand by the statement that 720p results should not matter when we're talking about games, only in case of pro games is that a matter of concern.Either the GPU will be holding you back, or you're getting such a high FPS that it doesn't matter anyway.
It was a conditional statement, in case you didn't notice, I didn't claim anything, unlike you previously. That's why I also added this later on~
I do, of course stand by the statement that 720p results should not matter when we're talking about games, only in case of pro games is that a matter of concern.
Sure, but don't take the liberty of quoting me out of context or simply copy pasting the same thing you've done in other threads.I guess you really still don't understand the meaning of 'not derailing a thread'. If you have anything personal against me, feel free to shoot me a PM. Or start a new thread about IPC. But this thread is about gaming on 4C/4T CPUs, NOT 6C/12T CPUs. Thank you
Tell that to people who are/were still rocking their 4.5GHz Sandy Bridges with GPUs that are 4X faster than they were in 2011, as being on a "slower" CPU didn't seem to bother them too much. If this "slow CPU with faster future GPU is bad" thesis is really true, why didn't they upgrade to something like Haswell/Skylake? After all a stock 7700K is ~20% faster than a 4.5GHz 2600K in Cinebench ST.When the next gen GPUs hit, which would elevate the GPU limit, one would probably not want to be on a slower CPU.
You misunderstand. If I have to choose a CPU for gaming RIGHT NOW for a certain budget, I'd look for the fastest one that fits, so that I won't have to upgrade as often.Tell that to people who are/were still rocking their 4.5GHz Sandy Bridges with GPUs that are 4X faster than they were in 2011, as being on a "slower" CPU didn't seem to bother them too much. If this "slow CPU with faster future GPU is bad" thesis is really true, why didn't they upgrade to something like Haswell/Skylake? After all a stock 7700K is ~20% faster than a 4.5GHz 2600K in Cinebench ST.
I see this posted a lot without any questions.The point of using 720 is to show the CPU's (near) actual performance capability. Besides, the test I linked to was at 1080, and 8400 was 23% faster even there. Even Digital Foundry uses 720 tests to find out a CPU's real performance.
Also, don't change the subject. You claimed 1600X would be faster. It isn't. Bringing GPUs into this discussion is pointless.
When the next gen GPUs hit, which would elevate the GPU limit, one would probably not want to be on a slower CPU.
What?! Where did I write ANYTHING about a CPU not lasting? That's not the discussion at all. I don't know why my comments get misunderstood. Did you read my reply to tamz?According to your reasoning even the 2600K should not have lasted, as GPUs have continuously outstripped CPUs in advancement. We all know however, what really happened.
What we are saying is that in the greater scheme of things your assertion gets lost in the noise.What?! Where did I write ANYTHING about a CPU not lasting? That's not the discussion at all. I don't know why my comments get misunderstood. Did you read my reply to tamz?
If you're buying a CPU this moment for a set budget, would you buy one that is slower in games? No. You'd buy the fastest one that fits the budget. You cannot find out that information if you look at 2160 and 1440 results, or even 1080 in certain games.