Congrats man. That's awesome. It only took 8 more cores to do it...lol. TR is an awesome performance value, but core for core, Sky-X will clean it's clock. Wait until the rest of the lineup comes out.
Congrats man. That's awesome. It only took 8 more cores to do it...lol. TR is an awesome performance value, but core for core, Sky-X will clean it's clock. Wait until the rest of the lineup comes out.I already beat a 7900x@ 6ghz using LN2 on Cinebench, why would I stoop to doing games ? TR is for productivity, not games anyway,
You mean 6 more cores ? and again they are the same price, so they are competitors. When Intel has a 16 core CPU that is $999 let me know, and then we can also run as competitors.Congrats man. That's awesome. It only took 8 more cores to do it...lol. TR is an awesome performance value, but core for core, Sky-X will clean it's clock. Wait until the rest of the lineup comes out.
Congrats man. That's awesome. It only took 8 more cores to do it...lol. TR is an awesome performance value, but core for core, Sky-X will clean it's clock. Wait until the rest of the lineup comes out.
Sorry, yes I meant 6 cores...60%more.You mean 6 more cores ? and again they are the same price, so they are competitors. When Intel has a 16 core CPU that is $999 let me know, and then we can also run as competitors.
Why? I wanted to compare gaming performance. I think that was pretty clear when stated you were no interested in doing so, and chose to respond with your cinebench score.You should not have started this invite.
Wait, so I beat the 7900x, but I don;t have the best performance ?Sorry, yes I meant 6 cores...60%more.
Yep, they're the same price. That is why TR is the best value....just not the best performance.
Wait, so I beat the 7900x, but I don;t have the best performance ?
Wait, so I beat the 7900x, but I don;t have the best performance ?
Edit: I am done with this, I should not have taken the bait.
And how much does it cost ? and its available to buy right now ?The 7960x says hello...you know since it has the same number of cores as yours...
The first sane reply in the last 10-20 posts. I actually agree, the 7700k (or 7740??) or the 1600x would be in that discussionPerformance is dependent on your application.
If you're doing Cinebench or workloads like Cinebench, then you have better performance than the 7900X.
If you are playing games, then you probably don't.
The right tool for the right job.
And how much does it cost ? and its available to buy right now ?
So you can't buy one right now, and when you can its 70% more ,.. NOT a competitor
These were at 2012MHz...pretty damn similar. Looks like the 7700k has ~1% advantage...and the 6900k is a wash.
Thanks for posting those @Charlie22911. I was curious about the 6900k.
The benchmark doesn't directly support SLI, so here are my non-SLI overpriced 1080 Ti Superposition results.
Hell yeah man, that is screaming. What were your clocks? That Titan tho...
duhhhh both are $999. I would say that makes them competitors.
What excuse? That AMD can't compete core for core and thus competes for price?That's a typical AMD excuse.
That's a typical AMD excuse.
What excuse? That AMD can't compete core for core and thus competes for price?
That argument doesn't work with Zen. When performance is similar, the next thing that people consider is price.The price talk. From a technical perspective price doesn't matter, you could have whitewashed many poor CPUs and GPUs in the past and that's why it's a typical AMD excuse. Lots of people used this excuse for Bulldozer and other poor products . But from a technical perspective they are still poor no matter how cheap they are. Some cheap Pentium would win against all these higher end CPUs by this metric. Look in #14584, it's a perfect example.
It's also on LN2. So irrelevant at actually being a useful number.And how much does it cost ? and its available to buy right now ?
So you can't buy one right now, and when you can its 70% more ,.. NOT a competitor
Yet AMD had them reviewed with games; recommended them to be reviewed with a 1080 TI over VEGA; even went to the trouble of implementing a "gaming mode" in the bios? That seems like a lot of trouble to go to for nothing, doesn't it? OR, just maybe AMD is pitching Threadripper as a gaming platform as well? Wouldn't you like to help shed some light on its strength and weaknesses in this area by taking up the challenge?I already beat a 7900x@ 6ghz using LN2 on Cinebench, why would I stoop to doing games ? TR is for productivity, not games anyway,
I see you're sporting a Power9 rig. Can it play Crysis?The price talk. From a technical perspective price doesn't matter
No, they are being used to support the argument that Skylake-X represents a performance regression in games, not that it's "unusable".
My understanding is that you're being awfully testy for some reason. Angry that a mainstream Intel product is going to upstage an HEDT Intel product?
Not really. I just have to accept it as a highly-probable fact, since right now, the best gaming CPU in a lot of games is . . . Kabylake. So take Kabylake, keep clocks the same, give it two more cores and some more L3. BAM! Coffeelake. Which will be the best gaming CPU.
You do realize that deductive reasoning actually has meritorious applications, don't you?
So you honestly think the 8700k will be SLOWER than the 7700k? Because right now, the 7700k is still the top-dog gaming CPU. Not the 7900X or 7920X or anything else . . . 7700k. You can get a few games faster on Broadwell-E vs Kabylake at stock because of the massive L3, but the 8700k will go a long way towards mitigating that effect.