That's a pretty small subset of users though. Not saying it isn't important to the few who are actually comptetive gamers, but really it's a small crowd.A 1080P TN panel @ 144Hz or even 240Hz is a fine choice if you are a competitive gamer.
That's a pretty small subset of users though. Not saying it isn't important to the few who are actually comptetive gamers, but really it's a small crowd.A 1080P TN panel @ 144Hz or even 240Hz is a fine choice if you are a competitive gamer.
Yours looks similar to mine - stuck around 2/3 speed. User benchmarks should show maximum performance or very close to it, lots of people have posted samples. Not sure whats going on with these boards, I can't figure it out.
Well, it's an improved KL chip. Why shouldn't it single core turbo at least the same...?
My 512GB 960 Pro AS-SSD results look to be in line with or better than this Ars review from last year: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/10/samsung-960-pro-review-the-fastest-consumer-ssd-you-can-buy/
That's a pretty small subset of users though. Not saying it isn't important to the few who are actually comptetive gamers, but really it's a small crowd.
Their sequential read is 800MB/s higher and write speeds are 200 MB/s higher. Your benchmark (and mine) is a lot slower than what they got in that review. I just want the performance I paid for - right now I am not getting that. If I am not going to get it, I might as well return it for an EVO or something else.
Coffee Lake-S
Core i7-8700K 6C/12T 3.7 GHz base, 12MB L3, 95W
Core i7-8700 6C/12T 3.2 GHz base, 12MB L3, 65W
Core i5-8600K 6C/6T 3.6 GHz base, 9MB L3, 95W
Core i5-8400 6C/6T 2.8 GHz base, 9MB L3, 65W
Core i3 gets 4C/4T
https://www.cpchardware.com/coffee-lake-approche
Finally someone posted. Should I leak the Turbo clocks? I didn't believe at first.
That's a pretty small subset of users though. Not saying it isn't important to the few who are actually comptetive gamers, but really it's a small crowd.
Let's see if I can hotlink their graph.
It looks near the same to mine.
It sounds unlikely, actually.How does better than Core i7-7700K's Turbo sound?
Or you mean Intel gave it a token 4.6 single core turbo so it would eke out ST wins.
Two very recent examples: Prey and Dirt 4.Can you provide numbers?
rarely seen it in any review that ryzen shows better min fps (and if you look at the run chart it is an outlier), in fact oced 7700k shows performance advantage in min fps that shows THE reason to upgrade from sandy
except this forum talk of BF1 MP
I see the 6/6 CFL as THE cpu of choice. enough threads for most of desktop uses, low power and TEH enough coarz gaming performance
Yours looks similar to mine - stuck around 2/3 speed. User benchmarks should show maximum performance or very close to it, lots of people have posted samples. Not sure whats going on with these boards, I can't figure it out.
And do you have and intel 6-8 core test to tell if this result is due to the core number or the ryzen architecture?
I was looking at this one - is that not the correct one?
https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-cont...w-chart-template-final-full-width-3.001-1.png
Will 7800X owners have regrets?Personally I don't think Core i7-7700K owners will have any 'regrets' if they upgrade.
I expected more cores, slightly higher TDP, lower base clock, and about the same turbo. I think the turbo will be a bit lower than the 7700k turbo, but they might surprise us with the same turbo. Crude math says that a 6 core 4.0 GHz turbo is doable with the numbers that Intel released in the spring, but maybe they are better than that now. Even if not, Intel could set the turbo to 4.5 GHz but the desktop chips probably will down-throttle a lot more. You can't put in 50% more cores in a process that is about 23% more efficient with about the same TDP and expect to be able to stay at full turbo as long.What expected changes ?
So you think 8700K will match 7700K 4.5Ghz turbo ?
Will 7800X owners have regrets?
Maybe you can get really close to doing that.I expected more cores, slightly higher TDP, lower base clock, and about the same turbo. I think the turbo will be a bit lower than the 7700k turbo, but they might surprise us with the same turbo. Crude math says that a 6 core 4.0 GHz turbo is doable with the numbers that Intel released in the spring, but maybe they are better than that now. Even if not, Intel could set the turbo to 4.5 GHz but the desktop chips probably will down-throttle a lot more. You can't put in 50% more cores in a process that is about 23% more efficient with about the same TDP and expect to be able to stay at full turbo as long.
This myth needs to die, sure not relevant for "Your uses", but creates a false sense of "enough performance for 4K@60hz".
There is in fact a huge difference. Of course impact depends on what games You are playing, but a faster CPU is faster. Frames per second is not "end all" stat for CPU's, even if we ignore the elephant in the room called "minimum frames".
Where a faster, "built for gaming" CPU matters is various games, think about turn times in strategy games like Civilization series / Endless series. Also simulation times in games like EU4 / Stellaris / HOI4. There is a world of a difference to play those on fast CPU. Just ask around Arma, Nintento emulation, flight sim crowds, fastest CPU there will be 7700K @ 5Ghz and no one will have "too much" of performance
And fool yourself no more, once you realize that faster CPU is helping in playing those games both directly and indirectly ( for example game/save load times ), you will come to realize that those 1080P tests are in fact a good proxy of well built CPU with good cache subsystem that facilitates inter thread communication, and those CPUs that don't do well there, tend to suffer in general gaming. All those guys with 4Ghz Ryzens are giving up 30-40% of that sweet ST performance vs current best in market.
Outside of high FPS competitive gaming, an OC Ryzen 8-core, an OC Sandy Bridge i7 2600K, and an OC i7 7700K all perform within 5% of each other, using setups which reflect the real world, like GTX 1080Ti for 4K, GTX 1080 for 1440p, and GTX 1060/RX 580 for 1080p, in relatively modern AAA games, barring a few exceptions.And do you have and intel 6-8 core test to tell if this result is due to the core number or the ryzen architecture?
however, we all know that atm the 7700K oced is the king of gaming and what the mass and even lots of enthusiast crowd need (even if they don't say it)
How is that 2/3 speed? AdamK's posted speeds are expected full speed.
I am now getting the same speeds as he posted, which is the same speed I was getting on the Z170 platform. So I am now happy.
I WAS getting under 2k random read (not the 2.6k I am getting now). That issue was resolved.
I'll try Crystal Disk Mark and Samsung Magician tonight. I'm running Kaby Lake X and not Skylake X, so my results may not be totally comparative. My drives are all running off of the X299 PCH though.