Quite true for most as the difference in L3 cache and frequency doesn't usually apply.But why the 7700K over the 7600K?
Multi threading? Go Zen.
Integer is Ryzens strongest area, look at passmark and cpu z.Quite true for most as the difference in L3 cache and frequency doesn't usually apply.
Other point which remains to be seen is how Ryzen compares in integer performance. Everything AMD's been using for comparisons has been FP. The footnotes slides include a specint2006 comparison between Ryzen and Piledriver, but not against anything Intel... which is almost certainly intentional given how far behind they were in that respect.
Quad Core is the new Dual Core.
Why? The 7700k is the fastest gaming CPU available now, hands down. That will change though. Specifically with the 7700k vs 7600k, the 7700k has ~10% more frequency, more L3 cache (which helps far more than people realize as people often think it is more cores when it is often more cache that helps for consumer use), and hyperthreading for the situations when that helps. The $90 difference isn't much if you want those features.But why the 7700K over the 7600K?
Multi threading? Go Zen.
If you look at new games, many make use of 6+ cores. I won't pollute the thread with a graph festival, but many of today's modern games run on 5960x, 6900k & 6950k systems outperform Intel's 4c chips even with the octos running at lower frequencies.
When you're running an octo Intel chip at 4.4+ghz, I think they are far and away the better all round chip, which is why I've only used the HEDT platform for years now. It's looking fairly solid that we can expect Ryzen octos to match Intel's octos at stock. If overclocked Ryzen octos can keep up with overclocked Intel octos, that would be the best gaming chip. Particularly if this could happen with the OCed 1700 due to pricing being similar to a 7700k.
Intel's HEDT line overclocks surprisingly well, the issue is keeping them cool. I have my reservations about Ryzen being able to realize the same sort of gains with overclocking, but it would be great if it can.
Why? The 7700k is the fastest gaming CPU available now, hands down. That will change though. Specifically with the 7700k vs 7600k, the 7700k has ~10% more frequency, more L3 cache (which helps far more than people realize as people often think it is more cores when it is often more cache that helps for consumer use), and hyperthreading for the situations when that helps. The $90 difference isn't much if you want those features.
That said, I personally would get the 7600k over the 7700k.
This isn't uncharted territory. Pricing for duopolies vs monopolies have been well-studied and well-characterized.
Intel doesn't have to respond with their Kaby Lake processors, since at the moment AMD hasn't released equivalent competitors. Prices should (and have) drift slightly lower but not much will happen until AMD releases the lower end chips. For example, the 7700K dropped $6.67 on Amazon today.
With HEDT, I'll just go with simple duopoly pricing models. Take the 6800K for example. In a monopoly, no one would pay more than $617 for the 6800K, since they can buy the better 6850K for that price. Also, lets assume these HEDT chips cost Intel more to manufacture than typical consumer chips. I'll guess $100 just for a round number. In a monopoly, the maximum profit occurs roughly 2/3rds of the way from the cost to produce and the maximum price that anyone would pay. Thus, in a monopoly, to maximize profit, the 6800K should be priced at ($617*2 + $100) / 3 = $444. That isn't too far off from the $434 release price.
But in a duopoly, the maximum profit occurs at a lower point. Typically that maximum profit comes in right around the average of (A) the maximum price that anyone logical would pay and (B) the cost to produce the item. In this case, I would say the maximum anyone would pay for the 6800K is the $499 price of the better Ryzen 1800X. Thus, the 6800K would generate maximum profit at a price of about ($499 + $100) / 2 = $299. Intel should thus lower the 6800K price by about $135 if they want to maximize profit. That pits it right up against the $329 Ryzen 1700, which would be close competition.
That is a 31% price drop after being in the field for 9 months. Investors wouldn't blink an eye at that small of a price drop in a technology field (and a very small subset of Intel's products). Intel doesn't have to drop prices, or they could drop prices more than 31%. But, 31% is roughly what Intel should do for the 6800K.
The 6900K can be analyzed similarly, although there isn't as clear of a top price that anyone would pay since there isn't a good comparable chip. I'd expect closer to a 35% drop, to somewhere in the $700 range for the 6900K to maximize profits. Again, Intel doesn't have to respond, but the proper response would be to cut the 6900K to roughly $700.
Feel free to flood us with graphs showing that the 6900k is better for gaming than the 7700k. Be sure to focus on how the extra cores help, and not extra cache. The 6900k overclocked could not even best the 6700k at stock in gaming:It really isn't "hands down" the best gaming CPU. There are enough CPU bottlenecked games out there that benefit from the extra cores. The number of bottlenecked games goes up further if you're running SLI/CF. Watchdogs 2, Battlefield 1, etc. The market is absolutely moving towards multicore now that the current gen consoles have 6-7 available cores that must all be utilized to push the envelope. The HT on the 7700k is useful but not as good as a real core.
Many people do care about margins. But not so much on older technology (and 9 months is an eon in CPU terms), especially a small subset of old technology.This is a great analysis and quite enlightening. However, the weird thing about stockholders is that they don't care about maximum profit--they care about maximum margin. This is counter-intuitive but one of the first things I needed to learn as an investor myself. If Intel really did lop 31% off their prices, they may show more revenue but they will murder their margins. That's the kind of thing that gets executives replaced.
So Intel's best move to maximize profit IS to cut prices. But ironically, they can't to this degree without some major chaos.
If that was true, why dont see more pleople buying, lets say the $420 Xeon E5-2620 v4, thats 8C/16T @ 3ghz right there, hell you can actually have two of these and a dual socket motherboard for the same or less money than a 6900K+cheap X99
Many people do care about margins. But not so much on older technology (and 9 months is an eon in CPU terms), especially a small subset of old technology.
Feel free to flood us with graphs showing that the 6900k is better for gaming than the 7700k. The 6900k overclocked could not even best the 6700k at stock in gaming:
http://techbuyersguru.com/sites/def...ench/FourCoreVsEightCore/Average7-877x491.jpg
The 7700k is even faster.
More cores will one day be needed in gaming. But not now.
This is a great analysis and quite enlightening. However, the weird thing about stockholders is that they don't care about maximum profit--they care about maximum margin. This is counter-intuitive but one of the first things I needed to learn as an investor myself. If Intel really did lop 31% off their prices, they may show more revenue but they will murder their margins. That's the kind of thing that gets executives replaced.
So Intel's best move to maximize profit IS to cut prices. But ironically, they can't to this degree without some major chaos.
Not stock, OC vs OC for best gaming chip. I'm thinking about 5960x specifically because it actually overclocks to 4.5 if you can cool it. Multiply the game GPU results by 1.5 because you can overlock that thing literally 50%. 4.3ghz is pretty standard with 4.5 being the high average.
And this is at stock clocks vs 6700k.
At max OC 4.5 (8core) vs 5.0 (Kaby) at most the Haswell 8 core will be 15% behind, maximum downside. The upside potential is much higher if the game uses more than 4 cores.
This graph shows my point, when it loses its based on stock clocks. If you had 4.5ghz overclock on the 8 core, your downside potential is tiny compared to the potential upside.
http://www.guru3d.com/index.php?ct=articles&action=file&id=22072
It's also hard to find SLI/CF benchmarks these days but there are anecdotal reports and past history showing increased CPU load for SLI/CF, especially in DX11
Feel free to flood us with graphs showing that the 6900k is better for gaming than the 7700k. Be sure to focus on how the extra cores help, and not extra cache. The 6900k overclocked could not even best the 6700k at stock in gaming:
http://techbuyersguru.com/sites/def...ench/FourCoreVsEightCore/Average7-877x491.jpg
The 7700k is even faster.
More cores will one day be needed in gaming. But not now.
Intel still has brand recognition. Folks buying a CPU who have no idea about Ryzen. There is probably a lot of those folks we don't (understandably) know about. Intel cutting prices means they are missing out on margins of those sales.
This is why a company in a majority market share position can't just cut prices. Because it's always a bit like cutting off the nose to spite the face.
I think Intel's going to wait and see.. make a decision probably a bit later.
If you look at new games, many make use of 6+ cores. I won't pollute the thread with a graph festival, but many of today's modern games run on 5960x, 6900k & 6950k systems outperform Intel's 4c chips even with the octos running at lower frequencies.
When you're running an octo Intel chip at 4.4+ghz, I think they are far and away the better all round chip, which is why I've only used the HEDT platform for years now. It's looking fairly solid that we can expect Ryzen octos to match Intel's octos at stock. If overclocked Ryzen octos can keep up with overclocked Intel octos, that would be the best gaming chip. Particularly if this could happen with the OCed 1700 due to pricing being similar to a 7700k.
Intel's HEDT line overclocks surprisingly well, the issue is keeping them cool. I have my reservations about Ryzen being able to realize the same sort of gains with overclocking, but it would be great if it can.
Raw fps is not the whole story. Paired with a high end GPU, so long as there is no bottleneck and frame times are good...that is all that really matters. If you have the option of getting a 6 core vs a 4 core cpu or an 8 core vs a 4 core cpu for equivalent prices...it is pretty much a no brainer which one to get. Say you pair a 1700 with a 1080 and average 90 fps. If a 7700k paired with a 1080 gives you a 96fps average...those extra six fps only look good on graphs where you can make the lines extra long based on your measuring points. As far as in game experience goes...there is none. However, it was clearly shown if you like to stream your games then you can definitely use the extra cores. I imagine even a 1600X will do better streaming than a 7700k. I don't stream so it doesn't matter to me, but the driving point here is that frame times is what matters in the end...not fps. FPS is easier to sell though.Why? The 7700k is the fastest gaming CPU available now, hands down. That will change though. Specifically with the 7700k vs 7600k, the 7700k has ~10% more frequency, more L3 cache (which helps far more than people realize as people often think it is more cores when it is often more cache that helps for consumer use), and hyperthreading for the situations when that helps. The $90 difference isn't much if you want those features.
That said, I personally would get the 7600k over the 7700k.
If we consider a 5% IPC jump + 15%-20% frequency jump... up to 25% faster.
Page 14 in the following presentation: https://s21.q4cdn.com/600692695/fil...2017_Intel_Investor_Meeting_Renduchintala.pdfDidn't Intel say up to 15% increase with KL-X in SysBench? Most likely higher clocks only.