Published on 3rd January 2017 by
Originally Posted by play_boy_2000It had a bad habit of being outperformed by a system costing half as much, a year later.
Originally Posted by TheMadDutchDudeIt's actually nearer to £350.
Originally Posted by LennyRhys@RedFlames, you could always spend less and get a 6c/12t Xeon which would utterly destroy the 7700K in multi-threaded apps.
Originally Posted by DavidJust seen the pre-order price for the 7350k on Scan.
Originally Posted by LennyRhysNot so fast - the thing that made X58 so great was support for 6-core CPUs, which still hold their own today (I did already say that). X79 did not cost half as much as X58, and it outperformed it only by a small margin; if you think Sandy Bridge (non-E) outperformed X58 you need to go back and check the performance stats. You seem to be talking about the cons of X58 for gamers, and I think that's a silly argument to make because that's not really where X58 excelled, despite improved multi-GPU support.
Now if you had said so-called "enthusiast" systems are stupid for gamers, then I'd have had no problem with that. ;)
Originally Posted by LennyRhys^ I think I'll probably find myself doing something similar to TheMadDutchDude, especially considering the price of 4c/8t CPUs at the moment. For such a small jump in price to X99 you get an enormous selection of more powerful CPUs and IMO far better longevity. X58 was given a new lease of life with the i7 990X just shy of five years ago (Feb 2011), and I think the same will be true of X99 with the recent release of the 6950X.
@RedFlames, you could always spend less and get a 6c/12t Xeon which would utterly destroy the 7700K in multi-threaded apps.
Originally Posted by TheMadDutchDudeI did start off with an ATX board, but I downsized and haven't regretted it yet. The ASRock board is awesome to say the least, and does everything I could want with a few extra cores. Yes, getting the CPU for free was a massive, massive incentive for me to do so, but I would not go back now. Intel is out of their mind with the pricing on a 4c/8t CPU.
Originally Posted by littlepuppiI do love my 6950X lol
Bargain of the year IMO
Originally Posted by maverik-sg1Okay something changed in Terragen a lot:
Check that out - I posted on the discussion forum for this as my 2500k @ 4.8ghz is able to achieve 320 seconds redendering times - which, made me think at that time that I was still in pretty good shape with my current rig.
Fast forward to this:
There's a clear performance gap of 86seconds of my 2500K Vs Intel Core i5-6600K (4.8GHz) - and if you look at the 7700K the result 195 seconds compared to the preview result of 312seconds is also staggering
Using the base Intel Core i7-6700K your preview article registered this at 393seconds, but the in review it's now 287 seconds.
What's changed? Which is right? Why is there such a difference between two stacks of identical benchmarks - Z270?
<scurries off to compare older Terragen scores>
Originally Posted by CombatusTerragen 3 vs Terragen 4, which we are now using as of this article
Originally Posted by maverik-sg1I do agree that testing a new cpu would be more comparable if tests were carried out at identical clock speeds (4.8ghz) seems more appropriate to provide like for like in that resepct.
Originally Posted by maverik-sg1Quote:Originally Posted by CombatusTerragen 3 vs Terragen 4, which we are now using as of this article
Well that changes everything, the cpu grunt of the 7600K is massively higher than my 4.8ghz sandy bridge.
I do agree that testing a new cpu would be more comparable if tests were carried out at identical clock speeds (4.8ghz) seems more appropriate to provide like for like in that resepct.
You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.
20th January 2017
17th January 2017
© Copyright bit-tech