bit-tech.net

Intel Core i7-7700K, Core i5-7600K (Kaby Lake) and Z270 Chipset Review

Comments 51 to 75 of 120

Reply
LennyRhys 5th January 2017, 17:52 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by play_boy_2000
It had a bad habit of being outperformed by a system costing half as much, a year later.
Not 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. ;)
RedFlames 5th January 2017, 18:14 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMadDutchDude
It's actually nearer to £350.

£349.49, according to Scan.

I think I'd rather spend the extra £75 on the 6c/12t 6800K....

Yes I know it works out being even more once you factor in the premium for a x99 board as well, but still.
TheMadDutchDude 5th January 2017, 18:30 Quote
I wasn't far off, was I? ;)

*cough*

I was in the same boat as you. I had a 6700K for motherboard reviews, but I made the jump to X99 for that exact reason. I 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.
RedFlames 5th January 2017, 18:38 Quote
For all those wishing for AMD Ryzen to undercut Intel, I'm kinda expecting AMDs prices to rise to meet Intel rather than Intel's prices dropping in response to AMD undercutting them.
LennyRhys 5th January 2017, 19:04 Quote
^ 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.
RedFlames 5th January 2017, 19:08 Quote
Quote:
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.

It's all hypothetical in my case... i'm still running a G3258 because I can't afford anything better, and even the rest of the PC is falling apart around it [the only reason it works at all because of the charity of bit members...].

Good job i don't need it for work... oh... right... i do... :/
David 5th January 2017, 21:29 Quote
LennyRhys 5th January 2017, 21:38 Quote
Hahahaha dat's a lot of money for two cores. I have a sneaking suspicion that the same meme will need to come out again when Ryzen hits the shelves.
Vault-Tec 5th January 2017, 22:08 Quote
I5 money for an I3.

lmao.
tristanperry 5th January 2017, 22:41 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by David
Just seen the pre-order price for the 7350k on Scan.

£183.49

http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/bd/bdc0aa00e03dd5aea3e9955d55db98e72404514d1b930b8a7746f5b2014a7d39.jpg
Wow Intel are really sticking to their less-than-competitive pricing policy. Which, y'know, I did get since there hasn't been any competition, but it sounds like there will be soon enough...

Agree completely with Vault-Tec - i5 money for an i3 is crazy.
TheMadDutchDude 5th January 2017, 23:42 Quote
It's bananas. Literally. Intel are pricing it so high for those who like to compete competitively and want the dual core points. I'm so, so glad that I deleted my HWBOT account and could not care less for it anymore. :D
RedFlames 5th January 2017, 23:47 Quote
At least when they did the G3258 Pentium they charged Pentium money for it... Intel are doing some industrial scale urine extraction with the pricing of that i3...
play_boy_2000 6th January 2017, 00:06 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by LennyRhys
Not 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. ;)

Pretty sure, that's exactly what I said.

This has drifted way into left field from where we started. If intel wants me to upgrade from my 2500k, they need to offer something better (improved IPC, more cores) than kaby lake, and I'm not paying the stupidity tax for s2011. If I need anything for server/workstation workloads, I have a dual x5660 server, a dual x5560, and (oddly enough, given my rant) a 6 core E5-1650 workstation, all of which I've picked up used for a tiny fraction of their original price.

Oh, and for the record, 6 core s1366 CPUs were crushed by Sandybridge in single threaded performance and even matched or exceeded multi-threaded performance in some instances. It's best not to even mention power consumption.
LennyRhys 6th January 2017, 01:19 Quote
Yeah I know SB was very strong in the single-threaded department, but it still got trashed by Gulftown in properly configured multi-threaded apps (C4D being a biggy). There's obviously no point making a case against a 6c/12t CPU if the software doesn't properly utilise all of the cores.

Not entirely sure why you posted here at all tbh... you are complaining that Kaby Lake isn't a good enough upgrade from a 2500K and calling X99 "stupid". Bad day? Or are you always this much fun at parties?
TheMadDutchDude 6th January 2017, 06:52 Quote
Maybe someone is just salty because he can't afford X99. ;)
maverik-sg1 6th January 2017, 13:17 Quote
Okay something changed in Terragen a lot:

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2016/12/05/core-i7-7700k-performance-overclock-preview/3

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:

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2017/01/03/intel-core-i7-7700k-i5-7600k-review/5

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>
littlepuppi 6th January 2017, 13:21 Quote
Quote:
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.

I do love my 6950X lol

Bargain of the year IMO

jinq-sea 6th January 2017, 13:41 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMadDutchDude
I 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.

My CPU wasn't free, but this ^

I'd still buy a 5820K and an ASRock X99 ITX for my main rig even now with this new stuff launched!
LennyRhys 6th January 2017, 13:44 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by littlepuppi
I do love my 6950X lol

Bargain of the year IMO

TBH if I had ample disposable income I'd have done the exact same thing myself - the 6950X would be perfect for my workload and I'd likely keep it for a good few years (been running the X5650 for over two years now). People said of the i7 990X that the price at release was high, but if you spread it over 4-5 years it's actually not half bad. Granted, the 6950X is more expensive in today's money, but it probably works out very similar in terms of price/performance.
Combatus 6th January 2017, 13:57 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by maverik-sg1
Okay something changed in Terragen a lot:

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2016/12/05/core-i7-7700k-performance-overclock-preview/3

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:

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2017/01/03/intel-core-i7-7700k-i5-7600k-review/5

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>

Terragen 3 vs Terragen 4, which we are now using as of this article
Bindibadgi 6th January 2017, 14:48 Quote
OMG I haven't used Terragen in ~15 years! /downloads
maverik-sg1 6th January 2017, 15:51 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Combatus
Terragen 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.
Gareth Halfacree 6th January 2017, 16:05 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by maverik-sg1
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.
I usually normalise the results to get clock-for-clock comparisons. Looking to see the difference in IPC between a 2.6GHz and a 3.2GHz processor? Divide the result of the 2.6GHz by 2.6 and multiply it by 3.2 (or divide the 3.2GHz result by 3.2 and times by 2.6).

Naturally, this is better suited to benchmarks that scale linearly with clock speed - but over- or underclocking a CPU to match the clock speed of another model isn't a perfect method of comparison either, 'cos changing the clocks has an impact on the speed of everything. Running the 2.6GHz chip at 3.2GHz will give it faster memory access than running the 3.2GHz chip at stock, all things being equal, which will throw out the results.
Combatus 6th January 2017, 18:03 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by maverik-sg1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Combatus
Terragen 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.

Yep, we did that on page 7 with Cinebench with both the 6700K and 7700K clocked to 4GHz, or is that what you were referring to?
LennyRhys 6th January 2017, 18:35 Quote
The 7600K really is impressive. I'm not sure of the extent to which memory bandwidth makes a difference in Cinebench R15, but my X5650 at stock speed is virtually matched by the 7600K at stock speed (685cb vs 666cb). Upping the X5650 to 4GHz pushes the score up to around 880cb, which isn't enough to compete with a stock 6700K or 7700K.

The best I ever did on X58 was 1116cb with a 980 clocked at 4.8GHz, which is much too high for daily use. Oddly enough, it's not vastly far off the 6850 score at 4.4GHz. The 6900K score at stock speed of 3.7GHz really puts things into perspective - anything from 1550 to 1600cb.
Log in

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.



Discuss in the forums