Page #: 6/8 |
@alvar89 | 7 March 17 | |
@ spartan2 - 7.03.17 - 04:34pm It can do 4.1ghz on one core on like one model of board with great cooling. Boost clocks are rubbish on it, which explains why it struggles so much. 1800X has been reported to be unable to boost to it's frickin rated 4ghz in multiple circumstances. 4ghz on all cores is the limit and you really need water. You can get 4.4-4.5ghz on air on a 6900K. This is just typical AMD again telling little porkies. Like the TDP, these are without doubt 140w parts from every test seen. Hardly anyone will buy a 6900K like they won't an 1800X, it's a niche market. The argument put forward from the start was whether AMD can deliver fast 4 and 6 cores. The benchmarks shown so far say they won't. The mainstream is what really matters and if you are delivering a quad core for the gaming segment and your architecture is crap at gaming then what is the point Cant really say untill the gamer oriented parts are out tho. |
||
@alvar89 | 7 March 17 | |
If i had to choose now i would pick up a 6800k anyday over a 7700k for its extra 2 cores. One other thing the ryzen beats x99 is the price you can get the motherboards compared to the expensive x99 boards. Not all ppl need the extra ram slots and pcie lanes.
|
||
@spartan2 | 7 March 17 | |
@ alvar89 - 7.03.17 - 04:38pm Cant really say untill the gamer oriented parts are out tho. Well yes we can. We can point to the 8 cores even at 3.6ghz and with 20mb of cache and 16 threads that can't beat a 4 core 4 thread Kaby Lake in games running at 3.8ghz or even get within 10 percent of it much of the time. Except the 4 cores aren't going to have 20mb of cache and 16 threads. They aren't going to be miraculously faster in games than the 1800X unless they have massively faster clocks. Which as I have been saying, if the 1800X can't break 4ghz but the 6900K can easily it would suggest an architecture that doesn't have the greatest clock speed potential against Intel designs. Let's say they can actually deliver a 4.2ghz quad core and it's as fast as a 7600K, both things which are unlikely. It's not going to overclock as well is it?? |
||
@alvar89 | 7 March 17 | |
@ spartan2 - 7.03.17 - 05:00pm Well yes we can. We can point to the 8 cores even at 3.6ghz and with 20mb of cache and 16 threads that can't beat a 4 core 4 thread Kaby Lake in games running at 3.8ghz or even get within 10 percent of it much of the time. Except the 4 cores aren't going to have 20mb of cache and 16 threads. They aren't going to be miraculously faster in games than the 1800X unless they have massively faster clocks. Which as I have been saying, if the 1800X can't break 4ghz but the 6900K can easily it would suggest an architecture that doesn't have the greatest clock speed potential against Intel designs. Let's say they can actually deliver a 4.2ghz quad core and it's as fast as a 7600K, both things which are unlikely. It's not going to overclock as well is it?? We have seen the raw power of the chip in certain benchmarks and that makes it obvious it has optimization issues. Even windows 10 needs optimizing. Even the motherboardss have issues because of the lack of time they got and now are fixing things with bios updates. |
||
@spartan2 | 7 March 17 | |
@ alvar89 - 7.03.17 - 04:41pm If i had to choose now i would pick up a 6800k anyday over a 7700k for its extra 2 cores. One other thing the ryzen beats x99 is the price you can get the motherboards compared to the expensive x99 boards. Not all ppl need the extra ram slots and pcie lanes. A 6800K and a decent motherboard is like 650 pounds. But a 7600K and a decent motherboard is like 300 pounds. You clock up the 7600K to like 4.6ghz and leave it be. It'll smash through any game you throw at it and any average home user desktop workload. You have to need the extra cores as I have also said. 6800K isn't really mainstream as the 8 core Ryzens aren't. The battle will be against the Kaby Lake quads, which already looks lost. |
||
@spartan2 | 7 March 17 | |
@ alvar89 - 7.03.17 - 05:04pm We have seen the raw power of the chip in certain benchmarks and that makes it obvious it has optimization issues. Even windows 10 needs optimizing. Even the motherboardss have issues because of the lack of time they got and now are fixing things with bios updates. So what you are saying is that AMD botched the launch and delivered an unfinished product. That is what happened. We see it has a great FP unit and crap integer. Wonderful when it tanks on games. |
||
@alvar89 | 7 March 17 | |
@ spartan2 - 7.03.17 - 05:04pm A 6800K and a decent motherboard is like 650 pounds. But a 7600K and a decent motherboard is like 300 pounds. You clock up the 7600K to like 4.6ghz and leave it be. It'll smash through any game you throw at it and any average home user desktop workload. You have to need the extra cores as I have also said. 6800K isn't really mainstream as the 8 core Ryzens aren't. The battle will be against the Kaby Lake quads, which already looks lost. The 7600k will suffer soon with many titles and applications also. The i7 will atleat have hyperthreading which helps a bit. Intel itself will nail the coffin with the 6 core mainstream part coming. The i5 users will be bottlenecking there new gpu-s and suffer even more microstutter than there already is in games. |
||
@spartan2 | 7 March 17 | |
@ alvar89 - 7.03.17 - 05:08pm The 7600k will suffer soon with many titles and applications also. The i7 will atleat have hyperthreading which helps a bit. Intel itself will nail the coffin with the 6 core mainstream part coming. The i5 users will be bottlenecking there new gpu-s and suffer even more microstutter than there already is in games. But it won't! What evidence do you even have? Look at the games benchmarks, even the dual core 4 threaded parts at the bottom of those tests I posted are competitive! It's the same old thing, more cores, more cores. For the past 10 years Intel's business has been built of FASTER cores, not more of them. It's rubbish to say the i5 aren't going to be fast enough soon. Total and utter crap. As long as you have 4 fast threads then you're fine for years. 8 you're Gr8. anymore is not worth it for the average user. |
||
@alvar89 | 7 March 17 | |
The guy from hardware unboxed and wendel from level1tech talked about stutter on the 7700k compared to the ryzen. Also said the games felt smoother on ryzen. I doubt those guys are making this up. Frametime and latency needs to be checked also in dept.
|
||
@spartan2 | 7 March 17 | |
@ alvar89 - 7.03.17 - 05:11pm The guy from hardware unboxed and wendel from level1tech talked about stutter on the 7700k compared to the ryzen. Also said the games felt smoother on ryzen. I doubt those guys are making this up. Frametime and latency needs to be checked also in dept. Stutter when the benchmarks all show it's blowing away Ryzen it's not enough taking their BS word for it! Evidence! Stutter is more likely driver based than CPU based. They don't have a clue. It's their perception that is false. Facts or GTFO. |
||