But people are recommending AMD over Intel (for the most part) if you're planning on doing anything strenuous other than gaming (especially *while* gaming). If your CPU is at 99% while gaming and all you're doing is gaming, does it really matter if you aren't hitting like thermal limits? I'm honestly asking because I don't know for sure.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Intel responds to i7-7700K high temp. issue tells owners they shouldn't overclock
- Thread starter ·feist·
- Start date
But people are recommending AMD over Intel (for the most part) if you're planning on doing anything strenuous other than gaming (especially *while* gaming). If your CPU is at 99% while gaming and all you're doing is gaming, does it really matter if you aren't hitting like thermal limits? I'm honestly asking because I don't know for sure.
IlGialloMondadori
Member
My CPU sits super cool at like 20 to 30, like 22 degrees. Then, it'll randomly spike to 50 for a fraction of a second, then back down. Yeah, under load is about where mine was at, I think. 90, tho...that's hot as hell. That'd scare me.
LiquidMetal14
hide your water-based mammals
Please understand
An overclocked 7700K only nets you an extra 3-5 FPS (if that) with a GTX 1080 even in CPU-bound games (Watch Dogs 2, Ashes of the Singularity, etc.) as well so... I'd say leave it be for now.
You are talking about separate things that dont really correlate.
First, ryzen will be always the preferred recommendation over intel when:
- you use it for productivity
- you buy cpus every >2 years, even for gaming.
- you aren't rich
Secondly, software development moves towards what the cpu market is buying (2 cores 4 cores 8 cores). Today's i5's with 99% usage while playing a modern game is a clear indicator this cpu is a bottleneck TODAY, let alone in two years time.
Thirdly, Thermals are never an issue unless you look at it as a benchmark score or you plan to overclock. Thermals only evaluate the cooling solution being used. What you want is low TDP and high performance even if the monitoring program reads 90ºc full load. Again, it just evaluates the cooling solution.
Recently replaced my 6600k for a 7700k before this newsI can certainly vouch for the chip running hotter than my 6600 at similar clock (4.6 currently) by about 10c. Delidding kit is on its way and I do hope that will do the trick as Im not really in the mood to replace my mobo and go a different route yet.
That is quite an unfair comparison, 6600k is a quadcore with no HT vs 7700k with ( so 9 threads) ofc that gets hotter then.
Unless you meant 7700k with HT disabled when u compare them, then it is fair.
It's a damn shame that I want to play today's games though.
Why the hell would I buy a processor now that may or may not be better in the future? This is the same company that told people they matched Intel when you run at 1440p/4K lol
Frankfurter
Member
22C might very well be a wrong reading, though. Chances are your room temperature is around that.
Well, there is some logic to it. People tend to buy CPUs to last them a long time, say 3-5 years. So why wouldn't you care how it performs with engines of tomorrow? Plus you don't need a high end CPU anyway to play todays games.
The world doesn't seem fair, does it. Well, it does seem fair if you have 1200€ to spend in 6900K's every year. Otherwise you need to be cleaver.
And todays games play pretty damn well on ryzen. Are you pretending they are all running @ 20fps while intel runs them at 60? please.
The first sentence is a risk, true. Albeit, a calculated risk (and a pretty damn good one at that).
Secondly, are you trying to evaluate whether a company will deliver based on PR quotes? look at the topic we are on.
Very long term. Like ~4-5 years long.
Which is around my time scale. I have an i5 4960K(2014) , my previous CPU was a i5 750(2009)
For reference, Vulcan and dx12 came out in 2015. 1.5-2 years later they are still quite rare.
I think you are overestimating the speed of new tech adoption in the SW world.
The average AAA games probably takes ~4-5 years to complete.
So I wouldn't expect a large shift in how games are made at a shorter time scale.
Indie games can adopt new tech faster, but they are also usually not as demanding on the HW.
Additionally, this is a 2 way street. Devs look at what the majority of their target audience has and aim for that. So unless AMD gains 50%+ market share in a few years, devs won't even bother optimizing for that.
Buying an AMD CPU now is gambling that games will be more aggressively multi-threaded in the coming 2 years.
Personally, since the PS4/XBONE came out ~4 years ago with 8 cores, and games are still not that aggressive with multi-threading, i would say its not going to happen in the next 2 years either.
Do you seriously prefer the CPU to sit at 50% utilization while giving you lower performance? Why?
Sorry, yeah w/ HT disabled. Warmer still when enabled as expected.
Look, firstly the CPU who sits @ 40% usage in todays games is within 20% from the best CPU framerate's. Secondly, because I will (hopefully) be alive and still playing games >2 years from now and I dont agree with the timetable you are supporting. Also, because it imples the current bottleneck is currently outside the cpu (the ever changing game code)
Its just the smarter choice from my point of view (and wallet), sorry.
th3sicknness
Member
Intel cheaped out on the 7700k by using crappy paste.. Do you want to support a company that wants to save 5 cents?
Ryzen is appealing because it is cheaper and has forward looking technology. You arent gambling when you select Ryzen you are investing.
Ryzen is appealing because it is cheaper and has forward looking technology. You arent gambling when you select Ryzen you are investing.
Only if assuming that the AMD CPU will at some point get to 100% utilization as well. Which you seem to treat as given, while its not.
AMD has more capable HW with better potential performance. But as of now (and i don't think it will change in 2 years due to the reasons in my previous post) Intel has better performance.
At the end of the day its a cheaper CPU that performs better today vs a more expensive one that performs worse, but may, some day perform better.
I would say that today Intel i5 is the safer option for gaming.
Tyraniboah
Member
I'm a PC noob since I just built my first one. I've got an i5 7600k and, after reading about how shitty they've been about this, I'm halfway tempted to get a Ryzen CPU some time in the next year. I'm pretty petty about not giving my money to corporations that aren't good to their customers lol. (I'm not an idealist, I recognize that my boycott would be meaningless)
I'll go to the Ryzen thread and I'll Google some benchmarks, but for anybody that recently switched to an AMD CPU from Intel, I hope you all like it because I'm next lol.
I'll go to the Ryzen thread and I'll Google some benchmarks, but for anybody that recently switched to an AMD CPU from Intel, I hope you all like it because I'm next lol.
MissCauthon
Member
I was in a computer store yesterday and looking at this CPU.... I was going to buy it next week... should I wait?
Disqualify yourself from an argument by posting an absolutely terrible source brehs
For higher framerates, I don't want my CPU to be the bottleneck. I'm trying to run 120+ FPS average. My 6700K has been performing wonderfully for the money.
I used to buy Intel's hexacore CPUs, but the single-threaded performance was still not great compared to the X700K. I don't need 8 cores for gaming yet. When I do, I'll buy a new processor.
Risk Breaker
Member
If you get Ryzen you play today's game at 5-10% worse performance (if you're not GPU limited which is very likely in most cases) while having CPU power to spare for anything else in the meantime.
Then, in the future, future games that theoretically use, say, Ryzen to 80%, will run 40-60% better (or more) there than on an i5 from today. And for the same price/cheaper.
Hmm where did I heard that before?...
Ohhh I remember. I think I heard the same thing with GPU's. "Don't worry guys the 7970 and 290 are future proof, drivers for GCN are gonna get better with time"
I'll think I pass with AMD "clairvoyant" marketing this time.
Its not same price/cheaper. Its more expensive, by quite a lot.
From newegg/amazon:
1800X - 470$
i5 7600 - 200$ (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01MYTYSMK/?tag=neogaf0e-20)
From the benchmarks on the prev. page 1800X on par with i5 7600K (at stock speed, so no need for OC)
So more than x2 the price for same current game performance
The i7 7700 (not K, so not OCed) which is currently better is 300$ on newegg. Still cheaper.
The 1700 is 313$. its the same price as the i7... And the i5 7600, which currently performs better, is still cheaper by ~100$.
Buying ryzen makes sense for work (rendering, video editing etc..) but not for gaming. Unless you assume that how games are made is going to significantly change in the next 2-4 years.
Oh, I thought it was like that time "hey guys, now that PS4 and Xbox one have octa-core CPUs, it is only a matter of time until PC ports starts using all the cores, soon the FX-8350 will beat everything".
But but but my async compute!!!!
Versus what? the 1600X? they are matched FPS wise. Foolish to buy the i5 when in this case the performance is the same and yet one is only pusing 50% usage.
1600X. same performance, half the price. Do the math with this one. And again, one is pegged @50% while the other one is already at 99%.
In two years time, todays games will still be 5-10% slower on ryzen VS 7700K. But the games from two years from now, likely the opposite but by a much larger margin.
What is it that you dont understand in this logic? what factor is missing for this to make sense to you? Can you not see any virtue in this buying method? Again, not everybody buys a new cpu every 6 months.
RenegadeXV8
Banned
But the 7900 and 290 series actually had competitive performance in their time, and did age better than Kepler.
Forsaken82
Member
Are you using the Stock Heatsink or something?
You realize the 290x who was slower than the 780ti at launch time, today trounces the 780ti in many modern games? and in some titles, trouncing is not the most accurate wording.
You are actually betting against something that already happened. But your first mistake was to compare GPU's to CPU's regarding future performance.
The i5 is physically a bottle-neck today, despite equal framerates to the 1600x (on average)
Captain Obvious but- I think there's more of an argument for longevity (future-proofing) when it comes to CPU's over GPU's.
GPU's just a few generations apart have massive differences in performance (My 1060 is 2-3x as fast as my old 670 and at a lower MSRP). Considering how quick price drops and how easy (and not just in the financial sense) it is to replace a GPU over a CPU (which at least for Intel means buying a new mobo + possibly RAM and heatsink in addition), for most situations it's better to get what you need now.
With CPU's and the difficulty/cost in replacement and relatively smaller increases in performance over generations... I do want Ryzen to succeed, for the record. Both Intel and Nvidia need proper competition for the consumer's sake.
GPU's just a few generations apart have massive differences in performance (My 1060 is 2-3x as fast as my old 670 and at a lower MSRP). Considering how quick price drops and how easy (and not just in the financial sense) it is to replace a GPU over a CPU (which at least for Intel means buying a new mobo + possibly RAM and heatsink in addition), for most situations it's better to get what you need now.
With CPU's and the difficulty/cost in replacement and relatively smaller increases in performance over generations... I do want Ryzen to succeed, for the record. Both Intel and Nvidia need proper competition for the consumer's sake.
No one with an 6700k should upgrade (gaming). This conversation is not for you. Its for those opting for an i5 vs an 1600/1600x
The 1600x is 250$.
It performs worse, not the same.
Its more expensive than the i5 7600 by 50$, not half the price.
It's only 50$ cheaper than the i7 7700.
You are for some reason assuming that games in 2 years will be able to take advantage of those idle 50%.
And if you read at the link from the previous page (http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreview...review-premiere-blender-fps-benchmarks/page-7), watch dogs 2 runs with up to 16 threads, so your claim for 50% idle is quite strange.
We've been on the verge of multi-threaded games finally making use of a large number of cores efficiently for a decade now. The fact that an i5 is competitive with an 8 core hyper-threaded processor in 2017 should tell you all you need to know about the likelihood of next year or the following finally being the year that multithreaded games turn the corner. It's pretty much a pipe dream outside of a handful of AAA games where devs make it a priority.
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
So 4-cores is the future? Don't be so backwards. The exact same thing was said by dual-core owners back in the day desperately trying to justify their CPU as forward-looking when it was obvious 4-cores would replace it. It's a question of when not if, and it's happening now especially as DX12/Vulkan becomes the api of choice.
The reason why there is so much resistance to Ryzen is because there are an overwhelming majority that own or have just bought a 4-core i7 and don't want to hear how 6-8-cores is the future.
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/CPU-Hardware-154106/Tests/Rangliste-Bestenliste-1143392/
ryzen 1600 219$ 2% slower on average against the 239$ 7600K. Which one is the better buy?
I, for some reason? really? some reason?
Again, what reason isn't there? this is us talking about futurology, no one knows how it will play, but I have a better change than you to be right.
Show me how watchdogs scales from 1-8 cores, lets discuss it later.
No, it's because no one wants to get lesser performance now and hope that it gets better in the future. The argument can be made for workstation tasks, but not for gaming.
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
You only get noticeably 'worse' performance gaming at 1080p or less whilst owning a card on the level of a 1080 and above. 99% of people in the market for these do not fit that context.
What's incontrovertible is Ryzen offers a cheaper build and is massively faster in applications that use more than 4-cores/8-threads. An AM4 mobo will also last 2 more generations. The same can't be said for Kabylake. The choice is an easy one in favour of Ryzen unless you're the 1% that games on a 1080 Ti @ 1080p or likes 144Hz gaming.
The future? Probably.
In the next 2 years? Very unlikely.
If you look at the benchmarks in the prev. page an the link i posted - one of them is a dx12 ashes of the singularity, and its still on par with the i5.
And vulcan being widely adopted is still a question mark at this point. It's a lot more complicated to work with, so only big companies can afford it, and so far the benefits , while existing, were not overwhelming.
There is a much simpler answer. Its because its more expensive and performs worse.
(talking only about gaming)
expensive? 1600 219$, within 2% from the 239$ 7600K in gaming. Which is the better choise?
time moves forward. How in the world are you guys stuck in the present believing time will not pass and nothing will ever improve.
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/CPU-Hardware-154106/Tests/Rangliste-Bestenliste-1143392/
ryzen 1600 219$ 2% slower on average against the 239$ 7600K. Which one is the better buy?
I, for some reason? really? some reason?
Again, what reason isn't there? this is us talking about futurology, no one knows how it will play, but I have a better change than you to be right.
Show me how watchdogs scales from 1-8 cores, lets discuss it later.
See the benchmarks you quoted?
Notice how the 6700K is 36% faster than the 6600K? A small portion of that (8%) of that is due to increased clock speeds. The rest? Hyper Threading. In fact, 28% is pretty much around the theoretical limit of performance increase from Hyper Threading.
Know what that means? It means that these games are already heavily threaded. Things are not going to magically get better in 2 years time. Games would have to effectively use all 12 cores to even match the 8 logical cores of the 6700K.
You said, and i quote:
Which is BS. Its not half the price.
And i have also posted a link for the 7600 for 200$ on amazon (since the comparison is non-OCed - no need for the K).
So you could say same performace, same price.
Also, give me a link showing that an 1600x was 50% idle in a cpu bound benchmark.
It will improve, but a lot slower than you seem to believe.
Valid point. Its down to futurology. Yet, how do you best advise your colleges? You have the budget to buy a new Pc every 3 years. What do you buy? What do you recommend?
219$ 1600 Vs 239$ 7600K.
chose, and tell me how your observations regarding HT makes the 1600 the worse choice. I just cant see it.
Fine, 219$ 1600 VS 200$ 7600.
chose one now. explain it.
ps: 250$ is almost half the price of 470$ 1800x which was your original comparative agains the 200$ i5. Be serious now.
ps2: gaming, not benchmarks. Many ones, search duderandom and testinggames on youtube.
metareferential
Member
So now this is officially a coulomb-barrier against everyone amd shilling thread xD (as expected).
Has anyone found why this issue is only emerging now?
Has anyone found why this issue is only emerging now?
notacat
Member
Nope, he means how Intel stopped using good TIM from the processor to its lid. That's been causing heat spikes and all sorts of problems.
PC users have to 'de-lid' their processors, clean intels goop out, and replace it with much better stuff to fix the issue, sometimes breaking the processor in the process.
more info: https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/...ed-reapplied-tim-reduces-temps-by-30c.228763/
http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreview...review-premiere-blender-fps-benchmarks/page-7
7600 at stock for 200$ performs as well as 1800x for 470$ at stock in current games.
1600x vs 7600 DX12 test:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/11244...x-vs-core-i5-review-twelve-threads-vs-four/13
The only game where the ryzen is better is Civ 6, probably due to cpu heavy AI.
Valid point. Its down to futurology. Yet, how do you best advise your colleges? You have the budget to buy a new Pc every 3 years. What do you buy? What do you recommend?
219$ 1600 Vs 239$ 7600K.
chose, and tell me how your observations regarding HT makes the 1600 the worse choice. I just cant see it.
I would definitely get the 1600 over the 7600K. I'm not debating that at all. It seems like the best mid budget CPU with some additional potential moving forward (though nowhere near 50% gains like some people are suggesting). I don't think it will ever prove itself to be much faster gaming wise, but the 12 Threads will give it a much better longevity when it comes to heavy multitasking.
On the high end of things, Intel still wins out by a large margin. I don't think Ryzen will ever surpass it within a reasonable timeframe. Heavily threading games is not easy and yields diminishing returns as most parallel data workloada get moved to the GPU. Serial data workloads are heavily bottlenecked by cache management.
Keep in mind that threading is not simply a matter of adding more threads to solve a problem. In many cases, you reach a point where adding more threads actually slows performance.
We're only just getting to the point where 4-8 threads are being used somewhat efficiently in gaming scenarios. It's going to take a long time to get anywhere near maxing 16 logical cores for modern game engines.
Also, just to give some points to the 7600K...these benchmarks do feature heavily threaded games. If you're looking for critical performance for single threaded gaming (e.g. Wii/WiiU emulation, Flight Sim X), then you should go with the 7600K.
TheCanisDirus
Member
Well shit Intel. Just finished my build 3 weeks ago and even though i heard the 7700k were running "warm"... i figured it would be ok. Running the stock 4.2 with a Cryo H7.
I'm consistently averaging in the low 80C during PUBG capped at 140... am i toast when i start to push it? Overwatch is about the same as well. :/
I'm consistently averaging in the low 80C during PUBG capped at 140... am i toast when i start to push it? Overwatch is about the same as well. :/