Counting Cores ... Intel on the Bench

Subject: Processors | July 14, 2017 - 06:06 PM |
Tagged: Intel, i7-7700k, i7-7800x, kaby lake, skylake-x

There is a $50 difference in price between these two chips, $390 versus $340, which will be within the price range of many of enthusiasts.  The i7-7700K's cores run at a higher frequency but there are only four whereas the i7-7800X has a half dozen.  The memory configuration is also a factor, with the Skylake chip offering quad channel memory while the Kaby Lake only offers dual channel.  The size of the cache may not have a huge impact on gaming performance but you need to consider the number of PCIe lanes; is 16 sufficient or will you need 28?

Techspot seeks to answer this question with a large number of gaming benchmarks, including PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds.

View Full Size

"Although we consider the Ryzen 5 1600 to be the sweet spot for building a new high-end gaming rig, many of you interested in going Intel want to know whether it makes more sense to buy the Core i7-7700K or the new 7800X?"

Here are some more Processor articles from around the web:

Processors

Source: Techspot

July 15, 2017 | 05:39 AM - Posted by John H (not verified)

I'd really like to see some 7800x results with mesh over clocking ..

July 20, 2017 | 10:34 PM - Posted by Simon (not verified)

Wish granted!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTQ6ymQIY64

July 15, 2017 | 10:49 AM - Posted by necromage (not verified)

I bought the 7800x and am on a 3Ghz mesh freq. instead the 2,4ghz standard.
Now you get the expected skylake performance in games.
It would be nice if this could get further investigation, like the impact on low res gaming(1080p) and such.

July 20, 2017 | 10:35 PM - Posted by Simon (not verified)

Even with Mesh OC'd, its much slower than it would be with ringbus...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTQ6ymQIY64

July 15, 2017 | 12:48 PM - Posted by Op1ate (not verified)

I don't know if the 7800x would be a good CPU for gaming. It's been throwing up some rather strange results vs. the 7700k in that area.

July 15, 2017 | 09:45 PM - Posted by Strider8519 (not verified)

I am not interested in the 1080p result or lower res testing as we are not building games or systems with this kind of hardware and running them on such low resolutions. The 4K results are more what I am looking for and the impact that this new high end architecture is going to actually offer for the leading edge of games. We are heading in a native 4K direction and the industry is looking backwards for metrics.... sigh. Spend $500 on a proc and buy a sub $100 monitor makes no sense.

July 16, 2017 | 09:29 PM - Posted by spartibus

High refresh rate is more important to most people than higher resolution. Along with low input delay. 1080p monitors will continue to be a thing for a long time, because of this.

July 16, 2017 | 06:26 AM - Posted by necromage (not verified)

True, but games here are only an instrument for the latency investigation of Skylake-X and how the performance regression happened.

July 16, 2017 | 10:49 AM - Posted by PixyMisa

Wonder how the architecture for Coffee Lake will be implemented if it is indeed a six-core part.

July 16, 2017 | 02:47 PM - Posted by necromage (not verified)

Everything I know points to a normal ringbus implementation with 256KB LV2 and 12MB LV3 which should be inclusive. Meaning we should see performance above the 6800K in all cases.

July 16, 2017 | 10:17 PM - Posted by RandomUsername1234 (not verified)

I wish people would stop comparing the Kaby Lake and Skylake X on price. Motherboard cost is so much higher that the comparing cpu pricing alone is not fair.

July 17, 2017 | 11:11 AM - Posted by msroadkill612

$270 for the r7 1700 on amazon now, inc wraith cooler

July 17, 2017 | 03:08 PM - Posted by Mr.Gold (not verified)

7800x + MB & cooler would be about $250 more (then a 1700 +MB) and be slower and use more power. It seem Intel will need to rely on its branding to move those 7800x.

July 17, 2017 | 03:05 PM - Posted by Mr.Gold (not verified)

OUCH!!! 100w more power used, and still slower then the stock 7700 in gaming.

For $100 less you can get the 1700 that comes with a great/silent copper core cooler and 33% more cores.

The 7800x almost feels like a "bulldozer". high power usage and a step backward in term of performance.

July 17, 2017 | 03:37 PM - Posted by necromage (not verified)

Possible, but my 7800x@4,2 outclasses my 1700@3,9 in all tasks.
What is holding this cpu back is the mesh/uncore frequency.
Raising the core freq. without mesh oc will lead to almost no improvement in performance.

July 20, 2017 | 10:36 PM - Posted by Simon (not verified)

No, and the opposite is actually true... Check it out yourself:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTQ6ymQIY64

July 21, 2017 | 01:12 PM - Posted by necromage (not verified)

Don't believe everything you see on the net, bench yourself.
I see great improvement, you need very fast Ram though.
i7 7800x + 3200 mesh OC + 3800+Mhz Ram = 60ns to 70ns latency.
The mesh oc has to be done with very fast ram. Some games still won't improve that much (Warhammer).

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <blockquote><p><br>
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.