This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

i7 8700K @ 4.6ghz slower than 7700K @ same clocks

  • Topic Archived
You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
  1. Boards
  2. PC
  3. i7 8700K @ 4.6ghz slower than 7700K @ same clocks

User Info: Otimus

Otimus
2 months ago#21
captsplatter_1 posted...
Otimus posted...
BrokenMachine85 posted...
Don't go 4 cores at this point unless you won't buy any new games from next year onwards.

http://i.imgur.com/lQeavHd.png

I want to pet that kitty.

http://i.imgur.com/FdV1ckx.jpg
Now Playing
Zelda BOTW Master Mode (Switch), Tales of Berseria (PC), Witcher 3 (PC)

User Info: RoboXgp89

RoboXgp89
2 months ago#22
honestly i7 cpu's are only meant to play unoptimized console games on your computer while listening to your music and recording

they aren't going to magically make your system that much faster
since most systems/software are built around one or two cores
i7's are built that way to multitask without crashing, that's all

i'd be interested in the temperatures tho
it says that it only uses 65 watts which is almost 20 watts less then what i have now
Bloodborne's Themes Explored
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5f3i8alJvl-eEpsSEx1cENUekU/view

User Info: halomonkey1_3_5

halomonkey1_3_5
2 months ago#23
An 8700k performing worse than a 7700k doesnt make any sense outside of BIOS issues. There are no architectural changes and it still uses a ring bus, so it isn't going to be a step down like Skylake-X. It's literally "Kaby Lake refresh".
Billy Mays: July 20, 1958 - June 28, 2009
The Greatest

User Info: Paragon21XX

Paragon21XX
2 months ago#24
halomonkey1_3_5 posted...
An 8700k performing worse than a 7700k doesnt make any sense outside of BIOS issues. There are no architectural changes and it still uses a ring bus, so it isn't going to be a step down like Skylake-X. It's literally "Kaby Lake refresh".

It could also boil down to the fact that the 7700K was run on a top-of-the-line Asus Maximus IX Hero motherboard and the 8700K was run on a barebones Supermicro which are usually only OEM quality at best outside their server products.

If there aren't significant improvements once all factors have been equalized, then we can safely call Coffee Lake a flop.
Hmm...

User Info: DarkZV2Beta

DarkZV2Beta
2 months ago#25
Fony posted...
krazycharlie posted...
Optimization issues, maybe? We'll have to wait until there are more updates to BIOS on Coffee Lake boards. At least, let's give Intel the benefit of doubt.



Of course, but it didn't help Skylake-X. Game tests and several workloads are worse than Broadwell clock for clock.


cody4783 posted...
Does 3DMark even use 6 cores?

Seems like it's kinda pointless to even use it as a benchmark if ti doesn't. If it's using 4 cores on both systems, then at the same clocks, I wouldn't expect any difference given what I would assume are similar architecture. 1% is within testing margin of error/minor divergence.

The graphics test results being so far off does seem a bit screwy though.



Uh, yes every 3DMark ever benchmarks the CPU as well as the GPU. The Physics test where it loses by 1% to Kaby Lake is a heavily hitter for Intel by the way, Ryzen smacked Intel around in integer and other CPU 3DMark tests but Physics was always all Intel with even their quad cores beating every Ryzen SKU. So yea, this is a good indicator of performance ranking for Intel CPU's vs one another.

Just because it benchmarks the CPU doesn't mean it scales to more threads.
The graphics tests could be down to graphics drivers having issues with the platform.

I mean, it's disappointing, obviously, but it's still not worse clock for clock than Zen. With any luck, though, Zen2 can change that.
a quad core i7 was just a rebranded celeron -Pengu1n
Anything that has 3p fps or better is fine with me -mucloud

User Info: godplaysSNES

godplaysSNES
2 months ago#26
DarkZV2Beta posted...
Fony posted...
krazycharlie posted...
Optimization issues, maybe? We'll have to wait until there are more updates to BIOS on Coffee Lake boards. At least, let's give Intel the benefit of doubt.



Of course, but it didn't help Skylake-X. Game tests and several workloads are worse than Broadwell clock for clock.


cody4783 posted...
Does 3DMark even use 6 cores?

Seems like it's kinda pointless to even use it as a benchmark if ti doesn't. If it's using 4 cores on both systems, then at the same clocks, I wouldn't expect any difference given what I would assume are similar architecture. 1% is within testing margin of error/minor divergence.

The graphics test results being so far off does seem a bit screwy though.



Uh, yes every 3DMark ever benchmarks the CPU as well as the GPU. The Physics test where it loses by 1% to Kaby Lake is a heavily hitter for Intel by the way, Ryzen smacked Intel around in integer and other CPU 3DMark tests but Physics was always all Intel with even their quad cores beating every Ryzen SKU. So yea, this is a good indicator of performance ranking for Intel CPU's vs one another.

Just because it benchmarks the CPU doesn't mean it scales to more threads.
The graphics tests could be down to graphics drivers having issues with the platform.

I mean, it's disappointing, obviously, but it's still not worse clock for clock than Zen. With any luck, though, Zen2 can change that.


Were the CPUs also set manually to always run at 4,6 ghz or was it the turbo speeds? I wouldn't be surprised if the i7 7700k scores higher simply because it maintains the turbo speeds, whereas the i7 8700k with its two extra cores simply can't run that high for long
Super Mario Kart is the single best Mario Kart ever!

User Info: Fony

Fony
2 months ago#27
DarkZV2Beta posted...
Fony posted...
krazycharlie posted...
Optimization issues, maybe? We'll have to wait until there are more updates to BIOS on Coffee Lake boards. At least, let's give Intel the benefit of doubt.



Of course, but it didn't help Skylake-X. Game tests and several workloads are worse than Broadwell clock for clock.


cody4783 posted...
Does 3DMark even use 6 cores?

Seems like it's kinda pointless to even use it as a benchmark if ti doesn't. If it's using 4 cores on both systems, then at the same clocks, I wouldn't expect any difference given what I would assume are similar architecture. 1% is within testing margin of error/minor divergence.

The graphics test results being so far off does seem a bit screwy though.



Uh, yes every 3DMark ever benchmarks the CPU as well as the GPU. The Physics test where it loses by 1% to Kaby Lake is a heavily hitter for Intel by the way, Ryzen smacked Intel around in integer and other CPU 3DMark tests but Physics was always all Intel with even their quad cores beating every Ryzen SKU. So yea, this is a good indicator of performance ranking for Intel CPU's vs one another.

Just because it benchmarks the CPU doesn't mean it scales to more threads.
The graphics tests could be down to graphics drivers having issues with the platform.

I mean, it's disappointing, obviously, but it's still not worse clock for clock than Zen. With any luck, though, Zen2 can change that.


It's still the next generation replacement to the 7700K it should be faster single thread as well. And their leaked CPU-Z benchmark puts the 8700K MT on par with Ryzen 5 1600X. It's just a dud, try and bring yourself to say so Intel has had duds before this is another one. Now if this was compatible with Z270 and priced below $300 it'd be easier to swallow, but since it isn't, and it will be replaced in even less time than the 7700K was replaced(cannon lake is like 7 months out) this is a real stinker
It's not the end of the world, but we can see it from here.

User Info: halomonkey1_3_5

halomonkey1_3_5
2 months ago#28
Intel is using the same socket for Kaby Lake refresh and Coffee Lake. Kaby Lake refresh is coming soon, "real" Coffee Lake is coming Q1/Q2 2018 and will slot into the same boards. Cannonlake is shaping up to be Broadwell 2.0 and will likely only appear in mobile/prebuilts while Coffee Lake handles desktop until Icelake is ready.
Billy Mays: July 20, 1958 - June 28, 2009
The Greatest

User Info: DarkZV2Beta

DarkZV2Beta
2 months ago#29
Fony posted...
DarkZV2Beta posted...
Fony posted...
krazycharlie posted...
Optimization issues, maybe? We'll have to wait until there are more updates to BIOS on Coffee Lake boards. At least, let's give Intel the benefit of doubt.



Of course, but it didn't help Skylake-X. Game tests and several workloads are worse than Broadwell clock for clock.


cody4783 posted...
Does 3DMark even use 6 cores?

Seems like it's kinda pointless to even use it as a benchmark if ti doesn't. If it's using 4 cores on both systems, then at the same clocks, I wouldn't expect any difference given what I would assume are similar architecture. 1% is within testing margin of error/minor divergence.

The graphics test results being so far off does seem a bit screwy though.



Uh, yes every 3DMark ever benchmarks the CPU as well as the GPU. The Physics test where it loses by 1% to Kaby Lake is a heavily hitter for Intel by the way, Ryzen smacked Intel around in integer and other CPU 3DMark tests but Physics was always all Intel with even their quad cores beating every Ryzen SKU. So yea, this is a good indicator of performance ranking for Intel CPU's vs one another.

Just because it benchmarks the CPU doesn't mean it scales to more threads.
The graphics tests could be down to graphics drivers having issues with the platform.

I mean, it's disappointing, obviously, but it's still not worse clock for clock than Zen. With any luck, though, Zen2 can change that.


It's still the next generation replacement to the 7700K it should be faster single thread as well. And their leaked CPU-Z benchmark puts the 8700K MT on par with Ryzen 5 1600X. It's just a dud, try and bring yourself to say so Intel has had duds before this is another one. Now if this was compatible with Z270 and priced below $300 it'd be easier to swallow, but since it isn't, and it will be replaced in even less time than the 7700K was replaced(cannon lake is like 7 months out) this is a real stinker

It is a dud for sure, but it's a dud that's not worse than the competition until you factor price into it.
Why anyone would buy one is beyond me, though. I guess at this point, you're just paying for the Intel brand name.
Not quite as bad as bulldozer. Could totally see this being a Netburst, though.
a quad core i7 was just a rebranded celeron -Pengu1n
Anything that has 3p fps or better is fine with me -mucloud

User Info: wildog2006

wildog2006
2 months ago#30
So we're supposed to be OK with AMDs poor performance with Ryzen at first, before they got to optimizing software and games to run on it well. But we're supposed to s*** on Intel for the same thing?
This board sometimes...
MOD: Mindless, Oppressive, & Delusional
  1. Boards
  2. PC
  3. i7 8700K @ 4.6ghz slower than 7700K @ same clocks

Report Message

Terms of Use Violations:

Etiquette Issues:

Notes (optional; required for "Other"):
Add user to Ignore List after reporting

Topic Sticky

You are not allowed to request a sticky.

  • Topic Archived