Intel Core i7-7700K overclocked past 7GHz barrier

[cliffordcooley]

That is nothing since AMD FX8350 goes up to 8.7GHz with two or eight threads hahaha
http://valid.x86.fr/records.html

stupid Intel Marketing

And still performs less than this Intel with only two threads @ 7GHz. Seriously why did you post? Was it to troll or announce the one thing AMD is actually better at?

 

[Amet Monegro]

And still performs less than this Intel with only two threads @ 7GHz. Seriously why did you post? Was it to troll or announce the one thing AMD is actually better at?

Really you think that 2c @7GHz Kabylake can performs better than 8t @8.7GHz FX
That monothreaded men

 

[amstech]

Well, the i7-3960X is a $1000 chip, so it shouldn't even be part of this debate.

The fastest gaming CPU is an i7, that's the debate.
In some cases, its much faster.
Does it cost more? Yes. The top of the line product is always a rip-off, you can get lower cost 6 cores though that will do the same.

For every chart you post showing the i7 winning, I can find another chart showing the i5 winning:gaming

Posting charts of games that do not use more power then an i5 has to offer does not prove your point. That says more about older, re-polished game engines. Gears 4, Borderland, Overwatch, Skyrim and countless others show that an i7 is significantly faster when tapped, and in Fallout 3's case, an i7 @ 2.9GHZ beats an i5 @ 3.3GHz. And thats an old game engine.
Clock for clock, the i7 is king of the hill and when utilized to its potential, its significantly faster. Gears 4 is a great example of newer games using more power. Hats off to an i5 being a good chip for the money, but you get what you pay for. For gaming the king is an i7. We can argue value all day, that's more to do with perspective and the games you play. But I want the best gaming CPU I can get, so I got an i7.

 

[ddferrari]

Well this was a polite and informative debate!

I see now that in a handful of CPU intensive titles, the i7 can offer some gains- although I'm stopping short of agreeing that the difference is huge for most of them- usually <10 fps... i7X excluded. And it cannot be ignored that in certain games, HT actually hurts performance; that deserves to be factored into the overall picture. Yes, HT can be turned off, but that requires going into BIOS every time you want to game. Kind of a pain...

Yes- the Overwatch graph you posted does show an impressive 42 fps lead over the i5- but at 200+ fps for each CPU, it's a stat only and not really relevant. Now if that 42 fps lead was say, 120 fps vs 78 that would be much more significant.

I'll also reaffirm my feelings that the i7-3960X should be excluded here; it's a 6 core, $1100 CPU that share's little with the "regular" i7. You know- there's the Mustang and then there's the Shelby Cobra Mustang. Two different animals with (confusingly) similar names.

That being said, I will consider an i7 for my next build in 2018... not only for gaming, but for faster loading of web pages, multitasking, etc.