Core i7-7800X vs. 7700K, 6 or 4 Cores for Gaming?

[Julio Franco]

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? There's just a ~$70 difference between the two: the older chip is higher clocked, while the newer CPU gets you two extra cores and access to Intel's latest desktop platform.

Read the full article here.

https://www.techspot.com/review/1445-core-i7-7800x-vs-7700k/

 

[Versutus]

So overclocking the 7700k on 1080p basically is pointless?

 

[Steve]

So overclocking the 7700k on 1080p basically is pointless?

It comes heavily clocked out of the box so a 4.9 GHz overclock doesn't offer that much. Plus in most games you are still GPU limited anyway (even at 1080p), especially with a super efficient quad-core supporting Hyper-Threading.

 

[ET3D]

This definitely bears more investigation. A 6 core CPU running at a higher clock speed than a 4 core CPU with the same architecture, and still getting significantly lower scores suggests that there's something at fault, like:

Problem with Windows scheduling (which can be tested by limiting games to just 4 cores on the 6 core CPU).

Quad channel RAM reducing access speed (which might be tested by putting just two RAM sticks and seeing if performance is better). Also running some low level benchmarks (like Sandra) could help see if something performs significantly lower on the 7800X.

 

[pan1c]

Strange results, looking forward to the Ryzen 1700 results to be added, which is the processor I am currently using.

 

[Steve]

This definitely bears more investigation. A 6 core CPU running at a higher clock speed than a 4 core CPU with the same architecture, and still getting significantly lower scores suggests that there's something at fault, like:

Problem with Windows scheduling (which can be tested by limiting games to just 4 cores on the 6 core CPU).

Quad channel RAM reducing access speed (which might be tested by putting just two RAM sticks and seeing if performance is better). Also running some low level benchmarks (like Sandra) could help see if something performs significantly lower on the 7800X.

It's not even close to the same architecture mate. The cache structure is completely different and the new core interconnect increases latency.

 

[TrexAverell]

This definitely bears more investigation. A 6 core CPU running at a higher clock speed than a 4 core CPU with the same architecture, and still getting significantly lower scores suggests that there's something at fault, like:

Problem with Windows scheduling (which can be tested by limiting games to just 4 cores on the 6 core CPU).

Quad channel RAM reducing access speed (which might be tested by putting just two RAM sticks and seeing if performance is better). Also running some low level benchmarks (like Sandra) could help see if something performs significantly lower on the 7800X.

It's not even close to the same architecture mate. The cache structure is completely different and the new core interconnect increases latency.

I also understood it like that : the way the CPU is working is more important than its specs

 

[amstech]

This definitely bears more investigation. A 6 core CPU running at a higher clock speed than a 4 core CPU with the same architecture, and still getting significantly lower scores suggests that there's something at fault, .

I think the 7700's architecture is just better for gaming engines, since most are a few years old, even new ones. Games are a counter intuitive way to test new architecture but its very interesting to see.

There is also another point to be made here.
Windows operating systems and programs are designed to use HT.
Games have been using it for 5+ years now, in the last 2-3 years significantly more. A Core i3 will match a Core i5 in most games that require 4 logical cores, and a Core i7 handidly beats an i5 in many games. My point is this:
Most new games, if not all, don't require more then 8 logical cores, which is why the 7700K, combined with its well supported architecture and high clock speed is still about as potent as it gets [for gaming].

I would like to see a CPU comparison of a i7 950 @ 4.0 GHz, vs a 3770K @ 4.0GHz vs a 7700K at 4.0GHz to see the difference in architecture running games.

 

[JensensWang]

Did you update your BIOS? Because Tweaktown updated theirs and they did not have regressed gaming performance versus Haswell-E and Kaby Lake. If you did, maybe the Asrock Taichi is still having BIOS issue?

http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/8225/intel-core-i9-7900x-series-skylake-cpu-review/index7.html

 

[amstech]

I would like to see a CPU comparison of a i7 950 @ 4.0 GHz, vs a 3770K @ 4.0GHz vs a 7700K at 4.0GHz to see the difference in architecture running games.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=483&v=8caCYb0G0ec

Nevermind to myself.
Found a bada$$ review of a 930 @ 4.0GHz in 2017, benchmarks, compares against ryzen and newer Intel chips, both stock and overclocked. It's official, this winter I am doing a new rig.

 

[arh2o]

Thanks for these charts, awesome stuff. There is definitely something severely wrong with the 7800X and it has nothing to do with frequency. 4.7ghz should be more than enough to surpass a 4.9 7700K but it gets absolutely stomped. I don't think BIOS updates will fix this unfortunately.

 

[amstech]

Thanks for these charts, awesome stuff. There is definitely something severely wrong with the 7800X.

No there isn't.

and it has nothing to do with frequency.

Yeah it does, a little.

4.7ghz should be more than enough to surpass a 4.9 7700K

No it shouldn't, not with games.

 

[Someone8MyPosts]

Not surprising at all. Most often, the only time multiple cores above 2-4 comes into play in any major way is 3D or movie rendering pre-production. Very few apps take advantage of multiple cores like that or memory above 8Gb these days.

 

[arh2o]

No it shouldn't, not with games.

The difference between 4.7 and 4.9 is minimal. Diminishing returns on the overclock, especially for games. Overclocking returns aren't linear and 4.7ghz is already very high. Considering the 7800X has 2 more cores and a larger cache, uh yea, there is something definitely wrong.

Also, the 6900K is faster than the 7800X despite being an ancient Broadwell chip clocked much lower: https://www.techspot.com/review/1433-intel-core-i9-core-i7-skylake-x/page3.html There goes your frequency theory.

 

[amstech]

The difference between 4.7 and 4.9 is minimal. Diminishing returns on the overclock, especially for games. Overclocking returns aren't linear and 4.7ghz is already very high.

For games 200MHz can be 4-7FPS.

Considering the 7800X has 2 more cores and a larger cache, uh yea, there is something definitely wrong. .

The larger cache and more cores are irrelevant here.

Also, the 6900K is faster than the 7800X despite being clocked lower: https://www.techspot.com/review/1433-intel-core-i9-core-i7-skylake-x/page3.html. There goes your frequency theory.

The 6900K runs on older architecture which bodes well for gaming performance.

 

[ZackL04]

This definitely bears more investigation. A 6 core CPU running at a higher clock speed than a 4 core CPU with the same architecture, and still getting significantly lower scores suggests that there's something at fault, .

I think the 7700's architecture is just better for gaming engines, since most are a few years old, even new ones. Games are a counter intuitive way to test new architecture but its very interesting to see.

There is also another point to be made here.
Windows operating systems and programs are designed to use HT.
Games have been using it for 5+ years now, in the last 2-3 years significantly more. A Core i3 will match a Core i5 in most games that require 4 logical cores, and a Core i7 handidly beats an i5 in many games. My point is this:
Most new games, if not all, don't require more then 8 logical cores, which is why the 7700K, combined with its well supported architecture and high clock speed is still about as potent as it gets [for gaming].

I would like to see a CPU comparison of a i7 950 @ 4.0 GHz, vs a 3770K @ 4.0GHz vs a 7700K at 4.0GHz to see the difference in architecture running games.

Digital Foundry has many of these tests but starting at Sandy, (2xxx-7xxx series) all clocked at 4.5

 

[Puiu]

The new cache system more suited for server workloads and, I assume, immature bios/drivers are the cause of the much lower scores. They did rush the launch (kinda like how AMD rushed the R7 lineup).

@Steve is there any possibility of throttling happening? I've seen reports/rumors of not just lower FPS but also some stuttering for some. also different motherboards --> different results.

 

[HardReset]

@Steve is there any possibility of throttling happening? I've seen reports/rumors of not just lower FPS but also some stuttering for some. also different motherboards --> different results.

Throttling occurs when CPU warms up to somewhere around 100 degrees so not probably because of that.

Turbo is another thing. CPU turbo frequencies depends on motherboard, cooling, PSU, CPU used etc so there may be different results because of that. But that's how turbo is supposed to work.

 

[JensensWang]

The new cache system more suited for server workloads and, I assume, immature bios/drivers are the cause of the much lower scores. They did rush the launch (kinda like how AMD rushed the R7 lineup).

@Steve is there any possibility of throttling happening? I've seen reports/rumors of not just lower FPS but also some stuttering for some. also different motherboards --> different results.

Tweaktown updated their BIOS and those gaming penalty versus Haswell-E and Kaby Lake was non-existant. 7900x went from Ryzen-like performance to matching and sometimes beating its predecessor and the 7700k. It's either ASROCK is having problems or the author didn't update to the latest one. I don't even know anymore...

 

[Biostud]

So basically the X99 is better for gaming than the X299. *Hugs my 5820K*

 

[Puiu]

So basically the X99 is better for gaming than the X299. *Hugs my 5820K*

we'll have that answer later this year. it's too early to tell for now.

 

[Steve]

The new cache system more suited for server workloads and, I assume, immature bios/drivers are the cause of the much lower scores. They did rush the launch (kinda like how AMD rushed the R7 lineup).

@Steve is there any possibility of throttling happening? I've seen reports/rumors of not just lower FPS but also some stuttering for some. also different motherboards --> different results.

Tweaktown updated their BIOS and those gaming penalty versus Haswell-E and Kaby Lake was non-existant. 7900x went from Ryzen-like performance to matching and sometimes beating its predecessor and the 7700k. It's either ASROCK is having problems or the author didn't update to the latest one. I don't even know anymore...

I'm running the latest BIOS version, others have reported similar results already. TweakTown is the only website to publish a glowing Core i7-7740X review so take from that what you will.

It's possibly an issue with the Asrock board but again I have seen reviewers using different hardware and still finding similar results.

 

[JensensWang]

The new cache system more suited for server workloads and, I assume, immature bios/drivers are the cause of the much lower scores. They did rush the launch (kinda like how AMD rushed the R7 lineup).

@Steve is there any possibility of throttling happening? I've seen reports/rumors of not just lower FPS but also some stuttering for some. also different motherboards --> different results.

Tweaktown updated their BIOS and those gaming penalty versus Haswell-E and Kaby Lake was non-existant. 7900x went from Ryzen-like performance to matching and sometimes beating its predecessor and the 7700k. It's either ASROCK is having problems or the author didn't update to the latest one. I don't even know anymore...

I'm running the latest BIOS version, others have reported similar results already. TweakTown is the only website to publish a glowing Core i7-7740X review so take from that what you will.

It's possibly an issue with the Asrock board but again I have seen reviewers using different hardware and still finding similar results.

I believe you. According to Tom's Hardware it seems like each x299 motherboards have different performances especially in games:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/asrock-x299-taichi-skylake-x-motherboard,5119-4.html

It would be nice if you can do a motherboard roundup to see if you can repeat this as well.

x299 seems to be in beta phase just like Ryzen. What a mess.

 

[Skjorn]

So my stock 4790K looks good for another generation.

 

[Sharktooth76]

This definitely bears more investigation. A 6 core CPU running at a higher clock speed than a 4 core CPU with the same architecture, and still getting significantly lower scores suggests that there's something at fault, like:

Problem with Windows scheduling (which can be tested by limiting games to just 4 cores on the 6 core CPU).

Quad channel RAM reducing access speed (which might be tested by putting just two RAM sticks and seeing if performance is better). Also running some low level benchmarks (like Sandra) could help see if something performs significantly lower on the 7800X.

Intra-core latency and lack of game optimizations.
Skylake and Kabylake have bigger latency penalty for higher number of cores, that's the reason why intel developed the mesh tech.