To Core i9, or not to Core I9?

Discussion in 'Tech Talk' started by Rustedsp00n, Jul 31, 2017.

  1. i9? Why get an i9 when you can get a Threadripper?
  2. Because the the blue team fans had to get the pom poms out.. and make sure you spend more than you need to..
  3. And the Red team is mad because AMD still didn't get single core performance good enough so they just threw a shitload of cores out there to make up for it.
    Rustedsp00n likes this.
  4. The problem is.. Everyone things AMD fans are mad.. its the opposite.. I'm excited.. Fuck your 10% gaming performance at 1080p... only peasants play at 1080p.. I have a 34in 1440p wide screen.. and the benchmarks say that AMD can do the exact same frames.. even with their old hardware.. This time I just get better power consumption than Intel.. and more performance for my money.. So that if I want to render or convert video, it will take you forever and a day.. Cause I got twice the cores than you do at the same price.

    *** Rant OFF ***

    #24 KedsDead, Aug 6, 2017
    Last edited: Aug 6, 2017
  5. [​IMG]
    Krazie_Ivan and KedsDead like this.
  6. 5mo matured R7 has better single-core IPC than an i5 and older i7 : "All processors listed are clocked at 4200 MHz."
    ...and nearly matches an i7 Kaby at stock clocks, with R5's ahead of i5 & i9 :
    multi-core results @stock clocks :
    these are all from an i9-7900X ($1000) review :,22.html
    #26 Krazie_Ivan, Aug 6, 2017
    Last edited: Aug 6, 2017
  7. Oh he mad him ranting and swearing and throwing up benchmarks...

    Only thing Im happy bout is pricing will be competitive for at least a year.
  8. I hope it does drive down the prices on these things.. I am an AMD fan.. although they are a year late on the CPU side, on my current build.. and a little late on the GPU, I did try and wait it out.. I defend AMD only because its a little company ( in comparison ) taking on 2 juggernauts.. and sometimes they win..

    I think the power consumption point is moot.. everyone overclocks there cpu's, and gpu's to the point that they use a huge amount of power..
  9. had a bit more time today, & found this recent article on Techspot where they ran the $210 R5 1600 vs the $450 i9-7800X (hex/hex) on 30 different games. they also included a 7700k for reference.

    of note; "Ryzen will hit 4GHz with the box cooler but it will be a more mild experience with a $20 aftermarket cooler like the Cooler Master 212, so keep that in mind. The 7800X on the other hand cannot be overclocked to 4.7GHz using a 240mm AIO closed loop solution. Instead, it required a $380 custom loop setup to achieve that result." ...$230 vs $830... plus platform costs: $180 mobo vs $280... plus double the amount of RAM in quad-channel: $135 vs $250. and then we learn via tweet that the 7800X burnt a pin trying to maintain 4.7ghz.


    interestingly, they use the DX12 Warhammer results in the final graph even when the DX11 results put the 1600 even further ahead (and WAY closer to 7700k numbers). so, def not slanted in AMD's favor...

    also, the 2 worst showings for the 1600, Deus & Gears...
    "Deus Ex: Mankind Divided is a poor title for Ryzen, at least when paired with a GeForce graphics card. Something about the way the Nvidia drivers handle the DX12 API just doesn't agree with Ryzen. ... Showing you what I mean about Ryzen doing poorly with the GeForce card using DX12 in Deus Ex, I've retested using DX11. As you can see a radically different picture here and the R5 1600 is now able to match the 7800X in this title."
    "Gears of War 4 is another title like Deus Ex: Mankind Divided that just doesn't play well with Ryzen when using a GeForce graphics card. This is a DX12 only title as well so until AMD releases a high-end GPU, this is how things are going to look."
  10. So, remove the 7800X and compare the 7700k. We all know that the HE Intel drops always end up lower than the mainstream offerings. OC'd or not, 7700k pulls away in all those bench's with 2 less cores and 2 less threads.