What is with cpu these days? It seems like this bad boy has similar performance to even new i7's

What is with cpu these days? It seems like this bad boy has similar performance to even new i7's.

When are big speed advancements gonna take place? I could probably use this 3770k for another 10 years

>this bad boy has similar perforamnce to even new i7's
sure bud whatever you say

My money is on Zen2. IBM's 7nm process looks promising.

I went from a [email protected] to a R7 [email protected] and the difference is really significant, especially in video encoding and running multiple large applications. I can run more simultaneous VMs as well.

I assume you aren't doing any heavy encoding or processing beyond games and basic/medium computing loads. In that respect you're pretty close. By the time an upgrade will be worthwhile will probably be the 7nm refresh.

The most important thing that could come and interfere with the longetivity would be new on board features that become a widely used standard, like video encoding/decoding.

Its only significant when you render with it. I wen't from a 3770K to a 5820K, which was a huge performance boost in rendering, not noticeable in games (Except you have reserves left(.

Fpr basic browsing taks I don't feel a difference to my i5-3550 or even the Phenom II 940 I used until this year.

>12% performance increase in six years

B R A V O I N T E L

>9fps difference between a stock 4790k and an OC'd 7700k
>laughing_jews.jpg

Ok so basically video games haven't had much speed increase its mostly because of core/hyperthreading /new feature optimization that rendering or other things that I would use a newer cpu.

Yes, if you don't actually do any work that requires a lot of processing power then an old CPU will suit you just fine.

>using games to benchmark a CPU
retard

>no AVX512

R Y Z E N
P R O C E S S O R S

Because game devs are way too lazy to optimize for newer CPUs. Also, added to the fact that IPC performance hasn't improved much since Sandy Bridge.

Current AAA titles work perfectly with four high clocked cores, but having two more in reserve is nice. If you are using more than 60 hz, I would not want four cores anymore.

More than eight cores is useless for games. Evne with 6 it idles most of the time, unless you run BF1 and other CPU demanding titles, which can fully utilize a hexacore CPU.

>

Speed advancements have taken place, but in the form of moar coars, which isn't something every application can make effective use of. If you were to use it for another 10 years the minor, incremental IPC improvements would slowly pile up and you would also end up suffering from only having 4 cores as everything becomes better parallelized.

Now with Ryzen AMD is pushing the mainstream in the 6-8C direction. Intel is going to do the same with Coffee Lake.

>0.1% low is 93.7 vs 95.3
>OC'd 7700k performs worse in 0.1% and 1% low than stock 7700k

>implying
this discussion pertains to x86 CPUs in general, fuck off back to Sup Forumseddit with your consumerist brand wars

I just bought a 7700k, I'm pretty happy with it.

>buying Z270 and 7700K literally 2 weeks before Coffee Lel invalidates both mobo and CPU for pretty much the same price
I hope you're trolling

There have been big performance gains in numerical computing, but in games, not so much. This is because a computer is designed like shit.

Nah I'm not. I don't flow computers too closely so didn't know about that.

...

Send 'em back

I just looked, 2 more cores and a slight increase in single thread performance. Considering how many people are still gaming on 2500's I'm not going to sweat it. This plus the 1080 I just bought (inb4 there's something new next week lol) will do me for 3-4 years easy.

7700k is an absolutely horrible buy right now. 8700k has 50% more cores and Z270 is a dead end motherboard with absolutely no upgrade potential. 1080 shouldn't get replaced until early next year at the earliest.

And in 12 months time the 8800k will be a horrific buy etc. Etc etc I'm not too worried mate. I grew up a long time ago and realised there is always something better just around the corner.

>And in 12 months time the 8800k will be a horrific buy etc

What a dumb argument. The 8700K is the first major shift that Intel have made in a decade, taking the mainstream platform from four to six cores. People have been saying for the past six years that it isn't worth upgrading if you have a Sandy Bridge chip, so the argument about something better being just around the corner falls flat.

You literally bought a quad core CPU two weeks before the first major leap forwards Intel have made in almost seven years. Congratulations!

Crack up, Ah well someone had to do it, I'm not bothered. I only use it for gaming anyway so 6 cores aren't any more useful than

4 cores.

Yeah, I mean I did experience a difference in FPS but it's most likely due to faster memory than the CPU itself.

There are a handful of games that perform significantly better like flight sims and Civ 6 due to better multithreaded coding

If you are rich, then you should not care. Any buy the i9.

If you aren't rich or have to work for your money the 7700K is a completely retarded decision, because you could get the Ryzen for less money, or the coming Intel processors if you are a fanboy.
Maximum 3 years. The market gets saturated with high core CPUs, and it will increase every year. Even the poorest man can afford a hexacore CPU now. 7700K is literally i3 tier now.

I guess you can still game on it, like on the 2500, these things shutter sometimes even with 60 FPS. But yes, if you don't want more than 60 FPS they are sufficient.

The main problem is, Z170 will going to be expensive if you need replacement parts, its a dead platform already.

The best option is going wit hthe high end platforms like X99, they last much longer. I don't buy mainstream CPUs anymore.

I wonder everyone here uses this Windows 10 shit OS, don't they have forced updates which will automatically install stuff and drain the CPU while gaming? My friend had that. At least he decided to return into sanity and installed Windows 8.

i had a 3770k and now i have a 4970k but i have no doubt the 3770k wouldnt be perfectly fine today

This. I love my 1800X and it plays games well, but having more than 4 threads being utilized by one game is rare.

I know that, but it has space for background tasks. my friend always has problems when running a game on his SSD and installing games on Steam while playing. A 4 core CPU that ranges around 80 % all the time or a 6 core one which has two idles cores and costs even less, the choice is up to you.

That's why I picked it, 16 threads is great for multitasking/productivity software.

Gamedev here. We are not lazy fucks in any merit. The problem is, that we are trying to operate not as artists craving for food but rather have a decent life and do good buisness. And because of buisness reasons, you would optimize the game for wider audience target than top 5%-because then people will buy it, wont return it, will buy newer games=less problems=more munaaay. Also, doing a multithreaded split of logic is not fucking simple, it is really hard as fuck to do more than physic/ai/logic/audio split, and if someone is doing it nowadays they would rather use the GPU for That anyways.

just remember that more cores is more load balancing, meaning when a background application asks for more shit, the game doesn't suddenly stutter

you would rather push a gpu bottleneck then a cpu one just as far as quality of life is concerned.

ryzen 2 will be on a 7nm node that is targeting 5ghz as standard, as in, this is the best power performance ratio, currently ryzen is on a 14nm node that is targeting 3ghz for that equilibrium.

ryzen 2 is going to be stock what delid water cooled with a bit of silicon lottery is for intel, and intel has no process answer as their road map, which is very VERY bias in favor of intel, show they need 3 generations of 10nm to equal what they have on 14nm with the first generation 10nm being a regression to almost if not what 14nm was when it was first introduced, and to kick them while they are down, they are having severe company crippling issues with 10nm as it stands.

ryzen 2, which could be just 8 core, or could move to a 6 core ccx (roadmaps suggest 6core ccx is the next move) so 12 cores at 5ghz minimum.
This will completely shut intel out of every market segment till they either catch up node wise or re do their uarch, which is going to be 2020 at earliest 2023 at latest.

consumer here who watches game devs constantly shit themselves over and over again, and then doom comes out and shows everyone how you fucking make a goddamn game engine that works on low end hardware to the extreme high end, being the only game currently that is 4k ready, as in you have such detailed shit in the game you don't notice the lod lines while being light enough on hardware to be considered playable even on reasonable hardware.

you fucks cant even make a game run well on the fucking hardware you target, which means you are either overextending what you can do given that low level of hardware, or you suck every cock that is presented to you when it comes to coding.

Sounds nice. I am tempted to buy Ryzen but my 5820K is still very strong, I would not notice the jump from 6 to 8 cores.

More would come handy but Threadripper is very expensive. I don't earn money by making videos and I need 2-3 days to upload a 4K 60 FPS video anyway.

I may buy TR/Ryzen2 depending on the price / performance ratio. It is clear my next CPU should have 10, better 12 cores to make a significant upgrade.

I personally went from phenom II 955 stock with 16gb 677mhz ddr2 (it was 800mhz but when it comes to downclocking or overvolting i'm going to lean toward downclocking when if shit fucks up I got no backup)

The jump was night and fucking day for me, and I have been a proponent of 6 core's as a minimum for years, much to most people disagreeing with my on the benefits.

I WANT ryzen 2, but couldn't wait, when they said the motherboard socket would be the standard till ddr5/the next memory standard was a thing, I said fuck it, ill jump on it now and hopefully get an upgrade once ryzen 2 comes out, and use my current ryzen as a small mediacenter/emulation box for the family once it is out of the main system. but yea, the 6-8 core jump is so small its not worth it, for you i would honestly wait till ryzen 2 comes along because fuck me if they keep the same price points or ranges, will they have people dumping first gen threadripper and epyc for gen 2, it will flood the market.

>not noticeable in games
No fucking shit. You're probably GPU bottlenecked in games. Games is not where you see differences in CPU performance.

Yeah but you get much less frame drops than in a quad-core. When Windows fires up some background process, your strained quad-core would have to drop many cycles from the game process to deal with it. The 1800X has a whole 4 core CPU standing by ready to take care of any of those background processes. Bonus points if you multitask or record gameplay or leave your browser open, etc.

this

>Games is not where you see differences in CPU performance.

Sounds like you have a 240Hz monitor, user.

Intel is shit right now