iPanda :
so, i'm going to build a threadripper rig... but i also want to revamp a newer intel build... so throwing a 7700k into but... upgrade path to 8700k; will it be a new socket or drop in?
That's what I like about this AMD set-up so far, as they stated some socket stability for awhile. but what about intel? any confirmations or leaks on this yet?
It's a new socket, LGA 1151 v2. Same number of pins, but not pin-compatible. So Coffee Lake CPUs won't work in the 100/200-series boards, & Skylake/Kaby Lake won't work in the 300-series boards.
Basically, yeah, if you're looking for a primarily gaming platform, you're not going to consider Threadripper...but you won't be considering Skylake-X, either. Which means you're back to the Kaby Lake vs. Ryzen debate...& while Intel might be able to claim absolute #1 performance in that category, they only hold that title if the consumer doesn't care how expensive their system is. Most people have to consider their budget when buying a gaming PC -- either because they have other financial considerations (house payments, car payments, food, etc.) or because they are dependent on someone else (usually their parents) for the income/cash to buy the system.
As for the actual performance, I saw 4 games (BF1, Shadows of Mordor, Rise of the Tomb Raider & Witcher 3) where the spread between the fastest & slowest results was very, very small -- only 15FPS on Mordor, under 10FPS on the other 3, all of them under a 10% spread. That's not only pretty far from a "commanding lead" or "definitive win", that's bordering on a "too close to call". Also, on all 4 of those games,
none of the chips saw significant improvements from overclocking (think the best was a 10% gain for Threadripper on Far Cry). And that's considering that they were able to overclock the i7-7700K by a whopping 36%.
But the whole, "Intel's such-and-such chip has a higher clock speed than AMD's chip, so it must be better overall" smells way too much about how AMD fanboys crowed about Bulldozer's clock speeds compared to Intel's chips...& how they then got burned when initial performance & IPC were way down. And that's still a problem this time around, only the problem is on Intel's side. Sure, that i7-7700K was able to overclock to almost 5GHz, & it managed to get an OC speed 22.5% faster than the R7 1800X... but unless it was able to significantly outperform the R7 chip (i.e.
provide more than 22.% faster performance compared to the R7 1800X), then that means the Intel chip provides less performance per clock cycle...which, last time I checked, was part of the definition of IPC.
In short, it's almost like we're getting to a situation where Intel has to compensate for poor IPC by raising their clock speeds...
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram