Get i7-7700k or wait couple of days for the i7-7740X?

[Deleted member 1267329]

What do you guys think?

 

[atljsf]

atm 700k is expensive

when available the 7740 will be double expensive or more, because you need new mainboard, that is really expensive

the performance increase is not big, at all

 

[TJ Hooker]

Based on currently available information, the 7740X is pretty much the same as the 7700K other than that it's on the X299 HEDT platform. Which means the mobo will probably cost a fair bit more than a Z270 (and the CPU will probably cost more too), and the only advantage seems to be that you have the option to upgrade to a high core count CPU later on without changing mobos. Not worth it if you ask me.

 

[Deleted member 1267329]

Based on currently available information, the 7740X is pretty much the same as the 7700K other than that it's on the X299 HEDT platform. Which means the mobo will probably cost a fair bit more than a Z270 (and the CPU will probably cost more too), and the only advantage seems to be that you have the option to upgrade to a high core count CPU later on without changing mobos. Not worth it if you ask me.

good point. What about the cannonlake? They are rumored to come in August this year. Will it be worth waiting?

 

[danielthegreate]

good point. What about the cannonlake? They are rumored to come in August this year. Will it be worth waiting?

Cannonlake is a die shrink of Skylake from 14nm to 10nm. You will get better TDP and slightly lower temperatures, the frequency isn't going to change much if at all. So the performance gain will be minimal, the main benefit will be lower production cost and higher yield (smaller die). So it will cost less to make, whether Intel transfers that lower cost to the consumer we don't know. Looking at their history I seriously doubt that.

7740X as others have pointed out is on an expensive platform with features that you can't use on the particular CPU, so you are paying too much for something that is effectively the same as 7700k.

So I'd say just buy either a 7700k or Ryzen 1700, both great performers. The Ryzen 1700 is on a new platform that you would be able to just swap the CPU when the new lineup of Ryzen is released in a couple of years, and it tends to perform the same on games released in 2016 onwards so the trend is definitely toward improvements in the core utilisation.

 

[lrrelevant]

I would say only go 7740X if you plan on heavy overclocking. It should be able to clock higher provided sufficient cooling of course, and that's about it. Probably not worth the extra 50-100 bucks you'd have to spend on a more expensive X299 board.

 

[TJ Hooker]

@Irrelevant what makes you think the 7740x will overclock any better?

 

[atljsf]

i just saw a video, delided it went to 5.3 ghz, i think i was in gamers nexus

but the result werent that impressive, if it was released on the 1151, surely will do the same i think

this x299 has very little sense, only the expensive cpus will make sense, and they will be too expensive

no reasons to buy this cpu in particular

 

[Deleted member 1267329]

good point. What about the cannonlake? They are rumored to come in August this year. Will it be worth waiting?

Cannonlake is a die shrink of Skylake from 14nm to 10nm. You will get better TDP and slightly lower temperatures, the frequency isn't going to change much if at all. So the performance gain will be minimal, the main benefit will be lower production cost and higher yield (smaller die). So it will cost less to make, whether Intel transfers that lower cost to the consumer we don't know. Looking at their history I seriously doubt that.

7740X as others have pointed out is on an expensive platform with features that you can't use on the particular CPU, so you are paying too much for something that is effectively the same as 7700k.

So I'd say just buy either a 7700k or Ryzen 1700, both great performers. The Ryzen 1700 is on a new platform that you would be able to just swap the CPU when the new lineup of Ryzen is released in a couple of years, and it tends to perform the same on games released in 2016 onwards so the trend is definitely toward improvements in the core utilisation.

Good information. Thanks alot. Now I'm kinda stuck between i7-7700k and the ryzen 7 1700x. I saw benchmarks and the i7-7700k has slightly more fps in almost every game. However the ryzen has more threads which is more futureproof I guess? Hmm... hard choice.

 

[atljsf]

if you only play games, the 7700k is for you

but remember that you possibly need to delid it and apply better thermal paste

the r7 is a more futureproof cpu and atm no one is mentioning the need of delid it

 

[Deleted member 1267329]

if you only play games, the 7700k is for you

but remember that you possibly need to delid it and apply better thermal paste

the r7 is a more futureproof cpu and atm no one is mentioning the need of delid it

I dont know what delid is and I dont know how to apply the thermal paste. Also, would you say that ryzen will be better than 7700k in the future?

 

[lrrelevant]

@Irrelevant what makes you think the 7740x will overclock any better?

Better binned chips, larger heatspreader to dissipate more heat. Reviewers are already getting these to 5-5.3 GHz already with no trouble.

 

[danielthegreate]

@Irrelevant what makes you think the 7740x will overclock any better?

Better binned chips, larger heatspreader to dissipate more heat. Reviewers are already getting these to 5-5.3 GHz already with no trouble.

5-5.3ghz for such an expensive platform is not good at all. You can get that already with the 7700k. 5ghz easily, a bit of luck and 5.2ghz is no problem. Going to 5.3 isn't much of a performance improvement to justify the steep price of an x299 motherboard, you are essentially buying stuff that you can't use. Also, Bitwit said in his review that his overclock is with a voltage (1.415v) that is not suggested for 24h/7 use.

The larger heat spreader isn't enough of a factor in heat dissipation, the difference in size is not enough to have any significant effect. You even lose some surface contact because the chip is smaller (onboard graphic removed). You are still bound by the dissipation power of your liquid cooler, which will be enough.

 

[lrrelevant]

@Irrelevant what makes you think the 7740x will overclock any better?

Better binned chips, larger heatspreader to dissipate more heat. Reviewers are already getting these to 5-5.3 GHz already with no trouble.

5-5.3ghz for such an expensive platform is not good at all. You can get that already with the 7700k. 5ghz easily, a bit of luck and 5.2ghz is no problem. Going to 5.3 isn't much of a performance improvement to justify the steep price of an x299 motherboard, you are essentially buying stuff that you can't use. Also, Bitwit said in his review that his overclock is with a voltage (1.415v) that is not suggested for 24h/7 use.

The larger heat spreader isn't enough of a factor in heat dissipation, the difference in size is not enough to have any significant effect. You even lose some surface contact because the chip is smaller (onboard graphic removed). You are still bound by the dissipation power of your liquid cooler, which will be enough.

5 GHz is definetely not easy on 7700K. You need amazing cooling aswell as a nicely binned chip, hence why most 7700K's go to 4.8-4.9 tops, with good cooling.

And "not being enough of a factor" that the heatspreader is bigger, doesn't mean it's not there. There WILL be a bigger surface to dissipate heat from with the bigger heatspreader, which will translate to better heat dissipation, given your cooler is powerful enough to move the amount of heat from the heatspreader. And the chip isn't smaller, the iGPU just got disabled/fused off, to serve as a sort of "cooling matter" to the rest of the chip.

https://www.vortez.net/articles_pages/intel_kabylake_x_core_i7_7740x_review_better_than_7700k,5.html

To back this up, i have linked you a benchmark of temperatures under load at 4.5Ghz on both the 7700K and 7740X, that clearly states that thermals have improved. Do you say these temperature drops occured out of thin air? Nevertheless, you get my point.

Not to mention that the overclocking record for the 7740X is 7.562 GHz made at launch day, whereas for the 7700K it's about 7.383GHz, and this CPU has been out for half a year. Coincidence? Think not.

 

[nonsleeper]

5 GHz is definetely not easy on 7700K. You need amazing cooling aswell as a nicely binned chip, hence why most 7700K's go to 4.8-4.9 tops, with good cooling.

While statistics are not out yet for the 7740x, a whopping 62% of 7700k CPUs hit 5.0 (silicon lottary stats) and 91% of them 4.9. So majority hit 5.0.

And "not being enough of a factor" that the heatspreader is bigger, doesn't mean it's not there. There WILL be a bigger surface to dissipate heat from with the bigger heatspreader, which will translate to better heat dissipation, given your cooler is powerful enough to move the amount of heat from the heatspreader.

You are wrong here. The thermal resistance is total contact area between the thermally active component and the heatsink. The heat spreader is just an extra layer of resistance and is added to protect the silicon. Since the silicon is the smaller component, the size of the IHS doesn't reduce your thermal resistence.

https://www.vortez.net/articles_pages/intel_kabylake_x_core_i7_7740x_review_better_than_7700k,5.html

To back this up, i have linked you a benchmark of temperatures under load at 4.5Ghz on both the 7700K and 7740X, that clearly states that thermals have improved. Do you say these temperature drops occured out of thin air? Nevertheless, you get my point.

One guy writing something in a website. How did they reach 81 on their 7700k on stock clock with NZXT Kraken X52 is beyond me. Also their voltage for 7740x on 5.2 with 1.33v indicates that they have a golden chip for 7740x, bitwit had to go above 1.41 for 5.3, I doubt that for 100mhz he added .08v. Regardless, this is one chip against one chip, it can be random or even they might be marketing for intel.

Not to mention that the overclocking record for the 7740X is 7.562 GHz made at launch day, whereas for the 7700K it's about 7.383GHz, and this CPU has been out for half a year. Coincidence? Think not.

Sure thing I will go pay through the nose for an x299 board that I can't use half the features of because 7740x has 0.2ghz higher than 7700k on liquid nitrogen. Get real, this is completely irrelevant. This is the same chip, with internal graphics disabled. No reason to pay extra for it for practical use.

 

[danielthegreate]

5 GHz is definetely not easy on 7700K. You need amazing cooling aswell as a nicely binned chip, hence why most 7700K's go to 4.8-4.9 tops, with good cooling.

And "not being enough of a factor" that the heatspreader is bigger, doesn't mean it's not there. There WILL be a bigger surface to dissipate heat from with the bigger heatspreader, which will translate to better heat dissipation, given your cooler is powerful enough to move the amount of heat from the heatspreader. And the chip isn't smaller, the iGPU just got disabled/fused off, to serve as a sort of "cooling matter" to the rest of the chip.

https://www.vortez.net/articles_pages/intel_kabylake_x_core_i7_7740x_review_better_than_7700k,5.html

To back this up, i have linked you a benchmark of temperatures under load at 4.5Ghz on both the 7700K and 7740X, that clearly states that thermals have improved. Do you say these temperature drops occured out of thin air? Nevertheless, you get my point.

The surface area of the chip is either the same or smaller, so the heat resist between the chip and heatsink is the same. And that website's result for 7700k stock temp on a beast liquid cooler is way out of line. 7700k on stock even on a crappy air cooler is 10 degrees cooler than that.

 

[lrrelevant]

5 GHz is definetely not easy on 7700K. You need amazing cooling aswell as a nicely binned chip, hence why most 7700K's go to 4.8-4.9 tops, with good cooling.

While statistics are not out yet for the 7740x, a whopping 62% of 7700k CPUs hit 5.0 (silicon lottary stats) and 91% of them 4.9. So majority hit 5.0.

And "not being enough of a factor" that the heatspreader is bigger, doesn't mean it's not there. There WILL be a bigger surface to dissipate heat from with the bigger heatspreader, which will translate to better heat dissipation, given your cooler is powerful enough to move the amount of heat from the heatspreader.

You are wrong here. The thermal resistance is total contact area between the thermally active component and the heatsink. The heat spreader is just an extra layer of resistance and is added to protect the silicon. Since the silicon is the smaller component, the size of the IHS doesn't reduce your thermal resistence.

https://www.vortez.net/articles_pages/intel_kabylake_x_core_i7_7740x_review_better_than_7700k,5.html

To back this up, i have linked you a benchmark of temperatures under load at 4.5Ghz on both the 7700K and 7740X, that clearly states that thermals have improved. Do you say these temperature drops occured out of thin air? Nevertheless, you get my point.

One guy writing something in a website. How did they reach 81 on their 7700k on stock clock with NZXT Kraken X52 is beyond me. Also their voltage for 7740x on 5.2 with 1.33v indicates that they have a golden chip for 7740x, bitwit had to go above 1.41 for 5.3, I doubt that for 100mhz he added .08v. Regardless, this is one chip against one chip, it can be random or even they might be marketing for intel.

Not to mention that the overclocking record for the 7740X is 7.562 GHz made at launch day, whereas for the 7700K it's about 7.383GHz, and this CPU has been out for half a year. Coincidence? Think not.

Sure thing I will go pay through the nose for an x299 board that I can't use half the features of because 7740x has 0.2ghz higher than 7700k on liquid nitrogen. Get real, this is completely irrelevant. This is the same chip, with internal graphics disabled. No reason to pay extra for it for practical use.

I'm just highlighting the proof that the 7740X overclocks better than the 7700K. This is with voltage in mind, not the max reachable frequency. Sure you can probably reach 5 ghz on 60% of all 7700Ks, but how many needed 1.4volts or more to get there? Longevitiy of the chip plays a role to alot of people, who would wanna keep their chip for more than a week, lol.

Oh and yes, 100Mhz can definetely add 0.8Millivolts. When you creep towards the limit of reachable clockspeeds of a chip, an increase of a whopping 0.1MHz can take alot of additional power, so it would make sense if it took 1.41 volts to hit 5.3. How many 7700K's reach that anyway? Not many.

It is an odd launch indeed, but most people are hating on intel just to hate. Yes it will be expensive if not pointlessly expensive, but no one's forcing you to buy it. It's probably going to appeal to a small bunch of people, for example overclockers, or people striving for the best single threaded performance possible.

 

[Isokolon]

Just to chip in, cannonlake will indeed be 10nm
But it won't be released in August.
Since Intel has major problems making it work they'll release coffeelake in August.
Coffeelake will most likely use the lga1151 but eventually come with a slightly high core count. At least this was rumoured. Don't know how this new Skylake-X releases change things

 

[nonsleeper]

I'm just highlighting the proof that the 7740X overclocks better than the 7700K. This is with voltage in mind, not the max reachable frequency. Sure you can probably reach 5 ghz on 60% of all 7700Ks, but how many needed 1.4volts or more to get there? Longevitiy of the chip plays a role to alot of people, who would wanna keep their chip for more than a week, lol.

How many of the 7740x need more than 1.4 to get there? It is the same CPU after all, with the on board graphics disabled. Not a new architecture and not a new process. Just a bit better power delivery on board.

Oh and yes, 100Mhz can definetely add 0.8Millivolts. When you creep towards the limit of reachable clockspeeds of a chip, an increase of a whopping 0.1MHz can take alot of additional power, so it would make sense if it took 1.41 volts to hit 5.3. How many 7700K's reach that anyway? Not many.

How many of 7740x will reach 5.3? We don't know yet. What voltage do they need to achieve that and is it lower on average than 7700k? We don't know yet. A couple of anecdotes is not data.

It is an odd launch indeed, but most people are hating on intel just to hate. Yes it will be expensive if not pointlessly expensive, but no one's forcing you to buy it. It's probably going to appeal to a small bunch of people, for example overclockers, or people striving for the best single threaded performance possible.

Sure a very small group of people might buy it for whatever reason. But I wouldn't recommend it to the regular consumer. I didn't say at any point that I am forced to buy it, neither did anyone else. We just made it clear that this chip is the same as 7700k and is just a moneygrab from intel. We also didn't say this to hate on intel, we said this to help a fellow consumer.

 

[danielthegreate]

Good information. Thanks alot. Now I'm kinda stuck between i7-7700k and the ryzen 7 1700x. I saw benchmarks and the i7-7700k has slightly more fps in almost every game. However the ryzen has more threads which is more futureproof I guess? Hmm... hard choice.

That's more of a personal choice really. You are choosing between 4 more cores on 1700x and 5-10% gaming performance on 7700k. So essentially it boils down to trading off 60% higher processing power in multithreading in 1700 with 5-10% gaming performance in the high fps range with 7700k.