Discussion why ANYONE would buy an 7000-x cpu now

gamr

Prominent
Jul 29, 2022
113
5
585
with the non-x variants, im assuming all you need to do is to PBO/manually overclock to get perf of 7000-x cpus
 
Personally speaking i will not play KEEPING UP WITH THE JONE'S.

I have a friend that has a 5800x and complains that he's not getting the performance he wants, but won't even turn on PBO when he has a H150i EC to take care of the heat load.

He is all caught up in Instant Gratification,
And always ready to move to bigger better with the Least amount of Effort.
 
A different point of view -

I have been in the IT field for decades. It is my job but also my hobby. I enjoy benching, tweaking, and testing systems. I enjoy discussing ways to eke out more performance from components and helping (and getting help from) others. It is my relaxation, my escape. Spending money on things that I enjoy doing is my choice. I fully recognize that 'keeping up with the Joneses' will never end - which I am very thankful for, as it is a journey that I can continue to enjoy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mossi
The only right answer is given by kanewolf (above): we really need to wait for tests/reviews.
But because of fun, here's my take on this...
If/when I'm ready to spend several hundreds of € on CPU, Mobo, RAM and maybe on new M.2 SSD.. then I really don't mind paying a bit more to get 7000X version. Rational thinking behind that is, if something doesn't work (in case of overclocking an non-X CPU), then I'm at least sure it's not my fault. And at the end, I can still use 7000X at low power mode.
I think, non-X will be perfect solution for those who have smaller PC case (cooling issue), or simply where the ultimate performance isn't the most important thing.. or are just looking after new PC at lower budget.
 

sonofjesse

Distinguished
But they knew the early adopters would flock to the X chips. They came out months ago, this will offer better price points for the OEM's.

Also just cause the chips are the same don't be surprised if you see threads of people saying my Non X won't boost to what the X does (a lot of times not alwayws the are the lower enned chips that was not hitting the boost clocks).

Now to the AVG person zero people will care, the 65 watts looks GREAT and these will sell like hot cakes i think if the prices are better.

If I had not just built I would be heavily looking at these, but who knows when these will actually be on the "shelf" to buy in the states, shipping times etc.
 
Everything is still handled by a single core - even instructions relayed to other cores.
Core parallelization never took off. It's still in serial; performance is often tied to how busy that one core is.
You’re about 5 years behind. Modern titles use multiple cores and some don’t even run in dual cores anymore. This is partially driven by consoles having a lot of threads to work with now too
 
  • Like
Reactions: drivinfast247
You’re about 5 years behind. Modern titles use multiple cores and some don’t even run in dual cores anymore. This is partially driven by consoles having a lot of threads to work with now too
So you're saying there would be no difference in performance to disable half the cores in a 8 core CPU and play a game such as Modern Warfare?
What they're talking about is that games are still run in sequence because that's just the nature of the beast. You can't render graphics without processing the rest of the game logic, you can't run AI without updating the game world state, you can't update the game world state without updating the physics, player input, etc. And while these sub-steps may have multiple threads to handle them, they're still typically given stuff to do by a single manager thread.

Start on page 15: https://www.guerrilla-games.com/media/News/Files/Valient_Killzone_Shadow_Fall_Demo_Postmortem.pdf
 

Phaaze88

Titan
Ambassador
@LordVile @drivinfast247 , hotaru.hino put it better than I could've.
I'm not 5 years behind. If anything's behind, it's software, always playing catch up with hardware.
Even the mighty 13900K and 7950X with all their speed and multiple cores/CCDs, still drive games by a SINGLE THREAD.
To desire an upgrade later on, is less likely from a lack of cores, but because the master thread 'is slow' or even faster ones are available... it's quite a waste, yeah?

@gamr , casual manual OCing is pretty much dead as the nature of it has changed from always beneficial to sacrificial. Extreme lives on.
Applying all core OCs on some of today's cpus, some users are shooting themselves in the foot, because that single thread may have achieved higher speeds before the OC.
Max boost clock scales with the number of active threads and not all games take advantage of 8+ threads. Adding to this, I imagine no one wants to go and enable/disable their OCs based on what game they're playing.
 

Eximo

Titan
Ambassador
Even as an enthusiast with custom water cooling, I probably won't be overclocking future CPUs. They effectively overclock themselves. Same with GPUs (Maybe a little memory overclock and call it a day)

That doesn't mean I won't buy the next K or X series chip. Sometimes that extra few hundred Mhz is worth having.
 
With processor speeds already reaching 4.5GHz under all-core boost conditions, a few hundred megahertz theoretically adds <10% of a performance boost while significantly increasing the power consumption in many cases. The relative uplift gets worse the faster the factory all-core boost is capable of.

If performance at all cost is what you're after, then sure. But for most people, they won't even notice a difference outside of benchmarks and looking at the result.
 

Eximo

Titan
Ambassador
With processor speeds already reaching 4.5GHz under all-core boost conditions, a few hundred megahertz theoretically adds <10% of a performance boost while significantly increasing the power consumption in many cases. The relative uplift gets worse the faster the factory all-core boost is capable of.

If performance at all cost is what you're after, then sure. But for most people, they won't even notice a difference outside of benchmarks and looking at the result.

Yep, 10900F boosts to 5.2Ghz single core, 5.1Ghz dual core, and 4.6Ghz all core.

I had my previous 7700K at 5Ghz all core. I consider this a fine trade off.

Had I bought a 10850k or 10900k it would be maybe 5.1 or 5.2Ghz all core, but most of those cores would just sit around wasting power.