Intel i7 8700k vs 7700k?

Hello dear forumers!

Is the 8700k better than the 7700k if OCd both to 5 ghz?

I read here at multiple places that the 7700k is better for dcs. But i ask why?

At same clock, HT off, with enough cooling they are the same on paper. It's the same cache per core. And as dcs uses only a few cores (for now) i don't understand why the 8700k is worse in one core performance.

Could somebody please enlighten me?

I've checked out a few tests and the 8700k was worse in numerous cases e.g. in Ashes of the singularity escalation. Why? Was it used at base clock?

If the i7 7700k and 8700k are both OCd to let's say 5 ghz, then is the one core performance the same? Both CPUs have the same cache per core. Logically it should be. If not, why? Somebody explain, please.

Cost-wise the 8700k costs only 30-40 dollars more here in Middle-Europe.

Or should I wait until October? I heard that Intel releases its 9xxx series with 8 cores fiveish ghz turbo clocks.

I have both CPU's and I have played DCS on both, also both at 5G and the 8700k even at 5.2G ( delidded, the 7700k isn't yet ).

Both CPU's are great but with ED going the multi-threaded way already and VR and Streaming, TiR and other side-gadgets I think the move to the 8700k was worth it.

The downside is the chipset, the Z270 imho is a lot riper than the Z370 will ever be. It may be my board, it may be the chipset, but I had far less trouble with my 7700k setup, stability, RAM acceptance, USB hiccups, etc..all that stuff you think you wont encounter with Asus & Intel anymore, well...those times are back imho. Too mayn new models in such a short time cause development shortcomings. Meltdown & Spectre added their own salt to the soup. The dish is not A-Grade, it's A-Grade in Speed but only B-Grade anywhere else.

If I had to buy again, I'd go AMD.

If I had to buy again, I'd go AMD.

any particular reason?

you’d be blazing a pretty new trail. not too many gamers going that direction. even less mature than the Z370 route.

At the moment the 7700K is still good, I'm running DCS at max settings @ 1440P. If Vulkan does what I think it will, then going to more cores will be beneficial possibly. E.g. amd 2700X 8-core or a threadripper 1950x 16-core!!

I will wait and see how it goes with Vulkan first to just see how beneficial it would be with 16-cores and a 1180ti. It may max out with my 4 core 7700, using all it's threads more? This will take a little tweaking on ED's part to get the most out of it, sounds like a lot of work with this new tech.

Base programming and testing should be finished next month. We'll then work on transferring our shaders to the new API. This is a very new technology for us, and it is quite possible that we will run into unforeseen issues during that phase. DCS World uses many complicated shaders that may not necessarily play nice with the Vulkan API.

 

Thanks!

Why not just wait for the 9900k getting ready to drop around Oct. 8 Cores that can overlock past 5Ghz...

I sincerely doubt that that specific CPU will have enough cooling capacity/surface to dissipate north of 200w, soldered or not.

My 6-core CPU already goes 180w with a very efficient watercool loop, I wonder if that was enough for 8 cores at 5G ( ~ +33% more juice needed )

4.5G seems more realistic to me and should already be plenty for DCS and resolutions and LOD above medium values.

DCS needs parallelization to take advantage of additional cores, but since more cores is the way of the future instead of higher clock frequency, your money is better spent on more cores. Threadripper 2950x seems like it's the best option.

A bit too costly for pure gaming, only worth getting if you want to get multi GPU one day (when it finally is enabled in API's), and its a bit too soon for 16c/32T yet.

if you really want similar core counts on the gaming desktop without paying near 1000$ price tag for the CPU alone I suggest waiting 6 more months for AMD's 7nm CPU's, although I think 8c/16t threads is already on the bleeding edge right now regarding gaming. Intel will be offering a faster CPU next October albeit for a predictably higher price.

Agree, for gaming only a 2700X is enough and half the price, hence half the cores. Also the board is a lot cheaper for Ryzen than for Threadripper.

Still, OMG..this 2950X with it's 4-core 4.4GHz XFR2 boost is awesome.

I think the 60 PCIe lanes is why you should go with at least a Threadripper. Regular Ryzen/Intel don't have anywhere close to that number of PCIe lanes.

Personally, I'm waiting for the Intel 9th gen series (possibly October debut). Early benchmark leak on the 9900K looks really good. I wouldn't bet on DCS World getting full multi-core support anytime soon, and for single core performance it's hard to beat Intel which will easily go beyond 5 GHz.

Hello dear forumers!

 

Is the 8700k better than the 7700k if OCd both to 5 ghz?

 

I read here at multiple places that the 7700k is better for dcs. But i ask why?

At same clock, HT off, with enough cooling they are the same on paper. It's the same cache per core. And as dcs uses only a few cores (for now) i don't understand why the 8700k is worse in one core performance.

Could somebody please enlighten me?

 

I've checked out a few tests and the 8700k was worse in numerous cases e.g. in Ashes of the singularity escalation. Why? Was it used at base clock?

If the i7 7700k and 8700k are both OCd to let's say 5 ghz, then is the one core performance the same? Both CPUs have the same cache per core. Logically it should be. If not, why? Somebody explain, please.

 

Cost-wise the 8700k costs only 30-40 dollars more here in Middle-Europe.

 

Or should I wait until October? I heard that Intel releases its 9xxx series with 8 cores fiveish ghz turbo clocks.

whatever you do, wait for 9xxx

Far out, i9, last year I was about to but a new system, then all my crypto crashed. Just got some shares available and about to build and now i9 is coming....

Far out, i9, last year I was about to but a new system, then all my crypto crashed. Just got some shares available and about to build and now i9 is coming....

Crypto will go back up eventually:cry: Perhaps once all this government crap is sorted, the tech is sound and will be come mainstream eventually, mine are down also. Remember to always take profit when you can on the gains. I'm going to hold out on a PC build until I see the i9 and 1180ti. I also want to see how DCS performs with Vulkan / cores before any decision.

I will be doing a build closer to end of the year also, hoping for that i9 myself.

With a kind of modern i7 somewhere around 4.5 and beyond I wouldnt upgrade either.

Time will tell if an 4.2GHz 12core will outperform a 4.5-5GHz 6 or 8 core.

With Vulkan and possible mGPU in mind it was wise to not bet on a 20-lane horse but consider something that can truely fire 2 x GPU and a bunch of NVME's, all with their native speed w/o compromising other hardware in use.

This means either a WS class chipset from Intel or AMD.

I have now had 3 x Desktop style boards after a decade of WS parts and I wanna go back more sooner than later. Limitations everywhere you look.

Just a note for those wondering to get either a 8C/8T I7 9700K or the 8700K 6C/12T, dont bother waiting and get the latter. they are both cofee lake arch and the difference in gaming is frankly negligible and thats due to games engines not being well optimized for logical threads. The interesting chip is the 8C/16T I9 9900K part. So if your not going to get that one you should get any of the 8 series right now.

Like the 8600K. The best for the buck.

Just a note for those wondering to get either a 8C/8T I7 9700K or the 8700K 6C/12T, dont bother waiting and get the latter. they are both cofee lake arch and the difference in gaming is frankly negligible and thats due to games engines not being well optimized for logical threads. The interesting chip is the 8C/16T I9 9900K part. So if your not going to get that one you should get any of the 8 series right now.

Problem I have is I dont upgrade very often. I can fly DCS and play every other game with acceptable performance (for me) on my old i7-2600k with an R9-200 GPU. Granted I only fly in 1920x1280 on a 28" screen.

So if I went to the latest and it lasts me 5 years or I wait until the latest come out and the current ones price drops I can lose. Except I am always waiting!!

If my 2600k hadn't fried it could well be that I would still ride that horse. I doubt it's too weak if you clock it to 4.5 or better

If my 2600k hadn't fried it could well be that I would still ride that horse. I doubt it's too weak if you clock it to 4.5 or better

I got to agree Sandybridge was epic, my 2500k mobo had not have died

it would still be using it

4k gaming is the same across CPUs anyways, so it doesn't make sense to maximize single threaded performance since you won't see a difference in 4k.

4k gaming is the same across CPUs anyways, so it doesn't make sense to maximize single threaded performance since you won't see a difference in 4k.

IIRC, most of physics calculations are single-threaded currently and are hard (if at all possible) to be done in parallel. That's the bottleneck - you have to get your physics before drawing the frame.

So you want to maximize the single-threaded performance on your CPU to actually get data to draw on screen in time. But IMHO current market state gives not so many options and the clocks aren't getting any higher soon.

P.S. I decided to not wait any longer and bought 8700k. Mainly because of MoBo with 2 PCIe M.2 slots. I couldn't get much boost other than from disks, as compared to my old i7-4770. At least the levels load faster now.

IIRC, most of physics calculations are single-threaded currently and are hard (if at all possible) to be done in parallel. That's the bottleneck - you have to get your physics before drawing the frame.

 

So you want to maximize the single-threaded performance on your CPU to actually get data to draw on screen in time. But IMHO current market state gives not so many options and the clocks aren't getting any higher soon.

 

P.S. I decided to not wait any longer and bought 8700k. Mainly because of MoBo with 2 PCIe M.2 slots. I couldn't get much boost other than from disks, as compared to my old i7-4770. At least the levels load faster now.

Why aren't physics calculations handled by the GPU?

Why aren't physics calculations handled by the GPU?

Could be lots of reasons. Maybe the asynchronous nature of physics and graphics calculations makes it unfeasible (AFAIK the physics calculations are performed at a higher, locked frequency). Maybe the current software architecture doesn't allow it. Maybe they just haven't gotten around to it.