nathanddrews
Graphics Cards, CPU Moderator
Isn't that how everything is now? LOLBut I don't like this attitude either way of one side is irrelevant.
Isn't that how everything is now? LOLBut I don't like this attitude either way of one side is irrelevant.
Memory bandwidth requirements are mostly a function of the CPU architecture, though. New software won't modify the SB execution pipeline to make it more bandwidth hungry.
The results still aren't really valid since everyone and their pet hamster has overclocked their 2500K's. It shows AMD were on the right path with Bulldozer, but the execution was a total disaster.
Indeed.I'm a little suspicious of how bad the 2500k looks there, but meh I kinda hope its true -- I want an excuse to upgrade!
Of course its impossible to compare results when no one in history has ran a 2500k stock.
My 2500k has served me well over the years. About a year ago I started considering upgrading to a 6 core intel processor (not because I needed it, but because I just wanted to build something new). I'm glad I waited, and will finally be able to seriously consider buying AMD again (I plan to get a 1700X or 1800X in the next 2-3 months).
Don't really think you'll find many 2500k's out there that weren't overclocked.
An interesting CPU test has been published by computerbase.de. AMD's CPU beats Intel's by 11% in new games that rely on multithreading more than older games.
I think that a new era of true 6 and 8 core will have begun in mainstream CPUs market with the release of new Ryzen CPUs with their good prices and Intel's i7 prices will lower afterwards, especially after the release of 6 core Ryzen in 2 half of the year.
https://www.computerbase.de/2017-02...-test/#abschnitt_performancerating_in_full_hd
The more I see of anand's gaming tests, the less faith I put in them. Those results make absolutely no sense. Forgetting about Intel vs AMD, they show a haswell i3 beating both 4790k and 6700k. Really strange.Sometime AMD is really good.
Look at this CF test:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/1338
I would like to see Ryzen with CF.
Test with slow ram=irrelevant.Not only SB, but also kaby lake is effected by crap memory speed in that test.An interesting CPU test has been published by computerbase.de. AMD's CPU beats Intel's by 11% in new games that rely on multithreading more than older games.
I think that a new era of true 6 and 8 core will have begun in mainstream CPUs market with the release of new Ryzen CPUs with their good prices and Intel's i7 prices will lower afterwards, especially after the release of 6 core Ryzen in 2 half of the year.
https://www.computerbase.de/2017-02...-test/#abschnitt_performancerating_in_full_hd
They uses 2400Mhz for kabylake btw.Sweetspot for skylake/kabylake is 3600Mhz.
Agree. Looks fishy. But often those ram test is kind of difficult. Frankly the results looks more like single channel to me.That is really strange, especially since those are minimums.
Its not myth.Skylake/kabylake is just memory bandwidth bottleneck.Thats why stock 7700k with fast ram is 15% faster than 4.8Ghz 7700k in witcher3 with slow ram.This myth about skl is idiotic and just proves how slow progress have been. People needs lots of excuses.
AMD looks better with Radeon than Geforce:The more I see of anand's gaming tests, the less faith I put in them. Those results make absolutely no sense. Forgetting about Intel vs AMD, they show a haswell i3 beating both 4790k and 6700k. Really strange.
I think it's legit to test with the officially supported RAM speeds and stock speeds.
Of course it's legit, it's stupid to think otherwise. Testing at official speeds gives meaningful information even if there are other data points available.
These "enthusiasts" with tunnel vision are just like any other "enthusiasts" who are somewhat detached from reality. See car people saying something similar about cars; "nobody drives a <insertcarname> without a tune and an aftermarket exhaust so testing a stock car is completely useless". Flashlight people are the same about their batteries and kitchen knife people are the same about their sharpening stones, and so on.
Of course knowing how far the end users can push a product past stock is interesting, but testing at stock is also important. In fact stock results are much more important as a scientific, objective, baseline. "Blah blah blah i don't think blah" about CPU/RAM clocks is not a concrete data point.
Well to be honest, though I do agree with your analogy to cars, etc. The 2500k was marketed directly to overclockers and there was a cheaper non o/c friendly version sold to the mass market. While I'm sure there are people that purchased 2500k processors with no intent in overclocking them, I'd venture to guess that they were the minority non the majority (as they had to pay extra for the privilege to be able to o/c them).
How is the i5-7600K at stock getting 80FPS avg in the most multithread demanding games showing clearly that the i5 is not enough anymore?I've have people argue with me saying an i5 is enough for gaming but this clearly shows this isn't true as new games continue to release.
FX should overclock higher. My 8350 runs @ 5 GHz on air...Lol. Overclock both and see who wins. My old 2500k hits 4,5 ghz.
How is the i5-7600K at stock getting 80FPS avg in the most multithread demanding games showing clearly that the i5 is not enough anymore?