It's only a clock speed difference anyway, right?630 officially does not exist yet
Who wants to buy a Core i7-7700K officially in the US for less than U$ 400 today?
www.pcconnection.com/product/intel-processor-core-i7-7700k/bx80677i77700k/33136801
Just bought me a 7700K, thanks for the find Sweepr. Let's get to 5GHz!
Are you going to delid?
Naw, I'm going to do my best with the current TIM. I'm really clumsy and don't want to murder a $400 CPU!
The chinese websites just published their definitive Core i7-7700K reviews and there' a lot of interesting stock + overclock tests. Expreview compared Lynnfield vs Sandy Bridge vs Ivy Bridge vs Haswell vs Skylake vs Kaby Lake - very useful data.
PConline Core i7-7700K Review
http://itbbs.pconline.com.cn/diy/53296594.html
Expreview - Core i7-7700K Review
- Stock:
- Fixed 4.0 GHz
www.expreview.com/49967-all.html
Desktop chips are the first victims in limits of design and physics.Core i7 860 release date September 2009 at $285
7 years later and we dont even get double (2x) the performance at the same price.
Really pathetic actually if we think how performance was increasing every year up to SandyBridge (2011).
Desktop chips are the first victims in limits of design and physics.
The Kabylake chip in mobile is 50 to 70% faster than Sandy Bridge based U chip. It's 20% faster than 35W M chip. That's in 2011 mind you.
Against a 2009 M chip, its nearly 50% faster. Against U it's 150% faster.
All the while battery life increased more than 100%.
It's true architectural benefits are greater in the low end so with i5s it's even greater, and Celeron and Pentiums even more so. It seems to be true with lower TDPs.
$285 for the 860 in 2009 is about $321.00 today.
$305 for the 870 in 2009 is about $343.00 today.
So that's a 6700K price.
So I would say prices are roughly the same today as in 2009 for these chips.
You are getting a ton more performance today for the money, imo.
As i have said before, 7 years later and we only get 50-60% on average more performance than in 2009 for the same price. Pathetic no matter how you look at it.
Take Core 2 duo E6600 launched July 2006 at $315, then we got Core 2 Quad 6600 at $266 one year later in August 2007, then in Q1 2008 we got the Core 2 Quad 9450 at $266 and just 8-10 months later in Q4 2008 we got Core i7 920 at $284.
From Summer of 2006 to December of 2008 we got more than double the performance at the same price, what a ride.
As i have said before, 7 years later and we only get 50-60% on average more performance than in 2009 for the same price. Pathetic no matter how you look at it.
It is quite pathetic, I agree. Same with their Iris Pro GPUs too(IMO they should have been 3x as fast 2 years ago. At some point though, we have to accept it can't be just incompetence or artificial crippling. Mobile is proof that they genuinely can't do much for top end performance anymore. Progress is slow and linear, except in computers. Now its same with computers. They say they use dozens of materials in the periodic table to fabricate chips nowadays, when just a few years ago it was a handful. It'll be very hard to accept. Imagine the same thing 30 years from now.
I think the lack of progress in iGPU has more to do with what the market will pay. Customers who aren't gaming don't really care about iGPU performance (clearly the case with corp. customers) - so there is no reason for Intel to expend more die space for improved performance. Customers who game just buy a system with a dGPU.
I am wondering how much better is 7700k than 4790k ? Anybody look at some benches ?
Probably around 10-15%.
So i guess there is no need to hurry too much for upgrade Even with ddr3 i guess it's fine for now.
No need to upgrade. Wait for Coffee Lake, it will bring more cores.