安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文（繁体中文）
日本語（日语）
한국어（韩语）
ไทย（泰语）
български（保加利亚语）
Čeština（捷克语）
Dansk（丹麦语）
Deutsch（德语）
English（英语）
Español-España（西班牙语 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希腊语）
Français（法语）
Italiano（意大利语）
Bahasa Indonesia（印度尼西亚语）
Magyar（匈牙利语）
Nederlands（荷兰语）
Norsk（挪威语）
Polski（波兰语）
Português（葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙）
Português-Brasil（葡萄牙语 - 巴西）
Română（罗马尼亚语）
Русский（俄语）
Suomi（芬兰语）
Svenska（瑞典语）
Türkçe（土耳其语）
Tiếng Việt（越南语）
Українська（乌克兰语）
报告翻译问题
讨论规则及指引
举报此帖
Tell that To Battlefield 1 and GTAV. There is no reason to not get an i7 and many reasons to not get an i5.
yes the i 8 is the best .. now .. try to find one and a decent Z 370 mobo ..thats the problem
Clock speed DEFINE performance. You don't understand the point here, there is absolutely zero gain here because
1. Games are still primarily made for Quad cores with HT. See GTA V.
2. No IPC gain on CL. Instructions per CLOCK.
3. Next to none availability on CL CPU. It's a paper launch. Or you can pay Case King, they have $500 i7-8700k CPU. You're welcome to.
Why did AMD win this round? Because we have hit a physical limitations on how much die shrinking and IPC improvement can be. They won because they add more cores. That doesn't exactly translate to better GAMING performance. The key issue is Ryzen cost MUCH cheaper to manufacture vs monolithic die Intel is using. They can afford prices unimaginable to Intel, see TR vs i9. 16 cores cost half of 18 cores. Price.
Point is they both love cores. You get a much better experience with an i7 in 64 player Battlefield 1 and GTAV online and most large open world onliine games. I5s are really gonna fall off in the future, hell the new i3s are I5s now, I5s are now I7s, and I7s are 6/12s (8000 series CPUS)
1) The cheapest useful processor whatsoever is the Intel Pentium G4560. (2C/4T)
2) The cheapest useful upgrade over that is the i3 8100. (4C/4T)
3) A bit above that you've got the Ryzen 5 1600 which got way better multi-threaded performance though there's some game titles the i3 8100 is a bit better at. The 1600 can be overclocked too though which if you do decrease those times. (6C/12T)
The best bang gaming procesor for the average buyer?
4) i5 8400. (6C/6T)
Even better multicore performance:
5) Ryzen 7 1700 - Even better if overclocked. Better multithreaded performance, will not keep up with Intel in all games but to reach those frame-rates in some of those games you need very a very capable graphics card and to run at lower graphics settings to want to hit them. People who are happy with ~100 fps in some of those games may rather increase the graphics settings and never get there anyway. (8C/16T)
The best performing gaming processor whatsoever right now:
6) i7 8700K - with OC it's near but not completely catching up with Ryzen 7 in all multi-threaded tasks, at some video and AVX tasks it is faster though, and it will run games the best right now. (6C/12T)
Alternatives:
7) i7 7800X - Easier to buy than 8700K right now, lower clock and slightly lower gaming performance, the difference become less when overclocked. The 7800X got even better AVX performance and is for the Intel HEDT platform with quad-channel memory support and 28 rather than 16 PCI-express lanes from the processor meaning the platform/motherboards are superior for expanding / running multiple M.2 NVMe drives and such. Price of whole platform isn't much more than that of the 8700K and support processors with up to 18(?) cores. (6C/12T)
8) ThreadRipper 1900X - May handle a tiny bit higher clock than the Ryzen 7 and sit on AMDs entusiast platform also with quad channel memory support and 64 PCI-express lanes for superior expansion capabilities. But cost quite a bit more than the 7800X above. (8C/16T)
The 8700K will run games the best (though the i7 8400 is better bang for the buck for gaming alone.)
The 7800X is around 15% worse performing than 8700K without OC, with AVX performance being an exception where it's faster. It just cost a bit more and the platform is superior for having multiple graphics cards, expansion cards, M.2 or U2 SSD drives.
TR 1900X support even more expandibility but it cost a whole lot more and is unlikely much more fast than Ryzen 7 1800X / with OC.
I think the two to choice from if that's really what you want to spend is the 8700K + Z370 or 7800X + X299.
No, just get the i5 8400 instead and save money if that's the performance you want.
Used? Else why would one buy that old processor, and why buy 6700K or 7700K new when 8400 exist which is cheaper (in the case of 7700K you could of course OC it for a tiny bit higher performance but also higher price and higher power consumption and if you are spending that money why not get the 8700 or 8700K instead?)
That's a poor answer since Intel has just released new gear, you even can't find them in the store right now, and people want to buy now, you can always wait a lot longer and get even better stuff, but you can't buy them now so right now they are irrelevant. Little is known about why it would be a better choice too. Here in Sweden I can order the 8700K at what would be MSRP; but I'd be served at a first ordered first served basis and it's not in stock. So it wouldn't deliver until it is. But the price isn't pushed up. Eventually inventories will be there. While IPC and clock is basically unaffected between 8700K and 7700K it adds two more cores meaning it's close to 50% better. The 8700K is a much bigger step from 7700K than 7700K was from 6700K or 6700K was against 4790K.
Even if Ice lake would offer additional connectivity and maybe (but not likely?) better AVX you can already get that with the 7800X right now. And upgraded ports you could get as expansion cards for that platform. Just like 6800K and 5820K has offered 6 cores just like the 7800K (and quad-channel support and more PCI-express lanes) for years.
8700K has much better multi-threaded performance than the 7700K and will completely trash it for video encoding, ray-tracing, multitasking, archive creation and extraction, streaming and yes also games onwards.
The i5 4460 was a decent processor back then, just like the i5 8400 is now.
I have the AMD Phenom X4 9850 with is worse than the AMD Phenom II X4 955 for instance which is worse than the FX-4100 which is worse than the FX-8350.. For instance. So.. go figure how the 8700K would be against mine ;D (more than 6 times better at multi-threaded tasks.)
Only thing you should benchmark with Arma 3 is Arma 3 though. Arma 3 is running a garbage engine for multi-core processors. It wouldn't care if you had 16 cores either.
You will of course get engines more capable of using more cores now when they are available (was said about FX-processors too but their performance / core was trash, Ryzen and Core 8th gen doesn't have weak cores.)
No it's a stupid choice, more expensive than i5 8400 and would get owned by it all the time.
Broadwell, the i5 5675C and i7 5775C wasn't very visible. They got delayed and Skylake was released soon upon that on new chipset and motherboards. Broadwell was the first 14 nm design but come at a much lower clock than Haswell before it, these models had lots of L4 cache/eDRAM and they were usually delivering higher game performance than Haswell even though they had lower clock-rate. Great chips. A bit more expensive likely because of the 128 MB of L4/eDRAM.
No it won't. Because it's got 50% more cores.
---
So far just ONE(?) of you people have answered his question somewhat correctly. Impressive! ..
Price. Especially for the i5 8400.
I have no trouble finding motherboards. Some people here in Sweden could order i7 8700K from the store this friday, some others got their delivery then. Not an unlucky day for them.
I ordered both the i5 8400 and the i7 8700K at release day and the i5 8400 was in stock and I could already have that. Much better deal than i7 7700K. I haven't got it because they would ship it with the 8700K and I guess I'll go with 8700K instead even though it's much more expensive (twice the cost, plus 8400 is available) and right now not usually not better for games. If I told them to ship i5 8400 alone they of course would. I could had ordered it alone from the beginning and got it shipped alone. They don't charge any fee for shipping from that place. And they were sold at the "correct" prices 1890 SEK and 3790K SEK.
Together with everything else it does.
1) Because that's what was on offer and what people had.
Quake 1 didn't even support two cores or a 3D accelerating graphics card - because that wasn't something people had then!
2) But 50% more cores.
3) But now the question was what to buy. And if you are desperate for a 6 core Intel chip and 8700K isn't in stock get the 7800X instead and be happy with your purchase. It's a tiny bit slower for some applications including games but it's still a great processor and platform and it doesn't cost much either.
AMD haven't won. If anything AMD won the last round .. The i7 8400 is a more attractive gaming processor than what Ryzen have. the i3 8100 likely is too. The i7 8700K is the best one you can get currently. AMD have an advantage in multi-threaded performance and Intel in gaming, (some) video and other things using AVX - even more so with Intel HEDT.
You can use Ryzen just fine for gaming. At the worst case the Intel processor may be 30% faster but it's not the average and unless you've got a GTX 1080 or better chances are your graphics card will hold you back anyway (not for CS:GO then again does it really matter if CS:GO run at 500 or 800 FPS?)
What will be interesting from AMD is when they relase Navi and do the same thing with GPUs ...
Also maybe the new 12 nm Ryzen chips will catch up with Intel 8th gen _AND_ have the core advantage. But they aren't out yet. Right now 8700K or 7800X is what you choose for games if you are fine with up to $500.
The Intel HEDT i7s and i9s are called 7xxx.
Unless AVX & RAM performance and expandibility or availabilty make the i7 7800X a better choice.
Coffee Lake right now hasn't upset anything, AMD just discount Ryzen CPU and they still come out on top on sales, because CL isn't even here in enough quantity. And then tons of Kaby Lake CPU are stuck in stock so much now Intel has to bundle games with them. And Intel already planning for Ice Lake, which is far more likely to be Ryzen/Ryzen II killer.
So your choice, i7-7800x which is very bad at gaming (mesh vs ringbus) or wait.
True state of gaming CPU
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i7_8700K/11.html
YVMW.
Click next page? I assume you know why we do 720p, to show CPU bottleneck?
720p is so passé even for cpu proving.
Hell the GTX1050ti is basically an entry level card with the GTX1060/980 being the new mid range cards so why even bother with 720p, who cares what a cpu can push at 720p with a freaking 1080ti, even a gtx 1070 is more than enough at 1080p and the gtx1080/80ti will show all the cpu bottleneck you need to see at 1080p.
720p, lol.
Ps,
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i7_8700K/14.html
That's the page that really matters ^ min fps.
My brain decided that what you said was that at the same clock-rate they would perform the same (based on the talk of IPC gains) and there's some people who want processors compared at the same clock-rate which is just fine to see IPC but not at all acceptable when actually comparing their performance against each other. Anyway, the 8700K is nowhere near as slow as the 6700K at the same clock mostly because of having two more cores. Edited my reply.
I know Intel dropped mentioning the boost. Whatever that's because the i5 8400 won't hit 3.8 GHz for everyone (which I guess it may not do with AVX and of course there's some chances some chips simply won't get there within the limits they have set up) or because they want people to buy more expensive processors by saying "yeah.. you could get the cheaper i5 8400.. but it's got a much lower clock and you can't overclock it! Take one of a higher tier instead!" I don't know. Possibly both. Maybe they shouldn't promise 3.8 GHz at-least, but it isn't a promise either.
Even worse AMD even put four Ryzen in their Threadrippers .. I don't know if it may be the case that they just use four cores in each or do it as a way to ensure they have good yields but I assume it's simply because at manufacturing they make no difference of Threadripper and Epyc.
Also I haven't counted the number of steps between cores but while Ryzen Infinity Fabric may have worse connectivity between cores than the Intel Ring Bus so does the new Intel Mesh and put cores far enough in a matrix with the Mesh bus and you'll end up with a whole lot of steps away whereas the Ryzen and then up to Epyc Infinity Fabric may have fewer steps at high core counts.
Which game(s) come with 7th gen Intel?
Ice lake is quite a bit off from now, it's definitely not an option right now. Cannon lake is still due inbetween, or? Also Z370 won't be compatible with Ice lake but will be with Cannon lake AFAIK.
I've read before that in 2019-2020 Intel could drop some old instructions to modernize the processors, eventually we'll get the Core replacement I guess but I don't expect very drastic changes. AVX 512, PCI-express 4.0, maybe more memory channels or for the main-stream platform maybe more likely DDR5 or whatever support, "new" connectivity with USB 3.2, Thunderbolt and such, possibly adaptation towards AI / competing with the GPU makers there. I wonder if Intel will want to bring that into the CPU to a larger extent, for cost/simplicy reasons? They have pulled things inside before. But at what cost?
Whichever guy on YouTube did overclock the Mesh bus on the 7800X got very small gains there in games, so that's not necessarily the reason. 7800X also have much smaller L3 cache and more L2 cache (less shared cache? Just like Ryzen) and some programmer figured it was more likely due to the cache design than the mesh bus that performance was better. At the high core counts the mesh is better and at small ones it's not.
Anyway i7 7800X is both better and worse than the i7 8700K in various tasks. Price is basically the same and you get the cheapest X299 boards for close to the price of "one step below lowest" Z370 board and the platform got other advantages and it's available to buy right now.
I figured I'd add above too that Ryzen got 20/24 PCI-express lanes aswell (4 to chipset) for the comparision of connectivity but then I forgot to add it, but yeah, i7 7800X got 28 + DMI 3 (which is the equivalent of 4 to the chipset there too.)
When trying to force out a difference between the chips it can be found and the 8700K or 7700K will be on top (for gaming) but in many scenarios there also will not really be a difference between Ryzen, i7 8700K and the i7 7800X for games but definitely be a difference in how they handle even more threads or multiple SSDs, USB-devices, expansion cards or how much RAM, at what clock and in how many channels they support.