• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Intel to launch 6 core Coffee Lake-S CPUs & Z370 chipset 5 October 2017

Soldato
Joined
22 Oct 2006
Posts
5,913
Got 100% stable on 5ghz now, Just memory just refuses to boot at the rated 3333mhz. I've upped VCCIO and SA upto 1.2v with no luck, I think I'm going to RMA the memory as it seems useless to have paid for faster memory and it doesn't work.
 
Soldato
Joined
13 Jun 2009
Posts
6,847
BF1 is pretty much a stress test by itself. It is very good at detecting instability in your machine and crashing out. If you can run BF1 for hours without crashing you are winning.
Overwatch also hates overclocks. I still get the occasional crash (maybe once a week) and I've upped voltages and dropped frequencies on both my GPU and CPU about 5 times since finding benchmark-stable values. I've pretty much given up making that game happy.
 
Associate
Joined
16 Apr 2015
Posts
274
Having now used the 8700K for a few days, in my opinion, getting Ryzen out of spite for Intel is cutting off your nose to spite your face. I was tempted many times and was glad that I didn't.

Obviously availability is a problem. If someone needs a high end PC NOW, I would probably recommend a Ryzen 1700X. But other than that, ignoring cost:

1600/1600X - Eclipsed by i5-8400/i5-8600K
1700/1700X - Eclipsed by i5-8600K/i7-8700K
1800X - Only better in niche multi-core cases than i7-8700K. At this point, if you are buying for multi rather than single core performance, probably should be considering i9-7900X or Threadripper?

To longevity of the socket is fairly moot as 99.9% of people do not upgrade their CPU before even a 3 year socket becomes obsolete.
The stability of the ZX70 platform is much preferable to the longevity of Ryzen. Good performance now versus potential good performance in future.
 
Soldato
Joined
19 Nov 2015
Posts
4,867
Location
Glasgow Area
Having now used the 8700K for a few days, in my opinion, getting Ryzen out of spite for Intel is cutting off your nose to spite your face. I was tempted many times and was glad that I didn't.

Obviously availability is a problem. If someone needs a high end PC NOW, I would probably recommend a Ryzen 1700X. But other than that, ignoring cost:

1600/1600X - Eclipsed by i5-8400/i5-8600K
1700/1700X - Eclipsed by i5-8600K/i7-8700K
1800X - Only better in niche multi-core cases than i7-8700K. At this point, if you are buying for multi rather than single core performance, probably should be considering i9-7900X or Threadripper?

To longevity of the socket is fairly moot as 99.9% of people do not upgrade their CPU before even a 3 year socket becomes obsolete.
The stability of the ZX70 platform is much preferable to the longevity of Ryzen. Good performance now versus potential good performance in future.

What an odd (and incorrect) statement.

You assume everyone games and only games.
What about me, for arguments sake I don't game now. I create content, render videos and use huge graphics.
Buying a 1700 is cutting off my nose to spite my face is it? I'll see better perf with Intel will I?
 
Associate
Joined
16 Apr 2015
Posts
274
What an odd (and incorrect) statement.

You assume everyone games and only games.
What about me, for arguments sake I don't game now. I create content, render videos and use huge graphics.
Buying a 1700 is cutting off my nose to spite my face is it? I'll see better perf with Intel will I?

No, if you bought a 1700 just out of spite for Intel, you are cutting off your nose to spite your face. If you have a specific use case then of course take the best option.
 
Associate
Joined
26 Aug 2016
Posts
561
Prime is unrealistically savage. You will see 10 degrees lower in something like blender or Aida 64. and 20 degrees lower actually gaming or video processing.

When I was OC'ing my rig I ran Prime on my rig and hit 89 degrees.
Since then, over 2 years all sorts of use I've hit a max of 74 degrees in real world use. I wouldn't use prime to gauge temps.
Agree with this. At one point testing a bad overclock, Prime had my 6700K exceed 100 degrees. Thought the chip would throttle to save itself, but apparently not.

In real world at a now stable 4.6GHz, my chip rarely exceeds 60 degrees. Benchmarks push it to about 74. Prime will push it to the mid 80s.
 
Associate
Joined
16 Apr 2015
Posts
274
Don't listen to them. They simply can't accept that things changed 180° and now Intel loses on all fronts (ALL!).
Smoothness on Ryzen is better, Intel can give you more microstutter.

Ryzen 2 will give even more salt to Intel's wounds :D

Without wanting to get into the same old tired argument - I'm not an fanboi of either platform. I have absolutely zero loyalty or emotion towards any manufacturer of PC components. In fact, in my group of geeks, amongst all the "AMD is furnace lolol, IPC is ****", I was singing Ryzen's praises.

My first hand experience of the 8700K is flawless. No micro stutter. No instability. XMP 3200 MHz, 1.3V, 5Ghz. Reboot. Rock solid system at top of benchmark charts.

Maybe other experiences vary.
 
Associate
Joined
12 Mar 2008
Posts
1,901
Don't listen to them. They simply can't accept that things changed 180° and now Intel loses on all fronts (ALL!).
Smoothness on Ryzen is better, Intel can give you more microstutter.

Ryzen 2 will give even more salt to Intel's wounds :D

I think it's more that people who like AMD have waited so long for something to come along that now it has, while great, is not perfect and not winning at everything. They are trying desperately to protect that gain they got which is fair enough.
 
Soldato
Joined
19 Nov 2015
Posts
4,867
Location
Glasgow Area
No, if you bought a 1700 just out of spite for Intel, you are cutting off your nose to spite your face. If you have a specific use case then of course take the best option.
But you say (broad sweeping statement) that the 8600K eclipses the 1700. For content creation and rendering thats not even close to being true.
 
Associate
Joined
16 Apr 2015
Posts
274
But you say (broad sweeping statement) that the 8600K eclipses the 1700. For content creation and rendering thats not even close to being true.

The general point of my comment was "if [conditional] you buy ryzen just to spite Intel [ie. no other considerations] then you are only spiting youself". After all, it seems that most of the salt is coming from gamers that have various old intel i7s and cannot get an 8700K.

I accept my comment was sweeping, especially in the 8600K vs 1700 - 8600K is 40% faster than 1700 in single core, and 40% slower in multi-core. But I was really referring to the people that make the choice with no considerations outside of emotion.
 
Soldato
Joined
19 Nov 2015
Posts
4,867
Location
Glasgow Area
The general point of my comment was "if [conditional] you buy ryzen just to spite Intel [ie. no other considerations] then you are only spiting youself". After all, it seems that most of the salt is coming from gamers that have various old intel i7s and cannot get an 8700K.

I accept my comment was sweeping, especially in the 8600K vs 1700 - 8600K is 40% faster than 1700 in single core, and 40% slower in multi-core. But I was really referring to the people that make the choice with no considerations outside of emotion.

But even spite alone is more than emotion. I will most likely be buying Ryzen because I don't want to have to delid my CPU and loose the warranty just to overclock it. If folk are seeing 20 degree drops just by changing the thermal paste then Intel need to learn that this is not OK. Yes I am only 1 consumer but principles are principles. It's not spiting me personally at all because I will have the faster chip for content creation.
 
Associate
Joined
16 Apr 2015
Posts
274
Yes. You have other reasons. I wasn't talking specifically only to you, this is a public forum. Let's move on.

Edit: I'm non-delidded, running 5ghz and hit 60C while gaming and 70C under synthetics. Not everyone needs to delid.
 
Associate
Joined
12 Mar 2008
Posts
1,901
But even spite alone is more than emotion. I will most likely be buying Ryzen because I don't want to have to delid my CPU and loose the warranty just to overclock it. If folk are seeing 20 degree drops just by changing the thermal paste then Intel need to learn that this is not OK. Yes I am only 1 consumer but principles are principles. It's not spiting me personally at all because I will have the faster chip for content creation.

You don't have to delid to overclock though. I think that's just a thing that people are now blanket stating because of the Intel HEDT platform. It helps sure, but is not essential.
 

ljt

ljt

Soldato
Joined
28 Dec 2002
Posts
4,540
Location
West Midlands, UK
Obviously availability is a problem. If someone needs a high end PC NOW, I would probably recommend a Ryzen 1700X. But other than that, ignoring cost:

1600/1600X - Eclipsed by i5-8400/i5-8600K
1700/1700X - Eclipsed by i5-8600K/i7-8700K
1800X - Only better in niche multi-core cases than i7-8700K.

That's a fairly big "ignore" when considering a purchase, especially someone like me who looks to get the cheapest when looking at upgrading.
 
Soldato
Joined
27 Jul 2007
Posts
6,085
What are you using to cool it ?

I wanted to know the same thing, so I had a look at his previous posts.

I skipped getting a pre-binned chip at the last minute, so far I'm super happy with my non-delidded 8700K. 5ghz at 1.3V/1.28V after vdroop. 70-72C with my NZXT X62 at quiet settings. Not tried pushing it any further yet!

Taken my PUBG FPS from the 55-80 to 100-130. Absolute madness.
 
Back
Top Bottom