I would google around; it was the first result I came across.
Intel have demoed a 28 core 5GHz cpu at a recent exhibition, albeit with exotic cooling - they have the technology, and have had it for some time.
Whether you choose to wait or not, is your personal choice. All I can say is that there is definitive, tangeable, noticeable performance differences in an 8 core vs a 6 core when gaming, and has been for years; and it would be a worthy upgrade for your current 4 core as it would be double the number of your physical cores and quadruple the number of threads. You have also said you have been tight for money - this would be a better investment IMO.
Perhaps an introspective look might help you decide:
You bought an i5 thinking there was no point in getting a CPU capable of handling more threads / future proofing for the foreseeable future, but a huge number of AAA titles use the extra HT cores, and double the physical cores on top as per the benchmarks above - that's 4x the number of threads than your current CPU.
Do you feel you had made the correct choice? Or knowing what you know now, would you have bought an i7?
If you are happy with your purchase (seeing that you are looking to upgrade, an observer might think you are not), then you will be happy with an 8700k now.
If you regret your decision and would rather have bought an i7, then you might not wish to repeat the same regret, and opt to wait to buy an 8 core HT, whenever it does come out, lest a few years from now you are looking to upgrade your 8700k to a 10 core CPU instead of being content with an 8 core one knowing that games already make use of at least 8 cores 16 threads.
It's really a personal choice, and no one can tell you how to choose. However, saying that, from a financial perspective and taking depreciation into account, it is better to upgrade less often.
All the best.
I would google around; it was the first result I came across.
Intel have demoed a 28 core 5GHz cpu at a recent exhibition, albeit with exotic cooling - they have the technology, and have had it for some time.
Whether you choose to wait or not, is your personal choice. All I can say is that there is definitive, tangeable, noticeable performance differences in an 8 core vs a 6 core when gaming, and has been for years; and it would be a worthy upgrade for your current 4 core as it would be double the number of your physical cores and quadruple the number of threads. You have also said you have been tight for money - this would be a better investment IMO.
Perhaps an introspective look might help you decide:
You bought an i5 thinking there was no point in getting a CPU capable of handling more threads / future proofing for the foreseeable future, but a huge number of AAA titles use the extra HT cores, and double the physical cores on top as per the benchmarks above - that's 4x the number of threads than your current CPU.
Do you feel you had made the correct choice? Or knowing what you know now, would you have bought an i7?
If you are happy with your purchase (seeing that you are looking to upgrade, an observer might think you are not), then you will be happy with an 8700k now.
If you regret your decision and would rather have bought an i7, then you might not wish to repeat the same regret, and opt to wait to buy an 8 core HT, whenever it does come out, lest a few years from now you are looking to upgrade your 8700k to a 10 core CPU instead of being content with an 8 core one knowing that games already make use of at least 8 cores 16 threads.
It's really a personal choice, and no one can tell you how to choose. However, saying that, from a financial perspective and taking depreciation into account, it is better to upgrade less often.
All the best.
Windows 10 64-bit, Intel 7700K @ 5.1GHz, 16GB 3600MHz CL15 DDR4 RAM, 2x GTX 1080 SLI, Asus Maximus IX Hero, Sound Blaster ZxR, PCIe Quad SSD, Oculus Rift CV1, DLP Link PGD-150 glasses, ViewSonic PJD6531w 3D DLP Projector @ 1280x800 120Hz native / 2560x1600 120Hz DSR 3D Gaming.
- money is definitely not a problem, just waiting for the right moment to upgrade and I was waiting.. a long time. I have the fund to upgrade again next year 2019 or 2020, if needed. (given the 9700K is a sizable generational leap & the games I want to play then demand it). Value is what I seek basically --> is my money well spent this gen for 3D Surround? If yes, then would an i5-8600K accomplish my goals or would an i7-8700K be better?
- Bo3b stated that value is what you want to do now, not trying to future proofing and I totally agree with it. I am definitely not the future proofing type, learning from all my PC gaming years, abused and ripped off by Intel/Nvidia/AMD camps. If what I have no longer serve me, I just sell/donate/give it away and buy new rig (i.e. I have decided to get a new case, instead of recycling the old case since the old one no longer gives me the esthetic joy and functional satisfaction). The money saved by re-using the old case doesn't seem worth it for me personally
- My old rig runs the game I play just fine (mostly indie, Blizzard games and some old RTS title). I didn't bother to OC my i5 4670K. Just recently, I develop an interest in [u]3D, triple monitor, VR and PS2/PS3/WII U emulator[/u] --> hence the need to build new rig. I thought jumping 4th gen to 8th gen was a sizable leap and was waiting a while for a decent CPU/GPU power to run triple monitor at decent resolution and to a certain extend, 3D Surround (I didn't know it was a viable thing until i ran into you guys)
- I am not denying the power of 8 core. I actually was looking forward to it for a while but after misinformation and false rumors for an extended period of time, it begins to make more sense to just buy for the current need, rather than waiting. The future gen of CPU and GPU is always better. I seriously doubt that the 9th gen will arrive with a significant leap like 7th gen to 8th gen but who knows. Only Intel has insight into their business plan and they didn't seem to care much with Ryzen (why the silence? if you have the good stuff, PR the crap out of it)
- money is definitely not a problem, just waiting for the right moment to upgrade and I was waiting.. a long time. I have the fund to upgrade again next year 2019 or 2020, if needed. (given the 9700K is a sizable generational leap & the games I want to play then demand it). Value is what I seek basically --> is my money well spent this gen for 3D Surround? If yes, then would an i5-8600K accomplish my goals or would an i7-8700K be better?
- Bo3b stated that value is what you want to do now, not trying to future proofing and I totally agree with it. I am definitely not the future proofing type, learning from all my PC gaming years, abused and ripped off by Intel/Nvidia/AMD camps. If what I have no longer serve me, I just sell/donate/give it away and buy new rig (i.e. I have decided to get a new case, instead of recycling the old case since the old one no longer gives me the esthetic joy and functional satisfaction). The money saved by re-using the old case doesn't seem worth it for me personally
- My old rig runs the game I play just fine (mostly indie, Blizzard games and some old RTS title). I didn't bother to OC my i5 4670K. Just recently, I develop an interest in 3D, triple monitor, VR and PS2/PS3/WII U emulator --> hence the need to build new rig. I thought jumping 4th gen to 8th gen was a sizable leap and was waiting a while for a decent CPU/GPU power to run triple monitor at decent resolution and to a certain extend, 3D Surround (I didn't know it was a viable thing until i ran into you guys)
- I am not denying the power of 8 core. I actually was looking forward to it for a while but after misinformation and false rumors for an extended period of time, it begins to make more sense to just buy for the current need, rather than waiting. The future gen of CPU and GPU is always better. I seriously doubt that the 9th gen will arrive with a significant leap like 7th gen to 8th gen but who knows. Only Intel has insight into their business plan and they didn't seem to care much with Ryzen (why the silence? if you have the good stuff, PR the crap out of it)
8700K 5.0Ghz OC (Silicon Lottery Edition)
Noctua NH-15 cooler
Asus Maximus X Hero
16 GB Corsair Vengeance LPX RAM DDR4 3000
1TB Samsung PM961 OEM M.2 NVMe
MSI Gaming X Trio 1080Ti SLI
Corsair 1000RMi PSU
Cougar Conquer Case
Triple Screens Acer Predator 3D Vision XB272
3D Vision 2 Glasses
Win 10 Pro x64
@RageDemon: Good list of games there, Thanks. I'll take a look at the ones I've got.
It's interesting to me all the assumptions that they are making there however. That the 5760x is ahead because of it's core count, without actually spending any effort to determine if that is true. There are a LOT of other architectural differences.
First test case, Fallout 4. I set the graphics on Low, at 1280x720 so that GPU would not be a bottleneck, push the CPU as hard as possible. Result, CPU never goes above 35% usage. That's maybe three threads? Maybe spiked to 50% once or twice, never went above that. Mostly was 25%, two threads. No difference between 2D and 3D on.
[img]https://forums.geforce.com/cmd/default/download-comment-attachment/75362/[/img]
@RageDemon: Good list of games there, Thanks. I'll take a look at the ones I've got.
It's interesting to me all the assumptions that they are making there however. That the 5760x is ahead because of it's core count, without actually spending any effort to determine if that is true. There are a LOT of other architectural differences.
First test case, Fallout 4. I set the graphics on Low, at 1280x720 so that GPU would not be a bottleneck, push the CPU as hard as possible. Result, CPU never goes above 35% usage. That's maybe three threads? Maybe spiked to 50% once or twice, never went above that. Mostly was 25%, two threads. No difference between 2D and 3D on.
Acer H5360 (1280x720@120Hz) - ASUS VG248QE with GSync mod - 3D Vision 1&2 - Driver 372.54
GTX 970 - i5-4670K@4.2GHz - 12GB RAM - Win7x64+evilKB2670838 - 4 Disk X25 RAID
SAGER NP9870-S - GTX 980 - i7-6700K - Win10 Pro 1607 Latest 3Dmigoto Release Bo3b's School for ShaderHackers
Second test case of Watch Dogs 2. Settings Low, 1280x720. Definitely more than 2, but not all 8. In 3D mode, the only we really care about, I'm getting 50% or so usage, so four threads.
Usage for 3D enabled:
[img]https://forums.geforce.com/cmd/default/download-comment-attachment/75363/[/img]
Higher usage when 2D enabled. Might be related to frame rate, as 3D mode caps it at 120, and this shows GPU usage maxing out.
[img]https://forums.geforce.com/cmd/default/download-comment-attachment/75364/[/img]
Second test case of Watch Dogs 2. Settings Low, 1280x720. Definitely more than 2, but not all 8. In 3D mode, the only we really care about, I'm getting 50% or so usage, so four threads.
Usage for 3D enabled:
Higher usage when 2D enabled. Might be related to frame rate, as 3D mode caps it at 120, and this shows GPU usage maxing out.
Acer H5360 (1280x720@120Hz) - ASUS VG248QE with GSync mod - 3D Vision 1&2 - Driver 372.54
GTX 970 - i5-4670K@4.2GHz - 12GB RAM - Win7x64+evilKB2670838 - 4 Disk X25 RAID
SAGER NP9870-S - GTX 980 - i7-6700K - Win10 Pro 1607 Latest 3Dmigoto Release Bo3b's School for ShaderHackers
That's cool bo3b. Kudos to you for doing tests at 720p.
I don't think any architectural differences can account for the difference in performance, because each core on the 8-core 5960x is actually significantly weaker than the cores on 4 core CPUs. For the first time in history, it's only with the 8700k that 6 core CPU performance per core gets on par with 4 core CPUs such as the 6700K.
To clarify, it's an 8 core 5960x, not a 6 core 5760x. 4 core CPUs such as the 6700k beat with significant margin the 5960x's architecture and single core performance, as shown below:
[img]https://www.kitguru.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/xcinebench-single.png.pagespeed.ic.d0iRpeyjGU.webp[/img]
As far as 3DV goes, Metal-O-Holic showd earlier that his stock 6c 8700k beats my 5GHz 7700k with a significant margin in 3D in The Witcher 3.
Granted the 3DV bug may never be fixed by nVidia, and indeed it does cause cores to be used less effectively, but the difference is there.
On a related note, I am somewhat uncomfortable with the title of this thread re: 3DV performance. We know there is a CPU performance bug with 3DV which affects CPU usage, and we have all been trying hard to have it fixed for some time. Certainly 3DV benchmarks are important to us all, but I would be careful about saying that we should only be looking at 3DV performance - it's not a fair comparison because the CPU is being artificially hindered by the bug.
More testing for 3DV scenarios is needed, but I think we can comfortably state that having more cores at the same IPC x clock does not decrease 3DV performance. - I do wish I had a higher core count CPU to do the tests with :)
That's cool bo3b. Kudos to you for doing tests at 720p.
I don't think any architectural differences can account for the difference in performance, because each core on the 8-core 5960x is actually significantly weaker than the cores on 4 core CPUs. For the first time in history, it's only with the 8700k that 6 core CPU performance per core gets on par with 4 core CPUs such as the 6700K.
To clarify, it's an 8 core 5960x, not a 6 core 5760x. 4 core CPUs such as the 6700k beat with significant margin the 5960x's architecture and single core performance, as shown below:
As far as 3DV goes, Metal-O-Holic showd earlier that his stock 6c 8700k beats my 5GHz 7700k with a significant margin in 3D in The Witcher 3.
Granted the 3DV bug may never be fixed by nVidia, and indeed it does cause cores to be used less effectively, but the difference is there.
On a related note, I am somewhat uncomfortable with the title of this thread re: 3DV performance. We know there is a CPU performance bug with 3DV which affects CPU usage, and we have all been trying hard to have it fixed for some time. Certainly 3DV benchmarks are important to us all, but I would be careful about saying that we should only be looking at 3DV performance - it's not a fair comparison because the CPU is being artificially hindered by the bug.
More testing for 3DV scenarios is needed, but I think we can comfortably state that having more cores at the same IPC x clock does not decrease 3DV performance. - I do wish I had a higher core count CPU to do the tests with :)
Windows 10 64-bit, Intel 7700K @ 5.1GHz, 16GB 3600MHz CL15 DDR4 RAM, 2x GTX 1080 SLI, Asus Maximus IX Hero, Sound Blaster ZxR, PCIe Quad SSD, Oculus Rift CV1, DLP Link PGD-150 glasses, ViewSonic PJD6531w 3D DLP Projector @ 1280x800 120Hz native / 2560x1600 120Hz DSR 3D Gaming.
^about your last statement of having more core and see which effect it would have to "brute force/bandage patch" the CPU bottleneck, could we just compare 6 core vs 4 core (2 core disabled) on the same system/CPU?
by the way, the 2700x does have 8-core, 16-thread --> can something be inferred on the effect of having more core here?
^about your last statement of having more core and see which effect it would have to "brute force/bandage patch" the CPU bottleneck, could we just compare 6 core vs 4 core (2 core disabled) on the same system/CPU?
by the way, the 2700x does have 8-core, 16-thread --> can something be inferred on the effect of having more core here?
8700K 5.0Ghz OC (Silicon Lottery Edition)
Noctua NH-15 cooler
Asus Maximus X Hero
16 GB Corsair Vengeance LPX RAM DDR4 3000
1TB Samsung PM961 OEM M.2 NVMe
MSI Gaming X Trio 1080Ti SLI
Corsair 1000RMi PSU
Cougar Conquer Case
Triple Screens Acer Predator 3D Vision XB272
3D Vision 2 Glasses
Win 10 Pro x64
Metal-O-Holic did exactly that with The Witcher 3 IIRC; there was a marked improvement with 6 core vs 2 disabled.
You could google, but for posterity, this is what I came across from the first few results - Ryzen's single core performance is relatively 'bad' when it comes to gaming, even with the extra cores. It doesn't help that it can't clock as high as an 8700k etc (~4GHz base vs ~5GHz base at max OC is hardly fair).
Note, the 6950x is a 10 core HT @ 3GHz - there are indeed old/current games which are showing scaling even up to 10 cores and 20 threads.
[img]https://techreport.com/r.x/2017_03_01_AMD_s_Ryzen_7_1800X_Ryzen_7_1700X_and_Ryzen_7_1700_CPUs_reviewed/wd2-fps.png[/img]
[img]https://techreport.com/r.x/2017_03_01_AMD_s_Ryzen_7_1800X_Ryzen_7_1700X_and_Ryzen_7_1700_CPUs_reviewed/cry3-fps.png[/img]
[img]https://www.dsogaming.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/amd-ryzen-games-1.jpg[/img]
8700k vs 2700X in depth benchmarks here:
[url]https://www.patreon.com/posts/ryzen-7-2700x-vs-19852492[/url]
Metal-O-Holic did exactly that with The Witcher 3 IIRC; there was a marked improvement with 6 core vs 2 disabled.
You could google, but for posterity, this is what I came across from the first few results - Ryzen's single core performance is relatively 'bad' when it comes to gaming, even with the extra cores. It doesn't help that it can't clock as high as an 8700k etc (~4GHz base vs ~5GHz base at max OC is hardly fair).
Note, the 6950x is a 10 core HT @ 3GHz - there are indeed old/current games which are showing scaling even up to 10 cores and 20 threads.
lol, I was about to send you the samething. here is the link to the original article with in-depth commentary by Techspot on July 4th (the Patreon page u link is from them)
https://www.techspot.com/review/1655-core-i7-8700k-vs-ryzen-7-2700x/
Look like they overclocked the Ryzen 2700X to 4.2Ghz vs the Intel 8700K 5.0Ghz
Even though there is a difference in clock speed and OC overhead (4.2 vs 5.0), the result is pretty much comparable in term of performance. I wonder if Intel would lose out and the Ryzen would beat Intel to the pulp if we compare Ryzen 2700x [u]4.2 Ghz[/u] vs Intel 8700K [u]4.2Ghz[/u]
Look like they overclocked the Ryzen 2700X to 4.2Ghz vs the Intel 8700K 5.0Ghz
Even though there is a difference in clock speed and OC overhead (4.2 vs 5.0), the result is pretty much comparable in term of performance. I wonder if Intel would lose out and the Ryzen would beat Intel to the pulp if we compare Ryzen 2700x 4.2 Ghz vs Intel 8700K 4.2Ghz
8700K 5.0Ghz OC (Silicon Lottery Edition)
Noctua NH-15 cooler
Asus Maximus X Hero
16 GB Corsair Vengeance LPX RAM DDR4 3000
1TB Samsung PM961 OEM M.2 NVMe
MSI Gaming X Trio 1080Ti SLI
Corsair 1000RMi PSU
Cougar Conquer Case
Triple Screens Acer Predator 3D Vision XB272
3D Vision 2 Glasses
Win 10 Pro x64
Measuring at the same clock speed gives us IPC, i.e. instructions per clock.
On a single core, very surprisingly, RyZen has a higher IPC than a 7700k:
[img]https://cdn.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/AMD-Ryzen-7-1700X-vs-i7-7700K-IPC-single-threaded.png[/img]
What lets it down is high lag between the cores because of the infinity fabric interconnects, vs Intel's Ring Bus on Kaby/Coffee.
RyZen also has a substantially worse memory controller which struggles to support high frequency memory, which is also problematic.
...And of course the clockability.
If DAAMIT manage to fix these things significantly in future releases, we will be back to the good old days where Athlons out performed Pentiums in every metric, including gaming, but now on vastly more cores even.
Measuring at the same clock speed gives us IPC, i.e. instructions per clock.
On a single core, very surprisingly, RyZen has a higher IPC than a 7700k:
What lets it down is high lag between the cores because of the infinity fabric interconnects, vs Intel's Ring Bus on Kaby/Coffee.
RyZen also has a substantially worse memory controller which struggles to support high frequency memory, which is also problematic.
...And of course the clockability.
If DAAMIT manage to fix these things significantly in future releases, we will be back to the good old days where Athlons out performed Pentiums in every metric, including gaming, but now on vastly more cores even.
Windows 10 64-bit, Intel 7700K @ 5.1GHz, 16GB 3600MHz CL15 DDR4 RAM, 2x GTX 1080 SLI, Asus Maximus IX Hero, Sound Blaster ZxR, PCIe Quad SSD, Oculus Rift CV1, DLP Link PGD-150 glasses, ViewSonic PJD6531w 3D DLP Projector @ 1280x800 120Hz native / 2560x1600 120Hz DSR 3D Gaming.
Thanks for that. Saw that yesterday while we were wondering why specifically no 9700K (and of course the rumoured 8C8T 9800K / 8C16T 9900K - yet!) on the list. Consensus was that likely they will be announced together with the z390 platform.
There's a subreddit that masterotaku and I frequent, which you might be interested in, or even visit already:
[url]https://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/[/url]
It homes knowledgeable people, that the likes of [H], Anandtech, and overclock.net forums contain, but the news/information/discussion are usually of somewhat superior quality.
Thanks for that. Saw that yesterday while we were wondering why specifically no 9700K (and of course the rumoured 8C8T 9800K / 8C16T 9900K - yet!) on the list. Consensus was that likely they will be announced together with the z390 platform.
There's a subreddit that masterotaku and I frequent, which you might be interested in, or even visit already:
It homes knowledgeable people, that the likes of [H], Anandtech, and overclock.net forums contain, but the news/information/discussion are usually of somewhat superior quality.
Windows 10 64-bit, Intel 7700K @ 5.1GHz, 16GB 3600MHz CL15 DDR4 RAM, 2x GTX 1080 SLI, Asus Maximus IX Hero, Sound Blaster ZxR, PCIe Quad SSD, Oculus Rift CV1, DLP Link PGD-150 glasses, ViewSonic PJD6531w 3D DLP Projector @ 1280x800 120Hz native / 2560x1600 120Hz DSR 3D Gaming.
Intel have demoed a 28 core 5GHz cpu at a recent exhibition, albeit with exotic cooling - they have the technology, and have had it for some time.
Whether you choose to wait or not, is your personal choice. All I can say is that there is definitive, tangeable, noticeable performance differences in an 8 core vs a 6 core when gaming, and has been for years; and it would be a worthy upgrade for your current 4 core as it would be double the number of your physical cores and quadruple the number of threads. You have also said you have been tight for money - this would be a better investment IMO.
Perhaps an introspective look might help you decide:
You bought an i5 thinking there was no point in getting a CPU capable of handling more threads / future proofing for the foreseeable future, but a huge number of AAA titles use the extra HT cores, and double the physical cores on top as per the benchmarks above - that's 4x the number of threads than your current CPU.
Do you feel you had made the correct choice? Or knowing what you know now, would you have bought an i7?
If you are happy with your purchase (seeing that you are looking to upgrade, an observer might think you are not), then you will be happy with an 8700k now.
If you regret your decision and would rather have bought an i7, then you might not wish to repeat the same regret, and opt to wait to buy an 8 core HT, whenever it does come out, lest a few years from now you are looking to upgrade your 8700k to a 10 core CPU instead of being content with an 8 core one knowing that games already make use of at least 8 cores 16 threads.
It's really a personal choice, and no one can tell you how to choose. However, saying that, from a financial perspective and taking depreciation into account, it is better to upgrade less often.
All the best.
Windows 10 64-bit, Intel 7700K @ 5.1GHz, 16GB 3600MHz CL15 DDR4 RAM, 2x GTX 1080 SLI, Asus Maximus IX Hero, Sound Blaster ZxR, PCIe Quad SSD, Oculus Rift CV1, DLP Link PGD-150 glasses, ViewSonic PJD6531w 3D DLP Projector @ 1280x800 120Hz native / 2560x1600 120Hz DSR 3D Gaming.
- Bo3b stated that value is what you want to do now, not trying to future proofing and I totally agree with it. I am definitely not the future proofing type, learning from all my PC gaming years, abused and ripped off by Intel/Nvidia/AMD camps. If what I have no longer serve me, I just sell/donate/give it away and buy new rig (i.e. I have decided to get a new case, instead of recycling the old case since the old one no longer gives me the esthetic joy and functional satisfaction). The money saved by re-using the old case doesn't seem worth it for me personally
- My old rig runs the game I play just fine (mostly indie, Blizzard games and some old RTS title). I didn't bother to OC my i5 4670K. Just recently, I develop an interest in 3D, triple monitor, VR and PS2/PS3/WII U emulator --> hence the need to build new rig. I thought jumping 4th gen to 8th gen was a sizable leap and was waiting a while for a decent CPU/GPU power to run triple monitor at decent resolution and to a certain extend, 3D Surround (I didn't know it was a viable thing until i ran into you guys)
- I am not denying the power of 8 core. I actually was looking forward to it for a while but after misinformation and false rumors for an extended period of time, it begins to make more sense to just buy for the current need, rather than waiting. The future gen of CPU and GPU is always better. I seriously doubt that the 9th gen will arrive with a significant leap like 7th gen to 8th gen but who knows. Only Intel has insight into their business plan and they didn't seem to care much with Ryzen (why the silence? if you have the good stuff, PR the crap out of it)
8700K 5.0Ghz OC (Silicon Lottery Edition)
Noctua NH-15 cooler
Asus Maximus X Hero
16 GB Corsair Vengeance LPX RAM DDR4 3000
1TB Samsung PM961 OEM M.2 NVMe
MSI Gaming X Trio 1080Ti SLI
Corsair 1000RMi PSU
Cougar Conquer Case
Triple Screens Acer Predator 3D Vision XB272
3D Vision 2 Glasses
Win 10 Pro x64
It's interesting to me all the assumptions that they are making there however. That the 5760x is ahead because of it's core count, without actually spending any effort to determine if that is true. There are a LOT of other architectural differences.
First test case, Fallout 4. I set the graphics on Low, at 1280x720 so that GPU would not be a bottleneck, push the CPU as hard as possible. Result, CPU never goes above 35% usage. That's maybe three threads? Maybe spiked to 50% once or twice, never went above that. Mostly was 25%, two threads. No difference between 2D and 3D on.
Acer H5360 (1280x720@120Hz) - ASUS VG248QE with GSync mod - 3D Vision 1&2 - Driver 372.54
GTX 970 - i5-4670K@4.2GHz - 12GB RAM - Win7x64+evilKB2670838 - 4 Disk X25 RAID
SAGER NP9870-S - GTX 980 - i7-6700K - Win10 Pro 1607
Latest 3Dmigoto Release
Bo3b's School for ShaderHackers
Usage for 3D enabled:
Higher usage when 2D enabled. Might be related to frame rate, as 3D mode caps it at 120, and this shows GPU usage maxing out.
Acer H5360 (1280x720@120Hz) - ASUS VG248QE with GSync mod - 3D Vision 1&2 - Driver 372.54
GTX 970 - i5-4670K@4.2GHz - 12GB RAM - Win7x64+evilKB2670838 - 4 Disk X25 RAID
SAGER NP9870-S - GTX 980 - i7-6700K - Win10 Pro 1607
Latest 3Dmigoto Release
Bo3b's School for ShaderHackers
I don't think any architectural differences can account for the difference in performance, because each core on the 8-core 5960x is actually significantly weaker than the cores on 4 core CPUs. For the first time in history, it's only with the 8700k that 6 core CPU performance per core gets on par with 4 core CPUs such as the 6700K.
To clarify, it's an 8 core 5960x, not a 6 core 5760x. 4 core CPUs such as the 6700k beat with significant margin the 5960x's architecture and single core performance, as shown below:
As far as 3DV goes, Metal-O-Holic showd earlier that his stock 6c 8700k beats my 5GHz 7700k with a significant margin in 3D in The Witcher 3.
Granted the 3DV bug may never be fixed by nVidia, and indeed it does cause cores to be used less effectively, but the difference is there.
On a related note, I am somewhat uncomfortable with the title of this thread re: 3DV performance. We know there is a CPU performance bug with 3DV which affects CPU usage, and we have all been trying hard to have it fixed for some time. Certainly 3DV benchmarks are important to us all, but I would be careful about saying that we should only be looking at 3DV performance - it's not a fair comparison because the CPU is being artificially hindered by the bug.
More testing for 3DV scenarios is needed, but I think we can comfortably state that having more cores at the same IPC x clock does not decrease 3DV performance. - I do wish I had a higher core count CPU to do the tests with :)
Windows 10 64-bit, Intel 7700K @ 5.1GHz, 16GB 3600MHz CL15 DDR4 RAM, 2x GTX 1080 SLI, Asus Maximus IX Hero, Sound Blaster ZxR, PCIe Quad SSD, Oculus Rift CV1, DLP Link PGD-150 glasses, ViewSonic PJD6531w 3D DLP Projector @ 1280x800 120Hz native / 2560x1600 120Hz DSR 3D Gaming.
by the way, the 2700x does have 8-core, 16-thread --> can something be inferred on the effect of having more core here?
8700K 5.0Ghz OC (Silicon Lottery Edition)
Noctua NH-15 cooler
Asus Maximus X Hero
16 GB Corsair Vengeance LPX RAM DDR4 3000
1TB Samsung PM961 OEM M.2 NVMe
MSI Gaming X Trio 1080Ti SLI
Corsair 1000RMi PSU
Cougar Conquer Case
Triple Screens Acer Predator 3D Vision XB272
3D Vision 2 Glasses
Win 10 Pro x64
You could google, but for posterity, this is what I came across from the first few results - Ryzen's single core performance is relatively 'bad' when it comes to gaming, even with the extra cores. It doesn't help that it can't clock as high as an 8700k etc (~4GHz base vs ~5GHz base at max OC is hardly fair).
Note, the 6950x is a 10 core HT @ 3GHz - there are indeed old/current games which are showing scaling even up to 10 cores and 20 threads.
8700k vs 2700X in depth benchmarks here:
https://www.patreon.com/posts/ryzen-7-2700x-vs-19852492
Windows 10 64-bit, Intel 7700K @ 5.1GHz, 16GB 3600MHz CL15 DDR4 RAM, 2x GTX 1080 SLI, Asus Maximus IX Hero, Sound Blaster ZxR, PCIe Quad SSD, Oculus Rift CV1, DLP Link PGD-150 glasses, ViewSonic PJD6531w 3D DLP Projector @ 1280x800 120Hz native / 2560x1600 120Hz DSR 3D Gaming.
https://www.techspot.com/review/1655-core-i7-8700k-vs-ryzen-7-2700x/
Look like they overclocked the Ryzen 2700X to 4.2Ghz vs the Intel 8700K 5.0Ghz
Even though there is a difference in clock speed and OC overhead (4.2 vs 5.0), the result is pretty much comparable in term of performance. I wonder if Intel would lose out and the Ryzen would beat Intel to the pulp if we compare Ryzen 2700x 4.2 Ghz vs Intel 8700K 4.2Ghz
8700K 5.0Ghz OC (Silicon Lottery Edition)
Noctua NH-15 cooler
Asus Maximus X Hero
16 GB Corsair Vengeance LPX RAM DDR4 3000
1TB Samsung PM961 OEM M.2 NVMe
MSI Gaming X Trio 1080Ti SLI
Corsair 1000RMi PSU
Cougar Conquer Case
Triple Screens Acer Predator 3D Vision XB272
3D Vision 2 Glasses
Win 10 Pro x64
On a single core, very surprisingly, RyZen has a higher IPC than a 7700k:
What lets it down is high lag between the cores because of the infinity fabric interconnects, vs Intel's Ring Bus on Kaby/Coffee.
RyZen also has a substantially worse memory controller which struggles to support high frequency memory, which is also problematic.
...And of course the clockability.
If DAAMIT manage to fix these things significantly in future releases, we will be back to the good old days where Athlons out performed Pentiums in every metric, including gaming, but now on vastly more cores even.
Windows 10 64-bit, Intel 7700K @ 5.1GHz, 16GB 3600MHz CL15 DDR4 RAM, 2x GTX 1080 SLI, Asus Maximus IX Hero, Sound Blaster ZxR, PCIe Quad SSD, Oculus Rift CV1, DLP Link PGD-150 glasses, ViewSonic PJD6531w 3D DLP Projector @ 1280x800 120Hz native / 2560x1600 120Hz DSR 3D Gaming.
Intel Core i5-9600K (6 cores, 6 threads, 3.7GHz / 4.5GHz Turbo, 95W TDP)
Intel Core i5-9600 (6 cores, 6 threads, 3.1GHz / 4.3GHz Turbo, 65W TDP)
Intel Core i5-9500 (6 cores, 6 threads, 3.0GHz / 4.1GHz Turbo, 65W TDP)
Intel Core i5-9400 (6 cores, 6 threads, 2.9GHz / 4.1GHz Turbo, 65W TDP)
Intel Core i3-9100 (4 cores, 4 threads, 3.7GHz, 65W TDP)
Intel Core i3-9000 (4 cores, 4 threads, 3.7GHz, 65W TDP)
https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2018/07/04/intel-cpu-9th-gen-leak-coffee-lake/#more-562081
8700K 5.0Ghz OC (Silicon Lottery Edition)
Noctua NH-15 cooler
Asus Maximus X Hero
16 GB Corsair Vengeance LPX RAM DDR4 3000
1TB Samsung PM961 OEM M.2 NVMe
MSI Gaming X Trio 1080Ti SLI
Corsair 1000RMi PSU
Cougar Conquer Case
Triple Screens Acer Predator 3D Vision XB272
3D Vision 2 Glasses
Win 10 Pro x64
There's a subreddit that masterotaku and I frequent, which you might be interested in, or even visit already:
https://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/
It homes knowledgeable people, that the likes of [H], Anandtech, and overclock.net forums contain, but the news/information/discussion are usually of somewhat superior quality.
Windows 10 64-bit, Intel 7700K @ 5.1GHz, 16GB 3600MHz CL15 DDR4 RAM, 2x GTX 1080 SLI, Asus Maximus IX Hero, Sound Blaster ZxR, PCIe Quad SSD, Oculus Rift CV1, DLP Link PGD-150 glasses, ViewSonic PJD6531w 3D DLP Projector @ 1280x800 120Hz native / 2560x1600 120Hz DSR 3D Gaming.