Hardware Intel Core i7-7700K, Core i5-7600K (Kaby Lake) and Z270 Chipset Review

It's bananas. Literally. Intel are pricing it so high for those who like to compete competitively and want the dual core points. I'm so, so glad that I deleted my HWBOT account and could not care less for it anymore.

 

At least when they did the G3258 Pentium they charged Pentium money for it... Intel are doing some industrial scale urine extraction with the pricing of that i3...

 

Pretty sure, that's exactly what I said.

This has drifted way into left field from where we started. If intel wants me to upgrade from my 2500k, they need to offer something better (improved IPC, more cores) than kaby lake, and I'm not paying the stupidity tax for s2011. If I need anything for server/workstation workloads, I have a dual x5660 server, a dual x5560, and (oddly enough, given my rant) a 6 core E5-1650 workstation, all of which I've picked up used for a tiny fraction of their original price.

Oh, and for the record, 6 core s1366 CPUs were crushed by Sandybridge in single threaded performance and even matched or exceeded multi-threaded performance in some instances. It's best not to even mention power consumption.

 

Yeah I know SB was very strong in the single-threaded department, but it still got trashed by Gulftown in properly configured multi-threaded apps (C4D being a biggy). There's obviously no point making a case against a 6c/12t CPU if the software doesn't properly utilise all of the cores.

Not entirely sure why you posted here at all tbh... you are complaining that Kaby Lake isn't a good enough upgrade from a 2500K and calling X99 "stupid". Bad day? Or are you always this much fun at parties?

 

Maybe someone is just salty because he can't afford X99.

 

Okay something changed in Terragen a lot:

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2016/12/05/core-i7-7700k-performance-overclock-preview/3

Check that out - I posted on the discussion forum for this as my 2500k @ 4.8ghz is able to achieve 320 seconds redendering times - which, made me think at that time that I was still in pretty good shape with my current rig.

Fast forward to this:

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2017/01/03/intel-core-i7-7700k-i5-7600k-review/5

There's a clear performance gap of 86seconds of my 2500K Vs Intel Core i5-6600K (4.8GHz) - and if you look at the 7700K the result 195 seconds compared to the preview result of 312seconds is also staggering

Using the base Intel Core i7-6700K your preview article registered this at 393seconds, but the in review it's now 287 seconds.

What's changed? Which is right? Why is there such a difference between two stacks of identical benchmarks - Z270?

<scurries off to compare older Terragen scores>

 

I do love my 6950X lol

Bargain of the year IMO

 

My CPU wasn't free, but this ^

I'd still buy a 5820K and an ASRock X99 ITX for my main rig even now with this new stuff launched!

 

TBH if I had ample disposable income I'd have done the exact same thing myself - the 6950X would be perfect for my workload and I'd likely keep it for a good few years (been running the X5650 for over two years now). People said of the i7 990X that the price at release was high, but if you spread it over 4-5 years it's actually not half bad. Granted, the 6950X is more expensive in today's money, but it probably works out very similar in terms of price/performance.

 

OMG I haven't used Terragen in ~15 years! /downloads

 

Well that changes everything, the cpu grunt of the 7600K is massively higher than my 4.8ghz sandy bridge.

I do agree that testing a new cpu would be more comparable if tests were carried out at identical clock speeds (4.8ghz) seems more appropriate to provide like for like in that resepct.

 

The 7600K really is impressive. I'm not sure of the extent to which memory bandwidth makes a difference in Cinebench R15, but my X5650 at stock speed is virtually matched by the 7600K at stock speed (685cb vs 666cb). Upping the X5650 to 4GHz pushes the score up to around 880cb, which isn't enough to compete with a stock 6700K or 7700K.

The best I ever did on X58 was 1116cb with a 980 clocked at 4.8GHz, which is much too high for daily use. Oddly enough, it's not vastly far off the 6850 score at 4.4GHz. The 6900K score at stock speed of 3.7GHz really puts things into perspective - anything from 1550 to 1600cb.

 

£180+ for an 2 core i3.

naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah

 

This is not just an i3, this is an unlocked multiplier i3K

/M&S Advert style

Still overpriced, i5 money as you rightly said. 4 proper cores on heavily multi threaded applications will beat faster 2core + hyperthreading.

Same as Pentium Anniversary Edition (G3258) vs full fat Haswell i3 I guess.
You could upclock the nuts off it and get the single threaded performance up, but IIRC the hyperthreading on the i3 still had it licked on some heavily multi threaded stuff.

Reminds me, I really must try and give eth G3258 here a good thrashing... evening all

 

Agree mate, and the knowledge that I cannot go any higher is useful as it nullifies the upgradation itch that is so tricky!

Hoping to stay on x99 now for at least 3 - 5 years, cannot see anything that will leave this cpu underpowered the way things are going.....

 

My Sandy-E lasted me 4 years until I got the chance for a 5960X. It's been 18 months already and can't say I'll need to upgrade for another 3 years. Haswell-E is fast enough. I'll only be missing the newer BIOS/software for fan control and power savings, and within another ~18 months, PCIE 4.

 

Totally agree with littlepuppi on the upgrade itch issue. I'm still on SATA 2 and PCIE 2.0 (and, for the most part, USB 2.0) and the world hasn't ended yet, but I think if I go to Skylake or Kaby Lake I'll forever want more cores.

Also agree with Bindi that even now, Haswell-E is still ample for another few years. If I can contain myself for another six months I might be able to pick up a used 5960X for a good price, and I'd be more than happy with that.