1

Topic: Article arguing iXBT.com: "Testing of processors of Intel Core i7 and Core i9 (Skylake-X) for LGA2066"

I suggest to consider Testing of processors of Intel Core i7 and Core i9 (Skylake-X) for LGA2066
Adding from 9/5/2017 10:38:
Article instructive, but tone such.... As though to tell... The approving. And the Intel is for what to scold and is very strong.
Here for example in VinRARe "the new" processor 7900X on 26 % more slowly old 6950X. I certainly understand, new architecture... It is a lot of kernels. But looks simply awfully. smile
And if to recall that at 6950X  on 800 (!!!) more low all becomes clear. Looking at novelty "victory" in video editing, scientific computations - in Intel dispersed Skylake-X very much, despite of other-wordly power consumption.
Also quitted so-so, and in places - it is awful. smile
Clumsy architecture tried to "correct" acceleration, but as they say the leopard cannot change its spots... smile

2

Re: Article arguing iXBT.com: "Testing of processors of Intel Core i7 and Core i9 (Skylake-X) for LGA2066"

Article good.
It would be desirable in comparison with R9.

3

Re: Article arguing iXBT.com: "Testing of processors of Intel Core i7 and Core i9 (Skylake-X) for LGA2066"

Good article.
Here only usage WinRAR in tests is not information a little: if classics, zip, if the present, 7z...

4

Re: Article arguing iXBT.com: "Testing of processors of Intel Core i7 and Core i9 (Skylake-X) for LGA2066"

Opened a folder : 110 zips, 679 , zero 7z.

5

Re: Article arguing iXBT.com: "Testing of processors of Intel Core i7 and Core i9 (Skylake-X) for LGA2066"

If as much as possible to generalize result:
Integrally on all applications 7900X faster 6950X on 9 %;
,Thus guzzles in 1.5 times of more electric power and  faster at it on 800, and storage 2666 instead of 2400.
faster on 22 % (4.3 vs 3.5) and fastest on 9 %! And frequently more slowly, on significant value!
mesh-architecture of Intel - any terrible wrecking and .  () . smile:rotate:

6

Re: Article arguing iXBT.com: "Testing of processors of Intel Core i7 and Core i9 (Skylake-X) for LGA2066"

The Planter
  mesh-architecture of Intel - any terrible wrecking and .  (.
No, judging by article it is software optimization under unique architecture - terrible wrecking and . For it (software) manages  on the processor with  specific productivity on a flow.

7

Re: Article arguing iXBT.com: "Testing of processors of Intel Core i7 and Core i9 (Skylake-X) for LGA2066"

The Planter
Mesh-architecture of Intel - any terrible wrecking and 
And on a ring  will always overtake  on  to loading. As  trucks on small loads

8

Re: Article arguing iXBT.com: "Testing of processors of Intel Core i7 and Core i9 (Skylake-X) for LGA2066"

will always overtake  on  to loading

As equals frequencies ring 10-jadernik the Intel overtakes 10-jadernik on  almost everywhere. And in certain cases with the devastating account. smile
And that the specific mesh-processor 7900X wins that the majority of tests - so to it and storage faster presented, and frequency is torn on hundreds megahertz in comparison with ring "colleague", actually extremal  at factory that "advantages"  not so boldly were evident. smile
Probably "" Intel it> 20 kernels. smile

9

Re: Article arguing iXBT.com: "Testing of processors of Intel Core i7 and Core i9 (Skylake-X) for LGA2066"

The Planter
As equals frequencies ring 10-jadernik the Intel overtakes 10-jadernik on  almost everywhere.
It if  absolutely bad. But on 4-line loading ring 4-jadernik overtakes ring 10-jadernika.

10

Re: Article arguing iXBT.com: "Testing of processors of Intel Core i7 and Core i9 (Skylake-X) for LGA2066"

It if  absolutely bad

not bad, it simply awful. smile
Look please at categories "video coding" and "scientific computations" and make the correction on increased frequencies CPU and RAM "the leader from Intel".
Then I advise to look at power consumption as acceleration to 4.3 about 3.5 GHz was gave.
cuts  at least in half of actual applications. smile

11

Re: Article arguing iXBT.com: "Testing of processors of Intel Core i7 and Core i9 (Skylake-X) for LGA2066"

Here I sit and I look that under game tests  a nostril in a nostril) and it also not 4)
AMD RYZEN 7 1700 with good storage and a tower on  as I understand is optimal?
It is necessary to wait coffee Coffee Lake-S and final to decide what to take)
it is already taken 1080)

12

Re: Article arguing iXBT.com: "Testing of processors of Intel Core i7 and Core i9 (Skylake-X) for LGA2066"

"Video content creation" - 7900X faster 6950X on 5 %.
Thus frequency without turbo, basic frequency at it on 10 % above (3.3 vs 3.0).
It is a pancake, achievement.:up:
Adding from 9/5/2017 13:23:

AMD RYZEN 7 1700 with good storage and a tower on  as I understand is optimal

Looking for what:D

13

Re: Article arguing iXBT.com: "Testing of processors of Intel Core i7 and Core i9 (Skylake-X) for LGA2066"

Nikita Ginkul
Here I sit and I look that under game tests  a nostril in a nostril
So because rests at all in .
AMD RYZEN 7 1700 with good storage and a tower on  as I understand is optimal?
For games the mainstream without any good storages, towers and . for a long time is optimal. And spared - on video, if speech about serious games.

14

Re: Article arguing iXBT.com: "Testing of processors of Intel Core i7 and Core i9 (Skylake-X) for LGA2066"

Oh, yes that all ache, Villametta do not remember? And by the way, without it a horse-radish there would be 4 GHz on a kernel. Simply there were percents at the wrong time, engineers as a result followed the tastes at  ("oh-oh th,   gobbles up all clients-enthusiasts, horror horror"). And here if to go and look at the market it will be clarified that "house" systems on  besides that a horse-radish you will find, so also cost more expensive strongly systems on 2066.

15

Re: Article arguing iXBT.com: "Testing of processors of Intel Core i7 and Core i9 (Skylake-X) for LGA2066"

"House" systems on  besides that a horse-radish you will find

House systems  are rigidly counter-indicative. Its battlefield - ' video converting "and" rendering "in concepts iXBT. Just those areas where 7900X noticeably and adequately comes off from 6950X.
And there it cruelly punishes 7900X. smile

16

Re: Article arguing iXBT.com: "Testing of processors of Intel Core i7 and Core i9 (Skylake-X) for LGA2066"

Vogt
For games the mainstream without any good storages, towers and . for a long time is optimal.
R5 It is sufficient. . It is better to buy a card more powerfully

17

Re: Article arguing iXBT.com: "Testing of processors of Intel Core i7 and Core i9 (Skylake-X) for LGA2066"

Not absolutely in a subject - for a long time it would be desirable to see in tests comparing of new processors with what at present the most mass. Very roughly speaking - to add in tables results of tests for processors on which system units with the price $300 - $400 are collected. Not processors at such price, namely system units. That the mass customer could behold visually why new processors several times more expensively, than weigh its new .:gigi:

18

Re: Article arguing iXBT.com: "Testing of processors of Intel Core i7 and Core i9 (Skylake-X) for LGA2066"

A mass customer

"The mass customer" is games + javascript in the browser + playback of videoclips in different modes. Well with some stretch "audio-video-coding", is not so mass user.
"Games" it too a subject very interesting, they far are not restricted super-puper-3D-shooters which produce 30 fps on GeForce Titan. smile For example there is superpopular  a game "Vikings", and on i7-2600K it is visible that would be desirable faster. And a simple technique how to measure high-speed performance in such games is not present, as I understand. smile
The technique iXBT is terribly far from "the simple people", but it is other history. smile

19

Re: Article arguing iXBT.com: "Testing of processors of Intel Core i7 and Core i9 (Skylake-X) for LGA2066"

What for that not clear tests of game on  and  adjustments. It that generally the such? Why did not put  and  1280*768 + video top?
I wait   that nobody plays on :laugh: but here, , as though

20

Re: Article arguing iXBT.com: "Testing of processors of Intel Core i7 and Core i9 (Skylake-X) for LGA2066"

The Planter
For example there is superpopular  a game "Vikings", and on i7-2600K it is visible that would be desirable faster
It is visible that optimization there  is not present))

21

Re: Article arguing iXBT.com: "Testing of processors of Intel Core i7 and Core i9 (Skylake-X) for LGA2066"

Rather important and interesting output of article - i7-7800X for 26681 rbl. is equal on productivity AMD Ryzen 7 1800 for 33000 rbl., i.e. actually on the average a segment the parity and a customer can select basically everything depending on personal preferences - red or dark blue

22

Re: Article arguing iXBT.com: "Testing of processors of Intel Core i7 and Core i9 (Skylake-X) for LGA2066"

ReWire i7-7800X concedes on productivity AMD Ryzen 7 1800 and competes at the best with R7-1700X.
Corrected, do not thank.

23

Re: Article arguing iXBT.com: "Testing of processors of Intel Core i7 and Core i9 (Skylake-X) for LGA2066"

ReWire
for LGA2066 there are 200 killed raccoons. And for 4. Well you understood:gigi: though on 370 it is finite than 50$ more expensively.

24

Re: Article arguing iXBT.com: "Testing of processors of Intel Core i7 and Core i9 (Skylake-X) for LGA2066"

SlaveN_VM
Corrected, do not thank.
You though read article before comments to write. :-\:down:
For the lazy I will repeat article output - integral result AMD Ryzen 7 1800 - 201, i7-7800X - 189, i.e. a difference of 5 %
That is interesting AMD Ryzen 7 more expensively i7 noticeably more than on 5 % wink

25

Re: Article arguing iXBT.com: "Testing of processors of Intel Core i7 and Core i9 (Skylake-X) for LGA2066"

ReWire
For the lazy I will repeat article output - integral result AMD Ryzen 7 1800 - 201, i7-7800X - 189, i.e. a difference of 5 %
And if to compare 1800 with 7820, result already in favor of Rjazantsa. For losing 15 % of productivity there is it on third more cheaply.
And about comparing 1600X vs. 7800X and it would not be desirable to speak...:gigi: