Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 16 of 21

Thread: If you had the choice...

  1. #1
    Senior Moment blueball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Posts
    2,426
    Thanks
    846
    Thanked
    379 times in 294 posts
    • blueball's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus Z390A
      • CPU:
      • i9-9900KS
      • Memory:
      • Kingston 64GB (2x32GB) DDR4 2400MHz
      • Storage:
      • 2TB Samsung 970 EVO Plus NVMe PCIE M.2 plus Samsung 860 EVO 4TB SSD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • ASUS TUF RTX 3080 Ti GAMING OC
      • PSU:
      • Corsair HX850 850 W Full Modular 80 Plus Platinum
      • Case:
      • Corsair Carbide 330R Ultra Silent Midi Tower
      • Operating System:
      • Win 10 Pro x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • IIYAMA 3461WQ IPS 34" 3440x1440 plus BenQ GW2765HT IPS 27" 2560x1440
      • Internet:
      • Plusnet 28Mb

    If you had the choice...

    ...would you take 4 cores @ 4.2GHz with HT or 6 cores @ 4GHz with HT. Usage is mix of Photoshop and gaming.

    4.2GHz is i7-7700K on Gigabyte Z270
    4.0GHz is i7-8086K on an Asus Z370A
    Rgds,

    BB
    Hexus Trust here and here

  2. #2
    Registered+
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    22
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    1 time in 1 post

    Re: If you had the choice...

    Personally, I'd go with the 6 cores. I cannot see 200mhz having any meaningful impact on either gaming or photoshop.

    However, an extra 2 cores/4 threads would make a big difference...provided the game makes use of all cores/threads available, of course

  3. Received thanks from:

    blueball (01-09-2019)

  4. #3
    Senior Member Spreadie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    an island in the south
    Posts
    2,019
    Thanks
    329
    Thanked
    393 times in 282 posts
    • Spreadie's system
      • Motherboard:
      • ickle tiny fing
      • CPU:
      • eight corrs, sixteen freds
      • Memory:
      • sixteen gigglebytes
      • Storage:
      • many many terribads
      • Graphics card(s):
      • gurt big one
      • PSU:
      • big & smol
      • Case:
      • Ess Eff Eff Eye Tee Ex
      • Operating System:
      • DozeTen
      • Monitor(s):
      • 32 throbbing inches with a slight curve
      • Internet:
      • two tin cans and some wet string

    Re: If you had the choice...

    Depends on the price.

    The 8086K is clearly the better choice but I wouldn't pay a premium for it. It may work out better to buy new AMD.
    Before you judge a man, walk a mile in his shoes; after that, who cares?! He's a mile away and you've got his shoes!

  5. Received thanks from:

    blueball (01-09-2019)

  6. #4
    jim
    jim is offline
    HEXUS.clueless jim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Location: Location:
    Posts
    11,435
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked
    1,639 times in 1,304 posts
    • jim's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus Maximus IV Gene-Z
      • CPU:
      • i5 2500K @ 4.5GHz
      • Memory:
      • 8GB Corsair Vengeance LP
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Sandisk SSD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • ASUS GTX 970
      • PSU:
      • Corsair AX650
      • Case:
      • Silverstone Fortress FT03
      • Operating System:
      • 8.1 Pro
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell S2716DG
      • Internet:
      • 10 Mbps ADSL

    Re: If you had the choice...

    I agree. In all honesty, I doubt you'll find yourself maxing all six cores, but given how long we've had quads for now I think plenty of games will be at least designed for quad core, and then having other software in the background able to use the remaining two is useful.

    Overall you're getting more power with six as well, so it will give you far more in terms of futureproofing than an extra 200MHz.

    I went AMD Ryzen so I'm running eight core. Have never seen my system use all of them but the price difference wasn't worth worrying about.

  7. Received thanks from:

    blueball (01-09-2019)

  8. #5
    root Member DanceswithUnix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    In the middle of a core dump
    Posts
    12,334
    Thanks
    714
    Thanked
    1,406 times in 1,188 posts
    • DanceswithUnix's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus X470-PRO
      • CPU:
      • 3700X
      • Memory:
      • 32GB 3200MHz ECC
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Linux, 1TB Games (Win 10)
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Asus Strix RX Vega 56
      • PSU:
      • 650W Corsair TX
      • Case:
      • Antec 300
      • Operating System:
      • Fedora 33 + Win 10 Pro 64 (yuk)
      • Monitor(s):
      • Benq XL2730Z 1440p + Iiyama 27" 1440p
      • Internet:
      • Zen 80Mb/20Mb VDSL

    Re: If you had the choice...

    Quote Originally Posted by jim View Post
    I went AMD Ryzen so I'm running eight core. Have never seen my system use all of them but the price difference wasn't worth worrying about.
    I max out all 8 on a regular basis, which is sooo nice

  9. Received thanks from:

    blueball (01-09-2019)

  10. #6
    Senior Member Xlucine's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,151
    Thanks
    295
    Thanked
    186 times in 145 posts
    • Xlucine's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus TUF B450M-plus
      • CPU:
      • 3700X
      • Memory:
      • 16GB @ 3.2 Gt/s
      • Storage:
      • Crucial P5 1TB (boot), Crucial MX500 1TB, Crucial MX100 512GB
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVGA 980ti
      • PSU:
      • Fractal Design ION+ 560P
      • Case:
      • Silverstone TJ08-E
      • Operating System:
      • W10 pro
      • Monitor(s):
      • Viewsonic vx3211-2k-mhd, Dell P2414H

    Re: If you had the choice...

    The frequency difference isn't that great - the 7700K should hit 4.4 GHz on all cores, and the 8086K should hit 4.3 GHz at stock settings
    https://hexus.net/tech/reviews/cpu/1...i7-8086k-14nm/

    The 8086K system also has the option of going to an 8 core chip in future (9900K is supported), the 7700K system is as good as it's ever going to get (i.e. an i3 with hyperthreading)

  11. Received thanks from:

    blueball (01-09-2019)

  12. #7
    Senior Moment blueball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Posts
    2,426
    Thanks
    846
    Thanked
    379 times in 294 posts
    • blueball's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus Z390A
      • CPU:
      • i9-9900KS
      • Memory:
      • Kingston 64GB (2x32GB) DDR4 2400MHz
      • Storage:
      • 2TB Samsung 970 EVO Plus NVMe PCIE M.2 plus Samsung 860 EVO 4TB SSD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • ASUS TUF RTX 3080 Ti GAMING OC
      • PSU:
      • Corsair HX850 850 W Full Modular 80 Plus Platinum
      • Case:
      • Corsair Carbide 330R Ultra Silent Midi Tower
      • Operating System:
      • Win 10 Pro x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • IIYAMA 3461WQ IPS 34" 3440x1440 plus BenQ GW2765HT IPS 27" 2560x1440
      • Internet:
      • Plusnet 28Mb

    Re: If you had the choice...

    Thanks all. Looks like 8086.
    Rgds,

    BB
    Hexus Trust here and here

  13. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    2,784
    Thanks
    680
    Thanked
    644 times in 479 posts

    Re: If you had the choice...

    What percentage of usage is Photoshop, and what gaming? And what about relative importance?

    Will the games you want benefit from extra threafs?

    Photoshop didn't used to be good at utilusing cores/threads, but due to the subscription model, I haven't updated since it went CC.

    I remember a principal software architect at Adobe talking about it. His logic was that relatively few of PS's tasks were suitable for breaking into chunks, and that Photoshop usage strongly tended to working on one file at a time, with most tasks being essentially linear, because later bits relied on earlier bits, so couldn't start until those earlier bits had concluded.

    The result was that sheer horsepower tended to be a better bet, but I've no idea how much 4.0 v 4.2 would make. And there were some effects that could be broken down into non-linear chunks.

    But as I said, I'm outta touch on this stuff. So I just raise the question.

    That said my gut tells me it won't make much difference in either PS or most games.

    Which would I chose? Probably cores but not because of either PS or gaming.
    Last edited by Saracen999; 02-09-2019 at 10:26 AM. Reason: Tpyo's

  14. Received thanks from:

    blueball (02-09-2019)

  15. #9
    Senior Member Spreadie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    an island in the south
    Posts
    2,019
    Thanks
    329
    Thanked
    393 times in 282 posts
    • Spreadie's system
      • Motherboard:
      • ickle tiny fing
      • CPU:
      • eight corrs, sixteen freds
      • Memory:
      • sixteen gigglebytes
      • Storage:
      • many many terribads
      • Graphics card(s):
      • gurt big one
      • PSU:
      • big & smol
      • Case:
      • Ess Eff Eff Eye Tee Ex
      • Operating System:
      • DozeTen
      • Monitor(s):
      • 32 throbbing inches with a slight curve
      • Internet:
      • two tin cans and some wet string

    Re: If you had the choice...

    Quote Originally Posted by blueball View Post
    ...would you take 4 cores @ 4.2GHz with HT or 6 cores @ 4GHz with HT. Usage is mix of Photoshop and gaming.

    4.2GHz is i7-7700K on Gigabyte Z270
    4.0GHz is i7-8086K on an Asus Z370A
    Also, those figures are the base clocks - the 7700K has a higher base and boosts to 4.5GHz, but the 8086K boosts to 5GHz.
    Before you judge a man, walk a mile in his shoes; after that, who cares?! He's a mile away and you've got his shoes!

  16. Received thanks from:

    blueball (02-09-2019),kalniel (02-09-2019)

  17. #10
    root Member DanceswithUnix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    In the middle of a core dump
    Posts
    12,334
    Thanks
    714
    Thanked
    1,406 times in 1,188 posts
    • DanceswithUnix's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus X470-PRO
      • CPU:
      • 3700X
      • Memory:
      • 32GB 3200MHz ECC
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Linux, 1TB Games (Win 10)
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Asus Strix RX Vega 56
      • PSU:
      • 650W Corsair TX
      • Case:
      • Antec 300
      • Operating System:
      • Fedora 33 + Win 10 Pro 64 (yuk)
      • Monitor(s):
      • Benq XL2730Z 1440p + Iiyama 27" 1440p
      • Internet:
      • Zen 80Mb/20Mb VDSL

    Re: If you had the choice...

    Quote Originally Posted by Spreadie View Post
    Also, those figures are the base clocks - the 7700K has a higher base and boosts to 4.5GHz, but the 8086K boosts to 5GHz.
    Given the 8086K is basically an overclocked 8700K, that shows through in this review benchmark, though both of them get beaten by the Ryzen 3600.




    (from https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreview...marks-vs-intel)

  18. Received thanks from:

    blueball (02-09-2019)

  19. #11
    Senior Member Spreadie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    an island in the south
    Posts
    2,019
    Thanks
    329
    Thanked
    393 times in 282 posts
    • Spreadie's system
      • Motherboard:
      • ickle tiny fing
      • CPU:
      • eight corrs, sixteen freds
      • Memory:
      • sixteen gigglebytes
      • Storage:
      • many many terribads
      • Graphics card(s):
      • gurt big one
      • PSU:
      • big & smol
      • Case:
      • Ess Eff Eff Eye Tee Ex
      • Operating System:
      • DozeTen
      • Monitor(s):
      • 32 throbbing inches with a slight curve
      • Internet:
      • two tin cans and some wet string

    Re: If you had the choice...

    Quote Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix View Post
    Given the 8086K is basically an overclocked 8700K, that shows through in this review benchmark, though both of them get beaten by the Ryzen 3600.
    Which is why I said AMD could be a better option.
    Before you judge a man, walk a mile in his shoes; after that, who cares?! He's a mile away and you've got his shoes!

  20. Received thanks from:

    blueball (02-09-2019)

  21. #12
    MCRN Tachi Ttaskmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Reading, UK
    Posts
    6,766
    Thanks
    487
    Thanked
    739 times in 626 posts
    • Ttaskmaster's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus X99-PRO USB 3.1
      • CPU:
      • i7 5960X o/c to 4.6GHz
      • Memory:
      • 32GB 3200MHz Crucial Ballistix Tactical Tracer RGB DDR4
      • Storage:
      • Samsung Evo 120GB and Seagate Baracuda 2TB
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Gigabyte G1 GTX980Ti
      • PSU:
      • EVGA Supernova G2 1000W
      • Case:
      • Phanteks Enthoo Luxe wiv perspex window
      • Operating System:
      • Win10 64 Home
      • Monitor(s):
      • Acer Predator XB270HU 1440 IPS GSync 144Hz
      • Internet:
      • 900Mbps Gigaclear WHOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!

    Re: If you had the choice...

    Which one overclocks better?
    _______________________________________________________________________
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Tyson
    like a chihuahua urinating on a towering inferno...

  22. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    415
    Thanks
    58
    Thanked
    32 times in 30 posts
    • PC-LAD's system
      • Motherboard:
      • X370 GT7
      • CPU:
      • R5 3600 @ 4.3GHz
      • Memory:
      • 4*4 GB TG Delta @2933
      • Storage:
      • 128gb Sandisk SSD plus, 1tb SeaGate Barracuda, 640GB WD Black, 500gb WD Blue sata ssd
      • Graphics card(s):
      • RX 580 8GB
      • PSU:
      • Evga G+650w
      • Case:
      • MasterBox 5 Lite TemG
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10
      • Monitor(s):
      • MSI Optix G24C
      • Internet:
      • 10 up 70 Down

    Re: If you had the choice...

    Quote Originally Posted by Spreadie View Post
    Which is why I said AMD could be a better option.
    Strangely enough though in that table a OC'd 9600k beats the 3600, even the 9700k (think those results are a bit skewed) -\(+_+)/-

  23. #14
    root Member DanceswithUnix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    In the middle of a core dump
    Posts
    12,334
    Thanks
    714
    Thanked
    1,406 times in 1,188 posts
    • DanceswithUnix's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus X470-PRO
      • CPU:
      • 3700X
      • Memory:
      • 32GB 3200MHz ECC
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Linux, 1TB Games (Win 10)
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Asus Strix RX Vega 56
      • PSU:
      • 650W Corsair TX
      • Case:
      • Antec 300
      • Operating System:
      • Fedora 33 + Win 10 Pro 64 (yuk)
      • Monitor(s):
      • Benq XL2730Z 1440p + Iiyama 27" 1440p
      • Internet:
      • Zen 80Mb/20Mb VDSL

    Re: If you had the choice...

    Quote Originally Posted by PC-LAD View Post
    Strangely enough though in that table a OC'd 9600k beats the 3600, even the 9700k (think those results are a bit skewed) -\(+_+)/-
    Photoshop is an odd benchmark, hence it seemed worth digging some results out. As Saracen remarked, it is largely single core limited but it doesn't seem as simple as that. I expect cache and SSE throughput for that core are important too (something is making up the clock speed deficit of that 3600 rather nicely).

  24. #15
    Registered+
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    27
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    1 time in 1 post

    Re: If you had the choice...

    I could be wrong but I thought modern versions of PS used multi threading very well?

  25. #16
    root Member DanceswithUnix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    In the middle of a core dump
    Posts
    12,334
    Thanks
    714
    Thanked
    1,406 times in 1,188 posts
    • DanceswithUnix's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus X470-PRO
      • CPU:
      • 3700X
      • Memory:
      • 32GB 3200MHz ECC
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Linux, 1TB Games (Win 10)
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Asus Strix RX Vega 56
      • PSU:
      • 650W Corsair TX
      • Case:
      • Antec 300
      • Operating System:
      • Fedora 33 + Win 10 Pro 64 (yuk)
      • Monitor(s):
      • Benq XL2730Z 1440p + Iiyama 27" 1440p
      • Internet:
      • Zen 80Mb/20Mb VDSL

    Re: If you had the choice...

    Quote Originally Posted by freebooter View Post
    I could be wrong but I thought modern versions of PS used multi threading very well?
    Look at the above graph towards the bottom, and there are figures for overclocked 1600 and 1700 processors at the same 3.9GHz frequency. The 1700 is very slightly faster, so that is either down to the extra 2 cores or the cache that those cores contain or a bit of both. Either way those extra cores are helping, just not very much.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •