First gaming benchmarks for Intel's new Intel Core i9-7900X CPU surface

Intel’s new CPUs will be released in a few days and the first gaming benchmarks for its new Intel Core i9-7900X CPU have surfaced.

Read Full Story >>
tyasia02491d ago

So a $1000 Intel chip with 10 cores barely outperforms 8 core Ryzen at $450. Not to mention ThreadRipper will be out with 16 Cores and has a rumored price of $849 to again regain the performance crown.

ninsigma2491d ago

It's way too expensive. You would not need that at all for a gaming rig. An i5 would suffice!

KwietStorm_BLM2491d ago

*An i5 would suffice for [some] games.

attilayavuzer2491d ago


Oh stop, a used $50 OC 2500k will still run almost anything without issue.

tyasia02491d ago

Well... I wouldn't recommend an i5 to a friend. Almost all modern games can use 6 to 8 threads. Currently I would recommend an AMD 1600 or a 1700. I personally consider them to be the best value, the 1600 is cheaper than the top end i5 and it has 6 cores and 12 threads and the same cache as the 8 core R7, it's the best value at the moment.

IanTH2491d ago (Edited 2491d ago )

An i5 is mostly fine in...I'd say most games, if looking at all past games and even some current. But more new games are using more cores and can really take advantage of all the CPU grunt you can throw at it (The Division or Watch Dogs 2, for example).

My old rig I just replaced had an OCed 2500k in it and it was holding performance back - if only slightly - in several games even on that system's GTX 970 (would have severely hobbled my new 1080 in some cases). Any CPU bound game will bottleneck your GPU output, so if you can afford to spend a little more on a 4 core/8 thread or better, it can certainly be worth it.

Though if you put together a value build with a mid tier GPU, then an i5 is certainly the best choice for both price:performance & that it mostly won't hold those level GPUs back in any meaningful way.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 2490d ago
ProjectVulcan2491d ago (Edited 2491d ago )

It's not really a gaming chip.

You could easily turn that around and say so a $450 Ryzen 1800X doesn't outperform a $300 i7 7700k!

Which it doesn't BTW, in games it mostly loses to said cheaper Intel chip.

But in productivity Ryzen wins because of all the cores.

Same goes for 7900X here but even more so. It DESTROYS a Ryzen 1800X in productivity which is why it costs $1000....

What's more unlike AMD's Ryzen architecture which has severely limited overclocking ability (around 4Ghz), the 7900X samples tested have been able to do an astounding 4.7Ghz.

10 Intel cores at 4.7Ghz will be a match for 12 Ryzen ones at 4Ghz. At that rate by the time Intel launch 12 cores AMD will need 16 just to edge it out.

sadsatan2491d ago

better waiting for the 10-core threadripper imo

darksky2491d ago

Would anyone buy a $1000 cpu for games? This is far too expensive compared to the very competitive Ryzens for business usage too.

maybelovehate2491d ago

Exactly. But I would buy it for producing music.

maybelovehate2491d ago

Would rather see the VST and Render benchmarks. Games are not really a good example for CPU benchmarks.

Show all comments (14)

Nvidia DLSS 3.7 drives a further nail in the coffin of native performance

Nvidia DLSS 3.7 is the latest update to the long-running AI upscaling technology, and it further shows native performance doesn't matter.

DustMan11h ago

I think hardware development is at a point where they need to figure out how to draw less power, These beefy high end cards eat wattage, and I'm curious if using DLSS & AI in general will lower the power draw. It would seem like the days of just adding more VRAM & horsepower is over. Law of diminishing returns. Pretty soon DLSS/FSR will be incorporated into everything, and eventually the tech will be good enough to hardly notice a difference if at all. AI is the future and it would be foolish to turn around and not incorporate it at all. Reliance on AI is only going to pick up more & more.

Tapani1h ago(Edited 1h ago)

DLSS certainly lowers power consumption. Also, the numbers such as the 4090 at 450W does not tell you everything, most of the time the GPU stays between 200-350W in gameplay, which is not too different from the highest end GPU of 10 years ago. Plus, today you can undervolt + OC GPUs by a good margin to keep stock performance while utilizing 80% of the power limit.

You can make the 4090 extremely power efficient and keep 90% of its performance at 320W.

However, in today's world the chip manufacturing is limited by physics and we will have power increases in the next 5-10 years at the very least to keep the technology moving forward at a pace that satisfies both businesses and consumers.

Maybe in 10 years we have new tech coming to the markets which we are yet to invent or perhaps we can solve existing technologies problems with manufacturing or cost of production.

On the other hand, if we were to solve the energy problem on earth by utilizing fusion and solar etc. it would not matter how much these chips require. That being said, in the next 30-40 years that is a pipedream.

Tacoboto10h ago

PS4 Pro had dedicated hardware in it for supporting checkerboard rendering that was used significantly in PS4 first party titles, so you don't need to look to PC or even modern PC gaming. The first RTX cards released nearly 6 years ago, so how many nails does this coffin need?

InUrFoxHole9h ago

Well... its a coffin man. So atleast 4?

Tacoboto9h ago

PSSR in the fall can assume that role.

anast2h ago

and those nails need to be replaced annually

Einhander19728h ago

I'm not sure what the point you're trying to make is, but PS4 Pro was before DLSS and FSR, and it still provides one of the highest performance uplifts while maintaining good image quality.

DLSS is it's own thing but checkerboarding om PS5 still is a rival to the likes of FSR2.

Tacoboto8h ago

Um. That is my point. That there have been so many nails in this "native performance" coffin and they've been getting hammered in for years, even on PS4 Pro before DLSS was even a thing.

RonsonPL9h ago

Almost deaf person:
- lightweight portable 5$, speakers of 0,5cm diameter are the final nail in coffin of Hi-Fi audio!

Some people in 2010:
- smartphones are the final nain in the console gaming's coffin!

This is just the same.
AI upscalling is complete dogshit in terms of motion quality. The fact that someone is not aware of it (look at the deaf guy example) doesn't mean the flaws are not there. They are. And all it takes to see them, is to use a display that handles motion well, so either gets true 500fps at 500Hz LCD TN or OLED (or faster tech) or uses low persistence mode (check blurbusters.com if you don't know what it means) also known as Black Frame Insertion or backlight strobing.

Also, image ruined by any type of TAA is just as "native image" as chineese 0,5$ screwdriver is "high quality, heavy duty, for professional use". It's nowhere near it. But if you're an ignorant "journalist", you will publish crap like this article, just to flow with the current.

There's no coffin to native res quality and there never will be. Eventually, we'll have enough performance in rasterization to drive 500fps, which will be a game changer for motion quality while also adding other benefit - lower latency.
And at 500fps, the amount of time required for upscalling makes it completely useless.
This crap is only usable for cinematic stuff, like cutscenes and such. Not for gaming. Beware of ignorants on the internet. The TAA is not "native" and the shitty look of the modern games when you disable any TAA, is not "native" either as it's ruined by the developer's design choice - you can cheat by rendering every 4th pixel when you plan to put a smeary TAA pass on it later on. When you disable it, you will see a ruined image, horrible pixellation and other visual "glitches" but it is NOT what native would've looked like if you'd like to honestly compare the two.

Stay informed.


Is Gran Turismo (PS1) Still Worth Playing in 2024?

Gran Turismo for PlayStation launched a sub-genre and revolutionised console racing - TechStomper asks is it still worth playing in 2024.

Read Full Story >>
Terry_B1d 8h ago

Well..you can play it completely offline at least ^^

PrimeVinister1d 8h ago

Something we really miss, just turning on the console and having the game start without signing into stuff

Terry_B1d 8h ago

Fully agreed. That and Splitscreen Modes for Racing games.

PrimeVinister1d 7h ago

@Terry_B I miss having people to splitscreen with, but I can't blame anyone for that :-(