No, I don't fan boy anything and I'm just saying single core performance is slow, like it is with current HEDT intel CPU's, I'm mostly facing single core performance limits every day with i7-6700 Skylake, 1800x is slower, current Intel HEDT models are slower, that is realism, with unlocked Kaby Lake i7 that is overclocked there is no competition, even super expensive intel 16 core CPU is lots slower, sucks, really sucks. For multi core purposes, this 1800x is absolutely wonderful, for the price performance is incredible, I never claimed whole CPU being slow or bad, just single core performance is not at level of 2017, it is bit behind, it is not awfully bad or bad at all, but it is slow because at the autumn it will be behind of intel HEDT again. However, I do hope they sell well and can make upgraded version for 2018 that will gain grounds on that again, it really is good CPU, but it is not perfect, there is no perfect currently, Intel models that have best single core performance lack of cores, models that have cores lack of single core performance, even this AMD is better compared to those. So no worthy things to upgrade for me still. --- Post updated --- It might surprise you, but yes, it certainly is slower, because of single core performance, which is where we need to see improvements as currently there are no high end CPU that would not sacrifice that 20% single core performance compared to consumer level CPU. My browser addons don't still use anything more than single core and that is where I get annoying wait times, I want faster, not slower, anything else is decently fast with i7-6700, I don't need more cores, it won't make things I do faster
When the hell are you going to wake up and realize that a CPU isn't slow until it bottlenecks another system component, like a GPU for example? For instance, Bulldozer? Slow. Bloomfield? Slow in this day and age. Netburst? Always been slow. Sandy Bridge? Becoming more and more outdated by the second. Ivy Bridge? Not yet. I still rock Haswell in games without a single problem. You can pair a GTX 1080 with a 4790K and be happy for ages. Same with Ivy Bridge, less so with Sandy (but manageable), same with Broadwell, same with Zen. There are also work loads besides gaming. I'd check them out if I were you. There's also the fact that it was literally released TODAY. As such, there are issues with game drivers (think about it, drivers either expect Bulldozer or an Intel platform), chipset inefficiency to be solved through bios updates, the whole ram speed issue. You are putting the cart before the horse. Also, take a look at this: 15 games tested, the 1800X averaged 4% faster than the 7700K. As games become more and more multithreaded with DX12, the consumer grade Intel platform will fall further and further behind.
What game is browser addons that I did mentioned? East Coast Usa, single car, town at night, my GPU is waiting my CPU, my GPU is 1050 TI, perspective? If CPU upgrade would be downgrade in single core performance, then I call it slow, if that makes me carry badge of idiot, I happily carry that badge as in bigger picture we all are pretty darn big idiots anyways. I really don't get why you go so emotional over this, why it is so big deal for you if someone is saying something negative of CPU you like so much? Why it is so hard to see that sometimes perspective is not same as yours, applications and usage is not what you might think? It is just another product used to keep us all sweating 8 hours a day in a sweatshop after all and it's single core performance is at level of 2015, not at level of 2017, it is not poor, but still slow @ 2017, to compete this year equally in performance it should of been faster at single core performance, but I guess that is what you really can't see here, because you compare it to CPU's from 2014 and 2015. Yeah, even 4790K is very usable in most of the games and situations, sure, it was not released 2017 as killer CPU, if you release killer CPU at 2017 with two years old performance level in single core performance, you are slow. Here is more perspective, slow does not equal bad, it is not automatically poor choice, performance for buck is excellent, but that does not change the fact that single core performance is not at this years level, it does not need to be for that price point of course, however I would not get 60fps on East Coast Usa town at night with it as I barely get now, because of single core performance limits fps there. I know that you probably don't get it, you feel so strongly about this CPU and are thinking from your perspective so it is hard to see my perspective, however in coming months there will be reviews that will start to point out this aspect and when new Intel HEDT CPU's are tested, this is point they will bring up, even it is bit pointless to compare 1000$ CPUs with this AMD they will do it anyway, 200$ CPU will be faster in single core performance though, so if that is what one needs, then no point getting 1800x that is all there is to it really. See the issue, I'm not calling CPU slow, which you seem to be thinking.
there is no single car that can tank an intel CPU in east coast USA, theres something seriously wrong on your machine.
100% this. I have a xeon, great multi threaded however single core is old i5 levels, especially thanks to the lower clocks of the engineering sample chip. No single vehicle puts it under 60fps. Game performance has also been great even with the lower single core. Its really not as much of a problem as its being made out to be, something like the 7700k matching it in single core is amazing when you consider the clock speed differences.
It's not aimed at the gaming market, do you not understand that? That is why Intel gets away with Broadwell-E being slower than Kaby Lake in IPC. It's not a gaming chip. Your gamer mind is fogging your intellect up a bit. There are more workloads out there than just gaming. Physics simulation, video encoding, video rendering, 3d rendering, distributed computing, multi-tasking any of the aforementioned. Outside of gaming, at the price point, the 7700K falls on its face. My problem isn't with the 7700K, but that Intel has the balls to charge $350 for a chip that just barely handles streaming.
According to benchmarks and other tests there is no issues. In this shot you can see GPU is not at max, CPU graphics thread is what is causing GPU usage to drop and fps is not staying up, BeamNG is very much single core performance demanding because of shadows and lighting + some other graphical aspects. 0.9 might be again different. Changing graphical settings I could lower GPU usage without increasing FPS there, CPU single core is not at 100% and will not get there, but FPS is limited by CPU, some maps and places are even worse in this, it happens, only reason you don't know about it is because usually GPU power runs out first because of playing in bigger resolution. Take 10% of that CPU single core performance away and where it would be then? There is only overclocked CPUs that will not get tanked here. It's roamer with all extra lamps if you want to do tests, I would love to see how it compares on different systems. --- Post updated --- Of course there is, my interest is getting faster web browser with lots of addons, only single core performance helps there, but for sure for example Handbrake it is multi core performance again that matters, so one has to know what he really needs, saying CPU X is best for gaming for example does not help anyone really, it does not work like that, what one does with computer, where slowdowns are with current system, single core or multi core performance is limiting more, one has to evaluate that before knowing what is good. For me, anything but Kaby Lake at the market currently would be downgrade because for me there is no multi core performance issues, this i7 is more than enough for BeamNG in multi core wise, most of cores just rest there, even this is just 4 core and HT. And yeah, I agree fully that i7 kaby price is way too much, I did pay 160 from i7 6700 + 8 GB of 2666Mhz DDR4, I would of never ever paid over 200 from CPU alone and price of CPU was then something like over 300 new ones, mine was just tested by customer and returned for that price I thought if it does not work it is worth the gamble. AMD price will drop by autumn most likely, it will be very good upgrade for most, just not for me, there really is no good upgrade for me at least for the year, maybe for two. Update: Oh and if anyone can find out they system is not getting that kind of CPU load in that situation which is in screenshot, I greateful, if someone can tell some setting being wrong causing too high CPU load on that situation, I'm forever grategul and worship you, because that thing is really killing performance on many maps, it is shadows causing high cpu load issue or feature. Might be that 0.9 changes that and then this AMD 1800x is going to be huge thing for BeamNG, well it already is of course, but still.
"Faster web browsing with lots of addons." A god damn Athlon 64 X2 can do that. Your entire argument has been made invalid. Oh, and judging by that screenshot you shared, clearly it isn't... This is at StupidWide™ resolution as well. There's something wrong with your "i7" there buddy.
You really should wash your glasses my man, you are GPU limited your GPU is at 100%, try 720p resolution, I use that in windowed mode as I do modding mostly, not much driving. Can't see your FPS, how much less than 60?
Worth mentioning that the full boost speed is only on a single core, however some people have reported that two cores are sometimes boosted to that speed. When all cores are being used it only turbo's by a couple 100mhz. Not that this is a knock against the Ryzen chips, they are really neat. For gaming I imagine the R5's are going to be more interesting, since they will allegedly be running fewer cores at higher speeds. Which should result in better gaming performance. But the R7's are pretty badass in their own right.
I'm a huge AMD fanboy. My skylake chip has been very good to me so far. That along with my rx480 have been PLENTY of kick to chew thru beam and a heavily modded KSP. Looking foreword to my next upgrade in early 2018 and knowing I might be able to get an amd chip that can throw down some serious single core performance. This is great news for everything expect faster progress now that competition is back.
Im still running SandyBridge I5 2500k at 4.3Ghz, I don't have any issues with any vehicles in BeamNG. Obviously if I try and load more than 4 complex vehicles things may slow down a little, but that is to be expected on most chips. Equally while I am not a super heavy user I am not exactly a light one either and I haven't really had any major issues since I don't put long videos on YouTube and do blender rendering on the GPU. I guess for me the CPU just needs to be "good enough" Assuming no surprises maybe 2018 might be the year to upgrade, perhaps when gen 2 Ryzen is a thing. Maybe 2019 for a more major refresh with a new CPU and GPU at the same time.
GPU's* You know what if you actually had eyes. Also, thank you for telling me I'm GPU limited, I already knew that. It's okay though, I still have more graphical processing power then you do. Had I not been running this game at 5760x1080 it would be well over 60 FPS, but that limits the purpose of actually having a resolution of 5760x1080. If BeamNG actually had ANY graphics optimization AT ALL, it'd be much nicer. Oh, also, 5760x1080 a type of "3k" resolution, in case you were wondering. Also, it was not to show you my GPU usage or crazy resolution, please notice how one core isn't wildly maxed out like yours is. Look in the top-left corner next to the Afterburner OSD. You see it, the little program called "task manager"? You do? Good, good. Yes, see how one core isn't wildly maxed out? Oh, you do? Good, that's what I was trying to show you. Oh, you noticed I'm overclocked? Very good eye! I equal about Skylake, maybe Kaby Lake on a good day with that overclock. What's that? You run Skylake? Well would you look at that, it's relevant to you then, isn't it? I'd care about FPS if Beam's FFB actually worked. This game sucks to play with my Thrustmaster TMX.
I can't remember how it was with Intel Chips, but I think they too had limitations to boost speed, you would not get all threads 100% with maximum boost, but my failing memory has dropped the details already. Also sometimes boost does not kick in, I mean it is possible to get low fps low CPU and GPU boost levels, something to do with code I guess. 720p, everyone just try it if not believing me, this is with normal quality, look at that GPU usage, 35% FPS 46 and CPU usage over 80% on that single core, it happens on some situations and I tend to run up those situations often, if it does not happen to anyone else with these settings, then I might believe something is wrong with the system and would really like to know what it could be:
My single core is like a nicely overclocked 2500k at best. Only runs at 2.1Ghz most of the time, can boost to 2.2Ghz. Also just for fun threw in a crap ton of extra programs and a few 100 chrome tabs. Note how just one core isnt maxed and I still can run the game at a solid 60fps. The only limitation was graphics, had to lower them quite alot to make it run well but that isnt relevant to the CPU. So I really cant see any problems on a CPU with even moderately better single threaded performance.
Aarrgh, of course your CPU is not maxed out when it is waiting your GPU to process, are you serious dude!!! Try that 720p with settings and car setup I posted above and you realize how wrong you are. Show that screenshot, show fps in that setup I posted, because I'm not believing you right now.
Debating whether I should upgrade to Ryzen or custom loop my rig and overclock my 3570K until I run out of voltage.
If the CPU isn't maxed, and the GPU is, that's called a "GPU Bottleneck". If the CPU is maxed and the GPU isn't that's called a "CPU Bottleneck". If, in your case, you have ONE cpu core maxed and your GPU maxed, that's called THERE'S SOMETHING WRONG WITH YOUR SYSTEM.
Let me guess, you have AMD Radeon graphics card? I know this happens to many and only thing I can think of is Nvidia drivers and BeamNG don't work together or something like that, shadows are computed on CPU on my system, if AMD graphics card compute shadows with GPU, then that would say it's bug in BeamNG or in Geforce driver. Any other ideas?
