The Intel Kaby Lake-X i7 7740X and i5 7640X Review: The New Single-Threaded Champion, OC to 5GHz
by Ian Cutress on July 24, 2017 8:30 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
- Intel
- Kaby Lake
- X299
- Basin Falls
- Kaby Lake-X
- i7-7740X
- i5-7640X
Benchmarking Performance: CPU Legacy Tests
Our legacy tests represent benchmarks that were once at the height of their time. Some of these are industry standard synthetics, and we have data going back over 10 years. All of the data here has been rerun on Windows 10, and we plan to go back several generations of components to see how performance has evolved.
All of our benchmark results can also be found in our benchmark engine, Bench.
3D Particle Movement v1
3DPM is a self-penned benchmark, taking basic 3D movement algorithms used in Brownian Motion simulations and testing them for speed. High floating point performance, MHz and IPC wins in the single thread version, whereas the multithread version has to handle the threads and loves more cores. This is the original version, written in the style of a typical non-computer science student coding up an algorithm for their theoretical problem, and comes without any non-obvious optimizations not already performed by the compiler, such as false sharing.
CineBench 11.5 and 10
Cinebench is a widely known benchmarking tool for measuring performance relative to MAXON's animation software Cinema 4D. Cinebench has been optimized over a decade and focuses on purely CPU horsepower, meaning if there is a discrepancy in pure throughput characteristics, Cinebench is likely to show that discrepancy. Arguably other software doesn't make use of all the tools available, so the real world relevance might purely be academic, but given our large database of data for Cinebench it seems difficult to ignore a small five-minute test. We run the modern version 15 in this test, as well as the older 11.5 and 10 due to our back data.
x264 HD 3.0
Similarly, the x264 HD 3.0 package we use here is also kept for historic regressional data. The latest version is 5.0.1, and encodes a 1080p video clip into a high-quality x264 file. Version 3.0 only performs the same test on a 720p file, and in most circumstances the software performance hits its limit on high-end processors, but still works well for mainstream and low-end. Also, this version only takes a few minutes, whereas the latest can take over 90 minutes to run.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
176 Comments
View All Comments
mapesdhs - Monday, July 24, 2017 - link
Let the memes collide, focus the memetic radiation, aim it at IBM and get them to jump into the x86 battle. :Ddgz - Monday, July 24, 2017 - link
Man, I could really use an edit button. my brain has shit itselfmapesdhs - Monday, July 24, 2017 - link
Have you ever posted a correction because of a typo, then realised there was a typo in the correction? At that point my head explodes. :DGlock24 - Monday, July 24, 2017 - link
"The second is for professionals that know that their code cannot take advantage of hyperthreading and are happy with the performance. Perhaps in light of a hyperthreading bug (which is severely limited to minor niche edge cases), Intel felt a non-HT version was required."This does not make any sense. All motherboards I've used since Hyper Threading exists (yes, all the way back to the P4) lets you disable HT. There is really no reason for the X299 i5 to exist.
Ian Cutress - Monday, July 24, 2017 - link
Even if the i5 was $90-$100 cheaper? Why offer i5s at all?yeeeeman - Monday, July 24, 2017 - link
First interesting point to extract from this review is that i7 2600K is still good enough for most gaming tasks. Another point that we can extract is that games are not optimized for more than 4 core so all AMD offerings are yet to show what they are capable of, since all of them have more than 4 cores / 8 threads.I think single threading argument absolute performance argument is plain air, because the differences in single thread performance between all top CPUs that you can currently buy is slim, very slim. Kaby Lake CPUs are best in this just because they are sold with high clocks out of the box, but this doesn't mean that if AMD tweaks its CPUs and pushes them to 5Ghz it won't get back the crown. Also, in a very short time there will be another uArch and another CPU that will have again better single threaded performance so it is a race without end and without reason.
What is more relevant is the multi-core race, which sooner or later will end up being used more and more by games and software in general. And when games will move to over 4 core usage then all these 4 cores / 8 threads overpriced "monsters" will become useless. That is why I am saying that AMD has some real gems on their hands with the Ryzen family. I bet you that the R7 1700 will be a much better/competent CPU in 3 years time compared to 7700K or whatever you are reviewing here. Dirt cheap, push it to 4Ghz and forget about it.
Icehawk - Monday, July 24, 2017 - link
They have been saying for years that we will use more cores. Here we are almost 20 years down the road and there are few non professional apps and almost no games that use more than 4 cores and the vast majority use just two. Yes, more cores help with running multiple apps & instances but if we are just looking at the performance of the focused app less cores and more MHz is still the winner. From all I have read the two issues are that not everything is parallelizable and that coding for more cores/threads is more difficult and neither of those are going away.mapesdhs - Monday, July 24, 2017 - link
Thing is, until now there hasn't been a mainstream-affordable solution. It's true that parallel coding requires greater skill, but that being the case then the edu system should be teaching those skills. Instead the time is wasted on gender studies nonsense. Intel could have kick started this whole thing years ago by releasing the 3930K for what it actually was, an 8-core CPU (it has 2 cores disabled), but they didn't have to because back then AMD couldn't even compete with mid-range SB 2500K (hence why they never bothered with a 6-core for mainstream chipsets). One could argue the lack of market sw evolvement to exploit more cores is Intel's fault, they could have helped promote it a long time ago.cocochanel - Tuesday, July 25, 2017 - link
+1!!!twtech - Monday, July 24, 2017 - link
What can these chips do with a nice watercooling setup, and a goal of 24x7 stability? Maybe 4.7? 4.8?These seem like pretty moderate OCs overall, but I guess we were a bit spoiled by Sandy Bridge, etc., where a 1GHz overclock wasn't out of the question.