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
Rise of the Tomb Raider
One of the newest games in the gaming benchmark suite is Rise of the Tomb Raider (RoTR), developed by Crystal Dynamics, and the sequel to the popular Tomb Raider which was loved for its automated benchmark mode. But don’t let that fool you: the benchmark mode in RoTR is very much different this time around.
Visually, the previous Tomb Raider pushed realism to the limits with features such as TressFX, and the new RoTR goes one stage further when it comes to graphics fidelity. This leads to an interesting set of requirements in hardware: some sections of the game are typically GPU limited, whereas others with a lot of long-range physics can be CPU limited, depending on how the driver can translate the DirectX 12 workload.
Where the old game had one benchmark scene, the new game has three different scenes with different requirements: Geothermal Valley (1-Valley), Prophet’s Tomb (2-Prophet) and Spine of the Mountain (3-Mountain) - and we test all three. These are three scenes designed to be taken from the game, but it has been noted that scenes like 2-Prophet shown in the benchmark can be the most CPU limited elements of that entire level, and the scene shown is only a small portion of that level. Because of this, we report the results for each scene on each graphics card separately.
Graphics options for RoTR are similar to other games in this type, offering some presets or allowing the user to configure texture quality, anisotropic filter levels, shadow quality, soft shadows, occlusion, depth of field, tessellation, reflections, foliage, bloom, and features like PureHair which updates on TressFX in the previous game.
Again, we test at 1920x1080 and 4K using our native 4K displays. At 1080p we run the High preset, while at 4K we use the Medium preset which still takes a sizable hit in frame rate.
It is worth noting that RoTR is a little different to our other benchmarks in that it keeps its graphics settings in the registry rather than a standard ini file, and unlike the previous TR game the benchmark cannot be called from the command-line. Nonetheless we scripted around these issues to automate the benchmark four times and parse the results. From the frame time data, we report the averages, 99th percentiles, and our time under analysis.
For all our results, we show the average frame rate at 1080p first. Mouse over the other graphs underneath to see 99th percentile frame rates and 'Time Under' graphs, as well as results for other resolutions. All of our benchmark results can also be found in our benchmark engine, Bench.
#1 Geothermal Valley
MSI GTX 1080 Gaming 8G Performance
1080p
4K
ASUS GTX 1060 Strix 6GB Performance
1080p
4K
Sapphire R9 Fury 4GB Performance
1080p
4K
Sapphire RX 480 8GB Performance
1080p
4K
RoTR: Geothermal Valley Conclusions
If we were testing a single GTX 1080 at 1080p, you might think that the graph looks a little odd. All the quad-core, non HT processors (so, the Core i5s) get the best frame rates and percentiles on this specific test on this specific hardware by a good margin. The rest of the tests do not mirror that result though, with the results ping-ponging between Intel and AMD depending on the resolution and the graphics card.
#2 Prophet's Tomb
MSI GTX 1080 Gaming 8G Performance
1080p
4K
ASUS GTX 1060 Strix 6GB Performance
1080p
4K
Sapphire R9 Fury 4GB Performance
1080p
4K
Sapphire RX 480 8GB Performance
1080p
4K
RoTR: Prophet's Tomb Conclusions
For Prophet's Tomb, we again see the Core i5s pull a win at 1080p using the GTX 1080, but the rest of the tests are a mix of results, some siding with AMD and others for Intel. There is the odd outlier in the Time Under analysis, which may warrant further inspection.
#3 Spine of the Mountain
MSI GTX 1080 Gaming 8G Performance
1080p
4K
ASUS GTX 1060 Strix 6GB Performance
1080p
4K
Sapphire R9 Fury 4GB Performance
1080p
4K
Sapphire RX 480 8GB Performance
1080p
4K
RoTR: Spine of the Mountain Conclusions
Core i5, we're assigning you to run at 1080p with a GTX 1080. That's an order. The rest of you, stand easy.
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.