3 ms·
I have a 5820K (6 core 3.3 ghz base) and using Handbrake to encode a HD .mkv file from MakeMKV, the 6 core machine beat the 7700k clocked at 4.2ghz. Once I over
by vondur 10y ago
I have a 5820K (6 core 3.3 ghz base) and using Handbrake to encode a HD .mkv file from MakeMKV, the 6 core machine beat the 7700k clocked at 4.2ghz. Once I overclocked the 5820k to 4Ghz, it was about 10-15% faster than the 7700k which I had then clocked to 4.6Ghz. So I'm looking forward to the 1700x. Not all programs scale as well as Handbrake does with more cores.
- emn13 10y agoSure, there are situations in which it's faster. In my (limited) experience with x264 at least the more extreme quality settings didn't scale quite as well, and those are the only ones I use. Regardless: some programs parallelize quite well, others not so much. If you're lucky enough to primarily be bottlenecked on parallel stuff: go nuts, of course! In any case, I don't want to suggest I'm not happy with AMD finally being a real competitor, I'm just trying to temper expectations of intel-beating world domination. Most users aren't so lucky. Many people use laptops, and slow websites are more of a problem than slow handbrake sessions. For me, it's visual studio and various build/run cycles. Sure, some tools use more cores with the right settings, but it typically scales really disappointingly after around 2 or so. That overclocked 5820K would probably lose to a stock 7700k in my workload, and that's just annoying.