z170 vs x99 CPU's - gaming performance.

Dave2150 · 19 Feb 2016 at 18:56

Caracus2k said:
For the same amount of cores / clock speed broadwell-e will be very similar to haswell-e it is the same design on a smaller node after all. Given other recent process size shrinks I doubt broadwell-e will clock any better than haswell-e as well. Ipc will be very similar between the two

I reckon a meaningful upgrade therefore will be reliant in going 'up' the respective lineup ie hex core to Oct core, or Oct core to deca core assuming your workload can benefit

Broadwell will be 3-5% higher IPC over Haswell, it's not the same design on a smaller node - Broadwell is a revised architecture (5th generation).

Caracus2k · 19 Feb 2016 at 21:33

Dave2150 said:
Broadwell will be 3-5% higher IPC over Haswell, it's not the same design on a smaller node - Broadwell is a revised architecture (5th generation).

You sure about that? Quick internet search....

'Broadwell is Intel's codename for the 14 nanometer die shrink of its Haswell microarchitecture.'

Its the old school tick/tock.

Intel may have tweaked some small details but its the same design. Skylake-e (assuming it ever arrives) will be Intel's 'new' architecture for 14nm

AllBodies · 20 Feb 2016 at 00:14

Caracus2k said:
There already x99 boards with multiple m.2 slots and boards with usb3.1 out on already. Thunderbolt can also be added on some boards but there's not much out there that uses it...

No doubt well see a few 'new' boards to entice new customers to 2011-3

I think it's mostly the expensive boards that have all the features filled in. Also I believe the vast majority of x99 boards have the slower version of m2 drive at the moment?

So I'd be very confident there'll at least be cheaper boards with top features than there are now, if not also a couple of extra features you can't get at all right now.

I'll certainly be waiting for broadwell-e and the new boards rather than getting current x99 and haswell-e. I think the couple of months wait will be worth the tad extra longevity.

Caracus2k said:
You sure about that? Quick internet search....

'Broadwell is Intel's codename for the 14 nanometer die shrink of its Haswell microarchitecture.'

Its the old school tick/tock.

Intel may have tweaked some small details but its the same design. Skylake-e (assuming it ever arrives) will be Intel's 'new' architecture for 14nm

Broadwell is indeed slightly faster to Haswell. And is actually closer to Skylake than it is to Haswell.

Scratch that previous example, this one from Anandtech makes it WAY clearer:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/9483/intel-skylake-review-6700k-6600k-ddr4-ddr3-ipc-6th-generation/9

So Broadwell gets you ~58% of the performance gap between Haswell and Skylake. And Skylake only has ~2.4% better IPC than Broadwell, versus ~5.7% between Haswell and Skylake.

I reckon Broadwell-e will be a solid investment to then wait until at least 10nm Cannonlake, or unless AMD pulls something out of the bag with Zen/Zen+

~>Dg<~ · 20 Feb 2016 at 00:36

you aint getting 50 percent in your wildest dreams. intel have what ever they want they will drip feed you 10 percent at a time.

AllBodies · 20 Feb 2016 at 00:39

~>Dg<~ said:
you aint getting 50 percent in your wildest dreams. intel have what ever they want they will drip feed you 10 percent at a time.

...If you read it, I said 58% of the gap between Haswell and Skylake. So showing that Broadwell is closer to Skylake than it is to Haswell in performance.

Sky01454 · 20 Feb 2016 at 00:57

Just be aware that games are a difficult area to compare CPU performance as there are many factors. X99 is not really ideal for gaming especially the cost (5820K is a good value chip) but motherboards are ridiculously overpriced. The X99 CPUs also have high TDP and does not come with a cooler (Anyone still uses stock cooler these days?). Games really like high core clock than cores but this is not always the true but most of the times it does. I have upgraded from a 4770K to a 5930K and i see very little difference. My upgrade from a 280x to a 980 ti however was phenomenal. As mentioned like a million times GPU really makes a lot of difference than CPU.

AllBodies · 20 Feb 2016 at 01:06

Sky01454 said:
Just be aware that games are a difficult area to compare CPU performance as there are many factors. X99 is not really ideal for gaming especially the cost (5820K is a good value chip) but motherboards are ridiculously overpriced. The X99 CPUs also have high TDP and does not come with a cooler (Anyone still uses stock cooler these days?). Games really like high core clock than cores but this is not always the true but most of the times it does. I have upgraded from a 4770K to a 5930K and i see very little difference. My upgrade from a 280x to a 980 ti however was phenomenal. As mentioned like a million times GPU really makes a lot of difference than CPU.

Remains to be seen what happens with DX12/Vulkan and also virtual reality. And obviously other things like editing/photoshop are better on 6+ cores.

Agreed though the x99 motherboards are too expensive compared to z170.

I think the time of more cores than 4 is coming very soon. It's just somewhat delayed from what people thought.

Especially AMD

Simon Belmont · 20 Feb 2016 at 14:05

Ayahuasca said:
DX12 could change things a lot if 6 or more cores start providing a good boost.

I'd regret going 6700k and saving a few quid if a 5820k starts pulling ahead in any DX12 titles.

Early benchmarks show this will be the case but we'll not see the bigger picture till there's a host of DX12 titles to test.

I'm still on a [email protected] atm.

lol. Skylake won't have to worry about any performance issue even with DX12 for many years to come. There's no proof and also by the time skylake loses performance it'll be time to upgrade any ways. Please no scaremongering.

Dirk Diggler · 20 Feb 2016 at 14:13

Having just moved from 4790k to 5930k I can say the difference in games is negligible at the moment. I'll only see a difference if I go SLI, where I will maintain x16 bandwidth on both cards. I'll also maintain use of the M.2 slot at full speed.

The upgrade for me was due to selling excess kit and having the money available. If I was upgrading on a budget, I'd probably have bought a GPU and/or monitor to see some wow factor difference.

Having said all that, if I were building from scratch I'd be going for X99.

Dirk Diggler · 21 Feb 2016 at 14:57

Interesting comparison of GPU bandwidth in SLI configs posted in the GPU section by nashathedog.

https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=29197574&postcount=57

setter · 21 Feb 2016 at 15:25

What have you clocked the 5930k to String?

dakaiez · 21 Feb 2016 at 15:34

Just upgraded to a 5820k, needed the extra grunt while gaming/streaming/recording. Will get it tomorrow and hopefully have it setup by mid-week to see how it fairs.

Dirk Diggler · 21 Feb 2016 at 15:46

setter said:
What have you clocked the 5930k to String?

[email protected]

I haven't pushed it too far as I'm on air.

setter · 21 Feb 2016 at 15:58

Need 1.300 for 4.5 here on the 5820k. Also haven't noticed much difference over the 4790k.

Dirk Diggler · 21 Feb 2016 at 16:25

setter said:
Need 1.300 for 4.5 here on the 5820k. Also haven't noticed much difference over the 4790k.

Yeah, I thought 1.25 was a bit low. I'll need to get it into the nice cold garage and give it a push and see what it's made off.

I've noticed a big difference in handbrake encodes, but nothing in games with this single card.

faceman123 · 21 Feb 2016 at 16:50

String said:
Yeah, I thought 1.25 was a bit low. I'll need to get it into the nice cold garage and give it a push and see what it's made off.

I've noticed a big difference in handbrake encodes, but nothing in games with this single card.

4.5 @ 1.25 here can do 1.245

Dirk Diggler · 21 Feb 2016 at 17:03

faceman123 said:
4.5 @ 1.25 here can do 1.245

Yea? I'll need to drop my volts and see how low it can go. It's good to be hitting these clocks at low volts and temperature. For 24/7 use, I don't see the point in aiming much higher.

dakaiez · 21 Feb 2016 at 17:14

faceman123 said:
4.5 @ 1.25 here can do 1.245

That under air or water? Hoping mine hits similar.

Dirk Diggler · 21 Feb 2016 at 17:16

dakaiez said:
That under air or water? Hoping mine hits similar.

You should be achieving that on air I would expect.

dakaiez · 21 Feb 2016 at 18:01

String said:
You should be achieving that on air I would expect.

Yeah that's what i'd expect but you never know how good of a clocker a chip is or how safe some people are playing it. That and even on water some people hold back, hence the question.

I've had my 2500k @ 4.7 before, never really went any higher but that was the most i could do on air with the temps. If i could get 4.5/4.6 on my 5820k i'd be more than happy.