Associate
This.
Roll on new GPU's, only things that seem to make a half decent step forward each generation now adays. (even thats not always true)
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
;)
- Thread starter Gibbo
- Start date
This.
Roll on new GPU's, only things that seem to make a half decent step forward each generation now adays. (even thats not always true)
Caporegime
340 pound isn't 340 pound of earlier days.
The 5820K is hilariously 420 here versus the 6820K at 400.
But that's what happens when your currency devalues, and then you've got whatever going on in the background which increases prices further.
The 5820K is hilariously 420 here versus the 6820K at 400.
But that's what happens when your currency devalues, and then you've got whatever going on in the background which increases prices further.
It's helped my ivy bridge beat skylake i5's so it's worth it.
Honestly since the i7 920 ive only upgraded to get things like newer USB/SATA connections etc.
I also no longer overclock, though i do keep at stock clocks and undervolt as much as possible. I rarely notice any real difference now i don't play ArmA.
Its always the GPU as the bottleneck now days, especially as a 4k gamer who sticks to single GPU as much as possible.
Im starting to see some benefit to cores and RAM due to running lots of VMs but honestly thats more RAM usage where im starting to feel i'd like 32GB worth.
All that said, options are a good thing when purchasing anything, so im hoping AMD brings out a winner that produces them some much MUCH needed profit. At this stage though im not sure they can break the intel mindshare of the masses, which is where the money is made. Not here with us enthusiasts.
I also no longer overclock, though i do keep at stock clocks and undervolt as much as possible. I rarely notice any real difference now i don't play ArmA.
Its always the GPU as the bottleneck now days, especially as a 4k gamer who sticks to single GPU as much as possible.
Im starting to see some benefit to cores and RAM due to running lots of VMs but honestly thats more RAM usage where im starting to feel i'd like 32GB worth.
All that said, options are a good thing when purchasing anything, so im hoping AMD brings out a winner that produces them some much MUCH needed profit. At this stage though im not sure they can break the intel mindshare of the masses, which is where the money is made. Not here with us enthusiasts.
You know it's not a hyped or good launch of your new desktop processor when a tech website runs a story asking the whether the desktop processor is dead or not on the basis of its release.
Intel killed the desktop design a few years back. Intel don't have a desktop CPU design any longer. The 7700K comes from the mobile chip.
LOL .. Damn Dave really, stop it...
It's more expensive for a reason... because it's better...simple as that.
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 5,977
For gaming in some games there can be a big difference some 30% while in others hardly any and that's between 3770k and 6700k. Any older than 3770 id want ti upgrade to the 7700 personally
The non K's are hamstrung compared to the K version. Intel pretty much use the overclocking head room to make the K version look better and underclock the non K chips so hard they become worthless.
Intel don't make chips for the likes of us any more. The sad part is if AMD take a chunk out of Intel, you know the first port of call to drum up support will be people like us. Anyone remember getting free chips from Intel when the A64 destroyed everything Intel had?
Soldato
LOL .. Damn Dave really, stop it...
It's more expensive for a reason... because it's better...simple as that.
He's right, a 6700k would beat the equivalent X99 in most games nowadays due to higher clock speed.
It's more expensive because it has more cores which only highly multithreaded applications make the most of (aka rendering etc).
I've got a 2500K system that will ruin most i7's. Depends how much of clock you get I suppose. That said I think anyone with a well setup 2500K (decent RAM and so) could sit the next round out and wait for Coffee Lake or whatever it's called.
its a wonder why amd are making more cores on cpus for no reason ? 
hahaha.
x99 is better or level in most games to i6700k.that are modern.more games coming out also will finally take advantage of the extra cores.
what you dont see in many benchmarks is min max and avg.
there is a reason why x99 is the top platform.or it would be placed below wouldnt it.
hahaha.
x99 is better or level in most games to i6700k.that are modern.more games coming out also will finally take advantage of the extra cores.
what you dont see in many benchmarks is min max and avg.
there is a reason why x99 is the top platform.or it would be placed below wouldnt it.
Soldato
Yeah, to be honest, I though I would really regret buying a 4790k + z97 mobo as an upgrade to my 2600k a couple years back, but its looking like it was a good really.
there is a reason why x99 is the top platform.or it would be placed below wouldnt it.
It's the top platform, but the platform does not exist solely for gaming lol! It' not a gaming CPU primarily... the vast majority of games don't use those extra cores, and it will be a while before we see that happening in the mainstream. You're paying for more cores, a more expensive production cost and the fact they are primarily aimed at enthusiasts who encode video etc. Just look at the benchmarks, it's clear as day. If you are PURELY a gamer and are paying a whopping premium for Broadwell-E, you are getting utterly appalling value for money in respect to game performance, truly appalling. Your money of course, spend it how you like, but don't lie to yourself.
Soldato
People said the same to those that purchased q6600 chips over the e6600 chips, but the core2 quad buyers won in the end. I'm not saying it will work out that way this gen, but it could do.
EDIT - I guess its not quite the same due to the "-E" chips being a different socket. I guess the better analogy is lynnfield? But that doesnt really work with the core counts...
Last edited:
I am quite certain we will see more cores utilised in games at a later date, it's inevitable, but Intel will be introducing 6-core chips in to the mainstream in a couple of years, we know this for a fact. AMD also no doubt. But here and now, paying a premium for Broadwell-E if you're solely a gamer = pointless. Numbers don't lie, just look at the benchmarks.
You've got to be kidding. These 5Ghz+ bundles will fly off the shelves just like previous ones have, remember the 4790K 'Goldrush'? Anyway having since checked RAM prices I was probably a little conservative on my price estimate.
At a guess:
CPU £400 (inclusive of binning/delidding service)
M/B £200
16Gb RAM £160
AIO £100
Last edited:
Soldato
I think you are right, but I can see the logic in buying the platform with (say) ~10% less IPC but 50% moar cores in the hope the cores pay off at a later date.
The main problem is the people who will be willing to pay the extra for the platform with the extra cores are the same people who are less likely to see the benefits from it as they will probably upgrade earlier.
I'll just sit on z97 for now though