2600K 4.5Ghz to 4.5Ghz 5820K for about £300?

Disco_P · 14 Nov 2016 at 20:14

Mostly for gaming with a GTX 1080 @ 1440p. BF1 is a particularly CPU hungry game.

Not really interested in a 6700K, same amount of cores and threads with only iterative improvements leaves a bad taste. Plus I have always wanted to go to the enthusiast platform.

Thoughts?

(cost is from £250 5820K, £150 X99 board and £60 ram minus £160 ish for my CPU, board and ram)

jigger · 14 Nov 2016 at 20:49

I'd probably hold until after we have had a look at Zen. Well that's what I'm doing anyway.

~>Dg<~ · 14 Nov 2016 at 22:06

id say go for it but everyone is different.i personally think the x99 stuff will be quite a bit better in games.you can already see it happening in bf1.

Drollic · 15 Nov 2016 at 16:02

I'd wait until the next round of six core processors. Given you're at 4.5 I think you'd need to be monitoring the fps to notice any difference, even in games like bf1. The jump from same gen i5 however would be well worthwhile.

~>Dg<~ · 15 Nov 2016 at 16:45

someone on here did the very same upgrade cant remember who he will tell you like i will in bf1 its like night and day performance difference.

older i5s drop to as low as 30/40 on some maps.

a good oc on a 5820k wont drop below 120-140.

depends what you play do.

RavenXXX2 · 15 Nov 2016 at 17:14

For gaming 6 cores is a waste.

Drollic · 15 Nov 2016 at 17:50

~>Dg<~ said:
someone on here did the very same upgrade cant remember who he will tell you like i will in bf1 its like night and day performance difference.

older i5s drop to as low as 30/40 on some maps.

a good oc on a 5820k wont drop below 120-140.

depends what you play do.

Sandy i7 at 4.5 to 5820k at same clock 1440p gtx 1080? I honestly reckon you'd need monitoring software to notice.

sieze2 · 15 Nov 2016 at 18:03

~>Dg<~ said:
someone on here did the very same upgrade cant remember who he will tell you like i will in bf1 its like night and day performance difference.

older i5s drop to as low as 30/40 on some maps.

a good oc on a 5820k wont drop below 120-140.

depends what you play do.

Was probably me...

Ok here is an i5 2500k running at 4.4Ghz with a 1070 at 1440p with everything on Ultra except lighting and terrain. You can see classic CPU limiting. The GPU has loads of power left and the FPS is not too bad but is struggling to maintain a constant FPS. Its not unplayable even when it dips to 50 fps, and most people won't mind, but it does feel stuttery to me.

Now with exactly the same instal now with an i7 2600k @ 4.4 Ghz. Its smooth as silk and holding 60 fps constantly.

There is a small chance the i5 could have been running at 3.3Ghz on the first picture but the message is the same. BF1 is very CPU limiting on 64 player maps (other maps are fine). Fitting an i7 (even an old one) works wonders if you really want to lock that framerate down. Never mind an i3 CPU limiting, an i5 is cpu limiting, and here is the proof. That said it won't be an issue for most people.

Caracus2k · 15 Nov 2016 at 18:15

Wait and see what the 'Union point' 200 series boards bring to the table. Should be compatible with upcoming consumer hex cores. X99 won't be much of an upgrade from an oc 2600k in gaming at the mo

Nocky24 · 15 Nov 2016 at 22:40

Done this same upgrade from a [email protected] just recently, cost around £360 after selling my old kit.

Noticed a difference in minimums on BF1 64 man servers and my gpu usage looks a bit better now - this game likes the extra cores it seems (I'm also running at 1440p). That was one of the reasons for the upgrade, but I wanted it for running some hyper-v/lab stuff too for work. Haven't even overclocked it yet.

In other games I doubt you'll notice much of a difference though so you'll have to weight it up.

Disco_P · 18 Nov 2016 at 02:23

I should have mentioned I have overclocked my monitor to 100Hz and can really feel it when it drops to the 80s.

Anyway I have taken a few screenies from an empty server on Empires edge where the FPS gets super low along with really low GPU usage. I normally run all low settings except mesh to get try and get >100fps at all times but have also shown what happens on Ultra settings (after restarting the game).

Low Settings

Ultra Settings

If anyone of the cool chaps running an overclocked 5820K and a strong GPU wants to go to the same spot on Empires Edge (between C and D, on the edge of the bridge) and check FPS and GPU usage that would be sweet.

koooowweeee · 22 Nov 2016 at 12:53

RavenXXX2 said:
For gaming 6 cores is a waste.

Why do people keep saying this? Stuck in 2014?

Nasher · 22 Nov 2016 at 13:16

6 cores isn't a waste any more. Some games (BF1 for example) will even use the logical cores on an i7, giving a noticeable performance gain over an i5.

AdamScott85 · 23 Nov 2016 at 19:51

2600k is a great cpu, I have one in my old rig, I went with the 5960x in my new rig and it was the best move I have made. I would defo change from the 2600k to 5820k.

Disco_P · 24 Nov 2016 at 22:39

I took the plunge after pricing up all the random hardware I could sell. Just waiting for the RAM to arrive now.

~>Dg<~ · 24 Nov 2016 at 23:01

koooowweeee · 24 Nov 2016 at 23:10

Did you do some before bench marks so you can do some afterwards ones once your finished? Always good to see the real results

Disco_P · 25 Nov 2016 at 01:00

I can't really be arsed with benchmarks.

stooeh · 25 Nov 2016 at 02:08

Disco_P said:
I should have mentioned I have overclocked my monitor to 100Hz and can really feel it when it drops to the 80s.

Anyway I have taken a few screenies from an empty server on Empires edge where the FPS gets super low along with really low GPU usage. I normally run all low settings except mesh to get try and get >100fps at all times but have also shown what happens on Ultra settings (after restarting the game).

Low Settings

Ultra Settings

If anyone of the cool chaps running an overclocked 5820K and a strong GPU wants to go to the same spot on Empires Edge (between C and D, on the edge of the bridge) and check FPS and GPU usage that would be sweet.

At 'Low' settings in that spot overclocking CPU from stock to 4.5GHz moves GPU usage from 60% to 70% using a single 970. A gain from 77 to 91 fps @ 1440p.

At 'Ultra' a single 970 is at already 99% usage with a gain 1.8 fps when CPU overclocked.

I also tried with SLI which is currently iffy in this game (flickering) and saw an increase from ~73FPS (63/78% GPU usage) to ~83 fps (81%/91% GPU usage) at 'Ultra' by overclocking CPU.

Overall CPU usage was only about 30% so makes me think it is thread speed limited in that spot. Also heard that people have been having problems with this map regrading frame rate since the patch (which broke my SLI

)

Purgatory · 25 Nov 2016 at 05:38

koooowweeee said:
Why do people keep saying this? Stuck in 2014?

Because they don't own one and realise the difference it is making to some of the new games that are finally making good use of multi core CPUs.

Also the biggest difference for me is how much more snappy everything I do on the pc is compared to my 2600k before, at first when I installed the X99 system all seemed about the same, till I put it under some stress in my daily work flow and the difference is night and day for work.

The gaming side was a nice bump too from the 2600K 4.8ghz but only for CPU demanding games and honestly was not a huge jump for some at the time I upgraded, but as games are now moving to multi core CPUs the difference it makes is great and well worth the update to a 6+ core setup, but for me it was just all a lot nicer to use on the desktop all was snappy and no lag when really pushing the system. That's why X99 is worth it IF YOU are a power user, if you are not, you will not notice it in real world if you are a general user.

Best advice is if you are a power user and I mean not gaming, then get X99 and you will love it, if not stick to a good quad core and game on that, the 2600K I have to say I loved that setup and was happy with it till the day I sold it and even regretted selling it and wished I kept it as another system it was that good a system.