• 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.

4790k 4 Core @ 4.4 Ghz V Xeon 6 Core 5650 @ 4ghz - GTX 1080

What games?

What res?

There is no doubt that in single threaded perfromance skylake wins or Devils canyon.

But not so much on multi threaded performance.

at 2560x1440p

75%+ fps increase in the flowing games
Red Faction: Armageddon, crysis 1, 0 A.D.

also GTA5 and crysis3 that use many threads I still see improvements
crysis3 1440p 55fps -> 61fps
crysis3 720p 78fps -> 106fps
GTA5 1440p 54fps -> 69fps
 
Newer games are now better at multi-threading tho. The division loves threads. It is butter smooth using all 12 threads evenly on my i7 970.

Also many games use more than 4 cores / threads. BF4 uses 6 from memory on my rig. That's a big handicap for i5's without HT (for example).

BF4 doesn't scale well past 4 cores either.
 
Looking forward to the game benchmarks...

I am OK with some bottle-necking, interested to get some figures tho.
 
Newer games are now better at multi-threading tho. The division loves threads. It is butter smooth using all 12 threads evenly on my i7 970.

Also many games use more than 4 cores / threads. BF4 uses 6 from memory on my rig. That's a big handicap for i5's without HT (for example).
You're always going to come across that game you want to play that doesn't though. I was using a Phenom II X6 1090T at 4GHz until recently, and in games that made good use of all six cores (Dragon Age: Inquisition being a prime example), it held up extremely well. But then I bought Dark Souls III, which relies on a single strong core and ran like hot garbage as a result. It was actually that game which prompted me to ditch it, because it was the only thing I wanted to play at the time and the massive framerate drops in many areas were killing me.

There were also other games where it really struggled, such as the original Witcher for example, which only uses a single core and ran terribly on the 1090T. Worse than Dark Souls III in fact, and indeed far worse than both Witcher sequels that use more threads. Lightning Returns was another one that relied on single core performance and was a stuttering mess, despite really not being a very demanding game at all in general.

It'd be nice if every game was properly multi-threaded, because these older CPUs are still more than enough when their resources are properly used. It's just a shame that's not the case.
 
It'd be nice if every game was properly multi-threaded, because these older CPUs are still more than enough when their resources are properly used. It's just a shame that's not the case.

But a xeon @4.4ghz cannot even be compared to an AMD 1090 in single threaded performance....

The comparison is moot...
 
ryOF57X.jpg

Just done this little test

In single threaded performance is 25% behind a 6700k

But the xeon beats it in multi...

8 years of progress right there....NOT! :p
 
But a xeon @4.4ghz cannot even be compared to an AMD 1090 in single threaded performance....

The comparison is moot...
I disagree. In terms of Cinebench single core scores for example, the gap is around 20% (couldn't find a 4.4GHz one, so I'll round up).

vriE9M7.png

E3MbybF.jpg
Nobody's suggesting the Xeon isn't better, but there's not a gaping chasm between the two like you seem to be suggesting. Of course, that wasn't even the point of my post, and I was merely offering my experience that even a "mere" Phenom II is enough to run modern games very well when they take advantage of it properly. I thought this was a nice thread about how older CPUs can still cope in general, rather than the meeting of the Xeon fan club. Of course, a rude response from someone reading what they want to see rather than what was written is what I should have expected in this section of the forum. :D
 
I disagree. In terms of Cinebench single core scores for example, the gap is around 20% (couldn't find a 4.4GHz one, so I'll round up).

vriE9M7.png

E3MbybF.jpg
Nobody's suggesting the Xeon isn't better, but there's not a gaping chasm between the two like you seem to be suggesting. Of course, that wasn't even the point of my post, and I was merely offering my experience that even a "mere" Phenom II is enough to run modern games very well when they take advantage of it properly. I thought this was a nice thread about how older CPUs can still cope in general, rather than the meeting of the Xeon fan club. Of course, a rude response from someone reading what they want to see rather than what was written is what I should have expected in this section of the forum. :D

Your Phenom at 4ghz is behind a 3.4ghz i7

Its not a meeting of the xeon club

I'm just saying that if your have a 8 year old system...Then running a cutting edge 1080 GFX card is not pointless!
 
Your Phenom at 4ghz is behind a 3.4ghz i7

Its not a meeting of the xeon club

I'm just saying that if your have a 8 year old system...Then running a cutting edge 1080 GFX card is not pointless!
What relevance does that have? You said that a 1090T can't possibly be compared to a 5650 in terms of single-threaded performance, and I demonstrated that the gap is less than 20% (even with the Phenom II running 300MHz slower, suggesting the gap would be even less clock for clock). I feel that's at least close enough to be mentioned in the same breath without someone throwing a fit about it. ;)

And yes, if you hadn't insisted on getting all defensive the first time around, you'd have noticed that I was broadly making the same point, with the caveat that you are going to run into poorly-coded pieces of software that won't use its resources properly and really drag it down versus these idealised multi-threaded results.
 
Still bitter at not being able to get more out of my old Xeon, my new 6600k at 4.6GHz smashes the pants off of it in games due to the 1GHz clock difference and IPC increase. No doubt I wouldn't have needed the upgrade if I got more out of it.

Great chip though, still a shock when you see '09 printed on top of it. :p
 
great cpu, my bro has been using one for the past 2 years

great price aswell, but its nothing compared to a i7 4790k or i7 6700k

ipc difference plus clock difference plus x58 motherboards get really toasty and take up a lot more power

its a good chip if ur still with it but I wouldn't be pairing it with a 1080, some people who haven't changed their CPU in years but keep buying the best gpus needs to realise they could probably buy the card below it (1070) and upgrade their CPU and get a better overall experience
 
No doubt the latest are significantly better for games. I'll be going for 1070 SLI and then my next upgrade will be to grab a second hand 5820K (think that's the one) board and ram for c500 and sell my x58 setup for c200.
 
Exactly!

If comparing CPU's, you should take SLI into consideration. I've noticed a difference with the 5930k with it's extra lanes and bandwidth compared with my previous SLI setups on a 4670k and 4790k.

But the 5820k is not crippled in a 2 card scenario over a 5930k....
 
Back
Top Bottom