Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Mar 2013
- Posts
- 5,511
This 100% ^
-
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.
Gaming cpu
- Thread starter Donzie
- Start date
This 100% ^
If I am reading this right, you have three Titan X's already which you want to use? If so that would mean your only option would be X99.
5930k easily if you want the PCIE lanes. Decent cooler they do clock very well. 4.5-4.7ghz without much issue and under 60-70c gaming with something like a h100i. Having the extra cores does help.
People seem to think with a 6 core while gaming the extra 2 cores are sat at 0%.
I wouldn't have gotten 3 cards though it's a nightmare. Some games like it some games don't. By dont I mean run worse than with 2.
I hope you have a hybrid cooler or custom loop for those cards aswell.
People seem to think with a 6 core while gaming the extra 2 cores are sat at 0%.
I wouldn't have gotten 3 cards though it's a nightmare. Some games like it some games don't. By dont I mean run worse than with 2.
I hope you have a hybrid cooler or custom loop for those cards aswell.
Last edited:
Good example of a thread which makes it very hard to give good advice.
OP - list all the parts you've got already, what you want the system for, and the budget. Impossible to help otherwise.
Between those two options, and with 3 Titan Xs, the X99 platform is probably the way to go. Simply because you've clearly got an extraordinary amount of cash to burn.
Yeah budget is around £1000 left for it. With the cards I bought two and got one as gift, pretty much a £3500-£4000 build as I got lucky with some gambling and decided to upgrade my pc.
As for parts I already have is ddr4 ram, 1200w psu, gpu and my water cooling components. Really just the mobo and cpu I need as I'm taking my Samsung 1tb ssd out my old computer.
And thanks again guys for info and help.
As for parts I already have is ddr4 ram, 1200w psu, gpu and my water cooling components. Really just the mobo and cpu I need as I'm taking my Samsung 1tb ssd out my old computer.
And thanks again guys for info and help.
Associate
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2014
- Posts
- 375
I'd get the i7 5930k and the Asus rampage v extreme motherboard for x3 titan x sli.
Well if u have 3 gpu's you have to go x99 anyway.
Not enough pci lanes on skylake.
You can go 5820k on certain motherboard 8,8,8 but ch ck before.
Safer and better to go 5930k though with the 40 lanes.
Nope still not convinced
1) artificial benchmark to isolate CPU performance from GPU performance - Titan X at 1080p! At a more conventional 1440p or 4k res watch that difference largely evaporate. You will notice that all of the CPU's provided more then adequate FPS in all games
-running on a lowish budget? a 4790k (or 6600k etc) with a better GPU will yield better results than a 6700K with an inferior GPU for the same money. With modern overclocked CPU's very few games are CPU limited
2) most posters have recommended an X99 i.e. Haswell-E not a regular Haswell 4790k. Saying that you prove your point because its a Haswell CPU misses any difference the extra bandwidth of DDR4 on Z170 would make....
from the video the linked article shows the spec for the Sklyale board
For the purposes of this review, MSI supplied us with its new Z170A Gaming M5 motherboard, while Corsair supplied two components - two sticks of 8GB of Corsair Vengeance LPX low profile DDR4, rated for 2666MHz and the H100i GTX closed-loop watercooler
A better comparison would have used DDR3 with a Skylake chip to eliminate any differences here.......
Because guess what...if you set up an artificial test to isolate CPU performance you are also likely going to isolate system memory bandwidth performance at the same time.....
X99 has DDR4 and can accommodate quad channel memory with more bandwidth then Z170 so Skylake/Z170 is inferior in that regard
Basically the video shows that an overclocked Skylake 6700K/Z170 is a good choice if you want to run it with one of the most expensive graphics cards currently available at a paltry 1080p resolution....er.......I think I will take 50% more cores, 50% more threads, more PCI-E lanes whilst having a similar or lower upfront cost. Ill accept the 200mhz or so lower clock speed per core vs a 6700K in return because this does not make an appreciable enough difference in gaming and my [email protected] will destroy an overclocked 4c/8t Skylake CPU in heavily threaded apps and games.
oh and 3) given the real problems Intel are now having progressing fab shrinks at anything more then a glacial pace and given the likely increased focus on more heavily threaded gaming from DX12 and consoles its quite likely that Intel will start pushing hex and maybe octo cored CPU's down to the mainstream in the next few years to keep their bottom line up.
Years ago I bought a dual core E8600 rather than a then contemporary quad Q6600 because it clocked higher per core. I would likely of had far more mileage in the long run out of the quad core with the E8600 being fairly quickly sidelined for an X58 setup with a quad core 920 do then a hex core 980 that lasted me for six years. With Z170 you'll be stuck with 4c8t unless you shell out for a new motherboard. For this reason and because of the superior PCI-e lane allocation allowing for more upgrades I believe that X99 will have far more longevity as a viable platform then consumer Skylake
Last edited:
1.3265 volts iirc, on laptop now!
edit
just checked and its set slightly lower...
under water cooling when torture tested hits about 70c in a hot room due to wife having heating on all the time
(26 - 27C)
Last edited:
If you truly want 'the best CPU for gaming not (sic) matter the cost' you would still want to go X99 currently as tri SLI Titan X's would running (multiple) high res monitors be better served by the increased native PCI-E lane count and the increased core count of X99 over Z170 despite the small average per core MHz drop overclocked from X99 to Z170 unless your idea or 'best' includes running games at 1080p on your new uber rig!.......
Last edited:
1.3v
you can it just needs PLX chips that add a little latency over native lanes
i.e.
GA-Z170X-Gaming G1
'Support for 4-Way/3-Way/2-Way AMD CrossFire™/NVIDIA® SLI™ Technology'
https://www.overclockers.co.uk/giga...ket-1151-ddr4-eatx-motherboard-mb-525-gi.html
Last edited:
1.3265 volts iirc, on laptop now!
edit
just checked and its set slightly lower...
under water cooling when torture tested hits about 70c in a hot room due to wife having heating on all the time
Seems a bit toastier than I've seen.
What batch #s?
Not sure on batch but ive not really tested much set it to 45 multiplier 1.3v and its stable. Might be able to drop it a bit but temps only go i to the 60's when gaming so its not an issue.