• 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.

HardOCP compare a 2600K with a 7700K

StarShock said:
the low settings is to remove the GPU as a bottleneck. At higher settings the 2 CPUs would be much closer in performance.
Click to expand...

most CPU's can do everyday things very fast these days :). What we or I want to see is how well CPU's drive modern GPU's, and different ones at that. Very strange to see such a low res benchmark done. As others said, other tests can show how well the CPU performs at specific CPU only tasks.

Personal opinion but I reckon the difference between the 2600K and 7700K in some games at certain resolutions (even higher ones) will be huge, while nothing at all in others. Will probably definatley give smoother gameplay which is as important if not more so than raw average FPS
 
Last edited:
the problem is many cpus from sandybridge onwards play most games fine. so people think well my cpu is fine what or why do i need to upgrade.the thing is there is big differences from sandy bridge to modern cpus in some games which yes not all may notice but it can be almost 40/50 fps in some games. if they use the cpu power.

think of when you upgrade your gpu 40 -50 fps difference ingame would you say its not different ? hell yes.that a low mid or bottom end to titan difference.
 
~>Dg<~ said:
the problem is many cpus from sandybridge onwards play most games fine. so people think well my cpu is fine what or why do i need to upgrade.the thing is there is big differences from sandy bridge to modern cpus in some games which yes not all may notice but it can be almost 40/50 fps in some games. if they use the cpu power.

think of when you upgrade your gpu 40 -50 fps difference ingame would you say its not different ? hell yes.that a low mid or bottom end to titan difference.
Click to expand...

Honestly I think for gaming people would be surprised - I've an older rig I use for testing stuff albeit it does use some fancy DDR3 converted to DDR2 sticks and a stupid high FSB with an overclocked Q9550 and aside from a small number of RTS type games that handle 1000s of units or like a GTX1080 SLI setup it still gives up great performance and isn't a million miles behind the latest CPUs :|
 
I think many people speak without having experience of running a Sandy Bridge with a high end Pascal card.

I sold my 2500k setup to my friend. It's at 4.5ghz. He later spent big money and it's running a GTX1080 fe.

I upgraded to 5820k at 4.5ghz and now I also have a GTX1080 to match.

Performance wise some improvements on Minimum framerates are sometimes apparent and there is a small percentage of difference elsewhere. Is it worth the outlay though? I dunno.

I don't think I'd have any real problem running my old rig with the 1080.
 
Rroff said:
Honestly I think for gaming people would be surprised - I've an older rig I use for testing stuff albeit it does use some fancy DDR3 converted to DDR2 sticks and a stupid high FSB with an overclocked Q9550 and aside from a small number of RTS type games that handle 1000s of units or like a GTX1080 SLI setup it still gives up great performance and isn't a million miles behind the latest CPUs :|
Click to expand...
Just ignore him, he constantly spouts this "40-50 fps in some games" nonsense (which used to be "a lot of games") and the only evidence he has is results using a Titan X at 1080p. If you have a Titan X you're not going to be gaming at 1080p and even if you were, you're not going to be the type to stick with X58/Z68/Z77 anyway.

I have no doubt certain games benefit visibly from upgrading the CPU with certain GPUs, even at 1080p (most notably RTS games). However, as an example, I can play Starcraft II at very high settings at a constant 60 fps with a lower-mid-range GPU and a Westmere CPU. Unless you primarily play these types of games any full-system upgrade is unlikely to be worth the cost.
 
Last edited:
I wasn't really addressing his post as such - just always find it interesting that I've built a few rigs over the last couple of years that for general use and most game uses really aren't as far ahead as people (and even myself instinctively) might think - not like the good old days where say going from a P4 3GHz to a 2.4GHz Core 2 was a night and day difference.
 
cpu wise bf1 shows the age of i5s on sandybridge and ivy.big gains with i7s over them.dont debate this tested about 20 different cpus with about every res config going.


wow big raids and such as normal play can be upto double performance on modern cpus to older i5s/i7s.

just two popular games.

its not a myth.recent video in witcher showed a modern i5 and old i5 2500k fps differences of upto 40 fps difference with a 7600k.

its not make believe.whether you believe it is or not.

i bench my games. 60 seconds min max avg fps.3 runs to get a avg.
 
The thing is the differences aren't always game changers. So one might get 140fps over 110fps on the other. That doesn't necessarily justify spending 600 quid.

Its a difference yeah, but it's not essential for most people.

I'll add that I think Battlefield shows some bigger differences than the majority of games so maybe that would drive your choice. However I think spending crazy money just to get one or two games a bit smoother isn't for everyone.
 
Last edited:
Cpus just haven't improved at the rate they once did. I think we are at a plateau for the average persons cpu use.

Intel having no real competition for years has made them quite happily churn out relatively minor improvements.

I think games are the big benchmark for most of us, and graphics card improvements seem to be far more relevant.
 
Looks like there is a decent enough boost in some benchmarks, and you'd maybe get a higher clock on the Kaby.
It's not enough that I'd upgrading, but if you've got the cash and are wanting newer mobo features, why not?
 
right ill say my last word on this,

you know the new amd cpus. well everyones ready to jump to them.well they wont be any faster than what we have now .

so guess what. wait until they come out all those on i2500k/2600k/2700k/i3570k so on upgrade then post what a difference.;)

then just remember how in this thread there is no difference.

none of the amd chips coming will for gaming be as quick as a current intel cpu.

funny thing is many will upgrade see difference then change opnions.if you dont think there is a difference.go benchmark.go play on a system see the raw figures not oh i cant see anything different or it feels the same.
 
i agree saying this for a while.thing is people are still saying oooh there is no need or difference.when there is.
 
~>Dg<~ said:
i agree saying this for a while.thing is people are still saying oooh there is no need or difference.when there is.
Click to expand...

I'm telling you from experience that for my standard pc usage (gaming and day to day use) that jumping from 2500k to 5820k was nice, but not £600 nice.

If it wasn't for extra board features spending £600 quid on a GTX1080 would give someone more reward than swapping their cpu.
 
~>Dg<~ said:
i agree saying this for a while.thing is people are still saying oooh there is no need or difference.when there is.
Click to expand...
Again, no-one is saying there's no difference. There is not enough difference to justify the cost to most people. Spouting disingenuous numbers doesn't change that.

If you crap money, go ahead, but there's better stuff that most gamers can spend money on to improve their rigs, rather than spending £600 on a new motherboard, CPU, and RAM for a minor improvement in some games.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom