• 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.

i5 3570k @4.3ghz - Worth a upgrade to Kaby Lake?

southernorth

southernorth

southernorth

Associate
Joined
1 Jul 2016
Posts
2,225
Hi,

I know CPU's don't increase in performance each generation like GPU's do, but I know there is some gain. Would there be much point in upgrading to upcoming Kaby Lake, or should I try and grab a Skylake CPU as prices decrease?

I play at 1080p and have a GTX 1060 atm.

Thanks.
 
depends on the games you play really. Personally I see no point upgrading from i5 to another i5 within 2-3 generations. We don't know how good Kabylake can be so let's just wait a bit. A cheaper option would be a second hand 3770K and clock it decently to 4.3-4.5Ghz then you would have a very similar performer.
 
I wouldn't jump to Skylake from a 3570k. As for Kabylake nobody knows what it will be like. If it follows the last few releases then it will be yet another pathetic little performance increase while at the same time pushing the price even higher.
 
Used to be every generation was worth taking, I think AMD really dropped off and Intel is more centred onto mobile and wider type cpu applications. They got badly burned only looking at PC and some even say PC will stop existing, it'll all be parallel processing with tons of tiny ARM cpu on every white good.

At least server wise they just keep upping the core count ? A different kind of parallel processing. Having looked at this kind of thing for while, I dont believe they'll really come to stop because they have been speculating PC cant get better for 20 years and it always does but the gains are lumpy. Maybe next gen will allow you to skip having a GPU I dont know.

I believe Apple is moving into Car PC, they'd love to harness those production figures not sure theres some below the radar kind of move going on.

Its not a new question anyway, the fastest 486 were better, cheaper then the slowest Pentium if I remember right. Lots of disappointment there and it became old news. The earliest 486 were very like 386 which first came out in 1985, so its just a continual thing but usually a new generation becomes worth it
 
southernorth said:
Hi,

I know CPU's don't increase in performance each generation like GPU's do, but I know there is some gain. Would there be much point in upgrading to upcoming Kaby Lake, or should I try and grab a Skylake CPU as prices decrease?

I play at 1080p and have a GTX 1060 atm.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

Prices don't decrease much, My 4790k is a couple of gens back and costing more today than on release, Those are here on OCUK too.
 
I'm in the same boat but am going to try and hold out for Zen if it's decent if not then I'll get the first mainstream Intel 6 core with a Z chipset which will probably be around 2018-2019. I do feel some issues with BF4 although that is the only game I have noticed alongside GTA V (Although I hardly play it). I want to have a big jump like when Sandy Bridge came about and I feel like it will happen soon.
 
Doogles said:
I'm in the same boat but am going to try and hold out for Zen if it's decent if not then I'll get the first mainstream Intel 6 core with a Z chipset which will probably be around 2018-2019. I do feel some issues with BF4 although that is the only game I have noticed alongside GTA V (Although I hardly play it). I want to have a big jump like when Sandy Bridge came about and I feel like it will happen soon.
Click to expand...

In the video I linked, there is a ~20% performance improvement between the i5 2500k and 6600k. For me that's quite a good gain, nothing special but something I would consider an upgrade for. From what I've now read, the upcoming Kaby Lake is mainly focusing on efficiency improvements, with likely only a very slight performance improvement.
 
some games you can see 20-30 fps difference. the difference is whether people bench games before hand also show min max and avg frame rate.

i have a i3570k rig at side of my 5820k

both ocd.

there is deffintly big differences in some games other not so much.the biggest differences is the minimums. totally smooth.

also you have the other things which are vastly quicker.

the older i5s are still great cpus regardless but you can get some nice increases.
 
The only fps worth measuring is minimum, in competitive play thats true. Obviously exclude loading screens and menus but if its an actual live game you cant rewind; if the cpu raises the min then its great and 20% would be massive there
 
southernorth said:
In the video I linked, there is a ~20% performance improvement between the i5 2500k and 6600k. For me that's quite a good gain, nothing special but something I would consider an upgrade for. From what I've now read, the upcoming Kaby Lake is mainly focusing on efficiency improvements, with likely only a very slight performance improvement.
Click to expand...

20% isn't much at all considering it will cost at least £350 for a decent motherboard and 2x8GB DDR4 3200mhz along with the 6600k.
 
hey guys,

sorry to butt-in, but, im looking at the 3570k as a replacement from my current fx 8350. will that be a sufficient upgrade for 1080p gaming? (i use a 1070 gpu).



RTJ
 
southernorth said:
Why would the differences decrease when overclocked?
Click to expand...

Because the stock speed on the 6600k is faster but the rough max overclock for a 6600k vs. the others isn't faster.

southernorth said:
It's to get rid of any 'bottlenecks' by using the most powerful GPU available. That's all.
Click to expand...

This sounds reasonable - except it's not comparing what difference people would actually see as what GPU you have and what resolution you play at impact the CPU too. If all games on real setups are GPU bottlenecked and this results in the systems giving equal results regardless of CPU the correct thing to say is they're equal for the use (note: This isn't always the case, but you can only tell if it is or isn't by testing with appropriate lower-end hardware). Artificially trying to find differences between CPUs is interesting, but not a useful comparison to work out which you should get or if an upgrade is worthwhile. They can't review all options, so I can understand why they do it this way, but it doesn't actually help people making decisions like yours.

A similar discussion can be had around the use of in-game settings especially in GPU reviews - using the same settings for every card sounds great for equal comparison. However, if comparing two cards which both need to drop off those settings to hit playable frames you may find they don't stack up at all as expected, as a single setting that you wouldn't in reality turn on impacts one card much more heavily than the other. The traditional way of handling this is to have a few buckets of performance using same settings in each bucket - though you seldom see it done. Same settings at different resolutions to an extent go the same way. In any event it remains very difficult to give a fair comparison as even doing all of the above, what settings do you then choose? In-game pre-made options can be as flawed as any other, vendors such as NVIDIA and AMD have preferred settings that are likely to favour their own cards etc. Anyway, enough of my rambling about GPUs in a CPU thread!
 
Last edited:
southernorth said:
It's to get rid of any 'bottlenecks' by using the most powerful GPU available. That's all.
Click to expand...

That's sensible to get a raw comparison but in the real world people want to know how upgrading their CPUs affects a realistic setup. I doubt the i7-6700K is that much better than an i7-2600K, for example, at 1080p with a GTX 970 or something.
 
DragonQ said:
That's sensible to get a raw comparison but in the real world people want to know how upgrading their CPUs affects a realistic setup. I doubt the i7-6700K is that much better than an i7-2600K, for example, at 1080p with a GTX 970 or something.
Click to expand...

So you're saying that their test is effectively pointless?
 
nashathedog said:
Prices don't decrease much, My 4790k is a couple of gens back and costing more today than on release, Those are here on OCUK too.
Click to expand...

I think I paid around £250 (from OcUK) for my i7 4790K not long after it's release. It's ridiculous how much they cost now! You would have thought the prices would drop so they can shift the old stock. I've seen nothing else worth upgrading to when it comes to gaming anyway as my 4790k does just fine :).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom