• 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.

Intel Says Chips To Become Slower But More Energy Efficient

It will be interesting to see how well chips like the 6700k hold up against the likes of a i7-980 or Xeon six core. Especially ones with a decent overclock.
 
I can't see any point in upgrading, maybe if Zen has the same IPC as Haswell i'll get an 8 thread or 12 thread one, if they are cheap enough.
I can't square an 8 thread Intel for £300, thats not far off the most i'm willing to spend on GPU's.

A 12 thread Zen with Haswell IPC for £250 would be awesome AMD ;)

I'll get £200 for my i5 with the board.
£150 for the GTX 970

If I add £600 of my own money that's £950.

£400 for the 12 thread Zen + Board + RAM
£300 for the new Polaris
£250 for a 1440P Free Sync panel.
 
Last edited:
humbug said:
A 12 thread Zen with Haswell IPC for £250 would be awesome AMD ;)
Click to expand...

If Zen is as good as it's starting to look, then it's probably a little unfair to expect AMD to sell it for £150 less than its performance-equivalent Intel. We're probably going to get something nearer parity.
 
Dave2150 said:
6700k is faster than the 4790k, and has much more PCI-E lanes on it's chipset.

Also runs much cooler, and generally overclocks better.
Click to expand...

As we know, the difference between all the i7s in gaming is almost non-existent. But the 4790k still benches faster than the 6700k in some games.
 
Last edited:
Nasher said:
TBH I don't think we are going to see much improvement now until they switch away from silicone and start using something like Graphene. Which will come...eventually.
Click to expand...
Silicone is a rubber-like polymer used as an industrial lubricant and as a filler in breast implants (amongst other applications); the semi-conductor material used in the manufacture of transistors in silicon.

Graphene has technical limitations which may never be overcome (specifically, the lack of a band gap). Silicene or stanene may prove to be better alternatives, although we're still a long way from seeing any of them being produced on an industrial scale.

Intel have confirmed (and Samsung have implied) that they're switching to indium gallium arsenide transistors at the 7nm node, so 10nm may be the last hurrah for silicon transistors as we know them.
 
Dave2150 said:
6700k is faster than the 4790k, and has much more PCI-E lanes on it's chipset.

Also runs much cooler, and generally overclocks better.
Click to expand...

Stock 4790k is 0.2ghz faster on turbo and 7w less TDP

Either way, anyone buying a cpu at the moment won't need to upgrade for another 10 years :p
 
A lot of people seem to look at gaming performance (largely GPU bound) as the basis for performance comparisons.

Worth remembering that in the last several years the performance innovations have come more from instruction set improvements than anything else. These don't affect the consumer world all that much unfortunately.

Definitely hitting the limits of silicon though, and with Moore's Law no longer being the target...
 
setter said:
In your case yes, the switch from a 920 to the 6700k will have been a massive jump. But for someone on anything from sandybridge onwards it isnt as big a difference. Ive owned the following in the last few years.

i7 920
i5 3570k
i7 3770k
i7 4770k
i7 4790k
i7 5820k

The performance difference from one chip to the next has been pretty small. None so far with the 4790k - 5820k as that is pretty much a side grade. Only bought it on a whim as the board, cpu, ram and a pcie ssd were going cheap at £400.00 from a friend. Also hoping that DX12 will help in the future for gaming.
Click to expand...

............
Let's face it, you're going to be buying another CPU by the time DX12 will be useful.
 
I have a Core i7 3770 equivalent CPU and I am more limited by my graphics card in most games anyway.

All these faster CPUs are all fine and dandy but in the end unless you spend like £350+ there are far more gains made in upgrading your graphics card first IMHO.

We need to be rid of 28NM!!
 
I'm still running a q9450 on socket 775. I think that says a lot. I'm going to see how long I can hold out :) Efficiency is big for me though. I love the idea of uber efficiency because electricity costs are high in my house.
 
hehe what you running?

if you uber skint i guess you could factor in the electricity costs but really how much extra is a cpu like yours over a 6700k ?

will be pennies per week.

ive seen gains in some games of upto 20 percent with the newer 6700k over 4790k.

only issue at moment where in a transition period . first phase vr coming soon , dx12 games will start to filter in maybe within next year but even thats not guaranteed to be anything.

so people are mainly unsure devs make games for peoples gear so it has to work on what we already have. thats why vr is recommended 970 gtx for eg.

we are kinda holding back our own gaming.

as for amd bringing out a great cpu i don't think it will happen. it would have happened by now.
 
biggest saving i think would be not browsing the internet on a desktop, using a tablet or something instead

i dont see changing the cpu saving much even if gaming 12hrs a day, gpu and not overclocking would save a lot more
 
~>Dg<~ said:
hehe what you running?

if you uber skint i guess you could factor in the electricity costs but really how much extra is a cpu like yours over a 6700k ?

will be pennies per week.

ive seen gains in some games of upto 20 percent with the newer 6700k over 4790k.

only issue at moment where in a transition period . first phase vr coming soon , dx12 games will start to filter in maybe within next year but even thats not guaranteed to be anything.

so people are mainly unsure devs make games for peoples gear so it has to work on what we already have. thats why vr is recommended 970 gtx for eg.

we are kinda holding back our own gaming.

as for amd bringing out a great cpu i don't think it will happen. it would have happened by now.
Click to expand...

But the vast majority of people are more GPU limited than CPU limited though - we are being held back far more by graphics cards than CPUs for the most part and the vast majority of gamers are lucky to have anything faster than a GTX970.

Once the R9 290 dipped to around £300 for the cheapest models two years ago,we have had hardly any performance improvements since then in the £250 to £300 area and under £200 things have stood still for yonks too.

If 14NM/16NM does not deliver in performance gains between £100 to £300 in the next 12 months,games are again just going to be stuck in progression moving forward.

The progression to higher resolution screens,VR,etc is being hampered by the lack of graphics performance.
 
Last edited:
Lets just hope stuff starts supporting lots of cores instead then, maybe in a few years we will have 40 core cpus instead of faster speeds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom