Just because new shiny hits doesn't mean we all have to upgrade

[harz_marz]

All I can say is that more and more games I have are starting to use more cores and threads, making games smoother.

Dying Light, Battlefield 4, Project Cars, GTAV, Witcher 3 make nice use of multiple cores/threads, Dying Light in particular.

It's a trend I can only see continuing.

I went from an (admittedly old) Q6600 quad to a Xeon hexcore, and I wouldn't want to go back to a quad, even a 4690K or 6600K.

So if you had he option of a 4690K, 6600K or 5820K you'd splash out on the latter?

 

[haszek]

But those sub £100 are not as well built,so ultimately like for like its closer to £50 to £60. Plus you also have the weird chipset limitation with realistically only 20 PCI-E 3.0 lanes on the CPU being useable for graphics and 28 for the Core i7 5820K.

If someone is going to spend £300 on a CPU for gaming,they probably going to want to go dual card at some point or have an option.

Plus are you going to be sure that in 4 years time,the Z170 is going to have enough bandwidth - I doubt it??

The Core i7 6700K is £300 and probably makes it the worst value for money Intel CPU under £400 in years. People should stop making excuses for such a poor value for money CPU,since if they can sell £300 4C/8T CPUs in quantity for desktop,soon expect £400 ones coming out in the next few years.

So x99 can do x16 x8 with dual graphic cards and this gives advantage over 8x8x? Can I see tests please? Just asking as I didn't know. And all drives are connected to chipset lanes, at least what I understood from reviews, so it doesn't matter that there is only 20.

You on the other way try to argument that it's worth spending extra cash on something that's got no real life (gaming) usage.

I'm not saying anywhere it's fantastic... how many times... It's no better than other platforms, but it's not worse and it's cheaper.

 

[jjgreenwood]

But those sub £100 are not as well built,so ultimately like for like its closer to £50 to £60. Plus you also have the weird chipset limitation with realistically only 20 PCI-E 3.0 lanes on the CPU being useable for graphics and 28 for the Core i7 5820K.

If someone is going to spend £300 on a CPU for gaming,they probably going to want to go dual card at some point or have an option.

Plus are you going to be sure that in 4 years time,the Z170 is going to have enough bandwidth - I doubt it??

The Core i7 6700K is £300 and probably makes it the worst value for money Intel CPU under £400 in years. People should stop making excuses for such a poor value for money CPU,since if they can sell £300 4C/8T CPUs in quantity for desktop,soon expect £400 ones coming out in the next few years.

Well with the rapid rise in graphics, dual card is becoming less and less relevant. If cards get that much more powerful so quickly then it stands to reason you won't need dual cards. I also doubt that many people go i7 with the intention of going dual cards, they probably just think its only £90 extra for a better processor. I doubt they think that this will be better for my second £500 gpu.

It seems nvidia who controls most the market doesn't really bother with sli as much as benches I've seen show 30% scaling for gtx 980ti in games it's relevant in. Presumably thats what this gameworks stuff is about as 980ti can handle virtually everything on the average display apart from gameworks, which lets be honest, doesn't add much to the experience anyway.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Well with the rapid rise in graphics, dual card is becoming less and less relevant. If cards get that much more powerful so quickly then it stands to reason you won't need dual cards. I also doubt that many people go i7 with the intention of going dual cards, they probably just think its only £90 extra for a better processor. I doubt they think that this will be better for my second £500 gpu.

It seems nvidia who controls most the market doesn't really bother with sli as much as benches I've seen show 30% scaling for gtx 980ti in games it's relevant in. Presumably thats what this gameworks stuff is about as 980ti can handle virtually everything on the average display apart from gameworks, which lets be honest, doesn't add much to the experience anyway.

Emm,actually the performance jumps have been getting smaller and smaller due to the extended process nodes used by TSMC for GPUs,so if anything dual card is probably going to become more and more important as nodes are extended more and more,and OFC I am talking about higher end gaming.

And if you want to spend £90 you can spend £150 to £160 and get an even longer lasting platform - if you are counting the pennies,why bother spending more than £200 on a CPU,or over £250 on a graphics card??

But the worst thing is that both the Core i7 5775C and Core i7 5820K are larger chips where the costs might be justified. The Core i7 6700K is a much smaller chip and even in gaming benchmarks the Core i7 5775C with its massive L4 cache can beat the Core i7 6700K.

Remember,the Core i7 5775C is also made on 14nm,and has much more complex packaging due to the massive L4 cache its using too.

So at this point,the Core i7 6700K is probably more a profit making exercise for Intel to increase margins on desktop,to fund their foray into mobile.

It should be priced below a Core i5 5775C and a Core i7 5820K,not at a comparable price.

At this rate the Kaby Lake Core i5 will be £250!!

 

[haszek]

Remember,the Core i7 5775C is also made on 14nm too,and has much more complex packaging due to the massive L4 cache its using too.

And broadwell is owning because of this L4 which shows intel knows how to easily increase effectiveness of the processor.

Who's to say they are not gonna just add this to Kaby for it to own? Easy, same platform but way better performance, which will leave dead x99 way behind

 

[Kelt]

So if you had he option of a 4690K, 6600K or 5820K you'd splash out on the latter?

Absolutely.

In fact, before I happened upon my current Xeon bundle in the MM, I was going to buy a 5820 system.

 

[easyrider]

Would the 6600K perform better than a i7 4790K?

I am just going to be using it for gaming,

I've already given you the answer to this in a previous post in this very thread .


The answer is no. The 4790k is the better cpu than the 6600k

Be told

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

And broadwell is owning because of this L4 which shows intel knows how to easily increase effectiveness of the processor.

Who's to say they are not gonna just add this to Kaby for it to own? Easy, same platform but way better performance, which will leave dead x99 way behind

Unfortunately in anything remotely multi-threaded its not going to be the case,so I doubt it. The socket 2011 CPUs are essential the high-end Intel server CPUs modified for desktop use,whereas socket 115x are laptop chips modified for desktop use.

The socketed Broadwell GT4 chips were only released for desktop since Broadwell was massively delayed,and Intel made a promise it would come to socket 1150,so it appears they modified their mobile Core i7 to fulfill the criteria.

If it had not been delayed,it most likely that they would have masks for two Core i7 variants,one with L4 cache and one without,just like with Haswell.

The only real reason the L4 cache exists is to improve IGP performance,so I expect any future GT4/highend GT releases to be stuck to the mobile form factor,where the improved IGP actually means Intel can probably charge more for the chips as its an important feature.

It means you can have decent graphics performance in a smaller form factor.

For desktop,its not a selling point and only adds to the BOM.

Plus you can invest in X99 for not much more than an overpriced £300 Core i7 6700K and have the future now!

Everyone else can go with a Core i5 6600K and ignore the overpriced Core i7 6700K.

So,at this point we will need to agree to disagree. The Core i7 6700K is simply not viable at £300 IMHO and even cheaper motherboards don't save it.

Edit!!

Just some die comparisons of the Core i7 5775C and the Core i7 6700K:

http://images.anandtech.com/doci/9320/BDW Chips_678x452.jpg
http://images.anandtech.com/doci/9483/100Series-NoReflect_575px.png

The L4 cache is around 50% the area of the CPU in Broadwell.
Look at the Core i7 6700K - its significantly smaller than the CPU section of the Core i7 5775C alone.

Plus the packaging costs will be higher when you need to package L4 cache off die.

Intel could easily have priced it at £250 IMHO.

 

[haszek]

I agree 300£ is too much for 6700k but in $ release price is 350$, while 2600k was released at 317$, not that big difference. So I guess this is they way world went and changed everything not intel.

 

[Sylver123]

People also forget that the X99 platform could still get a Broadwell-E refresh early next year which
will increase the performance of this platform some more.

There has been a lot of speculation about weather X99 platform will get a Broadwell-E refresh or
not but Intel hasn't officially stated this platform won't be getting another processor refresh.

 

[Orangey]

its obviously better than z97

No it's not.

And broadwell is owning because of this L4 which shows intel knows how to easily increase effectiveness of the processor.

Who's to say they are not gonna just add this to Kaby for it to own? Easy, same platform but way better performance, which will leave dead x99 way behind

Kaby is going to be another fail, it's not going to save the arch. Let's not engage in the same hopeless hyping we did for Skylake.

X99 is cheaper, offers more and is the more mature platform. I see some people still going on about chipsets like Intel isn't forcing you to buy a new one every time now... forget about longevity, I wouldn't be surprised if Intel forces you to buy a new socket for Kaby too.

 

[DavidS14]

I'm still on my X79 3930 @ 5GHZ with 16GB of sammy green and I've seen nothing to tempt me to upgrade yet.

X99 was no real upgrade and switching to DDR4 was expensive with not a lot of reward and now Skylake comes out again with not a lot of gain. Now looking at the total gain it's slightly better if I got say 5% gain going to X99 and another 5% going to Skylake but would the overclocks be as good which would maybe nullify the gains.

At the moment it would be extra features rather than performance that would make me want to move platforms as SATA3 headers are limited on the RIVE plus M.2 header would be nice.