• 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.

Skylake vs. Sandy Bridge: Discrete GPU Showdown

In intensive cpu areas in games skylake looks like it has some good performance over haswell, it's killing the 4790k in GTA5 for example.

So might not be best going with the x99 solution if looking for best performance.
 
Hmm....

So the general gist of all these reviews posted above is that there is a difference between the i7's in gaming. I wish they would include the 5820k in to these reviews as it basically is the direct competitor in the same price range.

You and me both! They would have but lacked a sample, they wrote.

In intensive cpu areas in games skylake looks like it has some good performance over haswell, it's killing the 4790k in GTA5 for example.

So might not be best going with the x99 solution if looking for best performance.

Wouldn't such an increase with Skylake become more/actually relevant only when having a monitor above 60Hz?
 
In intensive cpu areas in games skylake looks like it has some good performance over haswell, it's killing the 4790k in GTA5 for example.

So might not be best going with the x99 solution if looking for best performance.

GTA V is a game which can use 8 threads. So I suspect it would be fine on a 5820K. Especially if the critical limit is somewhere between a 4790K and 6700K.

I found their comments on Far Cry 4 very interesting. Whilst it is multithreaded, it is disproportionately demanding on a single thread which lets Skylake shine. In that case a 5820K won't help. However, since Far Cry 4 runs so well anyway it doesn't really matter.
 
Despite what this says I see no real need to upgrade from my i5 [email protected]. I still don't see that spending £300-£400 for an extra 10% FPS, 5-6 FPS in some games, can be considered VFM! I bought this CPU in June 2011 and have upgraded from a GTX460 1GB to a GTX670 2GB and now a GTX780 6GB and seen a significant FPS increase every time. I'm not seeing any good reason to upgrade.
 
Despite what this says I see no real need to upgrade from my i5 [email protected]. I still don't see that spending £300-£400 for an extra 10% FPS, 5-6 FPS in some games, can be considered VFM! I bought this CPU in June 2011 and have upgraded from a GTX460 1GB to a GTX670 2GB and now a GTX780 6GB and seen a significant FPS increase every time. I'm not seeing any good reason to upgrade.

I don't think they are telling people with SB processors to upgrade.

Also remember they are using a heavily overclocked Titan X only at 1080p. The CPU bottleneck will reduce with less powerful graphics cards and/or as you increase the resolution and settings.
 
I don't think they are telling people with SB processors to upgrade.

Also remember they are using a heavily overclocked Titan X only at 1080p. The CPU bottleneck will reduce with less powerful graphics cards and/or as you increase the resolution and settings.

I know they're not recommending it, I just think either Sandybridge was really, really good, Intel are holding back due to lack of competition or CPU improvements are starting to slow down. I know my chip is overclocked but I did run it at stock for over a year.
 
if i have £400 to blow will I buy a CPU for 5% increase in FPS, or another 980 for 50-100%?


Let me think about that one..
 
In intensive cpu areas in games skylake looks like it has some good performance over haswell, it's killing the 4790k in GTA5 for example.

So might not be best going with the x99 solution if looking for best performance.

(remember sales platforms may guide you else where ;) )
 
Back
Top Bottom