-
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.
The CPU State Of Affairs........
- Thread starter Andy7
- Start date
But to pay all that money for a meagre performance increase?
I am still on a 2600k @ 4.5Ghz and don't see anything worth splashing out for at the moment.
The Sandy Bridge chips prove that you don't have to shell out sh+t loads of money for an upgrade that gives you mediocre gains in gaming.
I think a very good reason to upgrade if you're on SB for example, aside from any performance gains, would be newer technologies, such as NVME, USB-C, more SATA6 connectors etc. Sometimes it's not just about the cpu speed which is more than enough anyway, until something crazy comes out and it's no longer the case i.e. VR takes off or developers decide they want to beef up AI in their games, but also what you get with the chipset itself. But if you want to "rock on" with a 5-6 year old tech which is good enough for your needs that's also OK.
Skylake is much faster than Sandybridge in gaming guys.
Most who say Sandy is still fine are just fooling themselves.
Skylake is a good 10% faster in games than Haswell, especially in games that aren't well threaded.
Take a look at this, for example:
Most who say Sandy is still fine are just fooling themselves.
Skylake is a good 10% faster in games than Haswell, especially in games that aren't well threaded.
Take a look at this, for example:
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 4,867
Regardless, it isn't massively faster.
I guess it falls down to what the sole purpose of the PC is, if just for gaming, and you don't have a PC then maybe, but x99 works out a better option as it works out cheaper, for more cores anyway, which maks it better for video editing and rendering.
But again it is dependant on what the primary use of the system is. Personally, unless your itching to use DDR4, then it isn't worth the outlay.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 12,234
- Location
- UK
i7 920 ftw
Regardless, it isn't massively faster.
I guess it falls down to what the sole purpose of the PC is, if just for gaming, and you don't have a PC then maybe, but x99 works out a better option as it works out cheaper, for more cores anyway, which maks it better for video editing and rendering.
But again it is dependant on what the primary use of the system is. Personally, unless your itching to use DDR4, then it isn't worth the outlay.
It's not cheaper at all, since it requires better cooling than Skylake does. Most X99 users need a AIO to keep temperatures under control, especially if they overclock. Intel specifically recommend a AIO water cooler for X99.
Meanwhile Skylake can get by on a much cheaper air cooler, and still overclock to 4.7Ghz+.
You also have to buy 4 sticks of DDR4 for X99's quad channel memory to work. 16GB (4x4GB) is more expensive than 16GB(2x8GB) kits.
X99 motherboards are also more expensive than Z170 boards.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 May 2007
- Posts
- 4,971
- Location
- Glasgow, Scotland
Getting bored of this coming up time and time again...
I paid £240 for my 4790k. 6700k has very rarely got anywhere near being a sensible buy.
Gotta agree, any intel cpu from the last 5 years is still pretty good. Ive been through quite a few of them, ivybridge, haswell, devils canyon. If your a gamer, all are still pretty potent. If you need a chip for productivity it has to be an X series setup. Even the old X58 bloomfield hex cores that are dirt cheap stack up quite well theese days. A lot of bang for little outlay.
Picked my 6700k up launch day (August 5th) for £320. Could have got it elsewhere for £300 if I wanted to wait for a week, though I'm not going to cry over £20
It's not very sensible buying a end of life 4790k/DDR3 based system now, considering that DDR4 is the future, Z170/X99 both have upgrade paths on their respective sockets, while z97 is totally dead, as is DDR3.
I'll re-use my DDR4 16GB (2x8GB) 3000Mhz kit in the next system I build, which will save a few quid
Picked up a new 5930k x99 gaming 7 board and 16gb quad channel ram for 500 sold my 2500k board and ram and CPU for 150 so it cost me 350 it's hardly a lot of money could have gone 6700k but don't see the point in having a quad core when you can have a hex.
Im Running a 5930k at 4.6 and doesn't go above 50c on full load when gaming with a air cooler must just be the only one
Last edited:
Id say Dave, the next upgrade for Z170 owners will be kabylake, a refresh of how devils canyon 4790k was to the 4770k. Had a play with a 6700k system my nephew was building for a friend. Very nice chip, im impressed by how cool it runs compared to haswell/ivybridge/devils canyon. But as i had a 4790k it wasnt for me, i went sideways as i needed the extra cores of the 5820k for some video work. Clocked at 4.5ghz for games its every bit as good as my old 4.7ghz 4790k, but runs much cooler. I think any intel cpu from the last few generations is more than fine for gamers, it will always boil down to the gpu that you use. Id love to see AMD come out with a decent cpu, bit of competition. And i cut my teeth on pc's with the brilliant A64 939 chips.Picked my 6700k up launch day (August 5th) for £320. Could have got it elsewhere for £300 if I wanted to wait for a week, though I'm not going to cry over £20
It's not very sensible buying a end of life 4790k/DDR3 based system now, considering that DDR4 is the future, Z170/X99 both have upgrade paths on their respective sockets, while z97 is totally dead, as is DDR3.
I'll re-use my DDR4 16GB (2x8GB) 3000Mhz kit in the next system I build, which will save a few quid