|
When using this resource, please read the opening post. The Tech Support forum regulars have helped create countless of desktop systems without any compensation. The least you can do is provide all of the information required for them to help you properly. |
On September 14 2015 07:34 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2015 07:19 z0rz wrote:On September 14 2015 03:59 darkness wrote:I see more and more people choose i7-5820K over i5-6600K/i7-6700K. I guess I made a good choice back then. No matter how Skylake is overclocked, 6 cores beat overclocked 4 cores.  Well, probably not in gaming. Probably because people have their eyes set on an i7 and are tired of waiting I've been looking into this recently, though. 5820K was as good, or slightly worse, than a 4790K in gaming, so I can't imagine it being too terribly far behind a 6700K. The framerate differences would likely be negligible in most, if not all, gaming situations, but you would see a significant difference in any other workload that could make use of the extra cores (streaming, encoding, compressing, rendering, etc). Not to mention that never-ending belief that games may be using more cores/threads in the near future. If you aren't shooting for benchmark results, the 5820K should feel better overall, right? (This is excluding the differences between the platforms, which I admittedly know very little about aside from PCI-e lane differences). My assumption is that the 5820K should be fairly similar for most things? The 6700K should have better single-thread performance since it's newer and not really lower quality. I don't do multithreaded work often, other than sometimes streaming + playing a game at the same time so it wouldn't be better for me. I imagine few games use fewer than 4cores/8threads so I guess it depends what you're doing.
Well, I rarely do anything multithreaded (or intensively multithreaded I should say), but i7-5820K overclocked to 4.4 GHz feels nice. I've been using it since February. The most demanding game I've known, Arkham Knight, can't even use more than 25-35% CPU, so I'm good. It just shows CPUs are much more future-proof than GPUs.  I know i7-5820K is still young, but what I mean is some people use i7-2500K and say they still play ok.
|
United Kingdom20326 Posts
5820K was as good, or slightly worse, than a 4790K in gaming, so I can't imagine it being too terribly far behind a 6700K.
The framerate differences would likely be negligible in most, if not all, gaming situations, but you would see a significant difference in any other workload that could make use of the extra cores (streaming, encoding, compressing, rendering, etc). Not to mention that never-ending belief that games may be using more cores/threads in the near future.
5820k vs 6700k is really a tradeoff of singlethreaded performance vs multi.
If you take a 6700k at 4.7ghz and a 5820k at 4.4ghz, the 5820k would encode ~1.25x faster.
The 6700k would be ~17-18% faster until you saw notable speedup from using a 5'th core, but HT would eat into the performance gap between the 6700k and 5820k as it would benefit the quad core but not the 6 core at that point.
With performance differences, i'd say a good OCing 6700k would be probably be better than a bad OCing 5820k.. but same the other way around too. OCing difference makes them excel more at their strengths and reduces the relative weakness but there's not much that you can do to control that, so just buy skylake if you want ST>MT performance and haswell-e if you want MT>ST. Both will still have great performance for everything but there are ~15-30% leads for the more suited CPU
Arkham Knight, can't even use more than 25-35% CPU, so I'm good. It just shows CPUs are much more future-proof than GPUs.
That's largely about a combination of software being bad and CPU performance being at a relative standstill due to lack of competition (and software being bad)
If you look at hardware available in early 2011 compared to now, CPU performance improved by ~20-35% or so.
If you do the same for GPU's, GPU performance has improved by 200%. GPU's are also highly parallel by nature and relatively easy to just throw more cores on and more memory bandwidth and get basically linear performance improvements while it's hard to scale CPU singlethreaded performance
Die shrinks on GPU's have added a huge amount of performance every time.
On the CPU side, all of the recent die shrinks have allowed us to increase core counts by a factor of 4.5 since 2010 but consumers have yet to see any increase in core counts (with the exception of the $1000 5960x)
|
It's probably much easier for GPU algorithms to be multi-threaded, e.g.
core 1: draw left panel
core 2: draw right panel
core 3: draw top panel
core 4: draw bottom panel
core 5: draw centre
Software as far as CPU is concerned is more difficult and not every algorithm can be multi-threaded.
|
United Kingdom20326 Posts
|
Well, indeed, and that's what I'm saying. Games have a lot of visual/graphics stuff that can be multi-threaded in my opinion (I'm not a game developer), but as a software engineer, I can tell you that multi-threaded algorithms for software aren't widely available. e.g. try to make this multi-threaded: 5 * (5 * (10 + 15)). Of course, problems are more complex than this expression but some things can't be multi-threaded unless Computer Science comes up with modern algorithms.
|
United States10328 Posts
fuck, I think my Z97 PC MATE mobo is not compatible with my GTX960 gpu
if only someone in this thread had told me 
edit: or maybe not
still, I can't even boot to BIOS when the GPU is plugged in; help?
edit 2": weird, plugged in dvi cable into the graphics card port and it works
what
|
United Kingdom20326 Posts
You likely have the screen plugged into your motherboard and not into the GPU. When the GPU is plugged in, it takes over video output so you need screen plugged into the GPU.
You also need power connector for the GPU
|
United States10328 Posts
wow, you answered the question same time as I tried plugging into the GPU! thanks Cyro!
that's a bit annoying, since I have a VGA and a DVI cable, but my GPU only supports 2 displayport, 2 hdmi, and 1 dvi... but cables are cheap i guess
thanks again!
|
United Kingdom20326 Posts
|
United States10328 Posts
It's an MSI GTX 960 2GB Gaming
|
United Kingdom20326 Posts
Probably easiest to use a dvi-i to vga adapter for the VGA screen
and use displayport/hdmi for the digital screen (with an adapter from one of those to dvi if neccesary)
|
United Kingdom20326 Posts
|
So I'm going to be upgrading to skylake(basically 2500k mobo died and I replaced with a cheap non-OC mobo because I needed it to get running again temporarily for cheap). 6600k or 6700k is the question.
|
United Kingdom20326 Posts
|
On September 15 2015 17:10 Cyro wrote:
for what workloads?
Generally gaming, although once I go back to school it'll likely also be my CAD workstation. CPU intensive games would pretty much be KSP(unity 5 apparently has multicore?), and the occasional PCSX2 grind.
|
United Kingdom20326 Posts
Unity 5 physics are not singlethreaded any more but that's a long way away from effectively utilizing 5 or even 2-3 threads. The biggest workload in KSP (physics simulation between a bunch of connected rigid bodies) is supposedly not even efficiently multithreadable with our current programming knowledge. The devs are also on the clock working as a company of like 8 people to develop a game with over a million sales using a third party engine that doesn't even make its own physics; they don't have much control over that stuff.
so 6700k would probably help you but not super cost effectively and not in many of todays CPU bound games (like ksp and sc2). They run hotter too because of HT (~7-14c)
|
FWIW, it doesn't appear that AutoCAD (and what seems to be the entire line of Autodesk products) has much, if any, multi-core support. You may want to consider a dual core CPU.
|
@Craton: He's going to be playing games on it so dual core probably wouldn't be a wise choice. Also more and more games seem to favor an i7 these days, the i5 has been the obvious choice for gaming for a long time but that might not be the case in many of todays games and I feel confident in saying that it's probably something that games will continue in that direction (multi threaded..)
So I would say 6700k is a safer bet these days if you're going to keep it for a long time like your 2500k, if the budget is not an issue that is but you didn't specify one so.
|
United Kingdom20326 Posts
6700k will be faster, just not cost effectively so (and not always faster at all)
|
Guys, looking to build a home server for media purposes. Probably spending $300 with Intel CPU i5-3330 that I hope to get for free. Or I can reuse my current gaming parts and rebuild my gaming PC.
This is my current gaming build 2 yrs old
http://pcpartpicker.com/b/tb3CmG
What is your budget?
$300 for new media server PC, or $500 to upgrade gaming PC and reuse parts.
What is your monitor's native resolution?
Using projector at 1080p
What games do you intend to play on this computer? What settings?
None, media only.
What do you intend to use the computer for besides gaming?
Watch media
Do you intend to overclock?
no need
Do you intend to do SLI / Crossfire?
no ned
Do you need an operating system?
no need, probably trying out ubuntu.
Do you need a monitor or any other peripherals and is this part of your budget?
no need
If you have any requirements or brand preferences, please specify.
no need
What country will you be buying your parts in?
US
If you have any retailer preferences, please specify.
none
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
