Few questions here. Is Skylake superior to Haswell? Or is it too expensive for now?
Also the difference between i5 and i7 is minimal, right?
Do you think Zen will introduce some competition in the high end CPU market?
also some benchmarks, but those are few games
Skylake offers more performance than Haswell. Whether or not it's worth it is the question to ask. We probably won't see Zen for a while. I would go with Skylake since it's the newest architecture but a used Haswell CPU would be fine.
Most people say you don't need an i7 for gaming, but I got one anyways and I can remember a few titles where an i7 was recommended over an i5. Just look for deals on Amazon, Newegg, and eBay.
As usual amd will always fall short. but Skylake v haswell is mostly its virtualization options then from there you are looking at a very small performance increase. The difference between i5 and i7 besides base clock speed is hyper threading. They both have 4 logic cores but the i7 has 4 hyper threads on top of that.
An A8-7670K for $100 already beats an i5-6600 Skylake that costs $230.
Also Skylake motherboards are much more expensive.
And Arma 3
And other games that depend on core strenght
So you're comparing the iGPUs of those CPUs, which is clearly not what the thread is about.
Pair that APU and that i5 with a Titan X overclocked and you'll see what happens
>Intel introduced a third line, and announced they're going to cease their tick tock development, with Kaby Lake coming before Cannonlake's shrink to 10mm
>AMD can't even put a fight in the enthusiast CPU market, Zen is a desperate effort at competing with mid tier CPUs
>developing smaller nodes is becoming more expensive, harder and with the barebones competition there's less of a reason to push hard for it anyway
>silicon is about to be tapped out with those infinitesimal shrinks
Is the desktop CPU market done? It seems destined to stagnate a slow death. What is ahead of the CPU innovation front? Graphene CPUs?
Even though these are just shitposts to bump the thread
They are hurting me inside, guys stop
it shows a i5 6600k with way over 60FPS average it seems, also on ultra
The Titan X is overclocked, but then that shouldn't make a difference for a CPU benchmark, because optimal CPU benchmarks try to be as less GPU limited as possible, so it would make that anon's benchmarks just look amateur
Oh also I forgot, graphics settings mostly have something to do with the GPU, besides shit like quantity of pedestrians and such. If you go from 1080p to 4k there's zero extra strain on the CPU, so I'm sure it doesn't matter at all.
That anon should provide the source of his benchmarks that an old ass CPU is beating fresh ones.
Thanks, just wondered if it was bottlenecking my 980ti, keep getting occasional frame rate hiccups when playing in 1440p, more so in 4k in games like Witcher 3 and mgsv.
And seeing as I can do a straight swap with the CPUs I'd considered it an option.
Progress in desktop CPU tech is going slow as fucking geological eras by now.
I've heard people with overclocked 2500k to 4.5 or so saying they see no reason to upgrade to this day, and how old are those processors again, like 5 years?
There needs to be some quantum leap in CPU technology, or maybe something that overthrows silicon. Shit is just moving at a slow, extremely slow pace.
But it is correct, the strain on the CPU comes from physics, calculations of npcs and shit onscreen.
The point is that Digital Foundry's video had the 6600k around 70-80 FPS, 65~ when he was flying with the jet. It probably isn't make an enormous difference, and of course he would have settings that affect the CPU turned to the max to test them.
I have 6700k. I would say that if you only want to play games, it's an overkill.
It's an amazing CPU for other stuff that requires a fast processor, but definitely way too much for games.