Intel shenanigans

>I mainly use my cpu for rendering so i need the very last ounce of performance i can get. 6 core and up are not an option for me because i game and like my single threads.
this is so stupid it's making my head hurt

Just look up benchmarks you lazy nigger. There's almost no difference

>>58371775
Trading one 4 core for another is not a upgrade. You are a stupid shit if you don't just buy a 5820k or equivalent.

>>58371793
I want the best of both worlds, whats so stupid about that?

10% higher oc and maybe 5% higher perf per clock cycle

>>58371832
I'm mainly looking for better single threaded performance.

>>58371848
but probably about 2% ipc gain desu

>>58371848
Thanks for being human and not a nigger.

>>58371848
Exactly this, 10%
>>58371849
stick with the 4790k

>>58371849
5820 will still get about 2k single threaded. You probably won't notice the difference.

you need a 5820k my guy

turn on task manager and open the cpu performance graph. now play your most demanding game for 2 minutes and alt tab out. is your cpu at 100% the whole time? is the game lagging?

>>58371880
What are the estimated oc for those?

>>58371833
video games are a hobby, and if you're using the machine for your actual job then you should not priorize video games
besides, even if you were to compare single threaded performance of a 10-core and 4-core CPU, you wouldn't be looking at a whole lot of difference
lastly, if you STILL deem that single threaded performance of that scenario isn't enough you can always disable cores and overclock, so that you'd match 7700K's performance in single threaded applications or idiotic games

>>58371893
I have afterburner readout on, bf1 gets to 80-90% sometimes.

>>58371775
7700k is made for dumb consumers who watch netflix 24/7 mostly. There's no performance increasement between 7700k and 4790k. Just overclock your processor and wait until Intel releases cannonlake processors.

>>58371912
Wut gpu?

>>58371899
mine does 4375mhz at 1.21v with an air cooler. they can do 5.5 on water but it's not worth it.

>>58371912
i play bf1 and i get maybe 40% average total cpu usage in 64 player conquest

>>58371939
i meant 4.5

File: Singularity.jpg (101KB, 771x536px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 771x536px

>>58371925
op here

File: 2017-01-07_15-19-06.png (16KB, 724x319px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 724x319px

>>58371775
Get the 8 core 2670 Xeon from ebay for like $70 and build a machine with that for rendering. You could also go the dual socket route but the mainboard is going to cost like $300 so it's not really worth it.

The only problem with the 2670 is it's power consumption but the 6900k is a even bigger house fire.

>>58371963
What is the ipc diff between an i7 and a xeon?

Are Ryzen CPUs also quad-core or MOAR COREZ?

I heard Linus claiming that it had like 90%ish of Kaby Lake

>>58371988
8 core 16 threads for the high end, all the way down to 4 core 8 threads. Maybe even a 2c 4t variant.

>>58371988
we know that there are 4C/8T and 8C/16T variants

>>58371775
just upgrade every 5-10 years
dont be a nigger upgrading every 6 months

>>58371963
2670 is not very impressive anymore. I can get 8500 out of a 6600k. And the mobo will cost $350 minimum.

>>58372004
Oh i know that, Just my autism kicks in when i see better single threaded performance in benchmarks.

>>58372020
Just buy 64gb and throw everything on ramdisk

>>58372000
>>58372002
Any estimate on the 8c/16t?

Not OP but I'm into rendering Autodesk shit myself and am debating this or the 6900k

>>58372064
*6800k

Typo

>>58372064
As it sits now, It's going to be bulldozer 2.0, you might have more threads but single core without a doubt will fall behind 20% from broadwell.

>>58372089
More like 10-15%

>>58372099
Which isn't bad for rendering dude.

>>58371848
>5% higher perf per clock cycle
It's actually 0%