![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
i7- 5820K, i7-5930K, i7-6700K
- Thread starter rinaldo00
- Start date
GotNoRice
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2001
- Messages
- 12,015
For games today, if you aren't already in a GPU limited situation, Skylake is going to be better.
DX12 has the potential to change the way extra cores are utilized, potentially giving an advantage to CPUs with more cores. The reality of that however is that all our information on DX12 mostly still comes form marketing BS so we don't know what it will actually be capable of in practice. Most games also don't even come close to using all 4 cores of a quad core chip, so even with DX12 style advancements, there is still plenty of extra core utilization to be had with a quad.
DX12 has the potential to change the way extra cores are utilized, potentially giving an advantage to CPUs with more cores. The reality of that however is that all our information on DX12 mostly still comes form marketing BS so we don't know what it will actually be capable of in practice. Most games also don't even come close to using all 4 cores of a quad core chip, so even with DX12 style advancements, there is still plenty of extra core utilization to be had with a quad.
Gaming? Get a 6700K, you can get one and a high-end board for less than a i7- 5820K and the cheapest possible board. I'm pretty convinced at this point that the gaming industry will move from 4 cores to 8 cores at some point in the future so 6 isn't going to help anyway. Per-thread the 6700K is the fastest CPU ever.
Sludacris7
n00b
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2011
- Messages
- 39
There is no way of knowing exactly how much Dx12 will take advantage of the extra threads, but there is only ~$50ish difference in price and you get 2 extra cores/4 extra threads.
Depends what you want, usb C or more cores. The pcie lane statement is correct and incorrect:
Skylake still only has 16 native PCIe 3.0 lanes dedicated to GPUs. The 20 PCIe 3.0 lanes provided via PCH are for peripherals only, connected to the CPU via DMI 3.0, so you can't use them for (nVidia) GPUs. So if you want to have more m.2 drives etc connected, yes, z170 has more lanes. X99 is still better for more GPU's though. Of course you could buy a z170 mobo with PLX, but that kind of defeats the purpose because they are ~$400.
Depends what you want, usb C or more cores. The pcie lane statement is correct and incorrect:
Skylake still only has 16 native PCIe 3.0 lanes dedicated to GPUs. The 20 PCIe 3.0 lanes provided via PCH are for peripherals only, connected to the CPU via DMI 3.0, so you can't use them for (nVidia) GPUs. So if you want to have more m.2 drives etc connected, yes, z170 has more lanes. X99 is still better for more GPU's though. Of course you could buy a z170 mobo with PLX, but that kind of defeats the purpose because they are ~$400.
Tsumi
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2010
- Messages
- 13,758
Huh? How is 6 not going to help if/when games move to utilizing 8 cores? 6 cores has 50% more processing power than 4, and Skylake per core performance is only about 10% higher than that of Haswell.
If you're going to say something, say something that makes sense, like by the time games start fully using 8 cores Haswell and Skylake will be dinosaurs. Saying 6 cores is useless over 4 cores because games will move to 8 cores is illogical.
There's also a catch to those 20 PCI-E lanes, and that catch is this:
You want Ethernet? There goes one lane. You want the standard 6 SATA ports? There goes 6 lanes. 10 USB 3.0 ports? There goes another 4 lanes.
defaultluser
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2006
- Messages
- 14,398
But let's be realistic here: who in their right mind uses more than 6 USB 3.0 lanes of external I/O? That's 15-20 Gbps total USABLE (after overhead), a shit ton of external bandwidth, and motherboards can cheaply add on-board hubs to create more ports. Just to give you some insight, that's enough bandwidth for:
12 external 7200rpm hard drives running full-tilt simultaneously.
And the SATA to PCIe tradeoff is not so bad. Manufacturers get to either:
6 SATA devices simultaneous (entry-level boards), or
1 32 Gbps NVMe drive + 4 SATA 6 (most popular configuration), or
2 32 Gbps NVMe drive + 2 SATA 6
The bandwidth added on the Z170 chipset is very impressive, and quite versatile! You get a lot of the benefits of the X99 platform without the cost or extra power consumption. The launch SLI motherboards are around $50 cheaper than the entry-level x99 boards.
And don't forget people, you don't just have to buy the Core i7 model. The i5 is also available, and should be fairly capable for driving SLI.
12 external 7200rpm hard drives running full-tilt simultaneously.
And the SATA to PCIe tradeoff is not so bad. Manufacturers get to either:
6 SATA devices simultaneous (entry-level boards), or
1 32 Gbps NVMe drive + 4 SATA 6 (most popular configuration), or
2 32 Gbps NVMe drive + 2 SATA 6
The bandwidth added on the Z170 chipset is very impressive, and quite versatile! You get a lot of the benefits of the X99 platform without the cost or extra power consumption. The launch SLI motherboards are around $50 cheaper than the entry-level x99 boards.
And don't forget people, you don't just have to buy the Core i7 model. The i5 is also available, and should be fairly capable for driving SLI.
Last edited:
Tsumi
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2010
- Messages
- 13,758
True, the biggest advantage to the PCH is its flexibility. However, saying you get 20 PCI-E lanes out of the PCH is a bit misleading, as many of those PCI-E lanes will be dedicated to something else, depending on what the manufacturer chooses. And I highly doubt any of them will implement switches where it can be used for SATA or PCI-E depending on what is connected. Maybe a switch to switch between NVMe and SATA, that's about it.
Tsumi
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2010
- Messages
- 13,758
X99's additional PCI-E lanes only benefit 3 or 4 GPUs. It does not benefit 2 GPU setups.
X99's additional cores only help in a few games. Post the games you plan to play and we'll see whether or not they would benefit from more slower cores or few faster cores. Keep in mind that in general, the higher the graphical settings and resolution, the more GPU bound you become and the less relevant the CPU performance is.
X99's additional cores only help in a few games. Post the games you plan to play and we'll see whether or not they would benefit from more slower cores or few faster cores. Keep in mind that in general, the higher the graphical settings and resolution, the more GPU bound you become and the less relevant the CPU performance is.
defaultluser
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2006
- Messages
- 14,398
You're going to have to wait until I get home before I can watch that clip 
defaultluser
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2006
- Messages
- 14,398
I'm pretty convinced you've never written a line of code in your life.
If a game engine can benefit from eight threads, it will give you higher performance on a 6-core processor than it would on a 4-core processor.
It will also give you even higher performance on an 8-core processor than either other system, but that doesn't invalidate the performance INCREASE going from 4 to 6 cores.
I guess this game called Watch Dogs doesn't exist, with an increase in performance going with the FX six core over the FX four core?
http://www.techspot.com/review/827-watch-dogs-benchmarks/page5.html
Last edited:
Tsumi
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2010
- Messages
- 13,758
You have yet to prove me wrong in anything, while I have proven you wrong time and time again. This time will be no different.
You are trying to be argumentative and insulting because you're pissed that I keep rebutting you, and trying to find flaws in anything I say, while not comprehending anything I say.
First off, what part of this statement is wrong?
Games designed to fully take advantage of 8 cores will benefit from having 6 cores over 4. A 50% benefit assuming full utilization. Skylake is only 10% per core faster. In a game where Haswell-E 6-core is fully utilized, it will be about 40% faster than a Skylake quad-core.
Note that I said in general. In general does not in any way imply that it's the rule for everything, as there are always exceptions. Which is also why I asked for the OP to post the games they plan to play.
Additionally, when you increase the resolution and AA settings, you increase the work the GPUs have to do. They then spit out less frames a second. That also means they demand less from the CPU; the CPU has to feed them less information. Details, shadows, etc, are a bit of a muddle, sometimes they increase CPU requirements as settings are increased, sometimes they don't.
Now, again, please try to prove me wrong. Don't run away with your tail between your legs like you have done in every other thread.
defaultluser
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2006
- Messages
- 14,398
I think that's an excellent test. Highlights how heavily-threaded games can make more use of those extra threads!
There's no question you can find games that stress more than four cores, and SLI adds an additional strain o top of that. So yes, given the small price premium, I'd recommend the 5820k in a heartbeat for a system intended to run SLI. Just be prepared to be disappointed when other games don't benefit at all from those extra cores.
But the Core i5 is still a good chip for a budget SLI build!
Last edited:
SixFootDuo
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2004
- Messages
- 5,825
If you have a Microcenter near you just get the 5820K for $299 and the Asus X99-A board. It's a very cheap setup.
The 5820K @ 4.5Ghz 6 cores / 12 treads is a very potent setup for 4k video editing / game play / music production / rendering etc
Not only the extra treads, you get double the memory bandwidth.
The 5820K @ 4.5Ghz 6 cores / 12 treads is a very potent setup for 4k video editing / game play / music production / rendering etc
Not only the extra treads, you get double the memory bandwidth.
M76
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2012
- Messages
- 14,039
Getting 4.5Ghz is not likely. It's a best case scenario. 4.2 or 4.3 is a more realistic expectation.
It's a significant improvement over it's predecessor, but the DMI 3.0 interface will still ultimately restrict performance potential and quite quickly too.
The real benefit in the new architecture will be in Skylake-E and it's chipset...Z170 is just an hor d'oeuvre compared to the improvement that X99's successor will offer.
Hopefully, Intel offers a truly top shelf processor to go along with it (which would be a very welcome and overdue change)...
Tsumi
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2010
- Messages
- 13,758
70%...........LOL.
LOL. Keep trying.
From [H]OCP's review:
At the same clock speeds, sure, it's only ~50% due to half the channels. But whereas Haswell-E tops out around 2666 MHz, Skylake reaches 3600 MHz. Even at 3200 MHz, 38.13 GB/s is about 70% of 53 GB/s.
Drakensoul
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2004
- Messages
- 252
More... autistic... troll food!!! Seriously though, is being e-right 100% of the time really worth it? I mean to write these essays that split hairs down to the letter to say "no I really wasn't wrong because X word actually has a 57th definition in webster which means exactly what I said!" Do you have like an e-heavy weight champion belt or something?
Anyway.. Smite, EverQuest, and MAME arcade games..
CPU?!
Anyway.. Smite, EverQuest, and MAME arcade games..
CPU?!
QuiteSufficient
Sufficiently [H]ard
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2001
- Messages
- 5,152
An i3 would be fine for any one of those...so I wouldn't worry too much.
Smite's optimization seems to be really poor - I've tried it on multiple rigs and the performance is bad relative to what it looks like.
Smite's optimization seems to be really poor - I've tried it on multiple rigs and the performance is bad relative to what it looks like.
Tsumi
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2010
- Messages
- 13,758
He spreads bad information, then calls me a liar and claims I spread bad information when I correct him. I for one do not like taking personal attacks lying down.
Drakensoul
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2004
- Messages
- 252
Sounds traumatizing, like someone just bombed your house. But wait, in a moment of lucidity you remember: It's the internet. It carries the collective weight of "your momma." Aren't there more important things for you to care about?
Last edited:
Tsumi
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2010
- Messages
- 13,758
Eh, not really, I have lots of time to burn at my current job. When I start my new job though...