Time to upgrade from AMD to Intel. (Prefer not to wait for Zen.)

Zarathustra[H];1041867641 said:
Nice,

Sounds like a decent build.

I was looking into an upgrade recently (m,ore just because I was curious, than because I actually NEED it, my 3930k is still chugging along as it has since I got it on launch in 2011) but what turned out to be the killer for me was the RAM.

I didn't want to go with Haswell-E as according to my linear interplolation, it would - at best - not be a performance upgrade at my overclock level and at worst actually be a downgrade.

I did look at the Z170 platform, and the i7-6700k, and they looked nice, but the RAM was the killer here. I use a lot more RAM than most (I have a large-ish RAM-disk for a very specific purpose) and thus I would need in the 48-64GB range, meaning with the 4 slots on a z170 board, I'd need 16GB modules, which either do not exist or cost more than their weight in gold as we speak...

I really wish they would have stayed with 1.5v DDR3 for this generation, as it looks like unless you are gaming on the internal GPU (in which case you should lose your H card) DDR4 makes no difference, and I don't want to buy all my RAM again. That, and it wouldn't work either, as unregistered 16GB DDR3 sticks are ever rarer than 16GB DDR4 sticks...
Click to expand...

At home, I have been running on 16GB for the last 4 years or so. That is the only reason I figured 16GB is enough for now. On the other hand, I outgrew 16GB at work and went to 32GB of DDR3 back in January of this year. True, it is just a FX 8320 at 4.1GHz but, for what I do at work with lots of things and virtual machines all at once, it runs great. Maybe next year, a 5820k will be fitting at work but for now, it is not worth it.

Besides, I just replaced my work mainboard with a MSI 970 Gaming since my old board was flaky. (Did that one month ago and upgraded to a 480GB SSD on the cheap.)
 
Aaaand Newegg.ca still lists the 6700K as "Coming Soon".

Canada is getting SCREWED on these chips.
 
My advice? Stick with a 4790 or Xeon equivalent, in fact the Xeons have great virtualization support. If you were feeling adventurous, you could grab a Xeon E5 1600v3 series chip, as I've heard these chips are unlocked, but that would require to buy super-pricey DDR4. A decent amount of DDR4 would just blow your budget away.

Edit:

Looks like you made your choice. awesome stuff. let us know how it treats you!
 
been using 3930K since day it hit shelves. Not going to upgrade to anything ever. Unless it is 50% faster on EVERYTHING!
 
I have an i5 3570K OC to 4.2.. I'll never need anything more than this little beast. Intel Is the way to go
 
Ryankirsch13 said:
I have an i5 3570K OC to 4.2.. I'll never need anything more than this little beast. Intel Is the way to go
Click to expand...

Well, for you, Haswell-E would be the only real upgrade path that made sense. I love my FX 8350 and it performs well but, the new cpu will perform way better. :) Now, I just have to wait until Thursday to receive everything and I am excited. :D Last build I did was an Athlon 5350 and it was fun to do that little Mini ITX build, now my niece is using it and it performs very well.
 
I am a Hugh AMD fan! Therefore, it feels strange to be on an Intel processor for the first time in 15 years on my desktop. However, it is faster even at installing programs and other such stuff. Now I just have to learn how to overclock and tweak on this 6700k platform. :D

Only thing is, because I have a Fractal Design Define R3 and the Gigabyte board has a shroud over the back ports, I was only able to use one fan on my Noctua NH-D15. Otherwise, the side of the case could not be put back on.
 
ManofGod said:
I am a Hugh AMD fan! Therefore, it feels strange to be on an Intel processor for the first time in 15 years on my desktop.
Click to expand...

Same for me when I upgraded from a very long in the tooth X2 6400+ BE to my current 3770K after BD was a let-down in my eyes. Was all set to jump on a SB, but decided to wait the 4 months for IB to release. Before that, my last Intel system was a Pentium 233MMX IBM box that I got for free and tinkered around with Mandrake Linux on, while my primary home/gaming computer at the time was a Duron 700 Spitfire that replaced a K6-2 450. And it was all AMD between that and the 6400+.


Nice choices on the new hardware! That's going to be a killer rig for a long time to come.
 
ManofGod said:
I am a Hugh AMD fan! Therefore, it feels strange to be on an Intel processor for the first time in 15 years on my desktop. However, it is faster even at installing programs and other such stuff. Now I just have to learn how to overclock and tweak on this 6700k platform. :D

Only thing is, because I have a Fractal Design Define R3 and the Gigabyte board has a shroud over the back ports, I was only able to use one fan on my Noctua NH-D15. Otherwise, the side of the case could not be put back on.
Click to expand...

hey remember, intel isn't that much better

/joke xD..

don't forget some benchies.. welcome to the blue team ;)
 
Araxie said:
hey remember, intel isn't that much better

/joke xD..

don't forget some benchies.. welcome to the blue team ;)
Click to expand...

The benches will be incoming. :) I am actually on the green and blue team both now. :D Still running an FX 8320 for my workstation at work since I need the 8 straight up cores for what I do there. One thing, I found that Crysis one still hits computers hard because, in order to get at least 45 fps at 4k resolution, I had to set everything to high instead of very high. (XFX R9 290 Reference card.)
 
ManofGod said:
The benches will be incoming. :) I am actually on the green and blue team both now. :D Still running an FX 8320 for my workstation at work since I need the 8 straight up cores for what I do there. One thing, I found that Crysis one still hits computers hard because, in order to get at least 45 fps at 4k resolution, I had to set everything to high instead of very high. (XFX R9 290 Reference card.)
Click to expand...

Personally I mix all the colors. I guess that means I'm on the brown team :p
 
Zarathustra[H];1041875309 said:
Personally I mix all the colors. I guess that means I'm on the brown team :p
Click to expand...

Or full of sh*t.... Joking of course. :) :) :)
 
ManofGod said:
The benches will be incoming. :) I am actually on the green and blue team both now. :D Still running an FX 8320 for my workstation at work since I need the 8 straight up cores for what I do there. One thing, I found that Crysis one still hits computers hard because, in order to get at least 45 fps at 4k resolution, I had to set everything to high instead of very high. (XFX R9 290 Reference card.)
Click to expand...

Also, is Crysis 1 still that impressive today?

It came out when I wasn't paying much attention to games. I'm wondering if I should just grab it to see what all the hubbub was about.

I did test the Crysis 2 beta demo when it was first out, and I remember not being incredibly impressed. It looked nice, but the gameplay was far halo-ish (boring generic space marine), for my tastes.
 
I just went from a 8350 on a Crosshair V to the system below (4790k on Asus Z87 board)

I can't believe the difference. I reused all my other parts but my framerates have increased dramatically in most games and have become A LOT more steady in all games.

I went Z87 because I'm messing with a PCIE SSD that I was given and on Z97 it drops the PCIE bus down so you can't SLI.
 
Ok. First thing, the system does run faster and hard drive access is also quicker. That said, is it just me or does Crysis 3 run slower at 4k on my 6700k than it did on my FXZ 8350 at stock speeds?

Edit: Ok, I ran Afterburner and found the CPU usage to be very low. A little less than 40% for core one and the rest of the cores are around 20% to 30%. No wonder my FPS are so low. However, what is going on and how do I fix it? Thanks.
 
Last edited:
ManofGod said:
Ok. First thing, the system does run faster and hard drive access is also quicker. That said, is it just me or does Crysis 3 run slower at 4k on my 6700k than it did on my FXZ 8350 at stock speeds?

Edit: Ok, I ran Afterburner and found the CPU usage to be very low. A little less than 40% for core one and the rest of the cores are around 20% to 30%. No wonder my FPS are so low. However, what is going on and how do I fix it? Thanks.
Click to expand...

Are you using a clean install of windows? it's crysis 3 recently installed for that platform?. sincerely I would expect at least the same performance in crysis 3 with the 6700K and the FX8350 as that I think is the best game to expose core scaling performance, but hardly Think possible to see the 6700K performing worse. I would try just reinstalling it as something similar happened to me before with some games used in a past installation with the FX platform and then tried to run in one of the intel platforms.
 
Araxie said:
Are you using a clean install of windows? it's crysis 3 recently installed for that platform?. sincerely I would expect at least the same performance in crysis 3 with the 6700K and the FX8350 as that I think is the best game to expose core scaling performance, but hardly Think possible to see the 6700K performing worse. I would try just reinstalling it as something similar happened to me before with some games used in a past installation with the FX platform and then tried to run in one of the intel platforms.
Click to expand...

This is a clean install but, I will try that nonetheless. It just seems strange to have such a low cpu usage in that game though, unless I am missing something.
 
ManofGod said:
This is a clean install but, I will try that nonetheless. It just seems strange to have such a low cpu usage in that game though, unless I am missing something.
Click to expand...

its just your not near as cpu bottle necked as before...perfectly normal from the system upgrade;)
 
ManofGod said:
Ok. First thing, the system does run faster and hard drive access is also quicker. That said, is it just me or does Crysis 3 run slower at 4k on my 6700k than it did on my FXZ 8350 at stock speeds?

Edit: Ok, I ran Afterburner and found the CPU usage to be very low. A little less than 40% for core one and the rest of the cores are around 20% to 30%. No wonder my FPS are so low. However, what is going on and how do I fix it? Thanks.
Click to expand...

You never gave specific reasons for Crysis 3 appearing to run slower. Could it be that its actually smoother now and that just feels slower?

Unless you have actual FPS numbers to compare it is probably all in your head.
 
cageymaru said:
So how are the benchmarks coming? :)
Click to expand...

I have run a bunch but did not save any images or settings. :D Where can I store my images that I will make to post them in this thread? Thanks.

zaniix said:
You never gave specific reasons for Crysis 3 appearing to run slower. Could it be that its actually smoother now and that just feels slower?

Unless you have actual FPS numbers to compare it is probably all in your head.
Click to expand...

Checked with fraps and I was able to get up into the low 40's at 4k but now it is the low 30's Mind you, it is a clean install on Windows 10 Pro so, it just does not make any sense. (The FX 8350 was running at stock speeds as well.)
 
Well I finally pulled the trigger today. Kinda weird going Team Blue since I haven't owned an intel desktop chip (other than laptops) since my old P133. I got an I7 6700K, Asus Hero 8, Gigabyte GTX970 Windforce3, 2x8GB Ripjaws V 3000mem, and a 250GB Evo 850 SSD.

Its all going in a Define R5 case with a Corsair 110i GT AIO.
 
TMCM said:
Well I finally pulled the trigger today. Kinda weird going Team Blue since I haven't owned an intel desktop chip (other than laptops) since my old P133. I got an I7 6700K, Asus Hero 8, Gigabyte GTX970 Windforce3, 2x8GB Ripjaws V 3000mem, and a 250GB Evo 850 SSD.

Its all going in a Define R5 case with a Corsair 110i GT AIO.
Click to expand...

WooHoo! :D
 
ManofGod said:
I have run a bunch but did not save any images or settings. :D Where can I store my images that I will make to post them in this thread? Thanks.



Checked with fraps and I was able to get up into the low 40's at 4k but now it is the low 30's Mind you, it is a clean install on Windows 10 Pro so, it just does not make any sense. (The FX 8350 was running at stock speeds as well.)
Click to expand...

tell us about any progress with this is kinda concerning as I said before i can expect to both chips perform somewhat similar as that game really make good use of the FX 8350 is the only game I know it can make a huge difference and crush any intel i5 chip, but all my results point to a equal performance FX 8350 vs i7 3770K vs 2600K at stock speed and even more concerning at 4K where certainly you are GPU limited... have you tested in the same area or spot and sure about the same settings?. have you tested other games?.

About images you may create a folder in imgur and just post the link to the folder so we can see and discuss about it.
 
Araxie said:
tell us about any progress with this is kinda concerning as I said before i can expect to both chips perform somewhat similar as that game really make good use of the FX 8350 is the only game I know it can make a huge difference and crush any intel i5 chip, but all my results point to a equal performance FX 8350 vs i7 3770K vs 2600K at stock speed and even more concerning at 4K where certainly you are GPU limited... have you tested in the same area or spot and sure about the same settings?. have you tested other games?.

About images you may create a folder in imgur and just post the link to the folder so we can see and discuss about it.
Click to expand...

Um...at 4k, I'd expect any two decently powerful CPUs to perform the same, since you're pretty much GPU limited at that point. The higher you crank up the graphical settings, the less the CPU matters.
 
In the back of my mind, I am having a tiny little regret that I did not go with a 5820k instead. However, it is only a tiny regret and I have not really had any time to mess around with the system. I am still reinstalling everything from scratch.
 
ManofGod said:
In the back of my mind, I am having a tiny little regret that I did not go with a 5820k instead. However, it is only a tiny regret and I have not really had any time to mess around with the system. I am still reinstalling everything from scratch.
Click to expand...

I hear ya on that. I know I will be thrilled with the 6700k but I don't think I would have wanted to wait until Skylake-E. The X99 mobos are pricey (at least $100 more than the Z170 equivalent) and from what it sounds like overclocking on the Z170 is a breeze compared to Z97/X99.
 
TMCM said:
I hear ya on that. I know I will be thrilled with the 6700k but I don't think I would have wanted to wait until Skylake-E. The X99 mobos are pricey (at least $100 more than the Z170 equivalent) and from what it sounds like overclocking on the Z170 is a breeze compared to Z97/X99.
Click to expand...

Yeah, my only concern would be with how well SLI performs on Z170 if you have one GPU in the PCIe slots that go straight to the CPU, and the other GPU in the PCIe slots that come off the chipset...

Back in the day that was a recipe for disaster. I have yet to see any testing of how well this works yet.
 
Zarathustra[H];1041882202 said:
Yeah, my only concern would be with how well SLI performs on Z170 if you have one GPU in the PCIe slots that go straight to the CPU, and the other GPU in the PCIe slots that come off the chipset...

Back in the day that was a recipe for disaster. I have yet to see any testing of how well this works yet.
Click to expand...

True. I'm not a [H] gamer. I only do xfire/sli when I can pick up a 2nd GPU cheap a few years down the road. I got a GTX970 in the mail to replace my 2 7870s. Likely in 2 years I will pick up another GTX970 to SLI but instead of spending $300+ I can pick one up for under $150. But I think with the Z170 you would just be running at 8x,8x off the CPU PCIE lanes which I don't think really hinders performance
 
Ok, I am learning this new platform and I have heard about how the temps on Intel CPU's can be higher than AMD's. So, I ran a 10 pass run of Intel Burn Test and the temps immediately jumped to about 70C for each core. Once it was complete, it literally plummeted back to idle temps of around 22C for each core.

So, is that normal? I am so used to AMD's more gradual temperature rising and falling, I had to ask.

Edit: Forgot to add, stock speeds but the CPU was running at boost speed of 4.2GHz at the time of the test.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top