![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Are you guys going to upgrade to a 6700k when its out?
- Thread starter AndreRio
- Start date
This is about the worst possible endorsement for Skylake I've seen so far. Lol. Making Haswell-e seem like the better choice.
Iiiiiinteresting. What about Z77 users?
got haggis?
n00b
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2006
- Messages
- 42
Z77 user here too...sort of on the fence about upgrading.
Monkey God
Mangina Full of Sand
- Joined
- May 7, 2007
- Messages
- 6,723
Really? Significantly older platforms will benefit? I should hope so.
This looks like yet another iteration of a slightly better platform that requires very expensive DDR4.
obiwansotti
Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2002
- Messages
- 1,003
DDR4 isn't very expensive anymore.
16GB Decentish DDR3 1600 cas 9 $84
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820233299
16GB DDR3 2400 cas 11 $100
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231673
16GB DDR4 2400 cas 16 $115
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820148865
Certainly an unwanted expense if you're upgrading and had wanted to reuse your ram. But if you've got an old setup with old memory the price premium isn't very significant.
Yeah, DDR4 has dropped a LOT since it was first introduced. Wasn't 16GB DD4 about $220 or so?
Yeah, it's coming down a lot. Much better
I am not sure how you can conclude Haswell-E is the better choice based on my statement.
If you already have a Haswell-E system, then I doubt Skylake will be compelling to you at all. If you have a need for a massive amount of PCIe lanes and extra cores, then Skylake isn't for you and you'll want to go with Haswell-E. In that sense I don't think Skylake changes anything over Devil's Canyon and the Z97 platform.
Last edited:
It was the " Z68 users will benefit less, but I think there is still some value in the upgrade" line that made me think that. To me that's basically telling that Skylake doesn't really OC like everyone's hoping it does, and that OCed SB users won't see much benefit to going to Skylake outside of PCIe 3.0, More lanes, Etc.
So with rumors of a 400 dollar price tag for 6700k, which I have a feeling will be accurate, why not go with a 5820k for less, and have more reviewed and tested motherboards to chose from. Plus you get the 2 extra cores for free at this point. I'm guessing Skylake will be able to clock a couple hundred MHZ higher than a 5820k, but it sounds like SB OCed, vs Haswells IPC gain and OCed vs Skylake all seems pretty much like a wash. So with Haswell E you get most of the platform features of Skylake, plus a few extra potentialy benefits of extra lanes, more cores, DDR4 for the same or less price.
Edit: Just wanted to note, I'm not trying to be hostile or antagonistic towards your comment in anyway. Just having a discussion
obiwansotti
Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2002
- Messages
- 1,003
TD Slam I'm not sure what you're saying.
Lets assume price parity from the 5820K to the 67x0K for a minute and exclude the mobo price difference.
a 5820K seems like 4.4ghz is good solid o/c, 4.6 is the top end right?
a 67x0K sound like it might to 4.6 with 4.8-4.9 being a good air o/c?
The the skylake is times 1.08 for IPC comparision.
For anything that doesn't scale well past 4 cores the skylake is going to have a significant advantage. OTOH that's a 1.08 IPC v haswell w/ 2 channel ram, dunno how the 4 channel haswell-E compares for IPC v the 2 channel skylake.
decisions, decisions.
I really want to buy something next month.
Lets assume price parity from the 5820K to the 67x0K for a minute and exclude the mobo price difference.
a 5820K seems like 4.4ghz is good solid o/c, 4.6 is the top end right?
a 67x0K sound like it might to 4.6 with 4.8-4.9 being a good air o/c?
The the skylake is times 1.08 for IPC comparision.
For anything that doesn't scale well past 4 cores the skylake is going to have a significant advantage. OTOH that's a 1.08 IPC v haswell w/ 2 channel ram, dunno how the 4 channel haswell-E compares for IPC v the 2 channel skylake.
decisions, decisions.
I really want to buy something next month.
I dunno how you could take price out of the equation when that's most of my argument. Why go Skylake when you can go X99 for less. You have a trade off of slightly less performance but gain 2 extra Cores and more PCIE lanes. Even if you don't need the Cores or the lanes, Haswell-E will be the more future proof platform and retain value the most. This is all of course dependent on Skylake not OCing well, which is what I inferred from Dan's post.
obiwansotti
Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2002
- Messages
- 1,003
Okay lets talk price then I don't see skylake being more than a 4790K
launch price
4790K - $340
4770K - $340
3770K - $330
2700K - $330
875K - $340
I'm sure their will price gouging in the first week or two, but I can't imagine it costing more than $350, so lets use that.
Z97 boards, you can get a really nice features set at $130 I'd expect the Z170 to be similiar maybe $10 premium at launc.
So Skylake CPU+Mobo = $350 + $150 = $500
Hawsell-E CPU+Mobo = $390 + $220 = $610
So I expect that it will be ~$100 premium for Haswell-E over skylake at least after the first few weeks.
That said, it's not such a big difference that I'd necessarily chose based on price, but value. If skylake doesn't overclock well (broadwell sounds like a shitty overclocker) then those extra cores start to sound really nice.
Personally expecting 6700K to be closer to 400, and 5820K is 300 from Microcenter, so I suppose my perception is a bit distorted. Also is anyone really buying a 150 dollar motherboard for their 300-400 dollar CPU. I highly doubt it.
obiwansotti
Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2002
- Messages
- 1,003
Uh yeah I'm totally gonna buy a $130-$140 for my $400 cpu.
Typically going north of that buys you killer nics, fluffy built-in audo, fancy cosmetic upgrades, hardcore o/cer voltage pin outs, and other things I find no value in. (I do like nice audio, but I've got and xonar stx card).
So as long as the $130 board gets me the same O/C I'm good to go.
Also I don't have a microcenter within a 1000mi of me.
obiwansotti
Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2002
- Messages
- 1,003
I feel your pain....
EDIT: Well the closest microcenter is about 300mi, but same problem.
It was the " Z68 users will benefit less, but I think there is still some value in the upgrade" line that made me think that. To me that's basically telling that Skylake doesn't really OC like everyone's hoping it does, and that OCed SB users won't see much benefit to going to Skylake outside of PCIe 3.0, More lanes, Etc.
So with rumors of a 400 dollar price tag for 6700k, which I have a feeling will be accurate, why not go with a 5820k for less, and have more reviewed and tested motherboards to chose from. Plus you get the 2 extra cores for free at this point. I'm guessing Skylake will be able to clock a couple hundred MHZ higher than a 5820k, but it sounds like SB OCed, vs Haswells IPC gain and OCed vs Skylake all seems pretty much like a wash. So with Haswell E you get most of the platform features of Skylake, plus a few extra potentialy benefits of extra lanes, more cores, DDR4 for the same or less price.
Edit: Just wanted to note, I'm not trying to be hostile or antagonistic towards your comment in anyway. Just having a discussion
Well I should have said that Z87 and newer platforms may find it less appealing. P67, Z68 and even Z77 will find some fairly positive updates to the platform itself.
While I generally agree with you on some of those you are forgetting that those motherboards typically have better placed m.2's, more SATA ports, additional fan pins, dual BIOS and a few other goodies that are more important than a non-intel NIC or a cheesy sound option.
I use my computer for many things, but the only thing that really taxes the CPU is games, so I will wait and see how much benefit the 6700k vs my 2500k @4.5 does. If it can't justify the expense or if there isn't any new tech that I have to have for newest games, I will just keep holding on to what I have and only do video upgrades.
I won't upgrade. Right now there are no dx12 games that will use dgpu and I gpu, and judging from tests, difference between stock 4790k and 6700k are too small. I don't have any USB 3.1 devices and those m2 x4 SSD are not yet mainstream.
I believe it will be next year or 2017 when those things change. Then I'll upgrade
I believe it will be next year or 2017 when those things change. Then I'll upgrade
With the two Haswell launches, i remember the chips being cheaper at launch, esp with mobo combos from newegg. The first few months were closer to $300 with the promos. Then they stabilized at $340. I build a few systems every year and always pissed when the new chips prices stabilized down the road.
obiwansotti
Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2002
- Messages
- 1,003
Yeah I don't think anyone is arguing that 4790K users have a real need to make the jump.
I doubt dgpu and igpu will ever happen in a meaningful way. Perhaps as a physx co-processor kind of thing.
The audio implementations are only getting better. I find some value in that. I agree that the cosmetic upgrades aren't always worth having and the Killer NIC has historically been awful. I'm pretty sure that the only reason they stick the Killer NIC on motherboards is because they market well to test groups. Props to the companies that don't fall for that shit.
What I've tried to get across to some companies is that the hardware of the Killer NIC isn't the problem. It's the absolutely shittastic software and drivers that go with them.
obiwansotti
Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2002
- Messages
- 1,003
I'm sure the audio is getting better.
But I already dropped coin on a Xonar STX because I really do like good audio. I just don't need it on my mobo.
From your perspective what are the features to look for in a board that is going to be the heart of an O/C'd gaming rig. I mean beyond the obvious platform stuff. I know I want what the Z170 is selling M.2 4x slots, usb 3.1.
I'm taking in terms of robustness for a stable o/c'in platform, but not some ludicrous LN2 setup.
Last edited:
THis is a great questions and I'll repeat it.
For me, this is a three to five year upgrade. The only upcoming technology that is not ripe that I really want to add within that time is an NVMe m.2 drive. The speeds of the Samsung's SM951 NVMe drive are delicious, but after reading a few reviews, i'll wait until they implement it in their consumer drives.
Besides that, I want a beefy power delivery and and good cosmetics. Unfortunately, to get those things you have to also get a lot of crap that I don't need. I'm looking for a black PCB with a lot of accents.
Of course the MSI Krait jumps out, but I find the krait just looks cheap. Not sure why, but it just comes off that way.
I really like the Gigabyte Z170x-gaming g1. However I know that gigabyte is going to be $300+.
Pros:
- Great color layout
- love the LED layout
- I'm really interested in the built in water cooling. But I'm worried about what kind of metals are in there.
Cons:- Price tag will be expensive
- expensive audio onboard, which im not going to use. I prefer my soudblaster USB card
obiwansotti
Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2002
- Messages
- 1,003
I'll add to my list of un-requirements, that I really don't care much about cosmetics. I don't have a window.
I appreciate good design, but I'm not going to be looking at it, So it's not a top priority.
I appreciate good design, but I'm not going to be looking at it, So it's not a top priority.
This is actually a pretty easy, if longwinded answer. To some extent, this can't be fully answered until we've had a chance to look at a larger sampling of Z170 Express based motherboards. There are some things that I would suggest right now. Unfortunately I can't say anything on the subject at present.
That gigabyte looks like a great board.
Function and features come first. I appreciate cosmetics, though good looks aren't a deciding factor. However bad looks are a deal breaker. Like the Asus Z87 gold and yellow, call it a subconscious psychological punishment to the company for being morons. hahaha
Function and features come first. I appreciate cosmetics, though good looks aren't a deciding factor. However bad looks are a deal breaker. Like the Asus Z87 gold and yellow, call it a subconscious psychological punishment to the company for being morons. hahaha
obiwansotti
Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2002
- Messages
- 1,003
Can't wait for wednesday.
That's not true, it supports DDR4 and DDR3.
obiwansotti
Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2002
- Messages
- 1,003
Ddr3L
The L makes a difference. Most DDR3 isnt going to work. At least thats my under standing.
It needs to be low voltage DDR3, although some motherboards could support regular memory with some trickery, it still would be a sub par implementation.
Just like we are about to get a subpar increase in performance from the new chip. Honestly anybody who already has a decent mobo with a 4 core i7 set up can pass on upgrading.
Now if you are into overclocking, the chip is supposed to be really good for that from what I heard.
obiwansotti
Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2002
- Messages
- 1,003
Subpar?
Only if every launch since the i7 was launched is also sub par. Granted it looks like just another 10% bump, but thats what theyve been doing for 6 years.
I'd rather have a 10% bump per year than a 50% bump once every 5 years. Plus new tech, new instructions, etc. Although I don't usually upgrade every year, more like every 2 years. But new stuff coming out all the time makes it's nice to pretty much have something brand new whenever you decide, and for smaller builds, doing other people's build's, etc.
Clockspeed will be the deciding factor for me on this chip. If we can get 5ghz+ on decent voltage I think I'll grab one. If not then I'm going X99.
Clockspeed will be the deciding factor for me on this chip. If we can get 5ghz+ on decent voltage I think I'll grab one. If not then I'm going X99.
Last edited:
My bold, above. Well, 1.10x peformance each year means 1.61 after 5, so, I'd agree that 10% a year is better than 50% once every 5.
Still, it's is a bit of bupkiss that Intel (continues to) charges so much for such a small performance increase.
But at least with Win10 and DX12 multicore systems will actually benefit from increased core counts instead of just high clock speeds. Then maybe AMD will be back to being competitive with higher end gaming machines - which would be a very good thing.
But at least with Win10 and DX12 multicore systems will actually benefit from increased core counts instead of just high clock speeds. Then maybe AMD will be back to being competitive with higher end gaming machines - which would be a very good thing.