Some of the first Broadwell-E Benchmarks

[Saki630]

Help, am I wrong in noticing that there is no point in buying these 8/10+core enthusiast chips compared to the 5820/5830k -- except for epeen gaming (yeah i know the i5 are good enough)?

After making a 5820k build for my nephew I doubt that placing an extra 4 cores in the machine would help gain even 4% in the FPS department. Am I doing it right?

What am I not noticing? I dont run VM's or have software that needs lots of cores.


Also to the guy asking for 2011-v3 mobos, the Refurb Asrock from Egg works just fine

 

[jester55]

Help, am I wrong in noticing that there is no point in buying these 8/10+core enthusiast chips compared to the 5820/5830k -- except for epeen gaming (yeah i know the i5 are good enough)?

After making a 5820k build for my nephew I doubt that placing an extra 4 cores in the machine would help gain even 4% in the FPS department. Am I doing it right?

What am I not noticing? I dont run VM's or have software that needs lots of cores.

Unless you are needing extra PCIE Lanes for tri-sli/crossfire or greater, then your 5820K will be fine for gaming. The big difference is the increase from 28 lanes to 40 lanes between the 5820K/5830K. 28 lanes is usually plenty for 2 card sli/x-fire and you won't gain fps by going to 5830K in this instance.

 

[Kloudzero]

Help, am I wrong in noticing that there is no point in buying these 8/10+core enthusiast chips compared to the 5820/5830k -- except for epeen gaming (yeah i know the i5 are good enough)?

After making a 5820k build for my nephew I doubt that placing an extra 4 cores in the machine would help gain even 4% in the FPS department. Am I doing it right?

What am I not noticing? I dont run VM's or have software that needs lots of cores.


Also to the guy asking for 2011-v3 mobos, the Refurb Asrock from Egg works just fine

It depends on what games you intend to play and what your frame objectives are. If you have a 100hz + monitor and your objective is to have no drop 100 fps then you will definitely benefit from 6+ cores in certain games. Total War games and 64 player Battlefield are a couple of examples. Often times its not about getting a drastically higher Avg FPS but rather protecting yourself from short, but dramatic frame drops. There are also some indications that DX12 games may deliver significant gains from 6, 8 and 10 core cpus once it has matured. I would say that 6 core is going to be the new 4 core in the DX12 generation.

 

[Saki630]

It depends on what games you intend to play and what your frame objectives are. If you have a 100hz + monitor and your objective is to have no drop 100 fps then you will definitely benefit from 6+ cores in certain games. Total War games and 64 player Battlefield are a couple of examples. Often times its not about getting a drastically higher Avg FPS but rather protecting yourself from short, but dramatic frame drops. There are also some indications that DX12 games may deliver significant gains from 6, 8 and 10 core cpus once it has matured. I would say that 6 core is going to be the new 4 core in the DX12 generation.

Coming from my ancient rig I wanted to jump into something dangerously overpowered so that I can hold out some more. However, I feel as if I had it wrong and I need to just swoop up a 5820k+1080sli in the forums.

 

[SomeGuy133]

Help, am I wrong in noticing that there is no point in buying these 8/10+core enthusiast chips compared to the 5820/5830k -- except for epeen gaming (yeah i know the i5 are good enough)?

After making a 5820k build for my nephew I doubt that placing an extra 4 cores in the machine would help gain even 4% in the FPS department. Am I doing it right?

What am I not noticing? I dont run VM's or have software that needs lots of cores.


Also to the guy asking for 2011-v3 mobos, the Refurb Asrock from Egg works just fine

for pure gaming? Not going to really help. If you multitask or do other things like Photoshop rendering, encryption, play games with lots of background stuff more cores can help.

It depends on what games you intend to play and what your frame objectives are. If you have a 100hz + monitor and your objective is to have no drop 100 fps then you will definitely benefit from 6+ cores in certain games. Total War games and 64 player Battlefield are a couple of examples. Often times its not about getting a drastically higher Avg FPS but rather protecting yourself from short, but dramatic frame drops. There are also some indications that DX12 games may deliver significant gains from 6, 8 and 10 core cpus once it has matured. I would say that 6 core is going to be the new 4 core in the DX12 generation.

calling bullshit. Drop frames is almost always from single thread limitations or from GPU. Has nothing to do with 100% maxing a quad core. If i am wrong..i doubt it but prove that otherwise no way.

I have neer seen anyone show a game maxing a 4.8GHz HW or a 4.8GHz SKL

 

[Kloudzero]

for pure gaming? Not going to really help. If you multitask or do other things like Photoshop rendering, encryption, play games with lots of background stuff more cores can help.



calling bullshit. Drop frames is almost always from single thread limitations or from GPU. Has nothing to do with 100% maxing a quad core. If i am wrong..i doubt it but prove that otherwise no way.

I have neer seen anyone show a game maxing a 4.8GHz HW or a 4.8GHz SKL

It's not about usage. Just because you're not at 100% usage doesn't mean you won't benefit from more cores. More cores means the work can be spread out more efficiently.
http://www.sweclockers.com/test/17810-prestandaanalys-battlefield-4/4
Prestandaanalys: Battlefield 4 - Test - Processorer och minnesfrekvens i Battlefield 4

And that's just Shanghai. Maps that have a lot of destructible buildings tax the cpu even more so you'd see bigger gains there.

 

[SomeGuy133]

It's not about usage. Just because you're not at 100% usage doesn't mean you won't benefit from more cores. More cores means the work can be spread out more efficiently.
Prestandaanalys: Battlefield 4 - Test - Processorer och minnesfrekvens i Battlefield 4

And that's just Shanghai. Maps that have a lot of destructible buildings tax the cpu even more so you'd see bigger gains there.

first that could be a memory bandwidth difference. Should have tested 3200mts vs 1600mts to get ride of any memory bandwidth gain. 1600 dual channel vs 1600 quad channel if a big difference when your counting really low BW memory.

again they are using very low mhz quad core. Do that with a 4.8GHz HW quad vs a 4.4GHz HW 6/8 core and I bet they would be the same if not quad would be faster. Also fix the rigs with good memory.

So again calling bullshit.

3.5GHz is a joke.

Remember i explicitly stated high performance quads not low clocked quads. Its not surprising that a 3.5GHz quad throttled the game.

 

[Kloudzero]

first that could be a memory bandwidth difference. Should have tested 3200mts vs 1600mts to get ride of any memory bandwidth gain. 1600 dual channel vs 1600 quad channel if a big difference when your counting really low BW memory.

again they are using very low mhz quad core. Do that with a 4.8GHz HW quad vs a 4.4GHz HW 6/8 core and I bet they would be the same if not quad would be faster. Also fix the rigs with good memory.

So again calling bullshit.

3.5GHz is a joke.

Remember i explicitly stated high performance quads not low clocked quads. Its not surprising that a 3.5GHz quad throttled the game.

Ok, whatever dude. I'm just going to walk away and let you be angry with your 4core.

 

[SomeGuy133]

Ok, whatever dude. I'm just going to walk away and let you be angry with your 4core.

k walk away. Or provide meaningful data. Either works for me. I also have a 4 core and 6 core and soon to have a 10 core but hey I use them where they are effective and not in counter intuitive was.

 

[N1GHTRA1N]

This is likely what will get me to finally upgrade my X58 platform.