980 TI with cpu upgrade FX 9590 or i7 Skylake?

[Guest]

Hello, I'm planning to upgrade to a single MSI GTX 980 Ti 6gb from a 770 2gb to maximize the use of a single monitor such as Samsung's curved monitor LS34E790 running 3440x1440 mostly for gaming. I'll use the computer for lots of other things but nothing like rendering/photo/video editing. Here are the caveats:

 

1. I'm upgrading from a FX 6300. Thus, it's either one cpu upgrade or cpu, motherboard (MSI Z170A Gaming M7 probably), and DDR4 ram upgrade.

2. Money is not exactly an issue (still within my means), so it's not about cost but mainly about cost to increase in gaming performance ratio. Is the switch to intel such a big increase for gaming that it's worth the money?

3. I'll be purchasing the computer parts at the end of November on cyber Monday for sales, so there's time to think things over. Also, I won't actually buy the monitor until January of next year in case better 21:9 monitors (especially with more hz and G-Sync) comes out.

4. Skylake isn't a big need of an upgrade for most people, but I felt my situation might make it worth it. Still, my lack of knowledge about the cpu is limited to the i7 6700k. If there are other, better skylake cpu coming out before the end of November, I'd like to know. As far as I know, Skylake would be the best possible intel upgrade at the moment? Not including X99 since this is mostly for gaming, and I don't consider future proofing due to extra cores, since 2 to 3 years down the line, I would rather just upgrade all over again if need be.

5. There's also the case for simply upgrading to a FX 9590 now and waiting until next year for new cpu announcements? Again, my knowledge in this area is essentially nonexistent but I heard something about AMD zen.

 

So, does the purchase of a 980 Ti in my case warrant an upgrade to FX 9590 or Skylake, such as the i7 6700k?

 

Here is my current build:

FX 6300 3.5Ghz (4.1Ghz turbo)

EVGA SC GTX 770 2gb

Gigabyte 990FXA-UD3 (Revision 4)

G.SKILL Ripjaws 8GB DDR3 1600

SAMSUNG 840 Pro SSD 256GB

Secondary 500GB hard drive

Corsair H110i liquid CPU cooler

CORSAIR HX750 750W power supply

Obsidian 750D Airflow Edition full tower ATX case

 

 

Thanks for any help in advance.

[Chicken]

Why is your build so unbalanced? Useless money spent where it doesn't matter.

 

also 6700k.

[i_build_nanosuits]

I would upgrade to an i5-4690K and Z97 board that way you can re-use your DDR3 RAM and save money.

The FX-9590 is only marginaly better than the FX-6300 when it comes to gaming and certainly not worth the upgrade.

[8-Bit Ninja]

500gb for the hardive seems a little small, i assume you'll be gaming so id say 1 tb minimum 

[Glenwing]

FX-9590 may be a bit too much for that motherboard to handle.

[Ngrungebb91]

I upgraded from an Intel i7 930 to an FX9590 because well.... it was a 930 and I was starting to get bottlenecked.. plus the FX9590 was $110 with a Crosshair V combo on ebay I would go Intel in your situation since you already HAVE an FX era processor and like the guy above said its only marginally better. Vs what I have a processor from 2008, lawl. i5-4690k, go for it.

[ZetZet]

FX-9590 may be a bit too much for that motherboard to handle.

also it's not that big of an upgrade. i7 would be a HUGE upgrade.

[Rohit Jackdaw]

Gets core i7 4790K so you can have advantage of more threads in future and that way the RAM expense can be saved. It will be a long time before DDR4 starts to show improvements

[i_build_nanosuits]

I upgraded from an Intel i7 930 to an FX9590 because well.... it was a 930 and I was starting to get bottlenecked.. plus the FX9590 was $110 with a Crosshair V combo on ebay I would go Intel in your situation since you already HAVE an FX era processor and like the guy above said its only marginally better. Vs what I have a processor from 2008, lawl. i5-4690k, go for it.

i7-930 overclocked vs FX-9590 is a side-grade, they perform very similar in many situations believe it or not, even though the i7 is older the architecture still compete with piledriver. The FX will render video faster for example but the i7-930 will match it in games with an overclock.

[NEMESlS]

6700k, ignore anyone who recommends Haswell.

[MageTank]

 

Hello, I'm planning to upgrade to a single MSI GTX 980 Ti 6gb from a 770 2gb to maximize the use of a single monitor such as Samsung's curved monitor LS34E790 running 3440x1440 mostly for gaming. I'll use the computer for lots of other things but nothing like rendering/photo/video editing. Here are the caveats:

 

1. I'm upgrading from a FX 6300. Thus, it's either one cpu upgrade or cpu, motherboard (MSI Z170A Gaming M7 probably), and DDR4 ram upgrade.

2. Money is not exactly an issue (still within my means), so it's not about cost but mainly about cost to increase in gaming performance ratio. Is the switch to intel such a big increase for gaming that it's worth the money?

3. I'll be purchasing the computer parts at the end of November on cyber Monday for sales, so there's time to think things over. Also, I won't actually buy the monitor until January of next year in case better 21:9 monitors (especially with more hz and G-Sync) comes out.

4. Skylake isn't a big need of an upgrade for most people, but I felt my situation might make it worth it. Still, my lack of knowledge about the cpu is limited to the i7 6700k. If there are other, better skylake cpu coming out before the end of November, I'd like to know. As far as I know, Skylake would be the best possible intel upgrade at the moment? Not including X99 since this is mostly for gaming, and I don't consider future proofing due to extra cores, since 2 to 3 years down the line, I would rather just upgrade all over again if need be.

5. There's also the case for simply upgrading to a FX 9590 now and waiting until next year for new cpu announcements? Again, my knowledge in this area is essentially nonexistent but I heard something about AMD zen.

 

So, does the purchase of a 980 Ti in my case warrant an upgrade to FX 9590 or Skylake, such as the i7 6700k?

 

Here is my current build:

FX 6300 3.5Ghz (4.1Ghz turbo)

EVGA SC GTX 770 2gb

Gigabyte 990FXA-UD3 (Revision 4)

G.SKILL Ripjaws 8GB DDR3 1600

SAMSUNG 840 Pro SSD 256GB

Secondary 500GB hard drive

Corsair H110i liquid CPU cooler

CORSAIR HX750 750W power supply

Obsidian 750D Airflow Edition full tower ATX case

 

 

Thanks for any help in advance.

 

Skylake would offer a stronger advantage in gaming, if gaming is your end goal. The FX 9590 is just a highly binned FX 8350, and is not exactly an upgrade over the FX 6300 as far as gaming goes. Gaming in general does not scale well with more cores at the moment, and the FX series has a weak IPC. No matter how much you OC the core, you will be fighting an uphill battle to even match stock Intel CPU's.

 

Skylake in general is not exactly impressive, when you compare it to current Haswell CPU's, but the Z170 platform is absolutely amazing. USB 3.1 support, 20 PCI-E lanes (Meaning you can run SLI AND an M.2 SSD at the same time, or 4 way crossfire and an M.2 SSD), better SATA controllers, and Skylake is rumored to support VISC. Couple this with DDR4 support in the future, having speeds upwards of 4000mhz, and native 64GB support on consumer grade ATX boards (supporting 16GB modules per DIMM) or 32GB on consumer grade ITX boards, you have one hell of an enticing platform upgrade.

 

This does come with a few drawbacks.

 

1. DDR4 is not exactly mature yet. 

 

What i mean by this, is that the speeds are not exactly where DDR4 is rated to be able to handle, and they are not the best modules. Some amazing modules do exist, but at a VERY expensive price point. For example: GeIL has a 64gb 3000mhz CL13 DDR4 kit, which would absolutely crush most DDR3 kits, but the 64GB kit is $1000. You could get a 3400mhz kit and cut it down to 3000mhz, but you will only be able to achieve CL14 based on reports of the current modules available.

 

2. Motherboard choice and overclocking.

 

With FIVR moved back on to the board, your choice of board will be critical for achieving high overclocking. Similar to how it is now with AMD, and how it used to be for Intel, you will need to pay attention to the power delivery of certain boards to ensure you can reach the OC you are looking to reach. Not every board will be capable of the same OC's. 

 

That being said, Skylake would make an amazing upgrade over the FX 6300 in both raw performance, and features. The platform is solid, and what you get for the price is great. If you are not patient, upgrading to a Haswell i5 or i7 with a Z97 board will give you the same performance as Skylake chips, but you will be missing some of the better Z170 platform features that i mentioned above. Good luck in your build.

[NEMESlS]

Skylake would offer a stronger advantage in gaming, if gaming is your end goal. The FX 9590 is just a highly binned FX 8350, and is not exactly an upgrade over the FX 6300 as far as gaming goes. Gaming in general does not scale well with more cores at the moment, and the FX series has a weak IPC. No matter how much you OC the core, you will be fighting an uphill battle to even match stock Intel CPU's.

 

Skylake in general is not exactly impressive, when you compare it to current Haswell CPU's, but the Z170 platform is absolutely amazing. USB 3.1 support, 20 PCI-E lanes (Meaning you can run SLI AND an M.2 SSD at the same time, or 4 way crossfire and an M.2 SSD), better SATA controllers, and Skylake is rumored to support VISC. Couple this with DDR4 support in the future, having speeds upwards of 4000mhz, and native 64GB support on consumer grade ATX boards (supporting 16GB modules per DIMM) or 32GB on consumer grade ITX boards, you have one hell of an enticing platform upgrade.

 

This does come with a few drawbacks.

 

1. DDR4 is not exactly mature yet. 

 

What i mean by this, is that the speeds are not exactly where DDR4 is rated to be able to handle, and they are not the best modules. Some amazing modules do exist, but at a VERY expensive price point. For example: GeIL has a 64gb 3000mhz CL13 DDR4 kit, which would absolutely crush most DDR3 kits, but the 64GB kit is $1000. You could get a 3400mhz kit and cut it down to 3000mhz, but you will only be able to achieve CL14 based on reports of the current modules available.

 

2. Motherboard choice and overclocking.

 

With FIVR moved back on to the board, your choice of board will be critical for achieving high overclocking. Similar to how it is now with AMD, and how it used to be for Intel, you will need to pay attention to the power delivery of certain boards to ensure you can reach the OC you are looking to reach. Not every board will be capable of the same OC's. 

 

That being said, Skylake would make an amazing upgrade over the FX 6300 in both raw performance, and features. The platform is solid, and what you get for the price is great. If you are not patient, upgrading to a Haswell i5 or i7 with a Z97 board will give you the same performance as Skylake chips, but you will be missing some of the better Z170 platform features that i mentioned above. Good luck in your build.

Incorrect.

[MageTank]

Incorrect.

Really? Have you viewed the reviews and benchmarks? It even performs worse in some cases.

[NEMESlS]

Really? Have you viewed the reviews and benchmarks? It even performs worse in some cases.

[NEMESlS]

Really? Have you viewed the reviews and benchmarks? It even performs worse in some cases.

I like evidence, not written analogies.

[i_build_nanosuits]

I like evidence, not written analogies.

The skylake quad-cores are indeed slightly better but with CPU's as powerful as haswell based core i5/core i7 you will be GPU bound in every games but the very badly optimised ones...and the 10% difference in CPU horsepower that will translate to a 2 or 3% better gaming experience is certainly not worth the skylake premium and extra expense for DDR4 RAM for this user.

[NEMESlS]

The skylake quad-cores are indeed slightly better but with CPU's as powerful as haswell based core i5/core i7 you will be GPU bound in every games but the very badly optimised ones...and the 10% difference in CPU horsepower that will translate to a 2 or 3% better gaming experience is certainly not worth the skylake premium and extra expense for DDR4 RAM for this user.

3-20%.

[MageTank]

I like evidence, not written analogies.

So be it.

 

http://www.anandtech.com/show/9483/intel-skylake-review-6700k-6600k-ddr4-ddr3-ipc-6th-generation/10

 

http://techreport.com/review/28751/intel-core-i7-6700k-skylake-processor-reviewed/7

 

http://techreport.com/review/28751/intel-core-i7-6700k-skylake-processor-reviewed/9

 

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/core_i7_6700k_processor_review_desktop_skylake,16.html

 

http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2015/08/Ars-Technica-Skylake-Review-Charts.018-980x720.png

 

http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2015/08/Ars-Technica-Skylake-Review-Charts.017-980x720.png

 

http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2015/08/Ars-Technica-Skylake-Review-Charts.020-980x720.png

 

http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2015/08/Ars-Technica-Skylake-Review-Charts.019-980x720.png

 

http://www.techspot.com/review/1041-intel-core-i7-6700k-skylake/page10.html

 

Your turn.

[NEMESlS]

So be it.

 

http://www.anandtech.com/show/9483/intel-skylake-review-6700k-6600k-ddr4-ddr3-ipc-6th-generation/10

 

http://techreport.com/review/28751/intel-core-i7-6700k-skylake-processor-reviewed/7

 

http://techreport.com/review/28751/intel-core-i7-6700k-skylake-processor-reviewed/9

 

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/core_i7_6700k_processor_review_desktop_skylake,16.html

 

http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2015/08/Ars-Technica-Skylake-Review-Charts.018-980x720.png

 

http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2015/08/Ars-Technica-Skylake-Review-Charts.017-980x720.png

 

http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2015/08/Ars-Technica-Skylake-Review-Charts.020-980x720.png

 

http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2015/08/Ars-Technica-Skylake-Review-Charts.019-980x720.png

 

http://www.techspot.com/review/1041-intel-core-i7-6700k-skylake/page10.html

 

Your turn.

Written analogies.

 

Funny how GTA V performs so much differently on the video vs these benchmarks.

[i_build_nanosuits]

Written analogies.

 

Funny how GTA V performs so much differently on the video vs these benchmarks.

4790K still faster than 6600K in most games.

[NEMESlS]

Witcher 3 too.

[MageTank]

Written analogies.

 

Funny how GTA V performs so much differently on the video vs these benchmarks.

Funny how several independent reviewers come to the same conclusion, yet your one video shows a different result.

[NEMESlS]

4790K still faster than 6600K in most games.

Video shows the 6600k decimating all i5's and FX where the CPU matter, for others it still leads but is GPU limited.

[NEMESlS]

Funny how several independent reviewers come to the same conclusion, yet your one video shows a different result.

 

4790K still faster than 6600K in most games.

All Haswell owners are this salty though so nothing new.

[MageTank]

All Haswell owners are this salty though so nothing new.

I own a Pentium, which is the lowest haswell you can get. I am not salty. Just objective. I fully intend on getting a Skylake chip too, because there is plenty room for improvement on the 1151 platform, and the features are amazing. I provided sufficient evidence to support my claim. Perhaps you can give me a few more video's to support yours?