i7 6700k still strong enough for another 4 years ?

[Tamy24the]

do I need to upgeade or just overclock it a little and im good for more 4 years ?

[DezGalbie]

8 minutes ago, Tamy24the said:

do I need to upgeade or just overclock it a little and im good for more 4 years ?

It will probably be just fine but, personally, I think I would want to have made the step up to at least 6 cores before 2023.

It seems to me like 6 will soon (like maybe in a couple of years) be the new minimum for a quality gaming experience with modern titles. But it obviously depends on what you use your machine for as well.

[jones177]

No.

 

Not enough cores.

 

My i7 6700k was retired from gaming this time last year. The experience in games could not compete with the i7 8700k I bought in the beginning of 2018.

My i7 6700k will be replacing an i5 2500k that is used for media. For non 3D gaming it will be used for many years to come.   

[Tamy24the]

Just now, jones177 said:

No.

 

Not enough cores.

 

My i7 6700k was retired from gaming this time last year. The experience in games could not compete with the i7 8700k I bought in the beginning of 2018.

My i7 6700k will be replacing an i5 2500k that is used for media. For non 3D gaming it will be used for many years to come.   

but according to this video only 10 to 15 more fps with the i7 8700k

I play at 60 fps max no 4k

-

 

[Atmos]

19 minutes ago, DezGalbie said:

It will probably be just fine but, personally, I think I would want to have made the step up to at least 6 cores before 2023.

It seems to me like 6 will soon (like maybe in a couple of years) be the new minimum for a quality gaming experience with modern titles. But it obviously depends on what you use your machine for as well.

a 6700k has effectively 8 cores when running something like a game. Its 4c/8t, meaning it has 8 logical cores, which is all that matters in 95% of applications.

 

27 minutes ago, Tamy24the said:

do I need to upgeade or just overclock it a little and im good for more 4 years ?

Think of it like this. I bought my 4790k about 3.5 years ago, and it still does great in 90% of games. The thing thats holding me back the most is my terrible ddr3 setup and instability with my current gpu driver and motherboard setup. I get noticeably more stutters and fps fluctuations with my setup than my peers who have switched to the 8700k, but its more than playable in the overwhelming majority of games. I am however thinking of upgrading here rather soon.

 

So short answer, yes, long answer, hesitantly yes its good. maybe overclock down the line

[jones177]

1 minute ago, Tamy24the said:

but according to this video only 10 to 15 more fps with the i7 8700k

I play at 60 fps max no 4k

-

 

It is not about frame rate. It is about smoothness.

 

If I didn't have the i7 8700k to compare I would not have known. 

 

My i7 6700k was on my 4k setup and my i7 8700k was in my 3440 X 1440 setup. After a few months I played no games on the 4k setup and I am a resolution nut.

[xg32]

4 years is pushing it, for using existing builds 6700k is perfectly fine, but 8c/8t 6c/12t is the minimum if building new imho, i personally would just get 8/16 zen 2 for a new build, i think by late next year every AAA games will be designed for 8 cores.

[Oalei]

I think it really depends on gamers will they go for Ryzen or stick with Intel even with that there is a lot of things to consider like steam survey that you fill or not.

[homeap5]

1 hour ago, Tamy24the said:

do I need to upgeade or just overclock it a little and im good for more 4 years ?

I would not asking that question here, where people recommend i7-8700k as minimum requirement for Solitaire.

IMO it wil be still great CPU even after 4 years.

I bet after 4 years if someone asks is i7-8700k good enough, people here answers than no, it's crap, because "now processors have 12 cores or more". Number of cores is not the only factor - important is what powerful these cores are and if you can use them. For example - in almost every games tests, 4c/4t i5-8400 beats 6c/12t Ryzen 1600x. Magic? Not really. Some mobile phones has 8 cores processors but that doesn't mean they're more powerful than Core2Duo. Also - producers do not make games for 2% of the people who has i9+2080. Your processor is very good and still will be good after 4 years, it's not some cheap i3, Pentium or Celeron.

[DezGalbie]

55 minutes ago, Atmos said:

a 6700k has effectively 8 cores when running something like a game. Its 4c/8t, meaning it has 8 logical cores, which is all that matters in 95% of applications.

Yes, and 8 is less than 12.

My opinion is that 6 cores/12 threads will soon be the minimum required for a quality gameplay experience in modern titles. Probably in 2 years, but I would say definitely before 2023, IMO.

[Mick Naughty]

If you’re happy with less, it can last as long as you want. 

[Atmos]

45 minutes ago, DezGalbie said:

Yes, and 8 is less than 12.

My opinion is that 6 cores/12 threads will soon be the minimum required for a quality gameplay experience in modern titles. Probably in 2 years, but I would say definitely before 2023, IMO.

I highly doubt we'll even see games that properly use 8 cores by 2023 at this rate, let alone 12. Core count usage in gaming has gone up by only a few cores since 2010, mostly due to the fact that higher core count cpus just havent been wide spread enough to devote spending time optimizing games for it. 

If AMD can really claw back a substantial portion of the market with their next release, making 8c/16t cpus common place, then maybe we see real 8 thread optimized  cpus Games. But at the current rate I'm doubtful we'll see anything over 8t minimum by 2023. Will it be the best? No, absolutely not. But will it be bad? No, absolutely not. Would it have been better to spend another 50 or 70$ to get the 8k series? Yeah, probably, but a 6700k will definitely still be relevant in 2023 for gaming.

 

DX12 was supposed to change all that, like everyone was saying, but shit all has happened on that end. Sure we don't see games running on single cores anymore, but just a few years ago that too was still common place. Im looking at you arma 3 and subsequent expansions.

[DezGalbie]

1 minute ago, Atmos said:

I highly doubt we'll even see games that properly use 8 cores by 2023 at this rate, let alone 12. Core count usage in gaming has gone up by only a few cores since 2010, mostly due to the fact that higher core count cpus just havent been wide spread enough to devote spending time optimizing games for it. 

If AMD can really claw back a substantial portion of the market with their next release, making 8c/16t cpus common place, then maybe we see real 8 thread optimized cpus. But at the current rate I'm doubtful we'll see anything over 8t minimum by 2023. Will it be the best? No, absolutely not. But will it be bad? No, absolutely not. Would it have been better to spend another 50 or 70$ to get the 8k series? Yeah, probably, but a 6700k will definitely still be relevant in 2023 for gaming.

 

DX12 was supposed to change all that, like everyone was saying, but shit all has happened on that end. Sure we don't see games running on single cores anymore, but just a few years ago that too was still common place. Im looking at you arma 3.

To be entirely clear, I am not talking about 12 core CPUs, I am talking about 6 core CPUs. There is a difference between cores and threads. Switching the terminology like this makes it sound like I am saying that you will need a 12 core/24 thread CPU to game in a couple of years. I am not.

Secondly, core counts may have only increased by a few since 2010, but that is not the only factor to consider. You cannot simply look at past progress in technology and assume linear progression from an abitrary point in the past through the present and into the future. Technological advancement doesn't work that way.

Thirdly, games will utilise as many cores as game developers can reasonably design them to use while still making the profit they want to make. Game developers walk a tightrope between producing the very best product possible and producing a product which can be used by a relatively high number of people. A game developer could produce a complex and impressive game today that will only run smoothly on a 9900K, 64gb of high speed RAM, and twin 2080ti's but why would they? The segment of the market with this equipment is so small that they would never recoup their costs in sales.

The amount of cores that new games utilise depends largely on the number of cores your average PC gamer has. How many cores will Intel i5's and Ryzen 5's have come 2023? Do you really think they will be quad cores? The 3rd gen Ryzen 5's launching next month already have 6 cores! We are essentially already at the point where if you buy a middle of the range newly-released CPU then it will be 6 cores minimum. Do you think game developers will still be optimising games to run on 4 cores all the way in 2023? Sure, the games may still run somewhat on quad cores, but they will be optimised for higher core count CPUs and that will be the route you need to go for a quality experience.

[Stormseeker9]

@Atmos but he said 6/12, not 8/16.

 

6/12 seems logical for the next gen of games to be in my opinion.

[FellTheSky]

no, because it only has 4 threads, unless you're ok with zombies on your computer 

[Guest]

Why not.. its clock is fast enough... you will notice when it is not good enough anymore.. games asking 100% for example.. just get it a new gpu now and then and your good to go

 

[knobster368]

I had a 6700k before upgrading this year. Did I really need to do it now!? No, not really!

It's really hard to predict what will happen in the future with software developers. It really depends on what the market wants. As of right now 4 cores is fine but as more people get computers with more cores they will develop the software to take advantage of those cores.

I would suggest enjoy what you got now and start saving up your money to upgrade down the road.

[Jon Jon]

Considering that the new consoles will be Zen 2 + Navi, I think come 2020 being on less than 6 cores won't be a fun time.

 

Just like in the current gen, 1-2 cores will probably be dedicated for the OS, but the rest of the hardware will be open for game development.

I highly expect come 2020 that 6C/12T will be the new standard to keep up with any AAA title.

[Atmos]

First off, very busy week so a very late reply. But still need to defend myself a touch.

 

On 6/1/2019 at 6:05 AM, DezGalbie said:

To be entirely clear, I am not talking about 12 core CPUs, I am talking about 6 core CPUs. There is a difference between cores and threads. Switching the terminology like this makes it sound like I am saying that you will need a 12 core/24 thread CPU to game in a couple of years. I am not.

I never made that point. I was saying that to games, threads and cores are nearly indistinguishable. In fact to the majority of programs threads and cores are completely interchangeable. Theres a reason that they're called logical and physical cores you know, Not threads and cores when dealing with programming. LTT have also done videos on this topic already, when dealing with 4c/8t, programs literally just see and utilize every logical core the same, because they are the same. They are in effect 8 core cpus, regardless of the physical cores on the cpu.

 

On 6/1/2019 at 6:05 AM, DezGalbie said:

Secondly, core counts may have only increased by a few since 2010, but that is not the only factor to consider. You cannot simply look at past progress in technology and assume linear progression from an abitrary point in the past through the present and into the future. Technological advancement doesn't work that way

That is literally the only way we can possibly make predictions on the future. We cannot simply guess, all we can do is look back at how things HAVE progressed, and assume they will likely continue to progress as they have in the recent past. The only other way you could possibly be arguing for here is completely blind guessing with no basis in reality.

 

On 6/1/2019 at 6:05 AM, DezGalbie said:

Thirdly, games will utilise as many cores as game developers can reasonably design them to use while still making the profit they want to make. Game developers walk a tightrope between producing the very best product possible and producing a product which can be used by a relatively high number of people. A game developer could produce a complex and impressive game today that will only run smoothly on a 9900K, 64gb of high speed RAM, and twin 2080ti's but why would they? The segment of the market with this equipment is so small that they would never recoup their costs in sales.

You're arguing in favor of what I said? See, 

Spoiler

Core count usage in gaming has gone up by only a few cores since 2010, mostly due to the fact that higher core count cpus just havent been wide spread enough to devote spending time optimizing games for it. 

If AMD can really claw back a substantial portion of the market with their next release, making 8c/16t cpus common place, then maybe we see real 8 thread optimized cpus. games (i was, and am a bit drunk.)

 

On 6/1/2019 at 6:05 AM, DezGalbie said:

The amount of cores that new games utilize depends largely on the number of cores your average PC gamer has.

^ again see above.

On 6/1/2019 at 6:05 AM, DezGalbie said:

How many cores will Intel i5's and Ryzen 5's have come 2023? Do you really think they will be quad cores?

Never said that. I merely said that going by all likelyhood a 4c/8t cpu, which games see as 8c, will still be perfectly viable.

 

On 6/1/2019 at 6:05 AM, DezGalbie said:

Sure, the games may still run somewhat on quad cores, but they will be optimised for higher core count CPUs and that will be the route you need to go for a quality experience.

You've got it a little bit twisted here mate. Games dont differentiate between 4c/8t and 8c/8t. 

He bought a 4c/8t cpu, which games interact with as an 8c cpu, because logically thats what it is. And in 2023 that will by all likeliness still be a relevant cpu and number of logical cores. Not the best by any imagination, but certainly not irrelevant given our current rate of progression. will he certainly want to upgrade by then, absolutely, but will it be like pulling teeth? I highly doubt it.

[DezGalbie]

10 hours ago, Atmos said:

I never made that point. I was saying that to games, threads and cores are nearly indistinguishable. In fact to the majority of programs threads and cores are completely interchangeable. Theres a reason that they're called logical and physical cores you know, Not threads and cores when dealing with programming. LTT have also done videos on this topic already, when dealing with 4c/8t, programs literally just see and utilize every logical core the same, because they are the same. They are in effect 8 core cpus, regardless of the physical cores on the cpu.

I know the similarities between cores and threads. My argument is not that there are no similarities, or that a lot of programs do not treat them in much the same way. My point here is that you are using these terms interchangeably and that this causes confusion and misrepresents what I am saying (as well as being technically wrong).

Generally speaking, when you are talking about CPUs which are capable of SMT or Hyperthreading, the core count is 50% of what the potential thread count is. And so, in a discussion about such a CPU, if you claim that I am arguing about the need for a 12 core CPU then this also implies 24 threads. If you want to talk about cores then talk about cores. If you want to talk about threads then talk about threads. But it's a complete misrepresentation to take my discussion of cores and start using my numbers while actually talking about threads (and yet still calling them "cores", incorrectly). I am talking about 6 core/12 thread CPUs. You have objected to my argument on the basis that we probably won't need "12 core CPUs". Well, guess what, I agree. I believe we will need 6 core CPUs capable of handling 12 threads.

 

10 hours ago, Atmos said:

That is literally the only way we can possibly make predictions on the future. We cannot simply guess, all we can do is look back at how things HAVE progressed, and assume they will likely continue to progress as they have in the recent past. The only other way you could possibly be arguing for here is completely blind guessing with no basis in reality.

Umm, no. Again, you are misrepresenting what I have said wildly and are ignoring the nuance and qualifications. I did not say that you cannot make predictions about future progress by looking at the past. I did not say that we should simply guess. I said that you cannot simply pick an arbitrary point in the past, measure progress since then, and assume a linear progression through the present and into the future. Technological progress does not tend to scale in neat linear ways. There is exponential growth.

Maybe an example will help illustrate?

The first commercial CPU was released in 1971. Obviously this was a single core processor. We then had to wait until 2005 to get dual core processors. So it took a full 34 years to add 1 core to the standard commercial CPU. If we assume the same linear rate of progression then we will be due to add another core in 2039, and then finally we should have our hands on quad core CPUs in the year 2073. Oh, wait. That doesn't quite work, does it? We already have CPUs with dozens of cores here in 2019.

Or how about internet speed? If the average internet connection speed in 1990 was 1.2 kbits/s and it rose to 2.7 kbits/s by 1992 then does that mean that average internet connection speeds are likely to increase by 1.5 kbits/s every 2 years? That would mean that the average internet connection speed today should be about 22.95 kbits/s. Tell me, what is your connection speed? Mine is somewhere around 380 Mbs/s.

You cannot just take arbitrary points in the past which you feel suit the point you are making and then assume linear growth in technological advancement. It doesn't work that way.

10 hours ago, Atmos said:

You're arguing in favor of what I said?

No, I'm not. And if that is genuinely what you think then it would seem like you don't understand what I am saying. You are arguing that quad core processors will continue to be fine for the next 4 years because higher core count processors will not be widespread enough for games developers to utilise the extra cores. I am saying precisely the opposite. I am saying that the middle of the range average processors being released right now are already 6 core/12 thread processors. If the average CPU being sold right now is already 6 core/12 thread then how many cores will game developers be utilising their games for all the way in 2023? We already have higher core counts CPUs being sold as middle of the range SKUs. That means they are likely to be widespread quite soon, and certainly before 2023.

 

11 hours ago, Atmos said:

You've got it a little bit twisted here mate. Games dont differentiate between 4c/8t and 8c/8t. 

He bought a 4c/8t cpu, which games interact with as an 8c cpu, because logically thats what it is. And in 2023 that will by all likeliness still be a relevant cpu and number of logical cores. Not the best by any imagination, but certainly not irrelevant given our current rate of progression. will he certainly want to upgrade by then, absolutely, but will it be like pulling teeth? I highly doubt it.

I am not saying that games differentiate to any qualitative degree between 4 core/8 thread and 8 core/8 thread. Where did I say that? The trouble you are having here is that you continually use the terms "core" and "thread" interchangeably. It's leading you into a lot of confusion, and it seems like you are deliberately trying to confuse matters. I said - "Sure, the games may still run somewhat on quad cores, but they will be optimised for higher core count CPUs and that will be the route you need to go for a quality experience.". Also, before that I had already stated that - "My opinion is that 6 cores/12 threads will soon be the minimum required for a quality gameplay experience in modern titles. Probably in 2 years, but I would say definitely before 2023, IMO". Please read this carefully. I already clarified in a previous comment that I am talking about 6 core/12 thread CPUs. I know you seen this because you even quoted me. So you know that I am not talking about 8 core/8 thread CPUs. And yet you ignore this and try to pretend that I am talking about 8 thread CPUs. Why would you deliberately try to misrepresent me like that?

My opinion, once more to avoid deliberate misrepresentation, is that core counts higher than 4 and thread counts higher than 8 will be needed for a quality gameplay experience well before 2023, and that is because current mid-range CPUs being sold now are already higher than this, and are likely to soon be commonplace.

Hopefully that's clear and detailed enough to avoid any more strawman-ing.
 

[Ebony Falcon]

Check hardware unboxed last video 1600 vs 7600k 6/12 vs 4c

 

things changed a lot this a last year for games and the Ryzen used to be behind but it miles ahead in new games

[DezGalbie]

7 hours ago, Ebony Falcon said:

Check hardware unboxed last video 1600 vs 7600k 6/12 vs 4c

 

things changed a lot this a last year for games and the Ryzen used to be behind but it miles ahead in new games

Funny you should mention that. I just checked out that video before coming back on here and seeing your comment. Yeah, I think we're starting to see the benefits of these extra cores and threads (i.e core counts in excess of 4 and thread counts in excess of 8  ) already. It would seem like games developers have already made the shift to commonly utilising 6 cores/12 threads in their games.

It really makes it hard to see how a quality gaming experience could possibly be had from a quad core CPU like the 6700K in new titles 3 or 4 years from now.

[Stefan Payne]

On 6/1/2019 at 12:37 PM, Tamy24the said:

do I need to upgeade or just overclock it a little and im good for more 4 years ?

No, you can't live for another 4 years as there are alreadygames on the Market that run badly on 4 COres and have issues with stuttering/min fps.

 

On 6/1/2019 at 2:44 PM, Atmos said:

I highly doubt we'll even see games that properly use 8 cores by 2023 at this rate, let alone 12. Core count usage in gaming has gone up by only a few cores since 2010, mostly due to the fact that higher core count cpus just havent been wide spread enough to devote spending time optimizing games for it. 

8 Cores Desktop CPUs are available since February 2017, so a little more than two years. And we already see increased core demands! Even though there was nothing for Desktop Sockets before that with more than 4 Cores (and no, 1366 is NOT a Desktop Socket -> low end SERVER!)

 

THAT is the reason why it didn't increase becuase there were no games to use it. That changed because of Playstation 4/XBoner and 

 

So that is a very steep statement with all the facts we have right now.

Kinda the same claim that people made when Dual Core and later Quad Cores were introduced. Well, that's 15 ~years ago but can't you look at the past and learn from it?!

On 6/1/2019 at 2:44 PM, Atmos said:

If AMD can really claw back a substantial portion of the market with their next release, making 8c/16t cpus common place, then maybe we see real 8 thread optimized  cpus Games.

You heard about Consoles?
Playstation 5 and Upcoming XBox???
You know that those are said to come with 8 Cores??

 

On 6/1/2019 at 2:44 PM, Atmos said:

But at the current rate I'm doubtful we'll see anything over 8t minimum by 2023. Will it be the best? No, absolutely not. But will it be bad? No, absolutely not. Would it have been better to spend another 50 or 70$ to get the 8k series? Yeah, probably, but a 6700k will definitely still be relevant in 2023 for gaming.

You are wrong because false assumption.

The Core Demand already increased, @Ebony Falcon mentioned a good source that disproves your claim. Because we already have games/situations, where 4C/4T are absolutely not sufficient and even 4C/8T are struggling.

 

On 6/1/2019 at 2:44 PM, Atmos said:

DX12 was supposed to change all that, like everyone was saying, but shit all has happened on that end. Sure we don't see games running on single cores anymore, but just a few years ago that too was still common place. Im looking at you arma 3 and subsequent expansions.

DX12 reduced the CPU demand and also is better multithreaded.

That also allowed the Game Developers to use the Power for new things such as Weather Simulation or other things...

 

8 hours ago, Ebony Falcon said:

Check hardware unboxed last video 1600 vs 7600k 6/12 vs 4c

things changed a lot this a last year for games and the Ryzen used to be behind but it miles ahead in new games

Yeah, exactly!

The Additional Cores are adopted by the Software at an insane pace. In just 2 years we have applications that benefit or want more than 4 Cores.

 

In another 2 years you can expect that they see that as minimum requirement...