X99

[Nosfy]

So i was reading some other topics and saw a comment that said "X99 is useless for games".

 

Anyone able to explain the thought process here?

[blu4]

It was not made with gaming in mind in the first place but for workstation computers. Premiere, 3DS and so on. Heavy CPU rendering. It's not useless for games but for half the price you get the same performance (game wise) from other chips.

[Silyy097]

So i was reading some other topics and saw a comment that said "X99 is useless for games".

 

Anyone able to explain the thought process here?

The difference between X99 and Z97 is probably the increase in CPU performance and DDR4.

 

Games arent really CPU intensive these days. Heck, you can put an i3 with a 980 Ti or a 5960X with a 980Ti and it will perform about the same, give or take 5 fps.

 

DDR4 is not utilized well by games, and offers not much improvement over DDR3.

[Aytex]

what? kinda not though 4 cores is all you need and that much ram and pci-e slots is more for rendering

[salecar3]

unless you are doibg high end gpu sli/crossfire its usless unless rendering

[PineappleHolidays]

My 5820k is as good at gaming as my friend's 4770k except SOME rare cases.

and I spent 800€ on the mobo-cpu-ram vs 500 for him

[Analog]

It's not that it is useless, it just more expensive and does not really boost FPS that much to justify its significantly higher cost, that is unless you are going for the cheapest RAM and motherboard. If you don't mind compromising on those two things, the six-core 5820K is just a bit more expensive than a 4790K and does have 2 more cores, which some games do actually benefit from. 

[FizzyFantom]

The X99 platform isn't useless for games, it's actually very capable (more capable than consumer chips with lower clock speeds). The person who said this probably didn't mean "X99 is useless for games", but instead meant "don't buy X99 just for games". Your games will perform just as well on X99 as Z97 clock-for-clock, but they almost certainly won't perform better. Also the price for X99 is disproportionately high vurses Z97 for single threaded performance (they're the same architechture after all).

 

X99 is really targeted at enthusiasts and those who would really benefit from more cores. This would include anyone that does lots of CPU intensive rendering, works with 3D modelling or physics simulation and those who need more PCI-e slots. X99 really isn't for gaming, it's not a good use of your budget that could be used elsewhere (such as on a better GPU or monitor).

[bomerr]

I hope you didn't buy that 5930k for gaming. If so it's completely overkill because it offers no performance benefit over the 5820k. In fact there is absolutely no point to get a 5930k unless you are doing 4-way SLI. 

[Curufinwe_wins]

Technically speaking at the same overclock the 4x90s and x99 line should offer the same performance on just about any game because most games use 3 or fewer threads at the same time. (Caches, ddr4 vs ddr3 etc can give minute boosts to x99).

The issue becomes that the x99 generally cannot reach as high of overclocks as the 4x90ks regardless of cooling. (You can look for example at the world record for those 5 chips and the 5820k is the lowest record by ~400 MHz and the 4790k is the highest by ~400MHz.)

This means that the massive core differences achievable can really make the 4x90ks better in gaming than the lower end x99s.

Example: (hardoc haswell-e review).

A group of reviewers reached the following max overclocks.

5820k 4.6 Ghz

5930k 4.5 Ghz

5960x 4.5 Ghz

And they mention in passing that their 4790k chip was outperforming those chips in numerous benchmarks (likely due to the much more easily attainable 4.8-5.0 ocs that are achievable on that cpu)=

Honestly though, in current games (read applications that either don't use or poorly utilize more than 4 threads) the following hierarchy exists in performance (ignoring price)

4790k>5960x>5930k>5820k=4690k

Seriously though there is something shoddy in the way the 5820k functions that it seems to oc significantly worse (extreme or not) than the other x99 cpus.

Now what does that mean? It might interest you to note DirectX12 looks to scale extremely well in the 6 thread range which means in the future it is VERY conceivable that the entire x99 range blows out all quad core cpus when it comes out. (This might also explain in part why intel is not replacing the x99 line until cannonlake.)

But that does mean that even ignoring price (LOL) the 4790k MAY BE THE BEST GAMING GPU OUT AT THE MOMENT. I don't know enough about the 5775c but it's tdp is so low I don't know if it will be stable at a high enough oc to beat the 4790k.

[bomerr]

Technically speaking at the same overclock the 4x90s and x99 line should offer the same performance on just about any game because most games use 3 or fewer threads at the same time. (Caches, ddr4 vs ddr3 etc can give minute boosts to x99).

The issue becomes that the x99 generally cannot reach as high of overclocks as the 4x90ks regardless of cooling. (You can look for example at the world record for those 5 chips and the 5820k is the lowest record by ~400 MHz and the 4790k is the highest by ~400MHz.)

This means that the massive core differences achievable can really make the 4x90ks better in gaming than the lower end x99s.

Example: (hardoc haswell-e review).

A group of reviewers reached the following max overclocks.

5820k 4.6 Ghz

5930k 4.5 Ghz

5960x 4.5 Ghz

And they mention in passing that their 4790k chip was outperforming those chips in numerous benchmarks (likely due to the much more easily attainable 4.8-5.0 ocs that are achievable on that cpu)=

Honestly though, in current games (read applications that either don't use or poorly utilize more than 4 threads) the following hierarchy exists in performance (ignoring price)

4790k>5960x>5930k>5820k=4690k

Seriously though there is something shoddy in the way the 5820k functions that it seems to oc significantly worse (extreme or not) than the other x99 cpus.

Now what does that mean? It might interest you to note DirectX12 looks to scale extremely well in the 6 thread range which means in the future it is VERY conceivable that the entire x99 range blows out all quad core cpus when it comes out. (This might also explain in part why intel is not replacing the x99 line until cannonlake.)

But that does mean that even ignoring price (LOL) the 4790k MAY BE THE BEST GAMING GPU OUT AT THE MOMENT. I don't know enough about the 5775c but it's tdp is so low I don't know if it will be stable at a high enough oc to beat the 4790k.

Uhm idk where you are getting your information but most people aren't getting/doing 4.8-5 Ghz overclocks on their 4790ks. 

 

The truth is their really is no point in OCing a 4790k because 4.4Ghz is more than enough for games and the higher clock speeds aren't worth the hassle in terms of stability or energy usage. On the flip-side, the X99 CPUs are clocked pretty low (for lower power consumption) and so their is plenty of OCing headroom. I got my 5820k to 4.4Ghz on ALL AUTO settings with an increased multiplier. Just like with the 4790s, I could push higher than 4.4 but it starts getting unstable and the hassle just isn't worth it.

 

So since all the CPUs are using the same architecture and the clock speeds are going to be identical (or near-identical), the single core performance will be too be near identical, (plus or minus cache size). In other words a 100 or 200 or even 300Mhz difference is trivial. My 5820k doesn't even reach 40% utilization during gaming. Lastly some games do take advantage of more than 4 cores.

 

So the actual hierarchy is going to be...

 

5960X (OC'd) > 5930k/5820k (OC'd 4.4) > 4790k (stock) 

 

... no real surprise.

 

With that said the cost difference between a 4790k and a 5690X is astronomical. The FPS difference will be like maybe 1-3 FPS (in 1440p/4k gaming) while that same 700$ could have netted 40 FPS difference if spent on a 970 ti. So that's why people say X99 is not good for gaming, it's just not cost effective for gaming.

 

With that said I do believe the 5820k is worth buying IF someone has the budget. With the OC'd single core performance being what it is, I think the CPUs will be good for at least 2-3yrs with no bottlenecks. Plus once Intel switches their mainstream i7 line to 6 cores, the 5820k will still be able to hang since it's already a 6 core. In other words it provides a good amount of future proofing. Likewise with DDR4 Ram.  For me the cost difference was only $300 to go x99-5820k over z97-4790k so if I get even 1 year of extra life before upgrading it'll have been 100% justified. 

[Curufinwe_wins]

Uhm idk where you are getting your information but most people aren't getting/doing 4.8-5 Ghz overclocks on their 4790ks. 

 

The truth is their really is no point in OCing a 4790k because 4.4Ghz is more than enough for games and the higher clock speeds aren't worth the hassle in terms of stability or energy usage. On the flip-side, the X99 CPUs are clocked pretty low (for lower power consumption) and so their is plenty of OCing headroom. I got my 5820k to 4.4Ghz on ALL AUTO settings with an increased multiplier. Just like with the 4790s, I could push higher than 4.4 but it starts getting unstable and the hassle just isn't worth it.

 

So since all the CPUs are using the same architecture and the clock speeds are going to be identical (or near-identical), the single core performance will be too be near identical, (plus or minus cache size). In other words a 100 or 200 or even 300Mhz difference is trivial. My 5820k doesn't even reach 40% utilization during gaming. Lastly some games do take advantage of more than 4 cores.

 

So the actual hierarchy is going to be...

 

5960X (OC'd) > 5930k/5820k (OC'd 4.4) > 4790k (stock) 

 

... no real surprise.

 

With that said the cost difference between a 4790k and a 5690X is astronomical. The FPS difference will be like maybe 1-3 FPS (in 1440p/4k gaming) while that same 700$ could have netted 40 FPS difference if spent on a 970 ti. So that's why people say X99 is not good for gaming, it's just not cost effective for gaming.

 

With that said I do believe the 5820k is worth buying IF someone has the budget. With the OC'd single core performance being what it is, I think the CPUs will be good for at least 2-3yrs with no bottlenecks. Plus once Intel switches their mainstream i7 line to 6 cores, the 5820k will still be able to hang since it's already a 6 core. In other words it provides a good amount of future proofing. Likewise with DDR4 Ram.  For me the cost difference was only $300 to go x99-5820k over z97-4790k so if I get even 1 year of extra life before upgrading it'll have been 100% justified. 

This quote is straight up representative of why the x99 series is overvalued (for gaming, obviously anything using more than four threads and multitasking LOL MOAR COARS). People who buy the x99 series generally spend more time and money into cooling/overclocking than z97 users. And why not, more expensive platform, you want to get more out of it. BTW with that 5820k I would be shocked to see you could even get more than +2 on the multiplier stable, the card just isn't comparably a good overclocker. Instead of looking at the same clock speed for every cpu which duh then higher cache (REALLY BIG DEAL), ddr4, more cores wins. Its honestly rarely about the cores though.

 

BTW instead of doing that, why don't you take a look at the average oc's reported to hwbot.org for the two processors. 

http://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_i7_4790k/average core 4680 MHz (40000+ submissions)

http://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_i7_5820k/average core 4325 MHz (10000+ submissions)

 

I will without hesitation state that a 4790k at 4680 MHz will on average preform better in almost every modern game than a 5820k at 4325 MHz.

 

Cpu utilization isn't really relevant because only per thread utilization is in anyway an indicator of bottlenecks, and it still takes quite the gpu setup to really make cpu a limiting factor.

 

Intel won't swap mainstream i7 to 6 cores for quite a while, (first because there isn't a need, second because there isn't competition, third because there isn't the market), but just like the part about DX12 stated in my earlier post, I very much believe x99 is the more future "proof" option. It just isn't necessarily even the best preforming option on the market right NOW (FOR GAMING),

 

 

BTW here is a precious example of a game with supposedly hailed scaling beyond 4 cores (Battlefield 4).

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2014/09/03/intel-core-i7-5930k-and-core-i7-5820k-revie/7

 

Obviously the only thing this review shows is how gpu constrained current titles are (cause lol he was using a 780).

[bomerr]

This quote is straight up representative of why the x99 series is overvalued (for gaming, obviously anything using more than four threads and multitasking LOL MOAR COARS). People who buy the x99 series generally spend more time and money into cooling/overclocking than z97 users. And why not, more expensive platform, you want to get more out of it. BTW with that 5820k I would be shocked to see you could even get more than +2 on the multiplier stable, the card just isn't comparably a good overclocker. Instead of looking at the same clock speed for every cpu which duh then higher cache (REALLY BIG DEAL), ddr4, more cores wins. Its honestly rarely about the cores though.

 

BTW instead of doing that, why don't you take a look at the average oc's reported to hwbot.org for the two processors. 

http://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_i7_4790k/average core 4680 MHz (40000+ submissions)

http://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_i7_5820k/average core 4325 MHz (10000+ submissions)

 

I will without hesitation state that a 4790k at 4680 MHz will on average preform better in almost every modern game than a 5820k at 4325 MHz.

 

Cpu utilization isn't really relevant because only per thread utilization is in anyway an indicator of bottlenecks, and it still takes quite the gpu setup to really make cpu a limiting factor.

 

Intel won't swap mainstream i7 to 6 cores for quite a while, (first because there isn't a need, second because there isn't competition, third because there isn't the market), but just like the part about DX12 stated in my earlier post, I very much believe x99 is the more future "proof" option. It just isn't necessarily even the best preforming option on the market right NOW (FOR GAMING),

 

 

BTW here is a precious example of a game with supposedly hailed scaling beyond 4 cores (Battlefield 4).

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2014/09/03/intel-core-i7-5930k-and-core-i7-5820k-revie/7

 

Obviously the only thing this review shows is how gpu constrained current titles are (cause lol he was using a 780).

 

Says "I will without hesitation state that a 4790k at 4680 MHz will on average preform better in almost every modern game than a 5820k at 4325 MHz." 

Links BF4 benchmark showing every CPU getting the same FPS.

 

The fact that you quoting other sources for all your information instead of sharing your own experience tells me you don't actually have valid 1st hand experience.  

 

I checked your CPU OC link out. It says:

 

4790k = 4679MHZ

5820k = 4325MHZ

5930k = 4734MHZ

 

Really? the 5930k which is the exact same chip (+ extra pci lanes) as the 5820k gets a higher OC and a higher OC than the 4790k? 

I've OC'd 2 5820s and I've never submitted my info to that website. Idk where they are getting their data from but it's clearly BS. 

 

You should stop reading so much stuff online. Without legit 1st hand experience you can't tell what's BS and not and what is relevant and what is not.

[Nosfy]

The X99 platform isn't useless for games, it's actually very capable (more capable than consumer chips with lower clock speeds). The person who said this probably didn't mean "X99 is useless for games", but instead meant "don't buy X99 just for games". Your games will perform just as well on X99 as Z97 clock-for-clock, but they almost certainly won't perform better. Also the price for X99 is disproportionately high vurses Z97 for single threaded performance (they're the same architechture after all).

 

X99 is really targeted at enthusiasts and those who would really benefit from more cores. This would include anyone that does lots of CPU intensive rendering, works with 3D modelling or physics simulation and those who need more PCI-e slots. X99 really isn't for gaming, it's not a good use of your budget that could be used elsewhere (such as on a better GPU or monitor).

 

Thanks for that. Makes sense to be honest.

 

I hope you didn't buy that 5930k for gaming. If so it's completely overkill because it offers no performance benefit over the 5820k. In fact there is absolutely no point to get a 5930k unless you are doing 4-way SLI. 

 

Yes I did. I never really understood feel the need to state "overkill". Without sounding like a dick I could afford to buy an x99. I liked the way it looked too so I did it. Yes I could have spent the money on other things but I also go the other things I wanted.

[Curufinwe_wins]

Says "I will without hesitation state that a 4790k at 4680 MHz will on average preform better in almost every modern game than a 5820k at 4325 MHz."

Links BF4 benchmark showing every CPU getting the same FPS.

The fact that you quoting other sources for all your information instead of sharing your own experience tells me you don't actually have valid 1st hand experience.

I checked your CPU OC link out. It says:

4790k = 4679MHZ

5820k = 4325MHZ

5930k = 4734MHZ

Really? the 5930k which is the exact same chip (+ extra pci lanes) as the 5820k gets a higher OC and a higher OC than the 4790k?

I've OC'd 2 5820s and I've never submitted my info to that website. Idk where they are getting their data from but it's clearly BS.

You should stop reading so much stuff online. Without legit 1st hand experience you can't tell what's BS and not and what is relevant and what is not.

Sigh. You link outside information as a supplement to personal experience. That's just what you do to make responsible arguments. I have significant personal experience with the 4690k/4790k/5820k/5960x. I don't have much experience with the 5930k but numerous reviews on their oc'ng online seems to suggest there are subtle architecture differences (or maybe the 5820k is a slightly lower binned 5930k but that does t really make much sense either) because there is a marginal difference in overclocking headroom (and even in head to head reviews people talk about the 5930k being a very different chip to overclock) and just as you say it doesn't seem like their should be.

Alternate theory: Being relatively low volume chips the two should just be thrown together and say everything different is just silicon lottery.

Seriously though if I just say from experience people bitch no proof. If I actually bring up sources then people be like you got no first hand so what you say is invalid.

As I even said in the above post clearly that link was super gpu limited as every single game had that same pattern and even the fx cpu was keeping pace at stock which should tell you everything you need to know.

As to the site you called Bullshit on. No it's not Bullshit, it one of the single best record overclocking databases in the world and the 5930k results are likely due to extremely small sample size or an error in averaging because you can actually click on the records for each individual overclock submitted by their members and there are only 26 submissions.

That said it may or may not be actually representative of the populous or the standard use limits of the chip. I would generally argue that the extreme limit difference in core clocks achievable should be roughly similar to the difference in stable core clocks at more realistic voltages. Assuming ofc that the records are the result of basically the same level of expertise and binning. Which I mean it's all world records so I would argue that is probably a relatively good statement.

[Curufinwe_wins]

Lol gigabyte hosted a x99 challenge on hwbot in May of this year. Totally bs site.

[bomerr]

Yes I did. I never really understood feel the need to state "overkill". Without sounding like a dick I could afford to buy an x99. I liked the way it looked too so I did it. Yes I could have spent the money on other things but I also go the other things I wanted.

The thing about the 5930k in specific is that it offers no performance benefit UNLESS you do 4-way SLI. WHICH YOU SHOULD NEVER DO ANYWAYS. 

 

Going from the 4790k -> 5820k adds 2 extra cores, DDR4, 4 extra ram slots, more cache. 

Going from the 5820k -> 5930k adds more pci-lanes. That's it. 

Going from 5820k/5930k -> 5960x adds 2 more cores and more cache.

 

 

So the only reason to pay the premium for a 5930k is if you need more PCI-lanes. In other words if you are going 4-way SLI. However upgrading to the latest GPU rather than adding more GPUS is a better option. 

 

With the 5930k your CPU will get the exact same performance as my 5820k and be obsolete at the same time too. So it's literally spending extra month on nothing. I feel that the 5930k is the worst X99 CPU for this reason. 

[Curufinwe_wins]

The thing about the 5930k in specific is that it offers no performance benefit UNLESS you do 4-way SLI. WHICH YOU SHOULD NEVER DO ANYWAYS.

Going from the 4790k -> 5820k adds 2 extra cores, DDR4, 4 extra ram slots, more cache.

Going from the 5820k -> 5930k adds more pci-lanes. That's it.

Going from 5820k/5930k -> 5960x adds 2 more cores and more cache.

So the only reason to pay the premium for a 5930k is if you need more PCI-lanes. In other words if you are going 4-way SLI. However upgrading to the latest GPU rather than adding more GPUS is a better option.

With the 5930k your CPU will get the exact same performance as my 5820k and be obsolete at the same time too. So it's literally spending extra month on nothing. I feel that the 5930k is the worst X99 CPU for this reason.

We can both agree there. 5930k really doesnt make much sense from a purchasing standpoint. Unless someone honestly believes that by the time the 5930k is obsoleted pcie 3.0x8 and 3 way sli are saturated by gpus.