Which CPU to use

[Prysin]

So 50-80 bucks is expensive, but buying a CPU when it costs the most it will ever cost and there are alternative CPUs that perform as well or better for the same price is OK?

this is a chip that sits on the mobo..

 

why do you think skylake boards are expensive? Cuz of that little thing

[App4that]

this is a chip that sits on the mobo..

why do you think skylake boards are expensive? Cuz of that little thing

Then go X99 and have a man's board LOL. But in all seriousness Skylake is so over hyped. I can't wait for that hype to deflate.

[Prysin]

Then go X99 and have a man's board LOL. But in all seriousness Skylake is so over hyped. I can't wait for that hype to deflate.

is the performance overhyped? yes

is the reality of future compatibility overhyped? not really

 

nothing indicates that DDR4 will be obsolete in the coming years... DDR3 however will be going out of market within 2 years i bet. After that it will only be leftover stock and low volume production for some time.

[App4that]

is the performance overhyped? yes

is the reality of future compatibility overhyped? not really

nothing indicates that DDR4 will be obsolete in the coming years... DDR3 however will be going out of market within 2 years i bet. After that it will only be leftover stock and low volume production for some time.

Do you really think the 1151 socket will last longer than 2-3 years? If someone buys their ram now, does it matter if the same ram is sold 2-3 years from now.

Skylake is the single most over hyped computer, no technology related "thing" I have personally ever seen. It borders on religious. And you see how people talk about the 390 and I'm making that claim. At least the 390 offers its followers something in return.

[Prysin]

Do you really think the 1151 socket will last longer than 2-3 years? If someone buys their ram now, does it matter if the same ram is sold 2-3 years from now.

Skylake is the single most over hyped computer, no technology related "thing" I have personally ever seen. It borders on religious. And you see how people talk about the 390 and I'm making that claim. At least the 390 offers its followers something in return.

Intel i5 (any of em) is the most overhyped technology related thing.

Nvidia GPUs (any of em) are a damn close second.

[App4that]

Intel i5 (any of em) is the most overhyped technology related thing.

Nvidia GPUs (any of em) are a damn close second.

Agreed on the i5, can't argue there.

Nvidia, yes on the hardware but no on the software.

[Prysin]

Agreed on the i5, can't argue there.

Nvidia, yes on the hardware but no on the software.

Ahrem... shadowplay anyone?

 

you can do the same with OBS.... free software, works with even a 3DFX Voodoo card...

[App4that]

Ahrem... shadowplay anyone?

you can do the same with OBS.... free software, works with even a 3DFX Voodoo card...

No, I'm talking about drivers. But I understand that you being a AMD fan means you are unfamiliar with what a drive is. I kid if course.

Well, kinda kidding. The drivers from AMD would be better if a blind lab rat was placed in charge of production.

[typographie]

Newegg - 154$

 

I guess you don't mean Newegg US?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113284&cm_re=FX-8350-_-19-113-284-_-Product

[pcman365]

It's like 3 months before AMD releases the new Excavator FX line. I know it's not zen yet but it'll be a full 2-generation leap for their enthusiast platform. That should put them back in the running at least against the i5. For now though, for anything except heavily threaded workloads on a budget only Intel can be recommended. 

that will only bring a perfomance increase of around 5%

[MageTank]

Boy, this thread sure is something else. Only came in on the last page or two, but from what i've seen, it's nothing but false information. Let me clear some things up so far.

 

First of all, DDR4 is not "expensive". It costs 60 cents more per GB on average here in the US. Even if the price difference is say, $1 more per GB, it is still worth it. Why? Because DDR4 can be faster than DDR3. Now, do not get me wrong. There are some garbage DDR4 kits out there that are slower than DDR3 and overclock very poorly (Value series ram is "value series" for a reason) but for the most part, DDR4 is a lot easier to overclock than DDR3. It is also rated up to 4266mhz by JEDEC. I paid $46 for a 2x4gb kit of PANRAM 2133mhz memory, and got it running at 3200mhz CL15-15-15-30-CR1 in a single day. It took me a while to get the timings under control, but even at 3200mhz without tight timings, it still smashed even the fastest DDR3 kits. I challenge anyone to find me a single DDR3 kit to take my DDR4 kit on, because none exist. $46 beating the $500 2x4gb 3200mhz Corsair Dominator Platinum kits. Price:Performance wise (with enough patience) DDR4 is just an all out winner over DDR3.

 

Secondly, i saw someone mention how "Skylake is the most hyped thing i've ever seen". Where was this seen? It was hyped before its release (like every other piece of hardware to ever come out in this industry) but after its release, it was shunned by everyone. It still is on this forum, with everyone suggesting X99 over Z170. The Skylake hate is pretty obnoxious too, given that it comes from people that do not own the platform, and are only guessing based on reviews (Most of which have never overclocked a day in their life, and are only dialing in absurd settings or using auto OC features on boards). As a platform, Z170 is superior for budget gaming IF (and only if) you can find the CPU's on sale at their normal launch price. $400+ for the 6700k is insanity, and i would never recommend it for that price. However, if someone could find it for say, $330-$350, it would be a worthy investment compared to the similarly priced 5820k. After all, X99 CPU's have a much weaker IMC, and offer no real benefits for gaming. More cores does not always equal more performance, and its a very specific set of games (Less than 5% of all total PC games) that would benefit from having more cores. In fact, if Price:Performance was the main goal for gaming, going beyond an i5 would be a hard stretch to make.

 

Thirdly, PLX bridges and their costs. When they first started popping up (I believe around Sandy Bridge at the time) they were believed to cost around $40, because boards with PLX bridges in them cost about $40-$50 more than boards that did not have them. Z87 came around with them, price changed to be about $60, and increased to about $100 by the time Z97 was around. A board with PLX on Z97 cost on average, $100 more than the same quality board that did not have it, hence why we assume these prices. This changed with Z170 again. Except this time, it's not a $100 price difference. It's a $200 price difference. Why the sudden steep price change? We don't know exactly why, but it came about the exact same time PLX Technology was acquired by Avago. Seriously, go checkout Gigabyte's board lineups. Compare their $400 boards to their $200 boards, and the only thing that will stand out, is PLX. 

 

As for the question asked by OP, your only option in that range is going to be an i5 *(or locked Xeon)*. Whether or not you want to do Skylake is up to you. If you live near a microcenter, you can find a 4690k for $180, which would be an absolutely amazing deal for a CPU. If not, you can always invest in a locked Skylake i5, and overclock it with a Z series board and save yourself $50-$60 over the 6600k. Newegg often has the Core i5 6400 on sale for $180. I've seen people take it to 4.8ghz on water, so 4.2-4.5 on air should not be out of the question. If you are not an overclocker, a locked Haswell i5 will be about $20 cheaper, ram will be about $10 cheaper, and boards will be about $10 cheaper. $40 price difference (comparing budget models only) between Skylake and Haswell. Worth is subjective, so you can tell me if you think a newer platform is worth $40.

[App4that]

Secondly, i saw someone mention how "Skylake is the most hyped thing i've ever seen". Where was this seen?

OK, find a topic about Skylake CPUs without "future proof " being used.

No, seriously. It's like Skylake magically creates a force field that keeps out time, and reality evidently.

Now grab all the people throwing that phrase around and test their PCs in the applications they use theirs for against mine. Now do that 3 years from now. I'm sure Fallout 5 will only run on a Skylake CPU *rolls eye*.

And for the record, Digital Foundry has Overclocked and tested Skylake CPUs, even the locked versions. They see improvements, and if the Skylake option isn't dramatically more expensive I always tell people building a new PC to go Skylake, but come on Mage. Do tell me with a straight face people don't blow the difference completely out of proportion and make way more of a deal out of it than necessary.

[MageTank]

OK, find a topic about Skylake CPUs without "future proof " being used.

No, seriously. It's like Skylake magically creates a force field that keeps out time, and reality evidently.

Now grab all the people throwing that phrase around and test their PCs in the applications they use theirs for against mine. Now do that 3 years from now. I'm sure Fallout 5 will only run on a Skylake CPU *rolls eye*.

And for the record, Digital Foundry has Overclocked and tested Skylake CPUs, even the locked versions. They see improvements, and if the Skylake option isn't dramatically more expensive I always tell people building a new PC to go Skylake, but come on Mage. Do tell me with a straight face people don't blow the difference completely out of proportion and make way more of a deal out of it than necessary.

Hey, i asked for the proof first. 

 

Secondly, i saw someone mention how "Skylake is the most hyped thing i've ever seen". Where was this seen? It was hyped before its release (like every other piece of hardware to ever come out in this industry) but after its release, it was shunned by everyone. It still is on this forum, with everyone suggesting X99 over Z170. The Skylake hate is pretty obnoxious too, given that it comes from people that do not own the platform, and are only guessing based on reviews (Most of which have never overclocked a day in their life, and are only dialing in absurd settings or using auto OC features on boards). As a platform, Z170 is superior for budget gaming IF (and only if) you can find the CPU's on sale at their normal launch price. $400+ for the 6700k is insanity, and i would never recommend it for that price. However, if someone could find it for say, $330-$350, it would be a worthy investment compared to the similarly priced 5820k. After all, X99 CPU's have a much weaker IMC, and offer no real benefits for gaming. More cores does not always equal more performance, and its a very specific set of games (Less than 5% of all total PC games) that would benefit from having more cores. In fact, if Price:Performance was the main goal for gaming, going beyond an i5 would be a hard stretch to make.

Your argument is silly. Future proofing has nothing to do with CPU generations. People try (and fail) to do this every single CPU generation. They've been doing this for at least as long as i have been into computer hardware, and they will never stop. People want to believe that their invested cash will last forever, but it won't. You saying Skylake is at fault for this concept is just nonsense, is it not?

 

I would think you asking me to find a topic about skylake without "future proofing" being involved was a rhetorical question, but you said "seriously" afterwards. Since you asked... I guess I'll comply. I do aim to please. 

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/513662-upgrade-to-skylake-6600k-from-amd-phenom-x6-1090t/

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/511138-is-skylake-worth-it/

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/510196-new-cpu-which-to-choose/

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/508302-us-amazon-254-i5-6600k/

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/508105-is-skylake-worth-it-for-this-build/

 

Starting to notice a pattern. However, I am never satisfied with just providing proof for your claims. After all, I made a claim too!

 

 it was shunned by everyone. It still is on this forum, with everyone suggesting X99 over Z170. 

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/506618-help-me-decide-z-170-or-x-99/

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/426405-skylake-is-a-waste-of-money/

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/492689-what-processor-should-i-upgrade-to/

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/427161-x99-or-z170/

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/466870-x99-or-z170/

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/439593-z170-vs-x99-which-to-buy/

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/472167-x99-vs-z170-question/

 

I am not an unfair man. I did find some threads mentioning future proof. However, not all of them were just Skylake. Haswell shares the blame.

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/479023-valuefuture-proof-build-1000-1500-ball-park/

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/434583-haswell-cheaper-system-vs-skylake-future-proof-system/

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/480344-midrange-futureproof-skylake-build-for-gaming/

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/486853-futureproof-pc-build/

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/464899-best-future-proof-cpu/

 

Notice. Every single Intelligent response involved something along the lines of "future-proofing is an impossible concept, it does not exist". Nobody sincerely recommended Skylake as a future proof CPU. If they did, they were shot down afterwards. I do not understand your point here. 

 

As for the last part: 

 

Do tell me with a straight face people don't blow the difference completely out of proportion and make way more of a deal out of it than necessary.

People do not blow the difference out of proportion. A lot of the threads i linked above contained some factual evidence and comments. Skylake is on average, 5% faster than Haswell when gaming, but slower than Broadwell. Skylake did receive an IPC boost, but its FPU performance slightly dipped, technically making Broadwell a better CPU for gaming. The 11% number people threw around back then was false, because it came from click-bait websites claiming "Skylake 11% faster over Haswell". Guess where that 11% number came from? DDR4. DDR4 is faster than DDR3, and that 11% number came from compression tasks. Skylake then got beat by Haswell-E because of Quad-Channel memory and more cores (compression loves memory bandwidth and threads). 

 

As with every hardware "team", you get radical fanboys that throw out fantasy-esque numbers to delude the discussion, but unless they bring evidence for their claims, they are to be ignored. If you need me to cite any of my sources, I will gladly do so (As you've just seen above in this very post). 

 

At the end of the day, only one thing should matter to the consumer, and that is getting the most value for their dollar. In the computer realm, that figure is represented by Price:Performance. It is the only thing I care about when guiding people on build decisions. Whether or  not that means Skylake is better than X99, is entirely dependent on the time of day, or month, or year. Whichever offers the most Price:Performance at the time is better. No single piece of hardware remains the best option forever. As of right now, writing this post, a locked i5 with a Z170 board with unlocked BCLK is probably the best Price:Performance out of Z97, X99, and Z170 platforms. Overclocking an i3 or i5 to 4-4.5ghz is just insane for the low cost they have. This can change in the future, making this post 100% incorrect too. Which is why I avoid making these blunt claims whenever possible.

[App4that]

Sorry @MageTank, on my phone hope that worked for tagging you.

You know me, I'm fair. I don't care about manufacturer if somethings worth recommending it I do. And I do recommend Skylake for new builders. But right fucking below this topic is one attacking Haswell lol. If it's not a dead platform, it's that the k skew is dead because of the block adjustment on Skylake. I get that this happens when ever anything new comes out. Look at the circus around the 300 series even though it performs roughly the same as the 200 series.

And I appreciate your response, and I was a bit dramatic about my claim, that I admit.

But please address my question. Outside of benchmarks, outside of professional tasks. If you take my top dog Haswell set up and a comparable 6700k setup, would the average user see the difference? If the PC didn't have a window, could they tell if you switched them. In 3 years if you loaded a game that has just come out and performed the same experiment. Would the same happen? My 4790k, 2200mhz DDR3, and Vaporx 290 against a 6700k, comparable DDR4, and Nitro 390.

No fps meter, no benchmarks, just using the damn thing as it was meant to be used.

That's my beef. It's a damn witch hunt on Haswell. For what?

[MageTank]

Sorry @MageTank, on my phone hope that worked for tagging you.

You know me, I'm fair. I don't care about manufacturer if somethings worth recommending it I do. And I do recommend Skylake for new builders. But right fucking below this topic is one attacking Haswell lol. If it's not a dead platform, it's that the k skew is dead because of the block adjustment on Skylake. I get that this happens when ever anything new comes out. Look at the circus around the 300 series even though it performs roughly the same as the 200 series.

And I appreciate your response, and I was a bit dramatic about my claim, that I admit.

But please address my question. Outside of benchmarks, outside of professional tasks. If you take my top dog Haswell set up and a comparable 6700k setup, would the average user see the difference? If the PC didn't have a window, could they tell if you switched them. In 3 years if you loaded a game that has just come out and performed the same experiment. Would the same happen? My 4790k, 2200mhz DDR3, and Vaporx 290 against a 6700k, comparable DDR4, and Nitro 390.

No fps meter, no benchmarks, just using the damn thing as it was meant to be used.

That's my beef. It's a damn witch hunt on Haswell. For what?

No. A typical user will not see a difference between the 4790k and 6700k in gaming and general use. Even in compression (Winrar, etc) the bandwidth difference will shave seconds off of minutes unless you are as OCD with ram as me and my friends are. Very few people will take the time to 100% overclock their memory, and DDR4 XMP is awful, even on the 3200mhz kits. My 2133mhz kit overclocked to 3200mhz is 4GB/s faster in both read and write compared to a normal XMP 3200mhz kit. That's not counting the 20ns difference in latency, because for some reason, they refuse to let the XMP load at CR1. So XMP Z170 to XMP Z97, people might not even see a tangible difference in memory speed either.

 

However, I would not discount haswell just because one or two people are calling it worthless. Like i said above, value is very much dependent on the time of day. I've seen far more threads bashing Skylake in favor of Haswell than vice versa. Mostly because of Skylake's currently obnoxious price. As people start to take notice of Skylake and the unlocked BCLK, they are starting to see Haswell as a less favorable option. Such is the cycle of hardware though. You wouldn't tell someone to buy a Sandy Bridge CPU now, when better options exist.

 

CPU to CPU, Haswell and Skylake are pretty much even. It's the platform that makes Z170 superior. DDR4 is the future whether we like it or not (I like it, because its easier to OC and is faster once done correctly). Extra PCIE lanes is nice. Support for Kaby Lake is also nice, as it opens up an upgrade path, while Z97 ended with Broadwell. Unlocked BCLK is super nice for overclockers on a budget, as the difference between a K and non-K CPU can be at an upwards of $80. This gives people a chance to overclock without risking the loss of a far more expensive CPU. 

 

If someone goes on a Haswell witch hunt, don't just call them a liar or wrong. Provide evidence against their claim. When they fail to offer a retort, then the people will know the truth. Word against word is pointless. 

[App4that]

I hear ya @MageTank, I'm actually rooting for AMD and Zen to put some stress on Intel not only so that they have a reason to improve, but to put an end to the in fighting.

[don_svetlio]

I guess you don't mean Newegg US?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113284&cm_re=FX-8350-_-19-113-284-_-Product

I could've sworn it was 150$ yesterday ._.

[ManWithBeard1990]

that will only bring a perfomance increase of around 5%

That is a ridiculous underestimation. It has to be more than that. Remember the current crop of FX products is the Piledriver architecture. If we compare the 760K, which isn't FX but is Piledriver, to the Steamroller-based 860K, there's an alround 15% improvement. On top of that the Excavator-based (mobile) APUs delivered another 10% above what their Steamroller-based predecessors could do, provided the manufacturer didn't kill it with ridiculously low TDP limits. These gains do take into account the lower clock speeds of the newer products.

The big unknown here, though, is what the attainable frequencies will be for these things. Among the more recent 28nm process and the use of HDL libraries, chances are the overclocking headroom will have taken a hit. On the other hand, the IPC improvements will likely be at least as high if not higher in the FX chips because they have L3 cache, and needn't share memory bandwith with increasingly powerful integrated graphics.

[FruitBasketSilex]

No, I'm talking about drivers. But I understand that you being a AMD fan means you are unfamiliar with what a drive is. I kid if course.

Well, kinda kidding. The drivers from AMD would be better if a blind lab rat was placed in charge of production.

He says while nvidia continues shitting out poor drivers.

Currently, AMD is doings quite well with its drivers, and NVIDIA is currently do poorly. It tends to flip flop from one side to the other though, no side truly makes better drivers.

[MrDynamicMan]

For $220 USD you can get i5 which will be a lot better in any game out there than the FX8350 from AMD so that is the reason why 8350 is no longer recommended even for budget builds.

Ahem. Cheap render boxes and VMs thrive off of the 8350.

[Prysin]

That is a ridiculous underestimation. It has to be more than that. Remember the current crop of FX products is the Piledriver architecture. If we compare the 760K, which isn't FX but is Piledriver, to the Steamroller-based 860K, there's an alround 15% improvement. On top of that the Excavator-based (mobile) APUs delivered another 10% above what their Steamroller-based predecessors could do, provided the manufacturer didn't kill it with ridiculously low TDP limits. These gains do take into account the lower clock speeds of the newer products.

The big unknown here, though, is what the attainable frequencies will be for these things. Among the more recent 28nm process and the use of HDL libraries, chances are the overclocking headroom will have taken a hit. On the other hand, the IPC improvements will likely be at least as high if not higher in the FX chips because they have L3 cache, and needn't share memory bandwith with increasingly powerful integrated graphics.

ive never ever seen a REAL Excavator benchmark. Linkz or its bullshit.

 

AMD claimed something like 30% better single core performance vs steamroller. THAT i call bullshit on. But 10%, given the density, doesnt seem right.

if both chips run the same clocks, excavator should be more then 10% faster. Probably not more then 15% though.

 

 

@MageTank

Haswell is dead and worthless, because there is no way forward.

No new tech.

Issues with upcoming tech (NVMe most notably, seeing as not all Z97 use ACTUAL Gen3 connectors for their M.2, instead they use Gen2 x4 which tops out at 1500MB/s)

 

Also, broadwell is clocked lower then haswell, so which broadwell CPU are you referring to? equally clocked matchups?

[ManWithBeard1990]

ive never ever seen a REAL Excavator benchmark. Linkz or its bullshit.

 

AMD claimed something like 30% better single core performance vs steamroller. THAT i call bullshit on. But 10%, given the density, doesnt seem right.

if both chips run the same clocks, excavator should be more then 10% faster. Probably not more then 15% though.

 

 

@MageTank

Haswell is dead and worthless, because there is no way forward.

No new tech.

Issues with upcoming tech (NVMe most notably, seeing as not all Z97 use ACTUAL Gen3 connectors for their M.2, instead they use Gen2 x4 which tops out at 1500MB/s)

 

Also, broadwell is clocked lower then haswell, so which broadwell CPU are you referring to? equally clocked matchups?

You're right, we haven't. Not real ones where the CPU wasn't being throttled by its 15W TDP limit anyway. (Mobile Carrizo can be configured between 15 and 25, and most manufacturers choose to go with 15, it seems). The 10% quoted is taking into account the lower clock speeds (though admittedly the article where I read that did not give benchmark results), as were the ones from Steamroller.

The important part is that an Excavator FX will probably improve upon the current FX lineup by at least 20%, and that's a conservative estimate. Is this too little too late? Possibly, but it will at least make the chip viable again for budget builds that aren't only focused on parallel performance.

[WereCat]

Ahem. Cheap render boxes and VMs thrive off of the 8350.

I agree with you but I said "in games" which I think that OP will use it in particular.

[MageTank]

ive never ever seen a REAL Excavator benchmark. Linkz or its bullshit.

 

AMD claimed something like 30% better single core performance vs steamroller. THAT i call bullshit on. But 10%, given the density, doesnt seem right.

if both chips run the same clocks, excavator should be more then 10% faster. Probably not more then 15% though.

 

 

@MageTank

Haswell is dead and worthless, because there is no way forward.

No new tech.

Issues with upcoming tech (NVMe most notably, seeing as not all Z97 use ACTUAL Gen3 connectors for their M.2, instead they use Gen2 x4 which tops out at 1500MB/s)

 

Also, broadwell is clocked lower then haswell, so which broadwell CPU are you referring to? equally clocked matchups?

Find me a scenario in which the average gamer needs an NVME drive. Haswell has no future upgrades, this is true, but Skylake only has one future upgrade in it (Kaby Lake), and we do not know if it is going to be that great. Apples to Apples, Haswell and Skylake are going to be the same when it comes to gaming performance. My statement on Broadwell being faster for gaming came from a reviewer that left all 3 CPU's on their stock settings (boost enabled) and tested them in several games. http://www.maximumpc.com/intel-skylake-review/

 

The numbers are not so random when you think about it. Skylake did get a 5% IPC boost over Haswell, but its FPU performance dipped by 6%. So Broadwell having a raw 3% IPC boost over Haswell and not losing any FPU performance, it turned out to be slightly better for gaming. However, this changes once you factor in overclocking, as Broadwell overclocks very poorly, but still. 

 

For people building a new machine as of right now, Haswell is not a bad option. Skylake at the moment is expensive due to short supply and high demand. Paying around $60-$100 more for a CPU that performs almost identical to a 4790k is just absurd, even if the Z170 platform is superior in every regard. Once Skylake's K SKU prices return from orbit, maybe then Haswell will go the way of Ivy and Sandy, but that could still be months from now. 

 

Only other option would be for people to buy non-K Skylake SKU's and touch that BCLK, but many people fear this option as it is unknown if Intel will try to combat this (Again, my money is on no, as they knew this would happen) but their fear is 100% understandable.

[Prysin]

You're right, we haven't. Not real ones where the CPU wasn't being throttled by its 15W TDP limit anyway. (Mobile Carrizo can be configured between 15 and 25, and most manufacturers choose to go with 15, it seems). The 10% quoted is taking into account the lower clock speeds (though admittedly the article where I read that did not give benchmark results), as were the ones from Steamroller.

The important part is that an Excavator FX will probably improve upon the current FX lineup by at least 20%, and that's a conservative estimate. Is this too little too late? Possibly, but it will at least make the chip viable again for budget builds that aren't only focused on parallel performance.

wrong, 15-35W