i7 Thoughts

[Nena Trinity]

Just now, manikyath said:

well, all passmark does is give you one number (which unfortunately, very often is flawed as well...)

 

i prefer userbenchmark because you can use it to refer to the differences, rather than just debating about a honestly not very meaningful number.

 

for example the FX8350 still wins over skylake i5's if you *can* utilize all 8 of those cores, but if you cant, the FX's downsides quickly start to weigh down it's honestly very few upsides.

My FX-8370 does all I need it to, my Athlon X4 on the other hand seems to dip under 60 here and there on some games. Even if it is better at IPC and running at same GHz... (I will not call the experience with the 880K unplayable but these dips to 55fps on my 75hz monitor is annoying!)  

[SLAYR]

6 minutes ago, Nena360 said:

Yes but at the top it still says the 6700K wins... (I trust passmark a bit more but that suck to...)

The first number for effective speed favors single/quad core use because it is for "real world usage" (gaming/desktop use) but under average user results it shows that the two chips are closer in speed.

 

The major complaint I have about it is that they do not show all of the tested chips escprvially xeons under the compare section, so you have to manually find the chips in their system.

 

[FPS-Russia]

Even in Russia we laugh at CPU boss. But here mostly CPU boss laugh at us, like all thing in Russia.

[Nena Trinity]

1 minute ago, SLAYR said:

The first number for effective speed favors single/quad core use because it is for "real world usage" (gaming/desktop use) but under average user results it shows that the two chips are closer in speed.

 

The major complaint I have about it is that they do not show all of the tested chips escprvially xeons under the compare section, so you have to manually find the chips in their system.

 

My experience with PCs is that quad-cores is the bare minimum. (even that can stutter in the worst unoptimized pile of crap games hehe...) 

[FPS-Russia]

OP get the 6800k, best CPU i have ever got, i went from i7 970, happy.

[manikyath]

Just now, Nena360 said:

My FX-8370 does all I need it to, my Athlon X4 on the other hand seems to dip under 60 here and there on some games. Even if it is better at IPC and running at same GHz... (I will not call the experience with the 880K unplayable but these dips to 55fps on my 75hz monitor is annoying!)  

well, FX's upside is that its still cheaper than intel, has quite legendary overclocking potential, and even thouygh its potato cores, there's 8 of them.

 

downsides:

- its a HOT chip, especially when overclocked, which means you by default need a bigger cooler, and for those who care will draw more energy

- i've seen *one* cheap motherboard with the amount of VRMs i'm comfortable seeing with an FX 8-core.

- limited to DDR3 and PCIe2.0 (PCIe2.0 is kind of just a technicality, but when needing high amounts of ram DDR4 is actually a damn good value compared to DDR3)

- whenever you need single core performance... its just not there.. it's acceptable for the great majority of applications, its just nothing more than that.

4 minutes ago, Nena360 said:

My experience with PCs is that quad-cores is the bare minimum. (even that can stutter in the worst unoptimized pile of crap games hehe...) 

until you realise some unoptimized pile of crap games still run everything single core

[Nena Trinity]

1 minute ago, manikyath said:

until you realise some unoptimized pile of crap games still run everything single core

But that is exactly the weird thing, the 860K/880K should then be better than the FX-8370 when both run at 4.3GHz, which it is not in many games... o3o

[manikyath]

Just now, Nena360 said:

But that is exactly the weird thing, the 860K/880K should then be better than the FX-8370 when both run at 4.3GHz, which it is not in many games... o3o

well.. it depends on which games.

 

the FSX fanboiiz can tell you how much they want to LN2 overclock a dualcore for their gaming experience 

[Nena Trinity]

2 minutes ago, manikyath said:

well.. it depends on which games.

 

the FSX fanboiiz can tell you how much they want to LN2 overclock a dualcore for their gaming experience 

In Overwatch the Athlon X4 is worse than the FX-4300 it seems, but that game is greatly optimized. And then we got these games such as CS:GO where the FX 8-cores beats the X4 again even if people "claim" the game can only use 3-threads... o3o

[manikyath]

1 minute ago, Nena360 said:

In Overwatch the Athlon X4 is worse than the FX-4300 it seems, but that game is greatly optimized. And then we got these games such as CS:GO where the FX 8-cores beats the X4 again even if people "claim" the game can only use 3-threads... o3o

source engine is a werid critter, it is very defenately designed for two cores, but seemingly something happened along the way, and it kinda seems to perform the same no matter the amount of cores i make it use on my i7...

(which was very much NOT the case a while ago)

[Nena Trinity]

Just now, manikyath said:

source engine is a werid critter, it is very defenately designed for two cores, but seemingly something happened along the way, and it kinda seems to perform the same no matter the amount of cores i make it use on my i7...

(which was very much NOT the case a while ago)

Oh and Grey Goo is the worst, it uses up to 8-cores but prefers 1 strong core. That is one of those games I class as can use more cores but does not fully utilize them... (yet the X4 lose here simply because the 4 cores gets bombarded while the FX manages to spread the load more even if its first core gets the majority work load...) That is why people I always vote for FX-6300 over a 880K most games run better with more cores.  

[manikyath]

4 minutes ago, Nena360 said:

Oh and Grey Goo is the worst, it uses up to 8-cores but prefers 1 strong core. That is one of those games I class as can use more cores but does not fully utilize them... (yet the X4 lose here simply because the 4 cores gets bombarded while the FX manages to spread the load more even if its first core gets the majority work load...) That is why people I always vote for FX-6300 over a 880K most games run better with more cores.  

here's another one to add to that list:

minecraft server can basicly use any amount of threads you throw at it, but about 95% of the math will be done in one thread.

[msvelev]

 

Watch this video. 6700 will be better for you. It is better than the 4790.

However both CPUs will be good enough, get the chapter one.