Skylake or better GPU

[don_svetlio]

5 hours ago, TheKDub said:

I don't think you're quite understanding.

 

For a game to see a performance increase from an i7, it must support more than 4 threads.

 

It's obvious that overclocking a CPU will bring better performance, overclocking a CPU isn't the same as adding hyperthreading.

If you were to overclock an i7 6700K, you'd very likely see a performance increase there as well as by overclocking an i5 6600K.

You see, games use a LOT of threads. Check TB's port reports. All 16 threads on his 5960X have about 30% load on them in modern AAA games

 

5 hours ago, TristanKing said:

Build the i5 + 1080 PC since that will give you the best performance by far in most games, then upgrade to a CannonLake CPU next year.

 

That's the best and cheapest upgrade path.

It's easy to recommend bad combos when it's not your money, eh?

[Demiqas]

I didn't really intend on this turning into an argument, but eh, I must say back when I had an i5 4460 I did find my self bottlenecked in a lot of the newer titles.

 

I think I'll just suck it up and go the i7-1080 path anyway.

 

I know about the new CPU lines coming but from what I've seen the improvements are too small for it to be worth the wait.

[TheKDub]

Just now, don_svetlio said:

You see, games use a LOT of threads. Check TB's port reports. All 16 threads on his 5960X have about 30% load on them in modern AAA games

 

Most games tend to only use 1-3 threads of the CPU, that said, not all games are like that, some will use 4 or more threads, though the number of games which do so are rather low.

[don_svetlio]

Just now, TheKDub said:

 

Most games tend to only use 1-3 threads of the CPU, that said, not all games are like that, some will use 4 or more threads, though the number of games which do so are rather low.

Weird - both my laptops see usage on 6-8 threads in almost every modern game.

[TristanKing]

2 minutes ago, don_svetlio said:

It's easy to recommend bad combos when it's not your money, eh?

Bad combo my ass.

 

The i5 + 1080 will give better performance than an i7 + 1070 in the large majority of games, and then by upgrading his CPU to Cannon Lake next year he'd get a faster CPU than an i7 6700k, and a MUCH better overall performance than an i7 and 1070.

 

So he'd be getting the best performance now AND in the future by going i5 + 1080.

[TheKDub]

Just now, don_svetlio said:

Weird - both my laptops see usage on 6-8 threads in almost every modern game.

That doesn't mean that it's the game using all of them.

 

Minecraft as an example, version 1.2.5 only uses a single thread, however I can clearly see utilization increases on all 4 cores of my i5 4690K when playing, especially when loading a new world or loading a bunch of chunks quickly.

 

Just because you see the usage increase, doesn't mean it's the game using the cores.

[don_svetlio]

Just now, TheKDub said:

That doesn't mean that it's the game using all of them.

 

Minecraft as an example, version 1.2.5 only uses a single thread, however I can clearly see utilization increases on all 4 cores of my i5 4690K when playing, especially when loading a new world or loading a bunch of chunks quickly.

 

Just because you see the usage increase, doesn't mean it's the game using the cores.

Then I guess Windows 8.1 uses 50% of 6 threads while idling....

 

2 minutes ago, TristanKing said:

Bad combo my ass.

 

The i5 + 1080 will give better performance than an i7 + 1070 in the large majority of games, and then by upgrading his CPU to Cannon Lake next year he'd get a faster CPU than an i7 6700k, and a MUCH better overall performance than an i7 and 1070.

 

So he'd be getting the best performance now AND in the future by going i5 + 1080.

Nah, he's going to end up with a 1080 that performs identically to a 1070 and he will spend most of his time trying to figure out how alleviate the bottleneck. Anyhow, if he listens to you, his problem.

[CptLameJokes]

2 minutes ago, Dackzy said:

They don't even want to listen to me. (maybe because they know they cannot win this arguement)

Just curious. On the table you posted. Can I generalise it by saying "If OCing the CPU increased significantly the FPS (in correlation on how high you have OCed your CPU ), the CPU is bottlenecking."? Or I'm totally wrong?

 

Thre reason I say that is in shadow of mordor, OCed i7 have 1% increase but OCed i5 have ~4% and they both hit 138 fps

[don_svetlio]

1 minute ago, CptLameJokes said:

Just curious. On the table you posted. Can I generalise it by saying "If OCing the CPU increased significantly the FPS (in correlation on how high you have OCed your CPU ), the CPU is bottlenecking."? Or I'm totally wrong?

 

Thre reason I say that is in shadow of mordor, OCed i7 have 1% increase but OCed i5 have ~4% and they both hit 138 fps

Exactly - if the was no bottleneck, OCing the CPU wouldn't change anything. And that's on a Titan X - 1080 is a good 35% faster meaning that you'd need more CPU horsepower to feed the GPU

[Dackzy]

Just now, CptLameJokes said:

Just curious. On the table you posted. Can I generalise it by saying "If OCing the CPU increased significantly the FPS (in correlation on how high you have OCed your CPU ), the CPU is bottlenecking."? Or I'm totally wrong?

 

Thre reason I say that is in shadow of mordor, OCed i7 have 1% increase but OCed i5 have ~4% and they both hit 138 fps

yes if you OC a CPU and you gain FPS in a game then there is a bottleneck. The thing with OCing is that you shorten the lifespand of the part and the heat goes up, further more not every CPU can OC well. I have build a i7 6700k system for a client and I used 4 days trying to get that CPU to a stable OC and that stable OC was just and I mean just above boost.

[TristanKing]

Just now, don_svetlio said:

Nah, he's going to end up with a 1080 that performs identically to a 1070 and he will spend most of his time trying to figure out how alleviate the bottleneck. Anyhow, if he listens to you, his problem.

Haha, what BS. A 1080 wont perform identically to a 1070 simply because it's paired with a 4960k. An odd few games might have the i5 bottleneck the 1080 a fair bit, but the majority will run great.

 

And like I said, next year he could upgrade to a killer 10nm Cannon Lake CPU for $2-300 and he'd have a beast system with the latest parts.

 

If he went the i7 + 1070 way he'd be stuck with a 1070 until he splashes out on a $600 1080, and then he'd still have a last gen 14nm CPU that would need to be upgraded sooner.

[don_svetlio]

1 minute ago, TristanKing said:

Haha, what BS. A 1080 wont perform identically to a 1070 simply because it's paired with a 4960k. An odd few games might have the i5 bottleneck the 1080 a fair bit, but the majority will run great.

 

And like I said, next year he could upgrade to a killer 10nm Cannon Lake CPU for $2-300 and he'd have a beast system with the latest parts.

 

If he went the i7 + 1070 way he'd be stuck with a 1070 until he splashes out on a $600 1080, and then he'd still have a last gen 14nm CPU that would need to be upgraded sooner.

So next year he should spend 300$ on a new i7 just to be able to fully utilize his aging 1080? Wow, that logic is beyond bad.

[TheKDub]

4 minutes ago, don_svetlio said:

Exactly - if the was no bottleneck, OCing the CPU wouldn't change anything. And that's on a Titan X - 1080 is a good 35% faster meaning that you'd need more CPU horsepower to feed the GPU

 

OC'ing a CPU will increase it's general performance (Single thread primarily), whereas hyperthreading will increase multi-threaded performance.

 

Hyperthreading does not act the same as overclocking.

[TristanKing]

5 minutes ago, don_svetlio said:

So next year he should spend 300$ on a new i7 just to be able to fully utilize his aging 1080? Wow, that logic is beyond bad.

"aging 1080" you mean the "aging 1080" that is faster than the "aging 1070" that you're trying to make him buy?

[don_svetlio]

Just now, TheKDub said:

 

OC'ing a CPU will increase it's general performance (Single thread primarily), whereas hyperthreading will increase multi-threaded performance.

 

Hyperthreading does not act the same as overclocking.

Hyper-threading improves core EFFICIENCY - it means each core will work 20-40% more efficiently resulting in 20-40% higher performance. Remember, HT=/= extra cores.

[don_svetlio]

Just now, TristanKing said:

"aging 1080" you mean the "aging 1080" that is faster than the "aging 1070" that you're trying to make him buy?

The 1070 is about half the price - he could easily just replace the 1070 with a 1170 and get better performance than any 1080 is capable of and still not suffer from bottlenecking thanks to a decent CPU NOW.

[TristanKing]

2 minutes ago, don_svetlio said:

The 1070 is about half the price - he could easily just replace the 1070 with a 1170 and get better performance than any 1080 is capable of and still not suffer from bottlenecking thanks to a decent CPU NOW.

1170? Are you bloody joking? You think he's going to wait 2+ years to get a GPU that doesn't bottleneck his aging CPU?

 

Look at it this way, he's either buying a CPU that bottlenecks the GPU, or a GPU that bottlenecks the CPU.

The former is the cheapest option upgradeability wise and gives him the most performance now and in the future.

[don_svetlio]

Just now, TristanKing said:

1170? Are you bloody joking? You think he's going to wait 2+ years to get a GPU that doesn't bottleneck his aging CPU?

 

Look at it this way, he's either buying a CPU that bottlenecks the GPU, or a GPU that bottlenecks the CPU.

The former is the cheapest option upgradeability wise and gives him the most performance now and in the future.

You do realize that Volta is announced for 2017?

[TheKDub]

Just now, don_svetlio said:

Hyper-threading improves core EFFICIENCY - it means each core will work 20-40% more efficiently resulting in 20-40% higher performance. Remember, HT=/= extra cores.

i7 4790k: 4 Cores, 8 Threads.

i5 4690k: 4 Cores, 4 Threads.

 

If a game cannot utilize more than 4 threads, and the i5 4690k and i7 4790k are running at the same clock speeds, there will be very little, if any difference in performance between the two.

 

Notice that I'm saying threads, not cores.

[don_svetlio]

Just now, TheKDub said:

i7 4790k: 4 Cores, 8 Threads.

i5 4690k: 4 Cores, 4 Threads.

 

If a game cannot utilize more than 4 threads, and the i5 4690k and i7 4790k are running at the same clock speeds, there will be very little, if any difference in performance between the two.

 

Notice that I'm saying threads, not cores.

Notice that games now use more threads. 4 cores max was valid in 2013. It is no longer valid in 2016. The same way in 2011 i3s were all you needed as games only used 2 cores. 2 years later, i5s became the norm. Now, it's time to welcome a more powerful beast.

[TheKDub]

Just now, don_svetlio said:

Notice that games now use more threads. 4 cores max was valid in 2013. It is no longer valid in 2016. The same way in 2011 i3s were all you needed as games only used 2 cores. 2 years later, i5s became the norm. Now, it's time to welcome a more powerful beast.

Again, the majority of games only utilize 1-3 threads; yes, some games do utilize more than 3 threads, however the amount of games which do so is low.

Will we see more games in the future start using more CPU threads? It's possible.

 

With this being said, if someone has room in their budget and would be able to take advantage of the additional computational power, I would suggest an i7 over an i5, however if someone has a budget for their system and wouldn't gain too much from the extra $100 or so spent on an i7, I'd suggest an i5 instead.

[TristanKing]

2 minutes ago, don_svetlio said:

You do realize that Volta is announced for 2017?

No, it was announced for 2018. There are rumours that it COULD be 2017, but it's FAR more likely that it'll be Pascal 2nd generation cards in 2017.

 

But even then you'd still be stuck with your aging i7, almost 3 years old.

[don_svetlio]

Just now, TheKDub said:

Again, the majority of games only utilize 1-3 threads; yes, some games do utilize more than 3 threads, however the amount of games which do so is low.

Will we see more games in the future start using more CPU threads? It's possible.

 

With this being said, if someone has room in their budget and would be able to take advantage of the additional computational power, I would suggest an i7 over an i5, however if someone has a budget for their system and wouldn't gain too much from the extra $100 or so spent on an i7, I'd suggest an i5 instead.

Thing is - we are already seeing that. Look at the releases - almost every AAA game from 2015/2016 supports 8 threads and even RECOMMENDS and i7 3770 or FX 8350.  That is due to the 8-core consoles and the way ports work.

TL:DR - times are changing and just like we went from dual-cores to quad-cores, now we have to go from quad-cores to quad-cores with HT.

[Dackzy]

This thread makes me sad....

 

1. We live in 2016, not 2010-2013

2. Volta is said to be here in 2017

3. The bottleneck problem will only become bigger and a i7 also gives you more stable FPS.

4. Deal with it.

[don_svetlio]

Just now, TristanKing said:

No, it was announced for 2018. There are rumours that it COULD be 2017, but it's FAR more likely that it'll be Pascal 2nd generation cards in 2017.

 

But even then you'd still be stuck with your aging i7, almost 3 years old.

You don't read a lot of news posts, do you? Nvidia announced Volta for 2017