neewbie building gaming pc

[LionSpeck]

Just now, REAPER-Nam said:

The fact of the matter is, i7 if you want better stability and better futureproofing (and more bragging rights i guess), i5 if you want to save money

Why would you get better stability out of an i7?

[REAPER-Nam]

1 minute ago, LionSpeck said:

Why would you get better stability out of an i7?

Simple... NO HYPERTHREADING ON THE i5. it should be a sin to do something like that. Also along with better igpu (doesnt really matter) it has more cache and can handle higher workloads and better multi task performance (who doesnt listen to music while gaming and maybe have files copying in the background)

[LionSpeck]

Just now, REAPER-Nam said:

Simple... NO HYPERTHREADING ON THE i5. it should be a sin to do something like that. Also along with better igpu (doesnt really matter) it has more cache and can handle higher workloads and better multi task performance (who doesnt listen to music while gaming and maybe have files copying in the background)

I agree with the fact that an i7 gives you better performance* (only for workloads that rely on a high number of threads), it has a better iGPU and more cache. I don't agree with the listening to music while playing a game and copying files, because the music playback affects mainly the audio chip (I have an i5 and foobar uses less than 1% of CPU), the file copying uses 0-1% of CPU (it pretty much relies only on the disks).
Still, all you said has absolutely nothing to do with stability. Period. Performance and stability are two completely different things, and i5s could be as stable as i7s.

[REAPER-Nam]

1 minute ago, LionSpeck said:

I agree with the fact that an i7 gives you better performance* (only for workloads that rely on a high number of threads), it has a better iGPU and more cache. I don't agree with the listening to music while playing a game and copying files, because the music playback affects mainly the audio chip (I have an i5 and foobar uses less than 1% of CPU), the file copying uses 0-1% of CPU (it pretty much relies only on the disks).
Still, all you said has absolutely nothing to do with stability. Period. Performance and stability are two completely different things, and i5s could be as stable as i7s.

Stability is based off of benchmarks. The difference between min and max fps and the fluctuation is far lower on an i7 than an i5

[LionSpeck]

1 minute ago, REAPER-Nam said:

Stability is based off of benchmarks. The difference between min and max fps and the fluctuation is far lower on an i7 than an i5

That is not stability. That is consistency, which is a lot different.

[REAPER-Nam]

4 minutes ago, LionSpeck said:

That is not stability. That is consistency, which is a lot different.

Stability refers to getting stable (constant) framerates , it wont spike as often, nor as much as an i5 would. Hence NOT a lot different.

[Zyndo]

34 minutes ago, tlink said:

yea, maybe first listen to someones arguments and data before dismissing it.

Okay..... i watched the first several games (no i'm not spending 15 minutes watching a video to confirm what I already know and the video already consistently shows)..... Here are a couple of things to note about what you are claiming to be a 6600k CPU bottleneck...

 

1. He is running a 6600k at 4.0 GHz in this video. You can very easily get to 4.4 GHz (or much more) without breaking a sweat on literally any 6600k no matter of your silicon lottery or CPU cooler (so long as its a hyper 212 or more). These benchmarks are not indicative of what you will see in the real world performance of a 6600k because people are not going to be running a 6600k at 4.0 GHz. That barely even qualifies as an overclock, considering it boosts to 3.9 GHz on its own

2. in the first 8 minutes of the video the CPU utilization spent most of its time between 40%-70% (if the CPU was bottlenecking his system it would have been at or near 100%) when gaming at 60 fps. it was dependent on the game, and what you were doing in that game. This result is exactly what I said it would be. the only time it went over 90% was when it hit 100% in Wither 3 during running through a city on the horse. and even then that game was going from 70% to 100% and back to 60% then to 100%... I would wager that is due to faulty monitoring software, or some other application running on the computer. He was doing nothing in the game to warrant such CPU usage spikes.

3. In several of his games when he was unable to hit his 60 fps cap do you know how he fixed that? he changed the GRAPHICS settings. the fps went straight up immediately after that. This is indicative of a GPU bottleneck, not a CPU bottleneck. This is concurrent with my statement that a 1060 cannot outrun a 6600k (and it couldn't even come close to doing that in spite of the 6600k being handicapped at 4.0GHz)

 

Like I said before. Anyone who thinks a 6600k can be dwarfed by a GTX 1060 doesn't know what they're talking about, or they are skewing their results in someway. Looks like you are the former, rather than the later.

 

 

The reason I "dismissed" your argument is because that video you were claiming had information about a 6600k bottleneck at 60 fps came from digital foundry. There is a video in this thread already from digital foundry (posted by Prometheus) that shows a 6600k getting well over 100 fps most of the time in most of the CPU bound games that you were quoting (this time, running at a more reasonable 4.5 GHz). There would be no good reason for the CPU being unable to manage even 60 fps after a result like that.

 

 

People are so damn paranoid about CPU bottlenecks nowadays that they fail to see any other evidence that is in front of their faces. a 6600k can get 100-ish fps or more most of the time in most of these games. and these games are the WORST CASE SCENARIOS for that workload. they are not representative of gaming as a whole. the other 95% of games on the market are DESTROYED by a 6600k. I'm not trying to say the i7's don't have a place in gaming (I myself have a 6700k for the sole purpose of gaming) what I'm trying to say is that a 6600k is VERY VERY VERY good for gaming already, and unless you're intending to be playing at 144hz on the most intense games on the market (in which case you're going to need a GTX 1080 at least and/or turn a lot of graphical settings down from the ultra settings) all anyone needs is an i5 6600k (even that is overkill, an i5 6400 is plenty for 60 Hz gaming)

[LionSpeck]

33 minutes ago, REAPER-Nam said:

Stability refers to getting stable (constant) framerates , it wont spike as often, nor as much as an i5 would. Hence NOT a lot different.

Stability (referring to computers / PC components) refers to the overall system stability. Crashes, freezes, BSODs and such are symptoms of a low stability. Low performance / frame rate is not.
There is a big difference.

Quote

"Computer stability" is somewhat of a misnomer. The term "stability" is related to the physical properties of an object, meaning "it won't tip or fall down". In the computing world, the term "stability" is used (by analogy, and rather liberally) to any situation involving a computer crash (or "downfall").

Source: https://rudd-o.com/archives/stability-exposed-why-your-computer-crashes-and-what-you-can-do-about-it

PS: When talking about frame rate stability, it's common sense to explicitly say frame rate stability, rather than hoping the others will understand or read our minds.

[Constantin Mihaila]

thx a lot guys, i've learn some stuff.I'll check for some better ram and psu then, the rest i'll leave them like that.Thank you again for advices. 

[Blue_Meanie]

12 hours ago, Constantin Mihaila said:

i'm bulding my next gaming pc in a local shop fromManchester. What should i change or to improve and also if the princess are ok or overpriced?

take a look https://www.aria.co.uk/WishList/nf5WH9UH5amuDPCFsa6e0w,,

Get at least a gold tiered psu, 2 * 8 gb of ddr4 memory and you will be all set

[Constantin Mihaila]

i've made some changes ... what do you think guys ? https://www.aria.co.uk/WishList/YIIfjr5bNM_hnCp4uEeERA,,