i5-6600k or i7-6700k? What is better for Gaming?

[stealth80]

 

Rare indeed, but this is what the reviewer means, look at the green and turquoise frame rates, they're bouncing all over, and look at the i7's brown/red, smooth

[HorrorCosmic]

3 minutes ago, stealth80 said:

You didn't even watch it .... I just seen a scene in B4 where the i7 6700k at 4.5 ghz had a 32FPS lead on a 6600K at the same clock speed, that was around 30% (138 vs around 104) That's BF4, an old title. I would sacrifice an AIO cooler for the extra 4 threads and add a cooler later if it came to the actual budget

I want to reiterate my first reply on is the performance differences from HT or from something else

 

https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/gaming-benchmarks-core-i7-6700k-hyperthreading-test.219417/

 

I provided the link i got the video just in case

 

Even BF4 showed no difference. Now i understand this is 6700k with and without HT but that is my argument is it really HT?

 

This is all in good fun btw.

 

[stealth80]

2 minutes ago, HorrorCosmic said:

I want to reiterate my first reply on is the performance differences from HT or from something else

 

https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/gaming-benchmarks-core-i7-6700k-hyperthreading-test.219417/

 

I provided the link i got the video just in case

 

Even BF4 showed no difference. Now i understand this is 6700k with and without HT but that is my argument is it really HT?

 

This is all in good fun btw.

 

Oh ofc it's fun, discussion is good, especially when it's someone elses $$$

 

see my above thread, it really sums up the frame rate, that video is showing average FPS, frame rate is where the difference is made, that's where we feel the stutters:

 

Just adding again:

 

 

look at the green and turquoise frame rates, they're bouncing all over, and look at the i7's brown/red, smooth

[Laurence Brenner]

Since im pretty much always going to have some applications open while I play - won't that have much more impact on the i5 than on the i7? (I mean things like Chrome, Kaspersky, TS3, Rainmeter and stuff)

[HorrorCosmic]

11 minutes ago, stealth80 said:

Oh ofc it's fun, discussion is good, especially when it's someone elses $$$

 

see my above thread, it really sums up the frame rate

I saw it, not denying that test showed a large difference between min / max. But the same game was played in my post with a difference of 7 frames (19 frame gap on HT, 26 on non-HT) And i use this to further ask the question about HT. obviously 8 true cores will be best but larger cache can play a major role the performance.

 

 

[Atlblkz06]

27 minutes ago, Laurence Brenner said:

I am definitly going to get a 1080 even if it pushes me a bit beyond the 1.500€ budget. So I dont want the CPU to not be a limiting factor if possible.

Then the 6600 is clearly a poor choice.

So get the 6700K now... UNLESS you want to wait for Ryzen or 7700K

[Laurence Brenner]

5 minutes ago, HorrorCosmic said:

I saw it, not denying that test showed a large difference between min / max. But the same game was played in my post with a difference of 7 frames (19 frame gap on HT, 26 on non-HT) And i use this to further ask the question about HT. obviously 8 true cores will be best but larger cache can play a major role the performance.

 

But looking at all the comparisons they both play games rather well, and depending on what OP's resolution and framerates are, either can be a viable. There's no reason to have 100+ frames if he's going to use a 60hz monitor....unless he upgrades that later on. To which that should be considered into the system build. what resolution and framerates.

I play on a 144hz monitor with some other things open on my second monitor(that only has 60hz).

[HorrorCosmic]

Just now, Laurence Brenner said:

I play on a 144hz monitor with some other things open on my second monitor(that only has 60hz).

Yeah... i just saw your post about the 144hz. As i said before i suggested the 6700k

[stealth80]

6 minutes ago, HorrorCosmic said:

I saw it, not denying that test showed a large difference between min / max. But the same game was played in my post with a difference of 7 frames (19 frame gap on HT, 26 on non-HT) And i use this to further ask the question about HT. obviously 8 true cores will be best but larger cache can play a major role the performance.

 

 

I wasn't really alluding to the FPS, as I stated that's rare as theyre usually quite close. I meant more the Frame Times in the bottom right hand corner

[stealth80]

3 minutes ago, Laurence Brenner said:

I play on a 144hz monitor with some other things open on my second monitor(that only has 60hz).

Honestly I would wait a little longer, RYZEN, Vega, 1080ti, all just around the corner, hell you could end up with a 6900k performance for the price of the 6700k, and even if the performance isn't killer, there should at least be a shake up in prices!

[HorrorCosmic]

5 minutes ago, Laurence Brenner said:

I play on a 144hz monitor with some other things open on my second monitor(that only has 60hz).

just out of curiosity, what are you upgrading from?

[Laurence Brenner]

3 minutes ago, HorrorCosmic said:

just out of curiosity, what are you upgrading from?

gtx 770 windforce OC 4GB - i5-3570K - 2x4GB DDR3 1600mhz ram

[HorrorCosmic]

3 minutes ago, stealth80 said:

Honestly I would wait a little longer, RYZEN, Vega, 1080ti, all just around the corner, hell you could end up with a 6900k performance for the price of the 6700k, and even if the performance isn't killer, there should at least be a shake up in prices!

Thats what i'm waiting on. I'm not a fan of the incremental updates Intel has been doing lately and i'm hoping Ryzen will give intel a needed kick in the ass.

[Laurence Brenner]

9 minutes ago, stealth80 said:

Honestly I would wait a little longer, RYZEN, Vega, 1080ti, all just around the corner, hell you could end up with a 6900k performance for the price of the 6700k, and even if the performance isn't killer, there should at least be a shake up in prices!

Are there any ETA's for those?

[stealth80]

Just now, Laurence Brenner said:

Are there any ETA's for those?

Q1, I've read January 17th for some things, but rumours and speculation

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

1 hour ago, Laurence Brenner said:

Since im pretty much always going to have some applications open while I play - won't that have much more impact on the i5 than on the i7? (I mean things like Chrome, Kaspersky, TS3, Rainmeter and stuff)

 

Yea you'd want to go i7. 

 

One thing that we've not considered for the past years is that the average user will have apps running in the background. 

 

These benchmarks create the perfect benchmark scenario with very minimal apps running in the background. 

 

Background apps are gonna make the minimum frames of the i5 fall harder than it already has.

[Luke]

2 hours ago, lilbman said:

Games won't be utilizing the 6700ks hyperthreading for a loooong time now.  Regardless of which one you get, you'll have a new CPU by that time anyway that probably has hyperthreading.

 

I'd say it doesn't matter as of now.

Games already utilize hyper-threading and have been for a long time. How well they utilize it and how much of an improvement the hyper threading offers is the question. I've done this comparison recently with an i5 2500K and i 2600K both clocked at 4.0Ghz and in a lot of cases the i7 gave a 5-10% increase in FPS and in other cases there was no difference at all.

 

@Laurence Brenner Basically if this PC is for gaming only and you care about your money an i5 will offers 90-100% of the performance for about 30% less money. Simply put an i5 is a better value CPU for gaming and contrary to what a lot of people say it is completely capable of rendering videos etc as well but the difference between no hyper-threading and hyper-threading in video editing is bigger than what it is in gaming. if you're going for an over the top gaming PC (GTX 1080, 32GB RAM etc) then you're already missing the mark for value and might as well just go with the i7 at that point but if you're considering an i7 6700K and GTX 1060 for example you'd be much better off saving the money on the i7 and going with a i5 6600K and a GTX 1070 as it would result in a much higher FPS.

 

 

Edit: Oh and yea definitely wait for RYZEN as it's coming first quarter of 2017 and could offer much better value than what Intel has for sale at the moment.

 

[SpaceGhostC2C]

2 hours ago, Luke said:

Games already utilize hyper-threading and have been for a long time. How well they utilize it and how much of an improvement the hyper threading offers is the question. I've done this comparison recently with an i5 2500K and i 2600K both clocked at 4.0Ghz and in a lot of cases the i7 gave a 5-10% increase in FPS and in other cases there was no difference at all.

That is kind of low for the price difference 

 

Now, nitpicking time: games can't utilize hyperthreading, or not uitilize it. Games, or any program, can't tell the difference between physical and logical cores. All a game can do is ask the OS how many cores are there (and the system will respond "8" in an i7 with HT enabled, "4" otherwise) and adapt to it, or use a fixed number of threads, and let the OS distribute them among whichever amount of cores it sees, physical or not. Hence, game developers don't have to do anything to exploit HT in particular, all they can do is to design the game to use more (fixed) threads simultaneously, or to parallelize a particular routine into as many cores as the OS reports (or N-x if they want to make sure at least x are available for something else).

 

Btw, @HorrorCosmic's point is important, only the HT-on vs HT-off comparisons tell you the effect of HT on gaming. i7 vs i5 comparisons are bringing additional factors to the mix (like additional cache, and stock clocks if not overclocked).