Which is better

[Clanscorpia]

14 minutes ago, Aereldor said:

Even when overclocked to 4.5 GHz and beyond? Should be easily achievable with any Z170 motherboard and a cheap cooler like a Gammaxx 400. I daresay 4.7 or 4.8 might be just as likely.

 

Also, what games do these prominent CPU bottlenecks occur in? 

Yes even then. And its a long list of basically every AAA game released this year

[Woofly94]

3 minutes ago, TheRandomness said:

Why not a cheap 1080 and the 6700k?  Fine, the system with the 1080 but I'd still rather be able to recycle at least some of the parts of a PC, not just build a new one every two years. 

Because I'm buying the i7 6700 from my mate, he has brand new one and he's selling it for £100 so I can put that £200 and get a GTX 1080

[TheRandomness]

1 minute ago, Woofly94 said:

Because I'm buying the i7 6700 from my mate, he has brand new one and he's selling it for £100 so I can put that £200 and get a GTX 1080

Riiight.. I won't question why he's just selling a new one, but go with that then. 

[Woofly94]

1 minute ago, TheRandomness said:

Riiight.. I won't question why he's just selling a new one, but go with that then. 

He bought it for his system but he never built it, and he owes me money so we came to an agreement, it's long story.

[TheRandomness]

1 minute ago, Woofly94 said:

He bought it for his system but he never built it, and he owes me money so we came to an agreement, it's long story.

Oh.. well then. 1080 and 6700 it is, I guess, for you. 

[Woofly94]

2 minutes ago, TheRandomness said:

Oh.. well then. 1080 and 6700 it is, I guess, for you. 

I can see you're still not sold

[TheRandomness]

2 minutes ago, Woofly94 said:

I can see you're still not sold

How about we agree to disagree?

[Woofly94]

2 minutes ago, TheRandomness said:

How about we agree to disagree?

I agree to that

[Aereldor]

18 minutes ago, TheRandomness said:

Battlefield 1 is the first that comes to mind

CPU performance comparison at 1:30. Sure, this is at 4k, but the only deviation in performance occurs when dropping down to a hyperthreaded dual-core, and it's only about 10% slower. The only substantial drop in performance occurs when moving down to a non-hyperthreaded dual core like a Pentium or Celeron (which signifies the death of the $300 build in my signature).

 

 

[TheRandomness]

Just now, Aereldor said:

CPU performance comparison at 1:30. Sure, this is at 4k, but the only deviation in performance occurs when dropping down to a hyperthreaded dual-core, and it's only about 10% slower. The only substantial drop in performance occurs when moving down to a non-hyperthreaded dual core like a Pentium or Celeron (which signifies the death of the $300 build in my signature).

 

 

You even said it yourself. 'This is at 4K' Well of course it's not going to bottleneck that much, the GPU is going to be working itself to death running at 4K  The CPU wouldn't really be doing much at that res aside from minor physics stuff, but once you lower the resolution the difference becomes more obvious. 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, TheRandomness said:

You even said it yourself. 'This is at 4K' Well of course it's not going to bottleneck that much, the GPU is going to be working itself to death running at 4K  The CPU wouldn't really be doing much at that res aside from minor physics stuff, but once you lower the resolution the difference becomes more obvious. 

But the real question would you get a GTX 1080 to play at 1080p and get 108+ FPS? 

[TheRandomness]

2 minutes ago, deXxterlab97 said:

But the real question would you get a GTX 1080 to play at 1080p and get 108+ FPS? 

I'd preferably get more. Maybe GTX 1080 at 1080p for Gmod at 1080 FPS?

[2FA]

4 minutes ago, Aereldor said:

CPU performance comparison at 1:30. Sure, this is at 4k, but the only deviation in performance occurs when dropping down to a hyperthreaded dual-core, and it's only about 10% slower. The only substantial drop in performance occurs when moving down to a non-hyperthreaded dual core like a Pentium or Celeron (which signifies the death of the $300 build in my signature).

 

 

I have a 6600K at stock speeds with a 980ti. I also have a 1440p 144Hz monitor and I usually get 80+ FPS with the settings I play. That doesn't mean the frame times are decent though which is my experience. The game feels like it stutters which makes it feel like I'm playing at about 55 FPS instead of the ~90 I'm usually at.

 

TL;DR There is more to bottlenecking than just FPS count. Frame times matter as well.

[2FA]

6 minutes ago, TheRandomness said:

You even said it yourself. 'This is at 4K' Well of course it's not going to bottleneck that much, the GPU is going to be working itself to death running at 4K  The CPU wouldn't really be doing much at that res aside from minor physics stuff, but once you lower the resolution the difference becomes more obvious. 

The CPU does the same amount of work regardless, it's just that the limiting factor becomes the GPU and not the CPU.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, TheRandomness said:

I'd preferably get more. Maybe GTX 1080 at 1080p for Gmod at 1080 FPS?

IS there actually a limit to how many frames a game can get? Because it's not possible and console peasants will claim higher fps result in screen tearing

[Aereldor]

6 minutes ago, TheRandomness said:

You even said it yourself. 'This is at 4K' Well of course it's not going to bottleneck that much, the GPU is going to be working itself to death running at 4K  The CPU wouldn't really be doing much at that res aside from minor physics stuff, but once you lower the resolution the difference becomes more obvious. 

Here- these look like 1080p numbers.

 

 

[TheRandomness]

1 minute ago, Aereldor said:

Here- these look like 1080p numbers.

 

 

I'll have a look tomorrow, it's 03:26 and my arms are complaining from typing this much in such a short space of time on my iPad  (multiple threads)

2 minutes ago, deXxterlab97 said:

IS there actually a limit to how many frames a game can get? Because it's not possible and console peasants will claim higher fps result in screen tearing

Probably not... 11080 FPS bby!

[2FA]

4 minutes ago, deXxterlab97 said:

IS there actually a limit to how many frames a game can get? Because it's not possible and console peasants will claim higher fps result in screen tearing

I've gotten like 2000 FPS in the menus of some games. I'm sure there is a technical limit on FPS for each GPU that could be conducted with a simple graphic test but I don't see a point to that since it would be useless and unrealistic information.

[Aereldor]

2 minutes ago, TheRandomness said:

I'll have a look tomorrow, it's 03:26 and my arms are complaining from typing this much in such a short space of time on my iPad  (multiple threads)

Of course. Get some sleep; we can talk about this tomorrow. 

 

For now, I'm leaving this as substantiation that a 6600k provides ample processing power even in the most demanding gaming situations. To me, a 6700k will only make sense if you're planning on using your computer for heavy productivity tasks; video editing, rendering, 3d modelling, virtualization (although you'll just land up with two Core i3s).

[Woofly94]

19 minutes ago, Aereldor said:

Of course. Get some sleep; we can talk about this tomorrow. 

 

For now, I'm leaving this as substantiation that a 6600k provides ample processing power even in the most demanding gaming situations. To me, a 6700k will only make sense if you're planning on using your computer for heavy productivity tasks; video editing, rendering, 3d modelling, virtualization (although you'll just land up with two Core i3s).

But it doesnt, i5 6600k is 10fps less than a i7 6700k in GTA V and witcher 3

[Aereldor]

Just now, Woofly94 said:

But it doesnt, i5 6600k is 10fps less than a i7 6700k in GTA V and witcher 3

Sure, there's going to be a much more pronounced difference with a GTX 1080 or 1070 at 1080p. That's why we use percentages rather than frame counts. How much % slower is it? I could be wrong, depending on how those numbers stack up.

[Woofly94]

1 minute ago, Aereldor said:

Sure, there's going to be a much more pronounced difference with a GTX 1080 or 1070 at 1080p. That's why we use percentages rather than frame counts. How much % slower is it? I could be wrong, depending on how those numbers stack up.

I'm talking about pure i5 6600k vs i7 6700k with the same GPU, I saw a video where an i5 6600k is 10 fps slower than a i7 6700k in witcher 3, and even more in GTA V