Should I bail on my 6700k

[Thelillypad123]

I just upgraded to a 6700k this past Christmas. With all of Ryzen coming to light, do you think I should bail on my 6700k and z170 pro gaming motherboard before ryzen launches? I would probably sell the combo for like $350. I gotta have a CPU that won't bottleneck a  1080 ti in bf1 or other CPU intensive games.

[The Sloth]

wait for ryzen 

[PCGuy_5960]

2 minutes ago, Thelillypad123 said:

I just upgraded to a 6700k this past Christmas. With all of Ryzen coming to light, do you think I should bail on my 6700k and z170 pro gaming motherboard before ryzen launches? I would probably sell the combo for like $350. I gotta have a CPU that won't bottleneck a  1080 ti in bf1 or other CPU intensive games.

Do you need more than 4 Cores/8 Threads? If you don't, then selling your 6700K for a Ryzen CPU is a complete waste of money

[Mira Yurizaki]

You should make that decision once we actually have some real world benchmarks.

[PCGuy_5960]

1 minute ago, nerdslayer1 said:

wait for ryzen 

He has already bought the 6700K

[Princess Luna]

7 minutes ago, Thelillypad123 said:

I just upgraded to a 6700k this past Christmas. With all of Ryzen coming to light, do you think I should bail on my 6700k and z170 pro gaming motherboard before ryzen launches? I would probably sell the combo for like $350. I gotta have a CPU that won't bottleneck a  1080 ti in bf1 or other CPU intensive games.

It is not like the 6700k bottlenecks the Titan XP...

 

If I were you what I would do is keep this hardware, wait for Ryzen to launch, then wait Intel to respond with the i7 7740k and only then you sell your 6700k and use the money to buy the i7 7740k (do remember to update your bios before selling the 6700k though) and done you're gonna be in the highest end possible for PC gaming on the CPU department.

[Thelillypad123]

3 minutes ago, nerdslayer1 said:

wait for ryzen 

I'm afraid that if I just wait for ryzen to launch, once it launches my setup won't be worth near much at all.

[PCGuy_5960]

2 minutes ago, Thelillypad123 said:

I'm afraid that if I just wait for ryzen to launch, once it launches my setup won't be worth near much at all.

Dude. You don't need 8 Cores for gaming. Additionally, we don't know how much the CPUs will cost... 

[Thelillypad123]

1 minute ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

Dude. You don't need 8 Cores for gaming. Additionally, we don't know how much the CPUs will cost... 

Some games are going that way. Also, if ryzen is successful, it could change the mainstream core thread usage argument. I was told that my 4 core 4 thread i5 was all I needed. I'm trying to avoid another similar scenario happening with my i7, if that makes any sense.

[TVwazhere]

You'll be fine. 

[PCGuy_5960]

3 minutes ago, Thelillypad123 said:

Some games are going that way. Also, if ryzen is successful, it could change the mainstream core thread usage argument. I was told that my 4 core 4 thread i5 was all I needed. I'm trying to avoid another similar scenario happening with my i7, if that makes any sense.

Well, developers rarely optimize for 8 cores/ 16 threads because very few people have such CPUs. That being said, games are starting to use 6 cores and 12 threads (and can max them out), so if you sell your 6700K and get a 5820K/6800K now, or wait another month for Ryzen, you will have a more "futureproof" PC.

[Mira Yurizaki]

3 minutes ago, Thelillypad123 said:

Some games are going that way. Also, if ryzen is successful, it could change the mainstream core thread usage argument. I was told that my 4 core 4 thread i5 was all I needed. I'm trying to avoid another similar scenario happening with my i7, if that makes any sense.

While I would like to say any reasonably sane publisher will not tell their developers to target high-end machines, I would also like to say that whoever publishes the requirements for the games are marketers who want to make their game sound impressive when in reality, no, it doesn't require that much horse power.

 

For example, Battlefield 1's minimum requirement is an AMD FX-6350. Though on the Intel side, they said an i5-6600K is required. Does EA have any idea what the performance difference is between the two even in multithreaded tasks? http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1281?vs=1544. Case of marketers writing something developers should've written.

[Matias_Chambers]

16 minutes ago, Princess Cadence said:

It is not like the 6700k bottlenecks the Titan XP...

Digital foundry said that the 6700K bottlenecked it at 1080p. But I guess who'd buy a Titan XP for 1080p?

[NumLock21]

e-peen contest is stupid. Enjoy your 6700K for many years.

[Thelillypad123]

54 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

Well, developers rarely optimize for 8 cores/ 16 threads because very few people have such CPUs. That being said, games are starting to use 6 cores and 12 threads (and can max them out), so if you sell your 6700K and get a 5820K/6800K now, or wait another month for Ryzen, you will have a more "futureproof" PC.

Yeah, I know it is only a few, like bf1 in specific. However, I'm not sure if it really accounts for an fps difference or not really. I think bf1 uses 6 cores but not efficiently like you'd expect.

[Echo259]

Its a gamble. Personally I wouldn't do it. I upgraded my system to an i7-6700k in November. There was a good bundle deal with a mobo that I wanted. Even if Ryzen comes out with a model that beats the i7 at a lower price point I would have been using my system for at lest 6 months. I accept that as the normal tech advancement.

 

If Ryzen completely blows away the i7 it would still take another year or so before games can fully take advantage of it. In which case I would cut my normal upgrade cycle from 5 years to 3-4 years. I would still feel I got my money's worth.  

[Teddy07]

1 hour ago, Thelillypad123 said:

I just upgraded to a 6700k this past Christmas. With all of Ryzen coming to light, do you think I should bail on my 6700k and z170 pro gaming motherboard before ryzen launches? I would probably sell the combo for like $350. I gotta have a CPU that won't bottleneck a  1080 ti in bf1 or other CPU intensive games.

I see intels marketing works perfectly cause that´s exactly what they want you to believe.

[Thelillypad123]

18 minutes ago, Teddy07 said:

I see intels marketing works perfectly cause that´s exactly what they want you to believe.

Intel's marketing? I'm just worried about 4c/8t becoming inferior to 6c/12t and above. 

 

Edit: in terms of gaming performance 

[PCGuy_5960]

7 hours ago, Thelillypad123 said:

Yeah, I know it is only a few, like bf1 in specific. However, I'm not sure if it really accounts for an fps difference or not really. I think bf1 uses 6 cores but not efficiently like you'd expect.

Actually, both BF1 and Watch_dogs 2 use 6 cores and 12 threads very efficiently. But, we don't know whether other games will start using 12 threads. The choice is really up you. But even if games do start using 12 or 16 Threads, those CPUs would outperform the 6700K by around 5-10FPS. If you feel like you need those 5-10FPS more, then by all means upgrade to a 6 core/8 core CPU. 

[Thelillypad123]

5 hours ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

Actually, both BF1 and Watch_dogs 2 use 6 cores and 12 threads very efficiently. But, we don't know whether other games will start using 12 threads. The choice is really up you. But even if games do start using 12 or 16 Threads, those CPUs would outperform the 6700K by around 5-10FPS. If you feel like you need those 5-10FPS more, then by all means upgrade to a 6 core/8 core CPU. 

yeah, I guess what I was trying to say actually was that even though my 6700k hits 99% usage in bf1, and the 5820k hardly goes over 50% at times, they still have a negligible FPS difference between the two which I don't understand being possible really, since when I had my 4690k hitting 99% usage, it would tank my framerate.

[scottyseng]

10 minutes ago, Thelillypad123 said:

-snip-

I wouldn't use CPU cores and usage too much. What matters more for games is how fast each thread is. For example, one of my games (Sorry, I don't game much) is a single core game. It runs at 50-60% load on my 2500K. I recently bought a cheap 2700K and OC'd it to match the 2500K at 4.6Ghz. The same game runs at 25%-30% load and is notably keeping up at 60fps a lot better.

 

On my server, I have a 14 core 2.2GHz Xeon E5-2695V3. The game runs at 5% of the CPU. I'm sure you can guess that my server can't run the game all that well. Pretty much even if the CPU is pinned at max, as long as it can keep feeding the GPU (You should look at the GPU usage and see if it dips up / down rapidly), it's good.

 

Also, even on my cousin's 5820K, the clock speed couldn't get so high due to heat (Wow, that CPU needs a lot of cooling). More cores do help if you like to hoard chrome tabs though or have a lot of open applications like me.

 

I personally would say keep the 6700K...actually, have you overclocked it yet? I'm still amazed BF1 is pinning the 6700K to 99% (Sorry, not a gamer...I mostly do content creation work with my PCs / server).

[Thelillypad123]

22 minutes ago, scottyseng said:

I wouldn't use CPU cores and usage too much. What matters more for games is how fast each thread is. For example, one of my games (Sorry, I don't game much) is a single core game. It runs at 50-60% load on my 2500K. I recently bought a cheap 2700K and OC'd it to match the 2500K at 4.6Ghz. The same game runs at 25%-30% load and is notably keeping up at 60fps a lot better.

 

On my server, I have a 14 core 2.2GHz Xeon E5-2695V3. The game runs at 5% of the CPU. I'm sure you can guess that my server can't run the game all that well. Pretty much even if the CPU is pinned at max, as long as it can keep feeding the GPU (You should look at the GPU usage and see if it dips up / down rapidly), it's good.

 

Also, even on my cousin's 5820K, the clock speed couldn't get so high due to heat (Wow, that CPU needs a lot of cooling). More cores do help if you like to hoard chrome tabs though or have a lot of open applications like me.

 

I personally would say keep the 6700K...actually, have you overclocked it yet? I'm still amazed BF1 is pinning the 6700K to 99% (Sorry, not a gamer...I mostly do content creation work with my PCs / server).

Yeah, depending on the map my CPU usage can be anywhere from 75-100% the whole game. Sadly, because I like to have really high fps because I'm competitive, I turn down the settings so that my 1070 can get 144 fps constantly, but because the CPU is pegged at 100%, it makes it almost impossible. I haven't overclocked yet though, but I mean what is going from the 4.2 Ghz boost clock to 4.6 Ghz really gonna do for me?

[scottyseng]

8 minutes ago, Thelillypad123 said:

-snip-

Oh wow, I didn't think BF1 was that CPU hungry. Interesting. What's the GPU usage like though?

 

Well, 4.2GHz to 4.6GHz is roughly a 9% gain, it may help your fps a bit more than you'd think. You may or may not be able to get a higher OC due to cooling / silicon lottery though. I know on my 2500K, the stock boost of 3.8GHz to 4.6GHz is roughly a 17% gain, and it is noticeable. Same for 3.9GHz to 4.6GHz on the 2700K, 15% gain.

[Thelillypad123]

28 minutes ago, scottyseng said:

Oh wow, I didn't think BF1 was that CPU hungry. Interesting. What's the GPU usage like though?

 

Well, 4.2GHz to 4.6GHz is roughly a 9% gain, it may help your fps a bit more than you'd think. You may or may not be able to get a higher OC due to cooling / silicon lottery though. I know on my 2500K, the stock boost of 3.8GHz to 4.6GHz is roughly a 17% gain, and it is noticeable. Same for 3.9GHz to 4.6GHz on the 2700K, 15% gain.

Gpu usage is usually above 90% with the occasional dip to the high 70s. It's not too bad of a bottleneck but it is present.

 

i may give overclocking a shot to see what happens. It just takes a few days to overclock and I can't game while I'm doing it haha.

[scottyseng]

3 minutes ago, Thelillypad123 said:

Gpu usage is usually above 90% with the occasional dip to the high 70s. It's not too bad of a bottleneck but it is present.

 

i may give overclocking a shot to see what happens. It just takes a few days to overclock and I can't game while I'm doing it haha.

Hmm, you might try 10 runs of Intel Burn Test at maximum. It took me about 1/2 a day to dial in 4.6GHz on my 2700K. It took roughly 1.5 hours for each full run of IBT. I usually never have had a CPU unstable after IBT testing (Though I usually go nuts with 20 runs).

 

It should at least give your CPU a bit of a boost to keep up with the 1070.