Don't hate on it. X99 is the bee's knees today.
It's expensive as fuck though
Don't hate on it. X99 is the bee's knees today.
It's expensive as fuck though
Boss★Moogle;174025833 said:It really is; for not that much gain either.
I mean back when X58 came out it was really worth it because you were a gen a head with CPUs that were way better than the mainstream ones. but now the X?? platform is always a gen behind now which i think is pretty stupid for an enthusiast platform.
Some games are notoriously CPU bound like simulations (Civilization), MMOs are super infamous for being this way, strategy games (Total War), racing (Project Cars), and yes emulation is all done by the CPU.
Boss★Moogle;174025833 said:It really is; for not that much gain either.
I mean back when X58 came out it was really worth it because you were a gen a head with CPUs that were way better than the mainstream ones. but now the X?? platform is always a gen behind now which i think is pretty stupid for an enthusiast platform.
It accomplish two development branches instead of one, for some obvious reasons like yield, design costs, validation cost, extra features.I don't understand what the thinking is to release the new architecture on quad core and then wait a year to release the 6/8 cores version. Why make people wait a year for Skylake-E, what does that even accomplish Intel??
I don't understand what the thinking is to release the new architecture on quad core and then wait a year to release the 6/8 cores version. Why make people wait a year for Skylake-E, what does that even accomplish Intel??
lmao, did you forget how right I was about Fury
Win10 is out, did Fury start destroying Nvidia cards yet
did DX12 revolutionize Fury performance yet
AMD Zen is not going to close the performance gap, the only question is how much it will lose by
i dont know of any games using DX12 or Vulkan yet so outside of the OS migrating to DX12 we dont have much to go by besides developer interviews. Both amd and nvidia and intel should all perform better with DX12 maybe even the xbONE?
Fury is a solid card but amd has made computation their main goal and their cards are better at computation , nvidia cards are better at geometry. Thats really all there is to it, depending on how developers get their games done one or the other will be better.
Zen is an unknown till a real insider sees teh thing. I don't think anyone expects a clean sweep by amd but they also expect the i5 market to be heavily contested because thats the market amd has been squeezed from. The enthusiast chip market may remain intels.
It's expensive as fuck though
Their priority is likely OEM schedule, e.g. they don't want to miss back-to-school window.Boss★Moogle;174025833 said:It really is; for not that much gain either.
I mean back when X58 came out it was really worth it because you were a gen a head with CPUs that were way better than the mainstream ones. but now the X?? platform is always a gen behind now which i think is pretty stupid for an enthusiast platform.
X99 was not a gen behind when it released -- it used the latest available CPU architecture, and the chipset tech (e.g. DDR4) was roughly a year ahead of the mainstream boards.Boss★Moogle;174025833 said:It really is; for not that much gain either.
I mean back when X58 came out it was really worth it because you were a gen a head with CPUs that were way better than the mainstream ones. but now the X?? platform is always a gen behind now which i think is pretty stupid for an enthusiast platform.
No you aren't.
Dear sir,
I am bottlenecked by something that isn't the graphic cards internal render capability. When the framerate tanks the cpu jumps to 80~90% but the GPUs are only at ~60%. When the CPU is at the normal ~50% the GPU's are at >90%
Also, the minimum framerates correlate with CPU speed. The less speed, the less are the miminum framerates. My GPU's are starved by lack of cpu or lack of decent access to cpu.
cheers
Project Cars sounds like a shoddy port then, or someone is mining bitcoins on your PC
X99 was not a gen behind when it released -- it used the latest available CPU architecture, and the chipset tech (e.g. DDR4) was roughly a year ahead of the mainstream boards.
It really was a good time to upgrade, except for DDR4 prices (that's why I only got 16 GB, but that's something easily remedied in the future).
I'm deciding between that and skylake for my upgrade of my old Q6700 that is finally giving up the ghost. My worry is that x99 will be outdated and skylake-E would come out with the x1xx platform. I'd prefer something that stuck around at least 2 Gens.
X99 was not a gen behind when it released -- it used the latest available CPU architecture, and the chipset tech (e.g. DDR4) was roughly a year ahead of the mainstream boards.
It really was a good time to upgrade, except for DDR4 prices (that's why I only got 16 GB, but that's something easily remedied in the future).
If you're looking for a socket that will allow you to do a meaningful CPU upgrade in the next few years, you are not going to find one on an Intel platform.
My 2500k at 4.5 is still a champ
Hmm.. How is overclocking on 5820? Might be a better idea considering some of the advantages of x99.
My 5820 is rock solid stable @4.3 Ghz at 1.28v. It seems like around 4.2-4.4 is your typical OC for most with obvious exceptions on the high and low end.
If you're looking for a socket that will allow you to do a meaningful CPU upgrade in the next few years, you are not going to find one on an Intel platform.
Air cooled, water cooled, or AIO water cooled? I mean AIO water cooling and air cooling solutions are nearly the same price.
Not sure about timezone, but 24h format for time suggest EU => CEST.
Edit: i7 6700K benchmark: http://iyd.kr/758
Not sure about timezone, but 24h format for time suggest EU => CEST.
Edit: i7 6700K benchmark: http://iyd.kr/758
Interesting. So in general, around 9% faster than i7 4790, but slower for games? Why is that?
Not sure about timezone, but 24h format for time suggest EU => CEST.
Edit: i7 6700K benchmark: http://iyd.kr/758
I am in a real confused state at the moment! I have been slowly upgrading my 5 year old PC in recent months to spread the cost out a bit. My current set up is:
i5 2500 (non K meaning I can't OC it)
GTX 980 TI (MSI)
ASUS Predator 1440P xb270hu gsync
I have had barely any issue with games running at max settings, the only 2 games that have given me any trouble have been Ryse and Project Cars (g sync does help a lot)
I am assuming I will def be having issues here due to a cpu bottleneck? My upgrade options are...
- Upgrade the current cpu to an i7 2700K/2600K and overclock (2nd hand)
- Upgrade to an i7 3770K (2nd hand)
- Upgrade whole mobo, cpu and RAM - Skylake
I do have the money for option 3 but is this overkill?
Any advice? Thanks!
I can't imagine it is. The 3930k is basically an extreme CPU and I've not seen it getting necessarily crushed in benchmarks by today's standards. I'd say it's still a powerhouse of a CPU, especially if overclocked at 4GHz+.I'm still rocking a i7-3930K. Guess it is time to upgrade?
Anyone?
Getting 2nd hand cpu that fits your current motherboard is definitely the cheapest way and if you combine it with good cooler and OC you can increase the lifetime of your current setup with very small cash.
Buying Skylake is more expensive but it should perform fairly well out of box without OC, but if it's worth the money remains to be seen as benchmarks currently seem to contradict each other, wait for the release (tomorrow) and judge from the benchmarks if it's worth the money is what I'd say.
Not sure about timezone, but 24h format for time suggest EU => CEST.
Edit: i7 6700K benchmark: http://iyd.kr/758