Broadwell-E: Intel Core i7-6950X, 6900K, 6850K & 6800K Review

[Rhinofart]

I'll keep rocking my i7 980x

 

[Samer1970]

Broadwell-E has a major disadvantage in per core performance. Its game performance is well below the Skylake's 6700k. Guess this is why the game list was so lacking. The fact is Broadwell-E only gets a very small advantage over 5820k. The old 5930K is a much better deal than the 6850X due to PCI lane advantage. Mostly the prices are way to high. I suggest Intel drop prices to compete again the 5820k(6800X,6850X), and 5930K(6900X), and 5960X(6950X).

I dont think that the gaming performance of the 4 cores 6700K is better than intel 6 or 8 cores i7 CPU in games ...

Reviewers test the 6 and 8 cores cpu with HT Turned ON , giving us useless 12 , 16 Virtual cores the Game will never use them all ...

The reviewers should turn OFF the Hyper Threading in 6 an 8 cores i7 AND benchmark the games VS the i7 6700k !!!

to make it simple ,

the i7 6700K @ 4.4 GHZ , in virtual 8 cores (HT) at FULL LOAD thats comparable to 8 cores CPU running at 2.2 GHZ

if you turn off HT in 8 Cores i7 thats 8 cores running @4.4GHZ DOUBLE THE SPEED IN GAMES THAT USES 8 THREADS ! even if you dont OC the CPU would be 3GHZ VS 2.2 GHZ!!!

Even the 6 Cores i7 with HT turned off will be faster than 6700k ...

I dont know why reviewers dont test the 8 and 6 cores CPU with HT turned off !!

They don't test with HT off because really is no point in your suggested test.


"if you turn off HT in 8 Cores i7 thats 8 cores running @4.4GHZ DOUBLE THE SPEED IN GAMES THAT USES 8 THREADS ! even if you dont OC the CPU would be 3GHZ VS 2.2 GHZ!!!"

That is completely wrong.

"Even the 6 Cores i7 with HT turned off will be faster than 6700k ... "

Only if the application being run uses all 6 cores if not then no the 6700K is faster.

I am talking about modern games that use 8 threads.

let us do the Benchmarks then and see ?

i3 and i5 are 4 virtual/real cores and the i5 is faster in games .

the same for i7 4 (8 virtual) cores and i7 8 true cores (HT Turned off) , the 8 cores will outperform the 4 cores one if HT is turned off.

lets do benchmark please ?

and to do so , we need to bottle neck the CPU .. because you only see the difference when the CPU is fully utilized.

lets say we test it with 2x1080GTX in SLI or even 4xGTX980 ti
and test games that use more than 4 threads please

I hope some one tests it

Your missing the bigger picture. Most games being DX11 uses only 4 physical cores at best. DX12 was designed to use more but there is only a hand full of titles. In the review Ashes of singularity and F1 2015 is DX12 were bioshock isn't. All the reviews using more DX11 games shows the per core performance of for the 68xx and 69xx to be far less than skylake 6700K. The skylake is the newer design thus faster per core. The enthusiasts 2011 will be replaced next year with the Skylake-E and LGA 3647 with 6 channel ddr4.

no one ever tested 8 cores CPU with HT turned off in gaming. I say we try it and compare ...

all what you are saying are paper talk ... If some one is reading this , please test it .

and test it right , very high end PC with 2-4 way SLI please. you need to bottleneck the CPU to beat the 4 cores i7 6700K .

TURN THE HT OFF , SOME ONE PLEASE TEST IT !!!

1- 2x1080GTX in SLI or 4x 980ti
2-Modern Multi threaded game
3- 8 cores cpu @4.4 Ghz HT turned OFF
4- test 4k/5K resolution and triple 1440P screens resolution as well.


.

 

[okcnaline]

So you can buy 2 E5-2630 v5 $200-300 less than a single i7-6950X. Wow, Intel...

 

[elbert]

Broadwell-E has a major disadvantage in per core performance. Its game performance is well below the Skylake's 6700k. Guess this is why the game list was so lacking. The fact is Broadwell-E only gets a very small advantage over 5820k. The old 5930K is a much better deal than the 6850X due to PCI lane advantage. Mostly the prices are way to high. I suggest Intel drop prices to compete again the 5820k(6800X,6850X), and 5930K(6900X), and 5960X(6950X).

I dont think that the gaming performance of the 4 cores 6700K is better than intel 6 or 8 cores i7 CPU in games ...

Reviewers test the 6 and 8 cores cpu with HT Turned ON , giving us useless 12 , 16 Virtual cores the Game will never use them all ...

The reviewers should turn OFF the Hyper Threading in 6 an 8 cores i7 AND benchmark the games VS the i7 6700k !!!

to make it simple ,

the i7 6700K @ 4.4 GHZ , in virtual 8 cores (HT) at FULL LOAD thats comparable to 8 cores CPU running at 2.2 GHZ

if you turn off HT in 8 Cores i7 thats 8 cores running @4.4GHZ DOUBLE THE SPEED IN GAMES THAT USES 8 THREADS ! even if you dont OC the CPU would be 3GHZ VS 2.2 GHZ!!!

Even the 6 Cores i7 with HT turned off will be faster than 6700k ...

I dont know why reviewers dont test the 8 and 6 cores CPU with HT turned off !!

They don't test with HT off because really is no point in your suggested test.


"if you turn off HT in 8 Cores i7 thats 8 cores running @4.4GHZ DOUBLE THE SPEED IN GAMES THAT USES 8 THREADS ! even if you dont OC the CPU would be 3GHZ VS 2.2 GHZ!!!"

That is completely wrong.

"Even the 6 Cores i7 with HT turned off will be faster than 6700k ... "

Only if the application being run uses all 6 cores if not then no the 6700K is faster.

I am talking about modern games that use 8 threads.

let us do the Benchmarks then and see ?

i3 and i5 are 4 virtual/real cores and the i5 is faster in games .

the same for i7 4 (8 virtual) cores and i7 8 true cores (HT Turned off) , the 8 cores will outperform the 4 cores one if HT is turned off.

lets do benchmark please ?

and to do so , we need to bottle neck the CPU .. because you only see the difference when the CPU is fully utilized.

lets say we test it with 2x1080GTX in SLI or even 4xGTX980 ti
and test games that use more than 4 threads please

I hope some one tests it

Your missing the bigger picture. Most games being DX11 uses only 4 physical cores at best. DX12 was designed to use more but there is only a hand full of titles. In the review Ashes of singularity and F1 2015 is DX12 were bioshock isn't. All the reviews using more DX11 games shows the per core performance of for the 68xx and 69xx to be far less than skylake 6700K. The skylake is the newer design thus faster per core. The enthusiasts 2011 will be replaced next year with the Skylake-E and LGA 3647 with 6 channel ddr4.

no one ever tested 8 cores CPU with HT turned off in gaming. I say we try it and compare ...

all what you are saying are paper talk ... If some one is reading this , please test it .

and test it right , very high end PC with 2-4 way SLI please. you need to bottleneck the CPU to beat the 4 cores i7 6700K .

TURN THE HT OFF , SOME ONE PLEASE TEST IT !!!

1- 2x1080GTX in SLI or 4x 980ti
2-Modern Multi threaded game
3- 8 cores cpu @4.4 Ghz HT turned OFF
4- test 4k/5K resolution and triple 1440P screens resolution as well.


.

They have tested not only 8 core AMD's but the Haswell-E 2011v3 CPU's. The old 6 core 5820K was the fast in games of those 3 but still got beat due to the higher clocked and overclocking 4770K

 

[yorR79]

So, 6700K is still better option for Adobe. Great to know

But what about running Adobe photoshop and illustrator at the same time, and having an browser open because you are looking for some reference material or watching a tutorial, having a Skype conversation and Spotify is on the background. I wonder if the 6 core cpu's are performing better in the average system performance. I am questioning if the 5820K is not still a better buy than the 6800K. Is the +- 80 euro difference worth the few points and is the 6850K worth his price above the 6800K?

 

[yorR79]

So, 6700K is still better option for Adobe. Great to know

But what about running Adobe photoshop and illustrator at the same time, and having an browser open because you are looking for some reference material or watching a tutorial, having a Skype conversation and Spotify is on the background. I wonder if the 6 core cpu's are performing better in the average system performance. I am questioning if the 5820K is not still a better buy than the 6800K. Is the +- 80 euro difference worth the few points and is the 6850K worth his price above the 6800K?

 

[BHeast]

I was going to buy a 6950x today and trade in my 5960x. This article keep me at home. My original goal was to go for the 6900k and see about the 10 core. I know I feel the difference when in Lightroom however I also have 1080 so I am not sure what the kicker. Games are great and the other tasks are effortless. The OC numbers are sad and I think they will improve over time with bios updates. IDK everyone here is bashing instead of just knowing that my current 8 core systems is a monster. There are many benefits to multiple cores in my style of computing. Otherwise the MacPro 6,1 would never work. I was interested in hearing about the native Thunderbolt support but alas I will continue my search.

 

[elbert]

I was going to buy a 6950x today and trade in my 5960x. This article keep me at home. My original goal was to go for the 6900k and see about the 10 core. I know I feel the difference when in Lightroom however I also have 1080 so I am not sure what the kicker. Games are great and the other tasks are effortless. The OC numbers are sad and I think they will improve over time with bios updates. IDK everyone here is bashing instead of just knowing that my current 8 core systems is a monster. There are many benefits to multiple cores in my style of computing. Otherwise the MacPro 6,1 would never work. I was interested in hearing about the native Thunderbolt support but alas I will continue my search.

If games aren't the main focus an your not OCing may I suggest the 12 core Intel Xeon E5-2687WV4 3.0 GHz. The 12 core is just $2K so its better deal per core at the same base clockspeed. There also a 14 core for 2K but its lower clocked Intel Xeon E5-2690V4 2.6 GHz.

 

[Icepilot]

Would it be possible to give each core of the 6850K, 4 MB of L3 Cache, for a total of 24 MB Shared L3 Cache?

 

[bit_user]

I have to LOL at the ARM vs. x86 flame wars already stirring, before there's even a competitive ARM-based desktop CPU anywhere in sight. Really, guys?

Show me an ARM-based server CPU that beats a comparably priced Xeon D in a single benchmark, and then we can start speculating about desktops.

 

[mapesdhs]

I need that too! I don't need a game machine nor a server. I need a workstation, and I don't want hash/math/memory errors.

If you need ECC, that means buying XEON, but if modern XEON pricing is a problem then have a look at the used market for previous generation server blades and workstations; lots of data-centric companies dump older units since they often have rapid upgrade cycles, so it's possible to get some really good deals on older dual or even quad socket XEON servers and workstations, which are often fitted with a lot of RAM (the low pricing is due to huge supply when the old-generation hw hits the market).

 

[Tanquen]

I already have a 4.5GHz 3930k with 3 or more cores that aren't doing anything most of the time. What good is a 10 Core i7-6950X many years latter and 3 times the price? I keep waiting I guess.

 

[Me000]

Is it possible to keep die sizes the same while still increasing performance? It seems to me that temperatures get more difficult to deal with as die-size shrinks due to the heat being made in a much smaller area...What would happen if all the architecture improvements and everything regarding CPU-improvement continued but without constant die-size decreases? I mean, the heat-output of PCs remain high at the top-end even though they're continually using lower and lower total amounts of power; correct me if I'm wrong but it seems like smaller die-sizes are offsetting (at-least to a certain amount) the potential decrease in temps due to lower wattage output.

 

[ScrewySqrl]

Is it possible to keep die sizes the same while still increasing performance? It seems to me that temperatures get more difficult to deal with as die-size shrinks due to the heat being made in a much smaller area...What would happen if all the architecture improvements and everything regarding CPU-improvement continued but without constant die-size decreases? I mean, the heat-output of PCs remain high at the top-end even though they're continually using lower and lower total amounts of power; correct me if I'm wrong but it seems like smaller die-sizes are offsetting (at-least to a certain amount) the potential decrease in temps due to lower wattage output.

the die size shrink is part of the speed improvements, as the signals have less distance to travel. if the miniaturization continued without a di size shrink, you would actually end up with an unwieldy system -- running into the heat problems of the original pentiums,

 

[Ambular]

Poor Broadwell...it seems it's never going to be more than a passing blip on the desktop radar.

 

[Samer1970]

So you can buy 2 E5-2630 v5 $200-300 less than a single i7-6950X. Wow, Intel...

v4 ...

but stilll you are comparing 2.2 ghz to 4ghz , dos not win like that also the Dual cpu motherboard is $300 more .

 

[Samer1970]

Broadwell-E has a major disadvantage in per core performance. Its game performance is well below the Skylake's 6700k. Guess this is why the game list was so lacking. The fact is Broadwell-E only gets a very small advantage over 5820k. The old 5930K is a much better deal than the 6850X due to PCI lane advantage. Mostly the prices are way to high. I suggest Intel drop prices to compete again the 5820k(6800X,6850X), and 5930K(6900X), and 5960X(6950X).

I dont think that the gaming performance of the 4 cores 6700K is better than intel 6 or 8 cores i7 CPU in games ...

Reviewers test the 6 and 8 cores cpu with HT Turned ON , giving us useless 12 , 16 Virtual cores the Game will never use them all ...

The reviewers should turn OFF the Hyper Threading in 6 an 8 cores i7 AND benchmark the games VS the i7 6700k !!!

to make it simple ,

the i7 6700K @ 4.4 GHZ , in virtual 8 cores (HT) at FULL LOAD thats comparable to 8 cores CPU running at 2.2 GHZ

if you turn off HT in 8 Cores i7 thats 8 cores running @4.4GHZ DOUBLE THE SPEED IN GAMES THAT USES 8 THREADS ! even if you dont OC the CPU would be 3GHZ VS 2.2 GHZ!!!

Even the 6 Cores i7 with HT turned off will be faster than 6700k ...

I dont know why reviewers dont test the 8 and 6 cores CPU with HT turned off !!

They don't test with HT off because really is no point in your suggested test.


"if you turn off HT in 8 Cores i7 thats 8 cores running @4.4GHZ DOUBLE THE SPEED IN GAMES THAT USES 8 THREADS ! even if you dont OC the CPU would be 3GHZ VS 2.2 GHZ!!!"

That is completely wrong.

"Even the 6 Cores i7 with HT turned off will be faster than 6700k ... "

Only if the application being run uses all 6 cores if not then no the 6700K is faster.

I am talking about modern games that use 8 threads.

let us do the Benchmarks then and see ?

i3 and i5 are 4 virtual/real cores and the i5 is faster in games .

the same for i7 4 (8 virtual) cores and i7 8 true cores (HT Turned off) , the 8 cores will outperform the 4 cores one if HT is turned off.

lets do benchmark please ?

and to do so , we need to bottle neck the CPU .. because you only see the difference when the CPU is fully utilized.

lets say we test it with 2x1080GTX in SLI or even 4xGTX980 ti
and test games that use more than 4 threads please

I hope some one tests it

Your missing the bigger picture. Most games being DX11 uses only 4 physical cores at best. DX12 was designed to use more but there is only a hand full of titles. In the review Ashes of singularity and F1 2015 is DX12 were bioshock isn't. All the reviews using more DX11 games shows the per core performance of for the 68xx and 69xx to be far less than skylake 6700K. The skylake is the newer design thus faster per core. The enthusiasts 2011 will be replaced next year with the Skylake-E and LGA 3647 with 6 channel ddr4.

no one ever tested 8 cores CPU with HT turned off in gaming. I say we try it and compare ...

all what you are saying are paper talk ... If some one is reading this , please test it .

and test it right , very high end PC with 2-4 way SLI please. you need to bottleneck the CPU to beat the 4 cores i7 6700K .

TURN THE HT OFF , SOME ONE PLEASE TEST IT !!!

1- 2x1080GTX in SLI or 4x 980ti
2-Modern Multi threaded game
3- 8 cores cpu @4.4 Ghz HT turned OFF
4- test 4k/5K resolution and triple 1440P screens resolution as well.


.

They have tested not only 8 core AMD's but the Haswell-E 2011v3 CPU's. The old 6 core 5820K was the fast in games of those 3 but still got beat due to the higher clocked and overclocking 4770K

no one tested anything with HT turned off yet .

 

[Samer1970]

Is it possible to keep die sizes the same while still increasing performance? It seems to me that temperatures get more difficult to deal with as die-size shrinks due to the heat being made in a much smaller area...What would happen if all the architecture improvements and everything regarding CPU-improvement continued but without constant die-size decreases? I mean, the heat-output of PCs remain high at the top-end even though they're continually using lower and lower total amounts of power; correct me if I'm wrong but it seems like smaller die-sizes are offsetting (at-least to a certain amount) the potential decrease in temps due to lower wattage output.

the die size shrink is part of the speed improvements, as the signals have less distance to travel. if the miniaturization continued without a di size shrink, you would actually end up with an unwieldy system -- running into the heat problems of the original pentiums,

They can separate the cores a little bit to keep the size , it will not decrease the performance ... we are stil using dual socket motherboad you know ... not a big deal inside the tiny CPU if you separate cores a little bit ... but the cores themselves inside intact not widened .

 

[Samer1970]

I was going to buy a 6950x today and trade in my 5960x. This article keep me at home. My original goal was to go for the 6900k and see about the 10 core. I know I feel the difference when in Lightroom however I also have 1080 so I am not sure what the kicker. Games are great and the other tasks are effortless. The OC numbers are sad and I think they will improve over time with bios updates. IDK everyone here is bashing instead of just knowing that my current 8 core systems is a monster. There are many benefits to multiple cores in my style of computing. Otherwise the MacPro 6,1 would never work. I was interested in hearing about the native Thunderbolt support but alas I will continue my search.

If games aren't the main focus an your not OCing may I suggest the 12 core Intel Xeon E5-2687WV4 3.0 GHz. The 12 core is just $2K so its better deal per core at the same base clockspeed. There also a 14 core for 2K but its lower clocked Intel Xeon E5-2690V4 2.6 GHz.

$2150 .. not $2K thats $450 more ...

 

[mapesdhs]

I already have a 4.5GHz 3930k with 3 or more cores that aren't doing anything most of the time. What good is a 10 Core i7-6950X many years latter and 3 times the price? I keep waiting I guess.

It'd be interesting to know how popular the 3930K would be today if it was still available new at a relevantly lower price (well below the 6700K, alongside continued X79). Used 3930Ks can be obtained now for 135 UKP or less fixed price, while the possible value via auctions is even more attractive, eg. I won a SR0KY yesterday for less than 95 UKP (item 331866309564). SB-E is very easy to oc, just like the mainstream SB was (nothing since has been as good in this regard, a simple TRUE with an NDS or NF-P12 will silently handle a 2700K @ 5GHz no problem).

At 4.8GHz, the 3930K scores approx. 1240 for the CB R15 test, outperforming a stock 6850K (which costs a whopping 525 UKP in the UK) and not that far behind a stock 5960X. In the past I would have felt the need to strongly caveat comparing an oc'd older CPU to the latest at stock speed, but the gains from oc'ing these newer CPUs seem to be shrinking rapidly, as they produce heat that's difficult to handle, requiring cooling tech that's beyond the comfort zone of the average enthusiast, alongside voltage boosts that are far too risky for such costly parts. Is anyone really going to oc a 6950X and still be able to sleep ok? That thing is 1400 UKP in the UK. It was bad enough with a $1K CPU; the 5960X is still well over 800 UKP here, around $1300+ (and it's jumped by almost 100 in the last couple of weeks).

Intel's made the same mistakes I've moaned about before wrt HW-E all over again: crippled PCIe at the bottom, not enough cores in each tier, not adding more PCIe lanes in the middle, daft pricing, thermal behaviour that minimises gains from oc'ing, etc. I don't get who they think is going to buy these CPUs, because they offer little that would appeal to anyone who already has any kind of older top-end setup, while those coming from the mainstream will balk at the pricing while seeing the obvious combined potency Skylake offers for gaming and general apps.

Intel is making enthusiast PC meddling too expensive, too risky, too difficult, and not worth the gains with each new release. If sales keep declining, they've only themselves to blame.

For someone who does need lots of cores, hunt for an older-gen multi-socket server blade or workstation, or cluster some used SB-E boxes.

 

[InvalidError]

Intel is making enthusiast PC meddling too expensive, too risky, too difficult, and not worth the gains with each new release. If sales keep declining, they've only themselves to blame.

Sales will continue to decline regardless of what Intel does, just like phone and tablets sales are slowing down due to most people who want one already owning one that is still good enough for their everyday uses. It is an inevitable consequence of a market shifting from growth, through maturity and then to replacement economy model.

You also have the people who are going with mobile-only personal computing. In my immediate family, I am the only one who has any real need for a PC. My father has my old Core 2 running an Ubuntu Live CD, my mother has a $300 laptop with an AMD E320 APU, neither of my sisters and their boyfriends use a PC in any significant way at home - both of their systems (a low-end Acer laptop and a throw-away Core 2 office PC) are 6+ years old and neither had any interest in upgrading them the last time I asked since they are only using them to dump their phones' and tablets' photos, music and other stuff.

The PC is fading out of favor.

 

[elbert]

I was going to buy a 6950x today and trade in my 5960x. This article keep me at home. My original goal was to go for the 6900k and see about the 10 core. I know I feel the difference when in Lightroom however I also have 1080 so I am not sure what the kicker. Games are great and the other tasks are effortless. The OC numbers are sad and I think they will improve over time with bios updates. IDK everyone here is bashing instead of just knowing that my current 8 core systems is a monster. There are many benefits to multiple cores in my style of computing. Otherwise the MacPro 6,1 would never work. I was interested in hearing about the native Thunderbolt support but alas I will continue my search.

If games aren't the main focus an your not OCing may I suggest the 12 core Intel Xeon E5-2687WV4 3.0 GHz. The 12 core is just $2K so its better deal per core at the same base clockspeed. There also a 14 core for 2K but its lower clocked Intel Xeon E5-2690V4 2.6 GHz.

$2150 .. not $2K thats $450 more ...

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Xeon E5-2687W V4 3.0GHz 12-Core Processor ($2089.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Total: $2089.99
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2016-06-02 11:27 EDT-0400

 

[elbert]

Broadwell-E has a major disadvantage in per core performance. Its game performance is well below the Skylake's 6700k. Guess this is why the game list was so lacking. The fact is Broadwell-E only gets a very small advantage over 5820k. The old 5930K is a much better deal than the 6850X due to PCI lane advantage. Mostly the prices are way to high. I suggest Intel drop prices to compete again the 5820k(6800X,6850X), and 5930K(6900X), and 5960X(6950X).

I dont think that the gaming performance of the 4 cores 6700K is better than intel 6 or 8 cores i7 CPU in games ...

Reviewers test the 6 and 8 cores cpu with HT Turned ON , giving us useless 12 , 16 Virtual cores the Game will never use them all ...

The reviewers should turn OFF the Hyper Threading in 6 an 8 cores i7 AND benchmark the games VS the i7 6700k !!!

to make it simple ,

the i7 6700K @ 4.4 GHZ , in virtual 8 cores (HT) at FULL LOAD thats comparable to 8 cores CPU running at 2.2 GHZ

if you turn off HT in 8 Cores i7 thats 8 cores running @4.4GHZ DOUBLE THE SPEED IN GAMES THAT USES 8 THREADS ! even if you dont OC the CPU would be 3GHZ VS 2.2 GHZ!!!

Even the 6 Cores i7 with HT turned off will be faster than 6700k ...

I dont know why reviewers dont test the 8 and 6 cores CPU with HT turned off !!

They don't test with HT off because really is no point in your suggested test.


"if you turn off HT in 8 Cores i7 thats 8 cores running @4.4GHZ DOUBLE THE SPEED IN GAMES THAT USES 8 THREADS ! even if you dont OC the CPU would be 3GHZ VS 2.2 GHZ!!!"

That is completely wrong.

"Even the 6 Cores i7 with HT turned off will be faster than 6700k ... "

Only if the application being run uses all 6 cores if not then no the 6700K is faster.

I am talking about modern games that use 8 threads.

let us do the Benchmarks then and see ?

i3 and i5 are 4 virtual/real cores and the i5 is faster in games .

the same for i7 4 (8 virtual) cores and i7 8 true cores (HT Turned off) , the 8 cores will outperform the 4 cores one if HT is turned off.

lets do benchmark please ?

and to do so , we need to bottle neck the CPU .. because you only see the difference when the CPU is fully utilized.

lets say we test it with 2x1080GTX in SLI or even 4xGTX980 ti
and test games that use more than 4 threads please

I hope some one tests it

Your missing the bigger picture. Most games being DX11 uses only 4 physical cores at best. DX12 was designed to use more but there is only a hand full of titles. In the review Ashes of singularity and F1 2015 is DX12 were bioshock isn't. All the reviews using more DX11 games shows the per core performance of for the 68xx and 69xx to be far less than skylake 6700K. The skylake is the newer design thus faster per core. The enthusiasts 2011 will be replaced next year with the Skylake-E and LGA 3647 with 6 channel ddr4.

no one ever tested 8 cores CPU with HT turned off in gaming. I say we try it and compare ...

all what you are saying are paper talk ... If some one is reading this , please test it .

and test it right , very high end PC with 2-4 way SLI please. you need to bottleneck the CPU to beat the 4 cores i7 6700K .

TURN THE HT OFF , SOME ONE PLEASE TEST IT !!!

1- 2x1080GTX in SLI or 4x 980ti
2-Modern Multi threaded game
3- 8 cores cpu @4.4 Ghz HT turned OFF
4- test 4k/5K resolution and triple 1440P screens resolution as well.


.

They have tested not only 8 core AMD's but the Haswell-E 2011v3 CPU's. The old 6 core 5820K was the fast in games of those 3 but still got beat due to the higher clocked and overclocking 4770K

no one tested anything with HT turned off yet .

http://images.techhive.com/images/article/2016/02/dx12_cpu_3dmark_api_overhead_feature_test_dx11-100647720-large.png
DX12 is the only one that uses more than 4 cores which ht off makes worse.
http://images.techhive.com/images/article/2016/02/dx12_cpu_ashes_of_the_singularity_beta_2_average_cpu_frame_rate_high_quality_19x10-100647718-large.png

 

[Samer1970]

Broadwell-E has a major disadvantage in per core performance. Its game performance is well below the Skylake's 6700k. Guess this is why the game list was so lacking. The fact is Broadwell-E only gets a very small advantage over 5820k. The old 5930K is a much better deal than the 6850X due to PCI lane advantage. Mostly the prices are way to high. I suggest Intel drop prices to compete again the 5820k(6800X,6850X), and 5930K(6900X), and 5960X(6950X).

I dont think that the gaming performance of the 4 cores 6700K is better than intel 6 or 8 cores i7 CPU in games ...

Reviewers test the 6 and 8 cores cpu with HT Turned ON , giving us useless 12 , 16 Virtual cores the Game will never use them all ...

The reviewers should turn OFF the Hyper Threading in 6 an 8 cores i7 AND benchmark the games VS the i7 6700k !!!

to make it simple ,

the i7 6700K @ 4.4 GHZ , in virtual 8 cores (HT) at FULL LOAD thats comparable to 8 cores CPU running at 2.2 GHZ

if you turn off HT in 8 Cores i7 thats 8 cores running @4.4GHZ DOUBLE THE SPEED IN GAMES THAT USES 8 THREADS ! even if you dont OC the CPU would be 3GHZ VS 2.2 GHZ!!!

Even the 6 Cores i7 with HT turned off will be faster than 6700k ...

I dont know why reviewers dont test the 8 and 6 cores CPU with HT turned off !!

They don't test with HT off because really is no point in your suggested test.


"if you turn off HT in 8 Cores i7 thats 8 cores running @4.4GHZ DOUBLE THE SPEED IN GAMES THAT USES 8 THREADS ! even if you dont OC the CPU would be 3GHZ VS 2.2 GHZ!!!"

That is completely wrong.

"Even the 6 Cores i7 with HT turned off will be faster than 6700k ... "

Only if the application being run uses all 6 cores if not then no the 6700K is faster.

I am talking about modern games that use 8 threads.

let us do the Benchmarks then and see ?

i3 and i5 are 4 virtual/real cores and the i5 is faster in games .

the same for i7 4 (8 virtual) cores and i7 8 true cores (HT Turned off) , the 8 cores will outperform the 4 cores one if HT is turned off.

lets do benchmark please ?

and to do so , we need to bottle neck the CPU .. because you only see the difference when the CPU is fully utilized.

lets say we test it with 2x1080GTX in SLI or even 4xGTX980 ti
and test games that use more than 4 threads please

I hope some one tests it

Your missing the bigger picture. Most games being DX11 uses only 4 physical cores at best. DX12 was designed to use more but there is only a hand full of titles. In the review Ashes of singularity and F1 2015 is DX12 were bioshock isn't. All the reviews using more DX11 games shows the per core performance of for the 68xx and 69xx to be far less than skylake 6700K. The skylake is the newer design thus faster per core. The enthusiasts 2011 will be replaced next year with the Skylake-E and LGA 3647 with 6 channel ddr4.

no one ever tested 8 cores CPU with HT turned off in gaming. I say we try it and compare ...

all what you are saying are paper talk ... If some one is reading this , please test it .

and test it right , very high end PC with 2-4 way SLI please. you need to bottleneck the CPU to beat the 4 cores i7 6700K .

TURN THE HT OFF , SOME ONE PLEASE TEST IT !!!

1- 2x1080GTX in SLI or 4x 980ti
2-Modern Multi threaded game
3- 8 cores cpu @4.4 Ghz HT turned OFF
4- test 4k/5K resolution and triple 1440P screens resolution as well.


.

They have tested not only 8 core AMD's but the Haswell-E 2011v3 CPU's. The old 6 core 5820K was the fast in games of those 3 but still got beat due to the higher clocked and overclocking 4770K

no one tested anything with HT turned off yet .

http://images.techhive.com/images/article/2016/02/dx12_cpu_3dmark_api_overhead_feature_test_dx11-100647720-large.png
DX12 is the only one that uses more than 4 cores which ht off makes worse.
http://images.techhive.com/images/article/2016/02/dx12_cpu_ashes_of_the_singularity_beta_2_average_cpu_frame_rate_high_quality_19x10-100647718-large.png

no HT off does not make it worse if you look at the 8 cores one ! dont look at the lower than 8 cores one !

and this proves my IDEA , we need to push it further using SLI to bottleneck the CPU and see the performance without HT !!!

from the graph : 8 cores with HT : 120.4
8 cores without HT : 121.7 !!!

it is clear here the bottleneck is the GPU ... must test it with SLI 1080 or 4xSLI 980 ti !!!

it is CLEAR from the 8 cores graph !

the 6 and 4 cores withou HT makes it worse because it uses more than 6 or 4 threads hence it is worse ... but in 8 cores ? HT off is little Higher !!!

 

[elbert]

no HT off does not make it worse if you look at the 8 cores one ! dont look at the lower than 8 cores one !

and this proves my IDEA , we need to push it further using SLI to bottleneck the CPU and see the performance without HT !!!

from the graph : 8 cores with HT : 120.4
8 cores without HT : 121.7 !!!

it is clear here the bottleneck is the GPU ... must test it with SLI 1080 or 4xSLI 980 ti !!!

it is CLEAR from the 8 cores graph !

the 6 and 4 cores withou HT makes it worse because it uses more than 6 or 4 threads hence it is worse ... but in 8 cores ? HT off is little Higher !!!

The DX12 takes advantage of more cores simple. The DX11 only takes advantage of 4 cores. That is the only take away from those benchmarks. If the threading matter the 6 core none HT would have been higher than the 6 core threaded. The 8 core HT looks more to be a thread issue with the game.