CPU upgrade advice please.

[kol12]

I'm considering upgrading and getting onto to the more core/thread band wagon. Right now I'm interested to know what Intel's offerings are.

Is the i7 7700k currently Intel's strongest offering? I could consider the i7 6800k but it is older tech now... Possibly the i7 5820k also...

What CPU's will we see from Cannonlake later this year? Could it be worth waiting for Coffee Lake's 6 core CPU's in 2018? Will these include K processors?

I would be looking to do an upgrade with as much future proofing as possible.

 

[ingtar33]

1) the i7-7700k is fine, I don't see the point on waiting as intel doesn't seem to be able to squeeze more then a 5% ipc increase out of it's designs every step up. You might say the 6800 and 5820 are older processes (it's true) but the true IPC difference is almost non-existent as intel's actual IPC increase over the past 3 gens has been about 5% total. There have been some gains made in the memory subsystems which improve performance with faster ram, but otherwise the actual gains have been limited. The BIG advantage of the i7-7700k is the eye bleeding high clock speeds you'll get from overclocking (5+ghz). Its the overclock performance that sets that chip ahead of everything else right now. Not any real structural advantage.
-for example, in the handful of benches where that i7-7700k was downclocked to 4ghz, and compared to a new AMD chip the i7 sported an almost non-existent single threaded IPC difference.

NOW if you have zero interest in overclocking, the high BASE clock speed of the i7-7700k will stand out as well, so suggesting something else doesn't make a lot of sense either.


HOWEVER - if you plan to do CPU powered streaming of your gaming sessions - the 6c12t or 8c16t AMD or Intel chips will all pretty much destroy the i7-7700k. Those extra cores/threads all will really stand out.

FINALLY - if you game on 3x1080 monitors, one or two 1440p monitors or 4k (all in ultra), any chip above an i5 (including the new r7 chips from AMD) will perform about the same as eachother with or without an overclock, as the bottleneck will be on the gpu.


Conclusion -

If I were you I'd set the cpu to the side for the moment, and figure out how much money you have to purchase a top end GPU and high quality screen setup. Whatever you have left over will dictate your cpu selection more then anything else. As unless you play competitive e-sport shooters, getting more then 60fps on ANY screen makes no f-ing sense, and really, anything in the 4c8t to 10c20t class of chips will manage that. Your need for more cpu is only dependent on if you plan to stream your game session, in which case I suggest you wait for the r5-1600x to launch, as it will be a <300 chip with 6c/12t, and probably will take the crown as the best gaming cpu buy when it launches from the i7-7700k (based purely on price); which of course will force intel to drop the price of the i7-7700k.

 

[kol12]

@ingtar33 Thanks for your reply.

How future proof do you think the i7 7700k is? Would the 6800 and 5820 last longer from a future proofing point of view? Do those chips not overclock as well as the 7700k? I'm fine with overclocking.

The new AMD chips are very tempting, I've just always been Intel and it would probably still be my preference.

Does the 1151 socket chipsets offer more advancements over the x99 chipset? The whole x99 platform is quite on the high price side and getting older now...

So Intel still excels in single threaded IPC compared to AMD's Ryzen? Do you have any links to those benchmarks?

I'm probably more concerned about future proofing as opposed to what I can do right now with the CPU. For example I probably wouldn't be happy if I had to upgrade from the 7700k again in three years time because 6c12t or 8c16t CPU's had become the norm and were actually necessary. As it is I'm somewhat annoyed that I'm having to look at upgrading the 4690k so soon, I've only had it 1.8 years! The games coming out right now are so demanding that even at 60 fps the 4690k is struggling.

Are you suggesting I need a stronger GPU than the GTX 1070? I'd love to get an IPS gsync monitor one day, I don't do competitive gaming but I do enjoy FPS. Having gsync without input delay could be nice...

If the 7700k could provide 3-4 years of use with the possibility of being able to handle above 60 fps gaming I'd be happy, I wouldn't be doing much streaming. I have to say AMD is looking hard to beat as you can get those 6/8 core CPU's right now for a fraction of the cost of an x99 platform. This is a bit of tough one as the future is quite unpredictable right now.

 

[ingtar33]

@ingtar33 Thanks for your reply.

How future proof do you think the i7 7700k is? Would the 6800 and 5820 last longer from a future proofing point of view? Do those chips not overclock as well as the 7700k? I'm fine with overclocking.

Well, games are using more and more cores. Understand it's the game consoles which set the "core" standard for games. Back with the xb360 (which was a 3 core) all the games were 1-3 threaded affairs (btw: dx11 is hard coded to work for just 3 cores, remember, the xbox was always microsoft's platform for dx). Now with the xb1 and ps4 and dx12, you're seeing 6-8 threaded titles, because those two systems have 6-8 cores. So in theory going forward the i5 and all other "quad" core cpus will become at a greater and greater disadvantage as games get more and more threaded to squeeze performance out of the console market.

How future proof is the i7-7700k? i'd say it's pretty safe considering an i5-2500k is still a viable gaming chip.

Does the 1151 socket chipsets offer more advancements over the x99 chipset? The whole x99 platform is quite on the high price side and getting older now...

well the x99 chipset is... different. Advantages? the biggest is more pci lanes, which would give you a bit of an advantage in multi-gpu SLi. They're also build to support high temp/overclocks, which does pump the cost up a bit. Its also by far the buggiest platform in intel's lineup. Not sure how the "enthusiasts" justify the prices when you consider the bugs in the lineup.

So Intel still excels in single threaded IPC compared to AMD's Ryzen? Do you have any links to those benchmarks?

AMD's new Ryzen cpu comes in about 4.5% lower IPC clock for clock, core for core then Kaby/Skylake. It's basically identical core for core, clock for clock with Intel's Broadwell-E, and a little bit faster then Haswell. And yes there are some core for core clock for clock comparisons. Here is one found after a quick google search

http://www.zolkorn.com/en/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-vs-intel-core-i7-7700k-mhz-by-mhz-core-by-core-en/
that article comes in pretty much in line with a few of the youtubers who've tried comparing core for core/clock for clock.

Now even though AMD succeeded in wiping out what was a 10 year advantage in IPC with Ryzen, Ryzen just doesn't clock as highly as intel chips. But its so bloody close in performance it does come down to what your "needs" are. Furthermore Ryzen flipped the table on the performance/watt equation, and far more efficient both in temp and power draw then intel's current core i lineup, indicating (at least per the Stilt) that Ryzen's MOBILE version will likely slaughter Intel in the 15-45W range for performance and battery life.

It's a great chip, but it's also generation 1 of their new chip design. Intel has had 8 years to perfect the core i lineup. Right now I can't see any reason to purchase an EXTREME edition intel chip, as Ryzen has matched those chips in performance (or beat them) while doing it at a far lower cost. But then you could have said that same sentence about intel's own i7-7700k, as it will beat their whole extreme edition lineup for cheaper.

I'm probably more concerned about future proofing as opposed to what I can do right now with the CPU. For example I probably wouldn't be happy if I had to upgrade from the 7700k again in three years time because 6c12t or 8c16t CPU's had become the norm and were actually necessary. As it is I'm somewhat annoyed that I'm having to look at upgrading the 4690k so soon, I've only had it 1.8 years! The games coming out right now are so demanding that even at 60 fps the 4690k is struggling.

Well, I've hated my i5-4960k since the day I purchased it. Regreted it deeply, as I used to have a fx8320, and I could tell I downgraded from a 8 core to a 4 the moment I booted the pc. The way I use a pc, a quad core just doesn't make sense. So I am in the process of building an r7-1700 based pc. Got all the parts except the ram, gpu and motherboard. Waiting for ITX boards to finish the build. Spending my time working on a case mod right now while I wait for itx boards to hit the market.

If you're concerned a 4c8t won't be enough in a couple of years you can always wait till summer and see what the 6c12t r5-1600x look like. probably will be a good compromise. I don't think you have much to worry about though, as I said earlier, the number of cores a game can use is determined by the consoles. And right now those consoles are 6-8 core beasties. Which means a 4c8t cpu should be ok till they up the core count on the consoles.

Are you suggesting I need a stronger GPU than the GTX 1070? I'd love to get an IPS gsync monitor one day, I don't do competitive gaming but I do enjoy FPS. Having gsync without input delay could be nice...

no, the 1070 is pretty bad ass. I was just saying I will always prioritize the monitor and gpu over the cpu.

If the 7700k could provide 3-4 years of use with the possibility of being able to handle above 60 fps gaming I'd be happy, I wouldn't be doing much streaming. I have to say AMD is looking hard to beat as you can get those 6/8 core CPU's right now for a fraction of the cost of an x99 platform. This is a bit of tough one as the future is quite unpredictable right now.

I'm not sure you can go wrong either way.

 

[kol12]

Ah yes, I should have known the consoles were determining PC gaming required CPU specs. The latest consoles from Sony and Xbox look to be 8 cores, are they 8 core/thread processors? These processors would not be as powerful as the desktop counterparts though would they? If the console processors are 8 core/thread then the 7700k would be about just as if not more powerful right?

I don't think an x99 system would be worth it, like you say considering AMD's price on similar performance. Did you say 7700k will also beat x99 systems in certain situations?

I'll have to think strongly about AMD. It seems like the 7700k is the only way to with Intel right now unless you want to spend more on x99. It sounds like 6 core mainstream will be coming from Intel in 2018 it's just a matter of whether I decide doing an upgrade now is worth it, waiting or considering AMD.

 

[port27]

I upgraded from a i5-2500K recently to a R7-1700 because I encode and I like to game and I felt it gave me the best of both for the price. Sandy Bridge served its purpose but it was time. The 7700K was strongly considered but I deliberated and went AMD simply because its better at what I need it for. Upgrading for "future proof" just sounds like a waste of money to me. If you need the cores/threads for valid reasons then so be it otherwise you will be wasting resources and a lot of money for no reason. Also you mentioned that the 4690K is struggling? Struggling at what gaming? If you want to buy new tech then just buy it but don't make excuses like future proofing or that the 4690K is a slouch it sounds stupid. There is no such thing as future proofing in the PC world anyone that has been around it long enough will tell you that.

 

[kol12]

@port27

Yes your right about future proofing being near non existent with PC's, I guess I was more concerned as to how far away gaming will actually make 6 core/12 thread CPU's etc a necessity over the 4 core/8 thread CPU's. If it's going to be sooner than three years and I decide to stay with Intel I may be better waiting for their 6 core CPU's next year.

The 4690k has been good up until now but the current games I'm playing are a lot more demanding, which are Battlefield 1, Watch Dogs 2 and The Division. The CPU averages 70-77% in these games but hits 90-100% a lot with Watch Dogs 2 being the worst. Frame drops can be minor but sometimes large. I think the 4690k for the most part handles the games well but seems apparent that it's on the verge of running out of headroom with these games, am I wrong? I don't just want to buy new tech, I want to make the right decision as to whether it's the necessary thing to do right now.

 

[ingtar33]

Ah yes, I should have known the consoles were determining PC gaming required CPU specs. The latest consoles from Sony and Xbox look to be 8 cores, are they 8 core/thread processors?

sounds about right. I think the xb1 locked out 2 cores for some reason or other, and the sony locked out 1, but in the end they are 8 core cpus.

These processors would not be as powerful as the desktop counterparts though would they? If the console processors are 8 core/thread then the 7700k would be about just as if not more powerful right?

No, the consoles both running custom AMD Jaguar 8 core cpus. It's basically a low power, low clock chip which GREATLY resembled their mobile APU linup, only with more cores and better igpu. Overall the cpu strength is lacking on those chips (they perform fairly similarly with a 2-3ghz clocked piledriver to give you an idea)

I don't think an x99 system would be worth it, like you say considering AMD's price on similar performance. Did you say 7700k will also beat x99 systems in certain situations?

yep. Gaming.

I'll have to think strongly about AMD. It seems like the 7700k is the only way to with Intel right now unless you want to spend more on x99. It sounds like 6 core mainstream will be coming from Intel in 2018 it's just a matter of whether I decide doing an upgrade now is worth it, waiting or considering AMD.

I think I would sit on your choice till the 6c12t r5-1600x and the 4c8t r5-1500x come out (sometime in July i think). I think those are the chips which will move intel's whole product price range down.

 

[kol12]

@ingtar33

So the consoles are a full physical 8 cores with no form of hyper threading? If the console games are optimized for the consoles 8 cores how does that translate to how the games are handled with the PC 4 core/8 thread Cpu's? Are the games modified or optimized to be more compatible with the PC processors?

The benchmark link you shared definitely shows the 7700k's IPC and clock speed to be superior in certain benchmarks and of course gaming.

I'm happy to wait for a bit, I'm still trying to determine whether the 4690k is actually a bottleneck in the games I'm playing warranting the upgrade. I've been told the games I am playing right now which are Battlefield One, Watch Dogs 2 and Tom Clancy's The Division are 8 thread optimized games. They will play on 4 core/thread Cpu's but better on 8 thread Cpu's. I average 70-77% on those games but with a lot of frequent 90-100% spikes. The severity of any frame drops seem to depend on the game, for example WD2 has large frame drops when spikes occur but The Division doesn't seem to drop from 60 fps even when 100% spikes.

**Please Delete

 

[kol12]

sounds about right. I think the xb1 locked out 2 cores for some reason or other, and the sony locked out 1, but in the end they are 8 core cpus.

So the consoles are a full physical 8 cores with no form of hyper threading? If the console games are optimized for the consoles 8 cores how does that translate to how the games are handled with the PC 4 core/8 thread Cpu's? Are the games modified or optimized to be more compatible with the PC processors?

The benchmark link you shared definitely shows the 7700k's IPC and clock speed to be superior in certain benchmarks and of course gaming.

I think I would sit on your choice till the 6c12t r5-1600x and the 4c8t r5-1500x come out (sometime in July i think). I think those are the chips which will move intel's whole product price range down.

I'm happy to wait for a bit, I'm still trying to determine whether the 4690k is actually a bottleneck in the games I'm playing warranting the upgrade. I've been told the games I am playing right now which are Battlefield One, Watch Dogs 2 and Tom Clancy's The Division are 8 thread optimized games. They will play on 4 core/thread Cpu's but better on 8 thread Cpu's. I average 70-77% on those games but with a lot of frequent 90-100% spikes. The severity of any frame drops seem to depend on the game, for example WD2 has large frame drops when spikes occur but The Division doesn't seem to drop from 60 fps even when 100% spikes.

 

[ingtar33]

So the consoles are a full physical 8 cores with no form of hyper threading? If the console games are optimized for the consoles 8 cores how does that translate to how the games are handled with the PC 4 core/8 thread Cpu's? Are the games modified or optimized to be more compatible with the PC processors?

correct, they are 8 "real" cores. However they are 8 SLOW cores. It's all on the x86 architecture, meaning coding a game for one of the game consoles is pretty similar to coding it for the PC.

 

[port27]

@port27

Yes your right about future proofing being near non existent with PC's, I guess I was more concerned as to how far away gaming will actually make 6 core/12 thread CPU's etc a necessity over the 4 core/8 thread CPU's. If it's going to be sooner than three years and I decide to stay with Intel I may be better waiting for their 6 core CPU's next year.

The 4690k has been good up until now but the current games I'm playing are a lot more demanding, which are Battlefield 1, Watch Dogs 2 and The Division. The CPU averages 70-77% in these games but hits 90-100% a lot with Watch Dogs 2 being the worst. Frame drops can be minor but sometimes large. I think the 4690k for the most part handles the games well but seems apparent that it's on the verge of running out of headroom with these games, am I wrong? I don't just want to buy new tech, I want to make the right decision as to whether it's the necessary thing to do right now.

My answer to that would be to wait at least until you see what the AMD R5 lineup is going to do. The word is the R5 is going to be the sweet spot of AMD's lineup which can give you great gaming and production performance at an exceptional price. That said you know Intel is also close to brining something to the battle real soon so the last thing you want to do is jump on something now and a month later something cheaper and better comes along. The 4690K is a great CPU and Watch Dogs isn't the best example because its not very well optimized but I can understand your reason for wanting to upgrade. Word is the R5 is a month or less away from being released.

 

[kol12]

My answer to that would be to wait at least until you see what the AMD R5 lineup is going to do. The word is the R5 is going to be the sweet spot of AMD's lineup which can give you great gaming and production performance at an exceptional price. That said you know Intel is also close to brining something to the battle real soon so the last thing you want to do is jump on something now and a month later something cheaper and better comes along. The 4690K is a great CPU and Watch Dogs isn't the best example because its not very well optimized but I can understand your reason for wanting to upgrade. Word is the R5 is a month or less away from being released.

It sounds like some interesting CPU's are on the way from Intel. There's the LGA 2066 enthusiast platform along with Skylake-X and Kabylake-X replacing the x99 platform this year sometime. Then it sounds like Coffeelake will be bringing mainstream 6 core CPU's in 2018. It's a shame that current release games are already optimized for 8 threads, I've heard a lot of people out there with i5's are having trouble gaming. With the i5 still being very mainstream I'm surprised that the game dev's can't provide better optimization for them.