I'm at the time of upgrading. I play all my games at 4k with a 1080ti and a i5 6600k 4.5ghz. So far it performs very well. I couldn't find any benchmarks showing a comparison between the 6600k/7600k vs the 8600k at 4k. Every benchmark always showed 1080p. Can anyone show me any benchmarks between the two cpus at 4k?
i5 6600k vs 8600k for 4k gaming?
- Thread starter Tensai30
- Start date
At 4K you're going to be GPU bound 99% of the time, so there would be next to no difference between those two CPUs. The reason CPU reviews always benchmark at lower resolutions like 1080p is that differences in gaming performance between any mainstream or higher CPUs from the last couple years doesn't show up until you get to 100+ FPS (which basically isn't possible at 4K with today's graphics tech).
Yes, I realize that 4k is more gpu bound hence my system build. However I would still expect there to be somewhat of an improvement in fps upgrading to the 8600k especially on cpu intensive games. Are you saying there would be no improvement whatsoever? I'm not expecting a giant leap in fps just hoping for a few more.
Darkbreeze
Retired Mod
- Jun 24, 2014
- 82,656
- 8,314
- 176,790
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i5_8600K/12.html
Closest you're going to find. There ARE differences, as you can clearly see there when you compare the performance of the higher threaded Ryzen CPUs to the majority of the Intel models. Since every game will be different, it's hard to draw a firm conclusion in general, but clearly there ARE differences regardless that it might be mostly GPU bound. Since that review also uses a 1080, which isn't THAT far off from the 1080ti that you can't at least draw SOME conclusions, I find it hard to not believe the choice of CPU has relevance.
Closest you're going to find. There ARE differences, as you can clearly see there when you compare the performance of the higher threaded Ryzen CPUs to the majority of the Intel models. Since every game will be different, it's hard to draw a firm conclusion in general, but clearly there ARE differences regardless that it might be mostly GPU bound. Since that review also uses a 1080, which isn't THAT far off from the 1080ti that you can't at least draw SOME conclusions, I find it hard to not believe the choice of CPU has relevance.
The only reason I am considering this upgrade is because I usually upgrade around now. Not interested in Ryzen because here where I'm located prices for ryzen are worse than intel. I already have a gigabyte aorus xtreme 1080ti overclocked to 2ghz stable with an aggressive fan curve and +400 on the memory and 16gb of ddr4 2400mhz. Nothing else really in my system needs upgrading. Not really any gpu upgrade options except titan xp which is too expensive.
Look at the 1st graph here: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-coffee-lake-core-i5-8600k-cpu,5264-12.html
At stock, the 8600K average minimum fps is ~8 FPS higher. When both are OC'd, the difference is only ~5 fps. And this is at 1080p, so the difference at 4K is going to be smaller if anything.
At stock, the 8600K average minimum fps is ~8 FPS higher. When both are OC'd, the difference is only ~5 fps. And this is at 1080p, so the difference at 4K is going to be smaller if anything.
Darkbreeze
Retired Mod
- Jun 24, 2014
- 82,656
- 8,314
- 176,790
I would not see, regardless that there ARE some differences, depending on the title and some optimization considerations, any compelling reason to upgrade right now from where you are. I'm on a 6700k@4.6Ghz and based on the results I see, although not at 4k, from reviews using the same graphics card with the 8700k, that there is enough (if any) difference to justify ME making a move, and probably even less so for you except maybe in those few games where the additional cores are actually used. Plus, any gain is unlikely to be ENOUGH that it will actually make much difference. Minimum rates are unlikely to be a result of your CPU in almost any scenario which is why you rarely even see that information included when the review is primarily CPU oriented.
That's what I was afraid of. I was looking for something to give me a slight boost in fps so that my fps wouldn't hit the mid 50s but I guess there isn't anything for now. Like I said before I'm on a 1080ti overclocked, i5 6660k 4.5ghz and 16gb ddr4 2400mhz. Wish there was something to improve my minimums besides a new video card since that isn't an option (nothing exists better than a 1080ti except a titanxp).
Darkbreeze
Retired Mod
- Jun 24, 2014
- 82,656
- 8,314
- 176,790
You can look at it this way though. Just because something like the 8700k isn't ALWAYS or even MOSTLY, going to be helpful to you now, it WILL be once you upgrade your GPU card later down the road, so if you want to upgrade anyhow, Coffee lake DOES show a considerable performance increase over Skylake in a lot of areas, and once you are no long GPU bound, you might reap some real rewards at that time.
Plus, there will almost certainly be SOME games and situations where it will be helpful NOW. Because during raids and in major cities, etc., there can be no doubt that CPU performance can become just as much of a consideration as the graphics card is. Minimum frame rates can absolutely lag due to CPU performance, or lack of it, in those cases. Even if it doesn't offer you a 20% increase in overall playability 90% of the time, it might offer you a 60% increase in playability 10% of the time. Especially if you up the ante with a higher tiered card whenever the next releases come around.
Plus, there will almost certainly be SOME games and situations where it will be helpful NOW. Because during raids and in major cities, etc., there can be no doubt that CPU performance can become just as much of a consideration as the graphics card is. Minimum frame rates can absolutely lag due to CPU performance, or lack of it, in those cases. Even if it doesn't offer you a 20% increase in overall playability 90% of the time, it might offer you a 60% increase in playability 10% of the time. Especially if you up the ante with a higher tiered card whenever the next releases come around.
I switched you to the best solution. I thought I was going crazy asking about minimums and getting responses like the cpu doesn't effect it. I would think watchdogs 2 would also benefit from it. I could have sworn the cpu and ram handled the minimums and the gpu was responsible for avg and max fps. Of course there are exceptions but generally speaking. I also plan to overclock the CPU as well. You have a good point about making it future-proof as well (I don't like that term but can't think of a better one).
Darkbreeze
Retired Mod
- Jun 24, 2014
- 82,656
- 8,314
- 176,790
Not just minimums, but minimums in SPECIFIC situations. In some areas there are very compute specific tasks that are not GPU involved. Not a lot, and not a lot of the time, but enough that when it happens, it is obvious.
There will still be many circumstances where the minimum rate is NOT due to the CPU but is due to other factors like too much detail on 500 items, which at 4k is going to challenge even a 1080ti. But in SOME circumstances it will NOT be the GPU card to blame. When it's not, THEN you will probably see some pickup in those rates. Mostly that won't be the case, but it WILL be the case sometimes.
Later, when you upgrade the card next, it will LIKELY be the case. If the next gen of cards gives you even a 10% increase in performance (And hopefully it will be significantly more than that), that's probably enough to get most people past any current 60fps hurdles they are seeing in minimum rates on 4k machines. Of course, games get harder too, so who knows.
There will still be many circumstances where the minimum rate is NOT due to the CPU but is due to other factors like too much detail on 500 items, which at 4k is going to challenge even a 1080ti. But in SOME circumstances it will NOT be the GPU card to blame. When it's not, THEN you will probably see some pickup in those rates. Mostly that won't be the case, but it WILL be the case sometimes.
Later, when you upgrade the card next, it will LIKELY be the case. If the next gen of cards gives you even a 10% increase in performance (And hopefully it will be significantly more than that), that's probably enough to get most people past any current 60fps hurdles they are seeing in minimum rates on 4k machines. Of course, games get harder too, so who knows.
Yes, there are probably some specific CPU heavy games that would benefit from an 8600k.
You can test to see if your CPU is holding you back. Turn down resolution or graphics settings and see how your fps changes. If it goes up, then your CPU wasn't what was holding you back.
You can test to see if your CPU is holding you back. Turn down resolution or graphics settings and see how your fps changes. If it goes up, then your CPU wasn't what was holding you back.
To be honest I hardly ever see drops that aren't gpu related. Mirrors edge catalyst drops when looking directly through or passing through a water fountain. I suspect my drops on gta might be though. In intense firefights with lots of explosions I did notice the fps dripping a little. Perhaps that is cpu related?
Darkbreeze
Retired Mod
- Jun 24, 2014
- 82,656
- 8,314
- 176,790
This should pretty much tell you what you need to know in that regard. With your GTX 1080TI, anything below a Kaby Lake i7 is probably not the best pairing for VR. There will be balance issues. Will a Skylake, or even a Sandy Bridge i5 work? Certainly. Will it be severely unbalanced? Certainly.
Unlike some gaming platforms, VR gaming REALLY takes advantage of threaded performance, so more cores, and faster cores, however much faster they might be, will absolutely be helpful. Especially with a top shelf card like you have.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/oculus-rift-vr-cpu-performance,5215-13.html
Unlike some gaming platforms, VR gaming REALLY takes advantage of threaded performance, so more cores, and faster cores, however much faster they might be, will absolutely be helpful. Especially with a top shelf card like you have.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/oculus-rift-vr-cpu-performance,5215-13.html
I didn't really notice any issues on my i5 with the vive so far. Only game I had a little bit of framerate problems was arktika.1 with revive. I'm not sure if it was revive to blame. There are still quite a few games I haven't tried though since I'm still new to vr. Okay well, I'm convinced. I'll get the cpu for VR and 4k for future gpu upgrades. Thank you for all your help.
Hopefully this is still being watched. I forgot that the 7700k would work on my current motherboard. Saving me from having to purchase a new motherboard. Either way if I went for the 8600k I would just end up selling my old parts but is it worth it to go for the 8600k and get the real 6 cores or go with the 7700k and stay with 4 cores/hyper-threading.
Darkbreeze
Retired Mod
- Jun 24, 2014
- 82,656
- 8,314
- 176,790
Both the 6600k and 7700k have four physical cores. They both perform almost exactly the same with only clock speed making much difference. Since you can overclock your CPU to the same speeds as the 7700k is capable of, there is not much point in upgrading to that. The four extra hyperthreads don't REALLY offer you THAT much in terms of gaming performance. Maybe in a few games but for most of them the four overclocked cores you have are gonna give you just about the same performance as the 7700k will give you.
Whatever gains you MIGHT get from the 7700k are not enough to justify spending 300 bucks to get, especially when that 300 bucks could go towards a better solution like the 8400, 8600k or 8700k. All of which will give you more physical cores and higher clock speeds. Truthfully, I'm not even sure Coffee lake is even enough of an improvement to be worth your money right now. I'm not usually one to say "wait to see what's around the corner", but in this case I think that is truly the best advice.
If you said "I really want to move up to Coffee lake", I would not argue against that, but I would also not try to argue that you need to do so based on any great performance gains you'd be likely to see between the two platforms. If you had something older, like Sandy, Ivy or Haswell, it might be a different story, but Skylake is still completely relevant and unless you go to the 8700k AND tend to play games that are either really well optimized for using more cores or will be doing heavy multitasking like streaming or recording WHILE gaming I'd don't see a good argument for an upgrade being a necessity right now.
Whatever gains you MIGHT get from the 7700k are not enough to justify spending 300 bucks to get, especially when that 300 bucks could go towards a better solution like the 8400, 8600k or 8700k. All of which will give you more physical cores and higher clock speeds. Truthfully, I'm not even sure Coffee lake is even enough of an improvement to be worth your money right now. I'm not usually one to say "wait to see what's around the corner", but in this case I think that is truly the best advice.
If you said "I really want to move up to Coffee lake", I would not argue against that, but I would also not try to argue that you need to do so based on any great performance gains you'd be likely to see between the two platforms. If you had something older, like Sandy, Ivy or Haswell, it might be a different story, but Skylake is still completely relevant and unless you go to the 8700k AND tend to play games that are either really well optimized for using more cores or will be doing heavy multitasking like streaming or recording WHILE gaming I'd don't see a good argument for an upgrade being a necessity right now.
Darkbreeze
Retired Mod
- Jun 24, 2014
- 82,656
- 8,314
- 176,790
You're right. I forgot you planned to use this for VR. Eh, it will still work. Let's just say that it would probably be better balanced and might, depending on the complexity of the VR game, show some improvements with a CPU that has more physical cores. But even if that's true you have to gauge whether the difference in performance is worth 300 bucks and I don't think I've said anywhere in this thread that it would be, assuming the use of a 7700k.
There is NO doubt that if you move up to the 8700k you WILL see some noticeable improvements in any kind of gaming environment unless you are playing a title that simply does not tend to use CPU resources much. For VR, that's unlikely. VR uses CPU resources much more stringently AND with VR, even more so than with traditional gaming, you REALLY don't want to drop below the refresh rate of the two displays or it's not going to be a pleasant experience. Of course, there are usually some things you can do with settings but VR is MEANT to be visually pleasing and you bought a GTX 1080TI for a reason so you just really want to make sure that there are not any frame rate drops that are due to the CPU.
If you haven't noticed any problems, then likely YOU should be the one to make that call as to whether you need to upgrade or not. I will tell you one thing, VR is going to get a whole lot more complex and demanding before it gets any easier, as is usually the case even with traditional gaming, so what is working now on a few games is no guarantee that the next generation of titles will be as kind.
If the money isn't the biggest question mark, then upgrade. But only upgrade if you're going to go with the 8700k. I don't see that any other upgrade is going to make a remarkable difference.
There is NO doubt that if you move up to the 8700k you WILL see some noticeable improvements in any kind of gaming environment unless you are playing a title that simply does not tend to use CPU resources much. For VR, that's unlikely. VR uses CPU resources much more stringently AND with VR, even more so than with traditional gaming, you REALLY don't want to drop below the refresh rate of the two displays or it's not going to be a pleasant experience. Of course, there are usually some things you can do with settings but VR is MEANT to be visually pleasing and you bought a GTX 1080TI for a reason so you just really want to make sure that there are not any frame rate drops that are due to the CPU.
If you haven't noticed any problems, then likely YOU should be the one to make that call as to whether you need to upgrade or not. I will tell you one thing, VR is going to get a whole lot more complex and demanding before it gets any easier, as is usually the case even with traditional gaming, so what is working now on a few games is no guarantee that the next generation of titles will be as kind.
If the money isn't the biggest question mark, then upgrade. But only upgrade if you're going to go with the 8700k. I don't see that any other upgrade is going to make a remarkable difference.
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
-
Question Need Advice - 140m Ethernet Run Between Buildings- Started by Reda_ELF
- Replies: 4
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 4K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram