i7 4790k vs i7 6700k

[Soul slayero]

soo i saw some benchmarks showing 17% more fps in bf4 is this ture?? ism y cpu already bottlenecking me

 

[spentshells]

He says you'll see considerable performance wasted - ie the cards can run faster than what 8 lanes can give.

Check out this post http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/292370-30-pcie-pcie-matter

It seems that some motherboards are designed for SLI - they can all do it, but if you have one GPU on a 16 lane PCIe and one on a 8 lane PCIe slot, they both run at 8 lane speeds.

A motherboard doesn't always come with two fully-featured PCI Express x16 slots. Available PCI Express lanes are often distributed across two slots, meaning that the second PCIe port may only run eight lanes electrically. This also means that the speed of one physical x16 PCIe port decreases when you use expand out to a second slot. If you're running a P55-based platform, like our test system, this applies to you.

But don't worry yet. Our tests show that even with the fast Radeon HD 5870 and Radeon HD 5850 cards, the performance impact when switching from PCI Express x16 to x8 is only a few frames per second (remember to check out next week's coverage for more in-depth exploration of PCI Express scaling). Additionally, both cards are throttled at x8, even if you combine a x16 and a x8 slot. According to the GPU-Z tool, the CrossFire configuration is completely synchronized.

With Nvidia, you have a bit more flexibility in slot selection. Even the fastest graphics cards are recognized as an SLI configuration, even if you don't use the SLI bridge connector and instead let the PCIe interface handle all data transfers. However, this comes at the expense of some performance. Ideally, you should always use a bridge connector to link the two cards together. Interestingly, GPU-Z shows that when you combine Nvidia cards in x16 and x8 slots, each card in the SLI configuration still runs at the speed of its respective slot.

With a bridge connector, the difference in speed is within the measuring tolerance. Without a bridge connector, though, you can clearly see that the cards use different interface speeds, and you witness a performance hit of up to 13% in SLI mode.

From this thread http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-crossfire-nvidia-sli-multi-gpu,2678-5.html

5% wont make any differents at all then if its on x8 >.>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rctaLgK5stA found this video also it seems to not really matter at all is this ture? i called nvida and they said it will not bottleneck myvideo cards there made to run x8

This does not apply in any way to cards as powerful as the 980 ti.

 

[spentshells]

He says you'll see considerable performance wasted - ie the cards can run faster than what 8 lanes can give.

Check out this post http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/292370-30-pcie-pcie-matter

It seems that some motherboards are designed for SLI - they can all do it, but if you have one GPU on a 16 lane PCIe and one on a 8 lane PCIe slot, they both run at 8 lane speeds.

A motherboard doesn't always come with two fully-featured PCI Express x16 slots. Available PCI Express lanes are often distributed across two slots, meaning that the second PCIe port may only run eight lanes electrically. This also means that the speed of one physical x16 PCIe port decreases when you use expand out to a second slot. If you're running a P55-based platform, like our test system, this applies to you.

But don't worry yet. Our tests show that even with the fast Radeon HD 5870 and Radeon HD 5850 cards, the performance impact when switching from PCI Express x16 to x8 is only a few frames per second (remember to check out next week's coverage for more in-depth exploration of PCI Express scaling). Additionally, both cards are throttled at x8, even if you combine a x16 and a x8 slot. According to the GPU-Z tool, the CrossFire configuration is completely synchronized.

With Nvidia, you have a bit more flexibility in slot selection. Even the fastest graphics cards are recognized as an SLI configuration, even if you don't use the SLI bridge connector and instead let the PCIe interface handle all data transfers. However, this comes at the expense of some performance. Ideally, you should always use a bridge connector to link the two cards together. Interestingly, GPU-Z shows that when you combine Nvidia cards in x16 and x8 slots, each card in the SLI configuration still runs at the speed of its respective slot.

With a bridge connector, the difference in speed is within the measuring tolerance. Without a bridge connector, though, you can clearly see that the cards use different interface speeds, and you witness a performance hit of up to 13% in SLI mode.

From this thread http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-crossfire-nvidia-sli-multi-gpu,2678-5.html

5% wont make any differents at all then if its on x8 >.>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rctaLgK5stA found this video also it seems to not really matter at all is this ture? i called nvida and they said it will not bottleneck myvideo cards there made to run x8

that simply isn't true 8x slot will hobble a 980 up to 10%

A 980ti is 30% faster, you will see massive losses of performance.

 

[spentshells]

well my i7 4790k bottleneck my 980ti? andi was going to add sli for 1440p gameing 980tis are a beast of a card and am worryed if i go sli m 97 4790k wil bottleneckm,e

Your PC is pretty top notch.

Your CPU and GPU are some of the best you can get for gaming. I don't really think either will be a bottleneck for a while.

Upgrading to 20nm skylake CPU equivalent will only give you a minor increase for a lot of dollars. I believe your GPU is also the top one and the next one won't be out until 2016.

So you basically have almost the top CPU and the top GPU. You can't really get much better without spending 100's or 1000's of dollars for only a minor improvement.

You may see an bigger improvement in adding more RAM or higher speed RAM, but maybe not.

am at 16gb and 2400hz

OK - your signature says different.

I don't think you'll see any noticeable increase in gaming from any upgrade and it will cost a lot to even get that difference.

yea i needed to update my sig i did a cost to upgrade and it would be like 750$ for new motherbroad ram cpu i could buy an other 980ti and get a 50% boost i might just do that

What spentshells is saying is that when you go SLI your PCIe ports that house the GPUs go from 16x speed to 2 x 8x speed.

This means the data being transferred to and from your GPUs are slower, and that will be the bottleneck. He believes you're better off having just ONE GPU card at 16x speed rather than two GPUs at 8x speed.

So be careful if you go SLI, you may not see that 50% boost.

No that is not what I am saying at all. The 980ti is too fast to be run @ 8x, it will result in massive performance loss.
2 980 ti's would offer amazing performance, but a lot of potential would be lost

 

[spentshells]

OP if you simply want more fps in battlefield 4, simply give this lil trick a try.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCQ_H5t3E8I

Where he writes 4 you should write 6 or 8 (i've done it and I wrote 6) The performance increase for me was pretty substantial.

 

[Soul slayero]

OP if you simply want more fps in battlefield 4, simply give this lil trick a try.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCQ_H5t3E8I

Where he writes 4 you should write 6 or 8 (i've done it and I wrote 6) The performance increase for me was pretty substantial.

what the ********** *** * * * * how did this work am puyshing 322 fps in maxed settings i am not understanding this at all what is going on is this fake? i can turn it in 4k with max setings 300fps this is not right somethingi s wrong

 

[spentshells]

How did it work? Well you enabled the use of more threads/cores on your pc. It spreads the load across the cores in place of straining two cores.

Awesome right? Yeah even with my old GTX670 I top 100 fps in a lot of spots and have no issue maintaining the 60fps my display(tv) can handle.

Awesome right? As for 300 fps in 4k I'd think not, 300 fps if you are staring into space or something, get into a battle for a more reality based figure.

Online play should be at 65fps average without enabling more threads.

 

[Soul slayero]

How did it work? Well you enabled the use of more threads/cores on your pc. It spreads the load across the cores in place of straining two cores.

Awesome right? Yeah even with my old GTX670 I top 100 fps in a lot of spots and have no issue maintaining the 60fps my display(tv) can handle.

Awesome right? As for 300 fps in 4k I'd think not, 300 fps if you are staring into space or something, get into a battle for a more reality based figure.

Online play should be at 65fps average without enabling more threads.

know what all this is doing is puting the game in lowest settings it changed the graphices and u cant changed it to any other settings and if it do everthing still looks the same to test this put the res scale to 25% and everthing in low its sopost to look burry but it dont

 

[spentshells]

How did it work? Well you enabled the use of more threads/cores on your pc. It spreads the load across the cores in place of straining two cores.

Awesome right? Yeah even with my old GTX670 I top 100 fps in a lot of spots and have no issue maintaining the 60fps my display(tv) can handle.

Awesome right? As for 300 fps in 4k I'd think not, 300 fps if you are staring into space or something, get into a battle for a more reality based figure.

Online play should be at 65fps average without enabling more threads.

know what all this is doing is puting the game in lowest settings it changed the graphices and u cant changed it to any other settings and if it do everthing still looks the same to test this put the res scale to 25% and everthing in low its sopost to look burry but it dont

HA! well, that isnt the case for all these people.


http://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf4/forum/threadview/2979150493859078655/2/

Turn it back up, you will still see substantial gains.

 

[Soul slayero]

How did it work? Well you enabled the use of more threads/cores on your pc. It spreads the load across the cores in place of straining two cores.

Awesome right? Yeah even with my old GTX670 I top 100 fps in a lot of spots and have no issue maintaining the 60fps my display(tv) can handle.

Awesome right? As for 300 fps in 4k I'd think not, 300 fps if you are staring into space or something, get into a battle for a more reality based figure.

Online play should be at 65fps average without enabling more threads.

know what all this is doing is puting the game in lowest settings it changed the graphices and u cant changed it to any other settings and if it do everthing still looks the same to test this put the res scale to 25% and everthing in low its sopost to look burry but it dont

HA! well, that isnt the case for all these people.


http://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf4/forum/threadview/2979150493859078655/2/

Turn it back up, you will still see substantial gains.

i have already unlucked my cpu cores when i do this i get crazy fps like shit iv never seen b4 if i looked at the sky in 4k i get 725 fps so something is not right with this settings something is funny

 

[Soul slayero]

il upload a video this is not right and the games video graphs looks like it droped to low

 

[spentshells]

You will want to turn the settings back up.

Please I encourage you to read through the battle log thread as well.

 

[Soul slayero]

You will want to turn the settings back up.

Please I encourage you to read through the battle log thread as well.

people are saying bf4 patched this in feb 13 to use all cores vs haveing to set them your self

 

[Soul slayero]

this is the video of what that did to me give it about 10-20 mins to get done downloading to youtube https://youtu.be/kJJCU5Lw2Pg

 

[Soul slayero]

damn that video looks like poo lol i gusse it was playing in 360p

 

[Soul slayero]

even with out doing it that way i stil use all my cores

 

[spentshells]

You will want to turn the settings back up.

Please I encourage you to read through the battle log thread as well.

people are saying bf4 patched this in feb 13 to use all cores vs haveing to set them your self

When you watched the video and followed the steps did you see 2 or did you see more than 2 in the spot you were meant to change?

 

[spentshells]

I only started battlefield in 2015 around March, the steps I provided you worked wonders for me. All settings remained maxed out.

Are you sure you actually did exactly what was shown in the video?

 

[Soul slayero]

I only started battlefield in 2015 around March, the steps I provided you worked wonders for me. All settings remained maxed out.

Are you sure you actually did exactly what was shown in the video?

yea i followed it step by step but after bring my power limt up to 110% on the video card i am not diping that low anymore avg fps is 86 min says 51 and for 1440p i gusse thats good but fraps says 51 as the lower but when i go throw the fps 1 by 1 i dont see a 51 i see low58

 

[Guest]

specs in side bar

I wouldn't upgrade an i7 4790k to an i7 6700k. Your system is current and very capable to serve you well for several more years.

Anyone like me considering buying a new pc or building their own to replace an old system (mine is a first generation i7 940 from 2009, for example) should go right to an i7 6700k, imo. The cost between the i7 4790k and 6700k is minimal and the latter will use DDR4 RAM, which is becoming the standard (and which is to say that if I wanted to upgrade my cpu in the future I might just need that DDR4 RAM anyway).

For some, however, it just might boil down to cost. Nothing wrong with going i7 4970k and DDR3 RAM if on a tight budget where a few bucks less matters more than the time the computer will be used. I use my computer everyday for hours (I'm retired so I can). For me, having the most up-to-date system, as a new system is important, as I'm likely to have it for 6 years or longer with daily use. This may not matter to those who change their computers systems much more often.

So, i7 4790k vs i7 6700k, for a new buyer, depends a lot on what the buyer wants to spend for how much he will use the computer. For those with an i7 4790k computer already, an upgrade is not necessary at all, but would be a luxury most can't afford. The slight increase in performance might not even be user noticeable, just as a couple more frames per second in a game is never noticed by a gamer.

 

[NerdIT]

Best bang-for-buck chip is the the haswell-E i7 5820k...for ~$300...4.2-4.5GHz on AIR most batches..you cant beat it...awesome OC headway. And you are future proof with x99/DDR4.