[SOLVED] Is there any CPU on the market really worth to go from 6600?

[Shutnik]

Recently upgraded from 1080p 60hz to 1440p 144hz and CPU is struggling to go past 60 fps in most games.

1070ti barely loaded, usually 40-70% while cpu in a high 90 or even 100

Is there any good cpu's that worth the price tag?

9700k is 515$ in my area and 2700x is 390$ (yep, local pricing is shite)

I'm kinda "budget" guy, and don't like to waste buck on the "meh" upgrade.

Good price\perfomance ratio is crucial.

Any suggestions, or atm i should wait for another generation to kick in?

 

[drea.drechsler]

...
I'm kinda "budget" guy, and don't like to waste buck on the "meh" upgrade.
...

That could be pretty contradictory except AMD has got it covered right now.

Look at the 2600 processor instead of the 2700x. Unless you also do content creation you don't really need an 8 core. You'll also find solid AM4 motherboards, like Asrock B450 Pro 4, that allow overclocking for $100 or less and will also upgrade to the next generation processor neat. If you can buy online you should get into that kit for less then 1/2 that 9700k price alone. That's good budgeting, and won't leave you with anything 'meh'.

Waiting to upgrade is always 'iffy' since, while rumors make it look nice, we don't really know price points or performance of the 3000 processors. Still, that good budgeting you did up there lets you move to a Ryzen 3000 when they come out later this year and quite likely still come in below that 9700k alone.

 

[Rataan]

If gaming is your main interest, my vote is for the 9600K. But you weren't very specific about your setup. Do you have a 6600K? Is it overclocked to 4.5 GHz or more? Assuming it is properly configured and overclocked, the 6600K is still a respectable CPU and I wouldn't expect to see CPU bottlenecking until you get to frame rates well over 100 fps. But some games are more CPU intensive than others and maybe you could benefit from the higher core count and architecture improvements of the newest CPU's. But don't expect miracles, because the 6600K isn't very old. And if you do upgrade, I think you should stick with Intel, because Intel does better in games, especially CPU intensive games.

 

[Shutnik]

If gaming is your main interest, my vote is for the 9600K. But you weren't very specific about your setup. Do you have a 6600K? Is it overclocked to 4.5 GHz or more? Assuming it is properly configured and overclocked, the 6600K is still a respectable CPU and I wouldn't expect to see CPU bottlenecking until you get to frame rates well over 100 fps. But some games are more CPU intensive than others and maybe you could benefit from the higher core count and architecture improvements of the newest CPU's. But don't expect miracles, because the 6600K isn't very old. And if you do upgrade, I think you should stick with Intel, because Intel does better in games, especially CPU intensive games.

Thx for the reply mate. No, it is usual 6600 non k, and 16 gigs of cl13 2133mhz ram goes with it.

Far Cry 5 for example, run ~40-85 fps, dota2 ~40-110, csgo ~80-130

I mostly want to push lower framerates as close to a 100 as possible.

Currently playing old games like FEAR 1\2, mass effect 1-3, resident evil 6 and holy shite stable 144 fps is gorgeous AF

 

[Rataan]

OK, so it's a 6600 which tops out at 3.9 GHz if everything is configured correctly. That's still not a terrible chip, but you would probably see a significant boost from a 9600K. You seem to have been bitten by the high-end gaming bug and it is true that your 1070 Ti is stronger than your 6600. A 9600K plus motherboard and CPU cooler would run about $500 USD. You would want to overclock it to 5.0 GHz and my guess is you would see anywhere from 10% - 50% increase in frame rates depending on many different factors.

But before you spend money, my advice would be to search the Internet for guides detailing graphical settings options for the games you play. You seem to be interested in high frame rates and turning down key settings may get you the frame rates you want without spending anything. Some graphical settings have a huge impact on frame rates without noticeable visual improvements. Remember that even if you bought a 9900K and a 2080 Ti if you try to run a 4K monitor at Ultra settings you are going to have slowdowns. Graphical settings are always a compromise.

 

[jitendrad]

If you looking for best price to performance ratio then definitely go with Ryzen 7 2700x

 

[1LiquidPC]

The IPC of the Core 2 generation is well behind modern CPUs. It's definitely holding you back in games, even being quad-core. Bought one myself and OC'd to 3Ghz back in 2007.

You would get a nice boost in FPS and overall system performance from modern platforms. I use Core 2 based setups at work on equipment, and when compared to modern builds, they feel like 486s.

 

[Rataan]

Unless I've gotten it all wrong, he has an i5-6600, which is a Skylake chip from late 2015. It's only 3 years old.

 

[boju]

If BF1/BF5 are the types of games you play id avoid 9600k. You'll find this cpu is also reaching really high cpu usages. Similar performance to the older 8600k if you search high cpu usages with either of these processors you'll see a lot of unhappy people.

Look at 9700k, possibly 9900k. Ryzen is also a good choice.

 

[1LiquidPC]

Nice catch, my bad on reading that one. Just was thinking the Q6600 by being listed as 6600 for some reason.

 

[sizzling]

I agree with Boju. Even the current i5’s can be pushed to 100% in cpu heavy games. For me it’s a modern i7 or Ryzen, the current i5’s just don’t have much headroom for the future.