Upgrade 6 year old CPU to a Core i7 8700k for a 4% increase in FireStricke, 95% to 99%?

[curley60]

So, my 3d mark Firestrike 1.1 score is 95% of all results with my 1080 ti. I don’t want to reveal my CPU yet because that is why I’m asking if all the hype of new cpus is only to get people to spend their money. I have the money to upgrade to an 8700K but the 3D Mark 1.1 score for 1080 ti and 8700k is 99% of all results.

That is only a 4% increase. I’m told by all the marketing, tech gurus, and forums that my setup is too old to game and my cpu will cause a bottle neck with anything other than a 6 core cpu. I read that the Core i7 8700K is the first consumer 6 core cpu and that it performs so well because games are starting to take advantage of more cores just as Windows 10 and other programs have over the years.

Other than gaming, the only other stressful work I do are opening large folders of pictures which populate almost instantly.

My setup is a Core i7 990x @4.6ghz (all Cores), Asus Rampage III Formula, 24gb Corsair 1600 memory, SSD, EVGA 1080ti, 1200watt power supply, windows 10 pro etc.

I can’t see spending 8 or 900 dollars to get a 4% gain in gaming. I’m sure the the 8700K is getting many more frames per second than my cpu but isn’t it moot if I’m getting over 100fps.

Also, four years ago, I almost upgraded but software and games started taking advantage of more cores and the Gulftown, which I think if the first 6 core consumer cpu, started increasing scores in multi-threaded benchmarks, software and games. I think Intel tipped their hand way too early as to what they could produce in terms of a 6 core cpu.

What are your thoughts??

 

[nobspls]

If you are happy with your setup for gaming. DO NOT get baited into spending more money for single digit improvements for gaming.

There are other reasons to upgrade, but that does not seem to be your focus.

 

[Dugimodo]

Synthetic benchmarks do not always translate to actual gaming performance, especially if they are designed to test the graphics only. Try some Game benchmarks and compare those.

Also see here https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-X-990-vs-Intel-Core-i7-8700K/m2590vs3937
those benchmarks show about 45% on average at stock.

If it games well enough for you then keep it, but I suspect the actual performance difference is a lot more than you suggest.

 

[bmockeg]

A synthetic benchmark is a poor choice to use as a single indicator about performance increase. Your 1st gen I7 will be a bottleneck. It will be less of,a bottleneck in GPU intensive tasks, less at 1440p and even less at 4k. Playing at 1080p or CPU intensive games, it will be a more significant bottleneck. My advice would be to use your current CPU with the 1080ti and decide if the performance is acceptable. You will definitely get a performamve increase with a new CPU. I would upgrade to a 9700k if upgrading now and get the true 8 core.

 

[hypog60]

Thanks Guys.

 

[hypog60]

Took your advise on running real time game benchmarks and the 8700k did get 30-70 FPS more than my 990x but I think the reason my games are still running smooth is the difference in fps was like 90fps for 990x, and 140fps for 8700k. 2k and 4k are had similar differences. As long as my eyes can't see the difference between 90FPS and 140FPS, I'll keep my current config but I'm still going to build a second rig with a 8700K and 2080 because 1080 ti are hard to get. I found it very fun comparing hardware.

 

[bigwoofer]

This is a fun topic. I'm happily playing World of Tanks in a clan with comms and having zero issues with my intel q9400 and gtx 660, running 60-100fps that folks would have told me longer ago than you I need to upgrade. I have no desire to see bugs or leaves on trees though, or an awe-inspiring sunset during a tank battle. So maybe that's the difference?

So, my 3d mark Firestrike 1.1 score is 95% of all results with my 1080 ti. I don’t want to reveal my CPU yet because that is why I’m asking if all the hype of new cpus is only to get people to spend their money. I have the money to upgrade to an 8700K but the 3D Mark 1.1 score for 1080 ti and 8700k is 99% of all results.

That is only a 4% increase. I’m told by all the marketing, tech gurus, and forums that my setup is too old to game and my cpu will cause a bottle neck with anything other than a 6 core cpu. I read that the Core i7 8700K is the first consumer 6 core cpu and that it performs so well because games are starting to take advantage of more cores just as Windows 10 and other programs have over the years.

Other than gaming, the only other stressful work I do are opening large folders of pictures which populate almost instantly.

My setup is a Core i7 990x @4.6ghz (all Cores), Asus Rampage III Formula, 24gb Corsair 1600 memory, SSD, EVGA 1080ti, 1200watt power supply, windows 10 pro etc.

I can’t see spending 8 or 900 dollars to get a 4% gain in gaming. I’m sure the the 8700K is getting many more frames per second than my cpu but isn’t it moot if I’m getting over 100fps.

Also, four years ago, I almost upgraded but software and games started taking advantage of more cores and the Gulftown, which I think if the first 6 core consumer cpu, started increasing scores in multi-threaded benchmarks, software and games. I think Intel tipped their hand way too early as to what they could produce in terms of a 6 core cpu.

What are your thoughts??

 

[audiospecaccts]

What are your thoughts??

Processors really plateaued over the years. Its the bus technology and the chipsets that never caught up to the potential of the cpu.
Sounds like the chip-set is keeping up with the cpu. The os will be the slowest thing because of its behavior with the swap file regardless of memory size. The next slowest thing would be the HDD controllers, because most of those cheap single chip solutions use a software driver application instead of an embedded hardware solution. This of course, encompasses 95% of the current chip-sets and they are low end, but marketed as premium products.