Whats the fastest possible single-core CPU?

[AndreDBU]

Hi guys!
I am looking for a CPU with the fastest possible single core performance and fast speeds. I pair it with a Titan X Pascal. This PC rig its just gonna be for gaming / simulation uses. The game that I will play the most is Prepar3d that is a professional flight simulator. I will show you the processors that I have in mind: 6700k, 4790k, 6850k, 5960x, 6900k

 

[Rogue Leader]

Of the ones you selected the 6700k is the best choice. Its single cores are significantly faster than the rest and can be overclocked even further.

 

[George Phillips]

The single core performance under single thread is likely 6700k, but it's just few % faster than 6850k or 6900k. It's about 6-7% faster than 4790k. But if you are pairing that with a Titan X, consider to get a processor with 6 or more cores because many games and application will use more than 6 cores in the coming years.
By the way, the rumor has it that a cut down version of Titan X Pascal will be released soon. It is likely named 1080 Ti and will be priced at least $400 dollar cheaper than Titan X. You might want to wait just a little longer.

 

[Rogue Leader]

The single core performance under single thread is likely 6700k, but it's just few % faster than 6850k or 6900k. It's about 6-7% faster than 4790k. But if you are pairing that with a Titan X, consider to get a processor with 6 or more cores because many games and application will use more than 6 cores in the coming years.
By the way, the rumor has it that a cut down version of Titan X Pascal will be released soon. It is likely named 1080 Ti and will be priced at least $400 dollar cheaper than Titan X. You might want to wait just a little longer.

I'll believe it when I see it. Multi core processors have been around for a very long time, and we have been hearing this forever. AMD bet the farm on it, and lost.

I personally would not bet on it. Games are generally a linear load, there is not a whole ton to be gained in MOST games by spreading it over multiple cores.

 

[Ecky]

The latest Intel architecture will be capable of the highest single-threaded performance. The 4790K and 5960X are both 4-generation "Haswell", the 6850K and 6900K are both 5th generation "Broadwell", and the 6700K alone of those you listed is 6th generation "Skylake".

If you're fine with only 2 cores, you could get away with using the $60-70 Pentium G3258. It's a 4th generation CPU, so its per-clock performance is slightly lower, but with a lucky chip you can get 90-95% of the performance of an overclocked 6700K's single-threaded performance for 1/4 the price. Otherwise, as Rogue Leader has said, the 6700K is your best bet.

 

[Ecky]

The single core performance under single thread is likely 6700k, but it's just few % faster than 6850k or 6900k. It's about 6-7% faster than 4790k. But if you are pairing that with a Titan X, consider to get a processor with 6 or more cores because many games and application will use more than 6 cores in the coming years.
By the way, the rumor has it that a cut down version of Titan X Pascal will be released soon. It is likely named 1080 Ti and will be priced at least $400 dollar cheaper than Titan X. You might want to wait just a little longer.

I'll believe it when I see it. Multi core processors have been around for a very long time, and we have been hearing this forever. AMD bet the farm on it, and lost.

I personally would not bet on it. Games are generally a linear load, there is not a whole ton to be gained in MOST games by spreading it over multiple cores.

Most new high-budget games out today benefit from more cores and threads, even if they still have a main thread that relies on single-threaded performance. It's not uncommon to see lower-clocked 6-core / 12 thread CPUs outperforming quad i7's.

Take a look at how Dues Ex: Mankind Devided can distribute load, for instance:

Doom runs (marginally) better on a Sandy Bridge 6-core than a Haswell quad:

The same with Mirror's Edge: Catalyst and Total War:

Even Blizzard's latest title can use 8 cores, even if CPU scaling ceases once you get to ~i5 levels:

 

[Benab3]

MERGED QUESTION
Question from AndreDBU : "Single Core or multi Core? 6900k vs 6700k"

Hi there! I am building a pc for a Professional flight simulator called Prepar3d. Common Gaming and Flight Simulators Are kinda different because on a flight sim you can upgrade de game by addons and download files into the game, etc... I dont know which of these CPU's is the best pick, but I have others to mention such as the 5960x, 6850k and 4790k. I am gonna be paired the processor with a Titan X Pascal. Depending the Benchmarks, I could also go with the 1080 ti SLI or Titan X SLI in the future. I'm algo gonna be running a 3440 x 1440 monitor, the Acer Predator X34P. I Hope you can help me with this because anybody in the other aviation / simulator forums cant get a conclusion and start telling me stuff that doesnt come with the question...
Ps: I will OC the CPU and GPU with custom water cooling system (custom loop)

try their forum?
http://www.prepar3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6315&t=120764

an X99 build, or any processor with more physical cores are always better for heavy loads that can make use of all of them. That being said, for a professional flight simulatior, you should definitely choose the 6900K, since it has double the cores and threads than the 6700K. On top of that, the X99 platform can support around 128GB of RAM, also double that of the maximum amount of RAM Skylake (6700K) platform can handle. Also, you don't want to have your 6700K being bottlenecked by 2 Titan XPs.
Overall, the 6900K is a better choice for what you will be doing.

Hello,

Although I do no personally use P3D, a close relative of mine does use it a lot.
For the CPU, I would recommend the I7 6700K, the successor to the I7 4790k. The reason for this, over the much more expensive processors such as the 6900K, 6950X, 5960X etc etc etc is that is has a high Single core performance. In programs like P3D, and other similar programs, fewer, faster cores are better, this being due to the programs not being able to utilise more than a certain amount of cores, so the rest just sit there doing very little.

For graphics cards, from what I can see about the program, SLI doesn't work that flawlessly. Even in programs where it does, I wouldn't personally recommend it. It has it's own issues such as higher latency and some programs not properly supporting dual graphics cards can even see a decrease in performance.

 

[Rogue Leader]

MERGED QUESTION
Question from AndreDBU : "6900k VS 5960x. Whats the best one for Gaming?"

Which of these two Processors its the best one overall for just Gaming paired with a Titan X Pascal? Probably in the future I will do SLI depending on my budget.

Both are overkill and actually may give you less performance than a 6700k. Sli can be done successfully on a z170x, doesn't need to be on the x99 platform. Those cpu's are more suited to video encoding and other highly threaded tasks. As core count increases it generally becomes more difficult to stably overclock and cool those cpu's.

The 6900k only clocks up to 3.7ghz with turbo boost and may overclock a bit more with hefty cooling given it's already a 140w tdp cpu. The 6700k clocks up to 4.2ghz with turbo boost and overclocked with a large air cooler or basic aio like an h100i will likely reach 4.7-4.8ghz. Some of which depends on the silicon lottery. All in all I think it's a large waste of money on either of those cpu's.

Both are overkill for gaming,a 6700k is enough,but if you have to choose between them the 6900k is a little better than the 5960 due to higher clock speed and improved ipc.

Of the two, I'd day the 6900k. But if you're building a purely gaming rig, your putting a lot of money in to CPU's that are going to get beaten out by a i7-6700k. Gaming has just started taking advantage of an i7 quadcore. An Octocore like either of those will do jack all for gaming.

Yep.
You need to be SPECIFIC as to your needs.

Unless you do a lot of video editing or something then I'd stick with an i7-6700K setup, and GTX1080. (if you do edit, then an i7-6800K which is a 6C/12T processor might boost up to 1.5X so maybe around 65% of the time but you need a much better motherboard. It adds roughly $200 to $300 to the build cost with the $430 CPU and $300 or somotherboard.

*I suggest looking carefully into the choice of MONITOR. Far too many people buy expensive PC's but neglect the monitor. A good GSYNC monitor is recommended for a high-end PC.

They are about $750 to $1300 depending on what you want. Such as:

27", 2560x1440, IPS, 144Hz, GSYNC (16x9 ratio)
or
34", 3440x1440, IPS, 100Hz, GSYNC (21:9 ratio or "ultrawide)

*THIS is an expensive build I made for someone else:
http://pcpartpicker.com/list/wWsbLD

(swap the motherboard and CPU for a cheaper build, and other parts as needed. Just FYI, but if you have QUAD-CHANNEL setup on a board like this you don't require faster system memory. That's why I didn't use 3200MHz, though the same memory is probably fine for an i7-6700K setup.

16GB is plenty for a gaming build.)

 

[Rogue Leader]

AndreDBU, I merged your threads here, being that your questions are similar its best to keep it to 1 thread, that will allow everyone to help you correctly and understand where you are coming from.

 

[Yourmomm]

My hexcore AMD 1090T phenom 2 chip, overclocked to 4.4ghz per core, was beaten hands down by my i5 quad core 4790k, even at only stock 4ghz speed, for p3d.

Don't listen to anyone who says 'more cores are better' for p3d. Other games, maybe, I wouldn't know. But, just so you know, I got rid of my 1090T hexcore, and kept my i5 4790k, which happily overclocks to 4.6ghz, and walked all over the AMD hexcore all day, in every application I used.... my 4790k and single gtx 1080 runs p3d no worries.... very smooth and looks amazing.