|
mayodreams posted:I think Broadwell-E is due this year. The -E series usually lags 1-2 years behind the mainstream releases. Is there not going to be a desktop 6 core like there was with haswell? I've searched around on google and am getting some mixed messages. according to this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haswell_(microarchitecture)#Desktop_processors the 6 and 8 core ones were just a few months behind the rest for haswell. edit: actually it seems it was at least a year behind some of the earliest haswell releases so I guess that explains that. Either way it looks like 6700k is more than twice as good as my 3570k for certain workstation applications so I'll probably go with that. Ervin K fucked around with this message at 20:14 on Jan 26, 2016 |
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 00:46 |
|
|
Ervin K posted:Is there not going to be a desktop 6 core like there was with haswell? I've searched around on google and am getting some mixed messages. The 6-core and 8-core chips are a different socket/platform and basically just a rebranded Xeon, yeah. They come out a while later when the Xeons come out for a given generation. I believe this has been the case since Sandy Bridge, as Core 2 didn't have a separate line of prosumer chips for the Xeon platform and the first-generation prosumer i7 chips (Bloomfield, i7-9xx) actually preceded the normal desktop/laptop lineup for that generation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
EdEddnEddy posted:Yea since the Ivy Bride Time. Thats what the -E series has been for on the X79/X99 chipsets. Ivy Bridge? Try Gulftown, and the amazing 980X.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
HalloKitty posted:Ivy Bridge? Try Gulftown, and the amazing 980X. That one completely slipped my mind. I wanted one of those back when soo bad. However the -E Series started around Ivy Bridge with SB-E even though SB was old news by then. Still think the X58 chipset was a drat good one too. Built a few systems, never had one of my own since I had a badass still X48 that I was able to get SLI working, 1Ghz OC on a Q9550 with 1.25V, and a full 4 slots for 8G DDR3 at PC1081Mhz. That thing flew.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 23:11
|
|
|
Zotix posted:Okay so I'm thinking of getting a 6700k. How far are we from cannonlake? Are there any other processors I should be considering at this time for gaming? mayodreams posted:I think Broadwell-E is due this year. The -E series usually lags 1-2 years behind the mainstream releases.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 23:53
|
|
|
japtor posted:But Skylake-E will kinda catch up! Would there be much of a point to a Kaby Lake-E? Kaby Lake is probably going to be similar to the Devil's Canyon Haswell refresh so it won't have a corresponding -E release. They'll just go Haswell-E -> Broadwell-E -> Skylake-E - > Cannonlake(?)-E
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2016 00:56
|
|
|
Ervin K posted:Anyone know if they're releasing a 6 core i7? You'd think i'd be out by now. --edit: Crossing my fingers the 8-core Broadwell will be cheap. Rather doubt that. Skylake-E, here I
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2016 02:52
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:Yeah, it's called the ProcessorGeneration-E. The -E chips generally come out in the same timeframe as the Xeons with that core. Broadwell Xeons aren't quite here yet (supposedly this quarter). If you're waiting for Skylake-E, it's probably going to be 2017.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2016 03:49
|
|
|
Iris Pro showing up in the mobile Xeons first: http://www.anandtech.com/show/9990/skylake-iris-pro-hits-intels-pricing-lists-xeon-e3-1575m-v5-with-gt4e And apparently they wrote about it a while ago, but I haven't read it until now, the eDRAM functionality changes a bit: quote:We have more reasons to be excited over the eDRAM in Skylake than what we saw before in Haswell with the i7-4950HQ on mobile and Broadwell on desktop with the i7-5775C, i5-5765C and the relevant Xeons. With the older platforms, the eDRAM was not a proper bidirectional cache per se. It was used as a victim cache, such that data that was spurned from the L3 cache on the CPU ended up in eDRAM, but the CPU could not place data from the DRAM into the eDRAM without using it first (prefetch prediction). This also meant that the eDRAM was invisible to any other devices on the system, and without specific hooks couldn’t be used by most software or peripherals.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
Durinia posted:The -E chips generally come out in the same timeframe as the Xeons with that core. Broadwell Xeons aren't quite here yet (supposedly this quarter). If you're waiting for Skylake-E, it's probably going to be 2017.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
Do the -e series processors usually get roughly the same per core performance as the quad cores of the same family?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2016 23:21
|
|
|
Gorau posted:Do the -e series processors usually get roughly the same per core performance as the quad cores of the same family? Generally, but they have more cache, which can help with some workloads.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2016 23:31
|
|
|
All that us assuming same frequency, which is not usually the case however.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 00:50
|
|
|
So for gaming which of those chippers is likely to be the best to go with for gaming? I know we don't know the specs on most of it, but I'll want a beefy cpu that I won't need to worry about upgrading for years. Should I wait for the cannon Lake? Or go with a refresh of one of the existing chippers? Or will Kaby Lake be my answer?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
Zotix posted:So for gaming which of those chippers is likely to be the best to go with for gaming? I know we don't know the specs on most of it, but I'll want a beefy cpu that I won't need to worry about upgrading for years. Should I wait for the cannon Lake? Or go with a refresh of one of the existing chippers? Or will Kaby Lake be my answer? Basically it depends where you are now. There's not likely to be that big of a jump in the near future, so getting Skylake is probably sufficient unless you have something made in the last 2-3 years. The main difference is going to be peripheral support, and I don't think anything post Skylake is going to support anything particularly new. So waiting will give you some benefit, but probably not enough to not just buy now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
If you arn't overclocking get a 6700k, if you dont mind overclocking get a 5820k and oc it to 4-4.5ghz
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 18:44
|
|
|
Where they are now, according to an earlier post, is a 3570K, which to me sounds like wait a while. Especially if it's not overclocked yet and could get a bit more performance squoze out of it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 18:45
|
|
|
Well yea, but he said what would be best so... if you have a 3570k yea just keep it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 18:56
|
|
|
If you have any K series CPU, you can OC it about 1Ghz and last 3-5 Generations without performance being a limiting factor at all. The main reason to get a Skylake over say an IvyBridge or even Sandy Bridge, is if you really wanted to have the extra features the Chipset and chip may offer. The reason you get a -E series is if you do a lot of multithreaded work (Encoding for me, BluRay done in 30 Minutes) and sometimes some other serverish level storage and performance benefits. If you want to make a super beast Ramdisk powered monstrosity, the X99 with quad channel memory would be your best choice.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
Durinia posted:The -E chips generally come out in the same timeframe as the Xeons with that core. Broadwell Xeons aren't quite here yet (supposedly this quarter). If you're waiting for Skylake-E, it's probably going to be 2017. I think it may not be as good of an indicator in the past, because I'm suspecting that the new E5's aren't going to be compatible with the HEDT X series chipsets and will only work with the workstation/server C series, just like the E3 v4's and v5's being incompatible with the Z and Q chipsets despite using the same sockets. So there's a chance that EX and EP CPU's won't be so functionally identical like before and the releases may not line up so neatly. Which is probably doing me a favor, because it'll break my habit of buying the Xeon version for $25 more in the hopes that it's a more reliable bin despite that deep in my heart I really know there's no difference.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
Is there any chance that Xeon E5-v4 will be compatible with LGA 2011-v3 or will we be forced onto LGA-2011v4 motherboards? On the desktop broadwell and haswell shared a socket. I do have a C612 motherboard so a potential upgrade to broadwell-e would be nice (although i am fine with Haswell-E).
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 18:51
|
|
|
NihilismNow posted:Is there any chance that Xeon E5-v4 will be compatible with LGA 2011-v3 or will we be forced onto LGA-2011v4 motherboards? On the desktop broadwell and haswell shared a socket. I do have a C612 motherboard so a potential upgrade to broadwell-e would be nice (although i am fine with Haswell-E). Ivy Bridge-E and Sandy Bridge-E share a socket so I think it's quite possible. Don Lapre posted:If you arn't overclocking get a 6700k, if you dont mind overclocking get a 5820k and oc it to 4-4.5ghz Why get a K chip at all if you aren't overclocking? I know the regular 6700 is a little bit slower, but is it worth the extra cost if that's all you get? Eletriarnation fucked around with this message at 20:01 on Jan 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
NihilismNow posted:Is there any chance that Xeon E5-v4 will be compatible with LGA 2011-v3 or will we be forced onto LGA-2011v4 motherboards? On the desktop broadwell and haswell shared a socket. I do have a C612 motherboard so a potential upgrade to broadwell-e would be nice (although i am fine with Haswell-E).
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 03:56
|
|
|
Eletriarnation posted:Ivy Bridge-E and Sandy Bridge-E share a socket so I think it's quite possible. I got a 4790K and am not overclocking because I wanted 4GHz and the OPTION of overclocking. I bought a Z board and a good cooler and I run it stock at the moment. The K processors have nice base clocks and that might be enough reason to buy one and pair it with an H board.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 18:24
|
|
|
The 4790K and its near-gigahertz jump was kind of exceptional, though. The 6700K only gets a 200 MHz stock rise over the basic 6700 (according to ARK, anyway), and it's hard to imagine a task where 4000 MHz isn't already good enough.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
Sir Unimaginative posted:The 4790K and its near-gigahertz jump was kind of exceptional, though. The 6700K only gets a 200 MHz stock rise over the basic 6700 (according to ARK, anyway), and it's hard to imagine a task where 4000 MHz isn't already good enough. Use the ARK spec comparison function and all becomes clear. You're comparing max turbo to max turbo, not base to base. The 6700's base frequency is 3.4GHz and it is a 65W TDP CPU, the 6700K is 4.0 GHz base and 91W TDP. If you load all 4 cores the 6700 is going to be 600 MHz slower than the 6700K.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2016 21:46
|
|
|
I have a question about dual channel memory. A friend of mine has a laptop which appears to be an Intel HM87 chipset. It has 4 DDR3 slots. 2 empty ones are easy to get at but the other 2 are buried deep and require a significant amount of taking apart. He wants to put in another 8GB and it appears the"paired" slots are next to each other - IE the 2 that are easy to get at are a pair, the other 2 which are buried are also a pair. Problem is this: The OEM put the stick it already in the slot under the keyboard, so to properly give it it's dual channel partner it's going to be a pain in the rear end. Any real downsides to running the extra stick(s) in the easily accessible slot(s)? My gut is telling me no because it's already only running with 1 stick in the dual channel slot so I can't imagine it would make a practical difference but I don't know for sure.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 16:47
|
|
|
Xir posted:I got a 4790K and am not overclocking because I wanted 4GHz and the OPTION of overclocking. I bought a Z board and a good cooler and I run it stock at the moment. The K processors have nice base clocks and that might be enough reason to buy one and pair it with an H board. I interpreted the bit I was quoting as "if you are open to the idea of overclocking get a 5820K, if not get a 6700K" which doesn't really jive with what you just said, though. It's unquestionable that you have more options if you get a K processor to start, but if you truly don't ever plan to overclock then by getting a 6700K you're paying a substantial premium (not with MSRP but with current retail prices, taking into account that you have to buy a cooler too) for a few hundred MHz. If you hear "If you aren't overclocking get a 6700k" as "hey it's a good processor and you might want to overclock it but you don't have to right now" then that applies just as well to the 5820K and brings me right back to questioning the rationale of the statement. If you buy an H board and put a 6700K in it, then you've paid more than you would have getting a 6600K and a Z board (and not a lot less than if you had just stayed with the 6700K and gotten a Z board) and you can't overclock at all on a processor that has a premium for that exact purpose. If you ever decided you wanted to overclock you'd then have to go buy a Z board and spend a lot more in total than if you had bought it in the first place. Sounds like a mistake but maybe that's just me. slidebite posted:I have a question about dual channel memory. Depends on what you're doing with the laptop, but you're right that it won't get slower than it is now. It probably won't make a noticeable difference for basic multimedia/web browsing/office use stuff, and not much for gaming. Eletriarnation fucked around with this message at 18:05 on Jan 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 17:58
|
|
|
Eletriarnation posted:Depends on what you're doing with the laptop, but you're right that it won't get slower than it is now. Mismatched sticks run at the slower of the two, so it is possible to degrade overall system performance by adding unpaired RAM. I don't see why the physical accessibility matters, you can get the timing information about that channel's current configuration through software.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 18:18
|
|
|
JawnV6 posted:Mismatched sticks run at the slower of the two, so it is possible to degrade overall system performance by adding unpaired RAM. I don't see why the physical accessibility matters, you can get the timing information about that channel's current configuration through software. You're right, I was assuming that he had matched sticks since he was planning to dual-channel it before he saw the physical position of the slots. If you want to collect SPD info without being able to look at the stick try CPU-Z. It's also the case that even if he had a SPD mismatch and putting in the second stick loosened the timings, he probably wouldn't notice that in real-world applications.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
My current laptop is running with some hosed up combination that added up to 24GB (too lazy to disassemble to remove the old) and I never noticed a speed decrease, FWIW.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
Malloc Voidstar posted:My current laptop is running with some hosed up combination that added up to 24GB (too lazy to disassemble to remove the old) and I never noticed a speed decrease, FWIW. You can get to 24 with matching sticks, it's 2x8 + 2x4. As long as they are paired correctly, should not be significantly decreasing performance.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 01:31
|
|
|
It will probably be 24 with 2x8 kit in the easy spot and the a single 8GB stick in the lovely spot. Not sure what the OEM timings are but it'll be at least as good as that, so the OEM stick will probably be what will bring it down if anything in that regard, I was more curious about the whole dual channel thing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 02:15
|
|
|
So I got a 4690k that I OCed to 4.5k last year under the standard advice that I'd almost never be cpu-locked for games. Unfortunately, nearly every game I play (mmos/rpgs/poorly optimized), I wind up with a major cpu bottleneck. my gtx 980ti can't really shine because I'm trying to run everything at 120/144 fps, and I wind up having to neuter everything cpu-related in order to maintain a sensible framerate for gsync. the 4690k is sufficient for battlefield 4 and a few other optimized shooters that I've played, but almost nothing else. I can't touch ULMB most of the time, because frame drops below 90 get really visually grating. I stopped paying attention to components about a year ago, so I'm kinda in the dark here as to what to upgrade to. A 6700k + mobo + ddr4 is slightly above my price point, but I'm not really sure what other processor to get, or what advice to follow at this point because I'm still pretty salty about how poor the 4690k has worked out for me at high framerates. I was looking at a 6600k, but am now hearing a lot of discussion about the 5.8k and non-k 6700? I don't do video editing or anything else that demanding of cpu besides gaming, but the caveat of running at 120+ fps means my base cpu requirement is much higher. How much more performance for gaming would I be looking at for going to skylake over a 5.8k?
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 02:53
|
|
|
If an i5 4690k isn't enough for you, go with the 6700k. The higher clockspeed and IPC performance improvements from Skylake will make it push more frames than the 5820k unless you overclock it heavily. And I don't think the 6600k would be enough of an upgrade to be worth your time. Personally, I think you may need to go SLI if possible to get the performance you want. I don't think your current CPU should bottleneck you that significantly. The GTX 980Ti is an amazing card, but trying to hit a constant 144Hz+ with all the settings cranked up may be a tall order for it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 05:09
|
|
|
The i7 i5-5775C? If minimum framerates are the problem, the 5775C would be a good choice if you can overclock it well, and you get hyperthreading. You don't need to buy new RAM, and if you have a Z97 board it's drop-in replacement.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 05:24
|
|
|
lewtt posted:Unfortunately, nearly every game I play (mmos/rpgs/poorly optimized), I wind up with a major cpu bottleneck. edit: so I did some random googling for benchmarks, it seems that there's no CPU + single GTX980 combo that will give you a minimum of 120fps @ 1920x1080 with everything turned on in Fallout 4. Mr Chips fucked around with this message at 06:40 on Feb 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 05:58
|
|
|
You can't play Fallout 4 at 144FPS anyway, physics and FPS are linked.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 06:22
|
|
|
lewtt posted:I'm still pretty salty about how poor the 4690k has worked out for me at high framerates. Sorry, but there isn't much out there that's going to be faster than a quad core Haswell at 4.5GHz for gaming. I highly doubt even a 6700K would make an appreciable difference in comparison to your 4690K @ 4.5. The advice wasn't the problem. Your problem is that you're actually expecting to sustain 144 FPS in modern games, which pretty much isn't possible, regardless of configuration. Here's a comparison of an i7-6700K, an i7-4790K, an i7-3770K and an i7-2600K, all at 4.4GHz, with an overclocked Titan X at 1920×1080. You judge. Almost never even hitting 144 FPS, and sustaining it is a complete fantasy. If you then throw some unoptimised crap into the mix which is CPU bound to one or two cores, and you can see you're asking for something that realistically isn't going to happen. Malloc Voidstar posted:You can't play Fallout 4 at 144FPS anyway, physics and FPS are linked. Heh, also this. (Although I didn't see Fallout 4 mentioned in the original post). HalloKitty fucked around with this message at 11:34 on Feb 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 07:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 00:46 |
|
|
HalloKitty posted:Heh, also this. (Although I didn't see Fallout 4 mentioned in the original post). I was just using it as an example of a recent resource intensive game, to illustrate the the CPU in question's about as good as you're going to get for games. Mr Chips fucked around with this message at 08:23 on Feb 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 08:14
|
|