|
I assume the 2500K is only really good if you can overclock it? I've been considering getting a used one (EDIT: I guess a 2500 makes more sense?) to stave off building a new system for a while, since my Pentium G630 is getting sadder by the minute and they use the same socket. I don't have a motherboard that can overclock, though.
HMS Boromir fucked around with this message at 19:53 on Nov 20, 2015 |
#
¿
Nov 20, 2015 19:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 04:38 |
|
|
Sounds like a cheapo used 2500K that I later get a motherboard and cooler to overclock would be a good choice if nothing cool happens in the world of CPUs by the time I want to upgrade. Thanks for the info.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2015 20:53
|
|
|
I may have underestimated how hard it is to get my hands on a Z68 motherboard. I guess it's back to the plan of stick it out until CPUs improve a little more over Sandy Bridge than they have so far, with a 2500 as an emergency backup plan.
HMS Boromir fucked around with this message at 22:31 on Nov 20, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2015 22:28
|
|
|
Didn't know that chipset existed, mostly. That does seem to be easier to get a hold of, so I'll keep it in mind. Thanks.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
mayodreams posted:I have a Z68 board and 2500k I could sell you. I've been itching to upgrade and haven't really had the motivation to find a buyer. I'm most likely halfway across the globe from you and I tend to mull over this sort of decision for multiple months before pulling the trigger, but thanks. DrDork posted:Also remember you don't need a Z-series board to overclock. The venerable P67 chipsets are still plentiful, cheap, and will do you just fine. Sure, you probably will miss out on that last 100-200Mhz of overclock, but Evidently there's a lot of things I didn't know about this. All the more reason to wait and do more research, I suppose. Thanks again for the info, everyone.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2015 12:36
|
|
|
DrDork posted:So apparently basic overclocking via BCKL is coming soon to "locked" Skylake CPUs on a Z170 motherboard near you. While probably not enough to sate people trying to hit the top-end of things and contemplating 6600/6700's, it might make for a pretty compelling low- to mid-tier build, and gives a lot more people a reason to upgrade from older chipsets than what Skylake currently offers. I'm probably going to do a low- to mid-tier Skylake build sometime next year, but I'm pretty ignorant about this sort of thing, is this as exciting as it sounds?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
ASRock have released BIOS updates for most (all?) of their Z-series motherboards allowing Skylake BCLK overclocking. Given the big "NON-Z" at the top I'm guessing budget mobos will be joining in on the fun soon. Personally, I'm looking at that 4.3GHz 6400 and salivating a little.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
Malloc Voidstar posted:why did they take screenshots of cpu-z, save them as jpeg, and then upscale them i don't know but i loving love it also they removed the big NON-Z i mentioned from the graphic at the top lol
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
Found a video on youtube of some G4400, 6100 and 6400 overclocking benchmarks. There's synthetics and such but as for gaming performance:  And system power draw:   Temps were 71C, 62C and 60C for the i5/i3/Pentium at full load with a 212 Evo, which from my limited knowledge is not half bad. HMS Boromir fucked around with this message at 14:16 on Dec 19, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2015 14:09
|
|
|
Grundulum posted:What in the actual gently caress is up with those horizontal scales? 50 is longer than 56, the two instances of 33 are not the same length, and 23 falls between 38 and 40. some of the scales have been overclocked
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
Meanwhile ASRock seem to have pulled all information about their "SkyOC"-branded BCLK overclocking initiative from their website. The plot... thickens?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2015 17:11
|
|
|
I'm still doing fine on 4GB, outside of not being able to play games that require more. The only times I have more than maybe 5 or 6 tabs open in my browser is when I open every bookmarked thread on here, but I just read those in sequence and then close them. I can't even fathom what kind of browsing habits lead to having so many tabs open that you can see maybe half a favicon in each, like I see whenever some of my friends send me a screenshot of their browser window for whatever reason.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2016 14:25
|
|
|
Literally everything I've tried to play so far except for Black Ops 3 which I tried during the free weekend and definitely couldn't run on 4 gigs. I expect a lot of open world stuff like your fars cry and your witchers wouldn't run on 4 gigs, but I also expect they wouldn't run on a Sandy Bridge Pentium either, so I'm just holding off on playing those until I get both a new CPU and more RAM.
HMS Boromir fucked around with this message at 15:46 on Jan 1, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2016 15:43
|
|
|
MGSV is insanely well optimized, I hear. I've got half a mind to pop my 9400 in when I get around to it just to dare the fox engine to perform badly.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2016 15:49
|
|
|
These guys found significant differences in game performance between DDR4-2133 and DDR4-2666 with an i3 6100 but they seem to be the only ones and I don't know if they've tested it with any other CPU so v0v
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2016 15:07
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Same reason that movies have been at 24 FPS for so long - anything much higher meant needing a whole lot more physical film to shoot, edit, and project, and 24 FPS can be ok enough for use. And now we've got an industry where everyone is trained around the limits of 24 FPS and the precise way to light scenes that work well with 24 FPS, so there's gonna be a lot of retraining before they can handle higher framerates properly. We've also got a lot of eyeballs trained to watch 24 FPS movies and holy hell does anything higher look wrong. It wouldn't be a big loss for me since I barely watch movies but if anyone manages to hook a new generation onto >24 FPS and it becomes the new standard I might have to stop entirely. I've never seen refresh rates above 60 but considering how huge the jump from 30 to 60 feels there's gotta be more you can squeeze out of human perception. Contrary to movies, I hope higher refresh rates take off for games so I can save money on parts by sticking to 60 the way I've been doing by staying behind the resolution curve. HMS Boromir fucked around with this message at 17:23 on Feb 1, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2016 17:20
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Honestly the most likely end result is moves moving to 30 fps and 60 fps, just like HDTV. And there's no reason they can't do it right at high framerate. I mean, my point of comparison is the HDTV my parents got about a year ago, which is the first place I've seen high framerate live action stuff. And boy do I not want to see it ever again.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
Hm. Might be that. I've never owned a TV so my only data points are my parents' old one from like 1992 and the new one which is some kind of Samsung 1080p deal. Would I notice a significant difference that feels weird between what would have gotten displayed on the old TV over all these years and an HDTV without the generated inbetween frames?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2016 18:28
|
|
|
Now that I've been thinking about it, if you'll allow me to be gross for a second, I remember back when webm was first catching on there were a bunch of 60FPS porn clips making the rounds and those looked weird to me too. I think I'm just not used to high framerates for live action video.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
Intel is doing that thing we expected them to do and cracking down on non-K Skylake overclocking, shocking and affecting probably factually zero people.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2016 12:49
|
|
|
Cardboard Box A posted:https://thestack.com/iot/2016/02/05/intel-william-holt-moores-law-slower-energy-efficient-chips/ So their big money clients get the performance per watt that's apparently been driving Intel's R&D for a while and I get to pick up a somethinglake i5 and not upgrade for a decade because I'm just an idiot who plays videogames? Sounds great to me.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2016 18:04
|
|
|
Someone posted this in the AMD thread first, which is kind of funny, but no more tick-tock. Intel is feeling the pressure of only having a few die shrinks to go before physics stops them and are officially announcing their intent to use each manufacturing process for much longer.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2016 09:27
|
|
|
It was already official that 14nm and 10nm would be getting 3 architectures each, so I guess it's less that tick-tock is over and more that tick-tock-refresh is also over and they're going to stick to one process for even longer than that. The fact that they're including 14nm in the statement makes it sound like Cannonlake is getting further delayed, too.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2016 13:15
|
|
|
What, do people regularly just find new features on Intel chips? Is there at any given time just a list of Known Features and the rest are left to be found by intrepid treasure hunters? Surely if this was anything Intel would've advertised it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
Skylake-C is officially not happening, so we'll be waiting a while for more of that, if it ever comes at all.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2016 17:50
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Do you mean like CAD or something? They probably mean this. Unfortunate coincidence as far as the name goes. The top benchmarks on their website are all Xeons, followed by the 5960X, then the 5930K and 5820K. If a Xeon isn't an option the 5820K seems like the obvious choice.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2016 18:00
|
|
|
Obviously you take the third option and buy a 6600K. 
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2016 16:58
|
|
|
As someone who's never bought a laptop, I associate i3/i5/i7 with 2c/4t, 4c/4t, 4c/8t, and it's really confusing whenever I want to help a friend pick out a laptop because I have to figure out what they actually mean there. The one thing I think I've learnded is that high end quad cores are i7-####HQ. Is that consistent or are there exceptions?
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2016 11:47
|
|
|
havenwaters posted:I think PSCX2 will use AVX if you tell it to. I looked up someone's tests and you can use it but there's not much benefit over SSE4.1. HMS Boromir fucked around with this message at 18:27 on Jun 9, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2016 18:25
|
|
|
Pretty much, though I don't think they've said anything about better multi-threading.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
I'm not sure why people react so violently to low resolution monitors. For me a smooth framerate and decent settings are orders of magnitude more important than high resolution, and I'm not in the business of buying $300 video cards so I can get all three. The only reason I'm planning to ever upgrade from 1360x768 at all is because adaptive sync sounds like a cool way to further extend the life of a GPU by softening the effect of framerate drops once it starts getting long in the tooth.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2016 13:55
|
|
|
I mean, I've been using this monitor for four years now and it hasn't been "horrible for actual daily desktop use". When I'm doing work for university or whatever there's occasional stuff where a bigger / second monitor would be more comfortable but that's like 0.1% of the time I'm using the thing. If you're doing real, paid work that benefits from extra screen real estate then 1360x768 is a war crime, sure, but I'm not, so it's fine.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2016 14:04
|
|
|
...I should probably stop posting about my dumb monitor. Every time I do a swarm of people has to jump in and tell me I'm an idiot for not spending a bunch of money on something I don't want. I've used 1080p monitors and the "upgrade" is not worth money to me.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2016 16:29
|
|
|
KingEup posted:Same. Well at least someone understands.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2016 16:42
|
|
|
19.5" and I sit fairly close to it, for what it's worth. I admit I haven't gone to thrift stores looking for good deals on 1080p monitors but that might be because, as you might have noticed, I don't particularly care about getting a 1080p monitor. Again, I've used one and I can go back without wanting to kill myself, which is apparently the expected reaction. Honestly I wouldn't even have posted about it if I hadn't gotten this reaction before. It's seriously fine and there isn't something wrong with my brain that's making me think so. HMS Boromir fucked around with this message at 17:19 on Jul 19, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2016 17:16
|
|
|
Atomizer posted:People keep jumping down your throat about this because you're just being stubborn, instead of sharing an opinion backed up by logic. I think my logic is pretty sound. I've used a higher resolution monitor, it's nicer for desktop use but not by enough that I actually want one for that reason, especially since again I am not doing any work I'm getting paid for on this monitor. I don't think that calls for a cascade of people calling my choice of monitor resolution "horrible" and "making things hard on myself" and "Stockholm Syndrome" (jesus) but apparently goons disagree. I'm gonna bow out here, I don't think any of us are having a good time and this is the Intel CPU thread anyway. Enjoy your high framerates at affordable prices KingEup, I'll continue enjoying mine.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2016 17:46
|
|
|
A 120mm fan draws like 3 watts, it's not even a consideration.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
An unlocked i5 is the only thing you could get that would be an upgrade at all, and it would still be a very small one. Best case scenario you have a Z series motherboard and can buy a 4690K and get maybe a 15% increase in performance for nearly $250, worst case you don't and you have to spend upwards of $400 on a Skylake build and still not get more than maybe a 25% boost. Is there something in particular that it's performing poorly in? I'd expect it to get well over 60 FPS in all but the most demanding open world games, not just now but for at least 2-3 more years. HMS Boromir fucked around with this message at 12:11 on Jul 31, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2016 10:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 04:38 |
|
|
I've never had a Haswell processor, do they do the thing where they drop their boost frequency by 100 MHz per extra core that's experiencing heavy load? If so going up nearly 1 GHz with a Skylake K seems like it would get you that 20%, though definitely not much more. If the 4690 actually boosts to 3.9 on all cores then it's an even worse value proposition to upgrade.
HMS Boromir fucked around with this message at 10:51 on Jul 31, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2016 10:49
|
|