Gaming CPU

Slapshot1188

OK.  Two parts to this one (Intel only please):

1.  4790k vs 5820k vs 6700k.  Which is better for gaming.  Not interested in value just raw performance today and foreseeable future. Why?
2.  Are there any other desktop CPUs planned for the next 4 months that would conceivably be significantly better?

Assume matching with a 1070 video card and 16 GB of appropriate RAM

Thanks!

Quizzical

The 6700K is a little faster than the 4790K.  Whether the 6700K or 5820K is faster depends on whether you can put the extra cores to good use.  In most current games, the 6700K will probably fare better, but both will be plenty fast.

Kaby Lake is supposedly coming soonish.  I'm expecting it to basically be Sky Lake plus 100-200 MHz.

13lake

Slapshot1188 said:

(Intel only please)

2.  Are there any other desktop CPUs planned for the next 4 months that would conceivably be significantly better?

If AMD Zen is awesomely good, then yes there will be a cpu in 4 months that will have every feature any intel cpu has or will have :P. But that's a big if Though if u can afford to wait, i'd gamble for it, even if only to bring intel prices down, and/or force intel to get creative with kaby lake/coffee lake.

Slapshot1188

Thanks for the info guys. 

It just seems amazing to me that we are starting on "Gen 7" but its hard to tell if the Gen 4,5 or 6 chip is better for gaming...

Life used to be much easier... Then we went to tic-tocs... and now even going back 2 generations (to the prior tic or toc) there is no clear winner..

Ridelynn

Slapshot1188 said:

Thanks for the info guys. 

It just seems amazing to me that we are starting on "Gen 7" but its hard to tell if the Gen 4,5 or 6 chip is better for gaming...

Life used to be much easier... Then we went to tic-tocs... and now even going back 2 generations (to the prior tic or toc) there is no clear winner..

That's because the last meaningful update from Intel was Sandy Bridge (Gen 2).  Almost all of the advancement in CPUs since then has been towards integrated graphics, with a minor emphasis on power consumption and new technology processes. Pretty much any speed gains have been as a consequence of work on one of those areas, and not because they've done a whole lot with the CPU block itself.

Tick Tock has become Tick Tock Tock (or in official Intel Lingo - "Process - Architecture - Optimization"). 

Gaming performance-wise, there won't really be any significant difference between any of the CPUs you list. I would go with a 1151 Skylake if it were me today and I was buying all new components, just because Z170 is a bit more up to date than Z97, but if there were a good deal on a 4790 I wouldn't have any problem going with DDR3 and the Z97. X99, for gaming, really doesn't add any value except when you look towards the extreme high end with SLI/CFX. 

Quizzical

AMD Zen is the great unknown.  Before Bulldozer, AMD talked about clock speeds a lot, but no mention of IPC.  And then the IPC was terrible--worse than Deneb (Phenom II), even.  Before Zen, AMD is talking about IPC but not clock speeds.  If AMD can deliver on their IPC claims for Zen and still clock 8 cores at 4.5 GHz, they'll have quite a winner on their hands--and probably charge $500 for it.  If Zen tops out at 3 GHz, AMD is in trouble.

When is Zen coming?  Well, that's part of the unknown.  Kaby Lake will probably be a little better than Sky Lake but not much.  I'm expecting something like a Haswell to Devil's Canyon (4770K to 4790K) transition.  Zen could be anywhere from a bankrupt-the-company train wreck to beating Intel outright on the desktop.

Whether Zen is good enough to be worth waiting for depends a lot on whether you want more than four CPU cores.  If you're leaning toward a 5820K, you might want to wait and see what Zen offers.  If you think four cores is plenty and are going to get a 6700K, Zen might be less interesting to you.

Cleffy

Gaming CPU isn't really important. Does it have 4 cores over 3.0 ghz? If yes, it will play nearly all games within 1 fps of any other CPU that meets those requirements. Into the future, you probably want something that can deal with 8 threads. So a Core i7 quad core or better.
Right now there is no performance difference between DDR3 and DDR4 that you will notice in games. Just now seeing the difference between DDR2 and DDR3.

Malabooga

Quizzical said:

AMD Zen is the great unknown.  Before Bulldozer, AMD talked about clock speeds a lot, but no mention of IPC.  And then the IPC was terrible--worse than Deneb (Phenom II), even.  Before Zen, AMD is talking about IPC but not clock speeds.  If AMD can deliver on their IPC claims for Zen and still clock 8 cores at 4.5 GHz, they'll have quite a winner on their hands--and probably charge $500 for it.  If Zen tops out at 3 GHz, AMD is in trouble.

When is Zen coming?  Well, that's part of the unknown.  Kaby Lake will probably be a little better than Sky Lake but not much.  I'm expecting something like a Haswell to Devil's Canyon (4770K to 4790K) transition.  Zen could be anywhere from a bankrupt-the-company train wreck to beating Intel outright on the desktop.

Whether Zen is good enough to be worth waiting for depends a lot on whether you want more than four CPU cores.  If you're leaning toward a 5820K, you might want to wait and see what Zen offers.  If you think four cores is plenty and are going to get a 6700K, Zen might be less interesting to you.

Intels 8-10 core CPUs are clocked at 3.2 - 3.0 GHz and use 300W IF they can be OCed to 4.5 GHz (and theyre piss poor OCers topping ut in lowish 4 GHz range)

If AMD can deliver 8 core at 4.5 GHz then it will demolish anything Intel has.

Vrika

Cleffy said:

Gaming CPU isn't really important. Does it have 4 cores over 3.0 ghz? If yes, it will play nearly all games within 1 fps of any other CPU that meets those requirements. Into the future, you probably want something that can deal with 8 threads. So a Core i7 quad core or better.
Right now there is no performance difference between DDR3 and DDR4 that you will notice in games. Just now seeing the difference between DDR2 and DDR3.

Please stop using clock speeds to rank processors. Someone could end up buying AMD FX-4300 instead of I5-6600K because your write your recommendations like that.

I agree that processor is not that important while gaming, but CPUs of different generations and different manufacturers should not be compared by clock speeds. One may be twice as fast as the other even if clock speed and number of cores are the same.

holdenhamlet

Can't speak for the others, but I recently got the 6700k with a new motherboard and it's great.  Everything runs super fast.

Curious why you'd consider going back generations if money and compatibility isn't an issue?  Is there some features the older ones had that the new one doesn't?

MaxBacon

The i7's have been known around for perform well for such.

I would only avoid AMD, there's still annoyances and even compatibility issues specific to users with AMD CPU's on several games, what is just ugh.

laxie

I upgraded to 4790k recently. The only reason being my motherboard - it did not have a Skylake chipset.
4790k is less powerful than the new ones, costing the same or more.

The main issue with 4790k is the temperature. I was getting 100C with the stock cooler, needed to buy a custom heatsink to keep temperatures in check.

If you have a motherboard that allows the new architectures, go for it.

Slapshot1188

holdenhamlet said:

Can't speak for the others, but I recently got the 6700k with a new motherboard and it's great.  Everything runs super fast.

Curious why you'd consider going back generations if money and compatibility isn't an issue?  Is there some features the older ones had that the new one doesn't?

The 5820k is six core while the 6700k is four core.  I read a wide variety of statements that the older chip is actually the better one for gaming due to this.  The main claim seems to be that the 5820 could actually be more future proof as more games take advantage of multiple CPUs.

Cleffy

Vrika said:

Cleffy said:

Gaming CPU isn't really important. Does it have 4 cores over 3.0 ghz? If yes, it will play nearly all games within 1 fps of any other CPU that meets those requirements. Into the future, you probably want something that can deal with 8 threads. So a Core i7 quad core or better.
Right now there is no performance difference between DDR3 and DDR4 that you will notice in games. Just now seeing the difference between DDR2 and DDR3.

Please stop using clock speeds to rank processors. Someone could end up buying AMD FX-4300 instead of I5-6600K because your write your recommendations like that.

I agree that processor is not that important while gaming, but CPUs of different generations and different manufacturers should not be compared by clock speeds. One may be twice as fast as the other even if clock speed and number of cores are the same.

I forgot the FX-4xxx and FX-6xxx processors existed. I would find it surprising if someone could even get one today considering how old those processors and mobos are. I pretty much ignore all AMD right now except the FX-8300s, FX-9500s, Athlon 800s, and Athlon 5370(Specific use case). I also ignore Intel atom and i3s.

Quizzical

Cleffy said:

Vrika said:

Cleffy said:

Gaming CPU isn't really important. Does it have 4 cores over 3.0 ghz? If yes, it will play nearly all games within 1 fps of any other CPU that meets those requirements. Into the future, you probably want something that can deal with 8 threads. So a Core i7 quad core or better.
Right now there is no performance difference between DDR3 and DDR4 that you will notice in games. Just now seeing the difference between DDR2 and DDR3.

Please stop using clock speeds to rank processors. Someone could end up buying AMD FX-4300 instead of I5-6600K because your write your recommendations like that.

I agree that processor is not that important while gaming, but CPUs of different generations and different manufacturers should not be compared by clock speeds. One may be twice as fast as the other even if clock speed and number of cores are the same.

I forgot the FX-4xxx and FX-6xxx processors existed. I would find it surprising if someone could even get one today considering how old those processors and mobos are. I pretty much ignore all AMD right now except the FX-8300s, FX-9500s, Athlon 800s, and Athlon 5370(Specific use case). I also ignore Intel atom and i3s.

All the design and setup work on the FX-*300 series CPUs is done, and AMD hasn't launched a newer generation and won't until Zen.  So AMD might as well keep selling them as long as people are willing to buy them until Zen is ready.

Slapshot1188

At this point I'm thinking about foregoing the full rebuild and just sticking with my good old 3570k.

Maybe just buy a 1070 to replace my existing video card (Radeon 7950) and wait for the next gen CPUs...

stayontarget

My lowly 4690 is still great for games.