In Fallout 4 an 2500k at 4.5 is close to a 4670k at stock. 6600k will be much faster. And 6700k will be much faster still.
As that link above me shows, a lot more than you might realize. If you are ok with 40-50 FPS in some games, it's not an issue. If it is a problem for you, then OC'ing is still needed.
You can almost always squeeze another 400-500MHz out of a 4.5GHz Sandy if cooling allows it.
Still, I believe FO4 is a game that will improve with patches or mods to alleviate the CPU bottleneck it comes into during certain scenes (where a 4.5GHz 6700k is pushing 40FPS, not maxing out GPU usage)
Still, I believe FO4 is a game that will improve with patches or mods to alleviate the CPU bottleneck it comes into during certain scenes (where a 4.5GHz 6700k is pushing 40FPS, not maxing out GPU usage)
The problem a lot of people have is they just don't realize how often, and how many games have problem areas. These benchmarks shine a light on the area the benchmark takes place in, but they rarely take place in the most CPU intensive areas that never get fixed, assuming they could be fixed.
well he will need oc to 7ghz to match 6700k 4.5ghz because 2600k have there 25fps thats 56% difference.
Good luck with that...
Last edited:
Which shows how badly optimized that game is. Nothing unusual for Bethesda's out of the gate games.
Give it time, some patches, it'll be something like Skyrim's progression from a disaster to a highly performing game.
By all means, of OP is a die hard FO fan and wants to play FO4 right now, sure, the 6700k will give him a much better experience right now if he ever stumbles upon such areas in the game.
For the other 80-90% of games out there (save for heavy MP games with lots of things going on) a 4.5GHz Sandy is still performing admirably.
Give it time, some patches, it'll be something like Skyrim's progression from a disaster to a highly performing game.
By all means, of OP is a die hard FO fan and wants to play FO4 right now, sure, the 6700k will give him a much better experience right now if he ever stumbles upon such areas in the game.
For the other 80-90% of games out there (save for heavy MP games with lots of things going on) a 4.5GHz Sandy is still performing admirably.
This isn't a Bethesda only thing. Tons of games have low FPS areas that are CPU bound.
It isn't badly optimised. It requires next gen hardware. By 2017 a stock 6700k will be twice as fast as a 2500k/2600k 5+ Ghz.
toyota
Lifer
- Apr 15, 2001
- 12,957
- 1
- 0
complete and utter nonsense as there is nothing worthwhile going on in those ridiculously cpu limited areas. its asinine to claim Fallout 4 is not poorly optimized. even Fallout New Vegas had some very poor optimization as there were spots even a 2500k could not get 60 fps.
cytg111
Lifer
- Mar 17, 2008
- 26,228
- 15,639
- 136
I get it, it all comes down to what defines "acceptable", that might be stock and igp or -E and SLI.. or somwhere in between.
cytg111
Lifer
- Mar 17, 2008
- 26,228
- 15,639
- 136
That looks suspicious .. I cant decipher the greentext properly, is the GPU running 500mhz faster in the skylake shot ?
That first line likely has an issue with the 4930k results. That may be due to the GPU clock difference. There is no reason other than a bug or clock issue for it to score that low compared to the other CPU's. And yes, it is showing up about 500mhz slower on the GPU.
cytg111
Lifer
- Mar 17, 2008
- 26,228
- 15,639
- 136
6700k vs 2600k, 39 vs 25 fps, with differently clocked GPU's. What are we measuring here then? That skylake with a 50% faster clocked gpu(core/mem?) is ~56% faster than the sandy? I am sure i am misunderstanding something.
2600k have GTX980TI and its downclocked because its CPU limited.GPU is only at 50% usage.
6700k have GTX970 with 77% GPU usage and cpu limit.
4930 have 290 with 60% usage also cpu limit.
Cmon guys this is anandtech forum you really dont know this?
6700k have GTX970 with 77% GPU usage and cpu limit.
4930 have 290 with 60% usage also cpu limit.
Cmon guys this is anandtech forum you really dont know this?
The only thing I got from this post is you think Anandtech is a place where self proclaimed experts use a single set of load values and apply them to every game at any possible setting... Because that's exactly what you just did, and your last sentence suggests you think it's completely valid, when it fact it's a lot closer to meaningless.
If a game doesn't use more than 4 threads, ure totally fine. If it does use more than 4, then ur performance will suffer a bit. Architecturally speaking it's not that much slower, but the 4 threads is the problem. If u had a 2600k ud be golden.
toyota
Lifer
- Apr 15, 2001
- 12,957
- 1
- 0
no there are some cases where the IPC matters too. I have seen that myself and Head1985 has shown that with benchmarks.
cytg111
Lifer
- Mar 17, 2008
- 26,228
- 15,639
- 136
I think I get what you are implying and the results could mean that but they could also mean a bundle of other things. Your scientific approach should be to keep everything else as static as possible and only swap out the part you want to analyze. The fact that you use three different GFX cards here makes it hard(impossible) to conclude anything.
Say, for the 2600 running 25 fps .. both GPU and CPU is running at 50% what does that mean? (is the CPU score an average of cores or what? I guess its difficult to say you're CPU limited unless you got at least one core pegging at 100%, so what other bottlenecks is present?)
StinkyPinky
Diamond Member
- Jul 6, 2002
- 6,977
- 1,276
- 126
I think with games becoming more and more multi-threaded (because of consoles with 8 cores) I think we will find the i5's are becoming less viable for high end gaming.
In saying that, a 2500k is definitely fine for mid range gaming. Which would still look better than the consoles anyway.
In saying that, a 2500k is definitely fine for mid range gaming. Which would still look better than the consoles anyway.
Zodiark1593
Platinum Member
- Oct 21, 2012
- 2,230
- 4
- 81
Since most console games are limited to 6 cores, that combined with major IPC and clock speed differences will/should keep the i5s plenty viable, though the overhead of switching between threads without HT can still impact things depending on how much effort was made in a pc port.
toyota
Lifer
- Apr 15, 2001
- 12,957
- 1
- 0
its not that simple at all. games on the pc will always be more demanding on the cpu than the console version. plus most people using good graphics cards expect at least 60 fps and many games cant even maintain 30 fps on the consoles. we also usually have more demanding settings available on the pc. and pc games are going to get more and more demanding just like they did before when we still had the 360 and PS3.
Last edited:
It's worse than Crysis, because even with the new genetarion can't get fluent 60 fps...
INBF the new meme is: Can it run Fallout 4?
cytg111
Lifer
- Mar 17, 2008
- 26,228
- 15,639
- 136
Now if it was amazing and next gen pushing the limits.. but apparantly the graphics is retro as well..
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
Facebook
Twitter