[coolaler] Devils Canyon: 4.0 base/ 4.4 turbo @ stock

[coercitiv]

Just compare it with HT on vs off. Performance is improved, proving that the game most definitely benefits from more 'cores'.

What is the performance increase in the case of i7-4960X, in a favorable GPU config?

 

[avx81]

What is the performance increase in the case of i7-4960X, in a favorable GPU config?

We pretty much already covered that the 4960x offers no real improvement in most cases over the current 4770K. And that's comparing intels $1000 6 core to a $300 4 core. If all you do is play games spend the extra cash on the GPU. It will have a much larger impact on your gaming experience vs spending more on a high end CPU. I also recommend checking out https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAgpvWc4VBM.

http://us.hardware.info/reviews/476...se-benchmarks-hd-7970-crysis-3-1920x1080-high (7970)

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7255/intel-core-i7-4960x-ivy-bridge-e-review/5 (SLI Titans)

 

[tidy]

.

 

[avx81]

The Crysis 3 benchmarks you guys are posting are GPU limited. Come on, are we really going to believe that the 8350 performs within 3 fps of the 4960?

Anything at or above 1080p realistically wont be much of a difference at all if the cpu is not causing a bottleneck which it wont. There was also a link to multiple games running at 1080p with SLI titans and there being no real benefit to spending $300 extra on the cpu. The point is that at 1080p or greater your money is best spent going with the 4790k instead and spending the $300 you save on a better video card, monitor or even ssd.

The other benchmarks posted had Titans in SLI with multiple games at 1080p and there was virtually no difference between a $1000 4960x cpu and a $300 4770K. If you want to spend an extra few hundred on a cpu that in some rare cases might have a slight benefit for gaming then that's your money wasted. I rather spend it on a better video card that I know will have a realistic impact because its highly doubtful that the 4790k even at stock 4.4 boost will cause a bottleneck on any game now or in the next few years.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7255/intel-core-i7-4960x-ivy-bridge-e-review/5

 

[coercitiv]

We pretty much already covered that the 4960x offers no real improvement in most cases over the current 4770K.

I was asking Oubadah. Surely he must have some data on it other than disabling HT on a quad i7 and watching the FPS go down.

 

[tidy]

.

 

[drikkie]

In older Crysis low res benchmarks, the difference was clearly visible between mainstream cpu and e-cpu:

http://hothardware.com/Reviews/AMD-FX-8350-Vishera-8Core-CPU-Review/?page=8

But these days there are seldom low-res benchmarks for the CPU comparison 🙁

 

[toyota]

Just because something is showing 100% CPU usage, it doesn't mean it's CPU limited. You can't make such an inference solely from CPU load unless you have actual code profiling to go with it.

http://techreport.com/r.x/core-i7-4960x/c3-fps.gif

http://us.hardware.info/reviews/476...-benchmarks-hd-7970-crysis-3-1920x1080-medium

If you want to drop a thousand bucks on a 4960X for those results, be my guest. But it doesn't change the reality of things.

where did I say anything about going with such an expensive platform? I'm just saying that the game uses more than four cores. Depending on where you test at its about a 20-25% increase with HT on than with it off on a 4770k. It takes it from being to slow to use vsync to keeping me above 60 fps 99% of the time at settings I use.

 

[TeknoBug]

It's no secret that DDR4 pricing will be higher than DDR3 when it arrives, the question is how much? I've seen links saying 30% more and newer links saying $450 for 16GB. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

haha back in 1998 I had to pay $350 for 128MB stick, that kind of stuff sucks.

 

[RussianSensation]

MainGear is offering:

Processor: Up to Intel Core i7 4790K 4.0 GHz/4.4 GHz (overclocked up to 5 GHz)

Surely they left some headroom so that the CPU is more, meaning some of these on water should do 5.1-5.2Ghz.

If you want to spend an extra few hundred on a cpu that in some rare cases might have a slight benefit for gaming then that's your money wasted. I rather spend it on a better video card that I know will have a realistic impact because its highly doubtful that the 4790k even at stock 4.4 boost will cause a bottleneck on any game now or in the next few years.

Most of the time I'd agree too. However, with NV's overpricing in the last 2-3 generations, sometimes one can get 90-95% of the performance for hundreds of dollars less on the videocard sub-system, leaving "extra" $ to spend no the CPU platform. For instance, compare 780Ti SLI vs. after market R9 290X cards. Now in the context of comparing Maxwell's flagship to say R9 390/X, maybe AMD will deliver 90% of the performance for a lot less $. If you consider dual-cards, the $100-150 saved per card would translate into $200-300 saved for 2 cards. All of a sudden, one can buy an overclocked i7 5820 system + 2x R9 390Xs vs. 4790K + 2x Maxwells. I don't know the performance of R9 3xx series or Maxwell's or their pricing but if history is any indication, NV will put a $100-200 premium for cards that are not much faster (R9 280X vs. 770, R9 290 vs. 780, R9 290X vs. 780Ti). The point is, it's not only 4790K vs. 5820, but I look at it that I can maybe buy a 6-core CPU that I can use for things other than games too and save the $ on the GPUs by going with dual-AMD card and barely lose more than 15% in gaming performance but gain a whopping 50% cores that will benefit for distributed computing programs I run on my CPU.

A 6-core may not be worth it this year, but next year with BW-E, or with Skylake-E, the time may come where buying a 6-core will be worth it over the quad just like quads replaced dual cores. We'll have to see what happens with next generation games like Dragon Age Inquisition, The Division, Witcher 3 and the like to see if they take advantage of more than 4 full cores.

 

[tidy]

.

 

[moonbogg]

I think 6 cores will help during the transition from 4 to 8 core gaming, but I don't think games will be written for 6 cores specifically. It makes no sense to me. I think its either 4 core or 8 core that makes sense. 6 core is just a fill in. BF4 already uses 8 threads. Any game that does better on a hex core would probably do even better on a true 8 core.
AMD 8 cores do really well in games like BF4 because that game uses 8 threads. I think the Haswell 8 core will pull ahead in some games.
I remember trying to play BF Bad Company 2 with an E8400. It was clocked really high but the game ran like crap because it needed a quad. I think we are a good long way off before games run like crap on quad cores. They might run better on a hex, but that's only because 6 is better than 4 when the game can actually use 8.

 

[Lepton87]

I think 6 cores will help during the transition from 4 to 8 core gaming, but I don't think games will be written for 6 cores specifically. It makes no sense to me. I think its either 4 core or 8 core that makes sense. 6 core is just a fill in. BF4 already uses 8 threads. Any game that does better on a hex core would probably do even better on a true 8 core.
AMD 8 cores do really well in games like BF4 because that game uses 8 threads. I think the Haswell 8 core will pull ahead in some games.
I remember trying to play BF Bad Company 2 with an E8400. It was clocked really high but the game ran like crap because it needed a quad. I think we are a good long way off before games run like crap on quad cores. They might run better on a hex, but that's only because 6 is better than 4 when the game can actually use 8.

I'd have agreed if there weren't any HT enabled CPUs. 8 CPU heavy threads are very unlikely to happen in games in the next 5 years. HT enabled hex CPUs will do just fine with 8-threaded games.

 

[moonbogg]

I'd have agreed if there weren't any HT enabled CPUs. 8 CPU heavy threads are very unlikely to happen in games in the next 5 years. HT enabled hex CPUs will do just fine with 8-threaded games.

Yeah that's true, but HT isn't a real core. I'm just saying 8 real cores will do better than 6 real + 2 weakling cores. But like you said, 8 heavy threads are pretty much not happening any time soon. I still think 8 real ones would give a little boost.

At least we seem to agree that quads are dying. I can't get excited about 4790k as much as I want to. Quads are about to become the new dual cores. Pretty soon they won't cut it. HT just lets them hang on a bit longer.

 

[tidy]

.

 

[Bman123]

I wonder if the fx 8 series CPUs will start doing better now that the consoles are amd inside and they have 6 cores available to use. I'm seriously not trolling either. I know the IPC isn't there with amd but if it uses more cores one would think amd can see a improvement with the fx cpus

 

[moonbogg]

It would be worth it just to avoid HT's negative scaling. I always disable HT.

Yeah I thought the Haswell 8 core would be good to use with HT disabled. 8 real cores to pull all the weight. Time will tell. $1,000+ doesn't excite me too much for a CPU.

 

[SPBHM]

I wonder if the fx 8 series CPUs will start doing better now that the consoles are amd inside and they have 6 cores available to use. I'm seriously not trolling either. I know the IPC isn't there with amd but if it uses more cores one would think amd can see a improvement with the fx cpus

consoles don't have to deal with DX11 and windows drivers, the CPU load/performance is different,

and the consoles use Jaguar cores,

but I believe it's going to have a positive impact for the AMD CPUs with 6 cores or more, the trouble is, it's probably not enough to make them really look good when you consider things like power usage

WatchDogs is supposedly next gen and scales well with 6-8 cores

but it's not enough to clearly beat the higher IPC cores, even with no HT the 4c/4t i5s have no problem competing, with a much lower clock

8350 only as fast a 3.3GHz i5 sandy bridge, with 8 cores, 4GHz and a game scaling well with more than 4t.

now go back to 2-4t games and...

 

[moonbogg]

that 4960x is keeping up with the haswells despite being a full ghz slower and with less ipc. Those cores are doing some work there.

 

[TreVader]

I do think the 5930k is a much smarter buy than a 4790K even just for the pcie lanes.

 

[Lepton87]

Watch Dogs made me think about buying an HT enabled CPU, finally 4c/8t is clearly better than 4C. At last HT makes a difference. I have a very expensive mobo so it would be a waste to get rid of it so my best bet would be 3770K to tide me over until an "affordable" 8core is released. I'm not really thinking affordable but at the very least not EE. I won't be an idiot again and buy a 1000$ computer part. 500$ and I might be in alternatively I might think about a hex core under or very close to 400$.

 

[crashtech]

that 4960x is keeping up with the haswells despite being a full ghz slower and with less ipc. Those cores are doing some work there.

The question is where would an overclocked Ivy-E hexcore place in that chart. Form the looks of it, on top, maybe.

 

[tidy]

.

 

[Lepton87]

This is one of the big draws for me. I'm not interested in SLI, but having a wealth of PCI-E slots straight off the CPU would be a huge boon for PCI-E SSDs etc. On z97, you're limited to a couple of 1x slots, or a single 4x at best (without cutting into the primary GPU's bandwidth), whereas a P9X79 WS gives you two spare 8x and two 4x PCIe 3.0 slots, all usable to their full potental without affecting the primary 16x slot.

8X PCI-E 3.0 is just fine for contemporary cards, we are talking about a 5% gaming performance penalty at most, closer to 1-2% on average, however GPU compute may see way bigger reduction in performance from going to 8X.

 

[tential]

I wonder if the fx 8 series CPUs will start doing better now that the consoles are amd inside and they have 6 cores available to use. I'm seriously not trolling either. I know the IPC isn't there with amd but if it uses more cores one would think amd can see a improvement with the fx cpus

You can scale all you want. The IPC just isn't there.

The only way AMD CPUs do better is if AMD makes a NEW CPU design that is good. The older stuff won't just magically do well when games start using more cores.