• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Require good single threaded performance on a budget

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
16,881
5,842
136
8086k doesn't fit the budget though. A 9600k would, so it's a reasonable suggestion.
 

scannall

Golden Member
Jan 1, 2012
1,764
1,202
136
i completely agree that you should always wait for reviews before getting a product and never blind buy.

That being said, you should wait for the 9000 series launch.
Core per Core clock Intel has a greater advantage then AMD.
Dollar to performance margin, is where AMD has a greater advantage then Intel.

Then when you get to thread ripper, you get a bigger advantage with core count to dollar.

But again that being said, if you want the fastest core right now, its definitely the 8086k.
The 9000 series however im willing to speculate that they will either be close to the same, or a bit greater.
The 9000 series also if rumor goes welll, will also be soldered so it will be a lot easier to get that 5ghz+ overclock on a mid tier heat sink.

Hence why if you want the fastest core speed, wait for the 9000 series to launch, then read the reviews, and then make your choice then.
While I won't say that's bad advice in general, it doesn't actually fit the OP's original post. Her video card is a GTX 1060. ANY of the CPU's suggested would work just great, as she will be GPU bound regardless.
 
Last edited:

SPBHM

Diamond Member
Sep 12, 2012
4,978
340
126
With the improved multithreaded performance patch apparently in the works I'm now leaning towards a 2600x. >.>
if your focus is WoW I don't think that's the best move, but, thinking more broadly, in terms of next 7 years (you are running a 2500 from 2011!), than sure, it might be a better choice.

another thing to consider, the Intel CPUs have pretty high default clocks, you can get a lot of performance out of it with an H310 board and the stock CPU.

overclocking was far more important for Sandy Bridge than it is now, CPUs now are running default at over 4.2GHz under full load, and they OC to around 5GHz with very high voltage,
Sandy Bridge was OC from 3.4 to high 4s, a bigger deal.
 

epsilon84

Senior member
Aug 29, 2010
996
704
136
If all you need is fast ST performance on a budget, I would actually recommend a used 6600K / Z170 motherboard, overclock it to ~4.7GHz and you're basically at the same IPC/clocks as more modern, higher core/thread count CPUs such as the 8600K/8700K for a small fraction of the price.

You can probably get a 6600K + Z170 motherboard for less than the cost of a 8600K/9600K alone. From what I have seen on the used market, older i7s hold value much better than the i5s, such as the 6600K.

Of course, a 4C/4T CPU like the 6600K is going to be rather limited going foward as a gaming CPU, but for the here and now, for better framerates in WoW, you can basically spend $150 for a 6600K/Z170 combo and get the same performance in WoW as you would spending $400 on a modern 8600K/9600K + Z370/Z390 motherboard.
 

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
16,881
5,842
136
CPUs now are running default at over 4.2GHz under full load, and they OC to around 5GHz with very high voltage,
It should be noted that, depending on which CPU you are talking about (7700k, 8700k, etc) that 4.6-4.8 GHz can be obtained with significantly lower voltage than the 5-5.3 GHz halo overclocks.

If all you need is fast ST performance on a budget, I would actually recommend a used 6600K / Z170 motherboard, overclock it to ~4.7GHz and you're basically at the same IPC/clocks as more modern, higher core/thread count CPUs such as the 8600K/8700K for a small fraction of the price.
I haven't looked at 6600ks recently. But after what I saw people achieving with the 7700k and 8700k, I would look with some skepticism at Skylake since it is actually a bit harder to hit 4.8 GHz with those chips than it is with even Kabylake. The voltage/clockspeed curves are just not as good on the 6600k or 6700k. 6700k prices do appear to be more reasonable than 7700k prices, though.
 

epsilon84

Senior member
Aug 29, 2010
996
704
136
It should be noted that, depending on which CPU you are talking about (7700k, 8700k, etc) that 4.6-4.8 GHz can be obtained with significantly lower voltage than the 5-5.3 GHz halo overclocks.



I haven't looked at 6600ks recently. But after what I saw people achieving with the 7700k and 8700k, I would look with some skepticism at Skylake since it is actually a bit harder to hit 4.8 GHz with those chips than it is with even Kabylake. The voltage/clockspeed curves are just not as good on the 6600k or 6700k. 6700k prices do appear to be more reasonable than 7700k prices, though.
Both my 6700Ks did 4.7GHz stable, one with ~1.36V and the other with ~1.3V IIRC. Can't imagine a 6600K doing much worse, especially with cooler running non HT cores. If it doesn't hit 4.6GHz I would be pretty disappointed, but I'm fairly confident most 6600Ks can do that.

I dunno where the OP is from, but in Australia older gen i5s are basically selling for half the price of older gen i7s. I wouldn't touch a used 6700K/7700K for their asking prices (a used first gen Ryzen 7 costs the same) but the 6600Ks are actually cheap enough to consider for purely ST performance.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY