• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Since BDW-K is a bust, go with Devil's Canyon or move up to X99?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
alcoholbob said:
Better to stick with Devil's Canyon. Even the worst chip will easily hit 4.6GHz on a stock cooler.

Overclocking a 5820K is a lot more of a hail mary. I've seen plenty barely hit 4GHz so it's a real chip lottery with those. A 5820K in a small handful of games is maybe 5-8% faster than an equally clocked Devil's Canyon. Point is unless you hit the lottery you aren't even going to hit equal clocks so the extra cores is worthless for gaming in practice.
Click to expand...

Wow, just built a buddy's system on a 5820k and it was very easy to get it to 4.4, still moving it up too. We are using a H110i GTX with 4 fans in push pull though, so the temps are awesome. That would suck to barely get 4....
 
Headfoot said:
Wow, just built a buddy's system on a 5820k and it was very easy to get it to 4.4, still moving it up too. We are using a H110i GTX with 4 fans in push pull though, so the temps are awesome. That would suck to barely get 4....
Click to expand...

I have a HSW-E chip and I had very little trouble getting it to 4.4GHz IntelBurnTest stable on a Hyper 212 EVO. I haven't tried pushing it further because, frankly, I was surprised to be able to get that much juice out of it on such a budget cooler.
 
Ended up scoring the last 4.5GHz 5820k that Silicon Lottery had left. When you consider tax, I only ended up paying a $50 premium for it. Plus I like the idea of supporting a start up that's doing something really cool.

I'll admit, I'm curious as to how Skylake turns out, and with a 8/5 release, I can always return the X99 setup.

But something tells me six cores at 4.5GHz is going to last me quite a long time.
 
JM Popaleetus said:
But something tells me six cores at 4.5GHz is going to last me quite a long time.
Click to expand...

It will, especially since the advancements in desktop CPU performance probably won't be all that much over the next few years.

I would really like to see Intel bringing more cores to the HEDT lineup at current chip price-points, but sadly it looks like BDW-E remains 6/8 cores.
 
Madpacket said:
Thanks. That's pretty decent but that also means moving over to DDR4 as well right?

Could be pricey.
Click to expand...
Correct-ish. Skylake also supports DDR3L.

And yes, it's decent, but it's also underwhelming. Broadwell also had about the same IPC improvement making a 3.3GHz i7-5775c equivalent to the 4790k at 4.0GHz.

So if the rumors are true, which I doubt, we're seeing zero IPC improvement over Broadwell (which admittedly is sort of vaporware).
 
JM Popaleetus said:
Correct-ish. Skylake also supports DDR3L.

And yes, it's decent, but it's also underwhelming. Broadwell also had about the same IPC improvement making a 3.3GHz i7-5775c equivalent to the 4790k at 4.0GHz.

So if the rumors are true, which I doubt, we're seeing zero IPC improvement over Broadwell (which admittedly is sort of vaporware).
Click to expand...

I wouldn't call them vaporware as they are in retail channels outside of NA. I am sure Intel has allotted most of the retail/non OEM chips to the rest of the world because they will likely sell better outside the US.
 
Dave2150 said:
If you want the best gaming experience, 6700K is the way to go.

If you want the best productivity (encoding, editing, business etc) then 8 cores are the way to go with the 5960x.
Click to expand...
My use is 50/50 between the two.

The only reason I haven't opened my kit yet is to see if Skylake brought any unforeseen performance. As it turns out, it does, for mobile...which from the beginning Intel has said was the focus of Skylake. Desktop (S) is just another ~7% IPC improvement, which is commendable, albeit underwhelming for some.

When it comes to gaming, not much has changed since Sandy Bridge. GPU upgrades make much more of a performance difference. Differences between CPUs are within the margin of error.
 
JM Popaleetus said:
I meant between a 4690, 4790, and 5820.

But even your cherry-picked "point" shows what? 7 FPS over two CPU generations? Now compare two GPU generations.
Click to expand...

My 'cherry-picked' point shows a ~300% difference between the fastest CPU and the slowest. You just finished swearing that the difference from one CPU to the next was 'within the margin of error'.
 
myocardia said:
My 'cherry-picked' point shows a ~300% difference between the fastest CPU and the slowest. You just finished swearing that the difference from one CPU to the next was 'withinoj the margin of error'.
Click to expand...
Where did I swear that a G3258 was on par with an 4790K? You assumed that I meant all CPUs in general, and yet the very post you quoted suggests otherwise.

Moreover, this whole thread has been about the 4790, 5775, and 5820.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top