What does a 65W i7 processor do that a 95W i7 can't?

[ElFenix]

It would be nice if they included the error in their measurements. I didn't in my tests, and in retrospect I probably should have. Idle power fluctuates, maybe 2-4w.

Physics lab would give them an F

 

[MrTeal]

Physics lab would give them an F

They didn't even include figure numbers on their charts.

 

[Magic Carpet]

Interesting that in one place it's a 4 watt difference and in another it's a 1 watt difference

Take all reviews with a big grain of salt.

Saving power doesn't help the H81M-E keep its temperature down though; it's the hottest board under load. As I mentioned in the overclocking section, I'm not sure how the VRMs get so toasty when they're underneath the fan. ASRock's B85M-DGS ends up as our winner in the thermal measurements.

I too fell for it. Look here, ASRock B85M-DGS. Bought it exclusively after reading Tom's article. Well, let me tell you something. I personally witnessed VRM temps in excess of 70C on this particular board under load (tested it with a 45W TDP CPU).

I hate reviews. At best, they can be misleading. Personal experience is best.

 

[TeknoBug]

rhetorical question?

 

[Magic Carpet]

I guess so. Got 3 45W CPUs here. Default vCore ranges from 0.801 to 0.827. Obviously the one with the lowest Vcore is going to run cooler/etc. This is so "not an exact science".

 

[myocardia]

I'm aware of the clock speed differences (600mhz), but the question is, is that actually a noticeable difference to the user? Enough of a difference to justify the $80 price difference as well as the TDP increase? Maximum performance is an entirely vague goal post. If you truly need MAXIMUM performance, you're looking at the wrong processor entirely, K or not.

I can promise you that I would notice a 600 Mhz difference, both while gaming and playing a game that is not GPU-bound (which there are more than a few), and while using Handbrake to reduce the size of Blu Ray rips.

edit: I forgot to address your "If you truly need MAXIMUM performance, you're looking at the wrong processor" line. Which Xeon processor should I be buying, that has a higher single-threaded performance than an i7-6700k?

For 90% of users, I highly doubt they are going to notice that clock speed difference.

Agreed. Worldwide, ~90% of all computer users need nothing faster than a 2.0 Ghz Core 2 Duo. I fail to see what your grandmother's use case has to do this particular scenario, though. The OP didn't ask about whether they should upgrade their Core 2 Duo, they specifically asked about the difference between Skylake i7s.

 

[Erithan13]

At the time I built my system the price premium on the 6700k vs 6700 was absurd, around $180 equivalent or so, it would have been cheaper going the 5820k route. Right now it's considerably lower although still substantial enough to question whether the k is worth it. If you live somewhere where the difference is only $40 it's much easier to justify than if it's double or triple that price.

Incidentally the 6700 turbos to 3.7ghz/4 cores so it's 'only' 500mhz slower than a stock 6700k. Also I've found very conflicting information on whether multicore enhancement works on non K cpus, I've tried enabling it on mine and it never lets the cpu go to 4ghz across all 4 cores (the max single core turbo). Discussion about it here suggests this is no longer possible since Haswell.

 

[superstition]

Worldwide, ~90% of all computer users need nothing faster than a 2.0 Ghz Core 2 Duo.

That's like "640K ought to be enough for anyone."

Those statements seem true until people do more with their machines. Virtual reality is an area that is going to explode the computational demands of hardware and a Core Duo isn't going to cut it. The days of the Internet being the standard for what people need are numbered.

VR, if managed intelligently by developers, should become ubiquitous, especially in schools. Lab-style (languages, surgery, chem) learning will be greatly enhanced. Average people think VR means games but it's going to be a lot more like a Holodeck than that. Eventually people will have VR rooms in their homes, schools will have VR centers, and so on.

 

[myocardia]

Those statements seem true until people do more with their machines. Virtual reality is an area that is going to explode the computational demands of hardware and a Core Duo isn't going to cut it. The days of the Internet being the standard for what people need are numbered.

VR, if managed intelligently by developers, should become ubiquitous, especially in schools. Lab-style (languages, surgery, chem) learning will be greatly enhanced. Average people think VR means games but it's going to be a lot more like a Holodeck than that. Eventually people will have VR rooms in their homes, schools will have VR centers, and so on.

In 2016, virtual reality is not only not ready for primetime, it also requires a much better computer than all but a few humans alive today own. It requires along the lines of a watercooled 4.5 Ghz Haswell-E 5960X, along with at least two GTX 980 Ti cards type of system. Will it become ubiquitous someday? I think that it very well may, but I very much doubt that that someday will be within the next couple of CPU or GPU generations.

 

[IEC]

In 2016, virtual reality is not only not ready for primetime, it also requires a much better computer than all but a few humans alive today own. It requires along the lines of a watercooled 4.5 Ghz Haswell-E 5960X, along with at least two GTX 980 Ti cards type of system. Will it become ubiquitous someday? I think that it very well may, but I very much doubt that that someday will be within the next couple of CPU or GPU generations.

Your quoted setup could be built for under $3000 easily. Under $1500 if you go with a OC'd 5820K + OC'd 980 Ti, which would be more than enough for 95% of upcoming VR titles.

Once 14nm GPUs launch later this year, that kind of performance level will be easily attainable for less than $1000, bringing it squarely into the reach of mainstream.

 

[myocardia]

Your quoted setup could be built for under $3000 easily.

How many $3,000 computers do you own? How about the rest of your friends and family? Exactly.

Under $1500 if you go with a OC'd 5820K + OC'd 980 Ti,

Wait, so now overclocking adds cores and threads to CPUs? Does it also add execution units to GPUs, as you imply here?

 

[IEC]

How many $3,000 computers do you own? How about the rest of your friends and family? Exactly.

Wait, so now overclocking adds cores and threads to CPUs? Does it also add execution units to GPUs, as you imply here?

I implied that a OC'd 5820K + OC'd 980 Ti would be "enough" for 95% of VR games coming out in the near future. I still stand by that statement. You exaggerated the "required" components (5960X, 980 Ti SLI) to make it seem like VR was out of the reach of all but the wealthiest PC hobbyists. Which is simply not true. It will become even less true once 14nm GPUs hit the mainstream, and increase mainstream performance levels beyond a 970/290.

But hey, don't take my word for it.

From Oculus:

The recommended PC specification is an NVIDIA GTX 970 or AMD 290, Intel i5-4590, and 8GB RAM. This configuration will be held for the lifetime of the Rift and should drop in price over time.

Source: https://www.oculus.com/en-us/blog/powering-the-rift/

P.S. My spare desktop hits those recommended specs, and my work "laptop" (I don't like it on my lap...) is close. PCs are a comparatively inexpensive hobby, and powerful hardware also happens to help with my work. A win-win.

Yes, I pre-ordered the Rift. Yes, I still recommend a 6700K, 91W TDP part over a 65W i7.

 

[myocardia]

I implied that a OC'd 5820K + OC'd 980 Ti would be "enough" for 95% of VR games coming out in the near future. I still stand by that statement.

Well, let's hope that you are right. If you aren't, it will likely be years before the technology takes off, if it ever does.

You exaggerated the "required" components (5960X, 980 Ti SLI) to make it seem like VR was out of the reach of all but the wealthiest PC hobbyists. Which is simply not true.

Can you link to this proof you seem to have that running two separate 1440P displays that aren't copies of one another @ higher than 60FPS on the games coming out later this year won't require more than a 6700k and a GTX 970 can provide?

But hey, don't take my word for it.

From Oculus:

The recommended PC specification is an NVIDIA GTX 970 or AMD 290, Intel i5-4590, and 8GB RAM. This configuration will be held for the lifetime of the Rift and should drop in price over time.

So, you're quoting people who are hoping to trick you out of $600, as to what will be required to enjoy their device? That's hilarious. Why don't you go play Grand Theft Auto V on your 2.4 Ghz Q6600 and 1GB 9800 GT GPU? I'm sure that would be very enjoyable! And hey, that was straight from the horse's mouth, after all...

PCs are a comparatively inexpensive hobby

Indeed, they are. That's why I've owned one since 1980, ie the year before IBM released their first personal computer, the PC. Neither of us knows yet just how expensive of a PC will be required to actually enjoy using an Oculus Rift. I'd bet dollars to donuts that it will take closer to the system that I proposed, than what the people hoping to sell you their device claim it will take, though.