What is the current sweet spot for a CPU?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Aug 6, 2014
1,123
0
0
#51
All "synthetic benchmarks" are questionable. They only give you an idea of what could be reality. Real world games and applications are what matter. Some of these synthetic benchmarks test very specific features, but in the real world, there are lots of other things happening at the same time.

You don't build a PC for synthetic benchmarks. At least most people don't. You build them for specific applications, gaming and what ever you actually do with your PC. Unless you compete in OC contests, synthetic benchmarks mean very little.
Almost your entire post is subjective. Real world game benchmarks mean nothing to a Video Editor. An AMD FX is a monster at video editing, but you'd never know by looking at most game benchmarks. Gaming benchmarks are totally useless for a work PC.
 

bystander36

Diamond Member
Apr 1, 2013
5,143
10
106
#52
Almost your entire post is subjective. Real world game benchmarks mean nothing to a Video Editor. An AMD FX is a monster at video editing, but you'd never know by looking at most game benchmarks. Gaming benchmarks are totally useless for a work PC.
Real world benchmarks are benchmarks of anything you use. That includes your "video editor". What video editor do you use? Find a benchmark on it, and it means a lot to you, if that is why you use your PC.

Passmark is a synthetic benchmark, meaning that no one uses it other than to benchmark.

It is not subjective to say that a benchmark of what you use is more important than a synthetic benchmark of something no one uses other than to benchmark.
 

Madpacket

Platinum Member
Nov 15, 2005
2,068
0
126
#53
Not sure if trolling.

Core i5 6600K vs Core i5 4690K at fixed 4.5GHz, Skylake is:
16.2% faster @ Battlefield 4 MP
10.9% faster @ Counter Strife Global Offensive
6% faster @ Crysis 3
22.7% faster @ Far Cry 4
13% faster @ GTA V
12.5% faster @ The Witcher 3
9.2% faster @ Watch Dogs
14.7% faster @ Project Cars
14.8% faster @ Starcraft 2
24.5% faster @ Total War Attila









Overall gaming performance per clock (IPC) from 14 games/tests @ 1080p Ultra:


Sandy Bridge to Haswell: 13.5%
Haswell to Skylake: 12.8%
Skylake is faster than Broadwell with eDRAM.

Another review, Eurogamer compared 4 generations of Core i5 running the latest titles at 1080p.



In the games tested by them Core i5 6600K (Skylake-S) provided a larger performance per clock performance gain than Core i5 4690K (Haswell) compared to Core i5 2500K (Sandy Bridge).

Core i5 6600K vs Core i5 4690K (same 3.5-3.9GHz base/turbo)
- 17% faster @ The Witcher 3
- 11% faster @ GTA V
- 10% faster @ Battlefield 4

And both reviews used bread and butter DDR4-2666, not some crazy expensive kit. Same holds true for Core i7-6700K, it is faster than the Haswell equivalent at stock (both apps and games). Not a big difference and maybe not worth the price difference right now, but it is faster.
What RAM speeds were used for the 4790K and 4690K for these benchmarks?
 

fourdegrees11

Senior member
Mar 9, 2009
441
0
76
#55
DDR3-1,600 for the Haswells vs DDR4-2,666 for the Skylakes.
The benchmarks posted in this thread for haswell ram speeds show an approximate difference going from 1600 - 2666 *close enough* to the haswell-skylake comparison. That makes comparisons of haswell to skylake irrelevant without equal ram speeds in the comparison.

I think I'm going to have to pick up a $35 8gb kit of ddr3 2400
 
Last edited:

CHADBOGA

Golden Member
Mar 31, 2009
1,773
28
126
#56
Not to be the bearer of bad news -- But I'm pretty sure Tom's Hardware is a more popular web site than Anandtech. They use Passmark quite a bit.

Passmark scores are used a lot in PC World magazine, too.... The magazine with the largest circulation of any covering computers. Seems pretty legit to me.

Considering virtually every other synthetic benchmark excluding Phoronix has been caught cheating..... I generally stick to the 2 that don't seem to do it.
You are embarrassing yourself insisting that synthetic benchmarks of any sort are the way to go. D:
 

Malarkey95

Junior Member
Dec 15, 2015
2
0
0
#57
The benchmarks posted in this thread for haswell ram speeds show an approximate difference going from 1600 - 2666 *close enough* to the haswell-skylake comparison. That makes comparisons of haswell to skylake irrelevant without equal ram speeds in the comparison.

I think I'm going to have to pick up a $35 8gb kit of ddr3 2400
Well even if the DDR3 and DDR4 ram speeds were the same at 1866 for example? I cant find anywhere that Does a Skylake DDR3 benchmark against a 5th gen Equivalent
 
Last edited:

Madpacket

Platinum Member
Nov 15, 2005
2,068
0
126
#58
Well even if the DDR3 and DDR4 ram speeds were the same at 1866 for example? I cant find anywhere that Does a Skylake DDR3 benchmark against a 5th gen Equivalent
DDR4 2666 isn't the standard speed for Skylake, I believe 2100 is just as DDR3 1600 is for Haswell. So this comparison is flawed (I figured something was wrong based on the benchmarks) that's why I asked the speeds. DDR3 2400 is essentially the same price or few bucks more than DDR3 1600 so if using DDR4 2666 for Skylake benchmarks they should at least be comparing Haswell with DDR4 2100 .
 

Sweepr

Diamond Member
May 12, 2006
5,151
2
131
#59
What RAM speeds were used for the 4790K and 4690K for these benchmarks?
''In all tests, which use was the DDR3 memory, we used DDR-2133 running with delays 9-9-10-24 1N. In the case of LGA1151 platform we used the DDR4 modules DDR-2666 running with delays 16-17-17-36 2N.''

Looking at Newegg prices for the cheapest 2x 4GB kit, DDR3-2133 CL9 is actually more expensive than DDR4-2666 CL16. I don't think Skylake was at a significant advantage here (if at all).

DDR3 2400 is essentially the same price or few bucks more than DDR3 1600 so if using DDR4 2666 for Skylake benchmarks they should at least be comparing Haswell with DDR4 2100 .
They did it, and also chose a pretty good CL9 kit.
 
Last edited:

Madpacket

Platinum Member
Nov 15, 2005
2,068
0
126
#60
''In all tests, which use was the DDR3 memory, we used DDR-2133 running with delays 9-9-10-24 1N. In the case of LGA1151 platform we used the DDR4 modules DDR-2666 running with delays 16-17-17-36 2N.''

Looking at Newegg prices for the cheapest 2x 4GB kit, DDR3-2133 CL9 is actually more expensive than DDR4-2666 CL16. I don't think Skylake was at a significant advantage here (if at all).



They did it, and also chose a pretty good CL9 kit.
Okay this contradicts myocardia's response but you're quoting from the article I take it, so thanks for the clarification.
 
Aug 6, 2014
1,123
0
0
#61
You are embarrassing yourself insisting that synthetic benchmarks of any sort are the way to go. D:
I know right.... It's not like AMD or Intel use them to differentiate their products. (Besides, you're not seeing the forest for the trees on this discussion -- the synthetics were a frame of reference, not the argument itself).

http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/library/benchmarks.html
http://www.amd.com/en-us/products/processors/desktop/fx/benchmarks

The bottom line: The performance difference between an i7 4790K and an i7 6700K is so miniscule, it likely falls into the margin of error. The opinion that Skylake scales considerably better / performs measurably better than the equivalent Haswell is beyond ridiculous. There is only a marginal difference between the CPU's when running similar components (comparable ram speeds / etc.)
 
Last edited:

poohbear

Platinum Member
Mar 11, 2003
2,285
0
81
#62
maybe brush up on your reading comprehension. :rolleyes:

I was simply saying for the best gaming experience without ever having to worry about dropping below 60 fps is the 6700k would be the choice to make. it makes that 9590 look like a damn joke in some games. of course the 4790k is the better deal but sometimes getting what best meets your needs is the better in the long run.
Well the OP did ask for the sweet spot. A 4790k @ 250 & a 6700k @ $400+ is a no brainer.

Frankly, CPUs have really stagnated. Anyone with a 4 core + hyperthreading even from the sandy bridge days can coast it until next gen of consoles (so that'll be till 2020). Never thought I'd see the day a 2600k CPU could still be a viable option for 8 years in terms of gaming, especially true at higher resolutions. But that's the state of the market. Mind u, I'd imagine the developments in mobo peripherals & storage speeds would encourage one to upgrade in those 8 years....but CPU performance wouldn't be it.
 

Similar threads



ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS