Whats Going On in The CPU World

[MajinCry]

The 2600K can only be purchased used, so right off the bat there are significant disadvantages there (no warranty, you don't know how much the previous owner abused it, etc.). Beyond that, the 2600K requires DDR3 memory, which won't carry over to a future platform (whereas DDR4 likely would). And, of course, one would need to buy a used Z68/P67/Z77 board since those aren't really available new anymore, so all of the used product caveats apply here. There's also the fact that the old chipsets are woefully dated from a platform perspective.

Recommending that somebody buy an old used Sandy Bridge setup as a substitute for a new 6700K+Z170+DDR4 is poor advice, IMO. Penny wise, pound foolish.

Far as I've gathered, CPUs are the hardiest parts of your computer. Those things will last forever so long as you don't do something stupid like slap it with a sodden corgi.

Keep in mind we're trying to recommend something for a dude that wants some decent power. He ain't looking for a £400 platform upgrade.

Also, DDR4 is more epxensive than DDR3, and so long as you buy a decent motherboard with mosfet heatsinks 'n' no bulging caps, you're good to go. As far as outdated chipsets go, meh. If it's got Sata III and a spare pci-e x1 slot, there ain't a problem to be found. Motherboard has no USB 3.0? Get a £15 pcie card for it. Problem solved.

Take care of your shit 'n' shop a bit, and ya'll be fine.

 

[Torn Mind]

Also, the performance increases beyond Sandybridge have been incremental. http://www.anandtech.com/show/9483/intel-skylake-review-6700k-6600k-ddr4-ddr3-ipc-6th-generation/23

If you get rid of that outlier that's emulation (Haswell got a decent bump for some reason), the difference is, what, 20%? 25%? over Sandybridge. Considering that CPU prices have been increasing quite a bit, whereas Sandybridge can be gotten on the cheap, with an i5 2500k costing around £80 on the ol' Ebay...Nah, go Sandybridge.

Skylake travels 5 inches while Sandy Bridge travels four inches. It might not feel different when firing up Chrome, but oh it does matter when something demanding is pull up, and Photoshop can be quite demanding. If something takes an hour for an i7-2700k at stock, the i7-6600 is finishing it in 48 minutes.

Sandy Bridge chips are cheaper, but major vendors are basically not selling any "better" boards any more. Take a look at Newegg's LGA 1155 boards and you will not find a single Z77 board there. Meaning, you have to play "used board" roulette on Ebay or Amazon Marketplace. H61 is a poorly aged chipset, lacking in pretty much everything. No USB 3.0 or SATA III at all. The only boards worth looking at have Panther Point chipsets so you can have that one or two SATA III ports and up to four USB 3.0 ports. .

While some boards are cheaper, some boards actually more expensive. Just a couple weeks, I sold a ASUS Z77 ITX/DELUXE with WiDi for basically the exact amount I paid for when it was new(I paid $200, sold for $205). Basically, you may get a bargain or you may get gouged depending on what board you want. Or, you may not get the board you want at all.

Also, for video playback, Intel had the 24 fps =/= true 23.976 fps issue on the "Bridge" architectures for those who care about that, and was allegedly fixed with Haswell.

General computing CAN involve dealing with rather large video files. Home videos. Surveillance videos. That is where the the value of a SSD that can perform beyond the limitation of SATA III comes into value. Or even simply copy and pastes of large files. USB 3.0 (and 3.1) also speeds things up, but the user needs to have a compatible device first.

Now, despite all that effort, I will admit that all these nice things could very well be out of the budget of someone right now. But this tech will get "older", and get cheaper as a result. So it still pays to know that there is another level of speed to be had. It's mostly not in the CPU per se, but in the file transfer portions of the PC. By the time Cannonlake or Cannonlake's successor is out, upgrading from Sandy Bridge will have grown even more compelling.

 

[nerp]

Not only are the older chips cheaper, they're much hotter. Old cheap gear means more heat, bigger PSUs, noiser fans, more dust.

 

[zinfamous]

The man did not state any budget. He just wants to know the lay of the land. And as of now, the i5-6600(K) and i7-6700(K) are the top cats of the mainstream platform and also the most powerful CPUs with an iGPU. The 8320, Sandy Bridge, and Ivy Bridge are not worth buying given their age. The limited mobo selection and lack of significant new tech are severe minuses.

Never mind that your cooler and dGPU are also budget excesses in their own right. His light gaming could be extremely old games or games of maybe three years ago. If the former is true, iGPU gaming could very well suffice.

I have used CPUs as slow as Atoms and Celerons from the Pentium 4 era. People who are fine slow computers simply have grown too used to the slow experience.

He wants to run 4k video and do "light gaming" @4k.

For option one and if gaming weren't 4k, then yeah, he'd be fine spending $600 on a CPU. well maybe--is that his budget? To run 4k video only, he needs a $150-200 CPU. To do middling 4k on intense games or solid on 4k on MOBAs or blizzard games or whatever, he needs to pair that $150-200 CPU with a minimum $240-300 8gb RX480 or 6gb 1060. For his 4k TV primary needs, with some 4 gaming added, that is a much better value and plan than dumping $600 on the CPU only. Even better, he could step up to the 1070 @ ~$400 and match the cost of the 6700k only and be miles ahead of that.

Sounds like he's building an HTPC. Not some nerd's fortress of solitude gaming mecca.

 

[Torn Mind]

He wants to run 4k video and do "light gaming" @4k.

For option one and if gaming weren't 4k, then yeah, he'd be fine spending $600 on a CPU. well maybe--is that his budget? To run 4k video only, he needs a $150-200 CPU. To do middling 4k on intense games or solid on 4k on MOBAs or blizzard games or whatever, he needs to pair that $150-200 CPU with a minimum $240-300 8gb RX480 or 6gb 1060. For his 4k TV primary needs, with some 4 gaming added, that is a much better value and plan than dumping $600 on the CPU only. Even better, he could step up to the 1070 @ ~$400 and match the cost of the 6700k only and be miles ahead of that.

Sounds like he's building an HTPC. Not some nerd's fortress of solitude gaming mecca.

Well, he wants to do some Photoshopping, and depending on his level of expertise, it could get intense.

If he is looking to buy, it is not worth hunting for old tech when the new things allow for things to get things done more quickly, and have USB 3.0 and SATA III as the bare minimum. Some boards come with ALC 1150, which is purportedly better than lower end integrated sound.

But I took a peek at his old threads, and it seems that he already has a 3570k. In that case, in place upgrades of GPU and maybe storage to PCIe makes more sense. If he needs more, then proceed to research Zen or leap to Skylake/Kaby Lake.

 

[IllogicalGlory]

Skylake (current gen) i5-6500 ($200) or Haswell Refresh (previous gen) Xeon E3-1231 V3 ($244) are the best options for non overclockers IMO. The Xeon is little more than an i7-4770 without onboard graphics. Pair with a GTX 1070 ($366 at time of posting) or a $250 GTX 1060 6GB or RX 480 8GB and you're golden, less so in the latter two options.

Quick guide to identifying Intel CPU generations:

2 series - Sandy Bridge
3 series - Ivy Bridge
4 series - Haswell
5 series - Broadwell
6 series - Skylake
7 series (to be released) - Kaby Lake

Each one has a 5-15% performance increase between them. Generally closer to 5%. Skylake is one of the most impressive jumps IMO (relative to Haswell). Broadwell CPUs are generally enthusiast/specialized chips.

HEDT i7 chips (those compatible with an X79 or X99 chipset) are marketed as part of the next series. (example: the i7-3930K is a Sandy Bridge chip, while the consumer-oriented i5-3570K is Ivy Bridge)

 

[MongGrel]

Intel CPUs are currently the best across the board and should be what you buy if you are buying now. It is also that time again (happens every four years or so) when AMD says it's planning to release a "revolutionary" new architecture that will put it back into competition with Intel. Results of that TBD.

AMD hasn't done anything revolutionary in about 20 years, but that is just my opinion I guess.

 

[Torn Mind]

AMD hasn't done anything revolutionary in about 20 years, but that is just my opinion I guess.

Don't you mean 12 or so? Back when they were spanking the Pentium 4 and forced Intel onto the path of Core 2?

 

[MongGrel]

Don't you mean 12 or so? Back when they were spanking the Pentium 4 and forced Intel onto the path of Core 2?

Nope.

Tick Tock.

 

[zinfamous]

Nope.

Tick Tock.

AMD's FX 64 chips spanked everything intel had at the time and before that, the Phenom and first-to-hit 1ghz days for AMD kept them a step ahead of Intel for about 2 years, iirc. (that goes back as far as 2001, so 2 generations within less than 20 years where AMD had clear wins)

It seems to me that after Phenom II ~2007 or 8, this has been the absolute worst era for AMD compared to intel's core offerings. Before this, though, they were generally very competitive every generation, if not winning outright in several generations.

 

[superstition]

AMD has been pretty dead as far as games are concerned.

 

[Roland00Address]

Two points

1) The FX9370 and 9590 are 220 watt tdp processors and even then in your specific two benchmarks they only trade blows with the equivalent intels. Note also when these super hot and energy draining processors came out they were much more expensive with prices being about $900, but a few months later they were still going for $230 to $300 (depending on the model). Note these final prices are similar to what you see i7s go for ($250 to $350 depending on sale and location). Note you would need a much more expensive cooling and more expensive motherboard to run these chips due to the 220 watt tdp than similar i7s from intel.

2) That is only two games, in the majority of the games the i7s were a good amount faster than the FX9370 and 9590. Even though these processors had 2 and a half times more tdp to run the processor at.

 

[superstition]

The FX9370 and 9590 are 220 watt tdp processors and even then in your specific two benchmarks

That doesn't mean an 8320E at 4 to 4.3 GHz is going to be horrendously demanding, in terms of cooling cost.

I built a system using air cooling and ran it with Prime stability at 4.5 GHz with an 8320E and a Zalman twin tower 140mm cooler I attached fans to that cost me $20 refurbished. The motherboard and CPU cost less than $120.

Getting it Prime stable at 4.5 took a lot of airflow which is why I suggested backing down for the OP to a max of 4.3.

they only trade blows with the equivalent intels.

Pretty impressive for a 2011/2012 design that seems to have been optimized for servers more than the desktop.

Note also when these super hot and energy draining processors came out they were much more expensive with prices being about $900, but a few months later they were still going for $230 to $300 (depending on the model).

That doesn't have any relevance at this time. The price for an 8320E plus a board capable of getting it to 4.4 like a 9370 is $130 after rebate and tax if you have a Micro Center near. Add in a cooler, of course.

Note you would need a much more expensive cooling and more expensive motherboard to run these chips due to the 220 watt tdp than similar i7s from intel.

The UD3P is cheap as chips with the bundle pricing plus rebate right now. It will run an 8320E at 4.4 with no trouble, provided you put strong enough cooling on the VRM sink. The processor fan from the 8320E can be repurposed for this. Just use Speedfan.

That is only two games, in the majority of the games the i7s were a good amount faster than the FX9370 and 9590.

But it shows that it's up to developers to get good performance of these processors. Picking a game like Skyrim to say AMD isn't a good performer is just as bad — or worse since it's an older title.

The suggestion was not to run the 8320E at 4.7 or even 4.4. 4.1 to 4.3 range is just fine to get adequate performance with the GPUs I suggested for a low cost.

 

[happy medium]

cheap 120$ Z170 motherboard, $119.00 i3 6100 with 45$ 8gb ram, used 165$ gtx970 with a cheap $55 500 watt psu. That's good for your needs for ~$500

Low power,Cool, quiet, cheap, and upgradable system

 

[MajinCry]

T-snip-

The problem with AMD's processors, is that they don't handle draw calls well at all in the traditional APIs (D3D 11 and older). Once draw calls are being laid on thick, this becomes readily apparent.

For example, in Fallout 4, where an i7 920 with hyperthreading disabled will get 60fps, such as overlooking Lexington from the top of Corvega with shadows maxed out, the 965 BE (the AMD equivalent in performance) will get in the low teens. The Bulldozer processors don't fair any better than Phenom II in this department, by the way.

Such drastic differences are also seen in games like Skyrim, Oblivion especially since it uses forward rendering, Fallout New Vegas, etc. Basically big open world games that don't have (any) robust batching systems, and where draw calls can number in the thousands.

I can pull up the ol' quote from Boris Vorontsov, the dude that's been reverse engineering Bethesda's renderers for years, if that'd be of any insight.

 

[Sweepr]

Here's a few 2016 titles to complement the tests above:

Add the extra power consumption and a rather outdated platform and I'd choose Haswell/Skylake or wait for Summit Ridge at this point.

 

[elitejp]

There isnt a budget but that doesnt mean I plan on spending a ridiculous amount on a new system, mainly just checking in with the advancements of cpu's to determine should I wait a but to buy or buying now be just fine. I should clarify though that I mispoke saying I wanted to play 4k games, 1080p would be perfectly fine for me for the time being for gaming.

 

[coercitiv]

There isnt a budget but that doesnt mean I plan on spending a ridiculous amount on a new system, mainly just checking in with the advancements of cpu's to determine should I wait a but to buy or buying now be just fine. I should clarify though that I mispoke saying I wanted to play 4k games, 1080p would be perfectly fine for me for the time being for gaming.

In terms of timing, it's not a bad time to buy, but if you wait until Q1 2017 you will be rewarded with better options from both Intel and AMD. You can go either way, though if you're willing to overclock I would recommend to wait. If not, buy when you have the time to build and play.

In terms of budget, the CPU with the best bang for the buck is still the i5 in the Intel camp. Some enthusiasts on this forum strongly recommend i7 as the most efficient long term investment, but they do so from an enthusiast, heavily optimized perspective - including multiple GPU swaps which increase total budget over time and decrease CPU investment relative to entire budget. The reality may be quite different for the average Joe, who usually has a far more relaxed approach to PC usage - one time system, maybe one GPU upgrade. For example, if you think an Ivy Bridge i5 CPU would be enough for your needs today, then rest assured buying a Skylake i5 will be enough for you in the following 3-5 years, especially if you don't intend to invest in GPU upgrades for every new generation.

As for 4k vs. 1080 gaming, if it fits your budget you can still aim for AMD RX480 8GB or Nvidia 1060 6GB and enjoy some easy to run titles in 4k, while more demanding games will run at good frame rates in 1080p. If you intend to keep the GPU for a longer time stay clear of the 3GB/4GB models.