Overclock.net - An Overclocking Community - Reply to Topic

Thread: Skylake i7 6700K lose to Haswell i7 4790K in gaming? Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Overclock.net - An Overclocking Community forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in


  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
08-06-2016 12:27 AM
Lucifer1945 I upgraded from haswell. I had a binned i7 4790k 4.8 core, 4.2 uncore, 2400 cas 10.

The reason haswell does better in some scenarios is latency. DDR3 in general has a superior performance index score.

The branch prediction is SLIGHTLY better in skylake, and DDR4 is only good if you get high performance modules. My 3400 trident Z cas 16 for example if you run it at 3333 cas 14 with 1.4v scores within a hair of 2400 cas 10 DDR3. For DDR4 that is AMAZING, so latency wont be an issue for me. This is the problem. Another one is the fact almost no one in reviews and benchmarks overclocks the memory controller, and you read advice on overclocking "core is king". Yeah it is if you are benchmarking for a score, but if you care about low framerate performance and consistent ones, and whether or not the expensive ram you installed isnt bottlenecking rediculously, this is idiotic advice. The truth is I upgraded because I was CPU bound in DX11 high resolution crysis 3 with my highly overclocked (6700mhz memory) R9 390X crossfire set up. I ordered a binned die, and had to pay a royalty to delid it to get my hands on a special order, a binned memory controller matching the core at a 1:1 ratio. 4.7 core and 4.7 uncore with EXCELLENT latency high bandwidth memory crushes haswell. Its just a premium, one I was willing to pay. Starcraft 2 is CPU bound in heavy action teamplay, so it was also a consideration. Of course most people dont know how the standard thread scheduler is introducing context switching, and people are generally too lazy to polish out OS overhead to the extent that is really possible. Take build 1511 of windows 10. Because compressing data in ram doesnt defeat the purpose of efficiency per clock......... oh, and its impossible to get rid of now, unless you can hack the kernal. Good luck. Safe mode its even running and you can no longer decompile it to remove the file forcibly. Im stuck using an older build without updates to solve it.
01-15-2016 03:19 PM
llantant Oculus rift pre ordered.
01-13-2016 10:55 AM
andreluiz Test your 6700k bugLake ! biggrin.gif

http://www.pcworld.com/article/3021023/hardware/how-to-test-your-pc-for-the-skylake-bug.html

Bend your 6700k bendLake !

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/12/intel-skylake-cpus-bent-and-broken-by-some-third-party-coolers/
10-29-2015 01:22 AM
Asus11
10-24-2015 05:41 AM
andreluiz In 15 benchmarks the 4790k(ddr3 1.6ghz) beats the 6700k(ddr4 3.0GHz):
youtube.com/watch?v=NoFzi3WdNZo&list=PLC85l4CwqZZBGSYnXRv0d3nUzKP70CXMA
Compare... a 4790k of the lying DigitalFoundry (youtu.be/4sx1kLGVAF0?t=1m2s) vs a Real benchmark of 4790k
(youtu.be/S0uDzU8KTiQ?t=7m35s), and note that this Real result exceeds the 6700k OC.
10-24-2015 01:15 AM
Cyro999
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benny89 View Post

Yeah and whos sitting on 1080p with 6700k Skylake? If you have that CPU you want at least 1440p. And then it is GPU that makes differance.

And how is 68 max FPS on GTA to 57 a 20% differance?

Besides main point still remains- no point upgrading from 4790k to Skylake, especially if you play on 1440p or 4K.

And those tests are funny, because I was just playing two weeks ago Watch Dogs finally on 1080p (now I am on new PG) with my non OC 4790k and I had mostly about 70-75 fps with drops to 65 maximum.

It doesn't matter what resolution you're on - 1440p or 1080p - as long as you have the GPU's to pull the framerates.

If one CPU does 80fps and another does 100fps, your GPU is capable of 120fps on 1080p but only 70fps on 1440p, sure that would show as a 25% gain on 1080p and a 0% gain on 1440p.

That does NOT mean that the new CPU is worse - it means that your system is now performing worse than it was before to the point where the CPU is no longer the limit - your graphics cards failing to keep up in that particular situation are.

The people buying the new CPU wouldn't be the ones that were stuck at 70fps due to poor GPU performance. It would be the ones that can run either 80 or 100 but the CPU is stopping them getting that +25% fps.


You can also half every number here, if that makes it easier for you. I'm used to dealing with higher numbers but many people still play at 40-60fps.

For example, one CPU doing 40fps, another doing 50. If your GPU is capable of 60fps on 1080p but only 35fps on 1440p, then it would show as a 25% gain on 1080p and a 0% gain on 1440p. Again, it doesn't mean that the new CPU is slower - just that your graphics card is too weak to get performance to the level that one or both CPU's could not handle because you're pushing it very hard - underbuying GPU power relative to resolution and running settings that are otherwise too demanding to maintain the framerates that would be expected of the game at lower resolutions. If both CPU's can handle it comfortably 100% of the time in less time than the GPU takes to make a frame, you'll see no difference between them.

Same can be said for many CPU limited games - starcraft 2, heroes of the storm, KSP, a bunch of MMO/RTS with a gtx960 and a 980ti. They'll often show 0 difference in FPS. That's because the system is waiting for neither GPU - if you have a graphically intense load, sure the 980ti will be 2.5x faster. But if you're throwing out a workload that a 960 can handle and the system is waiting for a CPU, you'll see no performance difference between a 960 and a 980ti.


I expect people interested in CPU performance to be looking at it for the CPU-bound situations that they are running into. I play CPU bound games about 20 hours a week so i said screw it, worth a 200 euro hit for a 15% upgrade and doubled RAM capacity + new stuff to play with (OC hobby) rather than waiting 5 years for a CPU upgrade. I didn't want to continue playing the "wait til next year, Intel will release a 6 core CPU" game - i'l just buy one when they do or there is viable competition released.

For FPS numbers in games, when testing CPU bound situations it's generally accepted to look for areas that stress the CPU the most. That's the area where CPU differences are most important, you can measure yourself with specific settings and hardware to see how often they come into play and how harsh they are. The higher FPS you're trying to play at, the more important CPU performance will be as CPU limits are way, way harder to overcome than GPU limits. You can't simply turn down Shadows to medium and get +40fps like you can in Star Wars: Battlefront on an upper-midrange GPU.
10-23-2015 09:59 AM
p4inkill3r
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benny89 View Post

Yeah and whos sitting on 1080p with 6700k Skylake? If you have that CPU you want at least 1440p. And then it is GPU that makes differance.
Many people are using 1080p monitors still, enough that I'd assume it is far and away the choice of the majority.
10-23-2015 09:55 AM
headd I have 6700k and i gaming in 1080p..
10-23-2015 09:49 AM
Benny89
Quote:
Originally Posted by headd View Post

in 1440p its GPU limited wink.gif

Btw skylake vs haswell %
BF4 8%
Crysis3 15.4%
Far cry4 21%
watchdogs 20%
arma3 15%
skyrim 12%
sc2 13%
GTA5 20%

Yeah and whos sitting on 1080p with 6700k Skylake? If you have that CPU you want at least 1440p. And then it is GPU that makes differance.

And how is 68 max FPS on GTA to 57 a 20% differance?

Besides main point still remains- no point upgrading from 4790k to Skylake, especially if you play on 1440p or 4K.

And those tests are funny, because I was just playing two weeks ago Watch Dogs finally on 1080p (now I am on new PG) with my non OC 4790k and I had mostly about 70-75 fps with drops to 65 maximum.
10-23-2015 09:39 AM
headd
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benny89 View Post

Yea, but those are at 1080p, try to make same tests on 1440p or 4K and they are much closer to each other.

Besides that is not 20% but 10%-13% in some games.
in 1440p its GPU limited wink.gif

Btw skylake vs haswell %
BF4 8%
Crysis3 15.4%
Far cry4 21%
watchdogs 20%
arma3 15%
skyrim 12%
sc2 13%
GTA5 20%
This thread has more than 10 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off