My workstation is my gaming pc, so yes!
haha. We've gone way off-topic here.
You said getting i7 over an i5 is nonsense in regards to gaming performance.
I was just throwing it out there that there are many reasons why someone would buy an i7 over an i5 while still wanting to game with it. It's very much not nonsense.
You said "I think upgrading at this point to 4790k is a nonsense considering that i5 6600k is $100 cheaper and is on par with 4790k when it comes to gaming performance. "
The 6600k chip itself is cheaper yea, but it would still be much more money to get negligible performance difference in games, while severely downgrading multitasking capability.
Did I miss something?
Yes, the topic is about a gaming rig and i5 6600k is on par with 4790k and once overclocked it beats 4790k in gaming. Yes, 4790k may be better option for certain tasks but those task would be done in a Workstation environment meaning that you are doing things that are not gaming related. i5 6600k perfectly handles games, powerful GPU's, Shadowplay, renders video's, streaming and other stuff that is gaming related. Yeah, if you are a professional who does video's for a living and those are huge video projects with lots of special effects and so on then you shouldn't even consider gaming grade i7. Instead you should be looking at something like i7 Extreme edition. I'm not saying that you shouldn't be considering i7 at all but buying a chip that is a generation older, costs much more and is on par and in some cases slower, that is just nonsense.
You can take a look at this compare and you will see that for gaming i5 6600k is perfectly fine and is on par. Also, you will see that i5 6600k has faster Quad Core processing power, which is important in applications and games that support Quad Core. Moreover, Skylake is a good chip when it comes to overclocking.
http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare...00K/2384vs3503
intel i3> 8320 amd :p haha hilarious but true???
id wait for the zen if you want a cheap processor that has more then 2 cores :)
We don't know if its for only a gaming rig, that's what I've been saying lol.
He might already have a 4690k and it will still be worthless to upgrade to a 6600k.
I'm not saying i5 shouldn't be considered at all, I was stating the i7 will still be a better choice depending on what he wants to do with it.
I brought it up because you were saying i5 like it was the only option.
I didn't say like it was only option. That's why I told you you misread all my comments. As a matter of fact I did recommend to wait for Kaby Lake and get a Kaby Lake CPU, weather it is i5 or i7. I just made a point that upgrading to 4790k at this point is nonsense and explained why. Ofcourse i7 is a better option. I myself will be getting i7 7700k because going for i7 6700k in my situation at this point is also nonsense. Although 6700k is a better option than 6600k but not in this given situation and time of the year when in 2 month there will be 7700k out there, which will deliver more performance for the same money that you would pay for 6700k unless it's not on the sale. Also, knowing that i7 7700k will be compatible with Z170 boards, I don't need to upgrade my motherboard. All I will need to do is to update BIOS. As matter of fact ASUS already released BIOS update that makes Z170 chipset compatible with i7 7700k.
Now that this thread is a complete mess, I wonder if Kamel will enlighten us on what he wants lol.
Either way, upgrading to 4790k is nonsense at this given time of the year knowing that Kaby Lake is just around the corner. Why spend so much money on a 2 generations old CPU when there is a new one coming out??? If he gets that CPU for like $50 or something then why not but buying a brand new 4790k is just a no no, IMHO. Moreover, ZEN is also just around the corner and we still don't know what will ZEN offer. Maybe ZEN will bring AMD back to competition where it was back in 1999-2006, when AMD was actually kicking ass to Intel in performance and also in price.
oh yeah they did back in 1999 till 2006, especially between 2004 - 2006. I remember some of my friends got first gen of Intel dual core CPU's and boy oh boy they were crying about it :-) Athlon 64 was a kickass CPU and its advantage over Pentium 4 was greater overclocking ability. As a result once it was overclocked it was just destroying P4 chips. I remember that because I had both CPU's back then. Back then AMD was on par with Intel and both held 50% of market share
https://www.google.ca/search?q=amd+v...TZUm--dBpYM%3A
Well I really hope that ZEN will bring back those good old times and create a serious competition, which may result in price drops. If ZEN is anywhere close Intel chips and cost less then Intel will have to drop prices as well. I personally may switch back to AMD if it starts kicking ass to Intel again.
If kaby lake is anything similar to the performance gains of skylake, it would still make perfect sense to stick with haswell. The 4790k is less than 5% slower than the 6700k. The few specs we have now on kaby lake hint that it will be another <10% increase from skylake.
IDK about you, but less than 15% increase in performance does not even come close to justifying new motherboard and ram, for me anyways. That's quite an expensive upgrade for such a small margin of gain.
But once again, maybe maybe maybe, if if if, we just don't know lol.
Last leaks show that i7 7700k base clock is 4.2 Ghz and 4.5 Ghz also it is confirmed that Kaby Lake has an improved thermals over Skylake, thus lower temps may allow for higher overclocking. There were leaks that i7 7700k was overclocked to 6700 Mhz on an air cooler. So, those rumors about overclocking 7700k are becoming much more realistic with the latest info about the base clock, boost clock and features that Kaby Lake will deliver over Skylake. Also, yeah, while on stock clocks there is only 5% gain between i7 6700k and i7 4790k you are forgetting the features that i7 6700k is bringing and how well the chip overclocks. With that said, once i7 6700k is overclocked the performance difference between i7 4790k is no longer 5% but already 10% given the fact that Skylake also allows to use a faster RAM. But this is not the point. The point is why would you upgrade from something that you had for 2 years to the same generation CPU, spend a lot of money on that CPU, when there is 2 gen newer CPU just around the corner for the same money?
When I built this rig I kept in mind that Kaby Lake will be released in a year and I knew that it will be compatible with Z170 motherboard. So, I went with Z170 motherboard and i5 to fit in the budget. Over the time, I was upgrading other components on my PC, RAM, GPU, Case, Cooling and even replaced motherboard to a different brand. With all that said I was selling my parts for quite some good price and upgrades cost me very little. Now that I see benefits of Kaby Lake I will finalize my build by upgrading it with i7 7700k and I still will be up to date with my system.
Whatever leaks said that a 7700k was overclocked to 6ghz + on air are so full of it. to get 6ghz + you need sub zero cooling, you may just get in ballpark of 5-5.2ghz stable on water (I mean custom job not aio). http://www.tomshardware.com/news/int...ate,33119.html here they got 4.8ghz stable out of what was most likely a cherry picked chip sent from Intel for review purposes @ launch. They were able to get into windows at 5ghz but it crashed when running stress tests. Since Kaby Lake is just a refinement of Skylake and not a true redesign or process node shrink the IPC of Kaby should be extremely close to Skylake, most of the gains were from better efficiency allowing higher clocks at same wattage. Anyone on skylake would be foolish to upgrade unless they actually need to move from i5 or below to i7. but moving from a 6600k to a 7600k is a huge waste. Also the point about ram, outside of synthetic benchmarks, very few games actually scale with faster ram. Yes its true that it would be smarter for the OP to move to Skylake or newer due to IPC improvements, but anyone on skylake should stick where they are for a few generations and overclock the crap out of it until they are able to see 30-40+% perforformance gain. (unless of course they want to move from i5 to i7 like you stated you would)
While I agree that faster RAM does not improve much in most games, lately I notice that there are more and more games that actually begin to benefit from faster RAM. Just look at these benchmarks. I was in shock that faster RAM actually makes that much difference in BF1.
Yeah, I don't believe those leaks either that 6.7 Ghz is even possible not to even mention to have a stable system. However, if 5.2 Ghz is achievable no problem then that is a huge boost in performance.
As for upgrading i5 6600k to i5 7600k it's very debatable. Knowing that i5 7600k will have much higher base clock and boost clock then it might be worth upgrading for those who are not overclocking their CPU's. The latest news say that i5 7600k will be 10% faster than 6600k. It doesn't sound that much but it game be a major game changer if you have a powerful GPU. Other than that, yes, going from i5 6600k to i7 7700k makes much more sense, which is what I'm going to do.
When I said 5.0-5.2ghz what I meant was the reviewers at Tomshardware.com successfully got into windows at 5.0ghz but not stable for stress testing purposes. I bet with the right water setup and a willingness to push voltage a tad more 5-5.2 is possible. We will have to wait for the official release to see if my theory holds true.