• i5 Skylake or i7 Haswell - Build upgrade
    35 replies, posted
hey peeps so I was finally able to justify to myself upgrading my PC instead of saving up for a new car and stuff. I was thinking about going skylake, mostly because I wanted to go intel and grab a ddr4 build as well, but apparently the haswell path seems to be way more worth it, and I don't know much about intel sockets so maybe my ddr4 build won't be worth it for all that long if at all. here's the current rig. it sucks. fx6300 trashy 95w mobo that won't take anything better than the 6300 r9 280 4gb ddr3 ram (the other slot in the mobo appears to be faulty and I had a 2x 4gb kit so) there's a noticeable bottleneck in a few games. here's the skylake build I had in mind: i5 6600k Gigabyte GA-H170-GAMING 3 8gb kingston hyperX, but I'm confused on this one. does RAM speed matter for skylake builds? guessing not. any opinions on it? considering import taxes and stuff, the build will cost about 750$ or so. a i7 4790k build + a z97 mobo and 16gb RAM would go for about 760$. I could also cheap out on the mobo bringing the value down to 670$. 600$ or so if I reuse my current RAM. I can provide links if needed but it's all in portuguese. upgrade to skylake? or go for the i7 build? maybe wait for when the ddr4 options are cheaper, that could work too. what do you guys think? honestly spent all week thinking about this and my opinion's been changing like every other day so I'd like to hear your thoughts. thanks! tell me if I forgot anything.
Imo you're not going to notice much if any difference between skylake and haswell. Same with ddr3 and ddr4.
[QUOTE=redBadger;49304080]Imo you're not going to notice much if any difference between skylake and haswell. Same with ddr3 and ddr4.[/QUOTE] I see, thank you. heavily leaning towards the i7 build now. just checking with my other friends now, but they all seem to say the same as well.
I just recently upgraded to an i7 Haswell (5930k) and it is... overkill? It's really good. Paired with my GTX980 and a PCI-E SSD, everything is running even better than I'd expected. I had this same dilemma before I upgraded but decided to go with the i7 based on reviews and the fact that the particular CPU I chose had some better specs, including more PCI-E lanes which gave me the option to potentially SLI in the (distant) future. I can't honestly imagine needing to upgrade for a very long time now, so I'm pretty happy with it. Obviously it's not the same processor you're looking at, but what I found in most of my research was that the i7 Haswell processors were generally better or the same - not many people hugely in favor of Skylake. I imagine this is because Skylake is still new technology and hasn't really touched it's potential. Anyway, there's my two cents.
The benchmarks between Skylake and Haswell I looked at showed essentially no improvements for *video games. I haven't looked into DDR4 ram enough to know if its really any better than DDR3 for gaming either.
I went from a really ancient PC to a 6600k personally. It's a little bit more future-proof but I'm not sure if you'll really see that many performance gains from Haswell to Skylake. OCing on Skylake is pretty nice though. I have no experience with haswell so \/:v:\/
[QUOTE=riku2211;49304375]I just recently upgraded to an i7 Haswell (5930k) and it is... overkill? It's really good. Paired with my GTX980 and a PCI-E SSD, everything is running even better than I'd expected. I had this same dilemma before I upgraded but decided to go with the i7 based on reviews and the fact that the particular CPU I chose had some better specs, including more PCI-E lanes which gave me the option to potentially SLI in the (distant) future. I can't honestly imagine needing to upgrade for a very long time now, so I'm pretty happy with it. Obviously it's not the same processor you're looking at, but what I found in most of my research was that the i7 Haswell processors were generally better or the same - not many people hugely in favor of Skylake. I imagine this is because Skylake is still new technology and hasn't really touched it's potential. Anyway, there's my two cents.[/QUOTE] You can 3-way SLI with 28 PCI-e lanes comfortably, i.e. 5820k. I wouldn't recommend going haswell-e, what with the new broadwell-e going to set a new level The 4790K is for multithreaded tasks more powerful than the 6600K, so it's your choice there.
I just got my new baby up and running, i7 4790K, Z97, 16GB RAM,R9 390. I went from an FX-6300 like you, the i7 is an absolute monster. I'd say i7, but maybe its just because I have one now lol
i7 haswell ALL the way! No i5 will beat an i7-- especially with hyperthreading not on i5's. An i7 4790k will DESTROY an i5 6600k, especially if you overclock.
[QUOTE=Kemerd;49314280]i7 haswell ALL the way! No i5 will beat an i7-- especially with hyperthreading not on i5's. An i7 4790k will DESTROY an i5 6600k, especially if you overclock.[/QUOTE] That's not really true. Unless you frequently use heavily CPU-oriented applications you won't really notice the difference between an i7 and an i5. Just go with whatever's cheaper. That said, even at stock numbers, the i5 seems to outperform the i7 by just a hair in games: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWxncqbe1H8[/media]
[QUOTE=Protocol7;49314330]That's not really true. Unless you frequently use heavily CPU-oriented applications you won't really notice the difference between an i7 and an i5. Just go with whatever's cheaper. That said, even at stock numbers, the i5 seems to outperform the i7 by just a hair in games: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWxncqbe1H8[/media][/QUOTE] The only problem I can see is that the i7 isn't overclocked-- along with the fact than an i7 is going to perform better in a lot of other situations besides games (as games are more of a single-core reliant process), where hyperthreading (and multicores) will really show it's wings. Check out some benchmarks (no overclock): [url]http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/core_i5_6600k_processor_review_desktop_skylake,1.html[/url] But if you can't spare that extra buck (I advise waiting for some sales, I got my i7 at $275 with Newegg & visa checkout coupon), an i5 6600k is still a great CPU.
[QUOTE=Kemerd;49314280]i7 haswell ALL the way! No i5 will beat an i7-- especially with hyperthreading not on i5's. An i7 4790k will DESTROY an i5 6600k, especially if you overclock.[/QUOTE] Not for games. And this is a gaming forum. I would get an i5-4690 for gaming btw. The 6600 is still retardedly expensive and the i7 is not needed for gaming.
[QUOTE=taipan;49314398]Not for games. And this is a gaming forum.[/QUOTE] [IMG]http://media.gamersnexus.net/images/media/2015/game-bench/fallout-4-cpu-benchmark-1440-u.png[/IMG] More multi-core CPU extensive applications will show the difference, game or not. Again, these are non-OC benchmarks, but the i5 and the i7 will retain scaling, even if both are overclocked. [url]http://www.gamersnexus.net/game-bench/2182-fallout-4-cpu-benchmark-huge-performance-difference[/url]
Unless you do intense video editing or some other core heavy operation, why you'd need an i7 is beyond me. A large amount of users are OCing the 6600k to the 4.6-4.8 GHz range without a problem (including me).
[QUOTE=Snickerdoodle;49314422]Unless you do intense video editing or some other core heavy operation, why you'd need an i7 is beyond me. A large amount of users are OCing the 6600k to the 4.6-4.8 GHz range without a problem (including me).[/QUOTE] That's quite true. The i5 6600k is a great CPU and has a wonderful price-to-performance ratio and will be next to up to par with a stock i7 4790 when overclocked. However, if given one or the other, I'd choose the i7. I have an i7 4790k, and overclocking the thing improves single-core performance well, but it really shines when all of the cores are overclocked to 4.7GHz (with one sitting at 4.8GHz) vs all cores sitting at 4GHz (with one core turbo-boosted to 4.4GHz). I personally do a lot of compiling, video editing, and gaming, so the i7 is a great fit for me. A great comparison is here: [url]http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-intel-skylake-core-i5-6600k-review[/url]
[QUOTE=Kemerd;49314380]The only problem I can see is that the i7 isn't overclocked-- along with the fact than an i7 is going to perform better in a lot of other situations besides games (as games are more of a single-core reliant process), where hyperthreading (and multicores) will really show it's wings.[/QUOTE] No. It won't. An i7 is not inherently better than an i5 because the i7 has hyperthreading. The #1 reason you get an i7 is for non-gaming reasons. Video editing is probably the biggest example, since rendering relies heavily on the CPU (even stated in the link you posted.) The #2 reason is cost, because the difference is otherwise unnoticeable. For everyday tasks, single-core performance has much, much more impact on the speed of the task. This is even true with gaming where it's insanely difficult to parallelize much of the game logic (and there are a lot more factors with game performance than just your CPU.) Which is why with comparable Intel CPUs (quad cores) the biggest performance difference comes from the GHz of the processor, not the existence of hyperthreading.
[QUOTE=Protocol7;49314454]No. It won't. An i7 is not inherently better than an i5 because the i7 has hyperthreading. The #1 reason you get an i7 is for non-gaming reasons. Video editing is probably the biggest example, since rendering relies heavily on the CPU (even stated in the link you posted.) The #2 reason is cost, because the difference is otherwise unnoticeable. For everyday tasks, single-core performance has much, much more impact on the speed of the task. This is even true with gaming where it's insanely difficult to parallelize much of the game logic (and there are a lot more factors with game performance than just your CPU.) Which is why with comparable Intel CPUs (quad cores) the biggest performance difference comes from the GHz of the processor, not the existence of hyperthreading.[/QUOTE] I can agree with you there, but even an i7 4790k overclocked to 4.8GHz with hyperthreading disabled is going to perform better in single-core CPU extensive applications than an i5 6600k, no matter the overclock. However, I can agree with you on price. i7's are more expensive than i5's by a margin (which I why I waited till sales), and for the average gamer, an i5 is more than enough.
To be fair a lot more games now and I predict in the future will be utilizing hyper threading. For example fallout 4 uses it and I've experienced performance gains with all the hyperthread options enabled.
[QUOTE=Kemerd;49314475]I can agree with you there, but even an i7 4790k overclocked to 4.8GHz with hyperthreading disabled is going to perform better in single-core CPU extensive applications than an [B]i5 6600k, no matter the overclock.[/B] However, I can agree with you on price. i7's are more expensive than i5's by a margin (which I why I waited till sales), and for the average gamer, an i5 is more than enough.[/QUOTE] Whaa? That's blatantly false.
[QUOTE=~Kiwi~v2;49314506]You forgot #3. Going balls to the wall because you literally don't give a fuck about your budget and your name is Linus. In reality there is no difference in gaming benchmarks between the i7 and i5. We've know this for years, stop with the i7 K suggestions and just get a cheaper i5 K processor doesn't matter what gen it is and just over clock the bejesus out of it. You'll be more faster and more cost effective then an i7 K or even an i7 at stock. Hell OP could not even need all 8 fucking threads unless he was rendering or doing video editing. Also 6600K with a H board no no you can't over clock on that. Where does OP actually live for a start. And as a part suggestion stick with the 4690K idea as everyone else is unless you aren't budget constraint and you really want the latest(in which case go 6600K but be ready to fork out for ram). [url=http://pcpartpicker.com/p/nB38bv]PCPartPicker part list[/url] / [url=http://pcpartpicker.com/p/nB38bv/by_merchant/]Price breakdown by merchant[/url] [b]CPU:[/b] [url=http://pcpartpicker.com/part/intel-cpu-bx80646i54690k]Intel Core i5-4690K 3.5GHz Quad-Core Processor[/url] ($179.99 @ Micro Center) [b]CPU Cooler:[/b] [url=http://pcpartpicker.com/part/noctua-cpu-cooler-nhu12s]Noctua NH-U12S 55.0 CFM CPU Cooler[/url] ($64.99 @ Amazon) [b]Motherboard:[/b] [url=http://pcpartpicker.com/part/gigabyte-motherboard-gaz97xgaming3]Gigabyte GA-Z97X-Gaming 3 ATX LGA1150 Motherboard[/url] ($104.99 @ SuperBiiz) [b]Total:[/b] $349.97 [i]Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available[/i] [i]Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-12-14 10:35 EST-0500[/i] Carry over your current ram into this build and you should also be able to take your 1x4GB that's unused and doesn't seem to work in your current mobo over and you'll have 2x4GB ready to be used. [editline]15th December 2015[/editline] and the hint here is to overclock that 4690k also balls to the walls on air, coolers great for at least a 4GHz otherwise you can save more and drop it down to a 4690 non K and a H board[/QUOTE] forgot to check on this thread, but yeah I'm actually going for an i5 now! I only do some gaming and compile some light stuff, so the i7 isn't really all that I need. planning on OC'ing it, seems like 4.7ghz is easy to hit but I'll probably go easy on it because my GPU is kinda balls. not a great mobo either but it'll do. money's not really an issue, but I'd rather save up whenever possible so I can save up for a car or an apartment. for the cooler I'm going with a raijintek themis. extremely cheap and I really like the performance I see it put out. case's a h440, the black and red theme looks great together with the mobo and cooler. I'll wait out on the ddr4 for now. by the time my 4690k gets obsolete, there'll be more DDR4 options available for me to pick from. availability is an issue for me. thanks, everyone. it was a great read. I'm way better aware of intel's products, almost feels like I dodged a bullet there with the whole i5/i7 thing :v:
What motherboard are you planning on getting with the 4690k?
[QUOTE=Levelog;49316557]Whaa? That's blatantly false.[/QUOTE] An i7 running 4.8GHz is going to perform better than an i5 at 4.8GHz, even if by a small margin-- thats if an i5 can even reach 4.8GHz. All other factors aside, an i7 is inherently made on a better silicon wafer, which is why they are i7s and not i5s. [video=youtube;WvCo2OWdkns]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvCo2OWdkns[/video] In this video, both at 4.7GHz, in the [B]CPU extensive games[/B] (where the CPU can be a bottleneck), there are noticeable gains of FPS, even when he turns hyper threading off. [video=youtube;KzpYOHuSfaM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzpYOHuSfaM[/video]
[QUOTE=Kemerd;49318996]An i7 running 4.8GHz is going to perform better than an i5 at 4.8GHz, even if by a small margin-- thats if an i5 can even reach 4.8GHz. All other factors aside, an i7 is inherently made on a better silicon wafer, which is why they are i7s and not i5s.[/QUOTE] The better silicon wafers purely means its going to handle higher frequencies. The i7 has a negligible amount more cache that doesn't really help with performance. Skylake clock for clock is faster than haswell. You are wrong.
[QUOTE=Levelog;49319011]The better silicon wafers purely means its going to handle higher frequencies. The i7 has a negligible amount more cache that doesn't really help with performance. Skylake clock for clock is faster than haswell. You are wrong.[/QUOTE] Back up your claims with benchmarks. For the record, I'm not saying the i5 is a bad chip. It's a great chip, and can keep up to par in a lot of situations. But if you get down to it, the i7 will perform better in the more CPU extensive programs. Just see those benchmarks. When the CPU needs more speed, the FPS shows it-- even if by a small amount. This is all assuming the consumer is willing to overclock.
Do you really think a processor two manufacturing generations older would have better clock for clock performance? Are you really that thick? [url]http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/08/intel-skylake-core-i7-6700k-reviewed/2/[/url]
[QUOTE=Levelog;49319050]Do you really think a processor two manufacturing generations older would have better clock for clock performance? Are you really that thick? [url]http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/08/intel-skylake-core-i7-6700k-reviewed/2/[/url][/QUOTE] The i7 6700k is better than the i7 4790k. However, the i5 6600k is not better than the i7 4790k (even with the extra boost ddr4 gives), thermals and power consumption aside.
[QUOTE=Kemerd;49319056]The i7 6700k is better than the i7 4790k. However, the i5 6600k is not better than the i7 4790k, thermals and power consumption aside.[/QUOTE] This is what you said that is false. Now you're changing what you're saying. [QUOTE=Kemerd;49314475]I can agree with you there, but even [B]an i7 4790k overclocked to 4.8GHz with hyperthreading disabled is going to perform better in single-core CPU extensive applications than an i5 6600k, no matter the overclock.[/B][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Levelog;49319064]This is what you said that is false. Now you're changing what you're saying.[/QUOTE] I'm confused. I said an i7 4790k is better than an i5 6600k, even if both are clocked at 4.8GHz-- what is the point of that post? I have changed nothing. [quote=Kemerd]I can agree with you there, but even an[B] i7 4790k[/B] overclocked to 4.8GHz with hyperthreading disabled is going to perform better in single-core CPU extensive applications than an [B]i5 6600k[/B], no matter the overclock.[/quote] [quote=Kemerd]The i7 6700k is better than the i7 4790k. However, the [B]i5 6600k[/B] is [B]not[/B] better than the [B]i7 4790k[/B], thermals and power consumption aside.[/quote]
[QUOTE=Kemerd;49319068]I'm confused. I said an i7 4790k is better than an i5 6600k, even if both are clocked at 4.8GHz-- what is the point of that post? I have changed nothing.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Kemerd;49314475]I can agree with you there, but even an i7 4790k overclocked to 4.8GHz[B] with hyperthreading disabled[/B] is going to perform better in single-core CPU extensive applications than an i5 6600k, no matter the overclock.[/QUOTE] This is what you said. And it is blatantly incorrect.
[QUOTE=Levelog;49319086]This is what you said. And it is blatantly incorrect.[/QUOTE] I can't take your word for it, back it up with benchmarks. Also, [QUOTE=Levelog;49319064]This is what you said that is false. [B]Now you're changing what you're saying.[/B][/QUOTE] That made no sense. But I think I understand what you mean when you mentioned on how the i5 benchmarks I posted are nothing because "an i5 6600k is better than an i5 4690k".
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.