• Rumor: Intel Skylake CPU launch schedule leaked by benchlife.info, i5-6600K and i7-6700K desktop CPU
    77 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Big Johnson;47783564]4GB is more than enough you nutcase. For years. The GTX 580 only has 1.5 gb and still runs perfectly today[/QUOTE] I hit 3.3 in GTA V not even maxed at 1440p. You can definitely go over 4.
[QUOTE=Levelog;47783815]I hit 3.3 in GTA V not even maxed at 1440p. You can definitely go over 4.[/QUOTE] Were your textures maxed though? Max textures + high res are the biggest impacts on GPU memory. And it isn't like once you hit the limit you suddenly divebomb. I'm doing pretty decent running max textures at 1080p on a 760 with 2GB, though obviously I bet i'd be able to hit constant 60+fps with no small slowdowns as things load in if I had more. Still, I could easily see the best of the best cards having more. People buy big phat 980's and stuff like that for when they want 60+FPS max settings while running huge resolutions or multi-monitor set ups. Big huge games like GTAV might not be every game like that (most games would use considerably less video memory) but when you are playing a game like that it is good to be able to completely max it out without even a chance of framerate dips on big set ups.
I'm trying to look at my CPU and determine if a upgrade would be worth it. I could just ask, but I'm interested in placing my CPU on a spectrum of others to compare. It's an Ivy Bridge, and I think that's like 2012-2013 era, but I'm not sure. We're on "Devil's Canyon" now? Do these name changes really bring that much better performance? [editline]23rd May 2015[/editline] Like, what is the difference between Skylake-S and Skylake-U. Do those letters follow any logic other than being a naming convention?
Hopefully AMD's Zen can come close to skylake. At least socket AM4 will be unified for both APUs and highe core count CPUs.
[QUOTE=Big Johnson;47783564]4GB is more than enough you nutcase. For years. The GTX 580 only has 1.5 gb and still runs perfectly today[/QUOTE] If you run modern games at 1080p, maybe. And I bet you won't be able to max out most intensive games today. The new consoles have a lot more VRAM to work with and this means newer games reflect that. Shadow of Mordor, GTAV, and other recent VRAM hungry games reflect that trend. The higher VRAM hardware in consoles have raised the hardware standard minimum from 256 MB of VRAM to possibly up to 3-4 GB of VRAM usage on consoles. PC gaming is looking towards 1440p as a minimum and 4K as the standard. And let's not forget VR, which is moving forward with lower resolutions than monitors but much higher refresh rate requirements. 1080p and 60 fps is not nearly the best we can do, and modern software and hardware reflects that. And I know that it sucks a bit, I have a GTX 660 myself, and while it can run most modern games with a few cutbacks at 1080p just fine, I can see the writing on the wall already, with newer games needing more VRAM than my card has. [editline]23rd May 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=ghost901;47786999]Hopefully AMD's Zen can come close to skylake. At least socket AM4 will be unified for both APUs and highe core count CPUs.[/QUOTE] I'm hoping so, because Intel needs the competition. Unfortunately, I'm going to doubt it, since AMD has really been struggling for years and their R&D spending recently is dwarfed by Intel's.
[QUOTE=Take_Opal;47786907]I'm trying to look at my CPU and determine if a upgrade would be worth it. I could just ask, but I'm interested in placing my CPU on a spectrum of others to compare. It's an Ivy Bridge, and I think that's like 2012-2013 era, but I'm not sure. We're on "Devil's Canyon" now? Do these name changes really bring that much better performance? [editline]23rd May 2015[/editline] Like, what is the difference between Skylake-S and Skylake-U. Do those letters follow any logic other than being a naming convention?[/QUOTE] Post a CPUZ with the question in the quick questions thread in the hardware section. Chances are the answer is you probably don't need to upgrade, unless it's a low power model.
I'm still waiting for a CPU that is more than 3.8ghz out of the box until then I'll stick with my overclocked core i7 2600k at 4.1ghz.
[QUOTE=coldroll5;47787407]I'm still waiting for a CPU that is more than 3.8ghz out of the box until then I'll stick with my overclocked core i7 2600k at 4.1ghz.[/QUOTE] The 4790k is 4ghz base 4.4ghz turbo right out of the box. And with a quick bios setting you can set it to turbo on all cores if needed so it's a 4.4ghz i7 with no overclocking.
[QUOTE=coldroll5;47787407]I'm still waiting for a CPU that is more than 3.8ghz out of the box until then I'll stick with my overclocked core i7 2600k at 4.1ghz.[/QUOTE] Clock rate != CPU performance. Also the 4790k has 4Ghz base clock rate and 4.4 turbo frequency out of the box. Edit: Fuckin' ninjas D:
[QUOTE=Morgen;47787482]Clock rate != CPU performance. Also the 4790k has 4Ghz base clock rate and 4.4 turbo frequency out of the box. Edit: Fuckin' ninjas D:[/QUOTE] I'll probably just stick with the CPU I have and just get a better cooler and overclock it to 4.5ghz sandy bridge is still pretty good. Most games care more about your GPU then you're CPU nowadays anyway. As long as your CPU isn't super old it won't noticeably bottleneck your GPU. Even though there always is a bottleneck even with the best CPU's.
[QUOTE=coldroll5;47787519]I'll probably just stick with the CPU I have and just get a better cooler and overclock it to 4.5ghz sandy bridge is still pretty good. Most games care more about your GPU then you're CPU nowadays anyway. As long as your CPU isn't super old it won't noticeably bottleneck your GPU. Even though there always is a bottleneck even with the best CPU's.[/QUOTE] The 6xxx Skylake series isn't that far away anyway so it's probably worth waiting for that anyway unless it turns out to be shit, who knows.
[QUOTE=seano12;47776590]This is great to hear. I can't wait to camp outside my local Fry's upon Zen's release. [editline]21st May 2015[/editline] I had that. Good times playing CoD 2 at high fps.[/QUOTE] My buddy ran an AMD Athlon 64 FX-62 until 2013, OC'd to 4.1GHz(!) It shit the bed gloriously after a night of DayZ mod shenanigans. Fuckin trooper though [editline]23rd May 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=coldroll5;47787519]I'll probably just stick with the CPU I have and just get a better cooler and overclock it to 4.5ghz sandy bridge is still pretty good. Most games care more about your GPU then you're CPU nowadays anyway. As long as your CPU isn't super old it won't noticeably bottleneck your GPU. Even though there always is a bottleneck even with the best CPU's.[/QUOTE] I've had my 2500k at 4.6ghz since 2011, I think skylake is about time for an upgrade. Might replace my brother's Phenom 9550 setup with my setup
but what if skylake is the same thing again where there's no real benefit to upgrading what will we spend our money on then
[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;47789212]but what if skylake is the same thing again where there's no real benefit to upgrading what will we spend our money on then[/QUOTE] Honestly for Sandy Bridge owners Skylake will near the benefit of upgrading even with the normal ~5% clock for clock improvement. That's 5% to ivy, 5% to haswell, 5% to broadwell, 5% to Skylake making a 20% clock for clock improvement which is imo worth it.
Certainly getting to the threshold where it's worth it if you cap out the CPU routinely. Maybe not if you have a 2500k/2600k 5GHz. Either way, most games are still GPU bound. Chances are you'll still be better off getting a fatter graphics card with your next round of upgrades instead, or maybe delaying a GPU upgrade a bit and jumping far ahead in a bit.
When these cpu come out, it is finally time to upgrade my pc. Not with these cpu though, but the older cpu will get cheaper, making the wait until then advisable.
[QUOTE=Impact1986;47790807]When these cpu come out, it is finally time to upgrade my pc. Not with these cpu though, but the older cpu will get cheaper, making the wait until then advisable.[/QUOTE] Unfortunately unless Skylake is a huge jump CPU's don't depreciate like GPU's do. They still do a bit, but nowhere near as much.
If I recall Intel's Tick-Tock. Skylake will have a sister generation that'll share the same socket right? (The 1151 socket?)
[QUOTE=Big Johnson;47783564]4GB is more than enough you nutcase. For years. The GTX 580 only has 1.5 gb and still runs perfectly today[/QUOTE] I routinely hit 7 gigs in Skyrim and Mordor and Arkham at 4K.
[QUOTE=LoneWolf_Recon;47791012]If I recall Intel's Tick-Tock. Skylake will have a sister generation that'll share the same socket right? (The 1151 socket?)[/QUOTE] Cannonlake. Intel's current roadmap seemingly ends there for now, probably because they're intending on ditching silicon sometime after that.
[QUOTE=wickedplayer494;47791127]Cannonlake. Intel's current roadmap seemingly ends there for now, probably because they're intending on ditching silicon sometime after that.[/QUOTE] Would make sense. Can't carry them too much further with silicon/metal.
The whole industry is in for a shock if we haven't found a decent replacement for silicon by then
[QUOTE=CakeMaster7;47791237]The whole industry is in for a shock if we haven't found a decent replacement for silicon by then[/QUOTE] AMD is way ahead of the curve on this. MOAR COARZ!
Can't wait to upgrade from my FX 6300. The only problem is the hassle of New Zæland's® Jewi$h™ prices. Just recently the price of fuel per liter was around $1.50 then went all the way back up to $2.04 per liter... There was absolutely no reason it should've gone back up. You can always rely on New Zæland for those good ol' Jewi$h prices.
[QUOTE=Zephyrs;47791288]AMD is way ahead of the curve on this. MOAR "COARZ"![/QUOTE] I think you forgot some quotations. Fixed it for you. [editline]24th May 2015[/editline] Granted Pentium D was really the only true full multi core processor :v:
AMD's still not a bad choice. Get an FX 8350, 8 core at 4ghz, can overclock a bit, certainly with a $30 cooler. Match it up with Intel's equivalent quad core with hyperthreading. Aside from single core performance, you're looking at very similar performance between the two with gaming, and for a far cheaper price
[QUOTE=TheTalon;47791391]AMD's still not a bad choice. Get an FX 8350, 8 core at 4ghz, can overclock a bit, certainly with a $30 cooler. Match it up with Intel's equivalent quad core with hyperthreading. Aside from single core performance, you're looking at very similar performance between the two with gaming, and for a far cheaper price[/QUOTE] Aside from IPC/Core performance, which depending on the games you play, can be everything. You can pick up an FX 8 series for $100, and a decent motherboard for just over 100. Packs a good punch. [editline]24th May 2015[/editline] You've just also got the issues of a greatly outdated chipset and features.
Oh baby yes I can't wait to get rid of my i5-760. I rarely use the computer but every time I do I cry because has decent stuffs (16gb ram, 4gb GTX 680) but is constantly bottle necked by shit processor.
[QUOTE=adam1172;47791451]Oh baby yes I can't wait to get rid of my i5-760. I rarely use the computer but every time I do I cry because has decent stuffs (16gb ram, 4gb GTX 680) but is constantly bottle necked by shit processor.[/QUOTE] Yeah, people are hoping this Skylake jump will be the same as the Lynnfield (1156) to Sandy (1155) jump. Which was huge.
Dammit, I JUST got an a10-5800k. Guess ill have to bite the bullet and get a new mobo so I can have a new socket...
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.