Results 1 to 4 of 4
Like Tree1Likes
  • 1 Post By Gordon Price

Thread: CPUs: Indecision Kicks

  1.    #1
    Moderator snowyweston's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 21, 2010
    Location
    C.LONDON
    Posts
    3,462
    Current Local Time
    03:24 PM

    CPUs: Indecision Kicks

    this was going to be one of my long rambling questions, but instead I've set myself a challenge not to burn my toast...

    Cores Vs speed for a home-use machine? Stick with a 6700 like work for home, or go 'slower' more-multi-core if I plan to move to PC 4K play?

  2.    #2
    Administrator Gordon Price's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 7, 2010
    Location
    Rotterdam, South Holland
    Posts
    2,809
    Current Local Time
    04:24 PM
    What software? If by 4K play you mean games on a 4K monitor, then fewer faster cores is better, and a badass graphics card, because games aren't that multi-threaded, just the graphics, and that's GPU limited (everywhere but Revit). For Revit fewer faster cores and a decent graphics card. In fact, I think you could probably generalize with "If you don't already KNOW that you need lots of cores, then you don't need lots of cores." Because the ONLY things that benefit from a large number of cores are very specialized workflows, like compiling software, doing renderings, video & audio editing and motion graphics, scientific calculations like protein folding or image/signal analysis (folding@home & seti@home), etc. And the software for those workflows is VERY clear about hardware needs. So, if your software doesn't specifically demand or strongly suggest lots of cores, then fewer faster is always better. And very few "general use" programs in Windows will make that demand or suggestion. Like, a couple % at most I suspect.
    cganiere likes this.

  3.    #3
    The Moderator with No Imagination MPwuzhere's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 14, 2010
    Location
    Coeur d Alene, ID
    Posts
    3,893
    Current Local Time
    07:24 AM
    I tried playing Battlefield 1 on my 4k TV last night...(48") and it stuttered too much, but the graphics looked great. Switched back to the 27" screen.
    I have a GTX 970 btw and the 6700k.

  4.    #4
    Moderator snowyweston's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 21, 2010
    Location
    C.LONDON
    Posts
    3,462
    Current Local Time
    03:24 PM
    TBH I'm in such a dither*.

    I WANT a silent slim line hifi-esque case, which pushes me toward low-TDP cpu's (thankfully the 6700, and soon to arrive 7700 are tolerable @65W) and the uATX form factor because I also WANT a blu-ray drive in there (the PS3 is too noisy these days, and I'm not planning current gen.) - so accepting I can't go truly-silent, I'm thinking "sod it, go full guns"

    If I do decide I really want 4K, first it means a new AV amp and TV time... then go-crazy with a 1070 or 1080...

    If I resist the 4K-mega-spend, GPU options for maxed-out gaming (at 1080p) are certainly rosier, with even htpc-case-friendly mini-length 6GB 1060 cards now available.


    I guess I am "that person" you describe, (the one who doesn't need multi-cores because he doesn't know he needs them).

    Having run 2No. Atom-based PCs (practically toys) at home for the last year, I've grown even-more fastidious about application-closing, with the limit of my (home-based) "multi-tasking" stretching (at most) to having Outlook, Foobar, ACDsee, a dozen tabs in Firefox & a couple of Explorer windows... hardly CERN.

    So why I have a 6700 and 64GB of RAM in my shopping basket is anyone's guess! I know why, it's what I'm used to at work, and it's difficult to differentiate my needs.




    *but v.much suspect its more a case of money burning a hole in my pocket.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: December 2nd, 2013, 05:45 PM
  2. CPUs
    By Cyus in forum Hardware and Infrastructure
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: July 7th, 2013, 07:43 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •