Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

CPUs: Indecision Kicks

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    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
    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 ([email protected] & [email protected]), 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.
    Pragmatic Praxis

    Comment


      #3
      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.
      Michael "MP" Patrick (Deceased - R.I.P)

      Comment


        #4
        TBH I'm in such a dither*. :crazy:

        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. :banghead:




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

        Comment


          #5
          FYI I see this is from earlier in the month but It did not seem to have a decision mentioned?

          Originally posted by MPwuzhere View Post
          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.
          Thats weird, I play BF1 on a 4k monitor and when I had a 6700k (at 4.6ghz) with a EVGA gtx1080ftw it did just fine so It may not be the CPU or you need to OC? I will say some maps really tax the CPU; shocked to see some of the Team Deathmatch multiplayer maps use 80%+ but I have never seen stuttering. With the 1080 I get in the 55-70fps range on 4k ultra.

          Originally posted by snowyweston View Post
          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?
          Well, unless your using something that is more multithreaded than revit; I would go 7700k and enjoy the 4.2ghz base clock and 4.5ghz boost. You can have it all with the 7700k though I also have it cooled by the Noctua u9s which is a 92mm cpu cooler inside a small ITX chassis; the caselabs bh2. I also decided to delid my 7700k after seeing the potential for 5ghz 24/7. I used the delid tool from rockit cool (TX made) and saw a 12c drop in temps just by using noctua nt-h1 on the cpu die. That said I am at 5ghz/1.29v (still need to final test but it passed my 15minute stress test) and temps stay under 80c while being quiet in 74F ambient.

          The problem with a 6800k is that in games that dont use more than 4 cores; you will be in a disadvantage. I ran a Titan X Pascal in my 6700k 4.6ghz setup and it had a lot more FPS in the Unigen Valley benchmark than the dual xeon e5-2687w v4 12core 3.0ghz base clock workstation it was going to live in. I have also been able to stream and play bf1 as well without issues when I was on the 6700k as well.

          Hope that helps

          Attached Files
          Remis Computer Solutions
          Las Vegas, NV
          www.remiscs.com

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by remiscs View Post
            FYI I see this is from earlier in the month but It did not seem to have a decision mentioned?
            Mate, this one particular thread might be less than a month old but the indecision goes much further back... simply because I hate parting with money.

            I didn't field the 7700 in my OP as it hadn't been released, and I did not wish to invite speculation. Much of the "meh" about KabyLake seems to stem from the "must have moar!" computing community - sure, we can all scowl at Intel (and chat endlessly about tick-tock cycles) but the little performance poke over the 6700 is welcome and will surely make the 7700 one of, if not THE defacto Revit CPU for a while (until we see what Cannondale comes up with).

            So yeah, I think based off of previous responses, I'm confident I don't need an hex-/octa-core CPU for anything I do. I'm not the impatient kind (being of the Amiga-generation) and will happily "wait" for Handbrake to encode whilst I do something else!


            All said, I've kinda gone off the idea for the moment (refer to opening point re: parting with money) - more because if I do build a 4K-able PC I'm essentially talking myself into a new TV & AV amp - which will significantly spike my outlay. There is of course "just" building a competent 1080p gaming PC for now (7700 w/ a short-body 1060 and I'm laughing - perhaps even with money enough to put them all in a svelte Streacom case) - but then there's the future-proofing-Gremlin sat on my shoulder whispering "Do that and you lock yourself out of 4K for years because you hate spending money!".

            Tidy SFF btw. :thumbsup:

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by remiscs View Post

              Thats weird, I play BF1 on a 4k monitor and when I had a 6700k (at 4.6ghz) with a EVGA gtx1080ftw it did just fine....
              48" 4K TV screen vs a 4k monitor.... Might be quite a difference depending on what size your monitor is mate...

              Although...freaking Windows 10 suggested my zoom rate should be 300% on the 4K TV. I have changed this to 150% recently and wow is this better. But...alas...it is tax season....gaming has to wait to see if it improved.
              Michael "MP" Patrick (Deceased - R.I.P)

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by snowyweston View Post
                Mate, this one particular thread might be less than a month old but the indecision goes much further back... simply because I hate parting with money.

                I didn't field the 7700 in my OP as it hadn't been released, and I did not wish to invite speculation. Much of the "meh" about KabyLake seems to stem from the "must have moar!" computing community - sure, we can all scowl at Intel (and chat endlessly about tick-tock cycles) but the little performance poke over the 6700 is welcome and will surely make the 7700 one of, if not THE defacto Revit CPU for a while (until we see what Cannondale comes up with).

                So yeah, I think based off of previous responses, I'm confident I don't need an hex-/octa-core CPU for anything I do. I'm not the impatient kind (being of the Amiga-generation) and will happily "wait" for Handbrake to encode whilst I do something else!


                All said, I've kinda gone off the idea for the moment (refer to opening point re: parting with money) - more because if I do build a 4K-able PC I'm essentially talking myself into a new TV & AV amp - which will significantly spike my outlay. There is of course "just" building a competent 1080p gaming PC for now (7700 w/ a short-body 1060 and I'm laughing - perhaps even with money enough to put them all in a svelte Streacom case) - but then there's the future-proofing-Gremlin sat on my shoulder whispering "Do that and you lock yourself out of 4K for years because you hate spending money!".

                Tidy SFF btw. :thumbsup:
                Sorry for the late reply but thanks and good luck with your decision
                Remis Computer Solutions
                Las Vegas, NV
                www.remiscs.com

                Comment


                  #9
                  So I just learnt about AMD's Ryzen CPUs...

                  Some excitement about them trumping top-line Intels "for not much money" but the 1800X (stock clocked at 3.6Ghz) priced new is still £100odd more than a 7700K. Difference in cost for the supporting cast of Mobo+HSF might bring them to par, but I think I'll wait for someone else to gamble first.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    From what I am reading, the main thing is Ryzen gives you more cores for less money, but single threaded speed is slower. So, a top of the line Ryzen looks to be about 15% slower than a top of the line i7 with single threaded loads, but it will be faster than the Intel with multithreaded loads, because it will be using 8 cores and 16 threads, rather than the i7's 4/8. So, for Revit it's going to be slower, almost all the time.

                    Anandtech has a pretty good write up, as usual.
                    Pragmatic Praxis

                    Comment

                    Related Topics

                    Collapse

                    Working...
                    X