- Joined
- Sep 19, 2015
Quoting myself...
Made sense you were playing@1440p+ when looking at benchmark results!
-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
6600K Preset overclock to 4.4 Works Flawless. Can't go any higher
- Thread starter illusi
- Start date
Quoting myself...
Made sense you were playing@1440p+ when looking at benchmark results!
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2014
Wrong, the extra threads allow you to multitask much better, as Leegit said it distributes the workload between all threads and as i said for example streaming while gaming. And the FPS difference also depends much on the game, on OC profile most games show 10fps-20fps (especially in minimum FPS) diference because its optimized to use more then 4 cores (another example is Civilization 5). All decently coded online games will also show a nice FPS difference.
IMO Witcher 3 and Shadows of Mordor are bad examples for CPU comparison because they are too GPU bound.
http://www.dsogaming.com/pc-performance-analyses/the-witcher-3-wild-hunt-pc-performance-analysis/ - "And while The Witcher 3 does not require a high-end CPU, it demands a really powerful GPU in order to enable all its bells and whistles and retain a constant 60fps framerate at 1080p."
Last edited:
Wrong, it is not HT that is making the difference it is the clock speed, you can't link a gaming benchmark clock for clock with a i5 6600k to i7 6700k, you just pay more for hardly any retun in gaming.
GTA V i5 4690k http://www.techspot.com/review/991-gta-5-pc-benchmarks/page6.html
GTA V i5 4690k http://www.techspot.com/review/991-gta-5-pc-benchmarks/page6.html
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2014
Wrong, it is not HT that is making the difference it is the clock speed, you can't link a gaming benchmark clock for clock with a i5 6600k to i7 6700k, you just pay more for hardly any retun in gaming.
Depends on the game, the ones that only use 4 cores SHOULD play slightly better on the 6600k, games that use more then 4 cores WILL play better on the 6700k at the same speed. Online games are a major proof of this. At the same exact frequency the 6700K will be still 30-40% faster in Multi-thread applications and a few amount of games due to hyperthreading and extra cache.
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2014
Talking about consoles and desktops, i5 vs i7 in general, watch the 1st video from ~8m, he shows and explains exactly my point (also made me rethink 6600k bottlenecking) :
CPU Showdown Part 1! Will a 1st Gen Core i5 or i7 Bottleneck a GTX 1070?
CPU Showdown Part 2! Can DX12 and Vulkan Save the i7 2600K and i5 2500K?
CPU Showdown Part 3! Is the 6700K the King of Gaming CPUs? And the 2600K Keeps Up with 6600K!
When i buy hardware i do it thinking about it lasting for a few years and giving me the best performance possible, even if i did only game i would have still gone for the 6700k simply because it has more threads, this would be the same reason why in AMD you go for a 6300/8300 instead of a 4300. Most games nowadays are already being coded to use 6+ threads so its clear the i5 is at a disadvantage in the future. Also for some reason the 6700k seems to OC slightly better then the 6600k from the posts i have seen ?
The point would be moot if you could hit your vsync target every time for smooth game play but sadly this is not the case as both games and monitors continue to evolve and require ever more powerful hardware.
EDIT: And i just realized we hijacked yet another thread, my apologies
CPU Showdown Part 1! Will a 1st Gen Core i5 or i7 Bottleneck a GTX 1070?
CPU Showdown Part 2! Can DX12 and Vulkan Save the i7 2600K and i5 2500K?
CPU Showdown Part 3! Is the 6700K the King of Gaming CPUs? And the 2600K Keeps Up with 6600K!
When i buy hardware i do it thinking about it lasting for a few years and giving me the best performance possible, even if i did only game i would have still gone for the 6700k simply because it has more threads, this would be the same reason why in AMD you go for a 6300/8300 instead of a 4300. Most games nowadays are already being coded to use 6+ threads so its clear the i5 is at a disadvantage in the future. Also for some reason the 6700k seems to OC slightly better then the 6600k from the posts i have seen ?
The point would be moot if you could hit your vsync target every time for smooth game play but sadly this is not the case as both games and monitors continue to evolve and require ever more powerful hardware.
EDIT: And i just realized we hijacked yet another thread, my apologies
Last edited:
- Thread Starter
- #46
Talking about consoles and desktops, i5 vs i7 in general, watch the 1st video from ~8m, he shows and explains exactly my point (also made me rethink 6600k bottlenecking) :
CPU Showdown Part 1! Will a 1st Gen Core i5 or i7 Bottleneck a GTX 1070?
CPU Showdown Part 2! Can DX12 and Vulkan Save the i7 2600K and i5 2500K?
CPU Showdown Part 3! Is the 6700K the King of Gaming CPUs? And the 2600K Keeps Up with 6600K!
When i buy hardware i do it thinking about it lasting for a few years and giving me the best performance possible, even if i did only game i would have still gone for the 6700k simply because it has more threads, this would be the same reason why in AMD you go for a 6300/8300 instead of a 4300. Most games nowadays are already being coded to use 6+ threads so its clear the i5 is at a disadvantage in the future. Also for some reason the 6700k seems to OC slightly better then the 6600k from the posts i have seen ?
The point would be moot if you could hit your vsync target every time for smooth game play but sadly this is not the case as both games and monitors continue to evolve and require ever more powerful hardware.
EDIT: And i just realized we hijacked yet another thread, my apologies
This is good kind of hijacking, I'm OK with it
As an update, my new RAM is still in transit. It'll arrive tomorrow. I run some benchmarks with the current setup(1X16GB 2138mhz ram) I'll run same benchmarks again after I install the new modules. I'm really curious about the results of this test.
In general, since I gave up on manual overclocking and decided to use preset 4.5Ghz OC. Things are running very smooth. Seems like my problems are mostly solved.
FarCry 4 is still not to my satisfaction, it mostly remains above 60 fps but the wildly fluctuating FPS is causing massive tearing on the screen. Turning V-Sync on is causing input lag.
I decided to buy a 24" 144Hz, G.Sync monitor. I'll order it next week. From what I've read, with g.sync even if game drops to 40, it still feels like a smooth 60 fps. The only thing I'm not so sure about is the TN panel. I'm used to IPS panels and some people says TNs have terrible color reproduction. That got me a little scared honestly. But I'm at a point where I want a stable and stutter free FPS no matter the cost
This is good kind of hijacking, I'm OK with it
As an update, my new RAM is still in transit. It'll arrive tomorrow. I run some benchmarks with the current setup(1X16GB 2138mhz ram) I'll run same benchmarks again after I install the new modules. I'm really curious about the results of this test.
In general, since I gave up on manual overclocking and decided to use preset 4.5Ghz OC. Things are running very smooth. Seems like my problems are mostly solved.
FarCry 4 is still not to my satisfaction, it mostly remains above 60 fps but the wildly fluctuating FPS is causing massive tearing on the screen. Turning V-Sync on is causing input lag.
Have you tried Adaptive vsync in Nvidia control panel?
- Thread Starter
- #49
The monitor I'm planning on buying is this on Acer 24 XB240HBMJDPR. It costs about 400. It's a 144hz TN display, but to me the most exciting thing about it is the Gsync. A friend of mine has a gsync monitor. And I was amazed with the fluidity of the gameplay even as low as 30fps. I definitely want that.
From what I can find, the cheapes IPS 144hz monitors start from 1000$, Asus ROG SWIFT PG279Q looks really good, but I really don't want to pay three times as much money for it just for better color accuracy. If I want higher resolution or better color reproduction than what TN display offers, I can always use my 55" 4K TV for that. If there were an IPS display for my specifications, I'd be willing to pay 500-600$ for that. It doesn't seem to be happening anytime soon tho.
- - - Updated - - -
Yes. I also tried "Fast" mode. While they are definitely far superior to what Far Cry has to offer built in, the still introduce some input lag, and the FPS still takes a serious hit.
From what I can find, the cheapes IPS 144hz monitors start from 1000$, Asus ROG SWIFT PG279Q looks really good, but I really don't want to pay three times as much money for it just for better color accuracy. If I want higher resolution or better color reproduction than what TN display offers, I can always use my 55" 4K TV for that. If there were an IPS display for my specifications, I'd be willing to pay 500-600$ for that. It doesn't seem to be happening anytime soon tho.
- - - Updated - - -
Yes. I also tried "Fast" mode. While they are definitely far superior to what Far Cry has to offer built in, the still introduce some input lag, and the FPS still takes a serious hit.
There are choices at 2560x1440 120/144hz IPS under $1K.. acer predator is on sale for 800. Still a big difference...
That said I have 1440 IPS panel, bought a 4k TN, and can't wait to go back to 2560x1440 on ips. Big difference...especially when the other is sitting right next to it so one can see the differences.
That said I have 1440 IPS panel, bought a 4k TN, and can't wait to go back to 2560x1440 on ips. Big difference...especially when the other is sitting right next to it so one can see the differences.
Last edited:
- Thread Starter
- #51
Thing is, the monitor I'm gonna buy is 400$ I'm not planning on going over 1080p or 24" anytime soon. I prefer 140+ fps @ 1080p to <60fps at 4K.
I must admit TN panel's narrow viewing angle is making me nervous. But last few days, I've been keeping track of where I sit while I'm playing. I'm fairly confident that most of the time I'm straight in front of my monitor. Also I live alone, so no one will be on the sidelines. Another thing is, I'll be keeping my current IPS as a secondary monitor. If i have an application that requires better color accuracy or wider viewing angle, I can always use that.
I'll buy that Acer, If I hate it so much, i can just RMA it and get my money back.
Correct me if I'm wrong but 1080p IPS monitors with 144mhz and Gsync starts at 1000$ right?
I'm not planning on going over 1080p or 24" anytime soon. I prefer 140+ fps @ 1080p to <60fps at 4K. I must admit TN panel's narrow viewing angle is making me nervous. But last few days, I've been keeping track of where I sit while I'm playing. I'm fairly confident that most of the time I'm straight in front of my monitor. Also I live alone, so no one will be on the sidelines. Another thing is, I'll be keeping my current IPS as a secondary monitor. If i have an application that requires better color accuracy or wider viewing angle, I can always use that.
I'll buy that Acer, If I hate it so much, i can just RMA it and get my money back.
Correct me if I'm wrong but 1080p IPS monitors with 144mhz and Gsync starts at 1000$ right?
