- Joined
- Jun 5, 2009
- Location
- Sydney, Australia
Won't really matter re memory. It'll just run at 2133. If it's the same cost, doesn't really matter? Weirdly, I've found some 3000mhz kits here cost less or the same as 2400 kits... >.>
-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
I am ashamed - build
- Thread starter DSM4Life
- Start date
Won't really matter re memory. It'll just run at 2133. If it's the same cost, doesn't really matter? Weirdly, I've found some 3000mhz kits here cost less or the same as 2400 kits... >.>
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2009
- Location
- Sydney, Australia
Location
Sydney, Australia
this probably has a lot to do with it
Shh, don't tell anyone. It's a secret...
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2014
Also do not forget that most WoW users have dozens of addons, voice communications and some have streaming in the background, in which the i5 will take a massive hit in performance.
3h raid with ultra settings 10 w/vSync 60hz @1080 - PC was booted from cold and had nothing running in the background to make sure.
More cores will help depending if the game is designed to use them. Other good examples are GTA and Civ5/Civ6 (Ashes ?) which will use ALL cores available. WoW has used 8 cores (that i know of) since the second expansion "Wrath of the Lich King" and it has gotten much more efficient at it with the latest "Legion" - http://wowwiki.wikia.com/wiki/CVar_processAffinityMask
100% load doesn't mean that CPU is loaded in 100% but that some threads were using that single core to perform some operation which couldn't be divided and went to 100%. As you see in benchmarks or something like Prime95, cpu is showing 100% in all cases but temperature difference can be high ( like 15-20*C difference between blend and small fft ). Considering this fact there can be situation ( and is happening really often ) when it can divide all work to 4 cores which will be loaded more and effect can be the same as on 8 cores which have less work to do per core. All depends from application. Windows is dividing work to all cores now so most applications will show high % on all cores. Also even if you think that nothing is working in the background then somehow 50+ processes are working and from time to time are bumping single cores to 50%+.
I'm not playing wow but I heard it's not scalling well above 4 cores even though it can use more threads. The same is in most other games. Above 4 cores difference isn't high. In games like guild wars 2 you could see really big difference between 2 and 4 cores but 6+ wasn't giving much more even though game was using 12 threads on 5820K and you could feel a bit better performance in some places.
Personally I see no difference in games between 6600K and 6700K. Maybe it will change in some time but right now I see barely any reason why someone should buy more than 4 core CPU for games.
For online games usually more important is SSD than faster CPU, especially for so old game like wow where new are only additional textures and a lot of other content but engine is the same for years. Somehow couple of years ago all could play it without issues and not much has changed. If it's working slow on i5 then something isn't right with other components or OS. However if there is budget for i7 then I see no reason why not to buy it.
I'm not playing wow but I heard it's not scalling well above 4 cores even though it can use more threads. The same is in most other games. Above 4 cores difference isn't high. In games like guild wars 2 you could see really big difference between 2 and 4 cores but 6+ wasn't giving much more even though game was using 12 threads on 5820K and you could feel a bit better performance in some places.
Personally I see no difference in games between 6600K and 6700K. Maybe it will change in some time but right now I see barely any reason why someone should buy more than 4 core CPU for games.
For online games usually more important is SSD than faster CPU, especially for so old game like wow where new are only additional textures and a lot of other content but engine is the same for years. Somehow couple of years ago all could play it without issues and not much has changed. If it's working slow on i5 then something isn't right with other components or OS. However if there is budget for i7 then I see no reason why not to buy it.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2014
This keeps being glossed over, 4300 @4.7ghz, 6300 @4.5ghz, 8370 @4.7ghz, same GPU. I don't understand why people keep expecting "massive improvements" from going up 2 cores, and why they say there is no difference when there clearly is, 10fps-20fps depending on the area from a 6 core to a 8 core is a substancial improvement.
Again because there is some improvement depending on the game. MMORPG's benefit plenty from extra cores, try making a character on a dead server and then another in a high population server and then tell me the difference.
This. Streaming is taxing for a 4c/4t but doesn't really bother a 4c/8t+. Since we don't know what the person that is receiving the setup is going to do other then playing WoW an i7 (not necessarily a 6700k) is a very good choice like i have been saying from the start, call it covering all bases if you want.
Last edited:
When difference is between 90 and 100 FPS then really who cares ? The same is on Intel. There is a bit higher performance when you run it on i7 comparing to i5 but it's so low in general experience that no one cares. When you play games then you see 2 stages: lags or no lags. Everything else isn't important.
Especially in so old game as wow, which isn't really optimized for new hardware, I don't think that additional CPU cores make any special difference when are many other factors that can slow down the game.
High data transfer so high storage bandwidth and fast access time usually helps more than additional cores. I don't mean to raise average FPS but to raise minimum FPS and reduce stuttering.
There is no difference on what server you make character but how many other characters are near. If you see the difference in the same empty location between servers then is clearly something wrong with the server, not your PC. I was playing many games and in all was the same. If game has some programming flaws and is constantly calculating everything in the world then you can expect performance issues on the server side. If I'm right then wow is highly instanced so your PC performance shouldn't cause high performance drops.
Maybe streaming is using additional CPU resources but how many players are actually streaming ? Most other applications are barely using CPU and are not affecting gaming experience.
So again if there is a budget for i7 then it's a good option but I wouldn't count on any magical performance boost because of HT. Invest in SSD and maybe install game on separated SSD to lower access from other applications and check if there is enough RAM to cover long sessions.
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2014
But that's exactly my point, high pop servers will always have A LOT more characters around you outside dungeons/raids, the so called solo content in which you pass the majority of your time. Example, the 4300 couldn't keep up in a high pop server, the 6300 was ok-ish with lower settings and the 8370 only had slowdowns (below 60fps) in phased areas or major cities. Core count was a blessing. Also +1 on the SSD.
My reasoning still stands "Since we don't know what the person that is receiving the setup is going to do other then playing WoW an i7 (not necessarily a 6700k) is a very good choice".
I remember when I was playing Lineage 2 and we had 500+ player sieges on open space without any instances. Single core CPUs, no SSD on the market ... constant slideshow. Instances came some time later but I never liked idea of small party instances in mmo games. Now I play Black Desert Online, it has open world and is scalling pretty good with new hardware but I didn't check it on more than 8 threads. I was playing it on laptop with quad core i5 and I had a feeling like cpu was fine but gpu was too weak. It's generally what we see in newer games. Graphics performance counts more than CPU and in all cases it's good to have SSD, can be even from lower series.
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2014
Completely different animal on both counts, you have to play WoW for a while to get the grasp of how it runs as you said, old engine (12yo in December) continually repatched and revamped, and the GPU only started making an appearance 2 expansions ago (2012 if memory serves) with the introduction of DX11. Even then it was very much a CPU dependant game.
as you said, old engine (12yo in December) continually repatched and revamped, and the GPU only started making an appearance 2 expansions ago (2012 if memory serves) with the introduction of DX11. Even then it was very much a CPU dependant game.I found this benchmark with GTA V 4 core vs 8 core and the improvement was only 6 FPS Techspot LINK:http://www.techspot.com/review/991-gta-5-pc-benchmarks/page6.html
Yes background tasks will use more cores, however DirectX 11 will only use 6 cores mostly 4 cores.
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2014
And yet you're advising OP to get a 4 core for a task that requires 6+ to be done PROPERLY. WoW can run with 4 cores fair enough (likely not on ultra settings 24/7) but you run anything else in the background and that amazing performance goes out the window, it's very simple
even an i7 will offset that. I never asked the OP to splurge, and said at least 2x to get second hand or older models, as long as he gets AT LEAST a 4c/8t.EDIT: I can pass on one thing I didn't know though, apparently the new graphic settings in "Legion" scale well with higher speed RAM :
https://i.gyazo.com/ec455b097e39d1930b42d17c84674095.png
Last edited:
OP
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2004
- Location
- Philadelphia, PA
- Thread Starter
- #74
Just wanted to thank you all. System arrived and was built this weekend and he couldn't be happier. He said he went from 10 FPS on his laptop (all settings turned down) to 70-75 with moderate graphics turns up.
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2009
- Location
- Sydney, Australia
