• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

CPU - Limbo

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

GatorChamp

Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
So with all the new cards coming out, one is obviously drawn to four numbers over three (1080 over 980) but I could not help but think about the old (quite literally) FX CPU I’ve still got powering my rig. Skylake increase would be awesome and AMD has new CPU coming out as well.

I’m torn right now because benchmarks pretty much show that whatever GPU I buy next, and even my current one, is being bottlenecked by my CPU. I’ve seen multiple benchmarks, albeit most of them at 1080, that show 6700k not only crushing FX CPUs but beating them by 30-50% in games. I sit here and wonder if I am wasting money buying any card until I get a better CPU.

So input on the thoughts of a) Don’t buy another GPU until you have an updated CPU and b) Should I wait until AMD launches their new CPU, see how things shake out or just get a Skylake now. All in all this update will cost about $750-800 (CPU, Mobo, Ram, AIO Cooler).

I would note that my goal in all of this is to continually get 100FPS at 1440 in pretty much everything I play to take advantage of the overclock I have on my screen. Also, money not really an issues but always want to be smart about it.
 

ShrimpBrime

~MadHatDeLidder~
Joined
Apr 19, 2012
It's always a question of should I buy new hardware just to buy it.

Are my visuals looking better now because the number has increased?

Does it play fine with respectable frame rates?

Should I hold off for this or that?

Am I going to buy all top line stuff? Should I buy Intel or AMD?
Also, money not really an issues but always want to be smart about it.

Looks like you're gaming fine at 100fps. Being smart would be to wait for AMD's releases. It could very well drop Intel prices.... Or not.

I run two systems. One Intel one AMD.

They game nearly the same IMO. The Intel system seems to have a higher frame rate when I look at the numbers, but honestly when in game play..... Ain't nobody got time for that!

Me.... waiting for AMD's release of ZEN based processors. Then purchase one! :D

Hope this helps. Probably not, but hey..... I never spend my moneys wisely on PC hardware!!! lol
 
OP
GatorChamp

GatorChamp

Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
It's always a question of should I buy new hardware just to buy it.

Are my visuals looking better now because the number has increased?

Does it play fine with respectable frame rates?

Should I hold off for this or that?

Am I going to buy all top line stuff? Should I buy Intel or AMD?


Looks like you're gaming fine at 100fps. Being smart would be to wait for AMD's releases. It could very well drop Intel prices.... Or not.

I run two systems. One Intel one AMD.

They game nearly the same IMO. The Intel system seems to have a higher frame rate when I look at the numbers, but honestly when in game play..... Ain't nobody got time for that!

Me.... waiting for AMD's release of ZEN based processors. Then purchase one! :D

Hope this helps. Probably not, but hey..... I never spend my moneys wisely on PC hardware!!! lol

If anything it makes me think about just gutting my wifes computer and putting all this hardware in hers and making myself another. :D Right now she's got my old Phenom II 955.

I can usually come close to the FPS I want by turning things down but I want my cake and eat it too. :) Take Overwatch for example, Blizzard is known for having their titles run way better on Intel vs AMD. I don't get a consistent 95-100 in that. It's not about looking at the number but you can notice the difference on a 60+Hz screen when you have the extra FPS.

I'm leaning towards waiting for ZEN to come out, just to see what it does performance wise and to the market. However, I remember reading somewhere that like they did with the 490, they are not trying to compete for top of the line processor. More mainstream - and who wants that... :screwy:
 

ShrimpBrime

~MadHatDeLidder~
Joined
Apr 19, 2012
I don't believe that competition is solely based on processor IPC. 16 threads on a mainstream processor with 40% IPC increase.....

Yup. Waiting for ZEN release would be a wise idea. Considering we are just a few months away (could be postponed) from launch.

Feels I'm in the same boat as you are. While my wife runs an Opteron quad (phenom II based) she could use an upgrade too..... but doesn't need it for her purposes. It would be more about power efficiency and getting my power bill a little lower.

If anything, you'd upgrade that 780 to at least a 1070. Maybe that could hold you off.
 

Tír na nÓg

Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2015
^+1

I'd wait for ZEN. If as good as advertised, it would be time to give money again to the underdog!
 

Johan45

Benching Team Leader Super Moderator
Joined
Dec 19, 2012
@GatorChamp, I use an almost identical system gaming only it's a 9370 at the same 4.6G. Have you tried using V-sync. If you have 60 FPS or above locking it to 60 FPS will make things smoother.
 

EarthDog

Gulper Nozzle Co-Owner
Joined
Dec 15, 2008
Location
Buckeyes!
I don't believe that competition is solely based on processor IPC. 16 threads on a mainstream processor with 40% IPC increase.....
Which brings it to last gen Intel performance.



@ OP - If you are ready now, buy it. I hope Zen will be worth it. Again rumor is that it will be be close to Haswell performance with that 40% IPC increase. If you can use all of its cores, then it makes more sense to go that route.

That said, you do have time to wait and see how it shakes out and make your decision then... But if it was me, I would just get skylake and get it over with. :)
 

ShrimpBrime

~MadHatDeLidder~
Joined
Apr 19, 2012
Not a joke. Its true. And its ok too. Beautiful thing about frredom.

There is nothing so spectacular about Intel. Nor Amd.

But a hybrid x86 and Arm cpu on a single die would be neat. Or integrated graphics on die thats good enough to not need discrete graphics would be kinda nifty. Perhaps just raw record breaking speeds for the real benchers is where its at.

Not sure. I can game on s939 if desired. Who really needs current tech? Lol.
 

EarthDog

Gulper Nozzle Co-Owner
Joined
Dec 15, 2008
Location
Buckeyes!
Funny thing.... I am not remotely a fanboy. The logic I see being used to apply that label to me is pretty disappointing, in fact. :screwy:
 

ShrimpBrime

~MadHatDeLidder~
Joined
Apr 19, 2012
Know the feeling. Have had both systems many times over. Honestly makes no difference to me.

Intel AMD. Tomato potatoe.

Just dont take it to heart buddy. We love ya!
 

Johan45

Benching Team Leader Super Moderator
Joined
Dec 19, 2012
Like I said though, I use the same set-up and don't really think there's any need to upgrade. Maybe just a "want"
 

ShrimpBrime

~MadHatDeLidder~
Joined
Apr 19, 2012
Im using mobile ARM quad core right now for my forum computing needs. It games too. Video streaming ..... All the good things a PC does. Total cost 200$.
 
OP
GatorChamp

GatorChamp

Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
@Gatorchamp, I use an almost identical system gaming only it's a 9370 at the same 4.6G. Have you tried using V-sync. If you have 60 FPS or above locking it to 60 FPS will make things smoother.

I don't use Vsync - because a lot of games, for me, have issues putting vsync to framerates above 60FPS. I feel games, ill use overwatch as an example again, run much smoother when I have a variable frame rate that takes advantage of a higher refresh rate screen (screen is overclocked to 95hz and the game generally bounces between 60-100 FPS).

Some games, like Battlefield4, will allow me to select a fullscreen 95hz refresh rate that I can lock Vsync. Other game, take LoL as an examples, a) won't let you do full screen above 60 HZ and I get a weird glitch in full screen windowed that won't ever run above half of the resh rate in FPS. (Example: 90 refresh rate - I get a lock 45 FPS. It's super weird...)

I don't believe that competition is solely based on processor IPC. 16 threads on a mainstream processor with 40% IPC increase.....

Yup. Waiting for ZEN release would be a wise idea. Considering we are just a few months away (could be postponed) from launch.

Feels I'm in the same boat as you are. While my wife runs an Opteron quad (phenom II based) she could use an upgrade too..... but doesn't need it for her purposes. It would be more about power efficiency and getting my power bill a little lower.

If anything, you'd upgrade that 780 to at least a 1070. Maybe that could hold you off.

I'm running a 980 - I updated my sig last night. 1070 still an upgrade but again back to my point is there a point in doing that before upping the CPU. Also looking at bench marks - It seems that the % increase would be close to the same in getting a Skylake vs a 1070 from my card. I actually think I might be so bold as to say a Intel CPU would get me a larger FPS increase in all my Blizzard titles than a 1070.

Like I said though, I use the same set-up and don't really think there's any need to upgrade. Maybe just a "want"
Fare point - I think the overarching point of the thread is where should the money go CPU or CPU and when should it go, now or wait for Zen.
 

Johan45

Benching Team Leader Super Moderator
Joined
Dec 19, 2012
I don't use Vsync - because a lot of games, for me, have issues putting vsync to framerates above 60FPS. I feel games, ill use overwatch as an example again, run much smoother when I have a variable frame rate that takes advantage of a higher refresh rate screen (screen is overclocked to 95hz and the game generally bounces between 60-100 FPS).

Some games, like Battlefield4, will allow me to select a fullscreen 95hz refresh rate that I can lock Vsync. Other game, take LoL as an examples, a) won't let you do full screen above 60 HZ and I get a weird glitch in full screen windowed that won't ever run above half of the resh rate in FPS. (Example: 90 refresh rate - I get a lock 45 FPS. It's super weird...)



I'm running a 980 - I updated my sig last night. 1070 still an upgrade but again back to my point is there a point in doing that before upping the CPU. Also looking at bench marks - It seems that the % increase would be close to the same in getting a Skylake vs a 1070 from my card. I actually think I might be so bold as to say a Intel CPU would get me a larger FPS increase in all my Blizzard titles than a 1070.


Fare point - I think the overarching point of the thread is where should the money go CPU or CPU and when should it go, now or wait for Zen.

I missed that part about the OC display. So gaming at 1440 with minimum 95 FPS. In my opinion you need a beefier card or drop the refresh on the screen.
 

ShrimpBrime

~MadHatDeLidder~
Joined
Apr 19, 2012
Oh now he tells me he has a 980.....

Well the only difference I saw with my titan was about 20-40 fps increase title depending. It was not noticable without an fps counter visible. Thats going from 9590 FX to i5 4690K. Both pretty beastly processors. However the 4690K is only at 4.2ghz.

You will get a higher fps with Intel. But that is not what I'm getting at.

I spent money on a new board, ram, and cpu that I don't need to spend. That small increase does not justify 40 fps better....

I should say the dollars spent did not justify the 40 fps increase.
 
OP
GatorChamp

GatorChamp

Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Oh now he tells me he has a 980.....

Well the only difference I saw with my titan was about 20-40 fps increase title depending. It was not noticable without an fps counter visible. Thats going from 9590 FX to i5 4690K. Both pretty beastly processors. However the 4690K is only at 4.2ghz.

You will get a higher fps with Intel. But that is not what I'm getting at.

I spent money on a new board, ram, and cpu that I don't need to spend. That small increase does not justify 40 fps better....

I should say the dollars spent did not justify the 40 fps increase.

Hah sorry - I'd been pretty busy with real life stuff and noticed yesterday after I posted that I had not updated the sig. :chair:

So what I would say to not noticing the difference in 20-40 FPS difference - are you gaming on a screen that is capped at 60 hz? I ask because I noticed a HUGE difference in playing at 90-95hz vs 60. I mean I really start to notice something around 80. FPS, which I play a lot, are much more enjoyable. Really any game for me is more enjoyable at higher refresh rates.
 

ShrimpBrime

~MadHatDeLidder~
Joined
Apr 19, 2012
Honestly I think 60hz is where Im at. Id have to double check. And that wont be for quite a few hours. Maybe 11pm central time Ill be home.
 

Tír na nÓg

Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2015
I overclocked my monitor to 75Hz, and I don't know if it's placebo or real, but in both cases, I like it!:sly:
 
OP
GatorChamp

GatorChamp

Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
I overclocked my monitor to 75Hz, and I don't know if it's placebo or real, but in both cases, I like it!:sly:

I would guess you could start to notice a difference, but I've never tried gaming at 75.


So I found this - http://wccftech.com/intel-skylake-6700k-6600k-amd-fx-8370/

One thing I noticed is that once you go to 1440 the difference in the CPUs really starts to dissipate. Most of the benchmarks I saw, before opening this thread, were at 1080. CPU seems to have more of an impact at 1080. Going to keep doing research, but it looks from these benchmarks about 50% of the games only have a few frames difference. The other 50% (talking 1440 only) it's about 15-20% ~ difference.)