Where to go from 6700K?

[Silver_Pharaoh]

Hi everyone

So now that Starfield is out.... and I've been playing it.... I'm not liking the 30-40FPS I'm pulling. (Mind you, I have the settings on high, medium looks like crap so I'm living with the FPS )
SO I'm considering some upgrade parts for Xmas - my rig is in the sig, but I'll put it here also:

6700K (Oc'd to 4.4Ghz Not much more room thermally & vCore wise)
(I DO need to clean the crap out of my rads, but I don't think that's going to help me much more)
Gigabyte GTX1080 Windforce (Oc'd +200 Core, +400 Mem)
16Gb DDR4 (2x8Gb @ 2800Mhz 17-17-17-36)

Looks like I'm GPU capped for Starfield, GPU is always pegged at 99% & CPU bounces from 70-90% as well.
Sad to say even Minecraft Bedrock with the render distance set to recommended is pegging the CPU to around 80-90% as well.
I honestly thought that the 6700K would last me a few more years, but I've had this rig now for 7 years so I can't complain lol



So where should I look to? Intel or AMD? What GPU should I bee looking at and RAM wise maybe 32GB?
I've been so far out of the loop, I have no idea what's what. Last time I looked AMD was just releasing Ryzen lol
Thanks in advance too!

 

[freeagent]

I dont have the game, but it looks like even 10th gen Intel is kicking AMD right in the cores. I would probably stick with Intel this round.. As for GPU.. the biggest baddest one you can buy..

 

[mackerel]

CPU side can't go far wrong with current gen from either side. I'd suggest at least an 8 core for some forward looking performance as I feel 6 cores day's are numbered even if it is hanging on for now.

GPU how much money do you throw at it? In the upper mid performance range it'll probably be down to 7800 XT and 4070, and I think the main choice between them will be if you value nvidia features.

Note in the current state of Starfield, it can run better on AMD+AMD at a given hardware level, but this goes against most other games.

 

[Silver_Pharaoh]

I dont have the game, but it looks like even 10th gen Intel is kicking AMD right in the cores. I would probably stick with Intel this round.. As for GPU.. the biggest baddest one you can buy..

Hmmm okay, I was on the fence years ago when the 6700K was still fresh, about waiting for Ryzen, so I was curious about AMD this time around.
Is it still try that AMD chips have more options to tweak with when OCing like it was back in the Bulldozer & Phenom 1090t days? or has that gotten simpler?

CPU side can't go far wrong with current gen from either side. I'd suggest at least an 8 core for some forward looking performance as I feel 6 cores day's are numbered even if it is hanging on for now.

GPU how much money do you throw at it? In the upper mid performance range it'll probably be down to 7800 XT and 4070, and I think the main choice between them will be if you value nvidia features.

Note in the current state of Starfield, it can run better on AMD+AMD at a given hardware level, but this goes against most other games.

Honestly I've always preferred Nvidia cards, so I will probably hold true this round too. I thought I read something about Nvidia reducing the production of the 4xxx series GPU's?

 

[freeagent]

Hmmm okay, I was on the fence years ago when the 6700K was still fresh, about waiting for Ryzen, so I was curious about AMD this time around.
Is it still try that AMD chips have more options to tweak with when OCing like it was back in the Bulldozer & Phenom 1090t days? or has that gotten simpler?

Honestly I've always preferred Nvidia cards, so I will probably hold true this round too. I thought I read something about Nvidia reducing the production of the 4xxx series GPU's?

AMD chips still rip pretty hard imo.. Starfield seems kinda weird, and I was going by the HUB review I think..

As for tuning, I didnt have BD.. but tuning is... different now.. there are some options

 

[Kenrou]

AMD is in an interesting place IMO, either CPU and GPU get more profit from an undervolt than overclock, and there's still performance in spades. They are still behind in Ray tracing if that's your thing, I rarely use it, so my next GPU upgrade will likely have me switching to team red...

For starfield, like mackerel said, right now it's heavily optimized for AMD (console port), so Nvidia misses out a tad on performance, but that rule usually goes the other way on the more expensive models, your best team red combo ATM would be a 7800x3D and a 7800xt/7900xtx depending on budget.

Regardless of what you end up with pick a CPU with at least 6c/12t as a bare minimum for nowadays, AAA games, any fewer cores, and you leave out a lot of performance on the table

 

[Woomack]

I wouldn't buy hardware looking at one game, especially when it looks like a month of fun max. For gaming in general, I would get 7800X3D + higher Nvidia graphics, but it's mainly because I compare performance/wattage. If AMD graphics, then I would stay with 7900XT/XTX, especially when prices are going down.
I bet there will be many updates, as Starfield seems to have many early Bethesda game issues and way too many people complain about the performance.

You could buy hardware first, as most AMD CPUs and graphics cards get Starfield for free, but it's too late now. The game, in general, is not convincing me to play it, even if I got it for free, not to mention spending money on hardware. But that's me.

 

[freeagent]

For me the game is 90 bucks on steam, I’m not paying that much for a beta. If looking outside of Starfield, I would stick with AMD. I like Nvidia but I am sure AMD is ok.

 

[Silver_Pharaoh]

AMD is in an interesting place IMO, either CPU and GPU get more profit from an undervolt than overclock, and there's still performance in spades. They are still behind in Ray tracing if that's your thing, I rarely use it, so my next GPU upgrade will likely have me switching to team red...

For starfield, like mackerel said, right now it's heavily optimized for AMD (console port), so Nvidia misses out a tad on performance, but that rule usually goes the other way on the more expensive models, your best team red combo ATM would be a 7800x3D and a 7800xt/7900xtx depending on budget.

Regardless of what you end up with pick a CPU with at least 6c/12t as a bare minimum for nowadays, AAA games, any fewer cores, and you leave out a lot of performance on the table

The days of 4c/8t are over eh?
Is there much point in getting more than 8 cores in today's world?

I wouldn't buy hardware looking at one game, especially when it looks like a month of fun max. For gaming in general, I would get 7800X3D + higher Nvidia graphics, but it's mainly because I compare performance/wattage. If AMD graphics, then I would stay with 7900XT/XTX, especially when prices are going down.
I bet there will be many updates, as Starfield seems to have many early Bethesda game issues and way too many people complain about the performance.

You could buy hardware first, as most AMD CPUs and graphics cards get Starfield for free, but it's too late now. The game, in general, is not convincing me to play it, even if I got it for free, not to mention spending money on hardware. But that's me.

Very valid point - Most of what else I play runs alright currently. I do want to eventually upgrade to 1440p gaming at something a little more than 75Hz, so I'm hoping to build towards that goal as well.
I'm thinking of a 4060ti perhaps? They seem to be around the $550 CAD mark. If I can find a good deal then a 4070 instead.

For me the game is 90 bucks on steam, I’m not paying that much for a beta. If looking outside of Starfield, I would stick with AMD. I like Nvidia but I am sure AMD is ok.

Yeah I've never paid so much for a game in my life lol, but I'm liking it so far, mostly wandering around doing my own thing. First impressions are that the world appears very large, and has a lot of things to do potentially.

 

[Kenrou]

The days of 4c/8t are over eh?
Is there much point in getting more than 8 cores in today's world?

Nah, 8c/16t seems to be the sweetspot for a while to come, as they also seem to do wonders for the 0.1% and 1% FPS. The Efficiency cores from Intel seem to be more trouble than they're worth as some games outright run worse with them enabled, but we know AMD has something like them planned for the next gen (regular cores clocked down from the rumour mill), so hopefully M$ fixes the windows scheduler in the meantime.

As stated above, if mostly for gaming grab yourself an 7800X3D model from AMD, if you do other stuff the regular 7800 might be a tad better. Equivalent from Intel would be the 13700k/13900k.

 

[mackerel]

I thought I read something about Nvidia reducing the production of the 4xxx series GPU's?

All companies are trying to right-size their production to balance demand, especially as we're in a lull due to economic conditions.

Is there much point in getting more than 8 cores in today's world?

The keyword there is "much", and in that case, maybe not. 8c is probably the sweet spot for gaming, although there are cases where games can scale above that. Productivity can benefit from more.

IMO 8 cores should be the minimum standard for a new build. I feel anyone buying a 6 core for gaming recently is setting themselves up for upgrading sooner than they think. I'm not sure how I feel on Intel 6P+xE core CPUs since they're kinda more than 6 core.

 

[Silver_Pharaoh]

Nah, 8c/16t seems to be the sweetspot for a while to come, as they also seem to do wonders for the 0.1% and 1% FPS. The Efficiency cores from Intel seem to be more trouble than they're worth as some games outright run worse with them enabled, but we know AMD has something like them planned for the next gen (regular cores clocked down from the rumour mill), so hopefully M$ fixes the windows scheduler in the meantime.

As stated above, if mostly for gaming grab yourself an 7800X3D model from AMD, if you do other stuff the regular 7800 might be a tad better. Equivalent from Intel would be the 13700k/13900k.

Would the 12700K suffice rather than a 13700k? About a $150 difference between the two.

All companies are trying to right-size their production to balance demand, especially as we're in a lull due to economic conditions.


The keyword there is "much", and in that case, maybe not. 8c is probably the sweet spot for gaming, although there are cases where games can scale above that. Productivity can benefit from more.

IMO 8 cores should be the minimum standard for a new build. I feel anyone buying a 6 core for gaming recently is setting themselves up for upgrading sooner than they think. I'm not sure how I feel on Intel 6P+xE core CPUs since they're kinda more than 6 core.

Okay sounds good then. I don't do much else strenuous wise other than gaming anyways.

 

[EarthDog]

Would the 12700K suffice rather than a 13700k? About a $150 difference between the two.

Get the best you can/want to afford.

Generationally, there isn't a big difference performance-wise, just core/thread count. So you should be ok. That said wait a month.... new intel chips are coming out which could see the 12/13-gen reduce prices.

 

[Zerileous]

I would avoid the 4060ti and just jump to the 4070 if you can. 8gb vram will not be enough in 5 years (since you keep your hw for quite a long time), especially not for higher resoutions. The 16gb version is overpriced compared to the 4070 IMHO. Check some reviews as I'm shooting from the hip/memory.

I just ordered the 6800xt red dragon as it has a better cooler. Performance with the 4070 and 7800xt are all similar enough. You might see more difference with a newer CPU. If you care about RT get Nvidia. So the 7800xt being better at RT but still much worse than Nvidia wasn't super compelling.

Also if you're favoring quiet or SFF builds, Nvidia is running lower power. A better (bigger) cooler can compensate if size of the build doesn't matter.

 

[Silver_Pharaoh]

I would avoid the 4060ti and just jump to the 4070 if you can. 8gb vram will not be enough in 5 years (since you keep your hw for quite a long time), especially not for higher resoutions. The 16gb version is overpriced compared to the 4070 IMHO. Check some reviews as I'm shooting from the hip/memory.

I just ordered the 6800xt red dragon as it has a better cooler. Performance with the 4070 and 7800xt are all similar enough. You might see more difference with a newer CPU. If you care about RT get Nvidia. So the 7800xt being better at RT but still much worse than Nvidia wasn't super compelling.

Also if you're favoring quiet or SFF builds, Nvidia is running lower power. A better (bigger) cooler can compensate if size of the build doesn't matter.

Thanks for the input, I was pretty much eying up the 4060ti unless by chance the 4070 was a good deal.
the 1080 I have now has 8Gb, so it only make sense to upgrade from it. 4070 or better it is!

Will probably upgrade to newer Intel/AMD later on though, I think a new GPU will provide good bump in performance for now.

 

[freeagent]

My 4070Ti will fold at 3GHz no problem.. I would imagine the 4070 to be about the same

 

[Silver_Pharaoh]

My 4070Ti will fold at 3GHz no problem.. I would imagine the 4070 to be about the same

Ahh man I miss folding and mining! I'd catch an earful right now if I tried that

When I upgrade though, I'd like to save this rig and make it a dedicated folding machine. Should bring in some decent PPD I'd think!

 

[EarthDog]

Save the gpu...then throw MOAR gpus on it!

 

[freeagent]

Should bring in some decent PPD I'd think!

I remember when it would take a month to bust out a million points using a pair of GTX570s and my X5690.. now just my 4070Ti does 13M PPD, while my 3070Ti can do about 6M PPD.. My 12 core can do about 600,000 PPD lol..

 

[Silver_Pharaoh]

Save the gpu...then throw MOAR gpus on it!

MOAR is always BETTER!!!

I remember when it would take a month to bust out a million points using a pair of GTX570s and my X5690.. now just my 4070Ti does 13M PPD, while my 3070Ti can do about 6M PPD.. My 12 core can do about 600,000 PPD lol..

I think I tried it one night last year or something and the GTX 1080 was pulling ~700K PPD not too shabby