>built my old desktop in 2009
>i5-750k overclocked to 4.0GHz
>decide that it is time to upgrade
>6700k
>barely overclocks
>barely any noticeable improvement in general tasks or gaming
This is all we have to show for 7 years? Did I get memed?
>>54039680
you should still be using q6600.
>>54039680
this is the end. my only friend, the end.
>>54039680
>in general tasks
any i5 is good enough for basic stuff, so you won't see any "upgrade" if it already performs excellent. The bottleneck is your HD not your CPU for general stuff.
>gaming
You aren't using any real CPU demanding game, or your VGA is the limiting factor.
>>54039750
I have a SSD and a 290x.
>>54039750
Then try any CPU bound game, like GTA V or TW3. If you can't notice the difference you may need to get your eyes checked.
>>54039768
>a SSD
>A
You also have 47 chromosomes
>>54039680
This is the beginning, buddy. The beginning.
>>54039680
>falling for the upgrade meme
>>54039813
an solid-state drive?
>>54039947
Here we go...
>>54039680
my 6700k is doing fine
>>54039812
In actual CPU bound games the improvement from SandyBridge onwards is still negligible.
Case in point: Dwarf Fortress and Sims 3 still run like shit no matter what minuscule 2% maximum clockrate instruction per second you're going to chuck at them.
>>54039812
As long as it runs at 60fps I really wouldn't notice the difference.
>smaller litography
>smaller chips
>+1% performance gains
>repeat for a decade
>profits through the roof, microscopic chips, astronomical prices
>AMD still cant catch up
>>54040014
Depends on the game. There are some games which see a massive gain from Skylake, even over Haswell. The difference in Far Cry 4 for example is over 30fps between the 2600K and the 6700K, both at 4.4GHz with the same GPU.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sx1kLGVAF0
>>54039680
>upgrading
My sides, he actually fell for it.
Posting from a windows 95 machine here. Runs Fallout 4 at 90 fps with ultra settings.
I bought a i3-6100 for my new build and theres a massive improvement over the i3 in my old build. I get ~300 fps in tf2 (with performance configs) and great fos in Dwarf Fortress. This is all with no GPU. Excellent bang for buck in my FPS/Dwarf Fortress/Scientific Calculation rig.
>>54039813
The appropriate determiner for acronyms is the same as that for how they would be pronounced if they were words.
SSD - An 'es es dee'
C2D - A 'see too dee'
>>54040156
Are you using DDR4?
Oddly enough, RAM speed and timings are usually more of a bottleneck in DF than raw CPU power.
>>54040051
Zen will save us
>>54040235
I hope Zen will save us.
>>54040202
3200 DDR4 and 850 EVO to help with seasonal changes etc.
graphene everything when?
>>54040294
The 3200MHz DDR4 is way more of a boost than a CPU upgrade.
When people went from DDR2 to 1600MHz DDR3 they saw a similar boost in performance.
>>54040416
Never.
SiGe is the next logical progression. IBM is already fabbing 7mm chips from it.
By the time that's hit the market, we will have found better things to make chips from than graphene.
>>54040420
Yes I know. The RAM makes a pretty big difference even in TF2. Some faggot on /g/ even had the audacity of calling my build retarded and said I should skimp on everything, even the PSU, to get the i5.
>>54039947
You're so fucking dumb its unreal but you're saying he is wrong. Commit sudoku
>>54040444
considering how graphene is made i can't see anything better being made in the next few tens of years but we'll see
>>54040457
Ehh... the RAM doesn't make much difference in games.
DDR4 has the advantage of bandwidth, but the latency is typically worse than DDR3, and games don't really care about bandwidth.
The reason that it makes a big difference in DF, is that DF is constantly hammering the memory and latency doesn't matter.
Bandwidth is the biggest factor in DF, with the specifics of the timings so that read/write can be synchronised perfectly.
>>54040524
>games don't really care about bandwidth.
you have it backwards, games don't really care about latency but they do care about bandwidth
>>54039680
I'm holding on to my i3 530 just for a zen a8 apu. I hope it's at least 3 cores though, but a ddr4 APU should still kick ass
>>54039680
>15+ y/o People taking gaming into consideration
/g/ is a shitty board
>>54040622
>tfw I bought a 4690k years ago for gayming and now I just play quake, thief, ss2, etc
>>54039687
q6600 was most meme cpu in history of cpus...
you all fell for 4 cores(3 of witch you never used in life-cycle of CPU, except for maybe overclocking), and I rethink ed situation and with some experience from history bought e8500(2 real cores, higher clock and cache), over clocked it to high heaven(4.5) and used it until i bought i5-2500k(who works peacefully @5.0 , cold as Dick Chaney's heart cooled with 25$ AIO).
You can say what you want about Intel, but if you are at least a little smart(dont be an early adopter, dont believe HW magazines, commercials,hardware-websites, dont fall under hype,dont be an early adopter, dont be an early adopter,dont be an early adopter,dont be an early adopter,dont be an early adopter), you will get your money's worth..
>>54040681
>I got my 2500k to 5ghz on air
speaking of good memes
>>54040063
yeah, nah.... they have to sell them new CPUs somehow..
I honestly think tick-tock is good idea, but tick should stay internal ...
is it time to upgrade?
>>54040470
>neckbeard getting triggered by insignificant shit
the thread
>>54040724
I don't know? Do you use any software made after 2010?
>>54040706
its really not a problem to show you.
I really like to show my beautiful, gargantuan e-penis in all its glory.
You will just have to wait for a minute or two , i just need to restart PC and enter UEFI.
Will provide temps after playing
Dark Souls III
Shadowrun - Hong Kong
FALLOUT2.EXE
well, i dont have particulary CPU intensive games installed, but ill use IntelBurnTest in the background
>>54039680
>he fell for the upgrading any time in the past 7 years meme
>>54040710
>hey
>hey guys
>guys
>GAIZE
>i have a great idea!
>guys!
>my idea
>get this
>you'll love it
>guys
>ok
>we spent millions on R&D to make our architecture better with amazing new features
>but we wait a year before releasing it!
>>54040724
is it?
>>54040846
>GoodRAM
wow.
just.
>>54040874
got it for free. don't look a gift horse yada
>>54040846
>0 byte Samsung
>>54040096
>windows 95
why tho
>>54040724
What is wrong with you? Why spend money on that videocard and RAM and stay with a Netburst piece of shit?
I have a 10 times shittier VGA (radeon 4670) but a sandy-bridge celly and 4GB, I can run games you would not dream of with that Pentium, ROFL.
I want to believe your CPU broke and you use that Pentium D as a temporal back-up, and posted this as bait, still funny.
>>54040846
This Pentium uses the Core 2 arquitecture so its perfectly fine, the 16GB are unnecesary but better too much than too little, decent setup.
>>54040945
It's objectively the best operating system out there.
>>54040841
you dont know what tick-tock is, do you?
Tick=new architecture
tock=that architecture improved
but , please, do tell me if this has any sense
tick=i#-##0> unnecessary
tock=i#-2#00
tick=i#-3#00> unnecessary
tock=i#-4#00
tick=i#-5#00> unnecessary
tock=i#-6#00
chronologically, monetary , any way except for Intel to get more undeserved shekels
>>54041019
Didn't you get the memo? It's now tick->giev shekels plz goy->tock
>>54040999
>16GB are unnecesary
trust me, they are
>>54040846
>GOODRAM
>>54040999
>I want to believe your CPU broke and you use that Pentium D as a temporal back-up, and posted this as bait, still funny.
[spoiler]this motherboard doesn't support anything other than netburst[/spoiler]
>>54041009
>best operating system
um ok. to each their own i guess
>>54041077
no, ticktock is dead, now it's "we'll call you back when we make progress"
>>54041019
Please report this post for antisemitic hate speech. Anti-Israel posting will not be tolerated.
>>54041009
ME is better.
My friends father was going to give me a server but I turned it down due to power consumption and heat. Was a dual Pentium D Batx setup with 6gb DDR. Had a PCI sata card with dual 60gb WD raptors in it in raid 0. Hot swap rack etc. Awesome looking machine and a beast for its time I'm sure. Worthless now a days considering even my Intel Pentium G3260 in my server does double the work of a Pentium D for 1/3 the power.
Wish I was born when PCs were still kind of in their infancy. My first PC was a P4 with hyper threading and I thought I was the boss.
>>54039680
>Did I get memed?
No, a 6700K is much faster. You may have bought a CPU you have no need for, however, in which case that rests on your failure to do proper research and to investigate what exactly is the performance bottleneck in the games you play on your own system.
>>54040759
>Newfag: The Post
>>54041089
Holy shit.
Its a nice mb though, nforce4, but why use a GTX550 holy shit, I wish I had that card for my Sandy.
I have an i7 3770 / geforce 660 that I bought brand new like 3-4 fucking years ago for 1200 bucks. I've been thinking about getting a new pc to play some recent videogames but now I'm thinking it'd just be better to upgrade my graphics card to say a 970 and I should be fine.
Your thoughts /g/?
>>54040063
>There are some games which see a massive gain from Skylake
Yeah, but you have to keep in mind that the bandwidth from DDR4 may somewhat improve performance as well. It's too bad we don't know what RAM they're using in that test. There's another Digital Foundry video that tests RAM OC and that surprisingly also has a decent impact on some games.
DDR4 is going to be faster than DDR3 no matter what when both are pushed as far as they will go, of course, but using something like 2400+ MHz DDR3 on Haswell would probably close that gap between the 4790K and 6700K.
>>54039680
>i5-750k
didn't exist.
there was no bullshit special snowflake "pay 30% more just for the ability to overclock and MAYBE at best get 5% increase in performance" until sandybridge.
>>54040681
>bought e8500
>comparing to Q6600
You know you couldn't buy an E8500 when the Q6600 came out, right?
>>54041126
>ME
System resources/10
>>54041170
>considering even my Intel Pentium G3260 in my server does double the work of a Pentium D for 1/3 the power.
*More than the triple for 1/3 of the power
FTFY
>>54041339
ME is actually better than 98SE as long as you go through and disable the copious number of processes that it autoruns by default
>>54041362
forgot pic
>>54041266
OK I just did a CPU comparison and can someone explain to me how my piece of shit 4 year old mid range CPU scores higher than the new high end skylake i7?
>>54041009
>not using 98 SE
Are you retarded?
>>54041329
You could buy the E8400, its basically the same.
Back then I recommended the Q6600 to a friend, good thing he didn't listen and got the E8400 instead.
>>54041398
The CPU space is taken up by a microphone and gnomes that shovel your data directly into intels backdoor. Since it has unrestricted network access, there's nothing you can do. Every Intel CPU after 2009 is botnet, every AMD CPU after 2013 is a botnet. Old CPUs, SPARC, POWER, MIPS, ARM, and maybe ASIC chips are the only things safe
>>54040524
Games do care about bandwidth. Faster RAM will make a difference in average FPS, but more importantly than that it helps the most with reducing frame time variance and making some games run smoother, which you can't see if all you do is look at average FPS bar graphs.
The order of importance is of course graphics card >> CPU > RAM, but there's no reason not to squeeze the most performance out of everything, especially if you're in a situation where you're very close to 60 but can't quite always hold it in difficult scenes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Er_Fuz54U0Y
>>54041479
but i cant play fifa 16 on an asic anon
>>54041421
Stop spouting your bullshit, E8400 came out a year later. You could buy an E6600.
>>54041398
3770K was the top mainstream i7 of its generation, much like the 6700K. They occupy the same position in Intel's lineup.
>>54041417
I switched to 98SE as soon as I upgraded from 16MB to 64MB.
98 with 24MB its already a pain senpai.
>>54041570
i'm pretty fucking sure the computer store gave me the wrong box when I picked up my prebuilt
the fucking value of that machine seems ridiculous for 1200 bucks
>>54041570
>Stop spouting your bullshit, E8400 came out a year later. You could buy an E6600
Like it makes a fucking difference, it was 08 or early 09 I don't know, for the same price you could get either the Q6600 or the E8400, that is the point and the only point of the subject.
In 07 the Q6600 was overpriced anyway.
>>54041570
yea, but he didnt get K version, its shit..
>>54041570
im original poster of that post
i did want to buy e8400 but i got an deal where I got e8500 for a price of e8400
and, yeah,nah on the same thing, e8500 were always much better batch and overclockers than 8400s... 8500 had a shitload of headroom while e8400 were parts that didnt cut to be e8500
All the innovation/progress is happening on the mobile/phone market.
There is no more money to be made from desktops compared to phones. Companies cant afford to throw money on R&D if they aren't going to get anything back from it.
>>54041644
I don't know what the Q6600 did to you, they were solid CPUs that could handle a nice >50% OC. You're comparing it to a CPU that came out later and bitching that it didn't OC as much.
Why don't you compare the performance of your beloved E8500 to a Q9650? Those came out only months apart in the same year.
>>54041704
>You're comparing it to a CPU that came out later
not the guy you're replying to but the q6600 was just two of the dual core dies on an interconnect, that's why it came with such low clocks out of the box and OCed so well if you got good silicon. at the time quad cores were an ultra meme and the e8400 was a cheaper and better CPU for gaymen.
>>54041644
>for the same price you could get either the Q6600 or the E8400,
the q6600 msrp was $500, the e8400 was $180.
>>54041700
just up the model numbers and the gaymers will eat it up
>Introducing the new i9 6700k!
>exactly the same as the i7 6700k but WITH BIGGER NUMBERS!!
>GET IT NOW!!!
>>54041704
Because the Q9650 was more expensive obviously.
Let me rephrase it: My friend was like, for the same price, I can get either the Q6600 or the E8400, the C2Q at 3Ghz (I dont remember the model) was too expensive for him at the moment.
Virtually no games used more than 2 cores (GTA 4 maybe? I dont remember, shit port anyway), and he wasn't a fan of OC, the E8400 offered a more modern arquitecture and had higher FSB, better performance in everything except video encoding, the general thought was that by the time games used 4 cores the C2Q would be too slow and old anyway to play in high settings, and guess what, its exactly what happened.
>>54041867
That's not true though. Q6600 can still run Modern games, with the exception of the most cpu intensive ones.
>>54041774
In early 09 in my 3rd world shit hole they were both available for 215usd.
>>54041700
No theyre dumping more R&D into power consumption because portables are the future.
Only reason to upgrade now is if you care about connectivity (native USB 3 support, NVMe etc)
>>54041897
yes, the E8400 and my G550 can also run games from 2016, but not in 1080p maxed out.
>>54041933
Q6600 can.
Most benchmarks are only launch benchmarks with no optimisations or updates. As long as it uses 4 threads, the q6600 is enough for modern game engines.
>>54040724
- Replace the Pentium with a Core2Duo E8400 or a Xeon if supported.
- Replace the 333MHz RAM with 800MHz while you still can
>>54041933
https://youtu.be/nIYWDN0hxbg
Educate yourself.
>>54039680
Get a 2600K or 3770K.
Broadwell is a meme, there is a 5-10% difference in benchmarks between the two I mentioned.
>>54039812
This, they'll run the same on a OC 2600K as the 6700K.
>>54040724
I see C2Qs going around for 20 €. Also get a cheap GPU, my friend for example is a poorfag and got a 5850 for 30 €, it runs almost everything in 1080p at medium.
>>54041398
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDo-j00vUtw
benchmarks lie all the time. They use geekbench, for god's sake. Do you really believe a 4 year old design is really better?
http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-6700K-vs-Intel-Core-i7-3770K/3502vs1317
http://www.cpu-monkey.com/en/compare_cpu-intel_core_i7_6700k-518-vs-intel_core_i7_3770k-321
>>54040821
Zašto koristiš integriranu?
>>54042059
>Long shadows: off
>High resolution shadows: off
>High detail streaming while flying: off
>Texture/Shader/Reflection: Normal
Do you even look at what you post, the game is running in low settings
>Drops below 40fps
Wow, such maxed out settings, much 60fps
Look, the E8400 also can do the same, what a surprise.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgF81HtfuoE
>>54042175
>This, they'll run the same on a OC 2600K as the 6700K.
This is clearly a lie, and easily disproven
>>54042218
He adjusts the settings throughout the video. He puts it on low to see how it runs with a higher cpu load, then he puts it on high to see if the q6600 bottlenecks with a higher gpu load.
Watch the whole thing before shitposting.
>>54042251
I did, at 900p it ran at 60fps, at 1080p with a couple of settings on high but most on Normal and some effects still disabled, dropped below 35fps.
Did you watch it?
Did you watch the one I posted? It proves the Q6600 doesn't really do anything the other can't.
Keep trying.
>>54041973
>>54042175
That mainboard only supports:
N E T B U R S T
E
T
B
U
R
S
T
>>54042285
On a gtx 760.
That card is performing exactly as it should. I get barely better performance on my gtx 680 and i5 2400 at 1080p.
>>54042559
But is not 1080p maxed out, which is what you tried to counter argue.
And the C2D can do something similar with a GTX 650.
If the C2Q can run 1080p maxed out with whatever VGA is needed for that meanwhile the C2D can't, then I'll agree with you.
>>54042668
And not even 60fps, also another statement I made.
>>54042668
>>54042682
Are you suggesting a gtx 760 can max out gta v at 60 fps?
Wow you're retarded.
>>54042718
I'm saying (not sugesting) that the Q6600 can't run it maxed out at 60fps, then as a counter argue you post a video when the game its clearly not maxed out, nor running at 60fps, then you blame it on the VGA (that of course it cannot run it, but that doesn't prove the CPU can either).
Then I posted a video where the game runs with similar settings with a slower VGA in a E8400.
Your turn.
>>54042394
>Implying you can't get C2Q mainboards for 10 €
>>54042812
The idea that a C2Q can produce a locked 60fps in GTA V is laughable, frankly. Poorfags will always try to convince themselves that their stuff is still good though.
>>54042848
Right, spend money on a mainboard, new ddr2 ram as 333Mhz its shit, and an outdated CPU that its on par with a Pentium G (but older instruction sets)
Instead of getting the Pentium G, DDR3 1333 and a cheap H61 mainboard, and the possibility to upgrade to a better CPU later.
>muh quad core
Like it matters in something that can't beat a modern Pentium in raw power
>>54042189
Wow 10 more FPS that don't even fucking matter because they're all above 60 anyway.
>>54041700
i'm certainly not seeing it, phones have been stagnant for years now, the new HTC 10's main selling points are literally audiophool shit, slightly upgraded camera meme, and metal build quality meme
>>54041700
The non-enthusiast/professional desktop market is already dead. Click on any mainstream website and it's all laptops, tablets and smartphones. Desktops are fucked already.
>>54042921
what if you have a 144hz monitor, idiot.
>>54042985
Then you wasted your money.
>>54042985
10 more FPS is still not worth it, seeing as you'd have to buy whole new CPU/mobo/RAM. It wouldn't even be worth it if it were 50 fps vs 60 fps.
>>54041019
I dont get it, doesnt 5#00 is compromised mostly of the 6-8 cores shit for enthusiasts?
>>54042901
>>54042812
In a gpu bound game it can easily maintain 60fps, even easier after an oc.
In a cpu bound title it'll get destroyed by a newer and more powerful processor.
Like >>54041897 said.
https://youtu.be/CxzpIw44QsY
You're also neglecting to mention how low level APIs like dx12 help shift the load away from the cpu, to the gpu, which will help it perform even better.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4V5o56Trf4
>>54039680
Go back to i5 set-up. Play gta-v and try streaming it to twitch in 1008p. Then do it with new i7 system. Then you'll see a difference. Or encode a 4 GB .MKV to .Mp4. It is way more powerful, you're just not using it to it's full potential.
>>54043077
If you're not using your current hardware to its fullest potential, why would anyone upgrade?
I keep my shit until it can't do 60fps medium and then I upgrade.
>>54043077
>>Play gta-v and try streaming it to twitch in 1008p
>streaming
>twitch
>1008p
>>54043028
If the game makes intensive use of 4 cores it can be beneficial, still, the difference isn't that big.
Only vid I found on Ultra with C2D doesn't show fps, looks quite playable nevertheless.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LbioFM-B74
Still, on games that use only 2 cores the C2D is faster, so back in the day it was the better option.
If a modern game is cpu bound the core 2 arquitecture will struggle, no matter the cores, small difference (unless you brought a faster C2Q to the table), if it is gpu bound both will perform decently.
BF4 its from 2013 anyway, so its only "modern", 3 years have passed you know.
>>54043219
It was the only mantle game I could remember off the top of my head, but yeah I know it's aged a little.
A q6600 with an oc should still be enough for many newer games like gta v though. I have a friend with a q9550, he can't oc at all though because of his shit mobo.
Still works fine for him. and I'm sure an overclocked q6600 should be faster?
>>54039680
No you're just retarded, you aren't going to get much faster than the turbo on the 6700K, or even the turbo on the 6700
anyone here still using a phenom II?
>>54045380
should i do it http://ca.pcpartpicker.com/p/Xpvb4D
>>54045726
No, here
PCPartPicker part list: http://ca.pcpartpicker.com/p/XKNHVn
Price breakdown by merchant: http://ca.pcpartpicker.com/p/XKNHVn/by_merchant/
CPU: Intel Core i5-6500 3.2GHz Quad-Core Processor ($259.25 @ Vuugo)
Motherboard: MSI B150M Pro-VD Micro ATX LGA1151 Motherboard ($88.98 @ DirectCanada)
Memory: G.Skill NT Series 8GB (1 x 8GB) DDR4-2400 Memory ($44.98 @ Newegg Canada)
Storage: Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($64.25 @ Vuugo)
Video Card: Club 3D Radeon R9 380 4GB royalQueen OC Video Card ($249.98 @ Canada Computers)
Case: Deepcool TESSERACT BF ATX Mid Tower Case ($44.99 @ Amazon Canada)
Power Supply: SeaSonic 520W 80+ Bronze Certified Fully-Modular ATX Power Supply ($89.98 @ Amazon Canada)
Total: $842.41
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2016-04-15 01:17 EDT-0400
what upgrade do I need /g/
>>54046072
get a SSD
>>54045380
Still using Phenom II
>>54046087
not more RAM?
>>54046072
A high end 1440p 144hz IPS free-sync display to save $200 vs G-sync, then upgrade to polaris in a few months
why the hell did you buy a 6600k and 980 for a 1080p 60hz display?
>>54046116
I'd get both if you can afford it, but if you're not heavily multitasking you'll see a much bigger difference in daily use from the SSD.
basically everything past sandy bridge is negligible performance
the only reason to upgrade is if you really want some of the new features
