Do you need an i7 for gayming?
Yes.
You don't play games on PC.
It depends. If you want a laptop, yes. If you want a desktop, no, an i5 can do the job
>>54201812
No, but an i9 will do the trick.
>>54201812
Long answer: No, but future applications will undoubtedly benefit from hyperthreading. How much they will benefit, I don't know.
Short answer: nah.
If hundreds of dollars means nothing to you then go for it. Otherwise you're an idiot.
buy an i5 now
upgrade to i7 for cheap when games actually use all those threads and you i5 start to be a bottleneck.
>>54201812
you don't need an i7 to play games as plenty of i5 or i3 (or even pentium/celerons) will do just fine, however whether an i7 makes a difference depends on whether the game can make use of the cores or whether the higher clock speed (if any) that the i7(or i5/i3,etc) may have will make a difference
games only using 1 core is an old as hell meme and games have been able to utilise dual/quad/hex/whatever cores for as long as multi-cores have been a thing, some games are incredibly cpu bound and require multi-cores or they require high single thread performance (over a few cores) and other games require almost no cpu, it depends entirely on the game
as newer games come out the requirements on cpu will depend greatly, fallout 4 for example is a fairly recent game that required a decent bit of cpu power because of the number of draw cells it uses (something better graphics frameworks like vulkan can help solve) - and it's a game that can actually utilise all 12 cores of a haswell-e processor for example
>>54201951
you'll loose money that way guaranteed
>>54202010
>i3 has higher fps as a i7
ok
A Xeon is always a better choice.
>>54202036
the picture isn't a benchmark, it shows cpu load % which will affect fps depending on how much the cpu is being taxed and will influence things like stuttering and fps drops
>>54201812
No...
Actually it depends on what you are playing. I'm only playing TF2 on an AMD Athlon II and it runs like a dream.
>>54201876
Learn to count, retard.
it goes 95, 2000, 7, 8, 8.1, 10
>>54201812
>Gaming
>HT
>more than 4 threads/Cores
LEL NO
Even current multithreaded games dont really see any improvement unless you get a 8 core 12 thread behemoth and go quad xfire
>>54201812
If you have the money for it, might as well get it
Just for play videogames? Nope.
>>54202036
Not every test comes in terms of FPS m8.
>people won't spend $100 for an i7
Just do it bro, you're already spending money on top tier everything else.
>tfw 2500k masterrace
>>54203381
If we are strictly talking about gaymin then you're better off putting that money in a more expensive graphics cards.
If budget is not a problem, I would agree, just get an I7
>>54201812
always
>>54201812
no.
i5 4590 is just fine
but you need amd graphics, cause amd is the future.
>>54202425
You fucking retard it is 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 3.1, 4.0, 95, 98, 2000, 7, 8, 8.1, 10
>>54201812
If you want to play PS2 games then yeah
>>54201812
well no because it's an extra hundred bucks and the hyper threading gets you like a 1% performance increase where spending that $100 on a better video card would actually make a major difference depending on your budget.
>>54203396
>fw 6600K masterrace
>>54201812
No.
T. i3 6100 skylake
>>54204334
>windows me so shit that people just block it mentally
>>54202010
I don't play games often, but it's good to know my i7-5820k's cores might one day be more utilized.
The i7-5820k is fanastic value for encoding. For gaming in most games its no better than an i5. But for anyone doing other things besides gaming it's a great value, only $30 more than a 6700k but with 2 more cores, almost double L3 cache, and it easily overclocks to 4.3Ghz+ matching the 6700k clock speed and single core performance, while still having two extra cores for only $30 more.
yes if you want extra 10 fps to low end cpu or extra 5 fps to mid end cpu
>>54204435
xp so good people take it for granted
>>54201812
No.
But I still enjoy my i7, and a few game (like Fallout 4) actually make use of the hyperthreading. I would imagine that more will make use of it over time. I got the i7 more for 3D modeling and rendering though.
Hyper-Threading will never be used effectively in games or any other applications, because HT is flawed threading method and only thing it does it halves performance of real cores.
>>54204637
>The i7-5820k is fanastic value for encoding
LOL, if AMD lose the IPC race completely and when the next entry level i7 9000020k costs 2000$, you probably still consider it fantastic value. You already lost soldered IHS in the 'normal' Intel chips, then the IHS became thin as paper with Skylake. I wonder what you lose next and for which you need to pay extra dollars in the enthusiast class, which previously was present in cheaper cpu lines and chips?
>>54204827
How is the 5820k not currently (in 2016) the best bang for buck performance for a new system? Used xeons are about the only thing better, but only if you can find a cheap motherboard.
The 5820k is $390 vs $360 for the 6700k which is basically the same thing but two less cores and clocked higher at stock.
I'm not an Intel shill, I literally just upgraded from AMD this year. They just don't have anything competitive for encoding in 2016
>>54204367
You don't get it the 2500K is legendary. Never after has there been a reason to upgrade.
>>54204911
>How is the 5820k not currently (in 2016) the best bang for buck performance for a new system?
Thats just it you damn idiot. Its the new 'best bang for buck' price level to which Intel moved with Ivy Bridge (and newer) chips. If AMD loses the IPC race, that price level will rise and rise to all eternity and you will cheerfully buy your entry-level i7 with a 2000$ starting price, because 'its the best bang for buck' today.
>I literally just upgraded from AMD this year. They just don't have anything competitive for encoding in 2016
Lets see, my [email protected] does ffmpeg x256 encode about 18-22% slower than my [email protected]. Pretty much any make operation is 20% slower as well. FX-8350 cost me 120$, the Haswell-E chip i got for free, but it would have cost at least 320$. Piledriver have at least 40% less IPC than Haswell-E, but at least in my use, it does pretty decent job compared to much better microarch.
>>54205060
Post timestamp of your 5820k
>>54204977
Oh I get, I just didn't need to upgrade back then.
>>54205060
>[email protected] does ffmpeg x256 encode about 18-22% slower than my [email protected]. Pretty much any make operation is 20% slower as well.
Confirmed for not owning a 5820k
Seriously, the IPC of a 5820k is 40% better than a 8350, even at 5.5GHz you'd be slower.
>>54201812
No you need xeon with 24 cores for extreme gaymez
>>54205189
>Seriously, the IPC of a 5820k is 40% better than a 8350, even at 5.5GHz you'd be slower.
Seriously, do you have trouble reading, because thats exactly what he wrote? That the IPC differernce is 40% and that the difference in encode performance is about 20% in favor of the i7 when FX-8320 is at 4.5 and 5820k at 4.2.
I have pretty similar performance difference with those exact same cpu's (albeit i run both at much lower freq), on linux, with ffmpeg encodes and emerge -e @world system compiles on Gentoo.
>>54205302
It's hard to believe you when you're shilling amd so hard.
watch this op
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocwwaVGUFtk
digital foundry did a fantastic video comparing the 5820k, 5960x, and 6700k.
>tldr
>even games that are heavily multi threaded are still single threaded bound due to the way games are multi-threaded (drawing and ai for example isn't spread across all threads evenly, one thread handles drawing while another thread does ai for example)
>6700k best gaming cpu even in heavy cpu demanding games that can use >8 threads.
>ddr4 does help a bit
>>54205425
> >6700k best gaming cpu
Yes, but are they affected by Prime95 bug?
>>54205425
I don't think many people here are arguing for the 5820k over the 6700k for gaming. But by that same thought I would recommend a 6600k over the 6700k if it's only for gaming.
>>54201812
yet another quality technology thread on /g/
thx mods
>>54205464
intel patched that months ago. update your bios.
>>54205473
6600k is fantastic for a budget build. a nice 4.4ghz overclock on the 6600k will give you no issues maxing out any games. if you want epeen get a 6700k.
>>54205585
here's another great video from digital foundry op for the 6600k vs 6700k
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhaB1dqYv_I
>>54205585
If you want epeen you get the 5820k and overclock it to 4.4ghz+ two extra cores for only $30 more? Who cares if it isn't used by any current games, $30 for a bigger epeen is worth when you're already dropping several hundred.
>>54202010
>muh bar graphs
kill yourself
>>54205623
because its a house fire that will burn your epeen.
I have installed heatsinks on about 50-60 personal builds and hundreds and hundreds on builds of small companies and relatives, but i still managed to bend the IHS of 6600k when installing nh15, thats exactly how thin that piece of shit is. Its like thick paper. You simply cant apply pressure at all.
So good job on saving 0.002$per cpu Intel.
>>54205680
Not really, runs under 60C unless I'm stress testing or encoding for hours on end.
>>54205705
CPU core temp doesnt mean shit, but the full power consumption, the heat produced by vrm, chokes, capacitors and the cpu core itself. And those Haswell-E chips eat power like crazy even at stock clocks. Bulldozers starts to feel energy efficient compared to them.
>>54205782
106w underload at stock. VRMs at about 57c max, core temps around 55c.
OC'D to 4.2Ghz (my usual OC) at 1.192v VRMs hit and 65c and core temps around 60c. Power draw goes up to around 145w
>>54205835
How did you count those wattages?
>>54205878
Hardware monitor. I also have a UPS that monitors power draw which corroborates with what hardware monitor reports.
>>54201812
No. You don't need an i7 for anything outside of some specialist video shit.
There is literally no reason for most of us to own this shit.
