Best bang for your buck processor?
>>54702058
Nope not really
New parts only or also used parts ?
>>54702093
I thought this was the 5820k sorry wrong pic
>>54702058
5820k is better than 4790k and better than a 6700k in most metrics and at one point cost less than either, and to boot has more cores/threads and more pcie lanes
I'd only bother with the 5930k if I was doing 3-4 way sli, in which case the £200~ price difference between the 5930k and 5820k doesn't matter
...and at that point you're wasting so much extra processing power for so little gain that the whole thing screams of massive excess anyway that 'best bang for your buck' doesn't even apply
No that would be the A8-7650K. It includes and unlocked processor and graphics card on the same chip.
>>54702135
16 core Zen $300 is it possible?
>>54702128
>better than a 6700k in most metrics
It's markedly inferior for gay men though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocwwaVGUFtk
Plus it's a 140W housefire that draws over 100W more than a 4790K (let alone the more efficient 6700K) under load once overclocked. Funny how Intel shills don't seem to care about power draw when their employer does it.
>>54702302
Highly doubt it. Those are geared toward servers. However I can see the 8-core zen flagship going for $500 or less. Those are meant to compete with 8-core i7s like the i7-5960X.
>>54702375
>A processor with more cores designed for a much heavier load draws more power when under load than a processor with less cores designed for much lighter loads
>>54702058
used xeon
used 8 core housefire amd
new 4 core i5
>>54702445
Whats the tdp on those
Amd 760k
/thread
>>54702375
It also has a lot more potential power if used properly, obviously gaming isn't that use case as most games are still being designed for quad cores with 8 threads. Not hex or octo core with 12 or 16 threads.
Assuming a perfect world where a programmer properly utilizes all the available cores, cache, etc. The 5820k is the same price as the 6700k and a lot more powerful.
You keep talking about gaming, but gaming is NOT computing you stupid shit. I can do plenty more with a 5820k than I can with a 6700k, its just a fact.
Price for performance, the 5820k is currently the top from intel.
>>54704239
more cores idiot detected
>>54704279
>I'm a gaming faggot who has no need for more cores, so obviously no one else can use more cores either
nice try fuck head, encoding however can use all the cores of the 5820k just fine.
>>54702375
and it thought current amd cpus were bad
>>54704319
Yeah shocker how a CPU with 1/3rd more transistors uses more power, absolutely astounding.
I swear, /g/ has been ruined in 2015/2016
>>54704369
>Skylake quad core i7 1.75B transistors
>haswell-e 8 core i7 2.6B transistors.
Yeah, it's pretty obviously going to use a lot more power with almost an extra BILLION transistors, it also has a lot more processing power at it's disposal.
>>54702058
A 2nd gen i3/i5, used. Cheap and still powerful as fuck. Can easily be gotten from a refurbished Lelnovo.
6600k best for gaming.
A used 2500K
>>54704508
And thats not even considering the 22nm to 14nm shrink.
>>54705189
Yup, i'm seriously worried about the future of /g/ if people dont even understand the basics of CPU architectures \:
>tfw bought used 3770k for $150
So I game, I have a fx 8350 oced to 4.4 and I'm upgrading to a 6600k, so I ask you /g/ am I making the right decision here or are you going to get mad at me?
The best bang-for-buck processor is the Pentium G3258. Stupid cheap and incredible performance.
>>54705036
Bad goy. Always buy the latest and greatest Intel processors.
>>54705288
Might as well wait for zen at the end of the year if you are already on an 8350. Sure a 6600k will be a nice upgrade, but you dont NEED to upgrade yet, so better to wait for Zen.
>>54705288
Wait for Zen
Then make decision. CPU/Mobo upgrade is a long lasting part, it will easily be one of the longest lasting part you have. So dont hurry.
Definitely the Intel Core i7 6700k. Blows everything else out of the water and is reasonably priced, too.
>>54703301
On Zen? Thermonuclear.
On the 5960X, 140W
>>54705298
>dual-thread processor in 2016
enjoy your dropped frames and games that won't fucking start at all.
>>54705345
Uhhh what?
You can buy a 5820k for like $20 more and it has 2 more cores, 4 more threads, double the L3 cache, and can OC to within ~15% of the 6700k overclocked on single core performance.
So the 6700k is SLIGHTLY better than a 5820k but has less cores, less cache, and costs $20 less.
5820k is obviously the best bang for buck if all you need is pure performance (anyone doing rendering, encoding, etc would be a retard to buy a 6700k).
For gaming obviously the 6700k will be a bit better as games utilize single core performance far more than multi-core.
>>54705407
The 5820k is outdated and outmoded. Always buy the latest and greatest Intel CPUs to best support Israel, our greatest ally in the middle East.
>>54705438
Good argument my friend, instead of trying to actually address what I said you deflect.
>>54705458
Sorry but I don't 'argue' with goyim. Your theology is as disgusting as your genitals. Now hold your tongue or I'll have you for hate speech.
OP I sincerely recommend the Intel Core i7 6700k for all your computing needs. It is extremely powerful and very reasonably priced. A prime asset in any computer.
>>54702058
Xeon 1231v3
>>54705486
As a jew in the US, kill your self.
>>54702118
>dat core voltage
My i3-6100 is unstable under 1.14
Ok, /g/
I want to be able to record gameplay in 1080p 60fps
My budget is $400
What should I get
>>54705912
A job.
>>54705912
Buy a 2nd computer for encoding.
>>54705912
a one way ticket to /v/
>>54705935
I have a job, I just don't feel the need to dedicate a large chunk of my income towards my hobby of videogames.
>>54705940
That seems somewhat excessive. That said, what CPU is needed for a dedicated machine? I'd assume it would require significantly less power if its sole purpose is encoding.
>>54705987
/v/ is even less informed than /g/ about this, so I'll take my chances here.
>>54705912
a better hobby
I'd say the newer pentiums.
Decent power, sub 100$ cost, low power usage and oc-able
>>54706005
Then why are you recording them?
>>54706005
>what CPU is needed for a dedicated machine
mid range i5 should be fine.
The 5820k can't do 1080p live encoding AND gaming at the same time. So if you wanted a single CPU, you'd likely need the 5960x or the new 6xxx series 8 and 10 core designs.
>>54706019
Because I like sharing videos with my friends.
>>54706012
No u
>>54706082
Thank you for being the one helpful and friendly person in here! I'll look into the models you described.
>>54706121
Well then too bad, because 1080p 60fps recording of triple-A titles is beyond the remit of £400 PCs.
>>54706141
I'll just have to adjust my budget then. I have the money, I just was hoping for a better price. Considering that's not an option, I'll just put more money into things.
Again, thank you.
>>54705667
This is a Xeon based, anon. :3
>>54706017
lolz
>>54702106
not really either. was expensive when it was new plus expensive boards. now the CPU might be relatively cheap, but the X99 boards are still pricey.
>>54705298
it would be. if it had HT. but intel was fully aware what they are doing in crippling the Pentium AE. with HT... you can't possibly imagine the stuff this thing would be capable of.
>>54706209
A decent X99A board is only $30-50 more than a Z170 board.
Quad channel memory and more PCI lanes aren't exactly free to implement.
Also if you have a microcenter nearby you'd be a literal retard NOT to get a 5820k, they have the 5820K + ASrock X99 Extreme 4 or Gigabyte X99 UD3P for $460. Which is only $120 more than a 6700k from newegg and includes a nice midrange motherboard.
>>54705667
>>54706169
Unfortunately my motherboard allows only decrease to 0.010V.
>>54702058
This is the lowest bang for the buck processor. Literally a 5820K with 40 lanes but 200 € more.
Best gaming CPU is the 2600K, best general performance a Xeon 2670. 50 € for 8 cores but you need LGA2011.
>>54702058
1231v3
2
3
1
v
3
>>54706265
This. You would be a total retard if you buy a 6700K with a lowend board.
>>54706432
Why is the 2600k the best gaming CPU ?
>>54707156
Best price/performance gaming CPU. It costs around 1/3 of a new 6700K for 80-90 % of its performance.
Best bang for buck is:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Intel-Xeon-E5-2643-ES-B0-LGA2011-4C-Compatible-with-X79-i7-3820-4820K-4930K-/151921473437
>>54707283
I always wanted a xeon. They don't have integrated graphics right? I never got why gamers just don't get this shit they get a video card anywaya
>>54707396
I've been spamming it but I really couldn't believe how great a deal the 1231v3 was. Quad core with hyper-threading for the price of a 4690k. And it pairs with insanely cheapo motherboards, you can theoretically get i7ish performance for like 200 bucks less, and either put that money in a graphics card or whatever
>>54707396
Some of them don't, some of them do.
Most of the higher tier ones with huge core count have no iGPU
>>54708083
But no OC either for the RAM. Still good for most users, I recommend this build to a friend who really doesn't know anything about it. He does conversion and can use the additional threads.
>>54706673
This
>>54705912
Any GPU since like 2012 has a video encoding ASIC onboard, so it doesn't matter at all.
>>54708588
Lol, then please explain why most streamers partnered with twitch and doing 1080p streams have a 2nd PC exclusively for encoding?
>>54708609
>Lol, then please explain why most streamers partnered with twitch and doing 1080p streams have a 2nd PC exclusively for encoding?
because its more stable. Not faster. Your game might crash but your broadcast software might not. Or vice versa. With separate PCs you're less likely to have both fail, or one fail affecting the other.
Streams go down all the fucking time. Stability is the core issue.
>>54708083
Bought two xeon e5 2670 for 170 € that are 16 cores with hyperthreating(32 threads) @ 2.6ghz and thats not rate just look at ebay
objectively any core2duo would be for under 5$
5$ for dual core 3ghz with loss of 50% IPC compared to sandybridge 2500k which goes for 120$
You could get 24 of 3ghz dualcores for one SB chip, for mere 1440w TDP assumed their average is 60w.
performance would be around 4.5 times of SB 2500k at 4ghz from 24 core2duos.
kek
Does anyone know what a reasonable score fluctuation between runs would be in a benchmark like 3DMark Firestrike?
My score can range from between 8490 and 8570, that's less than 1%. Seem Alright?
I'm asking because I have an old as fuck PSU in there.
>>54709402
should probably have added that it's the Physics (CPU) score I'm referring to
>>54702058
FX8320E, 90$ at microcenter, 8-core 95W chip
Old Core 2s are like $5 on ebay. Hard to beat that for price-performance.
>>54709402
>>54709419
That's within margin of error
It should have been 4690k or 4670k
But Intel chips don't drop in price because lmao fuck you
http://www.ebay.com/itm/281889330127
XEON E5-2670 if you can get a cheap 2011 board
>>54702058
Used 2500k, they're like $100
GET IT QUICK!!!!
http://www.ebay.com/itm/INTEL-i7-3820-PROCESSOR-QUAD-CORE-SR0LD-10MB-3-60-GHz-LGA-2011-/262444038858?hash=item3d1ae23aca:g:gvEAAOSwYmZXH0Pe
>>54705036
This. OC to 4.7-4.9
>>54709421
>95W chip
220w+ once you OC it to near intel levels of performance.
Poorfag CPU Hall of Fame is as follows
>Xeon 1231v3
>FX 8320e
>i5-2500k
>G3258
>860k
Newest inductee
>i3-6100
Fite me
>>54710366
mine only goes to 4.5ghz stable on stock voltage
I dont want to go further than that, since it a shit bin, and stock seems to be 1.327v
>>54711798
intelfags confirmed on suicide watch
>>54712023
not really, everyone knows AMD is great price for performance, they're just on a 4 year old platform without any of the latest features (USB 3.1, USB type-c, M.2, NVMe support, etc etc.
If you're okay buying a super gimped platform that has no upgrade future, by all means, buy AMD
I5-4460.
>>54712323
enjoy getting cucked by DDR3 RAM.
>>54702058
If you plan on over clocking, old xeon (socket 1366).
>>54704279
Gaming is one of the few processor intensive tasks that doesn't benefit from more cores.
>>54705235
It's already a shit show with all the /v/fags.
>>54705912
Any i5, assuming you already have the gpu.
>>54713138
Nice try shill
>>54706209
>consumer pleb wants people to get anusraped.
OP don't listen to this chucklefuck, while he's over there buying a new motherboard every 3 minutes, X99 will live on for years yet.
3 years down the road, your 5820K won't be the hottest anymore - but you know what will be fucking awesome - all those cheap 2011-3 Xeons at bargain basement prices - while chucklefuck is buying a new motherboard AGAIN, you'll be able to keep using your system with an awesome upgrade on the cheap.
2500k when it was still new. Used they still go for about 90€, which is a little much.
You can get a used haswell i3 like the 4160 for 60-70€. And it offers the performance of a non-oc'd 2500k. Also very energy-efficient and enough for all current games to play with 60+fps.
Between my [email protected] and my 4150 I don't feel any difference while doing daily stuff like browsing and coding. Ofc games and encoding makes a difference, but really not that mich desu.
TL;DR cheapest used haswell i3 you can get
>>54702375
please excuse the late reply,
>It's markedly inferior for gay men though.
yes, which is why I said for *most* metrics
when you account for core and memory clocks the 5820k has less per core performance however it's almost always a minor difference, however most gaming benchmarks don't try to or don't understand this and can't demonstrate the difference and instead use extremely flawed testing methodology such as stock core/turbo performance (turbo being HIGHLY variable between motherboards as many manufacturers ignore intel spec and offer higher turbo frequencies or higher turbo for the first, say, 2 cores) and offer unrealistic overclocks to demonstrate a point, which your video is not innocent of
from the article,
>In the case of the Core i7 6700K, we achieved a solid 4.6GHz at a toasty 1.4v. The Haswell-E cores are larger, but regardless, 1.3v of juice took us to 4.6GHz on the 5820K and 4.4GHz on the 5960X.
1.25 to 1.3v is generally considered the maximum voltage anyone should use for for any moderately frequent overclocking as it's the voltage range that tends to start affecting a chip's lifespan, obviously the lower the voltage the better, however here the article is comparing a 6700k at 1.4v to a fucking 5820k at 1.3v, you have to be shitting me, 1.4v is the range people use to get their maximum overclock out of their chip to see how good the binning is and then never go above 1.25-1.3v
not to mention, 4.6ghz on 1.4v is terrible binning for a 6700k yet 4.6ghz on 1.3v on a 5820k is pretty damn good binning -- again flawed testing methodology(but this time in favour of a 5820k), my 5820k does 4.4ghz on 1.3v and 4.7ghz requires 1.344v~, however if I had the balls to push 1.4v to the chip I'd likely get >4.8ghz
I just bought a amd fx-6300 and a Asus m5a97 mobo for 230. My i7 960 or mobo died and seeing as the mobo is ancient anyway decided to grab both.
>ITT: People who bought a six core VM oriented CPU complain about performance in gaymen
>>54702375
>>54714842
so when the benchmark compares a stock 6700k (4ghz, but conveniently the article doesn't mention the frequency it's running at) versus a stock 5820k (3.3ghz, same deal) of course the 6700k is going to come ahead, but when you compare massively unrealistic overclocks for either chip the worse game performance they found was far cry 4 which is 125.9fps on a 6700k versus 104.5fps on a 5820k - 15%~ difference, never mind the fact that the far cry engine is known for being heavily cpu bound rarely utilising threads properly -- far cry primal has/had a well documented bug on the issue where one core peaks and the rest do diddly squat
the rest of the games? 2-6%~ at best, with gtav (another cpu bound game) coming in at a whopping 7% difference in performance
(forgot to mention the overclock 5820k has 3.2ghz ram versus 3ghz ram on the 6700k, again more flawed testing methodology, again in favour of the 5820k, because the reviewers couldn't figure out how to work the xmp profile)
you know what else gives around 2-7% of performance difference? running a gpu in x8 mode versus x16 mode, which the 6700k has to do on sli configs (x8/x8) however most 5820k boards do at least x16/x8 and many will manage x8/x8/x8, one motherboard out of the lot will even do x8/x8/x8/x4 -- you're stuck with 2 cards max in sli for a 6700k, maybe even 3 cards on a very pricey board similar to the 4 card setup on 1 5820k board
to reiterate my point on my original post (>>54702128) -- I'd go with the 5930k if I was doing serious sli work as the 5930k has 40 pcie lanes versus the 28 on the 5820k, allowing x16/x16/x8 or a proper 4 card sli setup without an x4 gimp (which is quite serious performance hit versus x16 to x8), however the 5820k is a clearly superior choice to the 6700k if you're doing any sli at all especially on 3 card setups, so to compare single core performance sub 10% typically is utterly meaningless
>>54702375
>>54714968
which brings me to power usage, yes it's a power hungry 140w cpu that you probably shouldn't be buying if you can't afford the roof over your head or food on the table but that is literally the only meaningful difference between the classes of processors as it makes a huge difference when overclocking, but what you use in power you make up for in threads and pcie lanes - thread counts are not usually a massive improvement if you're a /v/irgin but that's not the question in the op fucking post now is it?
but to claim the 6700k is more power efficient? HAH, I bet that's why you posted benchmarks with the 6700k in them -- see pic related, 18 watts more than a 5820k and 6 watts more than a 5960x running stock
granted as soon as you pump up the overclocks the higher core, bigger die size cpus use far more power (and provide far more threads)
(also on pic related, i5-6700k, tomshardware...)
>Funny how Intel shills don't seem to care about power draw when their employer does it.
who the fuck is shilling for intel? op posted a 5930k and I refuted with the 5820k being the better bang for the buck choice (and coincidentally better than a 4790k/6700k) - I have no experience with modern amd chips so I wouldn't post one now would I
as a final note, on the cost of running the 5820k, if you go purely by your benchmark and take an overclocked 4790k versus a 5820k, run the pcs overclocked under load for 12 hours a day for 30 days (granted the 4790k overclock would be >1.4v, again, not a realistic overclock, in favour of the 5820k) you'll be looking at ~£11.60 for the 4790k and ~£16.10 for the 5820k, but on stock voltages under load for the same duration it becomes ~£9.60 for the 4790k and ~£10.10 for the 5820k, £0.40 - ~$0.60 difference in running cost for 12 hours a day under load for 30 days, absolutely fucking meaningless
so in conclusion, I'm inclined to agree with the rest of the people replying to you, fuck off back to /v/ you clueless idiot
last one I swear
>>54715184
>posted benchmarks with the 6700k in them
clearly I mean without the 6700k in them
also i7-6600k and i5-6700k in the picture, jesus christ who the fuck considers tomshardware credible (coincidentally other power usage tests show the 6700k worse than a 4790k but I only found some on video encoding, not quite the most objective benchmark, ergo tomshardware)
but really, who the fuck cares about more power usage when overclocked when gaming unless you're a neet literally gaming most of the day and aren't streaming or competing to make money off of it, it's only a consideration in professional environments and even then it's a non-issue because the 5820k will have a huge advantage over the 6700k by having more cores/threads and being able to utilise quad channel ddr4 ram which makes a huge difference in non-gaming environments
>>54705298
On the topic of this CPU, is it even overclockable on Windows 10?
I was about to upgrade my Celeron to this fucker, because I barely have money and it would be a rather big step up due to OC and I already own an after-market cooler.
I have an Asrock H97M Anniversary mobo, which was intended for non-Z overclocking specifically of this CPU.
However, Microsoft and Intel did some shitgiggle fuckery which apparently causes a boot loop if you try to install Windows 10 with this CPU unless you disable a core.
Now, there has been a BIOS update that makes the CPU work again. However, that update also disables overclock, making this CPU a pointless piece of shit gimmick.
Apparently someone got OC to work by installing Win10 with the newer BIOS and then downgrading, but they seem to have used a different mobo.
Does anyone here have experience with this situation? I'm not keen on buying the CPU just to gamble on it actually having OC enabled. A jump by 0.4 GHz and slightly increased cache would be kind of pointless for the 70€ price.
If I cannot overclock the Pentium, I'll pass on a new CPU on this motherboard and pray that AMD won't nosedive with Zen.
>>54702058
IMO an 8350 (used) is the best deal right now. Pretty much the same performance as an i7-3770 and $100 cheaper.
>>54705288
Don't do it. Yes, you're getting better single core performance and better thermals/power consumption, but you're trading four cores with multithreading (8350) for four cores without multithreading (6600k). The world is heading toward many weak cores anyway (just look at the eight core CPUs in the PS4 and XB1), and multithreading is about to come standard with all CPUs. NO Zen chips will lack multithreading AFAIK
>>54719554
>he world is heading toward many weak cores anyway
Tell that to a Supreme Commander player. They will laugh in your face because the game is still too hard on current CPUs, thanks to its single-threaded simulation.
>>54719665
Old games are obviously going to be more single thread bound, future games shouldnt have this problem if they're competently designed.
