>2016
>Skylake
Just stick with devil's canyon, 2bh familiars, better FPS.
>>51926734
That has to be one of the dumbest ways to graph fps
>>51926868
i don't see why, could use with some reordering of the games and values on the colors, bout it.
>>51926734
Skylake needs fast DDR4 to perform well. Your moonrune charts mean jack shit.
>Inb4 sky lake, I'm on 4690k
>>51926868
it's alright since it shows comparatively a lot of information at once and gives a better overall impression of where chips stack up to each other.
>>51927112
Why is this the case? CPUs haven't been bandwidth bottlenecked in literally a decade, most things need lower latency more than anything else for CPUs.
>>51926734
TFW they said the same thing about broadwell
and they said the same about ivybridge
intel chips. why spend 30% the total price for just the ability to overkek?
do you not realize overkeking is only 5% performance increase at best?
remember when chips in the same bracket cost $200 (i5 k varient) but then they jacked up the price because idiots listen to the shilfags spamming /g
>>51927174
>overkek
lost
is this why 5th gen cpu's are still about the same fucking price as a year ago?
>6th gen sold out on newegg
good goyims
>tfw I bought Skylake
>>51926734
but i want DDR4 and not have a retarded chip like the 5th gen
>>51926734
>old as fuck graph
>no specs or methodology listed
>>51930970
And why is that? You realize that these low fps are most likely caused by DDR4 RAM?
>>51931332
It's not caused by DDR4 RAM, it's caused by using memory with a much higher latency. It's like comparing dual channel 2133 MHz with quad channel 1333 MHz.
If you compare Skylake with Haswell, you should use RAM with the same latencies to get comparable results.
For example DDR4-3200 CL16 and DDR3-1600 CL8.
>>51931411
>It's not caused by DDR4 RAM, it's caused by using memory with a much higher latency.
Why are you contradicting yourself in the same sentence?
>For example DDR4-3200 CL16 and DDR3-1600 CL8.
LOL
Have you any idea what this would cost? I had to pay like 50% extra just to get DDR4-2666 with halfway decent timings.
Nice meme op
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sx1kLGVAF0
Clock for clock Skylake shits on haslel
>>51927174
kek'd over
pic related
Comparison over the generations.
Literally nothing, if you're a gaymer.
>>51931490
How do they manage to replay the exact same scenes for each CPU?
>>51927174
>pentium 3
>stock clock was 550mhz
>overclocked reached 750mhz-1ghz
>now its from 4.4ghz to 5.0ghz
fuck this shit, i want a 7ghz overclocking at least.
>Does a bad job on last-gen biocock and rushed, poorly optimized thief
If you look closely, the games that hang it up just weren't optimized for it, since most people had 4690s when those were released.
I'm not even Intel, I run AMD, but this chart is misleading.
>>51931454
and that is why skylake and ddr4 have been and always will be shit.
>>51926734
>accumulated framerates
what the fuck is this shit
How does intel fuck up this bad?
>>51931540
I believe the focus was on laptops and shit. Like power saving and less heat.
Am I wrong?
>>51931594
But you do realize that modern CPUs have 10-20 times higher IPC? By old standards, current CPUs would be as fast as if they were running at 100 GHz.
>>51931717
no, now everything, even desktops have power targets built in on the bios and windows it self.
It doesn't work like that. Latency matters but only to a certain point, higher clock speeds are still the most important thing in terms of memory bandwidth.
http://www.techspot.com/news/62129-ddr3-vs-ddr4-raw-bandwidth-numbers.html
DDR4 will be always be better than DDR3 in terms of bandwidth and performance.
Now, if this translates to any gain in a real world environment or not is debatable.
Fallout 4 is a game that benefits of higher memory bandwidth though.
>>51931745
still, there is no such room for improvement, its not worth it.
>>51931717
Yeah, but what kind of idiot plays video games on a laptop? So the point remains.
>>51931665
a meme benchmark made by slant eyed gooks, what do you expect?
>>51931785
>Fallout 4 is a game that benefits of higher memory bandwidth though.
>Bethesda
>in charge of programing
>>51931454
16 GiB of DDR4-3200 CL16-16-16 cost 130-140 Euro. I've bought two kits in the last two months. That's reasonably affordable.
Games are made to run on dogshit consoles and yet people are surprised they don't see huge benefit from high end cpus.
If they wanted to make games that required an I7 unlocked skylake the differences would be drastic but they dont because relatively no one even has one. Look at the steam surveys and most people play on shitty laptops and computers weaker than consoles even.
Start running 980 ti sli at 144+ fps if you want cpu to matter or don't complain about games.
>>51931931
>tfw now you have everything to play crysis at 4k 60fps without any drops.
>a 8YO game
>still no 144fps, maybe in 4 more years
>>51931855
Oh shit, maybe I should have waited longer before buying a new system.
Well, if there are even better timings available for cheap next year, I'll just replace that shitty RAM.
I suppose adopting a new generation of RAM is a bad idea in general, I vaguely recall the situation having been similar with DDR3 vs DDR2.
>>51931855
16GB DDR4 CL16 is 110 bucks on newegg
>>51932008
I feel you. I bought 16 GiB of 2133 CL 15 for 220 Euro a year ago, before selling them for 60 Euro and upgrading to the 3200 RAM. It's crazy how much prices dropped, but I didn't have an option back then.
>>51931981
Seriously, it's so fucking hard to run games at 120/144Hz.
90% of devs never pay attention to high refresh rates, and high end CPUs, as a result, can barely handle a stable 60 FPS in a lot of games.
I have an overclocked 5820K, and over 80% of DX9/10/11 games will dip into the 80s or lower, even with shadows turned off.
>>51932217
Take Borderlands 2 for example. I've turned off PhysX and shadows, among other things, and the game runs at almost 200 FPS, but constantly, at once a minute, usually more, drops into the 70s. My 290X never hits 100% load. It's totally CPU limited.
>>51927197
Because Broadwells are supposed to be a niche product with their Iris Pro iGPU. An i5-5675C costs almost as much as an i7-4790k, but has an iGPU about 30% better than an A10-7870k. I'm buying a NUC with a Broadwell because of that iGPU.
>>51932335
>has an iGPU about 30% better than an A10-7870k
sauce. everything i've seen about iris pro is that it comes close but falls short of the A10-7870k and also has shoddy support for Dx10/11.
>>51932501
>everything i've seen about iris pro is that it comes close but falls short of the A10-7870k
Where have you heard that?
http://www.anandtech.com/show/9320/intel-broadwell-review-i7-5775c-i5-5675c/7
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i7-5775c-i5-5675c-broadwell,4169-6.html
http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/core-i7-5775c-processor-review-desktop-broadwell,14.html
The only thing the A10-7870k wins out is price per performance. The A10 is easily a much better value for money than a Broadwell i5, but runs hotter (a problem for small form factor cases with little to no airflow).
